"If it's provable we can kill it."
And who needs it anyway?
Published on June 17, 2007 By EmperorofIceCream In Misc
I make no claims for this article beforehand. I don't claim that it's coherent or consistent, or that it's particularly well thought out. Given the chaotic nature of my thoughts on love, there's no reason why it should have any of the above-mentioned qualities.

C'est la vie c'est la guerre.

What is love? How do you love others? Can you, and should you if you can, love yourself? We say we love many things. We love our cars, our wives/husbands/children. We love our pets and our jobs. we say we love our country (some of us still say that). We say we love God, and that God loves us. Interestingly, we don't say our country loves us back. Our God does, but not our country.

So what is 'love'?

If a condition of love is reciprocity then we don't love our cars, our favorite computer programs, our CD collections, our houses, or any other inanimate object. Because inanimate objects don't reciprocate our 'love'. We may appreciate those things, we may become obsessed by those things, but we don't love those things - if love requires reciprocity. And if it doesn't then there's nothing at all to distinguish 'love' from gratitude for convenience or pleasure. If love doesn't require reciprocity then we might indeed love our cars, our weed-whackers, our dinky magnets stuck on the fridge. And there would be no way to tell if we did or not, because the 'relationship' would be all one way.

If there were no reciprocity involved (and so far as I can see, reciprocity is one of the defining characteristics of love) then 'love' would be no more than a measure of pleasure and satisfaction. My pleasure in the beloved object. This was in fact one of the ancient measures of love, defined and described by both Plato and Aristotle. They named it 'eros' and the 'erotic' love of our day is not at all removed from it. Hence the current obsession with how the body is to be perceived by the Other, the Lover, because 'love' in our day is a solipsistic, narcissistic thing, concerned only with the appearance of each of us in the eyes of the Other - whether and in what degree I derive pleasure from you as the object of my love, and you derive pleasure from me as the object of your love.

It is an essentially selfish way of relating to others, having no concern for them but based on the satisfaction you receive from your relationship to the Beloved. I love you to the degree that you please me. Erotic love is inherently and fundamentally selfish - and there's nothing wrong with that when all parties to the relationship realise that that is what 'love' actually is, in that relationship. God help the Idealistic Romantic who enters a 'love' affair of this sort without understanding what he's involved himself in.

I speak from experience.

Christians of all types and denominations understand a different word to mean 'love'. That word is 'Agape', and it's meaning is in 180 degrees of opposition to that of Eros. Agape is sacrificial love, Other-directed love, love that places the welfare of the Other at the heart of itself. The Christian understanding of the sacrifice of Jesus on the Cross is the primordial example of 'agapaic' love.

But there's nothing to stipulate or require that the nature of such self-sacrifice (considered in purely human terms and apart from the example of Jesus) is in any sense loving. Self-sacrifice may be carried out in a spirit of emotional or moral blackmail. It may be carried out to vindicate and 'prove' the alleged love of someone for another - in which case self-sacrifice is actually self-love, self-aggrandizement, and vain-glory. It may be carried out to convict another of how little they love the Lover (look what I do for you, because I love you so much, yet you do nothing for me) in which case love is, again, self-love.

As I once, memorably, was told (and, memorably, misunderstood) to say "I love you" is in most cases to stake a claim on the future behaviour of the one you think you love. I love you. And this gift of love I make (which is in most cases nothing but an advanced and sophistated form of moral blackmail) is so unique and precious and so unlikely ever to be repeated that you must do what I want in return - because, after all, I love you.

The woman who said this to me, in relation to my own behaviour, was in fact right. What I called 'love' was in fact my own obsession with her body, plus the result of my desire that I never cease to have access to that body. On my part there were many good and pleasurable feelings associated with that desire and its satisfaction, and these good feelings along with my continued desire for the perpetuation of the source of those feelings ( ie, I wanted her to continue to live and prosper so I could continue to enjoy her) were what I mistook for love.

When we finally broke up, and we broke up because I couldn't reconcile the the purely selfish nature of the relationship I offered, and in accordance with which she tried to live, with the Idealism and the Romanticism of the relationship I thought I was offering, I was angry with her for all the wrong reasons. I had in fact had what I wanted all along from her - I was just so blind to the nature of what I wanted, and the contradiction between what I offered and had accepted and what I thought I was offering, that her attempt to give me what I wanted appeared as a direct contradiction of everything I thought was actually going on.

Love is for the clear-headed and the clear-sighted, not for the majority of us who stumble catastrophically from one disaster to another because we don't understand ourselves, let alone the ones we claim to love.

The European Medievals thought of love as a disease, a sickness, a madness that entered through the eyes and consumed the whole of the rational faculties. And they were right. Love makes us all crazy.

It does so because it makes us aware of the Other in ways which nothing else can equal in terms of power to disrupt our lives. Every time I've been in love it has been the ruin of me, the contradiction of everything I thought I was. Each time I've been in love (and I define love in relation to my own life as the obsessive concern with another to the point were the imperatives of my own existence are of no account) my life has, in one way or another, been radically transformed. Transformed to the point of destruction - until I met Sabrina. Loving her has had the most creative, positive affects and effects on my life, as compared to the consequences of any other 'love-relationship' with a woman that I've ever known.

Those before her were catalysts and engines of destruction. She has been a catalyst and engine of creation and positive change. And there are no words fit to describe my gratitude to her. She has been, in every way comprehended by the word, a revelation.

Do I love her? Yes, in the terms defined. But is that 'love'?

Let me say that by being what she is to me, she has done the rest of you no favors. She has in fact encouraged and incubated someone who thinks in ways that might be described as monstrous. But love, so they say, is blind. If I'm monstrous in my relationship to her, it's only in ways that she wants. And in wanting to be loved (who is there that is human that doesn't want to be loved?) I respond to the ways in being with her that she regards as loving. As I said, there is no love without reciprocity.

Love is protean, and impossible to describe. We all recognise it when we see it, but that doesn't mean we can put what we see into words. There is love of wife. There is love of child. There is love of father, mother, sibling. There is 'love' of those we want to fuck, and those we want to use to our advantage. There is love of those things that bring us pleasure. And for some there is love of those things that bring us pain.

Either you haven't had enough, or you like it, and we can never escape the web of what we want, or of those things of which we haven't had enough.

What we love is what we want most - whatever that might be. And so long as we live, until we realise that what we want can never give us the fullness of what we desire, we will never be able to escape the illusion that what we love will make us happy. And while we continue to believe that what will make us happy is what is truly worth loving we will never escape from the trap we have set for ourselves.

And the trap is this, and nothing else but this: to mistake the reality of what we want for the reality of the way the Universe as it actually is.

Continue to love. You'll never be anything but disappointed.

Comments
on Jun 18, 2007
. appearance dot
on Jun 18, 2007
Of course, none of the foregoing, whether correct in its analyses or not, denies the existential need for love to which we're all subject. It's just that the need for love is not the same thing as love itself - and the commonest mistake we all make is to equate the intensity of our desire to be loved with love itself.
on Jun 18, 2007
In short: love is as love does...or did I misunderstand you completely?
on Jun 18, 2007
What is love?"
"The total absence of fear," said the Master.
"Then what is it we fear?"
"Love," said the Master.


Anthony de Mello said that.
on Jun 18, 2007
You may be a 'monster' but You're MY monster.


I'm only a wannabe monster, a monster in theory as it were. But you're right as to whose monster I am.
on Jun 20, 2007
Love is what everyone seems to need and crave. In a way it seems to validate some people's existence and the lack of it makes them so insignificant.

Something I'm trying to make my daughter see because for her, she is loved, finally by someone of the opposite sex who is interested in her, makes her feel needed. Don't ask where the years of our parental love, affection and teaching has gone. But I digress. It is taking some time to realise that she has her own path and we are letting her take it. It just grates against everything I know in my heart she's not, unloved, incomplete and insignificant. She must learn to love herself, and that is something I've always taught her. Unfortunately the influence of outside factors, namely friends, and everything else around that lets people negate who they are because of how they look or do not look has been a much bigger influence than I realised. In a way I was much like her when younger, shy, unsure of self...she has to discover what I have learned over the years, so I leave it to her fate and hopefully the path she takes will be kinder to her than it has been for me.

Sorry, I'm making this all about me! At any rate, insigtful article and one that made me think too much!lol!
on Jun 20, 2007
This is my favorite article of yours.

Your words to Sabrina make me envious.

I am still learning how to love. It is something that sometimes feels so natural and other times is completely baffling and contrary to what seems natural.
on Jun 20, 2007
To: foreverserenity

Unfortunately the influence of outside factors, namely friends, and everything else around that lets people negate who they are because of how they look or do not look has been a much bigger influence than I realised. In a way I was much like her when younger, shy, unsure of self...she has to discover what I have learned over the years, so I leave it to her fate and hopefully the path she takes will be kinder to her than it has been for me.


There can be no question that you are a loving mother. I have observed this about mothers - no matter what they do, no matter the degree to which they love their children, there is always an element of guilt, and of a sense of failure, that accompanies the fact of being a mother. I don't know why this should be so, but it seems to be an unavoidable and inevitable consequence of motherhood. No matter what you do, it's never enough to satisfy you. And daughters (and sons) never appreciate, until it's far too late, what it is their mothers have done for them.

Once, long ago, when I was still a Christian, I attended a meeting of my Church's worship group. One of the ladies present was pregnant - it was her first child and she was more than a little nervous. I was moved to lay my hands upon her and pray. This, so far as I can remember, is what I said.

What is there, or who is there, that is more honourable before God than a mother? It was a woman, and a mother, who bore Our Saviour, and whom God graced with the mantle of his presence. And who should be more honoured by men than their mothers, who gave them life?

No matter the outcome of your relationship with your daughter, one day she will understand what you have been to her, and what she must be to her children.

I have a mother of my own. We don't have the easiest relationship. But that doesn't matter. What matters is that she's my mother. In the end, it will be the same with your daughter.
on Jun 20, 2007
To: Texas Wahine

Your words to Sabrina make me envious.


You've no need to be envious. If I understand anything of men, I understand why you had the difficulties you have had in your marriage. Many men are afraid of their wives. Some men are in awe of them. I think this is so in the case of your husband. Sometimes, what a man is in awe of will drive him away, because the depth and sincerity of what he feels leaves him uncomprehending and terrified.

It's a form of moral cowardice - but, being a man, I understand it.

There's nothing for you to envy in what I and Sabrina have together. What you have is its equal: different in form, but not at all different in worth, or in sincerity. You've learned something many don't - men are foolish, vulnerable, hapless creatures, capable of the most ridiculous foolishness. But, when we love, we belong to what we love, even if (and most especially) when we deny it.

There's nothing for you to envy in what I and Sabrina have.
on Jun 21, 2007
Reply By: EmperorofIceCreamPosted: Wednesday, June 20, 2007To: foreverserenity


Thank you! What you said was very moving, real and beautiful!
on Jun 26, 2007
The beauty of Simon is this, He sincerely means every word.


Awwwwwww....

V^^^^^^^^V bites you