The experience of love

To our surprise and, above all, our frustration, the way love is lived is not how we are told. We are compelled by experience to develop our own theory, and that’s the point when the sacrilegious polytheism to which I referred above is displayed.

Although we encounter all kinds of reluctance to say what love is (seems that to define love is a sin, as it is to define God, while it limits it) the most popular version, when we get into task, is that it is a feeling.

We cannot be satisfied, however, with such a close goal, because there is no agreement on which is the feeling that we are referring to. Some will say it's passion, others will say deep affection, others will say agony. In fact, almost everyone accepts the idea that the rest of the feelings spoken of when referring to love also have to do with love, though they might not be the most important in our experience or those that give name: love is what I feel, besides what any other feels. But neither popular culture nor ideology of love, or, in many cases, even the professional opinions, decide to reach beyond.

It must be said, therefore, that love is at least one set of feelings. The thing seems to get complicated, but actually it has simplified: now we know that the one feeling definition, the most frequent one, is incomplete. One less definition.

To define through accumulation is confortable, because our culture is very prone to intellectual tolerance, so to let the practical intolerance do: think what you want while you don’t force me to be critical on what I think. To refute is considered a impertinence, so that consensus are formed by the sum, not the contrast, of opinions: anything is true as long as someone opines that it is true. Let us, though we are pointed by their fingers, by that very even path of eliminating each contradictory common place that arises on the way. We will soon discover that the forest was a stage.

We know that feelings are linked to an interpretation of reality. This is not the place to analyze the level of consciousness in which each of these interpretations occurs, nor the complexity of the process leading to the realization that something specific is felt. Suffice it to say that we feel something because we understand, in a more or less accessible place of our thinking, that there’s a reason to feel it, and that these two things, what we feel and its raison d’etre, are undetachable. We feel fear, for instance, because we interpret that a certain thing is a threat. Actually, we give the name “feeling” to a group like this when what interests us is the emotional part of it.

To say that love involves various feelings is, therefore, to constitute it with three groups of things: such feelings or emotions, judgements that accompany and things that these judgements are related to. In the example, the fear, the thing feared and, this is the key, the judgement that said that the thing is to be feared.

They seem too many elements, but let us not feel anxious us; for now they are well ordered. They are just sets of three, always the same, though their contents should change.

Judgement is the free part of the process. By "free" I do not mean, logically, that I can choose my judgement. If I think a fact deserves anger, then that will be my judgement. Likewise will happen in reverse: if I feel anger it must be because I have judged, whether conscious or not, that the fact deserves it. The freedom in the judgement consists precisely that it is a judgement. It is part of the process where conscious reason can intervene in search of truth.

Free, therefore, as long as it is moral or, to put it another way, free to choose between true and false.

Conscience judges what it thinks to be truth, or gets to a tolerable compromise with truth. It can not invent a judgement to change a feeling (at least not with an identical result than that produced by a lie), and cannot inhibit a sense corresponding to a judgement that has already been formed. But it can check. It can ask whether a certain sense does not seem the logical consequence of the identification of a thing. It can ask if, at a determined reality, there is no reason for feeling that way. It can improve, and it can try to approach the truth. That is why it is free. But it can also be influenced, manipulated and deceived. It may even be victim of the most radical deception: It can be told, as love does, that it does not exist, that it is functionless, and then it will judge that it is not there, that it can do nothing, and that what it feels is the inevitable product of circumstances. But, ultimately, it will be conscience the one to reach that conclusion. The failure is also the fruit of its freedom.

Let's take a step further. This set of judgements that are the definition of love, with their feelings, seeming almost incompatible, are not so from the practical point of view. Their inconsistency is synchronous: Who feels love as peace cannot feel it as anxiety ... at that moment! However, compatibility appears along the timeline, associating different times to different feelings, all experienced within the framework of the relationship. Those times go changing and forming a story, a kind of absurd, horrific and, for the most part, common to all realization of the loving fantasy (we meet people, we fall in love, we have relationships, we break up, have deeper ones, we form couples, we also break, we have children, etc, etc ...).

We see that judgements-feelings that the definition of "love" is based on are arranged in a timeline, like a movie, and each individual runs that movie more or less completely, through all phases of love, and thereby completing its status of person who feels love. All these judgements-feelings will be accompanied by a particular action or set of actions elicited by each. From feeling love we pass to act accordingly, as love dictates, that is, to "live love".

All throughout this experience it has been hidden that after the feelings that lead to actions, judgements had determined the feelings. These judgements, which love actively sinks into oblivion, are shaped ideologically. Love convinces, persuades, and forces you to forget, by referring to the feelings that raises this persuasion. So when we act motivated by these judgements, we do believe that we have no alternative, and that throughout our lives the absence of alternative is continuous.

That is why love is lived as a story. A story in which certain experiences occur whose identification lead to certain judgements which produce certain feelings that lead to certain actions corresponding to the next part of the story. Add to this that in each of these episodes, the person values that s/he finds her/himself in the characteristic and defining moment of love, forgetting the past and lacking the capacity to anticipate a future that is evident from what is visible around and what can be deduced from her/his own biography.

Agamy believes that love is a story built by deception, in which the individual is always unable to take charge, or simply does not know that there are any reins to be grabbed. Agamy considers love to be a succession of events conditioned by emotions that are induced on system’s ideological propaganda in the form of the ideological subsystem of love. Therefore, agamy calls love "blind script": Because it is a story in which the actress/or does not know what the next stage will be and can do nothing for preparing it. Her/his own interpretation is given. S/he is an actress/or acting as if the movie were already filmed from the beginning. And s/he does not know. S/he goes to work every day thinking s/he already knows the text, that s/he is interested in it, that s/he will adapt it, will make it her/his own, will give a way that best serves make the most of her/his conditions, and having an accurate idea of what her/his performing is going to consist on. But as acting, the text is replaced and s/he is forced to interpret a different one, with which s/he disagrees and which shooting s/he would never have signed, but does not know anymore how to avoid.

So agamy, pretending to be a good way to establish relationships between people, rejects love’s blind freedomless script.