The undue reciprocal after a separation

When the contact between the lover and the other (the beloved subject) is broken off, the situation arises that the other recognizes that the lover likes things (art, music, movies, …) that are of deep meaning to the beloved subject.

Because the lover has to be cast out so that the other can continue to live his life, the other must now come to terms with the fact that the lover likes the same things. Emergent situations can therefore be: a) things must be devalued, b) it must be constructed that the lover does not understand or appreciate things at all (the lover is just a stupid guy, pretending to understand the true meaning of these things). For example, in the fine details, the precise differences of appreciation towards things are sought, so that a difference is “constructed”. There are, of course, also cases where there is actually no true appreciation of the lover for the treasures of the beloved subject (loving a person does not mean sharing his or her preference for things), but here we will consider the case where it is assumed that the lover has actually become attached to the deeper meaning contained in things. The lover is so to speak: “capable”

The lover realizes that the other (the loved subject) has to struggle with the fact that he has a possession that he should not really have. This is particularly evident when the lover improperly presents particularly rare and obscure things (for example, on online profiles) that were originally a treasure of the other.

There are those people who have an affinity to things (art, music, movies, …) from their own life story and those people who “behold” things. The lover is a beholder who discovers something and captures it for himself. The loved subject, on the other hand, is not a possessor but a presenter. The beloved subject (in the sense of a lost person) presents works as a reflection of his or her own intimacy in order to be able to search for soul mates whose true life story is contained in the works (as with the beloved subject). The lover, on the other hand, is an outsider, because he understands the works and is filled by them, but he can never claim that the works are a mirror of his world, because he loves the works because they are different from him; they correspond to the beloved subject. He is not the protagonist of these works, so to speak, but (unfortunately only) a consumer.

It seems shameful to the other (the lost) that the works were presented to the lover and that he holds them up like a trophy. For the other person, it seems as if the lover robs him/her of something (or denies him/her a meaning), and it is not understood in the way the lover intended.

The lover (in an exuberantly inquiring manner) may think about the fact that the other now feels shame when he looks at the works/things. The lover now punishes himself for taking away the joy of the works from the beloved subject and for standing in an unseemly way between the beloved subject and his (sacred, or valuable) works, leaving his fingerprint on them in the mental world. He feels like King Midas, who turns everything he touches into gold. Everything he touches turns into worthlessness in the eyes of his beloved subject.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *