This is partially why the ‘romantics’ evolve into the most futile relationships, allowing for love to thrive and prosper; lending to no limits of being, they become united with an object of love fairly quickly. Many issues arise with the process of becoming ‘one’ with another, with negative experiences having a simplistic outlet for projection and misinterpretation as one such problem. For in the sense of oneness, the integrated party must contain a causal relationship with all negative experiences, as they are ‘one’ and the same in all regards. Similarly with the romantics, when they fully engage with the positive emotions, as in the statements “I can’t live without you” or “I am a better person with you”, seemingly to be loving and caring, will result in, “You make my life unbearable”, “When I am with you, I feel like nothing”.
Being so willing to attribute these positive emotions to romantic partners, the negative emotions being of the same source will become associated as well. To erroneously attribute another human being to be the causal relationship for their experience, when darkness overcomes light, they will be “making” life unbearable, which frames them in the worst possible light. For somebody to have that much power attributed with the availability to control and dictate the entirety of the subjective experience, they are the cause of all possible suffering and anguish. This is a malevolent being of which one should submit all energy to overcome its intrusion.
It’s easy to be allured to the call of the romantics, seemingly spiritual and transcendent, with a demonstration of life in its extended form. This is a classic deception, as there is always a heightened spiritual experience before the fall. The glow emanating from paradise, from the Garden of Eden, from the utopian state of being of where good and evil reside in unison. The misstaken step is to associate a spiritual experience as the pointer towards the righteous direction, just as the Tree of Knowledge is a failed ideal, even in its glorious promise. That urge of the romantics surely contains truth, one not well understood by the romantics. There is that perfection from the ultimate integration of unison, that is through deliberation with the constant attempt towards unity and its release towards individuality. The falsehood is within the action, to assume an attainable object to be had in contrast to the natural flow of relationships.
The ‘glow’ does not prove to be a truthful direction and very well can become a force of deception, since the actual truth is not fundamentally understood. For instance, porn, which contains a heightened sense of that ‘glow’, allowing us to believe it as a truth purposeful of an endeavor. The truth as discussed, is quite complex as all sexuality is, for one, that a sexual fantasy at that ‘fantastic’ level, alludes to the possibility of creating a being with all our imaginative processes. With such fantasy garnishing an arousal of higher proportion, to be deeply intimate with the creation process is surely ‘truthful’. The falsehood of pursuing such an imaginative element of sexuality does result in the actual creation of a child. Even if the motive for such imaginative sexual imagary is to create a child, the fantasy was mostly formed externally, in contrast with the internal imaginative work.
This glow, the glow of romantics, was this same glow which idol worship had emanated. Since all idol worship had such deception, it was easy to misconstrue the proper course of action towards such. The truth in its understood form, is its power emanating from the one God of heaven and earth, the failure is in believing that the idol was inherently the source of power, without any recognition of the hierarchical structure leading to the Omnipresent at the top. As we develop our sense of the subjective experience and that of God, we will experience this glow more often and must learn to decipher the truth from its falsehood.
I find the true difficulty with the romantics in the willingness to be “one” despite all the expense of such an endeavor. The identification of being “one” can be transcendent in one context and the depths of hell in another context, like the view that your spouse “makes your life unbearable”.
Being “one” in a transcendent manner consists of never fully integrating the two to be one, for this is the cardinal mistake of the romantics. There must be a singularity of each being for the integration of being one, the final “one” should consist of two parts and not devoid of the individuality of any party involved. The idea of burning your soul for love of another is a form of suicide and must be avoided at all costs. We must have a premise of always allowing individuality to thrive amongst all the integrations of life, we must have a home to fall back on; a safe place to reside from the storm.
I think this is partially why we have this concocted view that we must devoid ourselves of our own beings in relation to God. The same source of thinking from the romantic, we tend to burn our souls towards the integration with God. Never is the personal accounted for, the individuality in Torah life. We think this is a virtuous form of connection and we congratulate those who lack complete autonomy for their striving for God. I will not find proofs from Torah or from Rabbinic teachings for this must be as clear as the body which you possess.
Self-sacrifice is despicable, destructive and demonstrates a hatred towards humanity and creation. It is a form of anger towards God, “I will burn myself to God, to punish God for the existence of my being”. We must pinpoint this particular problem as this is fundamental in our stumbling through life; with our fellow man and with God.
Self-commitment must be the prerequisite to every external attempt, even the loftiest like reaching the presence of God; especially when reaching to something so transcendent like God. Do you imagine God, having the willingness to destroy his perfect world, because this is what you do in your world? So you can destroy your being as you reach the ultimate being that is God, of which you assume will not tamper with his being for you.
Why the inconsistency, if God will protect his world and will not deviate from his perfect existence, when you integrate with God and become “one” with him, how can you destroy your being and individuality? If you are one with God then, you will protect your individuality as God does. For the humble amongst you, stating that you are not one with God, as who could be, then why are you burning your individuality? Either you are one or you are not one, even if you are attempting to become one, at this very moment you are not one, so why would you burn your soul to nothing. And I hope you are not saying that God is willing to destroy his individuality, for you would be a Christian and more importantly, someone who belittles the omnipresent perfection. Read it again. Think about this argument.
This needs to be the basis of all earthly relationships, an individuality which will not be broken in the reaching towards connection. You will be protected from the romantics demise and more importantly the possibility of having a transcendent relationship.
Theory of Social Exchange and Personhood
Reciprocity, Identity, and the Foundations of Social Being