Loue Defined

Discipline, it has been suggested, is the merns of human

spiritual evolution. This ser)tion will examine what lies in
back of discipling-whx1 provides the motive, the energy for
discipline. f'his force I believe to be loye. I am very con-
scious of the fact that in attempting to examine love we will
be beginning to toy with mystery. In a very real sense we
will be attempting to examine the unexaminable and ro know
the unknowable, Love is too large, too deep ever ro be truly
understood or measured or limited within the framework of
words. I would not write this if I did not believe the attempt
to have value, but no matter how valuable, I begin with the
certain knowledge thar the anempr will be in some ways
inadequate.
One result of the mysterious nature of love is that no one
has ever, to rry knowledge, arrived ar a truly sadsfactory
definition of love. In an effort to explain it, therefore, love
has been divided into various categories: eros, philia, agape;
perfect love and imperfect love, and so on. I am presuming,
however, to give a single definition of love, again with the
awareness that it is likely to be in some way or ways inade-
quate.
l---.-^
I de6ne iove thus: The will ro extend one's self for the
purpose of nurturing one's own or anorher's spiritual growth.
At the outset I would like ro commenr briefly on this defi-
nition before proceeding ro a more thorough elaboration.
First, it may be noticed that it is a teleological definition; the
behavior is defined in terms of the goal or purpose it seems to
 82 LOVE
sslvs-in ,this case, spiritual growth, Scientists tend to hoid
teleological defnitions suspect, and perhaps they will this
one. I did not arrive at it, however, through a clearly teleo-
logical process of thinking. Instead I arrived at it through
observation in my clinical pracice of psychiarry (which
includes self-observation ) , in which the definirion of love is
a matter of considerable imporr. This is because patients are
generally very confused as to the nature of love. For in$ance,
a timid young man reported ro me: "My morher loved me so
much she wouldn't let me take the school bus to school until
my senior year in high school. Even then I had to beg her to
let me go. I guess she was afraid thar I worrld get huri, so she
drove me to and from school every day, which was very hard
on her. She really loved me." In the rrearmen[ of this individ-
ual's timidity it was necessary, as ir is in many other cases, ro
teach him that his mother might have been motivated by
soinething orher rhan love, and rhat what seems ro be love is
often not love at all. It has been out of such experience that I
accumulated a body of examples of whar seemed to be acts of
love and.what seemed nor to be love. One of rhe malor distin-
guishing features between the two seemed to be the conscious
or unconscious purpose in the mind of the lover or nonlover.
Second, ir may be noticed that, as defined, love is a
strangely circular process. For the process of extending one's
self is an evolutionary plocess. When one has succeisfully
extended one's limits, one has then grown into a larger state
of being. Thus the act of loving is an act of self-evolurion
even when the purpose of the act is someone else's growrh. Ir
is through reaching toward evoludon thar we evolve.
Third, this unitary defnition of love inclujs5 self-love wirh
love for the other. Since I am human and you are human, to
love humans means to love myself as well as you. To be
dedicated to human spiritual developmenr is to be dedicated
to the race of which we are e part, and this therefore means
dedication to our own development as ';r'ell es ,,theirs." In-
deed, as has been pointed out, we are incapable of loving
another unless we love ourselves, just as we are incapable o-f
Lot:e Defned 8l
teaching our children self-discipline unless we ourselves are
self-disciplined. It is actually impossible to forsake our own
spiritual development in favor of someone else's. We cannot
forsake self-discipline and at the same time be disciplined in
our care for another. We cannot be a source of suength un-
less we nurture our own strength. As we proceed in our ex-
ploration of the nature of love, I believe it will become clear
that not only do selfJove and love of others go hand in hand
but that ultimately they are indistinguishable.
Fourth, the act of extending one's limits implies efforr. One
extends one's limits only by exceeding them, and orceeding
limim requires effort. When we love someone our love be-
comes demonstrable or real only through 6u1 s1g11i6n-
through the fact that for that someone (or for ourself) we
take an extra step or walk an extra mile, Love is not effort-
less. To the contrary, love is effortful.
Finally, by use of the word "will" I have attempted to
transcend the distinction between desire and acrion, Desire
is not necessarily translated inro action. Will is desire of
sufficient intensity that it li translated into action. The differ-
ence between the two is equal ro rh€ difference between
saying "I would like to go swimming ronighr" and "I will go
swimming tonight." Everyone in our culture desires to some
extent to be loving, yer many are not in fact loving. I there-
fore conclude that the desire to love is not irself love. Love is
ls love does. Love is an act of will-namely, both an inten-
rion and an action. Will also implies choice. We do not have
to love. We choose to love. No matt€r how much we may
think we are loving, if we are in fact not loving, it is because
we have chosen not to love and therefore do not love despite
our good intentions. On the other hand, whenever we do
actually exert ourselves in the cause of spiritual growth, it is
because we have chosen to do so. The choice to love has
been made.
As I indicated, patienrs who come ro psychotherapy are
invariably found to be more or less confused abour the na-
ture of love. This is because in the face of the mystery of love
 8,',1 LovE
nlisconcepdons about it abound. While this book will not
remove from love its mystery, I hope it v'ill clarify matters
sufficiently to help do away with these misconceptions,
which cause suffering not only to patients but to all people as
they attempt to make sense out of their own experiences.
Some of this suffering seems to me unnecessary, since these
popular misconceptions could be made less popular through
ihe teaching of a nrore precise definition of love. I have
therefore chor.n to begin exploring thc nature of love by
examining what love is not.
F alling in " Lotse"
Of all the misconceptions about love the most powerful
arrd pervasive is the belief that "falling in love" is love or at
least one of the nranifestations of love. It is a porent miscon-
ception, because falling in love bsubiectivelv experienced in
a very po*'erfui fashion as an experience of love. When a
person falls in love what he or she certainly feels is "I love
hinr" or "l love her." But two problems are immediately ap-
parent. Thlfirst is that the experience of falling in love is
speciGcally a'sex-linked erotic exPerience. We do not fall in
loue with our children even though q'e may love them very
deeply. lVe do not fall in love with our friends of the same
qg1-unls55 we are honrosexually oriented-even though we
rliry care for them grearly. lVe fall in love only when rve are
consciously or unconsciously sexually motivated. The second
problem is that the experience of falling in love is invariably
'- remporary. No matter u'hom \}'e fall in love rvith, rt'e sooner
or later fall out of love if the relationship continues long
cnough. This is not to say that we invariably cease loving the
person with whom we fell in love. But it is to say that the
Falling in "Love" 85
feeling of etstatic lovingness that characterizes the experi-
ence of falling in love always passes. The honeyrnoon always
ends. The bloom of romance always fades.
To understand the nature of the phenomenon of falling in
love and the inevitability of its ending, it is necessary to
examine the nature of whar psychiatrists call ego boundaries.
From what we can ascertain by indirect evidence, it appears
that rhe nervborn infant during the 6rst few months of its life
does not distinguish between itself and the rest of the uni-
verse. When it moves its arms and legs, the world is moving.
When it is hungry, the world is hungry. When it sees its
mt-rrher move, it is as if it is moving. When its mother sings,
the baby does not know that it is itself not making the sound.
It cannot distinguish itself from the crib, the room and its
parents. The animate and the inanimare are the same. There
is no distinction yet between I and thou. It and the world are
one. There are no boundaries, no separations. There is no
identity.
But with experience the child begins to experience itself-
namely, as an entity separate from the r€st of the u'orld.
lVhen it is hungry, mother doesn'r always appear to feed it.
When it is playful, mother doesn't always want to play. The
child then has the experience of its wishes rrot being its
nrother's command. Its u'ill is experienced as somerhing
separate from its mother's behavior. A sense of the "me"
begins to develop. This interaction between the infant and
the mother is believed to be rhe ground out of which the
child's sense of idendry begins to grow. It has been observed
that when the interaction berween the infant and its morher
is grossly disturbed-for example, when there is no mother,
no satisfactory mother substitute or when because of her own
mental illnes the mother is totally uncaring 61 uni6sgls5sgi-
then the infant grows into a child or adulr whose sense of
idendry is grossly defective in the most basic ways.
As the infant recognizes is will to be its own and not that
of the universe, it begins to make other distinctions between
itself and the world. When it wills movement, its arm waves
 LOVE Falling in "Loz:e.
86
(particularly its own) still exists. This is the
before its eyes, but neither the
crib nor the ceiling move' world of Super_
its will are connected' man and Captain Marvel., yet gradually even
Till ,n" ilti't.i"'n' tt'"t it' jrs "nd
"'t the super_
j'llii.;:;;,i;;-it' is and nor something'or' some-
heroes are given up, and by the- U-" Jf
-ia_"jot.r"..r".,
:il il;.;; "*
,r',i, .'nn"', during the first
y;ar of
I'l:-*'
not'
young people know that they are individuals, confned
boundaries of their flesh ani the limits of tn"i.
to the
i,jil",l,,"'d;;tt"l' of *ito rie are and who we^are power, e""h
By the end of-our first year Jrail and impotent organism, exist'ing only by
what we are and what we are not' ::^._" _td.",i".I{
coopera.uon wrthin a group of fellow organisms ca-lled soci_
my head" my tongue'
*" r.-* ii" ,rtis is my arm' my foot'voice' my thoughtq my cty.- Within this group they are not
iarticularly distin_
rrv eves and even .y u,"*pointl [I y:, they are isolated. from others-by their individual
rtttin"''wi know our size and our
#;fi*h;'-;;J 'y bound'ies' The knowl-
9l':l:9,
rdentrtles, boundaries and limrts.
uhvsical limits' These limits ?" ou'
l:

It is lonely behind these boundaries. Some people_oartic_

!lJi'l?','#.i i''t;; i;"d; ou' minds is what is meant bv ego rularly those whom. psychiatrists call schizoid_lbecaise
ii
of
""iil j."a""*ent of ego boundaries is a process that con-
boundaries. unpleasant, rraumauzrng experiences in childhood, perceive it
ii
and even tnto rhe world ourside of themselves as unredeemably dairge.ous,
,i";; ;h;;'h "ttitanoo? into adolescence later are hosrile, confusing and unnurturing. Such people feei their
iil
li

;d"l,looJ, ft, the boundaries established betweerl-more two boundaries to be prorecting and comforting .ni find . ."n."
the.age ii
;;;;il-;t"; Physical' For instance' comes to terms of safety in their loneliness. Bur most of us -feel our loneliness
I;'J;h;." is typiially a time when the child
u

this time the child to be painful and yearn to escape from behind the walls of it
with the limits of its power' While before our individual indentities to a condition in which we can be
r,lt "".*a if,.t its' wish is not necessarily itswish
f .
mother's
mighi more unified with the world outside of ourselves. The experi_
ir
;;;t";;J, it still clings to the possibility that.its ence of falling in love allows us this escape-t"-po."rily. I
i*'i.l'"t.ir."t't commind and the feeling that its wish should
It is because of this [ope and feeling that Th" essence of the phenomenon of falling in love is a suddin
b" 1.,". collapse of a section of an individual's ego boundaries, per_
"ontn,.nd' usually att€mPts to
;-" ;;;";;J lik" .:{:-'1: '"d e
"'i ' and mitting one ro merge his or her identiry with that of anoiher
rlutocrat, trylng to gtve orders to its parents' siblings
ii
!r,l
person. The sudden release of oneself'from oneself, the ex_
farnilv pets as if ,h.i *.t" menials in irs own private army'
with rJgal fury when they won't be dictated to' plosive pouring out of oneself into the beloved, and the
"nJ.i.ionat
iiu, p'r..n. speak o'f rhis age as "the terrible twos"'.By the dramatic surcease of loneliness accompanying this collapse ir

i;,
,g. ol thr.. th'e child has us-ually become more tractable and o_f, ego is expe:ienced by mosi of-u,
-boundaries :
We and our beloved are one! Loneliness is no more! ", "".,"ti".
,i"Uo* ,, a result of an accePtance of the reality of its own :
relative powerlessness. Still, tie possibility of omnipotence is . In some respects (but certainly not in all) the act of fall_y
ing,in Jove is an act of regression. The experience of merging
such a s*eet, sweet dream that ii cannot be completely given i
with rhe loved one has in ir echoes from rhe time when-w"
up even after several years of very painful confrontation with
were. merged wirh our mothers in infancy. Along with the
oi',"'. o*n impotence. Although the child of three has. come
to accept the reality of the bloundaries of irs power' it will merging we also. reexperience the sensi of orinipotence
_
which we had to give up in our
continu; to escaPe occasionally for some years to come into a iourney out of childhood. All
world of fantary in which rhe possibility of omnipotence
'
things seem possible! United with our beloved we feel we can

i
88 LOVE
Falling in ,,L6ve"
conquer all obstacles. Wc believe that the str€ngth of our perience of "falline in dv
89
Iove will cause the forces of opposition to bow down in sub-
.e,, is
love,, i" not
-^. ,
_^-r love
rea.l for the several
folln-,-
reasons that follo\v.
mission and melt away .into the darkness. All problems will Falling in love is nor
be overcome. The furure will be all light. The unreality of
.
chotce' No rnatter
a of will' It is not ;l conscious
how o.:-':: to or eage.r for it we
these feelings when we have fallen in love is essentially the experience .ry rilr mav be, the
ui-l Lbntrarily' the
same as the unreality of the two-year-old who feels itself to capture us at times "i"jjln experienc,
,rrh.',
be king of the family and the world with power unlimited.
Just as reality intrudes upon the two-year-old's fantasy of ;f I i J TXil:;LT #lliif wetr ;r.,,:l.ff i r
J
omnipotence so does reality intrude upon the fantastic unity nrarchcd as th31 are obviously ill
*i;h r;;;;'J".wtrh
of the couple who have fallen in love. Sooner or later, in even like ,;;;.,;:,:*nrore^suitable. Indeed, we may nor
response to the problems of daily living, individual will re- ".
asserts itself, He wants ro have sex; she doesn't. She wants to
go to the movies; he doesn't. He wan6 to put money in the
bank; she wants a dishwasher. She wants to talk about her
$${tr}{l{foj; {iltil#Iri,3,:ffi
no:,e
ff i:,ilr-,'Ji i;:'T ;'il; ;fi
iob; he wants to talk about his. She doesn't like his friends; inr,,n..,-f..q,"n,1; ;;ii'
#l:': :ii,'h; ;J""
dis.cipline' Psychiatrists, ".
for
he doesn't like hers. So both of them, in the privacy of their
il':^::"
,h.i. pr,i.n,r'i.t;';.,, ;;;,1:t*"h rheir patienrs,
iusr as
hearts, begin to come to rhe sickening realization that they
are nor one with the beloved, that the beloved has and will con-
ru nl * ilf"jle;:i'#;
f :;
J,,;'#""1' ",'il.': ;;:
tinue to have his or her own desircs, tastes, preiudices and
timing different from the other's. One by one, gradually or
suddenly, the ego boundaries snap back into place; gradually
-*rfu :i]r jfi:-3y.''ffi
or suddenly, they fall out of love. Once again they are two how i6 165p6j6 . ,ll .'*J".i'"totor:r:ate
ffi,:"','"{''*i:ffi
it. We .can choose
separate individuals. At this poinr they begin either to dis- falling in love, but we
solve thc ries of their relationship or to initiate the work of ",*'o, "t'oi.",i.;,.;:ijj:ft:ffi:
rarung rn love is
real loving.
. not an

By my use of the word "real" I am implying that the per-

ception that we are loving when we fall in love is a false [:*u* ii :r"irl*i*ii'n*lril; iffi J: r

perception-that our sublective sense of lovingness is an illu-

sion. Full elaboration of real love will be deferred undl later
in this section, However, by stating that ir is when a couplc
ifr
crous
a.ries
:[]t'1,1F$*#]T*;::,,.:l*'r:{:lff
-momenr of falling jn
have ,nrpp";-;;;uk
n* passed and
.lo
il,;":
f
the bo,'nd-
falls our of love they may begin to really love I am also
implying that real love does nor have its roots in a feeling of 1,1| "if :. limirs ffi
d,
!l,i; none the larger forj:1"
:l,;.:"11"fi'",i:
rs usuarv
#;:
the Ty _q"
ence. When are extlr,i ex,peri_
love. To the contrary, real love often occurs in a context in tenrl ro stay,,';;;il. 9' tt"t"t''6, ho-.ue., 'th"y
u,hich the feeling of love is lacking, when we act lovingly
I
i|j'ijlf
permanently
despite the fact that we don't feel loving. Assuming the real-
,
;ng..*p.,;.;,".. F,ii;;ffi;:T;:.a selr-enlarg-
r?rrrng.rn love has ,,,,t"
ity of the definirion of love with which we started, rhe ex- ones sprntual development.
. purposively nurturing
If 1:-*,-,:l
we nave any purpose
in mind
tl
 LovE Tbe Myth of Romantic Love 9l
9()
loneliness and
when we fall in love it is to terminate our ow-n
we are
through marriage' Cerrainly
l"il;;"*;; ;iL '"'utt develo-omenr' Indeed' after we have
ll:i ;ffit#;i'p'ii'"r again we
we nale fallen out of
frllen in love and before -love
iru. ^"iuta, that the heights.have b:tl t-t:
;illn;r; possibility ot gotng
,l""il ,rt., ,tt"* is both no need and no
ou'*iut"o be in any needof devel- Tlrc Myth of Romantic Loae
hisher. We do not feel
,oi"lly tonttn' to be where we are' our sptrtt
;,il;,,';;;;" beloved as o-t]lg^lli*o
i, at peace. Nor do we Pttt;;;;;t we perceive him
llt":"t'fi;i a"u.rop.tn"' To tht "ont'"ty' To serve as effectively as it does to trap us into marriage,
:;:il;Til;,'',, h,uing u"*
n'f:ff"1; ll,il;::"1,Y
thc experience of falling in love probably must have as one of
its characteristics the illusion that the experience will Iast
faLrlts in our beloved, we I
thet only add color end
Iittle quirks or darling tt"t'it'itititt forcver. This illusion is fostered in our culture by the com-
monly held myth of romantic love, which has its origins in
charm.
'"ii'ir itn in love is nor love' rhen what is it other than a our favorite childhood fairy tales, wherein the prince and
boundaries? I do not
of ego princess, once united, live happily forever after. The myth of
,.il#;"';;'p""i'r't"u'o* tf,e phenonrelti l:if *'
know. Bur the sexual spec'ntiry of romantic love tells us, in effect, that for every young man in
tl'etermined tltJ::*"
r() sttsDect rhat it is ' g;t"tttty th€' tem-
the world there is a young woman who was "meant for him,"
.';,;;;;; oi *t'lng bef,avior' In other \vords' and vice versa. Moreover, the mvth implies that there is only
one man meant for a woman and only one woman for a man
;:l[':i'#.':i".g::'*tlti::'J."J;H':'"';*l[',.:l
love is a stereotyPlc resPons
and rhis has been predetermined "in the stars." When we
;;;';i it,.."ir"t*.''i a'iu"' externil sexual stimuli' meet the person for whonr we are intended, recognition
'na sexual pairing and
.;i";:";;;;,; increase the probability of comes through the fact that we fall in love. We have met the
of the species' Or to person for whom all the heavens inrended us, and since the
bondins so as to enhance th'" 'u'uiuti
;::;"f" il;, ;;;; ;; wav, rauing ti
l:,..1.' "-?-''"u
match is perfect, we will then be able to satisfy all of each
other's needs forever and ever, and therefore live happily
i;;,' ; ;;. ;;;;' *l 1,::^';;,', jlru::U"X;t
hoodwink or traP us lnto n
f ,ff 'J:
"*htn t'he teiu"l &1"::-:l-d
forever after in perfect union and harmony. Should it come
.rwrv one *ry o' 'notht''- t' to pass, however, that we do not satisfy or meer all of each
.i-ltri"* nJi,o."*o"t or when other forces-parental rnter- other's needs and friction arises and we fall out of love, then
responsibilities or rnature it is clear that a dreadful mistake was made, we misread the
i"t.*., ***f illness' conflicring
''o 'the bonding' On the
self-discipline-suPerve-ne ottitnt stars, we did not hook up with our one and only perfect
illusory and inevitably
other hand, without thts iti"it' 'nit match, what we thought was love was not real or "true" love,
,.-""r*t iia would not be practical were
ii not temporary) and nothing can be done abour rhe situation except ro live
::T#';i ;dirig
J #;;;ii" and omnipotence' manv or us unhappily ever after or get divorced.
;il;;'i;P;iiy o' unr'iooil'" married'todav would have While I generally 6nd that great myths are grelt precisely
;.;.r; in ilnJt"nt"""a t'"lt- rto'n the realism of the mar- because they represent and embody great universal truths
(and will explore several such myths later in rhis book), the
riage vows. /
 LOVE The Myth of Romtttic Looe 93
92

\ mvth of romantic love is a dreadful lie' Perhaps it is

a neces- cally in love with each orher and are able still to be commit-
tn*'"' tht survival of the species.bv its ted to their relationship, they still cling to the myth and
l;i;'il;';ilt,
';*;;;;;;;; velidation of the falling-inJove attempt to conform their lives to it. "Even though we have
,na
".'ing
experience that traPs us rnt;..marriage
fallen out of love, if we ac by sheer will power as if we still
T: ::::':r*:t:1.1
dailv for ihe ghastlv confusion and were in love, then maybe romanric love will retuin ro our
ii;,in;uT;';,-il;' waste vest lives," their thinking goes. These couples prize rogetherness.
r"nfu"g tfiat this myth fosters' Millions of peopte attempttng to When they enter couples group therapy (which is ihe setting
;;;;; of energy desperatelv and futilely in which my wife and I and our close colleagues conduct
il;;-h" ,."litv Jf thti''liues c'onform to thi unreality of the
husband out most serious marriage counseling), they sir rogether, speak
ffi; ;;';. iGon"t' herself absurdly tomvherhusband when for each other, defend each other's faults and s.ik to pris"trt
;il;il;';;;iil;i aia*, reallv love
I did' i. guess .l tricked to the.rest of the group a united front, believing this unity to
;."#;t;4,';;f. .rv,' "t Pretended and I be a.sign of rhe relative health of their marriage and a pre-
ht;^;;;';;'t" i h"ui no right to complain
-about.him'
Mr' B' laments: "I requisite for its improvement. Sooner or later, and usul y
;;; i; r. hi* ,o do whateier he wanis"' sooner, we mu$ tell most couples that they are too much
;;; i;i;;;, ;arry l\{iss C' I thinkover we could have had a
heels in love with married, too closely coupled, and thar they need ro establish
;il';";,.i"s;. But i didn't feel head
il;J'i';";Jrn' be. the right person for-me'" some psychological di{tence from each orher before they can
"outan't
years! becomei severely depressed even begin to work consrucrively on their problems, Some-
il;;.-b; ."iri.d fo, two times it is actually necessary to physically separate them,
;;;;';;;;"; .,u,", enters therapv stating; "l ,don't
'nd rncludrng a d.irecung them to sir eparr from eacl; other in the group
kno* *hai\ wrong. I've got everything l.need' circle. It is always necessary ro ask them to refrain -from
,,"*""a -^rrire."'bnly nit'nths l"it'"ttt she accept
the fact
this speaking for each other or defending each other againsr rhe
il;","t," i;;;'i;fi;n out;f love with her husband but that group. Over and over again we musr say, "Let Mary speak
mistake' Mr' E-' also
;;;;, ;;;; that she made a horrible
begins to sufier intense headaches in
the for herself, John," and "John can defend himself, Mary,- he's
;;;;-,;t;rs, strong enough." Ultimately, if they stay in therapy, all cou-
;;;;.';;i canit b"elieve rhey are ,psycfosomatic
^*Mv
the day I married ples learn th"t a t oe acceptance of'their own'and each\
i... fif. is 6ne. I love rny o'ife as muchheaisays' other's individuality and s€parareness is the only foundation
f,.r. Sn.t evervthinf l ever wanted," But.his.head-
upon which a marure marriage can be based and real love
aches don't leave him until a year later'
when he ls able to
way she rs always can grow.{
admit, "She bugs the hell out of me the
*"tiitn. -*,ifig, wanting things without regard to my sal-
.ia then is able to confront her with her extravagance
".u."
;1. F. acknowledge to each other that they have
fallen";;-M;t.
out of love and then proceed to make each other
mls- 'Those who have read the O'Neils' book Qpen Martiage wrll
each search for recognize this to be a basiq tenet of the open as opposed to the closed
;i;;; -ururl ,r.p,nt iitna"uty as theyvery merriage. The O'Neils were actually remarkably gentle and resuained
,i" *. r.u.," nd, realizing that their -aclnowledg- in their proselytizing for open marriage. My work with couples has
',.r.
ment could mark the beginning of the work of
thetr marrtage led me to the stark conclusion that open marriage is the only kind of
i,r...ra of its end. Evei u'he-n couples have acknowledged mature marriage that is healrhy and not seriously destructive to the
romantl-
that the honeymoon is over, that they are no longer spiritual health and growth of the individual partners.
9+ LOVE More About Ego Boundaries gs
and pruning. And he knows
his particular garden_its his_
tory, the rypes of flowers and
lems and even irs furure.
pr1i, i"ii'i" iry"r,,i"-, p-o_
Deipite .h.-i;;;.irr,,'iJ'_.ra*
exists outside of him, through
ri,
exist within him. His knowiedge "ri'r,ti,
i nr, -
for him are parr. of him, pari of his
J;;;; ,l,"?."."r#i,
"ji""f_"n*
More About Ego Boundaries ia.rii.vl'plr,"or ni,
hrsrory, parr of his wisdom., By
loving ,rJ,"rrt."irg f,i,
Having proclaimed that the experience of "falling in love"
gardcn he has in quite a ,eat
i^y id;;;;r;";;.'nj.o""
and by. this incorpoiation rii. *rr
is a sort
-oi
illusion which in no way constitutes real love, let ::11': ll-,,
cnrargco and nrs ego boundaries extended.
rra."U.".."r.
me conclude by shifting into reverse and pointing o-ut -thet *rn:pi.es then in rlre course of many years
falling in love is in fact very, very close to real love' Ind.eed,
,-_*^Tl
rng, or exrendlng our limits for our of lov_
carhexes, ;, i eoaud Uu,
the rn'isconception that falling in love is a type of love is so progressive enlarsement of the
self, r" lr,"*p"rr?;",r"'#,ni"
pot.nt precisely because it contains a grain of truth. of the world u.itf,out, and a growrh,
' Theixperience of real love also has to do with ego bound- n:ng of our ego boundaries.
a strerching and a thin_
I-n this way ,t. .".". ,"i i"rg",
aries, since it involves an extension o{ one's limits. One's lim- rve exrend ourselves. the more
we love, ,t rno.a Uti_aa
its are one's ego boundaries. When we extend our limits becomes. the distinction between
the self and "the world. We
rhrough love, rie do so by reaching out' so to sp_eak, toward become idenrified with the world.
And *;";;;; iJ",ia".,",
the bJoved, whose growth we wish to nurture. For us to be become blurred and thinned,
b"gi; ;;;.-;;;;"
able to do this, the 6eloved object mu$ 6rst become beloved experience the same sort of ieeling
-" ."
;;; ;;';"r"
ro us; in other words, we must be attracted toward, invested
1'he1. y.ego
boundaries partiailf "?;"r; Jrj'_.lt"ii
in and committed to an obiect outside of ourselves, beyond in
iove." O.nly, instead of harling ""ilrpr.
merged temporarily and un_
rhe boundaries of self. Psychiatrists call this process of at- realisticatly wjth a sinsle u.r"","a
traction, investment and commitment "cathexis" and say that realistically and more
3up.,, ;;;;,i.TI.g"o
we "cathect" the beloved object. But when we cathect an iermanently uih
A. "mysrical union', wiih the entire
_"li
world may be "i,rr.'*"ira.
established.
obiect outside of ourselves we also psychologically incor- ecsrasy or brio
porate a representation of that obiect into ourselves. For l5^,::lp-:r "r;;i,..J';,i,-,iirt"j.",
P.lTrp",,Tore. gentle and less dramatic rhan rhar asso_
example, let us consider a man who gardens for a hobby. It is 1".l1.,
clated wtth f alfing.in love, is nonetheless much
a satisfying and consuming hobby. He "loves" gardening. His ano tastrng arrd ultimately sarisfying.
_or" ,rrbl"
garden means a lot to him. This man has cathected his gar-
It is the difierence be-
rween.tne peak experience, rypified
den. He finds it anractive, he has invested himself in it, he is
by falling in love, and
what Abraham Maslow has i&rued
committed 1e i1-56 much so that he may iump out of bed to tn?,.pf","ru.*_
hcights are not suddenty",gti.p,JJ-";
early Sunday morning to get back to ir, he may refuse to Till"::
agalni tney Ih:
"1are attajned forever. r*,
travel away from it, and he may even neglect his wife for it. Ir is obv.ious and generally understood that
In the process of his cathexis and in order to nurture his sexual activity
flowers and skrubs he learns a great deal. He comes to know
'Religions, Values, tnd peak_Experiences (New york: Vikinp
much about gardening-about soils and fertilizers, rooting 1970), preftce.
 96 LOVE
and love, while they may occur simultaneously, ofren are
disasociated because rhey are basically separ;re phenom-
ena. In itself, making love is not an act of love. Nonetheles
the experience of sexual intercourse, and parricularly of
r-,rgasm (even in nrasturbation), is an experience also aisoci-
ated with a greater or lesser degree of collapse of ego
boundaries and atrendanr ecsrasy. It is because Lf this cJl_
lirpse of ego boundaries that we may shout at the moment of
climax "I love you" or "Oh, God" to a prostirute for whom
nloments later, after the ego boundaries have snapped back
into place, wc may feel no shred of afiecrion, liking or invesr-
ment.. This is not to say that rhe ecsrasy of rh-e orgasmic
experience cannot be heightened by sharing it with oni who
is beloved; it can. Bur even wirhoui a beloied partner or any
parrner the collapse of ego boundaries occurring in coniunc-
tion with. orgasm may bc total; for a second wi may totally
forger who we are, Iose rrack of self, be losr in iime and
space, be outside of ourself, be transported. We may become
, )ne wirh the universe.
But only for a second.
In describing the prolonged "oneness with the universe"
associated with real love as compared to the momentarv
oneness of orgasm, I used the wordi ,,mystical union." Mysti-
r:ism is essenrially a belief rhat reality is oneness. The mosr
literal of mystics believe rhet our common perception of the
runiverse as containing mulritudes of discreie oblects_stars,
planets, trees, birds, houses, ou15slyg5-2ll separated frorn
one another by boundaries is a misperception, an illusion. To
this consensual misperception, this world of illusion that
rrrosr of us mistakenly believe to be real, Hindus and
Iluddhrsrs apply the word "Maya." They and orher mysrics
hold thar.rrue realiry can be known only by experiencing the
oneness rhrough a giving up of ego boundaries. It is iripos_
stble ro really see the uniry of rhe universe as long as one
conrinues to see oneself as a discrete object, sepaiate and
tlistinguishable from the rest of the universe in any way,
shape or form. Hindus and Buddhists frequently hold, there_
fore, that the infant before the development o'f ego Lourrd_
More About Ego Boundaries 97
aries knows reality, while aduls do not. Some even suggest
that the path toward enlightenment or knowledge of the
oneness of reality requires that we regress or make ourselves
iike infants. This can be a dangerously tempting doctrine for
cenain adolescents and young adults who are not prepared
to assume adult responsibilities, which seem frightening and
overrvhelming and demanding beyond their capacities. "I do
nor have to go through all this," such a person may think. "l
can give up trying to be an adult and retreat from adult
dcnrands into sainthood." Schizophrenia, however, rather
than sainrhood, is achieved by acting on this supposition.
\{ost mystics understand the rruth that was elaborated at
rhe end of the discussion of discipline: namely, that we must
possess or achieve something before we can give it up and
srill maintain our compet€nce and viability. The infant with-
out its ego boundaries may be in closer touch with reality
than its parents, but it is incapable of surviving without the
care of these parents and incapable of communicating its
I
u'isdom. The path to sainthood goes through adulthood.
l,,'
There are no quick and easy shortcuts. Ego boundaries must
be hardened before they can be softened. An iCentity must
be established before it can be transcended. One musr find
one's self before one can lose it. The temporary release fronr
cgo boundaries associated with falling in love, sexual inter-
course or the use of certain psychoacrive drugs may provide
rus rvirh a glimpse of Nirvana, bur nor rvith Nirvana itself. It
is a thesis of this book that Nirvana or lasting enlightenmenr
or true spiritual growth can be achieved only through the
persistent exercise of real love.
In summary, then, the temporary loss of ego boundaries
involved in falling in love and in sexual inrercourse not only
leads us to nrake commitments to other people from rvhich
real love may begin but also gives us a forerasre of (and
therefore an incentive for) the more lasring mystical ecstasy
that can be ours after a lifetime of love. As such, therefore,
rvhile falling in love is not itself love, it is a part of the great
and mysterious scheme of love.