Creativity, Cultural Change, Cultural Traits, Culture, Emotional Dependency, Ideas, Invention, Love, New Idea, Passion, Poetry, Possessiveness, Romantic Love

The Time When the Universe Began to End

(About a 4 minute read)

It is incredible to me that the Arab and Persian Court Poets lumped possessiveness in with love to arrive at the concept of “romantic love”. But they did. The gods themselves were so disbelieving when they witnessed it that they forgot to wank for six days and six nights, and stars began to fall from the sky. The universe began to end! Nevertheless, it was true. The poets really, honestly did lump possessiveness in with love!

The consequences have been devastating. In effect, the poets created a schizophrenic concept of love.


Love is never naturally possessive. How could it be? Possessiveness seeks to cage, shackle, enslave its object, the beloved. Is that not obvious, O Muses? How can it NOT be obvious? Since when is the desire to possess, to own, to subjugate, to enslave — since when is that desire anything except the desire to possess, to own, to subjugate, to enslave? And is it not just as obvious that the desire to possess CANNOT be love? How can “I love you” be the equivalent of saying “I want to shackle, chain, and enslave you”? How can you say you love a person when what you want to do is unnecessarily restrict or even destroy that person’s freedom to be the very person you claim to love?

Moreover, how can love need to possess anything to be love? Would that not mean love was incomplete without something else? Something more than itself? How can love NEED to possess anything?

SHEESH! Do you know why romantic love cannot sustain passion forever? Do you know why? Because the thing, the physiological reality that inspired the concept, the idea, of romantic love was lumped together by the court poets with the physiological reality of possessiveness. That was like lumping pigs and snakes together. Goodbye noble snakes! It was like lumping water and fire together. Goodbye noble fire! It was like lumping Badran and manliness together. Goodbye noble manliness!

But why?

Consider that to be passionate about the person you love (or about life itself), there must be an element of risk, of uncertainty, of danger in loving her or him. That is why Kenko said, “Uncertainty is the most precious thing in life.” Our passion for living depends on it! And our passion for our beloved depends on our beloved being free. Wild and free. “Uncertain”, you might say. But what does possessiveness seek to do? What is the very heart and soul, the essence, of possessiveness? Yes, you are right. It is to confine, to control, to constrict, to cage. It is to suffocate, to strangle its object.

In the end, it is all too obvious, all too simple: Possessiveness destroys passion by destroying the risk of loving someone — or something.

MORAL: Poets! Artists! Cartographers! Muses! Be careful you do not commit mistakes that last a thousand years long! Be careful your poems, your art, your maps do not mislead people for a thousand years!

The above post is an except from a daily email I send out to a small group of people who I call, “The Muses”.  Currently, there are two vacancies in the group.  If you are interested in joining, please email me.

16 thoughts on “The Time When the Universe Began to End”

  1. I just think the poets went on to glorify a common human behaviour which is, indeed, to be possessive of the things they profess to love. Wasn’t the poets’ fault, as such. They just sought to make that shit cool. Not that I approve of them, but anyway…

    Liked by 1 person

    1. In my view, the poets did everyone a huge favor in turning love into an affirmation of the individual. i.e. Only Alice will do for me, and not just anyone of her social class. That was good for everyone but the powers that be.

      But in lumping possessiveness in with that, they at the same time did everyone a huge disfavor.

      Romantic love, in my view, is a mixed bag. Thanks for commenting! It’s always good to see you.

      Liked by 1 person

  2. ‘Tis true, Paul, that ‘possessiveness’ in a relationship (emotional, selfish possessiveness) is a bad thing, but I’m confused. It seems to me that there are 2 aspects of possessiveness that may come to play in a relationship, 1) the emotional, selfish possessiveness, and 2) a contractual possessiveness (ie that entered into with marriage). When I say, “my husband” I’m being possessive to some extent, and I do expect him to hue to certain rules… but I certainly don’t think that ‘my’ husband should stunt his growth as a person to please me… but yet… is marriage possessiveness?

    Liked by 2 people

    1. Carla, what an excellent question! And about as controversial as they come. Here is the core fact at the root of everything: Humans instinctively pair off — “pair-bond”. Duration varies by couple, but the behavior is clearly instinctual. e.g. 96% of Americans will pair-bond at least once during their lives. That’s the fact that tosses the marriage ball onto the court.

      Immediately upon being tossed into the game, the marriage ball becomes a political issue. D’uh! Marriage is basically a legalized or formalized pair-bond. So why legalize or formalize something people will tend to do anyway? That’s the question. The answers are fiercely debated.

      Some say marriage is a patriarchal institution that arose during the agricultural revolution 12,000 years ago as a means of subjugating and enslaving women to make sure they bore the children of their masters and not someone else’s brats, etc.

      Others say marriage is a family friendly institution that arose during the agricultural revolution 12,000 years ago as a means of guaranteeing the rights of women and children to have father’s stick around and help support/raise them.

      Still others say marriage is an economic,political, and social institution that arose during the agricultural revolution 12,000 years ago as a means of forming alliances between families. The Jones have X land and want to unite their land with the Smiths, who have Y land, in order to dominate their community and give their grandkids the best shot at a good life.

      Emotional possessiveness is compatible with all three theories but would be the primary motive for the first theory.

      Me, I go with Door Number Three as the PRIMARY reason for marriage. That’s where the evidence as I in my limited knowledge of such things points me. The other two motives might have contributed, but Three fits what I know of the situation the best.

      What about you? What do you think?


      1. The thing that I ponder here is not Reasons for Marriage, but whether marriage is too possessive-y. Being that marriage is so ingrained in our culture, and has been for 12,000 years, and the emotional and contractual are knotted together, it is difficult to answer. Let’s pretend that 12,000 years ago the person who came up with the idea of marriage was laughed out of town. “What?” his neighbors & friends said, “Marriage? That’s a stupid idea! WAY too much drama, and FAR too possessive-y” So they went through history without marriage. What would things be like? Better? Worse? I wish I knew!


    2. By the way, I would almost bet my life that you and your husband did NOT marry primarily to legalize emotional possession of each other. It would STUN me if you said you had. I mean, knowing you, Carla, that would stun me.


      1. One last thing. Possessiveness must be sharply distinguished from protectiveness. Those are easily confused, but quite different in practice and outcomes.


      2. No, of course we’re not like that at all. It’s easy to bandy about the term ‘romantic love,’ but the thing itself is really beyond words. It comes with a longing for nothing more than to spend the rest of your life with your intended, and a hunger to celebrate that love with a marriage vow. That’s how it is, that’s how it was with us.

        Liked by 1 person

I'd love to hear from you. Comments make my day.

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s