Humans in relationships generally fall into two roles, lover and beloved. In any relationship, love will never be perfectly reciprocated. There is always a person with stronger feelings. So the question is… would you rather be the lover or the beloved?
The beloved tends more often to be the object of the lover’s affection. Both are comfortable with their role, and the relationship thrives. I’ve experienced both sides. Both are possible with the right person.
Love may also be unconcerned with this. Love is not a choice. It seems certain women draw more feelings out of me than others. I don’t choose which ones.
Maybe a good relationship is one where the roles of lover and beloved are constantly changing, keeping each other on their toes.
I wrote the below to myself back in January as I was mentally preparing for a solo trip to Australia.
If my mind is right and my actions are focused, I will be ok. Walk the line between action and inaction. Know when to speak up and when to be quiet. Adapt. Interpret carefully and be easy. Smile. Listen as much as possible. Try to understand the people you are unfamiliar with. Don’t endanger yourself. Be cautious. Be slow. Don’t get too drunk. Try to relax. Get cozy in a strange land. Don’t expect too much of yourself. Don’t expect too much of others. Realize you’re human. Don’t expect too much of yourself. Have fun. Remember the universe is all one being, and all of our problems are each other’s problems. We should always try to help. We are all connected to each other. The self is an illusion, we’re all only as good as each other. Laugh a little bit but not too much. Be light on stories unless someone asks you. Try to find your true nature, whatever that is. Be yourself. Learn to surf and ride the fucking wave.
My first thought is… no. It has meaning in the feelings, emotions and connections we experience with other living things. I believe meaning is dependent on the perception of the other living things outside of ourselves. In other words, nothing exists without someone or something else to perceive it.
What are the things that happen if they are not perceived by a living thing? Like the old thought proverb:
“If a tree falls in the woods and no one is around to hear it, does it make a sound?”
Part of me thinks existence alone justifies meaning. If something is perceived by something else at any given time, then it exists and it has meaning. So a tree that falls has meaning (or in this case, makes a sound) if someone or something else is there to hear it.
Let’s say a meteor hits Earth, wiping out all living creatures and all traces of life. Life and meaning do not hinge on continual perception. Even after they are gone, Earthly organisms existed with purpose. If a thing is perceived by one, at any time, that thing exists with purpose, in my opinion. This is a rosy view of meaning and life, but to me it beats the alternative: that we are random fluctuations in universal particles that accidentally achieved consciousness. I like the idea that even the mundane aspects of our world have meaning.
I try to remind myself to be happy there are other humans and animals around to see me and share this world. They give our lives meaning, if you believe so.
Edit – came across this quote from Albert Einstein after I wrote this, seemed relevant: “There are only two ways to live your life. One is as though nothing is a miracle. The other is as though everything is a miracle.”