In recent posts (Relationship Theory, Adhesion/Cohesion, and the Art of Love) I have been discussing the use and purpose of an art of love (and the relevant substudies, art of pleasure, sex, etc). I will continue with this as a central theme, though the title of the post may not reflect it.
An art of love, named as such, goes back as far as the Kama Sutra (circa 300 BCE), and has made several reappearances throughout the centuries, at least in literary form. Most notable is Ovid's Ars amatoria (circa 1 BCE) and Andreas Capellanus' De Amore (circa 12 century CE).
The need and use of an art of love may have changed over the eras. Certainly, in ancient India at the time of the Kama Sutra, relationships and marriages were somewhat different to the way things are in modern times. Arranged marriage and polygamy (particularly in higher castes) seemed to be the norm then. It would not be unusual, one would suppose, that in those times, newly married people would have had little prior contact and familiarity with one another. Therefore, a means of smoothing the way to enjoyable erotic relations would have been called for. Of course, that is only one use of an art of love in the Kama Sutra, pertaining to newly weds.
But an art of love hasn't always aligned with principles of marriage. Indeed, Ovid's Art of Love paid little heed to marital status, aside from what ploys had to be undertaken to circumvent it. Capellanus' Art of Love was much at odds with the marriage institution and concerned mainly with extramarital relations. Kama Sutra also provided instruction on extramarital dalliances.
It's no great revelation that in times and cultures gone past, marriages were established by reason of a multitude of other factors, and love was not necessarily one of them. This may excuse the seeming immorality of an art of love exercised for adultery, as in those past renditions.
The Kama Sutra cites a number of different forms of marriage, about eight, which are ranked according to propriety. All the way down at fifth on the list, was what was known as a Gandharva marriage: the union of mutual love.
Fast forward to modern times and the prevailing, predominant form of marriage is this (Gandaharva) one, based primarily on love.
I became curious about when this modern love-marriage "fad" took off. According to the book "Marriage, A History" by Stephanie Coontz, the rise in prominence of the love-inspired marriage began in the late 18th century; a relatively recent trend.
An art of love may not be so vital in a relationship or marriage which has love as its basis. Vatsayana, the sage behind the Kama Sutra, admits as much: "the good Gandharva is respected, even though of middle rank. It is indeed the best of all as giving pleasure, little trouble and free of many rituals too, its essence being mutual love". Perhaps this explains why an art of love is somewhat of a lost art today.
Nowadays, love is generally established prior to the proposal and formalising of marriage. So a means to facilitate love relations, and employing an art of love in a marriage, seems relatively redundant. An art of love in this context might be useful for enhancing or bettering the relationship, after the fact, but it doesn't seem to be of vital necessity, and is rather supplemental, serving only to augment a pre-established and pre-existing love.
In this sense, employing an art of love for purposes of eliciting and germinating (for want of better words) love in a relationship that is pre-established by other means or for other reasons and obligations than love, is an almost archaic concept.
There is a major emphasis in this modern world, on finding love, as though it is something one searches for, and furthermore, that it is something that is to a large degree a matter of chance, or fluke, or perhaps the mysteries of fate.
In lieu of an art of love, an evolving technology of matchmaking is taking precedence, based strongly upon the idea that where a compatibility exists between two people, love may be kindled and from there flourish naturally. This is without any real proof of the assumption that compatibility gives rise to love, but if indeed love does come about from a supposed compatibility factor, what specific compatibility (tastes, interests, lifestyle, culture, etc), or combination thereof, is it?
I have thought about an ultimate matchmaking app and what it's results should be. Ideally it would match people with someone where there was a mutual attraction and interest that carried forth to romance and love. This is still rather vague. Aside from the physical/visual attraction factor, how would such an app operate to determine mutual attraction and interest that was non-physical, ie psychological, emotional, cerebral, etc?
The running assumption is compatibility, of interests, tastes, lifestyle, etc.
I did consider trying to break down all the different subcategories of compatibility, but I'm a little dubious on the benefit of doing so. If, theoretically and hypothetically, an art of love (in its truest sense) could be used in full effect to give rise to deep and perpetuating love between two people with little to no compatibility in any area whatsoever, perhaps finding love on the basis of compatibility is a fallacy.
Then again, an app that broke down compatibility into subcategories, utilised this in matching algorithms, and gave you a graphical and statistic analysis of how high your match compatibility percentage was (in those subcategories) with a particular person would be quite insightful, to say the least…
No comments:
Post a Comment