Love

 An overview

Love is such a widely used term, yet its definition is extremely challenging. On a lighter note it’s more likely the subject of entertainment and joyful delight, from a highly skeptical tone to the idealistic, romantic or even as catalyst to the passions and accompanying violence.  

On occasions we enjoy seeing children playing together and bringing to bear a world of love and laughter or in the love of a mother celebrating the newborn- well mostly except for occasional unwelcome feelings of depression.  

In a more imaginative mode the wide screen at the movies magnifies feelings and emotions. Those same passionate emotions of love have sustained the topic in literature, novels and the various musical genres but far less so than in the 19^th century.

In the dark side terrorism is always linked to the extreme form of love of a cause and none more so than that of the modern day suicide bomber.

Introduction.

The use of love has many more perspectives than those briefly previously mentioned; from personnel affection in intimacy, to devotion to a cause as in love for one’s country which can turn to war, to love as in sacrifice or in the desire or admiration for beautiful objects or art forms or when we simply say with sincerity “I love you.” Yet we are not clear on how love arises; the inclination is to link love as emanating from the heart to revert to feelings of love whilst others think love is a matter of daily decisions to consciously act in a loving or fair minded manner as a social construct. Yet another assumption is to say love is a kind of noble intuitive force which contributes to the greater good, but as we have so much evidence of countless crimes committed under the allure of love, this seems implausible.  

Biblically, authors distinguish passionate love as in intimacy to "unconditional love", but who’s rather grand application, given our limitations as human beings, also seems to me to be somewhat of a contentious issue. 

So, first of all we need to settle on a definition. I want to make a distinction between talking about how you might love something or to be in love with a cause as opposed to a loving union.

To invite discussion my thrust will be the loving union of partners and additionally (where deep relationships form) in united groups but not in relation to a love for objects of beauty.

That might assume of course varying degrees of autonomy.     

I will also attempt to appraise love's values.          

As a loving Union

Love here entails reciprocity tied to the idea of community to facilitate a merger of common interests in the merged entity. If the situation arose where one side becomes subservient to a lopsided emphasis on another’s interests, it is hard to imagine that represents a loving union. Even so, that doesn’t mean it can be ruled out, particularly in a caring arrangement.  

For instance one can refer to instances where there exists an agreed understanding in the relationship. The proviso then is dependent on a remaining genuine concern between the parties, to accommodate more support of one's interests over another’s. However, there is obviously a clear distinction between feeling autonomous in knowing your points of view will be respected in a loving bond as opposed to the excuse of an ego driven controlling notion that inhibits any respect or awareness. The feeling of autonomy is one of the values of love along with patience and awareness of the needs of the other party. 

A loving union of course does not necessarily have to involve any surrender of autonomy as in some instances the reverse may be true where one belongs to say a group where one finds such support as gives way to exchanges of concerns previously inhibited by controlling influences. 

But the question arises is that sense of concern (as to the welfare of one to another) sufficient? Is it fair? Such questions go to the heart of how parties see the expression of a loving union playing out and suggest a sustainable loving union must involve some form of sacrifice one way or another.

This then raises the question of independence and what sacrifice is willingly entered into and maintained as unforeseen events place existential pressure on the loving union.

 

We also run into questions of identity. Can one’s own identity change as a consequence of ongoing exchanges to become a part of a merged identity?

Is that a reality or do we have an independent streak that renders such thinking as a pipe dream?      

 

In any union there will be new networks that invariably involve different ideas that may render the parties having different perspectives. So, the question is how much autonomy does one have to give up to sustain a loving union?  If we regard autonomy as good and a loving union as compromising that autonomy, how then can a loving union be a healthy union in that context ?  

 

To reiterate, do we need to assume it is a necessary part of love to be willing to give up some of our autonomy but if so to what degree? One might conclude that almost all or at least a fair degree of our identity or autonomy can be maintained provided we embrace self-examination that allows one to adapt to life. That in turn relates to how firmly we hold our views and the preparedness or otherwise to see different perspectives whilst maintaining that mutual concern for one another. 

This then may entail a sharing of group vulnerabilities that strengthens the ties in keeping with the loving union thematic. 

What do the respective parties gain from the union? – Does the heightened sense of security (if applicable) feature in meeting one's respective needs in a loving union?     

Appraising loves values

Herein one attempts an elevation of the previous distinctions by indicating the values love has to offer.  

Dignity

So, earlier on I talked about love as showing concern as a necessary binding purpose, but there is also a presumed dignity we hold towards the other, reinforced in day to day interaction. Love might be seen as a way to disarm the emotive responses that might otherwise preclude many essential discussions that would not occur in the absence of a loving bond.   

That is the fear of ridicule to which love as a value assumes diminishes or is entirely absent.

Furthermore, love affords that dignity to allow for the love of an irrational relative who constantly meddles in affairs and so gets on one’s nerves.

The proviso is of course we don’t always respond in the same dignified way to everyone, who may for instance not be acting in an ethical manner or may communicate in an inconsiderate manner. In other words there is the matter of judgment which goes to the heart of selectivity. How do we choose to love someone and expose ourselves to vulnerability? Because of hastiness and lack of discernment in our decision-making this becomes a common thread leading to many emotionally scarred unions.    

In simple terms what makes (in our eyes) one who is considered lovable or not and might this be considered a matter of discernment?  

Finally, it is also the feeling of autonomy because one is free to express oneself within reason in the knowledge of patience and awareness practised by the respective parties bonded together by love.   

 

 Emotions – that certain feeling of love   

Our emotions lie in the older limbic area of the brain which sends signals to the frontal lobes (the executive manager of the mind) to give rise to our feelings and to disseminate information in order for us to make rational decisions where necessary.

Those feelings come from emotions and can provide the affirmation of a loving bond. Even so, our minds are capable of empathy to feel the pain of others whilst not directly experiencing it and so to act in a loving manner.  

Conclusion   

Sentiments usually represent emotions or feelings to ultimately become an expression of love, providing the discerned traits meet with our approval and the union continues to afford dignity expected in such a union.

But ultimately I do think we often come up against something I would describe as a glass ceiling where experience defies comprehension so that we can remain in wonderment as to the mystery of love and life.

As optimists can we still say (or sing along for those who know the tune from Aspects of Love) love changes everything? 

Or from Casablanca - It's still the same old story
A fight for love and glory
A case of do or die
The world will always welcome lovers
As time goes by!!    

Below are scenes very close to where we live – we love the scenery yet we are only 6km from the city, The picture is of the wetland and then me entering the gardens and park which are just a short stroll to the Yarra river. A  favorite seal is regularly been spotted just up the river.   

  

 

 

Randomness in existence or not

Fairness  

One can conclude life is not always fair. For instance if we were born elsewhere life could indeed be most likely dramatically different, with the much better chance that we may have to endure extreme sufferings simply by being in the wrong place at the wrong time. Those same principles might apply here, to anyone growing up in a severely disadvantaged family or community. So, is life just a random series of events which we just have to cope one way or another in terms of existence?   Does that mean the myths, stories, metaphors and allegory are fanciful narrations that can only deceive us and give false hope?  

Existensionalism

Existentialism was a movement influencing both culture philosophy and psychology. There are inferences it can be linked to randomness and absurdity as a starting point to any debate on existence. The other aspect concerns whether or not randomness is deterministic. On the flip side most of what we do and analysis is based on random probabilities which one might argue follows a non- deterministic path. Then of course you have random acts of kindness.

That positive response paradoxically has nothing to do with a response to randomness and might even be traced back to ancestral evolution. The idea of sacrifice or altruism which enhanced the future generation’s chance of survival.

For absurdity and or randomness are not generally the basis of existentialism except for one notable exception. namely Albert Camus. Even so, Camus concluded the world absurdly (as in how he perceived it) necessitated one to create one’s own meaning, presupposing existence ( life to be lived) as if randomness does not apply.

The argument posited by some non – theists is that randomness negates us referencing or talking about any myths. Their position is they are all false because all there is, is randomness and you can’t posit any truth associated with them but instead risk being deceived.   

But in the same breath opponents suggest we can organise society to deal more compassionately with the selective results of randomness.

But isn’t that exactly what some of the myths aim at doing in every society in any event? The way it is and the complexity of a world which is mostly deterministic or only free to the extent we can proceed with random probabilities as if we have free will. Kierkegaard, regarded as the father of existentialism, found myths helpful whilst the others loosely defined as existential philosophers built on that same foundation to give different perspectives. Some were atheists, whilst others theists. They can both be seen as different perspectives but nothing directly related to the idea of randomness. Nietzsche used his mythical prophet Zarathustra to give impetus to existential meaning.    

Don’t Myths, stories and art define our culture, just as it does for those countries identified, to provide existential meaning? This changes over time to attempt to reveal the truth from different perspectives.  

In the western tradition Kierkegaard was regarded as the father of existentialism and talked about the leap of faith necessary by reference to a myth in the OT in his rejection of rationality. The myth in turn was most likely written as a story against human sacrifice. Hence we find meaning in the myths, allegories, metaphors and the stories we tell ourselves.

They form the background to a country’s culture, the law and societal values. In the west of course it is the Jewish Christian tradition that permeates existence but elsewhere there are other rich traditions. 

We don't believe in these myths but rather their perspectives attempt to reveal to us the truth from different perspectives. They invite introspection and possibly the future for religion as espoused by the late pragmatic philosopher Richard Rorty.      

Summing up a lot of this is a bit like the free will versus determinism perennial debate - regardless we live life as if we are free even although for the most part we aren't. So there is an element of randomness but that doesn’t mean we throw out the concepts and ideas dependent on the myths, metaphors and stories that underpin our existence and provide different perspectives.