Maybe because I am currently busy with very practical things, like for instance wrapping up chapter three of a book, making of a commemorative magazine a reality, undertaking an outdoors makeover almost by myself and pursuing a few other less demanding activities, I feel the urgency of writing down some conclusions of my latest observations.
I’ve been fascinated by love. I really wanted to describe it the best way I could. For a couple of years I tried to find a word, an expression, a feeling, something so close to what love is that I would exclaim: ‘That’s it!’
I suppose different people can experience love differently. Therefore, from the start, a definition of love can never be that accurate.
Love is as real as any other feeling can be. And my conclusion is that love is nothing else but a high degree of admiration for someone. In short, if we admire another person to any level up, and if that admiration is of such nature that requires some retributive admiration back, than that is love.
I truly believe love is admiration. Such definition can explain its temporality. Because what I admire today can be different from what I shall admire tomorrow. And, most of the times, the qualities or aspects we admired in someone disappear or we stop to see them the same way. We change or the other changes…
My interest for love led me to think about pleasure too. That component is also very interesting. There is no question that people in general feel compelled to express love through pleasure, but both feelings, love and pleasure, are completely independent. Love survives without pleasure. Pleasure exists without love. I would say that pleasure is a possible instrument of love or not. Caffè latte or just coffee.
The most interesting conclusion I reached about pleasure is that we are very wrong in terms of its source. People, in general, regard pleasure as something they can give to someone or receive from someone, kind of a gift. That’s why some keep waiting in vain. My perception is that there are millions incapable of giving or receiving pleasure. They are so right! Pleasure is not to give or receive, that is my very own conclusion. Pleasure is something that we are able to feel or don’t. It’s a self-experience. As it is evident, we all can potentially have that self-experience. It can be more or less intense. It can be natural or learned…
And if by now you are jumping on your seat and asking ‘What the heck is she talking about? We cannot give or receive pleasure? How come?’, I do insist: you cannot give pleasure to someone who cannot feel it or is not interested in feeling it; you cannot receive pleasure from someone not interested in giving it or incapable of giving it. So the question around pleasure cannot be the responsibility of giving or the passivity of receiving but something else. Sharing is the way to put it. Pleasure is feeling and sharing. Feeling what you feel with someone… Not necessarily with someone you love. Preferably with someone you love. I consider pleasure as specific physical reactions with deep emotional impact. If you are capable of that, then you can share it with someone. It is in you and it is up to you.