How does one know if they are in love, if it's love? The asker of such a question reveals a misunderstanding about communication, about love; it also reveals that the asker is incomplete in his/her relationship with both parents. The word "in" implies that love is a permanent 24/7 condition. The question also assumes that the experience of love can be mistaken for another emotion. Not so. The experience of love is so unique, so mind blowing, there is no confusion. I may experience love with you but you might not be experiencing the experience of love at the same time, or if at all.*
A healthy well-adjusted mature person floats in and out of several basic emotions each day (happiness, joy, sadness, fear, disgust, anger, confusion and surprise). Notice that "love" is not considered an emotion. Love is either a "now, in this moment" experience or a concept, a memory of an earlier experience.
For example: I "experienced" joyous love with you yesterday morning, it was unquestionably mutual; we both experienced being one with the other. We both experienced tears of joy and appreciation. However, I have not experience love today; today, I'm living from the memory of yesterday's experience. At this moment love is a concept. I know I love you but I'm not experiencing it now at this moment. In fact, right after yesterday's experience of love I experienced an upset when you burned the toast. Ostensibly, because of my love, I didn't verbally mention my upset. However, if you had video-taped me you would have noticed an almost imperceptible micro-tell of upset.* Thinks me, I'm more mature than to get upset over burnt toast. I withheld the thought from you. In other words, I brought my addiction with withholding thoughts into the relationship.**
A single significant thought withheld from a person of significance serves as a barrier to the experience of communication, of love; it automatically causes the other to withhold his/her thought of choice from you.
What causes a breakdown in communication between two are thoughts, specifically, thoughts that are not being communicated verbally, responsibly (from cause), with an intention of mutual satisfaction).
Communication always produces love. Talking produces awesome great (often mixed) emotional experiences, but not love—except accidentally via the body's endorphins and dopamine. Talkers have an implied agreement that it's OK to withhold significant thoughts from each other, this non-verbal pack took place automatically, when you first met—it's referred to as, "entanglement."
Love, like water on the other side of a closed faucet, is always there. If you're not experiencing the experience of love with someone then there are thoughts you have not shared verbally with him/her, and, there are thoughts you have not elicited (extracted) from him/her. Or, your integrity is such that you are not a safe space for certain truths to be told. A person addicted to withholding, and blaming (a person who is out-integrity) cannot create a safe space for another to be open and honest and spontaneous.
The experience of love can easily be recreated via a clearing process (communication) with both partners emptying their minds of thoughts—providing both are not hiding (withholding) any thought from the other.
Scenario: You're driving alone and have an experience of love of your partner, however, when you get home you can't seem to recreate the experience. You know you love them but you haven't experienced the experience of joyous love for several days. You live from the memory of an earlier experience of love. The reason love is not experienced is because both (yes both) partners are withholding an equal (yes, same number) of significant thoughts from each other. These thoughts are referred to as withholds; withholds serve as barriers to the experience of love.
For example: If you are deceiving your parents, perhaps you haven't told them you are smoking pot, then your integrity is such that it automatically causes (yes causes) your date/potential partner to hide his/her items of choice from you, such as herpes, a prior abusive relationship, or worse, that your family is dysfunctional.
Another example: Teens who are not in-communication with their parents, parents with whom a teen (I.e. Columbine) is withholding significant thoughts (unacknowledged perpetrations, deceits), seldom, if ever, hug either parent; such teens search for an imitation of love (sex) outside the family.
When a couple first meet neither have any history of upsets, abuses or broken agreements. Love just "happens." After days/weeks/months they begin to collect upsets and thoughts they don't share verbally. They begin to gather withholds. Thoughts withheld serve as barriers to the experience of love. The couple know they love each other but they have not experienced the experience of love lately; their love has become conceptualized.
* If you had noticed my partner's face you would have noticed a nearly imperceptible reaction to my non-verbal communication. What's so is, withholders magnetically attract withholders, That is to say, my partner is also addicted to withholding, to maintaining peace and harmony. They too stuffed their experience.
** When looking at a crucifix one may experience the experience of love for Jesus, however, as often as we are told that Jesus loves us/me I may not be able to create in my mind that Jesus loves me. As with any personal relationship, thoughts withheld serve as barriers to the experience of love. That is to say, you have dozens of thoughts that you have not shared with Jesus (insert Buddha, Allah, your spouse, etc.).
Note 1: All divorced couples (yes all, no exceptions) withheld a significant thought on or even before their first date. Withholders magnetically attract withholders, a partner who withholds an equal number of thoughts from his her own parents.
Note 2: These Dear Gabby letter replies come from the mind of someone addicted to believing that words such as these will educate, improve situations, and result in love. All authors are in the process of discovering that what they know about a subject is just that; they/we only know about the subject. It is not the entire subject. We write to become clear so as to have no need to demonstrate how much we know, eventually, to not be driven to "fix" or teach.
Last edited 11/30/21