It takes most of a life time to discover how the word and concept “love” is weaponized to block natural responses to the objectionable and/or repressive conduct of others.
Not saying: “I love you,” no longer, to my ear, means: I lack love for you, or, I lack a desire for your well being. It does mean, more and more: I wish to give myself a pass, a compliment of sorts, or to disarm myself or you, or both. I wish to advertise my own “lovingness,” by asserting those iconic words.
Really, it should work in reverse or no at all. You (one) say(s) to me (other:) “You love me–” or else, nobody says it.
Why should we always declare something so self serving, usually right at the moment when we are most uncomfortable with ourselves?
“I love you.” The most common raindrop of self-serving sound.
Is it violent? It’s muddling, and for animals that is not love. You love me? Great–but is it safe to cross this river? Is there ‘love” outside of habitual, protective, rightfully vigilant responses?
There are two ways of being: Free and unfree.
The more you “love” somebody, the less you let them be themselves, say what they want to say, when they want to, how they want to.
I’m as lousy at this as everybody else but I can’t STAND it, so I…compensate.
Every day I intend, and fail, to understand more about things like Reich’s segmental armoring theories, which sound so majestic. My old friend Tom DiFerdinando knows about this in detail and depth.
Families become body casts, iron lungs–we freeze, go rigid, so anything at all, daily, rather than admit to the “failed” emotions: Hurt, anger, fear–
I don’t think Reich, for all his brilliance, ever set foot on or near the moon. In other words: How to take off our suits of armor.