Tangent 3.9: Love

The song, “This is not a Love Song”, by the 80’s band PiL, for some unknown reason – not that i liked the song when it was around – came through my mind today.

And this seemed relevant…

Love. To me, love is more than attraction, or even intense attraction, or infatuation, or big like, and it is not just sexual attraction that can be called lust. It can be all of those, but to me, it is commitment. To me, love is the knowledge that usurps whatever reservations I may have had for what I before may have thought was ‘commitment’. Love effects me so that the feeling or thought or intuition I may have had upon what the future may hold, is accompanied by a negation of what potential desires I may be imagining of that future, such that I know that I will always have invested concern for that person in my life, that my future becomes thus ‘our life’. The commitment may not always be easy to uphold, but whatever dissatisfaction may arise, it is and will be always, to the best of my ability, tempered by love, that indeed we are committed.

Probably many people have no idea what I’m talking about. I see this is because they have no idea what love is, that to them it has to do with immediate desire. Perhaps this is why divorce is such a viable presence and why many people do not get married. And I mean married in the supra- or extra- institutional sense, as a committed relationship made between two people aside from social stamping.

** **

With this, I enter on a tangent upon the main issue of my ongoing discussion concerning Laruelle and Non-Philosophy.

Now, when commitment is seen or understood as requiring a great effort, where love has seemed to have nearly disappeared from the relationship, I would suggest that it is because love, true love, that stems from mutual love, was not really true to begin with. Love, when it has developed along side of commitment, as a force of will, only loses integrity as an effective ideal when the individual is oriented upon desire – that is unless great force is applied, and ironically, love is the great force that is usually misunderstood and so never leveraged effectively, which is to say without will. Don’t get me wrong, though; desire is a natural and inherently good aspect of our human being. The problem is when desire dominates the individual so as to fulfill one’s purpose in life, it usually inflates the sense for the need of willfullness. Want becomes the overwhelming motivation in being human; want becomes what it is to be human.

In an attempt to be more clear: In existence there are objects. In an earlier post, I write about how things are, for our being human, entirely contained in knowledge. The physical effect, such as pain, created by an object, while causing some reaction in us – the meaning of such effect is mediated and significant to us only in and by knowledge. There is not pain for a human being that is meaningless. Even if someone were to not know the reason of pain, or could not identify a source and purpose of an effect from a thing, the meaning is exactly “I don’t know”. Autonomic reaction, or reflex may occur, but not void of meaning. There is nothing real or unreal that is not contained in our knowing of it, of it being of knowledge.

The solution to the basic problem of humanity must begin with knowledge. The basic problem arises between the subject, the person or single individual, and the object, the thing. This duality has been relegated into the duality of thought and action. The problem can be phrased thus: how does one be consistent with one’s self ? How does one proceed to remain confident at all times that he or she is doing what is best for him or herself, all the while remaining within one’s own ethics such that there arises no conflict, no doubt of one’s own self in life? Is there a way to align one’s thoughts and actions so they achieve the fullest benefit of life for one self (as this may include social benefit, but it does not have to) ?

I propose that such questions align with a perception that includes the individual as a thing, and, that because an individual is thereby a thing, the individual itself, of itself, to itself, is likewise a thing. Such perception also aligns with the idea that we have a subjective, or inner self, that we are capable of thinking upon as if it were likewise a thing, in other words, objectively. This idea has been expressed many times in the ontological (issues of Being) postulates that arise as “we can be conscious of our own consciousness”, and we then get the ‘ego’, ‘super-ego’ and such psychological constructions by extrapolation.

When such a perception or idea forms the root or ground of one’s thinking about reality, history unfolds in a progression that finds psychology, which is the human being come complete as a thing, an object: a subject-object. Hence, items or objects of the psyche thus also become things and can be liked and disliked, and then not only do other individuals become appraised as to objective qualities, but the individual itself, upon itself, as if he or she is likewise an object to be appraised of qualities, is defracted, becomes, as a process of history, divided unto itself. The solution of psychology aggravates its own problem. This is our present condition of human conventional understanding. (And this is the problem Laruelle notices of philosophy. )

I venture to say, coming back to the topic at hand, that such an individual, a subject-object, has no ability to love to another human being, beyond merely desiring them to possess, as a thing might be possessed. The human being is not a thing with definite static qualities; even noticeable traits that seem consistent change. Rather, this is to say, the love as commitment achieves for such a one, anger, fear, frustration, doubt, and struggle. Attraction, linked as it is to a definite quality of thing, fails in the effervescence of the human dynamic.

Love, true love, is called up from the subject to test the integrity of the Being in the world. The problems of the world are the the failure of the subject of conventional knowledge (the subject-object).

Are we things or are we Beings? When love is true, attraction never goes away, the complexities of life do not sway one from the other but only confirm that the love is true; desire never diminishes, attraction never fades, and love grows.

*

When Laruelle talks about his project of Non-Philosophy, he is implicating that which I speak here, that i have put in terms of love.

I shall continue back into the discussion proper, after these messages….

Advertisements

8 thoughts on “Tangent 3.9: Love

  1. I really haven’t written that much so far, but what I have written is already reaching in so many directions.

    So When you send me an email then We can talk more because I don’t think the comment section on word press is really that good for it.

    πŸ™πŸ½

    1. It is interesting that you saw the linkage to N will to power, and I see in your other replies that you appear to have gleaned what I would say is a correct correlation between what I’m saying and N in this regard.

      Even your latest reply seems to reflect a type of irony to the previous ones. Because I feel though that N is indeed addressing the point of contention, I also feel his, and Keirkegaard, show in juxtapositions go to mine, a type of limit they still felt was breachable. While I am unsure if such a breach is possible.

      More in a bit…

      1. “Love, true love, is called up from the subject to test the integrity of the Being in the world.”

        What a Nice line. Ty. (Your comment section, about the big truth stories with D on part 5 of “the Impossible”, is what directed me now to this tangent.)

      2. hi dave. I have a proposal for you:
        would you , or do you have the time to, or would you want to, help me and co-author with me this ‘second moment of decisive significance’ ?

        Its becoming a monstrous undertaking, and I’m thinking I may need some assistance. I am thinking that you are really the only person who seems to understand where Im coming from and yet still have your own perspective and input.

        no rush. no pressure.

        interested?

      3. Hi lzek – Sounds like a lovely proposal; I both have the time & would gladly pitch in where I prove able. qould you get at me with your progress, so I might better understand the idea of the Second Mmt? Or, if i am wrong/forgetful and that movement is not actually the happening, then maybe please send a quick update somehow as pertains to how you would best like my help, for preparing your undertakings? Lol. Perhaps we could email inboxes or call on cell phones to get both of us up to speed – I see only many preliminary possibilities, as I imagine you already may too. All of this amelioration at your convenience, of course. So, yes! & Thank you the thought. I’m “in”. πŸ˜€

      4. Oh great! It is still very preliminary. But I’m already seeing a monster emerge from the egg that I thought would be a simple project.

        I’m not expecting anything from you except what you already give me — well perhaps a little bit more. Lol.

        I’m not sure where to start but we could really just started any of the pieces that I have and maybe you could just look at them tell me what you think some other authors add a little bit … whatever I don’t even know.

        I have no preconceptions how this might go and honestly speaking I have a certain anxiety around it. But life and philosophy is about risk, right!

        So if the moment of the sexes significance was the situation that I describe to the occasion of the gospels, I kind of non-philosophical situation we might say, of necessity and determine and see as opposed to contingency and choice,

        then the second moment of decisive significance is really the spiritual experience. About what occurs or what might be occurring in this facet of human experience in light of the first moment.

        Now there is so much in there, in the very idea of a spiritual experience, I think it’s going to be like volumes if not something like a thousand page book or something lol.

        There’s just so much…

        So I’m not asking you to do any more studying then you already have it’s totally up to you what you feel you might want to bring in what you think you have to addI’m totally open to this process bro.

        I don’t really know what will come out of it, I don’t know if we’ll get anywhere, I plain am open. You know, maybe will find that we really hate each other πŸ˜›.

        So how about we can do let’s exchange our email addresses if we don’t already have them.

        I feel like we already kind of attached to the Google thing. I have Microsoft word office 365 and not actually has a way where two people can edit the same document, and the various edits of all the authors will show up on the other persons document as edits, and then whoever can adjust whatever make decisions we can write comments upon the tax that are not part of the tax it’s like crazy all the shit you can do on 365. In fact I don’t even really know how to do all that crap but I know between my devices that I’ve written things on that there is this possibility.

        But I also feel that Google docs also has that kind of same kind of ability so I don’t know we can figure it out. Microsoft word 365 cost me about 10 bucks a month so I don’t know if you want to do that or what we can talk about it.

        I’m in no hurry. But I do feel I want to get it done at some point and it just crossed my mind that you have so much knowledge that goes beyond my small scope that you can bring into this.

        I’m really thinking that though really does kind of my project that it’s really more would be kind of a collaboration.

        So my email address is lancek4@gmail.com

        I mean maybe we could even talk person-to-person and exchange ohone numbers – lets start with the emails. 😝 lol

        Like I said there’s no pressure; and I have a family and a job and so you know I’m not working on it like 24 hours a day nor even every single day but I try to make some progress every little day.

        Rad. Dave.

        Talk soon.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s