# Being In Love



## Artrella

When I had to write a paper for my class of English Literature, I had to do some research related to love and love triangle.  I had the fortune to come across C.S. Lewis, and felt attracted to this excerpt from a collection of writings by this man.  I will transcribe one for you all, just because I like it.
*"Being in Love"*
What we call "being in love" is a glorious state, and, in several ways, good for us.  It helps to make us generous and coraugeous, it opens our eyes not only to the beauty of the beloved but to all beauty, and it subordinates (especially at first) our merely animal sexuality; in that sense love is the great conqueror of lust.  No one in his senses would deny that being in love is far better than either common sensuality or cold self-centredness.  But, as I said before, "the most dangerous thing you can do is to take any one impulse of our own nature and set it up as the thing you ought to follow at all costs".  Being in love is a good thing, but it is not the best thing.  There are many things below it, but there are also things above it.  You cannot make it the basis of a whole life.  It is a noble feeling, but it is still a feeling...Knowledge can last, principles can last, habits can last; but feelings come and go...But, of course, ceasing to be "in love" need not mean ceasing to love.  Love in this second sense -love as distinct from "being in love"- is not merely a feeling.  It is a deep unity, maintained by the will and deliberately strengthened by habit; reinforced by (in Christian marriage) the grace which both partners ask, and receive, from God... "Being in love" first moved them to promise fidelity: this quieter love enables them to keep the promise.  It is no this love that the engine of marriage is run: being in love was the explosion that started it."From "Mere Christianity", C.S.Lewis


----------



## LadyBlakeney

Dear Art,

Thank you for sharing with us those lines, it's really nice of you. I think this lines about the notions of "being in love" and "marriage love" are a proper explanation of them in a Christian context. However, I disagree with the author in just one thing:



			
				Artrella said:
			
		

> ...it opens our eyes not only to the beauty of the beloved but to all beauty,...




One of the first things that my father explained to me about love was that there was a first phase in a love relationship which he called "enamoramiento", and which, as far as  I understand, would be "being in love". He explained to me that, in such state of mind (or heart, I should say), the lover is blind as a mole about the actual personality traits of his or her beloved one, so that he or she can not see the faults and exaggerates the virtues. What is more, the "enamorado" often attributes to his or her love qualities he or she does not have, because those are the qualities of the "enamorado's" ideal partner. My father said some people skip it quickly and move on into deeper feelings, and some stay there until the inevitable disappointment. When I grew up and went out to the world I checked my father's words and he was so right!

What Mr. Lewis calls "love" should be that further step in which you gradually discover the actual personality of your beloved one and still love him or her.

I hope I didn't bore you too much.


----------



## Artrella

*Andreas Capellanus ("De Amore" late 12th century) * defines love as "an inborn suffering proceeding from the sight and immoderate thought upon the beauty of the other sex, for which cause above all other things one wishes to embrace the other and, by common assent, in this embrace to fulfill the commandments of love..."  Then he  says "Blindness impedes love, for a blind man cannot see that on which his mind can reflect immoderately.  Therefore love cannot arise in him... But I recognize that this is true only of the moment in which love is acquired, for I do not deny that love can blind".


----------



## Artrella

LadyBlakeney said:
			
		

> Dear Art,
> 
> Thank you for sharing with us those lines, it's really nice of you. I think this lines about the notions of "being in love" and "marriage love" are a proper explanation of them in a Christian context. However, I disagree with the author in just one thing:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> One of the first things that my father explained to me about love was that there was a first phase in a love relationship which he called "enamoramiento", and which, as far as  I understand, would be "being in love". He explained to me that, in such state of mind (or heart, I should say), the lover is blind as a mole about the actual personality traits of his or her beloved one, so that he or she can not see the faults and exaggerates the virtues. What is more, the "enamorado" often attributes to his or her love qualities he or she does not have, because those are the qualities of the "enamorado's" ideal partner. My father said some people skip it quickly and move on into deeper feelings, and some stay there until the inevitable disappointment. When I grew up and went out to the world I checked my father's words and he was so right!
> 
> What Mr. Lewis calls "love" should be that further step in which you gradually discover the actual personality of your beloved one and still love him or her.
> 
> I hope I didn't bore you too much.






No way, you haven't bored me at all!  It's nice to discuss these themes because there are so many points of view as regards love, that you can spend entire days discussing and exchanging ideas.  I don't share many Christian doctrines but I respect everybody's ideas.  I just liked it and wanted to share it with you.  I agree with your daddy.
Look I sent something else...hope you like it!  Abrazos, Art


----------



## LadyBlakeney

Clever gentleman, Mr. Capellanus!!!


----------



## quehuong

A,

Great words about love, but "love hurts".  Maybe a little less red is better "for the eyes".


----------



## Artrella

quehuong said:
			
		

> A,
> 
> Great words about love, but "love hurts".  Maybe a little less red is better "for the eyes".




Yes, love hurts, and so much some times!!!! I like colours!  Because in that way I show my true colours!  XOXO


----------



## quehuong

A,

About colors.  I like them very much, too, but a paragraph in red or warm color on PC can hurt our eyes.   Don't be sad because of my comment.  

I'm "kinda" in love with someone, and this "love" confuses me quite a lot sometimes.


----------



## Sharon

Lady B., I'm not really sure, but from your description - "first phase in a love relationship, blind as a mole, can not see the faults, and exaggerates the virtues"....I think this is less like love, and more like infatuation. (Or to be infatuated with someone.)
I looked up "enamoramiento" in my Sp/En dictionary, and it gives the definition "falling in love."  *But*, when I looked up "infatuation" the dictionary says "enamoramiento."  Maybe someone can clarify this for us. (Or, at least, for me!! )


----------



## Robert Bennie

G'day forum

My suspicion is that many confuse love and lust. I am able to be blinded by lust but am firmly of the opinion that love opens my eyes. I am in love with my wife and have been so for one fifth of a century. I love my daughter and have done for almost as long.

The discussion above seems to neglect love that is not between consenting adults.

I offer my definition

                 WHEN

I think I take more than you take
                  and
You think you take more I take

                 while

I think you give more than I give
                 and
You think I give more than you give

Love is

Robert


----------



## Artrella

Robert Bennie said:
			
		

> G'day forum
> 
> My suspicion is that many confuse love and lust. I am able to be blinded by lust but am firmly of the opinion that love opens my eyes. I am in love with my wife and have been so for one fifth of a century. I love my daughter and have done for almost as long.
> 
> The discussion above seems to neglect love that is not between consenting adults.
> 
> I offer my definition
> 
> WHEN
> 
> I think I take more than you take
> and
> You think you take more I take
> 
> while
> 
> I think you give more than I give
> and
> You think I give more than you give
> 
> Love is
> 
> Robert




Robert, I don't understand that definition.... probably because of my lack of good English.  Maybe some time you can clarify that for me?
I was blinded when I first met my hubby and I've been in love with him for... mmm... 17 years!!! wow!! that is love, sure!!


----------



## gotitadeleche

Artrella said:
			
		

> Robert, I don't understand that definition.... probably because of my lack of good English.  Maybe some time you can clarify that for me?
> I was blinded when I first met my hubby and I've been in love with him for... mmm... 17 years!!! wow!! that is love, sure!!



Art, It means that each partner in the couple thinks that the other is more generous. Neither one feels used or taken advantage of.


----------



## Becky85

What a nice way of putting it! Lovely to hear you both talk about the many years that you've been with your partners! I've been with my boyfriend almost 2 years and that seems like a lifetime! Lol, nothing compared to you two!


----------



## Artrella

gotitadeleche said:
			
		

> Art, It means that each partner in the couple thinks that the other is more generous. Neither one feels used or taken advantage of.




Gotix, thank youuu!!


----------



## Robert Bennie

G'day lovely forum

Becky85 is totally correct
The here and the now is our only possession with yesterday curtained and tomorrow uncertain

Good luck

See you later

Robert


----------



## Monkling

Artrella said:
			
		

> From "Mere Christianity", C.S.Lewis


Until I got to the end of the quote, I thought it had to be from "The Four Loves." Another to add to the bookshelf.



			
				LadyBlakeney said:
			
		

> He explained to me that, in such state of mind (or heart, I should say), the lover is blind as a mole about the actual personality traits of his or her beloved one


I wonder how many translations there are for "love is blind." Definitely true but I don't think that's what Lewis meant by love opening our eyes to all beauty. I think it's more in how you view the world when you're in love. (Just my opinion, of course.)


----------



## Artrella

Monkling said:
			
		

> Until I got to the end of the quote, I thought it had to be from "The Four Loves." Another to add to the bookshelf.
> 
> I wonder how many translations there are for "love is blind." Definitely true but I don't think that's what Lewis meant by love opening our eyes to all beauty. I think it's more in how you view the world when you're in love. (Just my opinion, of course.)




Monkling this is an excerpt of "The Four Loves" by C.S. Lewis(HarperCollins Publishers, 1998)

*Eros*

_By Eros I mean of course that state which we call "being in love"; or if you prefer, that kind of love which lovers are "in"....
...It is in the grandeur of Eros that the seeds of danger are concealed...
...For Eros, speaking with that very grandeur and displaying that very trascendence of self, may urge to evil as well as to good..._


----------



## Robert Bennie

G'day again

I offer the opinion that it is not possible for love to be blind.  The concept of love at first sight is self contradictory.

Communication must come before love.

Lust may be a visceral instantly hormonal response but it is blind to anything other itself
Love is selfless
Love sees all and accepts all
Every tiny perfect puzzle of the pieces that make us
I am suffused by love but love must be beyond me
I had to know her before I could love her

Robert


----------



## Monkling

Robert Bennie said:
			
		

> I offer the opinion that it is not possible for love to be blind.


But "lust is blind" doesn't quite have the same ring to it. 

What we need, in the English language, at least, are more words to describe what we mean when we say love. We use the word when referring to food, our pets, our  spouse & clearly those are all quite different things.


----------



## Robert Bennie

G'day Monkling
As it is for the concept so it is for the context

Robert


----------



## Artrella

Robert Bennie said:
			
		

> G'day again
> 
> I offer the opinion that it is not possible for love to be blind.  The concept of love at first sight is self contradictory.
> 
> Communication must come before love.
> 
> Lust may be a visceral instantly hormonal response but it is blind to anything other itself
> Love is selfless
> Love sees all and accepts all
> Every tiny perfect puzzle of the pieces that make us
> I am suffused by love but love must be beyond me
> I had to know her before I could love her
> 
> Robert




Oh Robert! Your words are beautiful, and you are right! 
But do you know that there is a scientific research that really tells us why we say that love is blind?
I'll try to find that article and will put it here or maybe a link to it, so you, or anyone interested in this fact could read it.

Nil


----------



## Robert Bennie

Science and love seem to me to be strange bedfellows

Robert


----------



## Artrella

Robert Bennie said:
			
		

> Science and love seem to me to be strange bedfellows
> 
> Robert




Yes... Love is not scientific...it is only that...love
What I tried to say in my previous post is that the phrase "love is blind" has a correlate in the scientific world, because when you love someone your brain experiences certain changes that make you lost of sight many other things, you are just in love...more or less this is what the article I read says...


----------



## Robert Bennie

G'day Artrella
The scientific concepts you mention are valid and love does have a survival bonus to help us through any hard times so a pesimistic observer sees love as blind while an optimistic participant experiences the knowledge of love.

Robert


----------



## Everness

Robert Bennie said:
			
		

> Lust may be a visceral instantly hormonal response but it is blind to anything other itself
> Love is selfless
> Love sees all and accepts all



Is lust bad and love good? I think that they are two meaningful human capacities that can be experienced and utilized negatively or positively. But I don't think that lust belongs to the club of the negative feelings or sensations and love to the club of the positive emotions or sensations. A dictionary defines lust as a "self-indulgent sexual desire." I would like to meet a sexual desire that isn't self-indulgent! If it's only that, well then we might have a problem. But to say that when we make love we are only thinking in the other person and that we are not trying to experience pleasure ourselves is plain stupid. On the other hand, is love always a positive force? Have you heard the term co-dependency? You can love too much and at the expense of yourself thus violating Jesus' second commandment.


----------



## Robert Bennie

G'day Everness

I do not think lust is bad and I very much enjoy that particularly poignent emotion as often as we can.

I have made no reference to 





> making love


 and find that common phrase to be self contradictory and confusing to love

Robert


----------



## Becky85

Robert Bennie said:
			
		

> I have made no reference to [making love] and find that common phrase to be self contradictory and confusing to love
> 
> Robert


Why do you find it to be so?


----------



## Everness

Robert Bennie said:
			
		

> G'day Everness
> 
> I do not think lust is bad and I very much enjoy that particularly poignent emotion as often as we can.
> 
> I have made no reference to  and find that common phrase to be self contradictory and confusing to love
> 
> Robert



Oh, I see. I agree with your second statement. I wish I could always use the verb "to copulate" instead of "to make love" but for some reason people don't use it to describe human behavior, especially theirs. I think it puts us in touch with our animal side. It might sound unromantic, but love is a feeling rooted in the biological.


----------



## Becky85

Everness said:
			
		

> Oh, I see. I agree with your second statement. I wish I could always use the verb "to copulate" instead of "to make love" but for some reason people don't use it to describe human behavior, especially theirs. I think it puts us in touch with our animal side. It might sound unromantic, but love is a feeling rooted in the biological.


But then aren't you suggesting that sex is merely a way of expressing our animalistic, erotic desires? I disagree, I think that you can use 'making love' to describe it because it can be so much more than just a purely sexual act. What about the connection, the physical expression of love?! Where are the romantics  in you?!!


----------



## Artrella

Everness said:
			
		

> Oh, I see. I agree with your second statement. I wish I could always use the verb "to copulate" instead of "to make love" but for some reason people don't use it to describe human behavior, especially theirs. I think it puts us in touch with our animal side. It might sound unromantic, but love is a feeling rooted in the biological.




Everness!!! What's this of copulating?? Yes you sound "scientific"...
WE make love... we don't copulate only! Ok, we copulate but we make love...and copulate...Ohhh....


----------



## Everness

Becky85 said:
			
		

> But then aren't you suggesting that sex is merely a way of expressing our animalistic, erotic desires? I disagree, I think that you can use 'making love' to describe it because it can be so much more than just a purely sexual act. What about the connection, the physical expression of love?! Where are the romantics  in you?!!



Ok, you have a point. However, I still believe that love isn't purely emotional or spiritual and sex isn't purely physical or biological. When we make love, all these biological, psychological and spiritual processes kick in. To discuss where one starts and the next one ends is pointless and can definitely affect your ability to deliver!


----------



## Everness

Artrella said:
			
		

> Everness!!! What's this of copulating?? Yes you sound "scientific"...
> WE make love... we don't copulate only! Ok, we copulate but we make love...and copulate...Ohhh....



Meti las de andar! Now the world is going to use these words against me. I'm screwed! Retiro lo dicho, ok?


----------



## mzsweeett

Wow, this thread is fascinating indeed!!  For my two cents worth....
I believe that love is an act of the will. It encompasses everything in a relationship. You love someone by not just the sweet and erotic feelings, but by the way that you treat them and do things for them in every day life. 
To say that you love someone, yet you are critical, mean spirited etc towards them is not loving but _un_loving.  Does that make sense??
I do agree with Robert in that we can't deny ourselves the physical desires, but I also think that they should take second place to our actions towards the other person. That way the emotions will be that much deeper and be able to remain if not progress instead of "falling out" of those feelings and losing what you once had. Art, I hope one day I can say the same as you for your relationship with your hubby. I have only been married since 2000!! We have a long road ahead!!
I hope I didn't confuse anyone.  Sometimes my brain moves faster than my fingers on the keypad.  

Sweet T.


----------



## LadyBlakeney

Hello everyone.

I can't believe this thread is still alive after all these months! I am proud of all the lovers who have contributed to it, sniff!! I am an incurable romantic.


----------



## Robert Bennie

G'day Becky85

Anyone is free to use whatever terminology they choose and I choose to consider love as a concept so delicate that I can not make it do anything.  I can not mould love or put it in a box and at the first sign of interference or attempts at control I suspect that love will go.

I believe that words are magic.

Robert


----------



## te gato

I believe that love has both..
When you love someone..you love them unconditionally...you treat them with respect and adoration..
But being in love is not an easy thing...
You need communication..to be able to talk about everything..if you can't do that then the ties that bind the two of you together are broken..(and not the 'neck tie' kinds..although..never mind)..
I feel you need romance..spontaneity...that surprise flower..or I love you card..you never expected...that special romantic candelit dinner..ahhhh..
And yes the act of love making...is the most meaningfull sensation around when shared with someone you have given your heart to...
Excuse me..I need some chocolate..

te gato


----------



## Artrella

te gato said:
			
		

> I believe that love has both..
> When you love someone..you love them unconditionally...you treat them with respect and adoration..
> But being in love is not an easy thing...
> You need communication..to be able to talk about everything..if you can't do that then the ties that bind the two of you together are broken..(and not the 'neck tie' kinds..although..never mind)..
> I feel you need romance..spontaneity...that surprise flower..or I love you card..you never expected...that special romantic candelit dinner..ahhhh..
> And yes the act of love making...is the most meaningfull sensation around when shared with someone you have given your heart to...
> Excuse me..I need some chocolate..
> 
> te gato




awww... K GF!!! You are right... that "you're beautiful" "you're the best thing in my life"... you need to hear that and you need to say that to the one you love... Being in love is being alive... Fortunately I am alive now!!


----------



## te gato

Artrella said:
			
		

> awww... K GF!!! You are right... that "you're beautiful" "you're the best thing in my life"... you need to hear that and you need to say that to the one you love... Being in love is being alive... Fortunately I am alive now!!


A GF...
Yes being in love is being alive...everything seems so much better..you are happier..Yes there are at times problems that have to be dealt with..but if they are dealt with as a joined unit..then everything is good.
And yes to have someone say to you...'that you are their everything'..that 'you are the air that they breath'...or that you are ..as you said..'the most beautiful'...yes makes the heart skip a beat...and is the most wonderful feeling..that is not forgotten for a very..very long time...
You GF....cherish everything that you have...cherish being alive..and being in love..and having someone love you back...for you are a lucky one...
Now I really need chocolate..
te gato


----------



## gotitadeleche

My mother knew who my father was in high school, but he didn't know her. Then he went off to war. When he returned, the first day he walked into Sunday School my mother turned to her sister and said, "See that man? I'm going to marry him." And a few years later, she did. My father died about 13 years ago, but a couple of years before he died (at 68 years) she said to me, "I know he has gotten older, but to me he still looks like he did in high school." Sigh...


----------



## Artrella

te gato said:
			
		

> Now I really need chocolate..
> te gato



We both need it ... am I right KGF???


----------



## Becky85

gotitadeleche said:
			
		

> My mother knew who my father was in high school, but he didn't know her. Then he went off to war. When he returned, the first day he walked into Sunday School my mother turned to her sister and said, "See that man? I'm going to marry him." And a few years later, she did. My father died about 13 years ago, but a couple of years before he died (at 68 years) she said to me, "I know he has gotten older, but to me he still looks like he did in high school." Sigh...



I love stories like that! 

I recently watched the film 'The Notebook', which was a love story told by an older man about how he came to be with the love of his life. It made me cry more than any other film has ever made me cry just because it was so beautiful!

My parents were best friends from being 11, and then they went out briefly aged 14 (they were in the same class all through school), then remained best friends and finally got together for the last time aged 18. They were together five years before they got married, and last year they celebrated their 20th Wedding Anniversary. They're so sweet! Lol


----------



## te gato

Artrella said:
			
		

> We both need it ... am I right KGF???


Hey L GF;
Sadly..yes..
te gato


----------

