On Love
A few weeks ago I had an exchange with someone about the nature of love. She wishes to remain anonymous but permitted me to reproduce our conversation here. I liked the questions she asked, and how they made me respond and formulate my thoughts on love. Our conversation also involved Krishnamurti, whom she began by quoting, since she felt he expressed what she wanted to say. I begin by responding, then, to Krishnamurti.
"to be sensitive is to love. the word love is not love. and love is not divided as the love of god and the love of man, nor is it to be measured as the love of the one and of the many. love gives itself abundantly as a flower gives its perfume; but we are always measuring love in our relationship and thereby destroying it"
Yes, I like what is said here about how the love of god and of man should be united. It's interesting how the phrase 'love of god', though, can be interpreted in two different ways. Does it mean our love for God, or God's love for us? Presumably it can mean both, but often it's not clarified what's meant. I like to think that we should love others unconditionally in the same way that God loves us. I also believe, more controversially, that to God, it is more important that we love one another than that we love him/her (has God a gender?). After all, God is strong and does not need our love for his own needs (even though he'd quite like the affection, I suppose). More important is that we love one another. You will note that this somewhat turns upside down religion's obsession with worshipping and praising God all the time. But how can we love one another when we don't actually feel love for each other, but only indifference or hatred. Ahhh there's the rub. Is it that we should love inauthentically, insincerely, it may be asked. Well, no, but just acknowledging that one should love all people and ones 'enemies' is a start, even if you cannot do it. But I'm against guilt, or feeling bad for one's failings. On the other hand, just because universal love is difficult, doesn't mean we shouldn't try to attain it.
"love is not a commodity of the reformer or the social worker; it is not a political instrument with which to create action. when the politician and the reformer speak of love, they are using the word and do not touch the reality of it; for love cannot be employed as a means to an end, whether in the immediate or far-off future. love is of the whole earth and not of a particular field or forest."
Yes love is of the all, but that said love can also be, within that, for each particular 'field' and 'forest' expressed in a unique shape and form, reflecting the nature of that singular field or forest, the relationship between the lover and that beloved shape and form. I may get paradoxical about love sometimes. I may sound like I am in favour of universal love, while at other times I may sound like I'm being critical. But if I'm critical of universal love it is only of a particlular conception of it that would impose a monolithic, uniform type of love over all things and peoples; a love which doesn't respond in a living, sensitive way to who is being loved and by whom. See what I mean? Whilst I am against jealousy and partiality and in favour of universal love, this love must reflect the specific, individual natures of who is loved and by whom. Otherwise love becomes both diluted and a bit of a chore, or drudgery maybe. An objection to universal love, that it can become abstract and unreal, is certainly a valid one.
"the love of reality is not encompassed by any religion; and when organized religions use it, it ceases to be. societies, organized religions, and authoritarian governments, sedulous in their various activities, unknowingly destroy the love that becomes passion in action."
True, though I'm not aware of any non-religious organisations, at least today, speaking of love in their daily business. I can see that religions twist the love of God and our duty to love others into very bizarre shapes, and I could even imagine some authoritarian Government using an appeal to 'love' to oppress the populace and marginalize sections of it. Despite the need for vigiliance, however, I think an extreme privatization of love, such as we find today, whereby it's not spoken of publicly, except concerning eros, in the context of dating agencies and the commercialization of romantic advice, is also problematic since this upholds the feeling that it is not incumbent upon us all to love all people, including our 'enemies'. I know people might (especially in the UK) freak out in waves of cringeing embarrassment at the thought that we should talk of love in the public sphere. This, however, I think, is because of our sentimental, self-indulgent, narcissistic understandings of what love is.
"in the total development of the human being through right education, the quality of love must be nourished and sustained from the very beginning. love is not sentimentality, nor is it devotion. it is strong as death. love cannot be bought through knowledge; and a mind pursuing knowledge without love is a mind that deals in ruthlessness and aims merely at efficiency."
Krishnamuti sure has his finger on the button. We shouldn't, in the public world, be ashamed of non-erotic forms of love (not, of course, of eros either). Talk of love, in its spiritual, unconditional, non-preferential applications, should be as natural, more natural even, than our talk of law and rights. Love is that context for feeling and engagement that can give knowledge an appropriate structure, purpose and goal. Knoweldge without a context of love is mere information, a dead thing, without shape, coherence or life. It is the brain data of a machine. Machines will be ruthless because machines care only for bottom lines. They will destroy what stands in the way of maximal efficiency. But efficiency is valueless without a purpose.
"so the educator must be concerned from the very beginning with this quality of love, which is humility, gentleness, consideration, patience and courtesy. modesty and courtesy are innate in the man of right education; he is considerate to all, including the animals and plants, and this is reflected in his behaviour and manner of talking." ~ J. Krishnamurti
Did you know that in his early life Krishnamurti was lionized as the world Messiah by the Theosophical community? But he said no, go lionize elsewhere. Bit like Jesus in the desert being offered power by Satan, maybe.
Then she spoke to me directly:
"what do you understand love to be? i understand love to be a deep concern for everything and everyone. i don't believe love is something that can be separated or defined differently for different circumstances or as something that is measurable. you either know what it is and express it with everything you do, or you don't. don't wait for the 'right' people or 'right' situations and be particular with who or what you choose to love. that's not love. what's the worst that could possibly come from being concerned with the well-being of everyone and everything you come into contact with? and if everyone did the same, would you not benefit as well?"
I agree with you. I've touched on some of these issues above. But a question is what to do if you don't know what love is, and so can't express it. Yes, love can't be measured but surely it's different with different people, for different people. Otherwise you are not really loving a specific person but just a universal abstraction which you are fitting the beloved into. We need to keep a balance been the idea of universal non-discriminating love on the one hand, and on the other the idea that love is responsive to detail and reflects unique individuals. Does this make sense? Love is and is not a duty. We have a duty as a culture, I believe, to try to become universally loving people. But if you are not capable of such a love, obviously there can be no shame or punishment. I don't believe in punishment at all by the way. Just in restraining the dangerous for the sake of others; but there is no self-righteous ideology in this, as in punishment.
"but here's the tough question. how do you teach love to those who have no idea what it is? 'those' being A LOT of people - anyone who intentionally harms another person whether it be physically or emotionally...or anyone who is indifferent or apathetic...anyone who is selfish, greedy, corrupt."
The cause of this ignorance about love needs to be identified. It is, I believe, a degradation and deterioration of consciousness to a level of awareness much beneath that which it should be on. This degradation informs our educational, legal and commercial practices, wherein the 'best', most intelligent and respected of our cultures display to the learning, growing minds of the young a world based on self-interest, competition and war; which the young then seek to imitate. And so the cycle spins. Degraded consciousness moulding, informing degrading consciousness. The Kingdom of Heaven belongs to Children, as it does to any who defend the mystic jewel within and, like William Blake, can see 'infinity in a grain of sand and eternity in an hour'. To awaken people to a higher level of consciousness becomes the challenge. I think most people are like sheep. Indifferent, apathetic, selfish, greedy and corrupt because they see others, who are often set up as examples (leaders, but also teachers and parents) being these things. So they reason: why should I be different? Clearly, this is how you get on in the world. I'm not trying to excuse but to explain. We all have the opportunity and responsibility to change but I'm trying just to account for how things are.
Part of the problem is the belief in something called 'human nature'. This is understood, essentially, to be animalistic and driven by a particular neo-darwinian imperative regarding the survival of the fittest. This is a theoretical justification that is often wheeled out for selfishness. Religion traditionally has given humanity the means by which to aspire to a higher level but Religion is now bankrupt and decadent. It speaks only to the already converted or else to those easily susceptible to sentiment, I find.
"is it just a matter of being the example, showing love to those who you know will not return it, who will reject it in fact because they don't understand it? is it worth it? is it fair to say that if you truly understand love, you won't be hurt or impatient or resentful just because someone doesn't do the same? since you know they do not understand, this allows you to keep on loving anyway, does it not?"
Well, love should not expect to be returned. Obviously, in the context of romance one is wanting reciprocation but even here relationships work best when need is absent and when there is a celebration of one's own fullness alongside the fullness of the other in the context of a shared freedom. As for non-romantic love, certainly there should be even less thought about the need for reciprocation. In this love, one is making a stand in the universe, saying I want love to be the universe and so I shall be love towards the universe. One does this as an act of existential creativity, of defiance against death and hatred. Even if one fails one still does it because the alternative is always worse. The thing is, if enough people had this stance there could be no way that love would not become the universe. Does this make sense? So yes you wouldn't feel hurt, impatient or resentful if others whom you love hadn't yet learnt what you know about love. Indeed, your not being resentful is one of the ways that you shine the light. There is a great line attributed to Jesus in the heretical Gospel of Thomas – "There is light at the center of a man of light. If he does not shine there is darkness." Simple but wonderful. Obviously this applies to women too.
"but seriously, is there anything else we can do to help people understand what love is and why it is so necessary? our very existence on this planet depends on it."
Hope I've covered my main points. You have any other ideas? Yes, our survival does depend on it but fear does not help. It is a cancer at the heart of hope, the enemy and opposite of love. I have to go to sleep now. I have to teach a guy at the Slovak Parliament in the morning.
--------
That was the guts of our exchange. I didn't hear back from her for awhile, but when I did, she said she had modified her views, saying that she now felt that education was the important thing. I agreed that education (of the right kind) is vital too, and mentioned that I thought John Lennon was wrong when he said that "All you need is love".
"to be sensitive is to love. the word love is not love. and love is not divided as the love of god and the love of man, nor is it to be measured as the love of the one and of the many. love gives itself abundantly as a flower gives its perfume; but we are always measuring love in our relationship and thereby destroying it"
Yes, I like what is said here about how the love of god and of man should be united. It's interesting how the phrase 'love of god', though, can be interpreted in two different ways. Does it mean our love for God, or God's love for us? Presumably it can mean both, but often it's not clarified what's meant. I like to think that we should love others unconditionally in the same way that God loves us. I also believe, more controversially, that to God, it is more important that we love one another than that we love him/her (has God a gender?). After all, God is strong and does not need our love for his own needs (even though he'd quite like the affection, I suppose). More important is that we love one another. You will note that this somewhat turns upside down religion's obsession with worshipping and praising God all the time. But how can we love one another when we don't actually feel love for each other, but only indifference or hatred. Ahhh there's the rub. Is it that we should love inauthentically, insincerely, it may be asked. Well, no, but just acknowledging that one should love all people and ones 'enemies' is a start, even if you cannot do it. But I'm against guilt, or feeling bad for one's failings. On the other hand, just because universal love is difficult, doesn't mean we shouldn't try to attain it.
"love is not a commodity of the reformer or the social worker; it is not a political instrument with which to create action. when the politician and the reformer speak of love, they are using the word and do not touch the reality of it; for love cannot be employed as a means to an end, whether in the immediate or far-off future. love is of the whole earth and not of a particular field or forest."
Yes love is of the all, but that said love can also be, within that, for each particular 'field' and 'forest' expressed in a unique shape and form, reflecting the nature of that singular field or forest, the relationship between the lover and that beloved shape and form. I may get paradoxical about love sometimes. I may sound like I am in favour of universal love, while at other times I may sound like I'm being critical. But if I'm critical of universal love it is only of a particlular conception of it that would impose a monolithic, uniform type of love over all things and peoples; a love which doesn't respond in a living, sensitive way to who is being loved and by whom. See what I mean? Whilst I am against jealousy and partiality and in favour of universal love, this love must reflect the specific, individual natures of who is loved and by whom. Otherwise love becomes both diluted and a bit of a chore, or drudgery maybe. An objection to universal love, that it can become abstract and unreal, is certainly a valid one.
"the love of reality is not encompassed by any religion; and when organized religions use it, it ceases to be. societies, organized religions, and authoritarian governments, sedulous in their various activities, unknowingly destroy the love that becomes passion in action."
True, though I'm not aware of any non-religious organisations, at least today, speaking of love in their daily business. I can see that religions twist the love of God and our duty to love others into very bizarre shapes, and I could even imagine some authoritarian Government using an appeal to 'love' to oppress the populace and marginalize sections of it. Despite the need for vigiliance, however, I think an extreme privatization of love, such as we find today, whereby it's not spoken of publicly, except concerning eros, in the context of dating agencies and the commercialization of romantic advice, is also problematic since this upholds the feeling that it is not incumbent upon us all to love all people, including our 'enemies'. I know people might (especially in the UK) freak out in waves of cringeing embarrassment at the thought that we should talk of love in the public sphere. This, however, I think, is because of our sentimental, self-indulgent, narcissistic understandings of what love is.
"in the total development of the human being through right education, the quality of love must be nourished and sustained from the very beginning. love is not sentimentality, nor is it devotion. it is strong as death. love cannot be bought through knowledge; and a mind pursuing knowledge without love is a mind that deals in ruthlessness and aims merely at efficiency."
Krishnamuti sure has his finger on the button. We shouldn't, in the public world, be ashamed of non-erotic forms of love (not, of course, of eros either). Talk of love, in its spiritual, unconditional, non-preferential applications, should be as natural, more natural even, than our talk of law and rights. Love is that context for feeling and engagement that can give knowledge an appropriate structure, purpose and goal. Knoweldge without a context of love is mere information, a dead thing, without shape, coherence or life. It is the brain data of a machine. Machines will be ruthless because machines care only for bottom lines. They will destroy what stands in the way of maximal efficiency. But efficiency is valueless without a purpose.
"so the educator must be concerned from the very beginning with this quality of love, which is humility, gentleness, consideration, patience and courtesy. modesty and courtesy are innate in the man of right education; he is considerate to all, including the animals and plants, and this is reflected in his behaviour and manner of talking." ~ J. Krishnamurti
Did you know that in his early life Krishnamurti was lionized as the world Messiah by the Theosophical community? But he said no, go lionize elsewhere. Bit like Jesus in the desert being offered power by Satan, maybe.
Then she spoke to me directly:
"what do you understand love to be? i understand love to be a deep concern for everything and everyone. i don't believe love is something that can be separated or defined differently for different circumstances or as something that is measurable. you either know what it is and express it with everything you do, or you don't. don't wait for the 'right' people or 'right' situations and be particular with who or what you choose to love. that's not love. what's the worst that could possibly come from being concerned with the well-being of everyone and everything you come into contact with? and if everyone did the same, would you not benefit as well?"
I agree with you. I've touched on some of these issues above. But a question is what to do if you don't know what love is, and so can't express it. Yes, love can't be measured but surely it's different with different people, for different people. Otherwise you are not really loving a specific person but just a universal abstraction which you are fitting the beloved into. We need to keep a balance been the idea of universal non-discriminating love on the one hand, and on the other the idea that love is responsive to detail and reflects unique individuals. Does this make sense? Love is and is not a duty. We have a duty as a culture, I believe, to try to become universally loving people. But if you are not capable of such a love, obviously there can be no shame or punishment. I don't believe in punishment at all by the way. Just in restraining the dangerous for the sake of others; but there is no self-righteous ideology in this, as in punishment.
"but here's the tough question. how do you teach love to those who have no idea what it is? 'those' being A LOT of people - anyone who intentionally harms another person whether it be physically or emotionally...or anyone who is indifferent or apathetic...anyone who is selfish, greedy, corrupt."
The cause of this ignorance about love needs to be identified. It is, I believe, a degradation and deterioration of consciousness to a level of awareness much beneath that which it should be on. This degradation informs our educational, legal and commercial practices, wherein the 'best', most intelligent and respected of our cultures display to the learning, growing minds of the young a world based on self-interest, competition and war; which the young then seek to imitate. And so the cycle spins. Degraded consciousness moulding, informing degrading consciousness. The Kingdom of Heaven belongs to Children, as it does to any who defend the mystic jewel within and, like William Blake, can see 'infinity in a grain of sand and eternity in an hour'. To awaken people to a higher level of consciousness becomes the challenge. I think most people are like sheep. Indifferent, apathetic, selfish, greedy and corrupt because they see others, who are often set up as examples (leaders, but also teachers and parents) being these things. So they reason: why should I be different? Clearly, this is how you get on in the world. I'm not trying to excuse but to explain. We all have the opportunity and responsibility to change but I'm trying just to account for how things are.
Part of the problem is the belief in something called 'human nature'. This is understood, essentially, to be animalistic and driven by a particular neo-darwinian imperative regarding the survival of the fittest. This is a theoretical justification that is often wheeled out for selfishness. Religion traditionally has given humanity the means by which to aspire to a higher level but Religion is now bankrupt and decadent. It speaks only to the already converted or else to those easily susceptible to sentiment, I find.
"is it just a matter of being the example, showing love to those who you know will not return it, who will reject it in fact because they don't understand it? is it worth it? is it fair to say that if you truly understand love, you won't be hurt or impatient or resentful just because someone doesn't do the same? since you know they do not understand, this allows you to keep on loving anyway, does it not?"
Well, love should not expect to be returned. Obviously, in the context of romance one is wanting reciprocation but even here relationships work best when need is absent and when there is a celebration of one's own fullness alongside the fullness of the other in the context of a shared freedom. As for non-romantic love, certainly there should be even less thought about the need for reciprocation. In this love, one is making a stand in the universe, saying I want love to be the universe and so I shall be love towards the universe. One does this as an act of existential creativity, of defiance against death and hatred. Even if one fails one still does it because the alternative is always worse. The thing is, if enough people had this stance there could be no way that love would not become the universe. Does this make sense? So yes you wouldn't feel hurt, impatient or resentful if others whom you love hadn't yet learnt what you know about love. Indeed, your not being resentful is one of the ways that you shine the light. There is a great line attributed to Jesus in the heretical Gospel of Thomas – "There is light at the center of a man of light. If he does not shine there is darkness." Simple but wonderful. Obviously this applies to women too.
"but seriously, is there anything else we can do to help people understand what love is and why it is so necessary? our very existence on this planet depends on it."
Hope I've covered my main points. You have any other ideas? Yes, our survival does depend on it but fear does not help. It is a cancer at the heart of hope, the enemy and opposite of love. I have to go to sleep now. I have to teach a guy at the Slovak Parliament in the morning.
--------
That was the guts of our exchange. I didn't hear back from her for awhile, but when I did, she said she had modified her views, saying that she now felt that education was the important thing. I agreed that education (of the right kind) is vital too, and mentioned that I thought John Lennon was wrong when he said that "All you need is love".
No comments:
Post a Comment