Monday, April 11, 2011

"Falling" in love

Does the phrase "falling in love" not suggest that love is a base, a fundamental aspect of the human experience? Clearly if you fall you descend, you go from a standing posture to one where you succumb to gravity's pull. You are essentially losing control of your ability to be upright.

On that point, the act of "falling" in love is somewhat analogous; it's not really a matter of willing yourself to be "in love" but relinquishing control of your emotions. However, unlike literal falling where you descend quickly and stop only by catching yourself or by hitting the ground and it happens suddenly, the "falling" associated with love is often used to describe a process that starts slightly and grows, developing over time, and not really like literal falling any more.

Love as a fundamental base is certainly apropos, but when it's right it's not something from which one would wish to rise. So again the "falling" metaphor falls short; as it suggests that to no longer be in love is to get up from a position in which you didn't wish to be in the first place. And while there's definitely instances where there's something of that, the ideal of love is not what one would consider a bad position.

And if it's sudden, it may be merely an something else that is inappropriately attributed to love.

Perhaps we should use the phrasing "growing in love" or "evolving in love" to better describe the actual scenario. However, those sound too scientific to seem romantic, and hence they'll never catch on.

So we're stuck with "falling."

There are worse things than such rhetoric, such as the absence of love, regardless of the language one uses to describe reaching that.

1 comment:

  1. I think the "falling" aspect matches the butterfly, zero-gravity feeling in your stomach. That's chemicals, your limbic system reacting hormonally to your lover. And it should NEVER be trusted.


So, what do you think?