Although I was born in New Jersey, I spent a formative part of my youth was as a missionary kid overseas. As soon as I got back to The States for college, I stopped going to church because I didn’t like the petty political aspects of organized religion. Over the past several years, however, I’ve been noticing that many of the “good” people I’ve been coming across are Christian, are not boring, and are not trying to recruit my soul so my body will pad the pews. A few nights ago I had a really excellent time chatting with a Christian friend of mine who is active in several churches, so I thought I’d brush up on my understanding of Christian fundamentals via Wikipedia. Serendipitously, I came across the mention of C.S. “Chronicles of Narnia” Lewis’ book The Four Loves, which “explores the nature of love from a Christian perspective”.

It wasn’t Lewis’ opinion that I found interesting; rather it was the Greek source material regarding the nature of love. In today’s usage of the word, “love” is used as a kind of catch-all phrase. The Greek philosophers (modern Greek too, for that matter) have more words for it, describing a range of human emotional connections from the superficial to the sublime. Browsing through the concepts of agape, storge, philia and eros was very educational. And I saw answers to one of the current great conundrums of my life: the lack of a romantic partner:

what I believed

Like many single guys, I’m searching for “romantic love”, but have of late been rather discouraged at the seeming impossibility of finding that magic combination of attraction, excitement, compatibility, and contentment. Part of this despair, I suspect, has been the worry that I don’t really know what romantic love is. At some point I decided, like many people do, to have faith, create situations that I can enjoy and share, and above all trust my gut. However, while the gut may react strongly, it’s still up to the brain to figure out what to do about it. On top of that, I think there are at least two components of my gut:

• The emotional gut, which I don’t question–I’m either intrigued or I’m not.
• The thoughtful gut, which I think of as intuition. Intuition, however, is a kind of crap shoot based on what we’ve experienced before (finding patterns) and what our beliefs/expectations of how things “should work”. Having browsed through these different love descriptions, I can see the nature of my own limiting beliefs about what “true love” is, and perhaps can now grow beyond them.

I tend to believe in authentic connections between people; a great deal of my design work and emphasis on story-based inquiry is my professional attempt to create them. Naturally, I want my partner and lover to also possess a “true connection” with me, and I very strongly identify such connections with the spirit of friendship. I have fantastic, amazing friends, and I wouldn’t be a tenth of the person I am today if we didn’t have that critical mutual inspiration, respect, and support. My exploration of the topic of love led me to Aristotle’s deconstruction of friendship into three types: friendships of utility, friendships of pleasure of company, and friendships of the good. The latter, which is described in English as “true friendship”, is friendship that is based on the enjoyment of each other’s character. This is really what I look for in people and in myself; everything else that is positive flows from that. As I have been blessed to have many true friends throughout my life, I expect my romantic partner to also be my true friend. Together we will create the story of our life as characters in a book of our own making, testing our mettle against negative forces and overcoming multitudinous obstacles together, secure in our love and affection for each other, and passionately living. This is the baseline of interaction I already have with my best friends; how can I settle for anything less? It seemed like a no-brainer to make friendship a precondition for romance. “It will just happen”, I told myself, some 25 years ago, “if I continue to pursue my path. Whatever the hell that is.”

As it turns out, there is a love style called Storgic Love that actually describes how I thought I would fall in love. Storgic lovers are “friends first” and hey, THAT’S ME RIGHT?!

I read on with great interest, frowning slightly as I read the final paragraph:

Some advantages of storgic love can be the level of friendship, understanding, and intimacy in the partners, while disadvantages can include potential boredom and lack of passion in some couples.

That boredom part didn’t quite fit…I don’t want to settle down and live in a cottage for the rest of my life. I want to become something greater! However, because I value friendship so much, I had naturally settled into this pattern and ran into a massive internal conflict: because I value “true friendship”–that is, friendship based on character–I perceived other love styles as a failure of motive .

Let me explain myself: There are a lot of women who I find sexually enticing, cute, and so on, but to me character is everything. I am just not interested until I see the evidence of it. Once glimpsed, it takes time to draw out the subtleties across multiple interactions. Interests, behaviors, and physical appearance are somewhat secondary in importance; and it’s the inner beauty and idiosyncrasies of a person’s character, as I perceive it, that finally draws me close and captivates my heart. The giant insight is that my romantic interest tends to express itself as explorations of character, and I suppress the other “love styles” to “maintain the purity” of my quest. That tends to exclude such pleasantries such as flirting, winking, swooping in, sweeping away, and so forth. What most people would regard as the fun part of getting to know someone, but in my snobbery I thought EVERYBODY already does that…I’m looking for something more, and I’m doing things my own way! Or so I would tell myself, as I battled myself internally. My logic was that if I liked a girl because she was cute I wasn’t living up to my own character values: true connections and good character above all else, because I believe everything is possible through this. It never occurred to me that I could think both. Yes, I’m dumb…blinded by principle, yet again. Maintaining such an attitude, however couched in idealism, is ultimately boring and dispassionate. This can lead to a good friendship, but not romance.

And so I come back to my two guts:

• My “emotional gut” is 100% accurate at telling me when I like someone and find them attractive.

• My “intuitive gut”, however, did not have the breadth of experience and self-knowledge to see me playing out the same pattern over and over again, and instead assumed that “if I thought up the idea, and the idea affects only me, it must be right”. Well, no, probably not. The idea in this case was: “true friendship is based on true character, therefore my romantic search will be strictly dictated by the parameters implicit in this directive.”

the moral

<

p>I still feel kind of dumb right now, but at the same time I feel a sense of relief because I’ve identified a limited thought pattern. Now that I know it, I can break it and replace it with something less boring.

I know what my real romantic directive is: It’s far better to live in character than to merely search for it. This follows naturally from my belief that when you put that energy out there, people can actually tell that you have it. After all, attraction of character needs to work both ways.

The role I want to play in the world is as a connector of true passions, to have the freedom to let allow random aspects of life catch my eye, and create the situations where passion and living can express themselves at a higher level. That’s what great design is. That’s what productivity is. That is what inspiration and empowerment mean to me. And next time I see these qualities embodied in a pretty girl, I will need to remember that although character is super sexy, it’s just as awesome to tell a woman how beautiful she is in a meaningful, creative way. Even if she already knows it.

If you were paying attention, you might have noticed that I said there were TWO great conundrums in my life. The other one is the missing sense of mission, but I think I stumbled upon it while writing the previous paragraph. And I feel that I have to give Christianity some props for that; the entry for Holy Spirit, a concept I used to have difficulty accepting when I thought it meant a literal ghost flying around inhabiting people, had this tidbit (emphasis mine):

The first overt appearance of the Holy Spirit in Christian theology is in the words of Jesus, speaking to his disciples (John 14:15-18) shortly before his death. He characterizes the Holy Spirit to them as the ‘Spirit of Truth’.

Further reading leads right back to the notion of agape, which is a kind of love that benefits the world we live in. It starts with you and me, and perhaps it can be expressed through the creation of more awesome design and the telling of each other’s stories. Everyone, I believe, has a true way to express this kind of positivity and joy, if they can only find the means through which they can see just how possible it is. The trick is finding it authentically, but that will be a post for another day.