7/30/2019 DTCW 14 Trial a2 c9

1/12

TThheeCCoolllleecctteeddWWoorrkkssooffDDoorrootthhyyTTeennnnoovv

R

uth would have called Lily Moore a lifer. Lily, an unmarried legal secretary, wrote the followingin her diary about the discussion of Love Two at Peters trial.

Although all Lilys previous therapists had been psychiatrists, a friend, Sarah Grimwald, hadrecommended Dr. Peter Young, clinical psychologist. Sarah was taking a college course in abnormalpsychology and thought that Lilys condition was due to her having a dysfunctional personality

characterized by hysteroid dysphoria. Lily had Sarah write it down so that shed remember. Later, sherealized that, like Nancy, her friend had had no experience with Love Two and, therefore, did not believe inits existence, except as an aberration and a fault that she herself was proud to be free of. Sarah had readabout Dr. Young in the local paper. She saw references to him frequently in the newspaper because of a talkor a membership on some board of directors, and she thought he had written a book. Like NancyMackintosh, Lily assumed that an outstanding citizen must be a good therapist, and she found Dr. Young,only two years younger than Lily, herself, to be everything she had hoped for and even more compassionatethan she had expected.

Lily wasnt jealous of Nancy. As she sat in the back of the courtroom, hoping Dr. Young would notsee her witnessing his hour of shame, she felt pity and indignation. They had not treated him fairly. When hetook the stand to speak in his own defense, he looked so sad that she wanted to go over to comfort him.

She sent him a card saying that she looked forward to continuing in therapy as soon as he was able to do it,and that he had her trust and sympathy. She had spent an hour at the Hallmark store looking for just theright tone, and ended by making her own.

She continued in her diary:

7/30/2019 DTCW 14 Trial a2 c9

2/12

AASScciieennttiissttLLooookkssaattRRoommaannttiiccLLoovveeaannddCCaallllssIIttLLiimmeerreennccee::

Dr. Young, Lily believed, might not cure her, but he would ease her pain. She fantasized that hewould someday see her in a different way so that, even if he could never return her love, he would remain alifelong source of consolation. Although Peters attorney interviewed Lily, in the end, Lily did not want totestify nor did Ward think she would be of any help to his case.

Dr. Young was not Lilys first therapist, and he would not be her last. Lily was a woman who, like

the woman Isadora Duncan describes in her autobiography, represented a person unable to shake LoveTwo, and who, for the past 20 years, had developed the condition for a bank teller, a cab driver, a deliveryboy, and, finally, and permanently, for Dr. Young. Although he had not been her first therapist, she hadbeen his first patient, and, as it turned out, she would be the last person he would see as therapist to apatient.

When Dr. Peter Young fell in love with Nancy Mackintosh, it was the first time in his life that hehad experienced such feelings. Finally smitten, but not recognizing his condition for what it was, he hadacted out the Love Two command.

Although Love Two author, Alan Browne, tried, through various writings and talks, he was neverable to persuade other researchers to conduct research on Love Two during his lifetime. After he died,Brownes papers were donated to the one institution that indicated interest, the Nebraska HistoricalAssociation. When it was announced through the Internet and in various professional newsletters thatscholars might have access to some of Browns papers, among the first to contact the institution wereVaughn Matini, an anthropology linguist from Italy, whose writings Ruth had occasionally read with interest,and Ruth, herself. The Association allowed on-site access to the 2000 written testimonials and would permitqualified researchers to copy some of the items in the collection, provided the identities of the writers were

protected. The message the letters from readers ofLove Two conveyed to Browne, the only person whohad read all of them, was that the Love Two experience was distinct, involuntary, and unrelated to otheraspects of the person.

With gloved hands, in a tiny room in the basement of the Nebraska Historical Society, Vaughn

Matini inspected each of the 2000 letters from readers ofLove Two that had been sent to Alan Browne.Nothing he had yet experienced, nothing in the writings of Browne, had adequately conveyed their message.Simply put, it was that the emotions, desires, thoughts, and feelings of country music, grand opera plots, andfolklore from the beginning of human time, and by Matini himself, were the same as those experienced,often secretly, by ordinary people.

Thus was he exposed to the eternal mystery of love. The next mystery to be solved, the oneBrowne himself had puzzled over in the last years of his life, was why something so exact and so openlyexpressed, had been hidden from cool contemplation and from scientific understanding.

Less that two weeks after Matini, Ruth made the trip to Nebraska and sat in the same chair he hadoccupied, in the same little room. She also read letter after letter from self-selected informants whodescribed their Love Two experience, mostly suffering. That was probably, she assumed, because the happy

7/30/2019 DTCW 14 Trial a2 c9

3/12

TThheeCCoolllleecctteeddWWoorrkkssooffDDoorrootthhyyTTeennnnoovv

or uninvolved are less inclined to write to the author of a book that appears to have little relevance to theirlives.

The letters shocked her. Despite her own experience and despite all that Browne had written, shehad not expected the quantity, the quality of much of the writing, or, above all, the sameness of theexperience. Ruth rediscovered what she and Xavier had said they believed, that it was in human nature toexperience Love Two. Although Browne had described Love Two in the book, and she had had her ownexperience, reading the letters in the files brought the phenomenon to new life. When hundreds of people

said that the experience described by Browne inLove Two was what happened to them, it could no longerbe conceived as literary fancy, no longer as a personal idiosyncrasy, no longer as resulting from the biases ofa single researchers; it moved to something that had to be arousing to any scientist who knew of it.

When she returned home, she emailed a letter to Matini whose address was listed in the LinguisticsAcademy web page. She wanted to know to what extent his thinking matched hers. The Historical Societydirector had said that as yet there had been no other researchers, except Matini, to inspect the Brownepapers. The reply she received from Matini was polite, but uninformative. He did say, however, that hehoped to visit the United States some day to meet her so that they could discuss the implications of whatwas revealed in the Browne letters.

The events of Peters trial had already underscored for Ruth and Carol that Love Two was definitelytoo important to be dismissed. When Ruth described her experience in Nebraska, Carols interest deepenedfurther. They considered possible ways of subjecting Love Two to the kind of analysis that couldunequivocally test Brownes conception of it as a specific and universal mechanism and, therefore, one thatmight be brought under control.

Ruth recalled one day that she had sat on the couch in the playroom watching Arthur. At almosttwo, he had taken his first steps just two weeks ago, under his parents excited attention. Although hiscrawling skills were masterful, they had begun to worry about his walking. Their neighbors baby had walkedat 10 months! Arthur was awkwardly making his way about the room testing out his sea legs.

Suddenly, Ruth realized that she had not thought of Xavier for a week. Did that mean, shewondered, that she was entirely out of the Love Two state, that whatever physiological measure might havedetected its presence would now read zero? If she and Xavier not understood Love Two, they might havearranged to correspond. They might even have married, swept up as they were in their passion. Thinkingabout Xavier and wishing for him had lasted longer than she had expected. She wondered whether it was it

ever really over, whether the oxytocin and vasopressin in her system had returned to normal levels, andwhether the lights had stopped flashing in the Love Two area of her brain when she encountered somethingthat reminded her of him.

Ruth had told Carol, and herself, that she would not want to have wanted to have spent the lasttwenty years in New Guinea, considering all that it would have meant. Surely it was not the way she wouldhave wanted to live her life. They made the right decision, and they did get over it. Ruth did, anyway, andshe assumed that Xavier did as well. It may have been an oddity in the universe for two people as madly inlove with each other as she and Xavier had been to have parted on the basis of what they considered to be

7/30/2019 DTCW 14 Trial a2 c9

4/12

AASScciieennttiissttLLooookkssaattRRoommaannttiiccLLoovveeaannddCCaallllssIIttLLiimmeerreennccee::

scientific evidence that they were caught in the grips of an involuntary condition, in which their feelings foreach other went beyond rational limits beyond their control.

Despite their knowledge and as much as they accepted that the cause went beyond reason, theirexperiences were no less intense than had they been as innocent as Romeo and Juliet. Love Two was a verypowerful state, which, Carol observed, should not be surprising, since mating is the engine that drovehuman reproduction and therefore human evolution. It made us what we are.

Although no truly relevant research had followed Brownes work, Ruth found that a number of labshad started attempting to find physiological correlates of various emotions, including love. They had evenisolated brain substances and noted, for example, the part of the brain that showed increased activity whenpeople looked at a pictures of loved ones. Nevertheless, scientifically speaking, Love Two theory was stillalmost entirely experiential, and still, for that reason, it had been largely ignored, except for self-helpers andthe writers of advice columns. Because researchers did not separate various types of being in love, thephysiological correlates unique to Love Two remained unknown. Therefore, the state was not subject toanalysis based on identification by external observers for which reason it was unacceptable to the academictraditions of human nature study that Love Two was the distinct condition that she and Xavier had assumedto be, and that the letters in Nebraska had confirmed.

Anything based on self-report just doesnt fly, Ruth said to Carol. Self-report removes theelement of control that is necessary in order for academia to deal with it.

In the university library, Carol had found an old magazine article describing an interview withBrowne by the journalist Dick Price, the same writer who later covered Peters trial. In response to aquestion about what he thought might happen in the future, Browne had replied,

I felt that the results of my work portended such changes that it was impossible to

predict what might happen, whether it would turn out good or bad or, if both, in

what proportions. Maybe those who talk about what has been divinely intended

have a point. I wondered whether science, itself, should rightly be considered a

compulsion. I dont mean in a psychiatric sense. No, science is humility in the face of

truths, and the scientist is a tool. I must push on. It is the best thing I can do.

That interview with Price had taken place three months before Browne died.

Carol and Ruth realized that one of Brownes basic messages was that politics and human naturescience cannot be separated, that hard science, Carols kind, the kind that disallowed ambiguity, wasdifferent from such human nature sciences as anthropology and psychology. Ruth was well aware thatsciences that relied on human observation had to be carefully monitored for the errors in which wishfulthinking clouded perception. That expectation could influence results was a principle that had beenrepeatedly demonstrated experimentally a half-century earlier by the brilliant psychologist, Robert Rosenthal.

Now that their attention had returned full force to the topic of Love Two, Ruth and Carol began tomeet almost daily. They seldom left the building, so intent was their focus on the mysterious subject, as

Carol called it. And the biggest mystery was the one Browne had grappled with unsuccessfully. It was thequestion of how to get around the resistance to the scientific study of love.

Ruth said, The main problem lies in the inability of language to convey messages with objectiveclarity. In Love Two research, Browne found that questionnaires were useless because language was toocrude a tool. Words were always subjective, and did not always convey the same feelings and experiences todifferent users. He was able to discover this because of the similarity that existed in the operation of thepattern across people and situations. But this was possible only when he, as he put it, got beyond the labelsto the experience itself.

7/30/2019 DTCW 14 Trial a2 c9

5/12

7/30/2019 DTCW 14 Trial a2 c9

6/12

AASScciieennttiissttLLooookkssaattRRoommaannttiiccLLoovveeaannddCCaallllssIIttLLiimmeerreennccee::

Its because Price was not hindered in his thinking by the constraints of the academic frame ofmind, Carol offered.

Thats it, Ruth agreed. Incidentally, Browne wasnt clear about the duration of Love Two in hisbook, but none of the letters I saw in Nebraska mentioned a duration of less than three years!

How long did yours last? Carol inquired. How long was it before you really stopped thinkingabout Xavier?

It was just about three years, as a matter of fact, and that was in the absence of any contact with orknowledge of him at all. Some of the letter writers described endurances of decades when occasional contactled to re-stimulation. And, most important, as far as Peters trial was concerned, Browne was clear about hisview that Love Two controlled wishes, thoughts, and feelings, but not a persons acts. Love Two can beannounced to the world, or it can remain hidden from others.

Thereby, said Carol, making it difficult to capture by ordinary psychological means ofinvestigations. While the phrase being in love, in contradistinction to loving, largely captures a validdescription, Browne found that ordinary language does not permit unambiguous differentiating. With defin-itional clarity, Love Two emerges in clear form.

Yes, Ruth said, but we mustnt forget one very important point: The intensity of the pleasureexperienced when hopes are high is so great that it has been referred to as the greatest happiness, the

highest high, walking on air, something the writer could not imagine living without, worth all the pain, andso forth. I know; I was there in New Guinea.

One thing is clear to me, Carol said. Anything so distinct has to have observable physiologicalmarkers, if they can only be found. Also, because of the family disruption and other damaging effects ofLove Two, finding a cure would be very important.

Soon after this discussion, Carol spent several days at a professional conference at which she gave apaper on an unrelated biochemical topic, but she couldnt stop thinking about Love Two. From her hotelroom after the days sessions were over, she wrote the following letter to her friend.

Dear Ruth,

Our focus on Love Two has reminded me of the student who leftthat anonymous note in your mailbox. A scientific approach to human

nature flies in the face of the religious necessity of free will.Fundamentalist Muslims, and Christians, too, feel that a psychologicallaw, something that is fixed and involuntary, denies free will. Without

free will people are automatons who cannot therefore be blamed for theirtransgressions. The impulse to punish runs high and the justice system is

tied in knots over intentions and deliberateness and knowing right fromwrong. They are obliged to decide whether the defendant was aware atthe time of committing the act that it was wrong. We identify sinnersand impose punishment on wrongdoers. We say we do it so that otherswill be deterred, but that we want to do it is a built-in reaction, what iscalled the result of hard-wiring.

7/30/2019 DTCW 14 Trial a2 c9

7/12

TThheeCCoolllleecctteeddWWoorrkkssooffDDoorrootthhyyTTeennnnoovv

Correlation, that is, the fact that two events occur together, as wehave said, does not, in itself, tell which was the one that caused the other.Furthermore, knowing the chemistry doesnt produce an explanation atthe level of experience. The difference between my work and yours isthat, as a biochemist, I work below the level of ordinary observation,while you try to operate at the muddy level of human motivation, action,and experience. If Love Two is really either on or off, there must be away of identifying the state physiologically. And if it can be identified,

perhaps it can be induced, and, if it can be induced, then perhaps it canbe extinguished. In other words, it might be possible to control it. If so,it would be fulfilling the wish of people across the ages. It would be

producing the magic love potion. For these reasons, I look forward to

getting back to the lab where I can continue with the chemical analysisof the ingredients of those love potion vials that Xavier gave you.

I realize I am not saying anything here that you dont know, orthat we have not already talked about, but I have become so obsessedwith the subject that I felt I must write it out.

Carol found Love Two theory to be personally inconceivable, and yet it matched what she founddescribed in autobiography, legend, and folklore. There was the intense longing, the euphoria, and theterrible pain when a love was lost. Without direct experience, Carol had, from her discussions with Ruth,and from Brownes book, come to see Love Two as distinct, with intensity predictable as a reliable functionof circumstance. The amount of uncontrolled thought and the pangs of lovesickness should the lover berejected followed a definite pattern. Because it gradually diminished in salience when the loved onereciprocated and a committed mating actually occurred, its more unsettling features were not alwaysexperienced. It amazed Carol that, although it had been repeatedly described in precise detail in story andsong, few among anthropologists or psychologists seem to have seen it, as distinct as evidenced by theirfailure to award it a specific verbal designation. Love Two theory was the product of a single researcher, nottaken up by other researchers for many years after Brownes book was published. The most remarkablething about it for Carol was the finding that some people, like herself, lived their lives without having theexperience, and others experienced it for the first time late in life. She wondered whether she ever would fall

into Love Two.

Carol and Ruth both knew that many people would find Love Two theory repulsive, that a largeportion of the unmarried adult population walks around longing to find someone. Well, Carol thought,not me, and I assume the reasons would be found in my DNA. At that time, the science of love had notprogressed beyond Brownes conjecture about a felicitous combination of inside and outside circumstances,that is, of physiology, plus the presence of a person who attracts. Whatever sets it off, once the state is inforce, reactions are predictable. It was impossible to imagine because it is so unlike any other experience. AsRuth said, no words can produce the full image.

Carols letter to Ruth continued:

7/30/2019 DTCW 14 Trial a2 c9

8/12

AASScciieennttiissttLLooookkssaattRRoommaannttiiccLLoovveeaannddCCaallllssIIttLLiimmeerreennccee::

The difference between science and art is that people create art, whilescience is the search for what is beyond our ability to create. I know it canbe said that we create theories, and of course that is true, and the scientificleap to the insight that shines a pathway not yet paved is exactly the

same, I am sure, as the spark that tells the artist what is the next rightthing to do. I admired the artist, but it was not my role. I knew aboutthose who see science as constructed, but in the most important sense, theywere wrong. They mistook the bureaucracies, the competitiveness, and theerrors of scientists, for science. Science is the discovery of things out therein nature that are not immediately visible to the untutored naked eye.

The artist might be said to look for things that are in there, in thehuman mind, in the human potential for reaction, things that evoke some

form of pleasure.Less than four centuries ago, we sharpened our tools and overcame

the prejudices that had banned biology. The result was a transformationof ever-escalating proportions in the human condition, until the fortunateone-sixth of the worlds population lived with comforts unavailable to the

monarchs of previous times, and unimaginable to all in previous ages.Only we left our minds and motives in a primitive state. We are still out ofcontrol, still killing, still obeying the ancient jungle law of hit and hit

back, of the wild vengeance that has brought humanity to the brink ofextinction and we have not learned to share resources fairly.

By the scientific principles to which Ruth and Carol subscribed, consideration of possible social orpolitical consequences warps the scientific process. The search for truth must be pure. Otherwise, it risksbeing misdirected. That didnt mean abrogating ethical considerations or that anything goes as long as it islabeled scientific. There were many kinds of ethical considerations that could and should be applied, butthe constraints were on action. There must not be constraints on thinking, or science isnt science anymore,and not likely to get very far in the pursuit of new knowledge.

Its a sticky problem that many in the academic and scientific community do not themselves fullyunderstand, Ruth said. Scientific progress depends on ideas that are free. Constraint cannot be placed onthe expression of ideas without running the risk of inhibiting scientific progress.

hen Ruth returned from the convention, she and Carol continued to ponder Love Two. Ruthsinterviews had only underscored Brownes original message; they had revealed nothing new. They had

many discussions on how unintended factors screwed things up. Biases of various sorts, conscious andunconscious, could determine what is studied, how it is studied, and what conclusions could be drawn fromthe findings in view of which what would be done next. All kinds of accidents and predilections might have

7/30/2019 DTCW 14 Trial a2 c9

9/12

TThheeCCoolllleecctteeddWWoorrkkssooffDDoorrootthhyyTTeennnnoovv

brought scientists to any given point. The important thing for Ruth and Carol was the ability to squaretheory with experience whatever may have been the route that brought them to that point.

But, Ruth asked, is there really hope when the subject is the conjunction of the actions, thoughts,sensations, and visions that make up the human experience?

They both remembered that science began with the study of the heavens, and that it had taken manycenturies to progress to biology. Ruth saw the history of human nature sciences as the history of bypassing

the essence. Human science investigators avoided scientific study of the human mind; instead, they fooledaround at the periphery.

Carol pointed out, These are not the old days, when we believed that we wed been created inGods image, rather than by the accidental intersection of chance and necessity. As neurologist and authorsOliver Sacks and Antonio Damasio (among many others) have taught us, we now see and I mean literallysee through the microscope, if not directly with bare eyes part of the physiology associated with particularbehavioral manifestations. The point is that we are biological, even our ideas are biological. Learning themechanisms can only help.

People in the grip of Love Two behave very much the way they do because of their individualsituations, but underneath its all the same, Ruth added.

Yes, Carol agreed. What we want to study cannot be seen by traditional scientific means.

And, therefore, Ruth continued, as Browne wrote in his autobiography, there is stigma attachedto scientific research on romantic love. He said that two passionate contingencies raise objections. Inaddition to those who were suspicious of self-report, there were those who maintained that scientific studyof romantic love was immoral. Flat out. Love was sacred, even mystical, and should not be tampered with.In the famous words of Senator William Proxmire, in awarding his Golden Fleece Award meaningfleecing the government by spending money foolishly to Ellen Berscheid, who had requested governmentfunding for her proposed a study of romantic love

I know, Carol interjected, Proxmire said that there are things we do not wish to know about, andwhy people fall in love is one of them.

Yes, Ruth said, But the real resistance, Browne maintained, came from something else; it camefrom the fact that some cannot conceive of it and others cannot admit it. He said he found out that his

book had been held up because the subject was controversial within the publishing house that had acceptedit. Some hinted that the husband and wife owners were having their own Love Two related troubles, andthat the editor was a factor. It was really only after publication that Browne obtained the data that confirmedboth the reality of the phenomenon and the resistance to accepting it for what it was. The same resistancewas probably responsible for the minimal publicity given to it. Browne, himself, was carrying a heavyacademic load, and so did virtually nothing to publicize it.

Nothing? Carol asked.

Actually, she continued, from his papers in Nebraska, I learned that he tried to reach thescientific community prior to publication. He wrote individual letters to about thirty of his scientificcolleagues that were intended to accompany galleys. It was over a year later that he learned that the galleyshad never been sent out, due to what the publisher told him was a mail room error.

Could it have been sabotage? Carol wondered.

It might have been, Ruth said, considering the in-house controversies that were raging. He didnt

know about those, either. The book was not reviewed, although it was discussed sarcastically in Time

magazine and in theJournal of the American Medical Association. AndLove Two won second prize in abook contest of the National Women Journalists Organization. But it wasnt until Browne received thehundreds of letter with their common message that he really felt he had received confirmation of the theory.I saw them. They thanked him for telling them that they were not alone with their crazy feelings.

7/30/2019 DTCW 14 Trial a2 c9

10/12

AASScciieennttiissttLLooookkssaattRRoommaannttiiccLLoovveeaannddCCaallllssIIttLLiimmeerreennccee::

So receiving the letters was pretty important to how Browne himself felt about the topic, Carolsaid.

Thats right. For reasons weve already talked about, those around him university colleagues andadministrators, for example were not likely to admit to their personal Love Two experiences, if they hadhad them.

Which is no different from how our friends here at Westport U would react if we talked about it,Carol observed.

There was an incident, Ruth said, that really revealed the reception the book would get in somequarters. From his journal, I learned that, on one occasion, Browne spoke at a community gatheringorganized by a local clergyman. Browne did not consider it a particularly good meeting, although it was hardfor him to put his finger on just why. A few days after he returned home, he received a telephone call from

the woman who, having read Love Two, had recommended him as a speaker. At first, Browne didntunderstand why she was apologizing. She said that the behavior of the host had been rude and hostile. Itwas something Browne had not recognized because he had not witnessed the same mans usual behaviorwith other guest speakers. The woman said the difference was striking. It seemed that the Reverend was aladys man who had had affairs with several women in the community. The way Browne and the womanreconstructed it, when the invitation was issued, the Reverend had not read the book. He assumed a bookabout love would be harmless enough. But between the time he issued the invitation and the day of the

lecture, he did read it, and was infuriated. There was the theological problem, but there was also theresistance of the gigolo to seeing the consequences of his actions on his victims. He had enjoyed theirattention; he had not felt responsible for the effects of his seductions. He, himself, had not experiencedLove Two, and, like Peter Young, he assumed that the state of Love Two was a psychopathology, whichmade him blameless.

How terrible for those poor women! Carol said.

One thing that has really fascinated me, Ruth said,was that as far as the uniqueness of the state is concerned,Browne found almost no other human experience that werealso distinct, cross-cultural, although not universal in

expressiona state that a person either was or was not in,where being in it meant playing by its rules of response toexternal conditions, and where its existence in others couldonly be determined by verbal report.

There was one phenomenon that might fit, Ruthcontinued after a pause. He noted that the so-called neardeath experience reported in a similar manner by diversepersons had at least one of the same characteristics as Love

Two. It, too, could only be assessed by what the person said about it. Only the amazing consistencies in thereports led credence to the idea that there was a constant physiological process involved. But the similaritybetween Love Two and NDE ended there.

Ruth and Carol concluded that the problem was that when Love Two is described, it sounds bothirrational and foolish, clearly a psychological disorder. That made it very difficult, say, at a publishers

conference, when someone objected that Love Two was a foolish book describing a lot of silly people, foranyone to stand up, naked before the group, to say that that craziness was exactly what they went through.Who would put themselves through that? Browne imagined that this is probably what actually happened. Asone reader of his book wrote, one of the half-dozen or fewer who wrote anonymously, Its tooembarrassing.

In his journal, Ruth recalled, Browne said that his really important finding was not the constantattributes of the state of romantic love important as it was to set them down. Everyone knew about them;they permeated the music, dramatic, and literary arts; it was just that they had not been given status within

7/30/2019 DTCW 14 Trial a2 c9

11/12

TThheeCCoolllleecctteeddWWoorrkkssooffDDoorrootthhyyTTeennnnoovv

science. The most surprising, and maybe the most important finding, for Browne, was the discovery thatmany maybe most, maybe a minority, who knows? perfectly normal people never underwent theexperience, and, because they had not undergone the experience a experience with absolutely uniquefeatures, features that do not occur in other experiences they could not imagine it. Unfortunately, Brownedied the year before Peters trial and so was unable to testify himself. But the significance of his ideas wasthat they fit everywhere I looked, once I knew what to look for. They fit different cultures, differenthistorical events, and, most of all, they fit with precision descriptions in the literature from the Hebrew Bible

to Shakespeare.It had been a long afternoon so they left it there, but the next day, after thinking about it, Carol said,

I can think of another experience that no one can imagine unless they had actually experienced it. Wordscant describe it. I had heard the words, but it was only when it happened to me that I knew what the wordsreally meant.

What was that? Ruth wanted to know.

Depression.

Depression? You mean that we dont understand what that means unless weve experienced it?

Thats right, Carol replied. At least I didnt understand what it was until it happened.

What happened?

It was after my mothers last husband had succumbed to his cancer. I was in college and because ofmy allergies, which were especially bad that semester, I was cut off from many social activities at a time Ireally didnt want to be, and I was feeling sad about my mothers grief. She had had too many losses in herlife. Anyway, I was sharing an apartment with three other women. They suddenly stopped speaking to me. Ilater learned that it was a misunderstanding. They thought I had done something that I hadnt done. Theythought I had secretly read one of the other womens diaries. It was a mistake. I was innocent. In any case, itwas during that period that I suddenly dropped into a state of total lack of caring. I was immobilized. Anyaction, even the simple act of getting out of bed to get something to eat was more than I could manage. Ijust lay in bed. I wanted to call mother to try to ease her pain, but I couldnt lift the telephone receiver. Icouldnt summon up that much effort.

Were you suicidal?

In a way. When I heard about someone who had killed herself by jumping off a bridge, I thought,Good for her, I wish it were me. I think if Id had a gun, I might have used it, except that the slightestactivity was more than I could get the energy for. I just lay in bed.

My goodness, Carol, thats not like you at all.

Thats right. It wasnt like me because I wasnt really being myself.

How long did you go on like that?

Three days.

Only three days? I thought depression lasted longer than that, Ruth said.

Well, my friends discovered the truth and apologized and that got me out of it. It had neverhappened before, and it has never happened again, but now when I read descriptions like William Styrons

book about his depression, I know what he is talking about as I never could have had I not had thatexperience. Thats one reason why I know I cant imagine Love Two. I can accept the reality of it from thedescriptions of others, but I know that I cant really understand the feelings. According to one recentauthor, its when the depression lessens, but is not completely gone, that suicide occurs. I was lucky. I gotout of it quickly.

But, Ruth demanded, was your reaction really commensurate with the situation?

Of course it wasnt. But somehow, my friends rejection triggered something that just took off.Probably there were other physiological things going on in me at the time that normally would not havethrown me into such an extreme reaction.

7/30/2019 DTCW 14 Trial a2 c9

12/12

AASScciieennttiissttLLooookkssaattRRoommaannttiiccLLoovveeaannddCCaallllssIIttLLiimmeerreennccee::

Its probably the same with Love Two, Ruth said.