As a younger man I had many ideas about love and the purpose of relationships; many of those same ideas - and their troubling implications - regularly find their voice here, both in lamentation of love lost and in the idealization of a current mate. The same illusion underscores both.

The assumptions seem to be that 1) only perpetuity validates a relationship, and that 2) we are not objectifying someone, i.e. reducing them to a concept in our own minds, through romantic aspirations.

The first assumption is dealt with straightforwardly by recognizing that we are attracted to people who embody the issues imparted to us by our parents. The point is not whether it lasts, but to work through such issues, which may be deeply challenging.

Having done so, we stand to develop character and become emotionally and psychologically mature. In the process we learn to overcome the urge to cut and run when relationships cease to be simply gratifying, and bring us into transformative states of crisis that ultimately lead us to self-knowledge.

The second is not so easy, as we are taught that we must respect others, but entertainment media constantly imprints us with the notion that we must impress and captivate others by a series of gestures. This is basically manipulative and disrespectful, however well-meaning.

Thinking long-term, a relationship established in the glamour of extravagant gestures is the very definition of "form over function". This is perhaps not surprising, as the prioritization of gestures over character results in competition for a trophy. In other words, romantic love is fraught with objectification, which makes it difficult to recognize the Beloved as a person rather than a projection of our desires.

This is exceedingly unfortunate, as romance seems to suggest an almost supernatural quality to the Beloved that draws us in - and in that sense the object of our affections may bring us to a state of awe and reverence, a perception of something deeply significant. It should be noted, of course, that this brings us into the realm of religion - that is, we experience such awe and reverence because for us the Beloved represents something deeper than the finite - we may call this "the promise of continuity".

As such, love can lead us to very deep contemplation indeed - but it has been said that religion carries with it the risk of madness. It has also been said that religion is about relationship - and I would agree this is true, for religion itself is much broader than the picture painted by individual faiths, especially in our theological traditions.

This leads into the juxtaposition of pain and sorrow exhibited here. I've discovered that while sorrow makes possible a greater realization of the depths of relationship, pain is triggering and keeps us in survival mode (fight-or-flight). Maslow's "hierarchy of needs", then, becomes all too relevant - for psychological needs may ONLY be met once basic survival is ensured, and that simply does not happen if you're in fight-or-flight all the time.

To objectify the Beloved and rely on our illusions and projections is to miss the point of relationship. It does not matter whether we objectify the Beloved as a desirable ideal, or a failure to obtain or achieve it. The end result is the same.

A somewhat uncharacteristic display of vocabulary. Rather than ostentation, my intent here was to convey the scope of nature in vivid but elusive prose.

Proteus, ever changing to remain fundamentally himself, perfectly embodies nature's unity-in-multiplicity. He evinces a dynamic view of nature espoused by Goethe, and in authentic Platonic thinking. Essentially, the entire web of life is a single organism, and each discrete life but a cell therein.

"Nature naturing" (*natura naturata*) is commonly known as "Spinoza's God".