desire for relationship, self

So, what is this unfulfilled desire for someone else, this unrequited love? It seems to be something portrayed in film and theatre for many years. It is, if I may be so bold, a common theme to many productions, if not considered a fundamental concern of the human condition. So why does this occur?

I find it interesting to consider the rarity with which someone claims to be broken with desire for someone they've not met. This is rarely attached to those who appear in movies, for instance. One may say that they are attracted to someone they have seen, perhaps in a movie, but they rarely demonstrate profound desire for these individuals. So there must be a requirement of some kind of human interaction.

Perhaps this is, then, a problem of hope. If you have no hope that you will ever have the something which you desire, then you either don't develop the stuff necessary to have this kind of unfulfilled desire or you find a way to deal with your conviction that it will never happen. Either way, no emotion/feeling/whatever exists where there is no hope. So how does this hope develop? It must come from experiences where the one party feels some kind of satisfaction with a particular interaction and wants more, and, as more interactions take place, they feel the satisfaction of this further hope.

Then, of course, as the story goes, the satisfaction stops when the other individual is no longer willing to give what the first desires. Like being fed just enough to be kept alive, and then having the food source disappear, or become unsteady. Problem is, the thing doesn't die like an animal starved of food. It goes on as, well, a ghost or zombie. Refusing to let go, yet not really having enough for life. And both parties suffer. Well, sometimes.

So, there has to be some way to do this well - some piece of understanding or substance which allows the desirer and desired be free. Perhaps this is self.

Self, with respect to other people, is one I have a hard time with. You have to have it to be attractive to others, it seems, yet too much of it, and you don't really care about them. Or is such a definition of self necessarily flawed? Does one necessarily give something of one's self away when one desires another? This would seem to be the case. How common is it to see someone who has loved/desired/something and been shot down, only to never love/feel/whatever again. By some definition of self, they would seem to have gained an epitome of it: they have themself, and that's all they need. Then, at the other end, you have people who continue to pour themselves out on others, are constantly broken, and are simply a mess, looking for anyone who will give them... something. Perhaps they expect to get the stuff of personal satisfaction from some interaction with someone else - someone to tell them "you're alright". Then, of course, if you can really persuade them, then they feel good about themself and quit caring about other people's input, and people have a hard time feeling "close" to them.

Uh, so, um, I don't know. I guess self needs a better definition: a better way to approach this thing of relationship with others.