This week, another guest post by my wonderful wife, Teika, all about the significance of limerence in literature, and in shaping individual lives and larger social forces. Enjoy!
As well as being a writer, I’m a freelance editor of poetry, fiction and non-fiction. This year my big editing project was The Utopia of Us, an anthology of speculative short stories inspired by the centenary of Yevgeny Zamyatin’s dystopian novel We’s first publication.
Zamyatin’s only complete novel almost fell into obscurity, but for George Orwell who first read it in French and was greatly taken with it. Indeed, Orwell did much to ensure the book found its way back into publication, and in return, We, did much to influence Orwell when he was writing Nineteen Eighty-Four. Readers and critics have often noted the many similarities between the two novels.
But what does have any of this to do with limerence? I hear you asking.
If you’ve read either book you may know in what direction I’m headed, if not, here’s a quick summary and hopefully you’ll see where I’m going:
We is written from the point of view of D-503, a rocket engineer, who lives in a totalitarian state headed by the Benefactor. Through an encounter with the enigmatic, rebellious I-330, and due to his growing relationship with her, D-503 begins to question his previous, unthinking loyalty to OneState.
If you’ve read Nineteen Eighty-Four you’ll see the parallels in plot. Citizens trapped in a totalitarian dystopia, with love as an act of rebellion.
On this blog, Tom – aka Dr L – has often mentioned how we each have our own romantic archetypes. For us limerents, these are the people that are highly likely to become our latest limerent object.
I believe that LOs can sometimes be people who call to a need in us to act in some way which will further us along our path of what Jung termed ‘individuation’ – the lifelong process of fully integrating the Self. In simpler terms, individuation is about becoming whole, or the best version of yourself.
If, for example, a heterosexual man has a sense that he needs to be more “heroic” in his life, he may find himself attracted to women who might be considered damsels in distress.
One of the classic female archetypes is the temptress, arguably the most famous example being Eve from the Book of Genesis and her tempting of Adam to eat from the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, hence leading to their expulsion from the Garden of Eden. This brought both Adam and Eve (and the rest of humanity) pain and misery, and due to this original sin forevermore cut us off from God.
Yet the Garden of Eden was a paradise, a utopia. In both We and Nineteen Eighty Four, the situation is inverted because our “heroes” – D-503 and Winston Smith – inhabit a dystopia, and their respective temptresses, I-330 and Julia, prompt them into acts of rebellion against their tyrannical masters. So, in fact, they are not archetypal temptresses with ‘dark feminine’ power (a term which Christopher Booker uses in his marvellous book The Seven Basic Plots), they are agents of the ‘light feminine’. They act as a force for good.
I’ve sometimes seen contemporary readers of We and/or Nineteen Eighty Four criticising the novels for using tired old tropes, the argument being that these female characters are stereotypes, their only purpose being to prompt the hero into action. But I think this is too superficial a reading of the scenario.
These characters are not stereotypes, they are archetypes, and, as such, provide us with valuable knowledge about common behavioural traits. (Arguments about stereotypes/archetypes aside, personally, I found Zamyatin’s I-330 a particularly interesting character, being intelligent, witty, courageous and single-minded in her aim to bring down the Benefactor. She is the rallying cry of the individual against the onslaught of the unthinking masses that make up the ‘We’. Whether you like her or not there’s no doubt she has a great deal of agency.)
So what valuable knowledge do we acquire from the archetype of the temptress, no matter whether her motives are good or bad? For limerents, this archetype is a giver of glimmers.
As Tom has written previously, the commonest and most potent trigger for the glimmer was the LO’s eyes. So it’s no surprise that in one of their early encounters, D-503 finds himself drawn to I-330’s eyes:
“And now we stepped in front of the mirror. At that moment all I could see were her eyes. An idea hit me: The way the human body is built, it’s just as stupid as those “apartments” – human heads are opaque and there’s no way to see inside except through those tiny little windows, the eyes. She seemed to guess what I was thinking and turned around. “Well, here are my eyes. What do you think?” (Without actually saying this, of course.)
I saw before me two ominously dark windows, and inside there was another life, unknown. All I could see was a flame – there was some sort of “fireplace” inside – and some figures, that looked…
…I felt absolutely afraid, I felt trapped, shut into that wild cage, I felt myself swept into the wild whirlwind of ancient life.”
What follows for D-503 is pretty much a textbook case of limerence: mood swings, endless rumination about I-330, a sense that his former sense of calm is all but gone, that he is slowly, or rather quickly, going mad.
The dystopian, highly regimented, world in which he lives only heightens his limerence, because he can only meet I-330 at random, unpredictable times, and only ever for short durations. And amidst his intense limerence are I-330’s subversive ideas: that their “utopia” is no such thing and that there is no last revolution; that societies are only ever at a point of growth or collapse along the sine wave of history; that he is merely a pawn in a great, evil game.
Unluckily for D-503 there is no Dr L to offer him sage counsel, so he continues to live through the miseries (and ecstasies) of limerence for the rest of the book. Then again, given the dystopian world he’s tricked himself into believing is a utopia, his limerence for I-330 has, in truth, given him a gift – the gift of truly seeing what is about him.
When I was collating stories for The Utopia of Us I was keen to ensure that some of them reflected the theme of “limerence as revolution” and four out of the fifteen stories – those by Tim Major, Fiona Mossman, Ana Sun and Douglas Thompson – use limerence very effectively as a motivating force for rebellion or change. In Rayn Epremian’s story, limerence between a couple being watched by a corporate spy causes the asexual spy to experience a sense of loneliness for the first time in their life, thereby inspiring rebellion. I found this exploration of love and loneliness to be particularly affecting and effective.
However, having edited a number of anthologies over the past decade, I’ve learnt the importance of including a wide range and variety of stories, so some of the narratives do not feature limerence at all – instead, we see other powerful drivers for rebellion at work: motherhood, art, food, a sense of purpose, the longing for something greater than ourselves.
I chose the title The Utopia of Us because I wanted it to somehow echo We but also because of its other meanings: it is both the dream of a world in which we are all truly equal and yet it also describes the ecstasy of mutual limerence. ‘The Utopia of Us’ is an oxymoron for it is both inclusive – it is the great oneness of humanity – and exclusive. It is a private utopia for only two. The cover, with its two blue paint splodges amidst the rows of daubs of red, is meant to reflect this.
Living in the West today – many of us anxious that 2025 and beyond will bear dystopian tidings – it’s worth remembering that for all the downsides of limerence, it has its positives. It remains a powerful driver for bonding and, as such, contains within it the seeds of rebellion and change.
Hold on to those seeds. You might just need them one day.
Very interesting and well written!!
Many thanks, Jaideux!
Thanks for a really great guest post, Teika.
I found a lot I could relate to in these two points of yours:
“I believe that LOs can sometimes be people who call to a need in us to act in some way which will further us along our path of what Jung termed ‘individuation’ – the lifelong process of fully integrating the Self. In simpler terms, individuation is about becoming whole, or the best version of yourself.”
“it’s worth remembering that for all the downsides of limerence, it has its positives. It remains a powerful driver for bonding and, as such, contains within it the seeds of rebellion and change.”
I don’t think I’ll ever find it possible, even with hindsight, to see my current LE as ‘all a bad thing’ – instead I take the view that it has upsides and downsides. Overall I feel some ‘becoming’ has happened through the process. And even if an LO or LE is net negative, that could still open up otherwise-hidden insights into the self.
Even though in neither ‘1984’ nor ‘We’ does limerence / romance transcend ‘the System’ in the end, it’s good that it has a status that at least encourages questioning and subversion of it. Being in an LE can take the mind to a higher plane if it can be healthily channelled. I think you’re right that we might need those higher-thinking and challenging abilities more and more in future shapes of the world. I can see through my small microcosm how this could work.
I wish you every success with sales of The Utopia of Us.
Hi there Lim-a-rant and thank you for your kind comment. I think that’s a very healthy view to take – that your current LE isn’t a bad thing, it’s merely an experience that has upsides and downsides and that you can learn from it. The learning is definitely the key thing! Thanks again!
“If, for example, a heterosexual man has a sense that he needs to be more “heroic” in his life, he may find himself attracted to women who might be considered damsels in distress.”
I definitely had an affinity for damsels in distress, provided that they were worthy of consideration. They had to be victims of bad luck vice bad judgment. However, the more I learned, the more it was apparent that apparent bad luck is often the result of bad judgment.
My archetype is The Fool. Every test I’ve ever taken says that. My daughter says it describes me well. Attachment theory explains my attraction to damsels in distress pretty well but my archetype doesn’t. Maybe I’m missing something.
As far as dystopian literature goes, anybody with a laptop that has a camera or a smart TV is a good part of the way there. The unofficial slogan of the National Security Agency is, “If you can beam it, we can hack it.”
Hi Limerent Emeritus! Thanks for your thought-provoking comment – I immediately went off and did an archetype test which I found to be pretty precise, I think. Though there’s definitely a part of me that takes them with a pinch of salt because I’m generally wary of categorising people into distinct types because the tests can be flawed or we might give different answers at different times of our lives. That said, some tests can tell us a lot about ourselves.
What I find interesting is that you keep getting the archetype of The Fool. In terms of storytelling, The Fool is often paired with The King or The Hero because The Fool balances out The King/Hero’s ultra-seriousness and the way he always looks to the future rather than living in the present. So the positive aspects of The Fool balance the negative aspects of The King. But also… vice versa. So maybe there’s a part of you that needs to act a bit more kingly, hence the damsels in distress…? Anyway, interesting stuff. 🙂
The “eyes” part of this is very interesting..
“there’s no way to see inside except through those tiny little windows, the eyes. She seemed to guess what I was thinking and turned around.” “Well, here are my eyes. What do you think?”
“I saw before me two ominously dark windows, and inside there was another life, unknown. All I could see was a flame – there was some sort of “fireplace” inside”
And then what follows.. Mood swings, endless rumination, the former self disappears and then a loss of sanity. This would be pretty much the same pattern of my LE. It was LOs eyes that sucked me in. Whenever they met mine, I felt I was going into another dimension. I know I was looking into something. I just know it. It felt so right, so warm, so inviting. No other Woman on this earth has ever affected me this way or even looked at me that way. It’s the craziest thing but definitely no joke.
I look back on the entirety of my LE now and don’t believe it was the worst thing to happen to me, but it did knock me off my rocker. I do believe it has caused some purpose in me to make changes.
Yes, there is definitely something about the LO’s eyes – and Zamyatin was obviously feeling that (and writing about that) over 100 years ago. So it’s definitely not a new thing!
It’s good to know that you’ve learned from your LE and that it has caused you to live in a more puposeful manner. As a limerent myself I can definitely say that it is the best way to manage all the potentially unsettling ups and downs as a limerent.
It’s a real thought-provoking post, Teika, thank you!
“I believe that LOs can sometimes be people who call to a need in us to act in some way which will further us along our path of what Jung termed ‘individuation’ – the lifelong process of fully integrating the Self. In simpler terms, individuation is about becoming whole, or the best version of yourself.”
While totally agreeing that some LOs (bad or good) can wake us up inside and lead us to attend our previously unknown or ignored needs, I would further your belief that LE itself (not Glimmer alone) , fulfilled or unrequited, can prompt us to “further us along our path of what Jung termed ‘individuation” and to strive to become the best version of ourself.
Based on my latest LE experience, it was not Glimmer, but excruciating LE pains and my determination to build an emotional/mental shield that led me to intensively exploring origins of my unresolved cptsd, learning about psychologies of Stoicism and Buddhism, studying Jungian theories, and then discovering LwL, where I finally could name and understand what I was stumbling upon and blindly struggling.
“it’s worth remembering that for all the downsides of limerence, it has its positives. It remains a powerful driver for bonding and, as such, contains within it the seeds of rebellion and change.”
Despite the downsides of my limerence — a non-archetype LO — a white-horsed knight, the unconquerable barrier, my severely triggered cptsd and lymphoma, the forced NC and final loss… I still consider my LE is dominantly positive — discovered the old Self prior to this LE, largely healed the lifetime cptsd, awakened an internal muse, expanded the scope of imagination, matured enough to protect/parent myself (- my deeply neglected, malnourished, wounded inner child)… The seed of mental and spiritual rebellion against 1984-like cultural impact imprinted since the birth, has fruited; the seed of “change”, starting in Self first, is steadily sprouting and growing….
I now believe, regardless different roots of LE and how painful it might be, an authentic LE, instigated and hovered by that soul-striking Glimmer, can and should serve as the Bell of a New Dawn to light over our individuation path, respectively.
Add: I actually profoundly appreciate my LE. (Little regrets only on some specific LE behavioral symptoms)
Thanks for your lovely comment, Snowphoenix, and I’m glad to hear that you’re making good progress along your own path to individuation. Sounds like you’ve had a lot to work through, but that you’re making great strides in using your past experiences to become a more self-actualised person.
Since this blog is written by Teika, First Lady of LwL, I’m just going to play it safe and say it’s wonderful. Hahaha! No, just kidding. When have I ever been shy about offering my opinion? When have I ever not been opinionated? 😆😆😆
“I believe that LOs can sometimes be people who call to a need in us to act in some way which will further us along our path of what Jung termed ‘individuation’ – the lifelong process of fully integrating the Self. In simpler terms, individuation is about becoming whole, or the best version of yourself.”
I agree very much that limerence can lead to greater individuation. In fact, I see greater individuation almost as a natural by-product of a limerent episode that has been successfully resolved.
One of my favourite quotes about limerence comes from a 2015 research paper called “Exploring the Lived Experience of Limerence: A Journey Toward Authenticity” by Lynn Willmott and Evie Bentley: “Viewed from the previous proposal that Limerence is being driven by the psyche of the Limerent individual, one can speculate that this focus may reflect a need for the Limerent to allow repressed, more authentic parts of their personality greater access to conscious living.”
The same paper also conceptualises limerence as a journey during which one may “reintegrate unresolved past life experiences” and “proceed toward a greater state of authenticity”. However, this reintegration of unresolved past life experiences seems to take place only after one’s personality has effectively “dissolved” due to the stress of limerence. (It’s like the limerent’s personality must disintegrate so a healthier, more authentic version of that personality can be rebuilt in its place). Limerents aren’t in the process of becoming different people; limerents are in the process of becoming more complete versions of themselves.
Teika, I commend you in your ability to recognise intellectually & emotionally your husband’s potential need for greater individuation as being one of the possible drivers behind his limerence. I know learning about a partner’s need for greater individuation might arouse all sorts of insecurities in a wife. (Does he not love me? Am I not enough? Why does another woman need to be the catalyst?)
I’ve recently noticed that my own greater individuation (an involuntary self-effect of limerence) has aroused feelings of anger and almost betrayal in the people I’ve seemingly left behind (members of my family of origin). Betrayal can be and is a perfectly normal response to a loved one’s need and/or desire for, and accomplishment of, greater individuation. On some level, us humans don’t want the people we love to change too much. There is perceived safety in the familiar.
I’m not a heterosexual man, so heroism and damsels and distress mean very little to me. However, I grew up in a social environment devoid of masculinity. Or, if masculinity were present, somehow I couldn’t access it due to my own temperament. I couldn’t connect emotionally with males, including my own father and my peers at school. Also, I never felt like the automatic “equal” of any male in my life. I relied on my mother and my sisters to intercede with males on my behalf. There was no direct communication between me and other males.
Then, my LO came along and treated me like an equal. He also embodied a version of masculinity that was very attractive in some ways and not overly threatening. I was immediately charmed. I felt my LO embodied something that was missing in my life (masculine energies) and something I could also develop in myself. I felt his message to me was: “Emotional connection with males is possible. I was willing to talk to you, wasn’t I? You just have to keep trying.”
I don’t think I ever saw anything in my LO’s eyes other than what I wanted to see in his eyes. I think I mostly saw good-natured amusement. He knew I had a crush on him. He found my helpless adoration amusing. But I also felt like he was giving me permission to grow and become a more authentic version of myself. Unlike my parents or my teachers, he didn’t need me to be perfect. He wasn’t impressed by my conscientiousness, etc. He was a peer and he had the extremely relaxed standards and expectations of a peer.
Since we’re on the topic of individuation, I have two more observations (i.e. thinly-veiled complaints) about my very individuated little self. (1) At LwL and other places, I’ve never wanted the spotlight. I’ve never sought the spotlight. Why does the spotlight always seem to find me? Or am I just in denial about wanting the spotlight? Hahaha! (2) I hate friends. I gave up trying to be friends with people about twenty years ago. (Who’s got the spare energy?) Why am I always being mobbed by people wanting to be my friend? Am I missing something? Hahaha!
I can’t really dislike my LO, even though limerence is over, because I realise in some ways I’ve turned into him. Or maybe I’ve turned into my fantasy version of him. For example, when people teased him, he had this habit of throwing his head back and laughing, and I realise I do the exact same thing. He flashed his eyes a lot. He was sarcastic. He dominated the physical spaces he was in due to his size and aura. He looked like he was annoyed when he wasn’t actually annoyed. (Poker face). The behavioural similarities between him and (current) me are astounding. Was I just looking into a crystal ball at the man I’d one day become?
Hey Sammy, many thanks for your thoughtful comment, the paper you cited, and for sharing your experiences with me. As a heterosexual woman I’m not sure I can add much to your own reflections, but it sounds like you’ve thought a lot about the kind of environment you grew up in and its balance of masculine and feminine. I’m sure this balance must play a role in our emerging psyches as we grow up, and so we may seek a better balance outside family life and, thus, in the relationships we have with other people.
I agree it can be tough for those around us to accept the changes we need to make in order to become the best version of ourselves, but that may also be because it reminds us that perhaps *we* have deep work we need to do ourselves. And we may not always want to do this!
And your thoughts about the spotlight and friends is interesting… I think many introverts might feel like you in that way – I am often most contented when it’s just the cat and me and I’m busy writing! Anyway, thanks again for your comment and all the best with your ongoing purposeful living!
The book sounds great, I loved reading my dad’s old scifis when I was growing up, will look it up.
I really like the concept of LOs as archetypes that limerents “call to a need in us to act in some way which will further us along our path of individuation”. It seems a very neat summary of what has been hinted at in different discussions in the comments In the last 6 months. I think Sammy and Snowphoenix have a better ability to self analyze than myself, but I definitely have a ‘type’ that I could probably examine to work out what it might say about my own individuational needs.
On the other hand, I’m with Mila, I am sort of at the end of a relapse-LE right now and trying to think less about things than more, so maybe not….
I would note the (for me) very interesting overlap with the revolution/individuation that occurs uring crises. I guess the phrase used these days is crisis vs. transition. I’ve commented elsewhere about how my limerence correlates very strongly to the transition or trauma phases of my life – early 20s, midlife, death of a parent, and that I think I have used limerence to cope or it has been triggered by the need to transition. The relationship remains unclear to me, but the link seems very strong. These are the periods I guess where we confront our unconscious needs and persona most directly.
As a follow on, the recent post on “a sign that something is wrong” was I think the most recent new blog that gets at the balance between limerence as a source of renewal/revolution or as something we suffer from on it’s own accord.
https://livingwithlimerence.com/is-limerence-a-sign-that-something-is-wrong-in-life/
Flipping the question around – if not, and everything is fine, why be limerent and what do you do with this revolutionary energy? It could just be that some people have a faulty pair bonding ‘on’ switch due to genetics, or stuff in our development, or one that just gets triggered too easily, or even that we just have a faulty off switch.
But is there a case for suggesting limerence, while primarily a form of pair bonding, is also available as a sub-conscious tool to trigger in situations where a revolution is deemed to be required? It is sort of the nuclear option of the sub-conscious, which says I need to fundamentally change my persona, what are the tools I have available? This red button looks a bit scary, but I’ll take anything now?
I was looking at these two posts about renewal and a need for change
https://livingwithlimerence.com/how-limerence-can-lead-to-renewal/
https://livingwithlimerence.com/the-need-for-change/
So it could be e.g. in response to a failed bonding with someone we deem a suitable partner, and then we launch into it anyway to try and harness the energy we need to improve ourselves to bond next time? Or we just cant accept that the bonding failed, and deny its over until it is too late to get out.
Or in response to trauma it is a blunt force tool to process an identity crisis in the place of more healthy grieving and reflections mechanisms for people who are emotionally stilted?
And for some people where who get caught in tragic/traumatic circumstances of e.g. needing to rescue the damsel in distress, it is an over the top tool we use to keep picking at the scab of that wound? Or again it is less deliberate, and the only way those people know how to process that issueis using limerence, as but it just keeps sending them down the wrong route to healing and recovery.
HJ,
Just want to personally respond your questions here:
“So it could be e.g. in response to a failed bonding with someone we deem a suitable partner, and then we launch into it anyway to try and harness the energy we need to improve ourselves to bond next time? “
In my case, it was clear from the beginning, there was no possibility of bonding, but the unconscious drive pulled me into it — not up to my choice (totally ignorance back then). However, I wanted and still want to harness the energy to improve my life overall, not just for a possible bonding next time.
“Or we just cant accept that the bonding failed, and deny its over until it is too late to get out.”
In my case, there was no such a duality — fail or success.
“Or in response to trauma it is a blunt force tool to process an identity crisis in the place of more healthy grieving and reflections mechanisms for people who are emotionally stilted?”
Very true in my case — the urgent need for curing/healing the old trauma pains (triggered by Father’s death) surpassed the vague, subconscious need for pair-bonding (ignorant to me at the time when lymphoma was also developing). In the end (up to July), “healthy grieving and reflections” are finished by a decisive dream with the presence of my Phantom inside me….
Now, I’m so much more alive than before the Glimmer hit, even its resource has completely gone — no duality of hope and despair! Yet, the energy is still present. 🎁
Have to be fair to say that for all the “healthy grieving and reflections” and renewal work primarily done by my monologues (even after finding LwL), I had a passive, silent, and open ear of xLO (or an idea of xLO) “nearby” day and night…
Perhaps that’s my luck brought by the technology and the LE’s blind, foolish, and stubborn bravery❓
Snow
“In my case, it was clear from the beginning, there was no possibility of bonding, but the unconscious drive pulled me into it — not up to my choice (totally ignorance back then). However, I wanted and still want to harness the energy to improve my life overall, not just for a possible bonding next time.”
I wonder if the realistic prospect of bonding is somewhat irrelevant – many posters here have seemingly insurmountable barriersbut go ahead anyway. I can’t remember your history (you write so much, sorry!) , but I think barriers to bonding are often conscious whereas the sub-conscious is a bit dismissive of them. In theory you can always bond, the story of people overcoming multiple barriers, or even initial disinterest’, to be with their ‘true love’ are popular for a reason i suppose.
It seems clear to me that people going down the ‘black route’ of limerence are unconsciously doing a solo bond, it’s just a question whether the unconscious is deliberately or accidentally ‘flipping the switch’.
I struggle to believe we consciously decide to become limerent – at most I could accept that the conscious resistance to revolution is sometimes less.
To stretch the revolutionary metaphor, we may be occasionally a little bit Menshevik, but certainly not Bolshevik.
“Very true in my case — the urgent need for curing/healing the old trauma pains (triggered by Father’s death) surpassed the vague, subconscious need for pair-bonding”
I am guessing this may also be a bit cultural, not sure what your COO is but if my guess is right it is like my english culture, where public grieving and reflection are highly frowned upon, and if you are then also introverted it becomes even more difficult. Even for an english person I am emotionally highly reserved so it is a triple whammy.
HJ,
Thank you for your response. What I’m about to say is only based on own case. Without extensively reading about everything on limerence by Tunnov, Fisher and DrL, I can only draw some suspicion or disagreement from my own case, and from limited obbservations on others, solely based on their words.
“I wonder if the realistic prospect of bonding is somewhat irrelevant “– many posters here have seemingly insurmountable barriers but go ahead anyway. “
“Many” does not mean “every”, I wonder if my complicated case could fall into an exceptional. I think “the realistic prospect of bonding” is relevant, because a crash does not necessarily lead to a full/crystallized LE, if one is clearly aware of insurmountable barriers and withdraw from it.
There was 8 months of peaceful period between Glimmer and my LE, until Dad’s sudden passing and Mom physical dropping into my space — the grief and cptsd pains together drove the initial retained crush (due to the barrier) into the full-blown LE. Yet, xLO was not consciously viewed as a potential romantic “partner” (no clear knowledge of a crush), but a surrogate father (my mind, not my neural system, even thought he was “safe” to play the unchosen role).
After finding LwL, I successfully “killed” a new glimmer in exactly one month back in the Feb—Mar, documented in Glimmer blog — there were clear, physical and mental symptoms of a crush, but no LE. With LwL’s warning, I kept staring at this crush and documented my emotions here. Then it was “killed”. My conclusion: barriers could kill Glimmer/crush before it slips into LE, if one is “weaponized” by the wisdom of LwL. There are a couple of other Lwlers here also killed their Glimmer before it developed.
Moreover, realistic prospect of bonding could curb the amount or intensity of LE desire and expectation — less expectations, less disappointments/pains in any walk of human life. In my case, the conscious desire for a substitute of just-lost father (the notion of EA did not exist in my system due to COO) was volcanic, while the neural system was running all over the places in and out of the presence of xLO, which caused my huge, unspeakable confusions. But I was content enough being just able to chat or monologue — more so as time passed, when LE was cooling down.
“I can’t remember your history (you write so much, sorry!) “
My rambling is engined either from my OCD (traced back to late childhood), or my attempt to distract rom the lingering LE pain, or to discuss with “new” mentality and expand my biased mind, or to affirm my thoughts/beliefs and self-validate, or to indirectly influence the Unconscious — then in return it affects the conscious mind and mood. I’m probably in “limerence” with LwL now (on T level)!
“But I think barriers to bonding are often conscious whereas the sub-conscious is a bit dismissive of them. “
True. LwL has convinced me that DNA drives do not care a bit about anything realistic or logical or moral! But in my case, in hindsight, the newly triggered cptsd pains and physical illness were so strong that they both temporarily repressed/covered the subconscious desire during the first half of my LE — My neck swalloned like carrying a chihuahua puppie inside by the time the unknown lymphoma in the thyroid and neck were incidentally, luckily removed!Consciously I was not aware of or affected by the “hidden” desire — I was daily struggling to physically breathe better before the surgery finally took place (during the pandemic lockdown.)
“In theory you can always bond, the story of people overcoming multiple barriers, or even initial disinterest’, to be with their ‘true love’ are popular for a reason i suppose.”
That’s in theory and have always happened in those “true love”romance fictions/stories/movies, which I believe has intensified some realistic LE sufferer’s pains — the pain of mimetic desires. In Red COO (not Buddhistic), human reasons and wills are believed to be able to tame, if not kill, all passions/unwanted, strong emotions. Romanticism has been unknown (bewildering) for hundreds of years in the East and only gained some favor in recent decades since Hollywood has “invaded” (but curbed down again)
From my experience, if a stereotyped Westerner and a stereotyped COO person are put side by side to experience a same LE, the latter would suffer much less LE pains than the former, because having less romantic notions or ideas, s/he would not know what to want, expect or suffer for, particularly with little/no concept of EA (lust/love is dominantly expressed by concrete actions, not “empty”/shapeless words) But LE’s physical/neural symptoms are present (I know by experiences); and as long as illicit/immoral PA is not involved, then little guilt is present.
“It seems clear to me that people going down the ‘black route’ of limerence are unconsciously doing a solo bond, it’s just a question whether the unconscious is deliberately or accidentally ‘flipping the switch’.”
In my case, I was consciously trying a solo bonding, my T brain thought, with a surrogate parent for comforting the grief and cptsd pains. 4 years later Later, when xLO subtly complained in person that “we”did not do much besides talking, I truly felt and looked dumbfounded — that’s how much the DNA drive was shuffled away.
I agree with DrL and Tunnov, that without the uncertainty or the pull-n-push dance, an early, smaller infatuation could die definitively. In my case, after the surgery, I totally believed that it was only sympathy for my illness that made xLO to have priorly interacted with me. So I cut off the very loose online communication/monlogues and mentally let it go (easier during 11 months lockdown-NC). But I was tiny bit curious to see what would happen next, and had an unshakeable intuition that it was not the end.
My intuition almost never failed — after 2.5 months of silence, xLO initiated an email which started a new cycle of pulling-n-pushing (for something casual) in the following 8 months, during which I protested and rejected this “casual thing”. But I tried in vain to cut the LE tie….
Thus, I double or disagree that it’s always limerents who are unconsciously doing a solo bond; it seems there is always an vague/elusive hope lurking for limerents “before the Unconscious flipped the switch — I believe it’s more deliberate rather than accidental switch; according to Jungian theory. Based on DrL neuroscience, it’s down by our brain’s complicated wiring.
“I struggle to believe we consciously decide to become limerent – at most I could accept that the conscious resistance to revolution is sometimes less…To stretch the revolutionary metaphor, we may be occasionally a little bit Menshevik, but certainly not Bolshevik.”
Maybe we are talking about orange and apple here. I don’t believe that anyone would and could decide to become a limerent! Based on Tunnov, Fisher, and DrL, I think limerent-type and non-limerent-type exist before Glimmer hit or in between two LEs. I don’t think anyone can tell for sure whether limerent has its genetic opponents, perhaps a neurological predisposition?
In reality, most people do not know what limerent/limerence is, how could they consciously choose or decide⁉️ It’s our ignorance of brain neurology and biology, social environment (strong Romanism’s influence or oppressive dictatorship), trauma backgrounds, and some other unknown factors that have driven limerents from a heaven-given Glimmer to a full-blown limerence.
Let me clearly understand your metaphor here: are you alluding Menshevik vs. Bolshevik to a limerents’ conscious resistance to a “revolution” called by LE? Are you stating that Menshevik would always/eventually lose to Bolshevik?
I grew up under the heavy hammer of a “Bolshevik” system, and understood (later by the comparison with the West) how it has collectively “traumatized” most of ordinary people (kids especially) who live(d) in it. If you had lived in “1984” under the Big Brother’s nose (nowadays the controlled and censored internet), you’d truly understand what Room 101 means❗️(what happened to Winston after hearing its pronunciation? Betrayed Julia (the aim of his bonding drive), which happened in COO’s past, realistically!) As the result of such a fear, the majority is forced to toughen conscious resistance against that biological bonding drive — lust/love, commonly referred as“a beast’s nature”. How/what would you feel if you grew up with such a term?
I now (after LwL) think in theory, in general, the conscious resistance may never beat DNA drives, but can definitely control their manifestations in realistic behaviors and actions, as long as one clearly realizes what’s going on in one’s mind/psyche, watch but not whip the elephant in the room.
I’m reluctant to demonstrate the ⬆️ statement with more of my case details.
“I am guessing this may also be a bit cultural, not sure what your COO is but if my guess is right it is like my english culture,”
COO (Culture/Country Of Origin) is in the fast East, under a strong dictatorship over the only survived ancient civilization. Ordinary people there are ten times more reserved than you Englishmen. Free/random thoughts/feelings expressions not only could bring embarrassment/mockery among one’s acquaintances, public (internet) humiliations/attacks, but also possible light/heaven punishments carried out by the government. You seem to know its economic policies well, how about its political ones implemented at individual level (40 years ago or now)?
“where public grieving and reflection are highly frowned upon, “
How could anyone dare to grieve any injustice or traumas caused by the system or the culture? Or openly reflect on the “corruptive, unhealthy, Hollywood sentiments/emotions”?
“and if you are then also introverted it becomes even more difficult. Even for an english person I am emotionally highly reserved so it is a triple whammy.”
That’s why LwL is a Haven for introverted limerents like us to safely ramble and destress… If we are not afraid of others’ invisible judging 👁️. Whatever words we put down here will have impact on our respective Unconscious
Typo:
“ (I had no clear knowledge of a crush until LwL),”
“ to distract from the lingering LE pain,”
“Thus, I doubt or disagree”
it’s done by our brain’s complicated wiring.
HJ,
I should have taken a long walk before responding you in my previous post. Now, my mind was suddenly cleared up (by a pushed-brisk walk), although I maybe still wrong.
“I struggle to believe we consciously decide to become limerent – at most I could accept that the conscious resistance to revolution is sometimes less.
To stretch the revolutionary metaphor, we may be occasionally a little bit Menshevik, but certainly not Bolshevik.”
A clearer interpretation now: your metaphor is referring to whether LE could trigger a Bolshevik revolution inside us for character change, renewal, etc. And if such changes are called for, some limerents may only make it the Menshevik style, but certainly not the Bolshevik revolution. Am I right or wrong here?
Well, I think it depends on how much one wants to put up with LE pains, which varies from person to person, depending on their personality traits and whether LE is induced/triggered by past traumas, existing relationship dilemma, or that beastly boredom.
My LE pains (w/ small and huge panic attacks), combined or correlated with Hashimoto thyroiditis/lymphoma (two certainly triggered and worsened each other), and the determination to find a mental solution (without analyzing anything — impossible back then without LwL knowledge), led me to Stoic first.
Stoic practices were not so alien for me personally (already trained some in COO without its name), but which may sound revolutionary to many modern Westerners, especially in “limerent – mindset” world. To them, adopting/applying some Stoic mentality in one’s life might sound Bolshevik revolution, but to me it’s necessary Menshevik. Then one after another steps in building up this urgently needed/wanted mental/emotional shield, I think I’ve renewed (perhaps self-reinvented a bit), without changing but strengthening, expanding my old core — INFP (always fluid).
The interest fact is the demonic mask of limerence (put by COO), was removed by my newly acquired LwL wisdom. I become positively appreciative to the pink elephant — pair-bonding drive, Glimmer hit/shine, awakened Muses, sweet longing, deep affection, etc, residing inside all of us. Any elephant can be tamed, inspire one’s creativity, and instigate self renewal/reinvention — who does not want to be a better version of oneself⁉️ Regarding my origin, I wish to be more “corrupted” by so called “Bourgeois sentimentality” (without its hypocrisy), so as to heal my deeply repressed and wounded F mind (which made so many stupid or inhuman mistakes!)
Our original mindsets were at the two ends of the same societal rope; but we share one universal experience in common: glimmer/crush/infatuation/limerence/heartaches. It’s understandable that we approach it from the two ends and possibly reach, with different, individually appropriate mental/spiritual canes, our desired contentments/delights somewhere in the middle of the rope.
I’m glad you like the sound of the book, Heebie Jeebies, and I do hope you check it out! I’m sure Tom has blogged about this before, but I do agree that limerent episodes have a habit of happening at periods of transition. Personally, I think the challenges of moving into a new phase of life, or dealing with traumatic events, IS the signal that there is a significant shift going on in our psyche and we need time and space to acknowledge it and integrate it. But it can all feel like too much. Limerence provides a welcome relief from loss, pain or sadness caused by life readjustments, and viewed in that way it’s a useful force to propel us through a difficult time and into the future where we might be better placed to cope with the transition/trauma. But, often, it can spiral into something messy, causing more stress, when, really, we should be working on the recent shift in our psyche. So, yes, definitely – “These are the periods where we confront our unconscious needs and persona most directly.” Wishing you all the best and Happy New Year!