Hello MD,
I'll admit the subject line is bombastic. Nevertheless I decided to go for this
post, because I think love is a very fertile area for reasoning about Quality,
and especially Dynamic Quality; and yet, I don't see it mentioned very often on
MD. So I'll briefly describe the patterns that have been forming in my mind
lately to see if they perhaps resonate (see below) with those of other
subscribers of this list.
I hope everybody agrees that the labelling of SQ and DQ as Expected and
Unexpected respectively (as used by Denis in his very nice post a few days ago)
makes some sense, at least as an analogy.
Ask any lover, and they'll tell you that what they are experiencing is
*extraordinary*, or *magic*. Love always feels like an extraordinary, magic
thing, and yet, it has happened uncountable times. Clearly, every love store is
unique, but then, every breath you take is unique. Uniqueness is no explanation
of the extraordinarity of love. Are lovers fooling themselves?
1. Lovers seek DQ...
If you look at the way lovers behave, especially in the early days of falling in
love, you notice that they are consciously, methodically avoiding two enemies.
The first enemy comprises things such as hurting the other physically or
emotionally (e.g., forgetting the other's birthday, being late at a very
important date, etc.), or generally speaking, low quality situations and events.
We always try to avoid low quality, but that becomes much more important for new
lovers. I believe the reason is that while we are *usually* content with static
quality, lovers seek more. In fact, the second enemy they are fighting is the
Expected; IOW, routine. You'll soon feel uncomfortable if your lover always uses
the same words, does the same things, approaches you in the very same way.
Perhaps it was the sweetest thing on earth the first time, but repeat it ad lib
and it won't feel like love any longer. Just like Pirsig's about songs.
Yet in other words, and to introduce another metaphor that I like, lovers avoid
rhythm. They seek for surprise, something that comes out of the
progressively-emotionally-neutral tic-tic-tic-tic. As soon as a lover realises
s/he's doing tic-tic-tic-tic, s/he'll switch to something like
tic-tic-tactac-tictic. Why? Once you set a rhythm, you'll be able to go on
forever without putting *yourself* into it. *You* are not SQ. Whatever SQ
patterns you create on your own or with your partner aren't exhaustively saying
who you are. Lovers want to be in touch with each other, not with the "patterned
version" of each other. You break the rhythm to say "hello! there's me behind
this patterns! I am DQ, you see? I am not an Expected thing, a machine, not a
pattern myself. I am alive."
2. ...because they are creating
To me, this all means that DQ is the first actor in falling in love. One reason
might be that lovers are creating something new, and the longer they manage to
pipeline DQ into this *new* thing, the better this thing is going to be. When it
finally becomes a pattern (SQ), it's going to be just as good as they managed to
create it via DQ-injections of the early days. The new thing is going to express
who they are and fit their *true* selves somehow proportional to the amout of DQ
that made its way into it when the new thing was being built. (Of course the
thing will later be constantly modified, but at a much slower pace).
3. ...and because they are making contact
I see two reasons why lovers feel compelled to be honestly, deeply receptive
towards DQ. The first was described above. The second is simply that they are
trying to get as close as they can. You have *your* patterns through which you
see reality (and that of course means Reality: tables, tress, morals, poems,
emotions). S/he has her/his patterns.
In the beginning, it's two separate world. This makes some of his/her
words/actions/etc. feel strange to you. If you are not paying *true* attention
to the other person, it all ends here. But in love, you are listening to DQ as
closely as to your SQ patterns - or even more. This openness to the Unexpected,
and willing to let it in your life, disables your automatic reaction to
"foreign". And that is pretty much what you need to *understand* her/him better,
that is, modify your patterns in such a way that her words/actions will feel
less strange. I think that's what we call knowing each other.
4. And it works
Everybody knows that once DQ is injected into reality, it crystalizes in SQ.
Yet, there is still the point of love being "extraordinary". In line of
principle, whatever is being built in a love story seems to be a new (set of) SQ
pattern(s). Yes, it is carefully constructed via a conscious DQ nurturing, but
in the end, it is still SQ. Where does the *extraordinary* feeling come from? To
me, the answer is simply: *two* people. (And yes, all of the above, mutatis
mutandis, holds for friendship, parental love, etc.). However closely you will
get to know each other, s/he still has different patterns than yours. You will
*never* be clones of each other. What you will get in the end is *not* a unified
world view, but two different collection of patterns that resonate with each
other (if it works). Like, your patterns go "tic-<pause>-tic-<pause>" and
her/his patterns go "<pause>-tac-<pause>-tac" and the two of them, if you could
see them from outside, go "tic-tac-tic-tac" - and this sounds good to you,
better than your personal patterns on their own.
*If* you could see them from outside, but you can't. That's a basic point. If
you could intellectually hear the tic-tac-tic-tac, then it would be a static
pattern of *yours*, and your relation with his/her would be completely in the
Expected domain. Some of you might think 'yes, that happens too', but I don't
think it is the case. I don't think it ever happens. What goes wrong, when
something goes wrong, must be something else (this less attractive topic is
postponed).
So, assuming it *does* work: you have your patterns, and they are SQ. They are
somewhat neutral to you, they are the Expected - you realize they are good only
in the sense that you realize that their absence would be bad. But you are
relating with another person whose patterns create a better, always foreign,
always Unexpected structure *outside* your patterns but *with* your patterns.
And this, to me, is a sensible intellectual pattern to describe a long-lasting
love relationship.
Thanx for reading, I hope this makes any sense to someone.
Andrea
-- Andrea Sosio P&T-TPD-SP Tel. (8)9006 mailto: Andrea.Sosio@italtel.itMOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/ MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at: http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat Aug 17 2002 - 16:01:39 BST