it gets so lonesome you don't know; it's such a lonely way to go

so as usual, rather than sleep, i've decided to just write a little. i suppose, insofar as either activity is at least partially meant as a way of allowing one to consolidate the happenings of the day, they can be decent substitutes.

well in the past week or so i've been wrestling with one thing: whether love is something that is selfish or selfless. i think there are proponents for either side of the argument. there are those who think that love is manifested as an unconditional care for someone else. when you love someone, you feel infinitely concerned about everything that other person says or does. you feel the need to empathize, to understand, to learn about and to satisfy. that is the kind of selflessness that i'm talking about.

on the other hand, love is also about possession. it's the feeling that you can't get enough of someone else, that you want every moment that the other person could give. it's about co-presence and interaction. there is something physical and intimate about it, a deep craving for another being. this is what i mean by selfish.

clearly the two are not mutually exclusive. in fact, the perfect relationship between two lovers would probably have the two in equal parts. but it's also very easy to see how either could come to dominate. worse still, one could love someone selfishly, while at the same time loving someone else selflessly. it's all very complicated and messy.

but what is important is that you can love someone selflessly without that other person's consent. the logic runs the other way: if consent is refused, you could only love someone selflessly. if you are unable to do so without being selfish, then one can have nothing. the question, therefore, is whether one chooses to persist in loving another selflessly.

well, the question really is, does one ever really have a choice? the degree to which we love someone, and whether that is selfish or selfless, is not something we can necessarily decide. it really comes from weighing one's utility against another. any satisfaction gained from a selfless attitude can only come via the pleasure of altruism, whereas being selfish will net immediate rewards. the question, therefore, is how we weigh the two.

when framed in this way, it is almost logical to be hopelessly devoted to someone else. if you simply derive so much satisfaction from another's happiness, and there isn't a viable alternative, why not stay?

this all came out a little callous, but i think it's not difficult to see that it didn't really start out that way.