-Hieroglyphics
Brackets for pure meta-commentary. Parenthesis for examples or diversions within the subject.
I tried to file using the teleclaim center last week, but the wait on the phone was more than a half hour and they directed me to call again. The center opens at 8:30 AM, I am attempting to be one of the first who calls. I figure while I'm waiting on the line I'll put something here. You know I'm unemployed for real when I'm coming back to writing in this internet journal thing. Plus I had a request to write more and my weakness to flattery is obscene.
I intend to write about love; its targeting, its application.
When you tell someone you love them, what exactly is it you are saying you love? [I just tried calling again, still not open]
When you tell someone you love them, do you mean that you love every part of them? Do you mean you love their mind as a whole? Their body as a whole? What is it that is the most essential part of an individual that draws feelings (and other things I will attempt to explore) from others?
Let me first explore the idea that when you love someone you love every part of them. I have an immediate problem with this idea. If you love every bit of a person, from their eyelashes to their fingers to their toes, does this love become fractured if a part of them changes or disappears? In the most benign example, say you fall in love with someone and shortly thereafter they cut their hair. Do you love them less? Is your love compromised because part of the person you fell in love with is now (albeit temporarily) gone? What if they had a facial piercing and they took it out? To cite a more serious example, what if a loved one is in a traumatic accident and loses, say, their legs? Is a fraction of your love, that was your love for their legs, now gone?
I will allude to a future issue by asking what if they merely lose the use of their legs? Do you love their legs less because they no longer respond to the person's mental commands?
Anyway. Due to the questions noted above, I find this way of looking at love to be problematic. [I am making a lot of typos along the way that I am missing. I am out of practice.] I am willing to believe that some people view love this way, and it is certainly a recognized phenomenon that relationships sometimes break up because of, say, the loss of a limb in one of the partners. However, I doubt it is true that these breakups occur because the relevant person loved the leg and their love is diminished, rather, the implications of living with a missing leg on day to day routines and concerns makes the relationship difficult and less desirable. [No dice, by 8:33 AM, the wait to talk to a representative is over 1/2 hour. Like calling a radio show when they're conducting a giveaway.] This is interesting. Perhaps when you say you love someone, you mean you love them for what they bring to the relationship. First, let me dispose with this first idea completely.
If you love every bit of someone, you are not going to love them less if they, say, clip their toenails or lose a single hair off of their head. At least, I think enough of us would not that it is fair to dismiss that extreme view. However, I don't think it's so far from the way that a good chunk of people deal with love (or at least view it in an idealistic sort of way) that it is a ridiculous proposition. To be more general, if you make a commitment of any kind to a person, I don't think it is fair to suggest that part of your vow or commitment is directed towards all of their fingers and toes, their hair and their skin. Skin cells are coming off of us constantly. Anyway. Moving on.
I'm going to work on a more cynical and scientific idea. Say you are willing to grant and cope with changes in the individual's body, but, what you love about them is still purely physical and mechanical. You love their "body" in the sense that you love their physical appearance (the way light bounces off their form to create an image), the way their brain produces neurotransmitters in order to produce what you experience as their personality, the way their voice sounds (or the way their larynx is constructed to produce a sound), the way they smell, the way their skin feels, the way they taste. This is a bit complex, but, the idea is that you love how their physical body works with the world to produce all the sensory manifestations you can experience by interacting with them. I suppose, well, I know, that this view could extend to loving the way they make decisions, their motivation, the way they emotionally respond to events. As a (mostly) scientifically minded individual, I have difficulty poking holes in this idea. Let me start by saying that perhaps if you love a person in this way, you are neglecting the fact that what you love is the way that you perceive all the sensory information you are receiving from their body. In other words, you don't love their smell, you "love" the way their smell affects your sensory organs and changes your affective state. You don't love them at all, nor do you love the physical methods of communication that allow you to experience them. If you take this view you must grant that what you are enjoying is the experience, not the other person at all. Perhaps only the object of love can produce the combination of stimuli that you believe produces "love" in you, and perhaps you are willing to sacrifice yourself to preserve them so that this combination is not compromised. This is becoming difficult so let me use an example in an attempt to deal a death-blow to this idea.
Say your loved one wants to go to an italian restaurant for dinner, and you want to go to a japanese restaurant. If you insist on going to the japanese restaurant, the consequence may be that you perceive "dissatisfaction" or "anger" from them over the course of the night, that they may restrict your access to their sensory information. This is displeasing because you enjoy the sensory experience they give you more than you enjoy the sensory experience your sushi produces. You may even regret not going to the italian restaurant so as to have avoided these consequences. In this case, though, does the other person's experience of the event affect you at all? Does it matter to you that they are emotionally affected (negatively) by the facts: 1) they aren't eating something they like or 2) you were not willing to compromise your own desire to please them? Since you love only the productions of their body, it is unlikely that their experience of these feelings would bother you.
An alternate view of this would be that you "love" their emotional state because it is generated by their body and you want that state to be positive and pleasing to them rather than negative and displeasing. But - what are you (am I) referring to with the word "them"? Their consciousness (which is arguably an entirely biological production)?
OK, this is getting really hard, especially considering that there is really no satisfying definition of consciousness. I am going to go to the dictionary, one of the few external sources I use in the blog, for this.
Of course there are several definitions.
1. awareness of one's own existence, sensations, thoughts, surroundings, etc.
2. the thoughts and feelings, collectively, of an individual or of an aggregate of people
3. full activity of the mind and senses, as in waking life
4. awareness of something for what it is; internal knowledge
5. concern, interest, or acute awareness
6. the mental activity of which a person is aware as contrasted with unconscious mental processes
7. the mind or the mental faculties as characterized by thought, feelings, and volition.
I've tied a fucking knot for myself here, but, I am an Eagle Scout, I am excellent at tying knots.
So. The scientist espousing this view of love "loves" the other person's consciousness, their thoughts, emotions, and....ah, fuck. Anyone who takes this view of interpersonal relations probably would never use the word love. Empathy for another person involves having another person's emotions affect your emotions, your thoughts, your decision making. I don't understand how, if you "love" the biochemical construction of a person's brain, you could even be conscious of the substance of their emotional state. Someone espousing this view certainly couldn't claim to know what the other person's emotional experience might be like. Maybe my limited understanding of science is impeding me here, but I'm tired of dealing with this ridiculous viewpoint. Fuck. I can't knock it down.
Alright. Struck out. Trying again.
Say you understood neuroscience, biology, chemistry, physics, whatever, so completely that you could scientifically rationalize and explain the interactions between your consciousness and another's and think (or feel, or make decisions appropriate to the belief) that a specific interaction you undertake can be accurately labeled as love.
I don't understand this point of view, especially considering that the definition of love is far more complex than that of consciousness. What I want to know is, for a person who is in this position, who has scientifically proved their love for another to themselves, could they grant that a person with a less developed understanding can experience love? If the person they "love" does not have such a developed understanding, could they grant that the other is capable of loving them?
[I am fucking sick of this, and it is the reason I stopped writing before. I throw out all these ideas and they are so god damned complex that I can't come to a thesis or testable statement based on a synthesis of them. I can't imagine that anyone will get anything out of this blog post other than a profound confusion, or at best fascination, with the operation of my psychology. It must be clear that I have difficulty believing in anything. And yet, I do have beliefs. That is what this is about, challenging these beliefs and then seeing afterwards if I still hold them. Let me just go ahead and say what I believe love is without having completely logically justified my belief. I can't expect to dismiss science and postulate a rationally viable option in its place, at least not in the span of a single blog post. Before I jump into this, let me say that while I didn't list the definitions of love, I did look it up and several of the definitions claim it is purely sexual interaction and that I cannot stand for this kind of definition.]
I believe that love is a desire beyond all other desires. It is an exception to the term desire that proves the continuity of all other experiences called desire. Whatever well-being means, it is a wish for the well-being of all conscious entities. It is not entirely selfless, as it must include at least some desire for one's own well being as a conscious entity. To have this desire, one must recognize and place a large value on the subjective experience of all others.
I think this kind of "desire" is different enough from, say, the desire for a candy bar that it deserves a separate category in language.
I suppose the question is, can one love and at the same time particularly wish for the well being of a specific individual or group of individuals? If you love, does telling an individual person that you love them even mean anything? This is what I struggle with and all the rational arguments are just ramblings that attempt to logically justify something that is unjustifiable for a human being. Our genes are non-living compounds that hold the design for a living being whose "purpose" is to promote and ensure the continuance of the genes. If such a being acts merely to promote the existence and prosperity of others while doing nothing to reproduce itself, is it a genetic failure? It has to be. And yet it is not a failure in the minds of all other beings. Which is it more important to serve - our genes, or all conscious beings?
Love is service. Love is denial and acceptance. Love is conflict. Love is sacrifice. Love only means something to others inasmuch as it promotes volitional practice. Love must be chosen and it must be chosen over instinct.
If you can help me complete any of my ideas or add to this please do. I need help. I apologize for providing such a flawed account and for not tying up all the ends I left hanging. I am exhausted, and I have only been awake for two and a half hours today.
No comments:
Post a Comment