i was speaking to my friend Jackie on the phone last night and explaining my emotional journey to her in not quite as many words as in my previous entry (a result of my newfound empathy). I also lamented the lack of chemistry in a recent date to which Jackie remarked, with some amount of surprise, that I now believed in chemistry.
As a very good friend, Jackie had been at the receiving end of my rants about the misuse, abuse and sheer fabrication that composed the definition of “chemistry” when used as a descriptor or modifier of interpersonal relationships. My working and much shared theory at one point was that people used “lack of chemistry” as an excuse to break off relationships because they lacked the guts to reveal basic shallow reasons or because they were unwilling or unable to verbalise and hence face their own unrealistic expectations of an ideal relationship (based on romance novels (if female) or penthouse magazines (if male)) and so took refuge in the weakminded use of the noun “chemistry”.
I still have residual feelings of great dislike for the term “chemistry” but now do concede that the thing which it stands for exists. Chemistry basically and simply describing the pleasure one’s body (and sub-cortical structures) feels when it is in the presence of someone else without need for rational justifications or reasons. Chemistry being the primal pairing instinct that we’ve inherited from our non-verbal and semi-sentient ancestors. Chemistry being the complex (and indeed alchemical) result of pheremonal and visual stimulus, interaction and feedback through body language and emotional expressions, positive reinforcement of another’s physical presence as well as a whole host of other things possibly including Oedipus. Chemistry being the joy of a seamless and harmonious dance of self and other self communication where the occasional discordance merely adds spice and excitement.