正文
嗬嗬, 你在說道德的問題...
文章來源: hummingboy 於 2006-03-22 22:57:31 給 hummingboy 發送悄悄話 登陸我的個人帳號
注: 最先的原帖飛了, 偶爾露露麵. 隻好開個新帖:
*******************************************************************************************************
原來的跟帖一:
回複：我看了以後也是這個感覺
文章來源: hummingboy 於 2006-03-22 08:35:21 給 hummingboy 發送悄悄話 登陸我的個人帳號
Can you say that 靜秋 was not 認真 and 執著 when she dated her (now) husband? What made you think so? You don't like 婚外情 (I don't like it either), fine -- just don't do it yourself. But first, this 婚外情 was performed by the guy, not 靜秋. Second, it seems to me that it was the guy who was the one actively "chasing" 靜秋. As a passive person 靜秋 was as we saw in her 初戀, I don't believe 靜秋 had the intention of destroying the guy's marriage at the first place. And third, can you say, being dating a married man is not "認真 & 執著"? It seems to be the opposite: if she became really "認真 & 執著", the guy may become "認真" about their relationship and went ahead to divoce the first wife.
So what can you claim the 靜秋辜負了老三?
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
原來的跟帖二:
回複：回複：我看了以後也是這個感覺
文章來源: 雁過無聲 於 2006-03-22 10:56:28 給 雁過無聲 發送悄悄話 登陸我的個人帳號A man who persue a woman outside of the marriage is a shame. A woman who, with full acknowledgement of the situation, accepts the so-called "love" from such a man, is also a shame! Marriage is holy, and everybody should respect. One of my favorate novel is "Jane Erye". Jane, after knowing that her Mr.Rochester is still in marriage, no matter how little this marriage sounds like a marriage, choose to repect it and ran away. This is the true beauty of true love!
Think it in this way, if Laoshan didn't die, and he married Jingqiu. After several years, he felt in love with an other woman, and persued her with all his heart, and hence there comes another love story called Love under Apple Tree. How will you feel? Will it be still Romantic to you?
=======================================================================================================
我的跟帖:
嗬嗬, 你在說道德的問題. 在下不想做大辯論, 僅僅陪聊一小會兒.
First of all, 你隻做 statements, 不給論據, 這可不好. 例如你說 "Marriage is holy". 但為什麽呢? 沒說. 這聽起來有點兒象那時候的一首歌: "無產階級文化大革命, 嘿, 就是好, 就是好呀, 就是好, 就--是好!" -- 象吵架似的. (不過那歌後麵還是給出了一些論據, 比你那強.)
假如現在有一個網友叫 "聲無過雁" 的也做一個 counter statement: "Marriage is shit", 也不給論據. 於是你們倆就當街吵起來了:
"Marriage is holy!", "Marriage is shit!";
Marriage is holy, Marriage is shit! ...
得, 還挺有韻律的... 是不是有點兒象兒歌? 回頭拿去教你孩子或鄰居的孩子們唱去...
要不, 你倆變奏一下:
"Marriage is holy!", "Marriage is shit!";
"Holy!", "Shit!";
'Holy!', 'Shit!';
Holy!, Shit!;
Holy, Shit;
Holy Shit;
Holy Shit ...
這也成啊, 挺溜的嘛 (雖然是個髒話)... 還有點兒象小孩兒玩火車?...
同理可得, 你的那些別的 statements, 因為沒有論據, 也跟吵架差不多.
OK, 言歸正傳. 正如許多人曾指出的, 道德是用來維護社會秩序的, 是會隨著不同的曆史時期而有不同標準的. "Jane Eyre" 是什麽時代寫成的? 1847年. 你以十九世紀的道德標準來要求二十世紀下半葉的人, 未免太過份了吧? Jane Eyre 那個時代的道德是要求人們無論如何要守住婚姻, 即使婚姻的最 "holy" 的基礎 -- 愛情 -- 已經不存在了, 也不能輕易放棄 (當然那時候也有離婚的, 但那是極少數的, 也是不容易為社會所接受的). 當然, 那種要求也有其 positive 的一麵: 那時絕大部份的婦女們在經濟上是依附於男人的. 離婚對她們來說意味著失去生計. 所以離婚是不被社會所 blessed 甚至要被譴責的 (當然還有別的原因, 如維護社會安定, etc.). 時至二十世紀下半葉, 大多數婦女在經濟上能獨立或有相當程度的獨立, 社會也通過法律等形式在相當的程度上保障離婚婦女們及她們的孩子們的生計(e.g. 贍養費, etc.). 因此離婚變得 practically 可行並為社會所接受. 而婚姻也在更大的程度上 depends on 感情(愛情) (當然還有孩子等因素). 這時再用十九世紀的道德標準來要求人們, 就不恰當了. 當然, 婚姻還是應該被尊重的(但不再是 "holy" 了), 因為那是對社會與家庭的承諾. 但是當真正 "holy" 的東西 -- 感情(愛情) -- 不存在時,這婚姻也就失去了存在的基礎. 即使因為種種原因, 這婚姻還沒有結束, 人們在這 broken 的婚姻以外尋找追求愛情, 也無可厚非 (人是愛情的動物嘛). 也更談不上 "shame" 了.
另一方麵, 不管因為啥原因, 沒有愛的婚姻絕對與"真愛"拉不上關係. 因此, 當讀到你所寫的: "Jane, after knowing that her Mr.Rochester is still in marriage, no matter how little this marriage sounds like a marriage, choose to repect it and ran away. This is the true beauty of true love!" 嗬嗬, Mr."聲無過雁" 可要說: "This is the ruin of true love!". 而我更要說: "This is the blasphemy of true love!" -- 因為這隻是為了維護一個沒有愛的婚姻而葬送了真愛.
如上所說, 道德是用來維護社會秩序的, 其與"愛", "romantic" 或者 "true beauty" 沒什麽必然聯係. 有時候甚至是有矛盾的 (如 Jane Eyre 的例子). 在你所假設的"Love under Apple Tree" 的 case 裏, 這故事是否 romantic, 不在於主人公是誰, 老三也好, 老四也好, 老一百都好, 而在於他(和她)的表現, 表現得 romantic, 就是 romantic. 與道德無關. 至於道德嘛, that's another issue 了.
不知不覺, 陪很久了. 下次再聊.
祝好!
P.S. 上麵的兒歌和髒話都記住了嗎? 要活學活用喔.
=======================================================================================================
回複：嗬嗬, 你在說道德的問題...
文章來源: 雁過無聲 於 2006-03-23 06:59:49 給 雁過無聲 發送悄悄話 登陸我的個人帳號
First of all, since I am at work now, I can't really spend much time replying.
According to you, the foundation of marriage is love. and your definition of love is the emotion that one can feel. I'll say, this is the exact formula for a failure marriage.
I agree, a marriage should start by two people feeling the emotional love towards each other. But that's not enough. Marriage is also a commitment. That's why, on marriage ceremony, people make vows like "I will love and cherish you, no matter rich or proverty, healthy or sick, until death do us apart". It is not just a romantic way of wording, it should be a serious promise. According to you, people should vow like this, "I will love and cherish you, until my heart tell me that I have no feelings for you any more." Sounds good? why don't you use that as your wedding vow?
I agree again, that the emotional love plays a very important role in a marriage. however, that can not all, not mentioning to be the foundation. Unless you live in a fairy land, no emotional love will last 24/7 for 100 years. There will be good times and bad times in every marriage. If anyone, in bad times, choose to divoice, I guess there will not be a single couple that are still in their original marriage.
Whether you agree or not, let me tell you. Love is a choice. When you felt in love with someone, and decide to go into marriage with him/her, you choice to love this person, unconditional, even when times that you don't feel like it. Marriage is not easy. It needs both party to work hard. Marriage is also beatiful, that only those that worked hard can see.
Hummingboy, I am not sure about your marraige status, but I really wish you can change your idea on marraige, and will have a happy marraige.
=======================================================================================================
哈哈，公說公有理婆說婆有理：）
文章來源: kimchee 於 2006-03-23 08:02:27 給 kimchee 發送悄悄話 登陸我的個人帳號
I like what 窈窕淑女司令 said:)
愛意是種化學物質，愛情其實不高尚 -
曾聽人講研究表明愛意實是種和性激素略有不同的化學物質，但這種化學物質對某一個人隻釋放有限的那麽一段時間，屬於過期作廢那種。你可能一時狂熱地愛某個人，但基本上是因為化學物質的驅動，等這種化學物質的作用過去了，愛情也就冷卻下來了。這種愛即便不是荷爾蒙類型的，也還是種生理性的。所以唯物主義地說，因為隻有新鮮刺激才能產生新的化學物質，這種愛情本身是不大會專一持久的，。
由此推斷持久的愛情應該是心理性的，隻有心理上對愛戀對象的依賴與需要才能維係婚戀關係的長久與穩定。所謂美好悠長的愛情隻在幾種條件下才能得以實現：
用道德觀嚴格約束；
把對愛情與婚姻當作宗教來盲目膜拜；
夫妻之間建立一種象知心朋友一樣的友誼
隻要求悠長不要求美好難度就小多了，隻需要利益上的相互需要，甚至一種習慣的的夥伴關係就行。全看你對愛情對婚姻有多高的要求了。
認真想了想，換情人/換老公是件挺累人的事，需要不少能量，可比換工作，搬家累人的多，而且還有不少危險和變數。除非您是位天生愛折騰，或一直向往某種想象中的愛情而不得，否則不換也罷。
由此可見對愛情的相信並不高尚，純為自身需要，因為隻有相信才能得以保持下去。愛情不象小說戲曲中描繪的那麽美好，是種很自私的的東西，那種美好的愛情大多是短暫的，因為背後驅動它的化學物質總是不能延續很久的。當然這些都不是絕對的，凡事都有例外，所以例外的故事永遠被我們千古唱頌，象梁祝象羅密歐朱麗葉。
嚴格地講所謂的戀愛狀態是種激素化學物質驅動的不正常的病態，戀愛中的人瘋瘋顛顛地作些非理智的失控事情。有黃舒俊:《戀愛症候群》為證，摘取一段，全歌見文章結尾
=======================================================================================================
回複：哈哈，公說公有理婆說婆有理：）
文章來源: hummingboy 於 2006-03-24 01:17:42 給 hummingboy 發送悄悄話 登陸我的個人帳號
難得有倆 JJ 相陪, 在下誠惶誠恐, 隻得舍命陪娘子:
“and your definition of love is the emotion that one can feel...”
First of all, 不好意思, 俺並沒有定義 love 為 "the emotion that one can feel". 俺翻來複去地重讀俺的原帖, 可就是找不到那說法. 請指教. 願聞其詳. 假如您也找不到, 請自行刪去貴帖中第二至第四段. 大家省點兒時間. 俺呼呼去了...
不過, on a second thought, 既然有美女相陪, 俺就多坐一會兒. 但又不想冷場, 俺就先開練一下. 要是勁兒太大, 弄痛了 JJ(s), 請多多包涵. (Hey, 那邊那位, 做什麽鬼臉? 別想歪了...)
不過想想也是, "the emotion that one can feel" 也確實是 *PART* of the definition of love. 別急別急, 容俺細說:
既然提到 definition, 俺不如就按黃顏 GG 所提議, define "愛情" 先:
IMHO, 愛情, 是指情侶, 愛人以及夫妻之間的相互吸引的感情或情緒(here is where "emothion" fits in).
在雙方交往的初期, 愛情往往表現得很激動, 很高昂. 這就是愛的衝動. 要是雙方相處得好並且客觀條件允許的話, 這衝動往往導致婚姻.
結婚一段時期(可長可短, 每人不同)後, 這衝動便消退了. 即使兩人沒打架或冷戰, 這衝動也會消退的(請參閱 kimchee JJ 的帖子).
愛的衝動消退了, 是否就應該結束婚姻了呢? 非也, 我們看到許多婚姻都 last 了很久. Why? 各位都很聰明 -- 因為有親情 and/or 別的因素s在維係著那些婚姻. 先不談那些別的因素s. 這"親情"其實符合我上麵關於愛情的定義, 因此也是一種"愛情". (有人把前述愛的衝動稱為"愛情"而把這'親情'稱為"愛情的延續". 那也未嚐不可. 不管哪種定義, 都承認"親情"的存在.) 在我的前帖中, 我用的是"感情". 大同小異 -- 除'親情'外, 這"感情"還包括了'朋友間的情誼', 更貼切 -- 因此我把它寫成"感情(愛情)", 並且宣稱那是婚姻的 "holy" 基礎.
夫妻間若能發展出足夠深厚的感情, 就能維護婚姻走過那些 "bad times" 而不至於 divorce.
誠然, 還有那些"別的因素s"也會幫助維持婚姻於不墜: 孩子, 金錢, 政治, 宗教, 暴力, 恐懼 (例見<<平凡事>>), 怕麻煩/不保險 (例見 kimchee JJ 的帖), 社會倫理及風氣, business, profession, etc., etc. 一個婚姻如果不是建基於感情, 而是這些"別的因素s"的話, 套句流行的話, 叫"維持會".
當然, 不管是建基於感情(愛情)也好, 靠別的什麽因素s支撐著也好, 隻要沒有離婚, 就不算 break 了當初的 wedding vow , “雁過無聲” JJ 就滿意了, 這婚姻也就跟著 “holy” 了 (請稍安毋躁, 少安物燥… 呀, 起火了?!).
(別急, 別急, 請繼續看下去.)
對於"維持會"裏的倆主角, 您認為他們會 live happily ever after 嗎? 除了孩子可能帶來一點兒歡樂(也有可能是煩惱, 各家不同) 以外, 他們基本上沒有享受到有感情(愛情)基礎的夫妻所能享受的情愛, 相互關心和信任及其帶來的家庭歡樂. 再加上柴米油鹽之類的煩惱和(可能的)大大小小的爭吵(又是各家不同), 日子過的並不舒心. 在這壓抑人性的氛圍中, 有人探出頭來戶吸一點兒新鮮空氣就不稀奇了. 那就是我在上一帖中說的: “但是當真正 "holy" 的東西 -- 感情(愛情) -- 不存在時,這婚姻也就失去了存在的基礎. 即使因為種種原因, 這婚姻還沒有結束, 人們在這 broken 的婚姻以外尋找追求愛情, 也無可厚非 (人是愛情的動物嘛). 也更談不上 "shame" 了.”
Yes, I agree, love is a choice. But it’s NOT a 賣身契. Wedding 也不是 point of no return. And yes, marriage is beautiful -- as long as you love each other (有感情). Sometimes, no matter how hard you work, how devoted you are, things just don’t work out (這種情況並不罕見). What can you do? Of course, you can always say, “Things don’t work out because you didn’t work hard enough”. This may be true for some cases, but not for all (remember, we are not God). For those who really try but still can’t work things out, this kind of statement is just some very un-considerate, inhuman and useless 風涼話. So for them, rather than tying them up in unhappy marriages, it’d better letting them go. That’s why the society allows divorce, especially the so-called “no-fault” divorce.
I thank you, 雁過無聲 JJ, for reminding me. But don’t worry about me. I won’t change my idea about marriage unless you can convince me that I am wrong (yes, I am always willing to learn new things and change my ideas if they are proved to be wrong). Rather, I think you’d better re-think of your own marriage (especially your idea about it). I have no doubt that you are determined to work hard and keep your wedding vow. But just want to remind you that being too rigid on things sometimes messes up things faster.
To kimchee JJ: 請別忘了, 人體內所有的活動, 都需要有某些化學物質來促成. 如果因為這個原因而宣稱 ”愛情其實不高尚”, 我不知道人世間還有十嘛東西是高尚的了 – 即使是宗教情感, 也是由某些化學物質來促成的. Can you say, that’s not 高尚?
“由此可見對愛情的相信並不高尚，純為自身需要，因為隻有相信才能得以保持下去。” – sounds very much like 宗教情感. Again, Can you say, that’s not 高尚?
“嚴格地講所謂的戀愛狀態是種激素化學物質驅動的不正常的病態…”
實在不能同意. 如果由某種激素化學物質驅動的過程就是不正常的病態, 那身體內所有的過程都是” 不正常的病態”. 這是所謂”泛科學”的毫無道理的論斷, 是那些對科學一知半解(out of a billion)的人說的既褻瀆科學, 又褻瀆愛情的謬論. 與其相信它, 不如早點兒洗洗睡吧.
Take care!
文章來源: hummingboy 於 2006-03-22 22:57:31 給 hummingboy 發送悄悄話 登陸我的個人帳號
注: 最先的原帖飛了, 偶爾露露麵. 隻好開個新帖:
*******************************************************************************************************
原來的跟帖一:
回複：我看了以後也是這個感覺
文章來源: hummingboy 於 2006-03-22 08:35:21 給 hummingboy 發送悄悄話 登陸我的個人帳號
Can you say that 靜秋 was not 認真 and 執著 when she dated her (now) husband? What made you think so? You don't like 婚外情 (I don't like it either), fine -- just don't do it yourself. But first, this 婚外情 was performed by the guy, not 靜秋. Second, it seems to me that it was the guy who was the one actively "chasing" 靜秋. As a passive person 靜秋 was as we saw in her 初戀, I don't believe 靜秋 had the intention of destroying the guy's marriage at the first place. And third, can you say, being dating a married man is not "認真 & 執著"? It seems to be the opposite: if she became really "認真 & 執著", the guy may become "認真" about their relationship and went ahead to divoce the first wife.
So what can you claim the 靜秋辜負了老三?
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
原來的跟帖二:
回複：回複：我看了以後也是這個感覺
文章來源: 雁過無聲 於 2006-03-22 10:56:28 給 雁過無聲 發送悄悄話 登陸我的個人帳號A man who persue a woman outside of the marriage is a shame. A woman who, with full acknowledgement of the situation, accepts the so-called "love" from such a man, is also a shame! Marriage is holy, and everybody should respect. One of my favorate novel is "Jane Erye". Jane, after knowing that her Mr.Rochester is still in marriage, no matter how little this marriage sounds like a marriage, choose to repect it and ran away. This is the true beauty of true love!
Think it in this way, if Laoshan didn't die, and he married Jingqiu. After several years, he felt in love with an other woman, and persued her with all his heart, and hence there comes another love story called Love under Apple Tree. How will you feel? Will it be still Romantic to you?
=======================================================================================================
我的跟帖:
嗬嗬, 你在說道德的問題. 在下不想做大辯論, 僅僅陪聊一小會兒.
First of all, 你隻做 statements, 不給論據, 這可不好. 例如你說 "Marriage is holy". 但為什麽呢? 沒說. 這聽起來有點兒象那時候的一首歌: "無產階級文化大革命, 嘿, 就是好, 就是好呀, 就是好, 就--是好!" -- 象吵架似的. (不過那歌後麵還是給出了一些論據, 比你那強.)
假如現在有一個網友叫 "聲無過雁" 的也做一個 counter statement: "Marriage is shit", 也不給論據. 於是你們倆就當街吵起來了:
"Marriage is holy!", "Marriage is shit!";
Marriage is holy, Marriage is shit! ...
得, 還挺有韻律的... 是不是有點兒象兒歌? 回頭拿去教你孩子或鄰居的孩子們唱去...
要不, 你倆變奏一下:
"Marriage is holy!", "Marriage is shit!";
"Holy!", "Shit!";
'Holy!', 'Shit!';
Holy!, Shit!;
Holy, Shit;
Holy Shit;
Holy Shit ...
這也成啊, 挺溜的嘛 (雖然是個髒話)... 還有點兒象小孩兒玩火車?...
同理可得, 你的那些別的 statements, 因為沒有論據, 也跟吵架差不多.
OK, 言歸正傳. 正如許多人曾指出的, 道德是用來維護社會秩序的, 是會隨著不同的曆史時期而有不同標準的. "Jane Eyre" 是什麽時代寫成的? 1847年. 你以十九世紀的道德標準來要求二十世紀下半葉的人, 未免太過份了吧? Jane Eyre 那個時代的道德是要求人們無論如何要守住婚姻, 即使婚姻的最 "holy" 的基礎 -- 愛情 -- 已經不存在了, 也不能輕易放棄 (當然那時候也有離婚的, 但那是極少數的, 也是不容易為社會所接受的). 當然, 那種要求也有其 positive 的一麵: 那時絕大部份的婦女們在經濟上是依附於男人的. 離婚對她們來說意味著失去生計. 所以離婚是不被社會所 blessed 甚至要被譴責的 (當然還有別的原因, 如維護社會安定, etc.). 時至二十世紀下半葉, 大多數婦女在經濟上能獨立或有相當程度的獨立, 社會也通過法律等形式在相當的程度上保障離婚婦女們及她們的孩子們的生計(e.g. 贍養費, etc.). 因此離婚變得 practically 可行並為社會所接受. 而婚姻也在更大的程度上 depends on 感情(愛情) (當然還有孩子等因素). 這時再用十九世紀的道德標準來要求人們, 就不恰當了. 當然, 婚姻還是應該被尊重的(但不再是 "holy" 了), 因為那是對社會與家庭的承諾. 但是當真正 "holy" 的東西 -- 感情(愛情) -- 不存在時,這婚姻也就失去了存在的基礎. 即使因為種種原因, 這婚姻還沒有結束, 人們在這 broken 的婚姻以外尋找追求愛情, 也無可厚非 (人是愛情的動物嘛). 也更談不上 "shame" 了.
另一方麵, 不管因為啥原因, 沒有愛的婚姻絕對與"真愛"拉不上關係. 因此, 當讀到你所寫的: "Jane, after knowing that her Mr.Rochester is still in marriage, no matter how little this marriage sounds like a marriage, choose to repect it and ran away. This is the true beauty of true love!" 嗬嗬, Mr."聲無過雁" 可要說: "This is the ruin of true love!". 而我更要說: "This is the blasphemy of true love!" -- 因為這隻是為了維護一個沒有愛的婚姻而葬送了真愛.
如上所說, 道德是用來維護社會秩序的, 其與"愛", "romantic" 或者 "true beauty" 沒什麽必然聯係. 有時候甚至是有矛盾的 (如 Jane Eyre 的例子). 在你所假設的"Love under Apple Tree" 的 case 裏, 這故事是否 romantic, 不在於主人公是誰, 老三也好, 老四也好, 老一百都好, 而在於他(和她)的表現, 表現得 romantic, 就是 romantic. 與道德無關. 至於道德嘛, that's another issue 了.
不知不覺, 陪很久了. 下次再聊.
祝好!
P.S. 上麵的兒歌和髒話都記住了嗎? 要活學活用喔.
=======================================================================================================
回複：嗬嗬, 你在說道德的問題...
文章來源: 雁過無聲 於 2006-03-23 06:59:49 給 雁過無聲 發送悄悄話 登陸我的個人帳號
First of all, since I am at work now, I can't really spend much time replying.
According to you, the foundation of marriage is love. and your definition of love is the emotion that one can feel. I'll say, this is the exact formula for a failure marriage.
I agree, a marriage should start by two people feeling the emotional love towards each other. But that's not enough. Marriage is also a commitment. That's why, on marriage ceremony, people make vows like "I will love and cherish you, no matter rich or proverty, healthy or sick, until death do us apart". It is not just a romantic way of wording, it should be a serious promise. According to you, people should vow like this, "I will love and cherish you, until my heart tell me that I have no feelings for you any more." Sounds good? why don't you use that as your wedding vow?
I agree again, that the emotional love plays a very important role in a marriage. however, that can not all, not mentioning to be the foundation. Unless you live in a fairy land, no emotional love will last 24/7 for 100 years. There will be good times and bad times in every marriage. If anyone, in bad times, choose to divoice, I guess there will not be a single couple that are still in their original marriage.
Whether you agree or not, let me tell you. Love is a choice. When you felt in love with someone, and decide to go into marriage with him/her, you choice to love this person, unconditional, even when times that you don't feel like it. Marriage is not easy. It needs both party to work hard. Marriage is also beatiful, that only those that worked hard can see.
Hummingboy, I am not sure about your marraige status, but I really wish you can change your idea on marraige, and will have a happy marraige.
=======================================================================================================
哈哈，公說公有理婆說婆有理：）
文章來源: kimchee 於 2006-03-23 08:02:27 給 kimchee 發送悄悄話 登陸我的個人帳號
I like what 窈窕淑女司令 said:)
愛意是種化學物質，愛情其實不高尚 -
曾聽人講研究表明愛意實是種和性激素略有不同的化學物質，但這種化學物質對某一個人隻釋放有限的那麽一段時間，屬於過期作廢那種。你可能一時狂熱地愛某個人，但基本上是因為化學物質的驅動，等這種化學物質的作用過去了，愛情也就冷卻下來了。這種愛即便不是荷爾蒙類型的，也還是種生理性的。所以唯物主義地說，因為隻有新鮮刺激才能產生新的化學物質，這種愛情本身是不大會專一持久的，。
由此推斷持久的愛情應該是心理性的，隻有心理上對愛戀對象的依賴與需要才能維係婚戀關係的長久與穩定。所謂美好悠長的愛情隻在幾種條件下才能得以實現：
用道德觀嚴格約束；
把對愛情與婚姻當作宗教來盲目膜拜；
夫妻之間建立一種象知心朋友一樣的友誼
隻要求悠長不要求美好難度就小多了，隻需要利益上的相互需要，甚至一種習慣的的夥伴關係就行。全看你對愛情對婚姻有多高的要求了。
認真想了想，換情人/換老公是件挺累人的事，需要不少能量，可比換工作，搬家累人的多，而且還有不少危險和變數。除非您是位天生愛折騰，或一直向往某種想象中的愛情而不得，否則不換也罷。
由此可見對愛情的相信並不高尚，純為自身需要，因為隻有相信才能得以保持下去。愛情不象小說戲曲中描繪的那麽美好，是種很自私的的東西，那種美好的愛情大多是短暫的，因為背後驅動它的化學物質總是不能延續很久的。當然這些都不是絕對的，凡事都有例外，所以例外的故事永遠被我們千古唱頌，象梁祝象羅密歐朱麗葉。
嚴格地講所謂的戀愛狀態是種激素化學物質驅動的不正常的病態，戀愛中的人瘋瘋顛顛地作些非理智的失控事情。有黃舒俊:《戀愛症候群》為證，摘取一段，全歌見文章結尾
=======================================================================================================
回複：哈哈，公說公有理婆說婆有理：）
文章來源: hummingboy 於 2006-03-24 01:17:42 給 hummingboy 發送悄悄話 登陸我的個人帳號
難得有倆 JJ 相陪, 在下誠惶誠恐, 隻得舍命陪娘子:
“and your definition of love is the emotion that one can feel...”
First of all, 不好意思, 俺並沒有定義 love 為 "the emotion that one can feel". 俺翻來複去地重讀俺的原帖, 可就是找不到那說法. 請指教. 願聞其詳. 假如您也找不到, 請自行刪去貴帖中第二至第四段. 大家省點兒時間. 俺呼呼去了...
不過, on a second thought, 既然有美女相陪, 俺就多坐一會兒. 但又不想冷場, 俺就先開練一下. 要是勁兒太大, 弄痛了 JJ(s), 請多多包涵. (Hey, 那邊那位, 做什麽鬼臉? 別想歪了...)
不過想想也是, "the emotion that one can feel" 也確實是 *PART* of the definition of love. 別急別急, 容俺細說:
既然提到 definition, 俺不如就按黃顏 GG 所提議, define "愛情" 先:
IMHO, 愛情, 是指情侶, 愛人以及夫妻之間的相互吸引的感情或情緒(here is where "emothion" fits in).
在雙方交往的初期, 愛情往往表現得很激動, 很高昂. 這就是愛的衝動. 要是雙方相處得好並且客觀條件允許的話, 這衝動往往導致婚姻.
結婚一段時期(可長可短, 每人不同)後, 這衝動便消退了. 即使兩人沒打架或冷戰, 這衝動也會消退的(請參閱 kimchee JJ 的帖子).
愛的衝動消退了, 是否就應該結束婚姻了呢? 非也, 我們看到許多婚姻都 last 了很久. Why? 各位都很聰明 -- 因為有親情 and/or 別的因素s在維係著那些婚姻. 先不談那些別的因素s. 這"親情"其實符合我上麵關於愛情的定義, 因此也是一種"愛情". (有人把前述愛的衝動稱為"愛情"而把這'親情'稱為"愛情的延續". 那也未嚐不可. 不管哪種定義, 都承認"親情"的存在.) 在我的前帖中, 我用的是"感情". 大同小異 -- 除'親情'外, 這"感情"還包括了'朋友間的情誼', 更貼切 -- 因此我把它寫成"感情(愛情)", 並且宣稱那是婚姻的 "holy" 基礎.
夫妻間若能發展出足夠深厚的感情, 就能維護婚姻走過那些 "bad times" 而不至於 divorce.
誠然, 還有那些"別的因素s"也會幫助維持婚姻於不墜: 孩子, 金錢, 政治, 宗教, 暴力, 恐懼 (例見<<平凡事>>), 怕麻煩/不保險 (例見 kimchee JJ 的帖), 社會倫理及風氣, business, profession, etc., etc. 一個婚姻如果不是建基於感情, 而是這些"別的因素s"的話, 套句流行的話, 叫"維持會".
當然, 不管是建基於感情(愛情)也好, 靠別的什麽因素s支撐著也好, 隻要沒有離婚, 就不算 break 了當初的 wedding vow , “雁過無聲” JJ 就滿意了, 這婚姻也就跟著 “holy” 了 (請稍安毋躁, 少安物燥… 呀, 起火了?!).
(別急, 別急, 請繼續看下去.)
對於"維持會"裏的倆主角, 您認為他們會 live happily ever after 嗎? 除了孩子可能帶來一點兒歡樂(也有可能是煩惱, 各家不同) 以外, 他們基本上沒有享受到有感情(愛情)基礎的夫妻所能享受的情愛, 相互關心和信任及其帶來的家庭歡樂. 再加上柴米油鹽之類的煩惱和(可能的)大大小小的爭吵(又是各家不同), 日子過的並不舒心. 在這壓抑人性的氛圍中, 有人探出頭來戶吸一點兒新鮮空氣就不稀奇了. 那就是我在上一帖中說的: “但是當真正 "holy" 的東西 -- 感情(愛情) -- 不存在時,這婚姻也就失去了存在的基礎. 即使因為種種原因, 這婚姻還沒有結束, 人們在這 broken 的婚姻以外尋找追求愛情, 也無可厚非 (人是愛情的動物嘛). 也更談不上 "shame" 了.”
Yes, I agree, love is a choice. But it’s NOT a 賣身契. Wedding 也不是 point of no return. And yes, marriage is beautiful -- as long as you love each other (有感情). Sometimes, no matter how hard you work, how devoted you are, things just don’t work out (這種情況並不罕見). What can you do? Of course, you can always say, “Things don’t work out because you didn’t work hard enough”. This may be true for some cases, but not for all (remember, we are not God). For those who really try but still can’t work things out, this kind of statement is just some very un-considerate, inhuman and useless 風涼話. So for them, rather than tying them up in unhappy marriages, it’d better letting them go. That’s why the society allows divorce, especially the so-called “no-fault” divorce.
I thank you, 雁過無聲 JJ, for reminding me. But don’t worry about me. I won’t change my idea about marriage unless you can convince me that I am wrong (yes, I am always willing to learn new things and change my ideas if they are proved to be wrong). Rather, I think you’d better re-think of your own marriage (especially your idea about it). I have no doubt that you are determined to work hard and keep your wedding vow. But just want to remind you that being too rigid on things sometimes messes up things faster.
To kimchee JJ: 請別忘了, 人體內所有的活動, 都需要有某些化學物質來促成. 如果因為這個原因而宣稱 ”愛情其實不高尚”, 我不知道人世間還有十嘛東西是高尚的了 – 即使是宗教情感, 也是由某些化學物質來促成的. Can you say, that’s not 高尚?
“由此可見對愛情的相信並不高尚，純為自身需要，因為隻有相信才能得以保持下去。” – sounds very much like 宗教情感. Again, Can you say, that’s not 高尚?
“嚴格地講所謂的戀愛狀態是種激素化學物質驅動的不正常的病態…”
實在不能同意. 如果由某種激素化學物質驅動的過程就是不正常的病態, 那身體內所有的過程都是” 不正常的病態”. 這是所謂”泛科學”的毫無道理的論斷, 是那些對科學一知半解(out of a billion)的人說的既褻瀆科學, 又褻瀆愛情的謬論. 與其相信它, 不如早點兒洗洗睡吧.
Take care!
評論
目前還沒有任何評論
登錄後才可評論.
