In the previous article, we saw the role of our love beliefs on our feelings. How does what we think of Love invite us or not to fall in love?
Here, the goal is to see the sentimental process at the heart of the relationship and how we can influence it to be loved by the Other.
Whether or not manipulation. Comments will be open for that and the debate is welcome!
The place of the definition of Love within a relationship
When we meet someone we like, we go through a whole biological game. We interpret it according to our beliefs and the definition we have of Love.
But, there is a difference between saying that it can be Love and admitting that it is.
Admitting is conditioning yourself to be in love. It is to bond with the other in a lasting, deep way. In short, self-fulfilling prophecy.
The same goes for the boy we covet.
The role of “I love you”
The ” I love you “, in this sense, is crucial in the love process. It is the moment when we admit the signs that pass through us as being of Love. It is the moment when we stop our definition of Love on the current situation.
We say “I love you”, but we also say:
” I tell my brain that I love you. I will, therefore, close my eyes to everything that makes me think otherwise and overinterpreted my proofs of Love. My brain is human, it can’t stand inconsistency. My feelings pass-through this declaration of an interpretation to a proven fact. In fact, it is especially to myself that I admit being in love. “
Self-fulfilling prophecy, again.
The brain is wise, it rarely contradicts us. If we are convinced that we love someone, all the moments of the spleen in life will be associated with the lack caused by the absence of the other.
While it may well be that the image of the other just comes to fill the boredom of time T, because we know, boredom kills human beings. Therefore, the obsessive thought for the other would hold much more of a propensity for boredom, than of this ideal which is called Love. (For example.)
How to make him fall in love?
On magnetism, I am not sure that we can act. Unless you put GHB in Jules’ glass, but it’s not very polite (and it’s very ephemeral).
On the general belief of Love, we can do nothing. Everything is done, it’s Mama’s fault (as Freud would say).
It is therefore on the redefinition of Love that we can act.
Once the biological surge is in place, it is a question of Jules being convinced that it is Love so that he falls in love. Even if it represents for him a “romantic surprise.” “
Simple in the idea. In the idea.
However, we cannot impose a blank definition of Love. For Jules to be convinced, he must think that this redefinition comes from him and from him alone. We are, indeed, the muse of his feelings (of his sentimental decision), but this decision comes from him.
Error in the request for proof
We cannot “convince” Jules that he loves us.
To ask him (too early) for proof of Love (responses to our texts, sweet words, commitments) is to do sentimental forcing. It is pushing him to admit love and commitment before the deep decision comes from him. Before he is spiritually committed.
Basically, we invite him too early to take a position on these feelings. He must quickly decide whether he loves us or not, to offer us (or not) the proofs of this Love. To choose to love someone is to accept being caught in a minimum of dependence on the Other.
(Another debate, can Love be lived in total independence? We will come back to this.)
So Jules had not admitted to being in love upstream, that he was still in a sentimental vagueness. Like any reasoned person, he will flee. Normal, he does not feel up to the sentimental expectations placed on him.
The excuse will be banal, but sincere: “I’m afraid of hurting you.”
Which usually means,
” You are asking me to make a decision about my feelings that I was not ready to take.” But, since you have to give you an answer now what I have to offer you, I prefer to say: “nothing”, because I’m not sure I can do it tomorrow. And, if I don’t love you, in the end? You will be unhappy through my fault and I do not want to take this responsibility. “
If you want a man to love you, don’t force his hand. There is big conditioning hanging over them: not to harm girls, to be responsible for their happiness when you are in love with them. So awkwardly, in those moments, he tries to protect you.
The decision you ask him comes too soon, in the midst of too many doubts.
Imposing a definition of love by evidence, as we have seen, is not effective. However, it is on this definition that we can give birth to love in the other.
Again, we start from the assumption that we already like the guy, that he already lives a little of this biological surge (otherwise, the strategy does not work.)
When we ask for evidence, we also say that, for the moment, we do not yet see (enough) the Love of the other, therefore that he does not have enough.
The idea would, therefore, be to have the opposite approach.
Seeing Love where the other does not necessarily see it, to make him understand that there is already. That what he does for us already corresponds to a definition of Love. Even if this definition is not (yet) his.
In other words, we announce to him that he is already in love. (And why not? If the definitions of Love are multiple, they are also flexible.)
Therefore, Jules no longer has to decide if he is sufficiently in love to offer Love as evidence. He only has to accept that these gestures already have some.
In other words, if he wants to love us, he has only one effort to make: nod. Love does not ask for more. (Unlike the construction of the relationship based on an ideal … But, that comes after.)
Of course, facing the Other, the simulation does not hold. We cannot pretend to see Love in the other. We must be authentically convinced that the Other loves us without realizing it.
The “love surprise” that we talked about in the previous article stems from the faith of the Other in a new definition of Love. In other words, if we really believe that the other already loves us, we can reshape his definition of Love and bring him to love us too. (And vice versa).
We impose (by force of our belief) our interpretation as the only possible one.
Don’t be scared
To see another’s love, you have to love it already. Love him without fear that the feelings will be disappointed. In other words, trust in Love, while knowing the fluctuation of its definitions. And, that, it undermines cognitive coherence.
We usually wait for the other to convince us of his Love, to give credibility to his feelings. We do not trust either our beliefs, the other, or ourselves. And, this constant doubt, this fear of losing is often what causes premature ruptures. However, we think of doubt as saving, we think that it protects us.
The error may be there. She is human and banal, but terribly disabling.
Perhaps it is necessary to change our way of looking at Love. Perhaps it should be seen as a collective delirium (or two), a crazy belief, a crazy invention, which we provoke by sentimental faith.
If this is the case, it is because of the conviction that we give birth to it in ourselves and in the other. In this case, it is possible that trust in our feelings and in the strength of our belief is enough to make us love others.
Maybe it’s the redefinition of Love that Rimbaud was talking about when he said “Love is reinvented. “
To believe in our feelings, to convey this belief to Jules, is to reassure him. It is to say to him that we love him with strength. To believe in his feelings is to believe in him.
In other words, it means putting a deep trust in the relationship, rather than waiting for the trust to come from external evidence (from Jules.)
In addition, Jules seeing his gestures, his attentions as already Love, can love in his own way, his own. It will be immediately accepted by you. No more “forced” evidence! Paradoxically, there is a good chance that he will show you his love more and more. In its own way. It’s up to you to continue to see it.
In other words, the best way to make a man fall in love is to be convinced that he is in love. As the salespeople say, be convinced, you will convince.
And you, do you believe in the strength of love belief? Have you ever had an experience where only this belief served as evidence?