Word
Gems
What is a
man but the sum of his thoughts?
- Mortimer Adler's
- Syntopicon
Essays
Love:
Editor's
1-minute essay
The great idea of Love, along with Man and God, is discussed by nearly all of the Great
Books writers.
Such attention, however, constitutes a basis for one of the main problems of Love,
the plethora of contexts within which the word is employed.
For example, we speak of:
- a patriot's love of country;
- a parent's love for a child;
- a spiritually-minded person's love of God;
- love between friends;
- and, of course, romantic love.
In common parlance, we even whimsically use the term to express our feelings for
our favorite music, movie, pet, or restaurant -- and just about everything else that we
enjoy.
- Dr. Adler begins to help us by pointing out the difference
between love and mere desire.
When we refer to restaurants and movies in terms of "love," most of us
use the term loosely and really mean to say that they are objects of our desire -- we like
them.
Desire is a part of real love but, without more, leaves us with something less
than love; for example, hunger, a most basic desire, speaks to an emptiness that seeks
filling -- something we share with our biological brethren, the animals. Desire, at least
on this level, features our human imperfection, our needs. This is why theologians speak
of God as love but not as desire.
Adler instructs that, in terms of basic nature, love is altruistic,
generous, and giving; mere desire is selfish, acquisitive, and getting.
We come closer to understanding the nuances of Love by borrowing from the Greeks
three of their words:
- (1) agape: love for God; for charitable works;
-
- (2) philia: love between friends, among family
members -- the brotherhood and sisterhood of man;
-
- (3) eros: erotic, carnal, sexual, romantic
love.
This begins to bring the problem of Love into sharper focus. We today when we
speak of God, friends, or romantic partners, in our linguistic poverty, must be content
with one word -- "love." But the Greeks knew no such restriction.
The point is this: when we speak of the different kinds of "love"
-- a word, in our minds, covering a wide range of persons, items, and relationships --
have we created connections where none properly exist by, unadvisedly and unartfully,
using the same term to cover too much ground? In other words, have we created the illusion
of commonality -- through language -- when, in fact, these areas are different in kind,
not merely in degree -- one from another?
The Greeks were not so confused about this issue. Eros, in basic essence,
it may well be true, is as far removed from philia as Mark Twain's lightning is
from a lightning bug.
Adler, in an effort to isolate the essentials of Love, examines three different
types of human association:
- (1) association based on utility: business
relationships; marriages of convenience;
-
- (2) association based on pleasure: mere
sexuality;
-
- (3) association based on excellence: mature
relationships of friendship and romantic love.
The first two associations profess superficial bonds; each party desires something
from the other, quid pro quo, and when the particular bargained-for object of
desire is no longer forthcoming, the union will very likely be dissolved.
The third, however, based on mutual admiration and respect, is not an alliance
solely designed to harvest profits but exists to serve more than private interests.
All of this raises an important question:
- Is true love totally selfless?
Adler asserts that real love, while based on benevolence and a desire to give, is
not and cannot be entirely selfless.
- He prefaces his explanation with a reference to the Bible, an
injunction that we are to love our neighbors as ourselves. This, Adler contends,
indicates that a healthy love-relationship will find its roots in self-respect -- in
mutual self-respect.
We must value ourselves -- this is our reference point -- before we are able to
value others; in fact, that which we value in ourselves will be what we value in others.
Speaking of the love between a man and woman, Dr. Adler states the obvious for us:
we wish to be loved; we wish to find joy; we wish to share our lives; we desire perfect
union with a beloved.
These desires of healthy romantic love -- of eros -- express much more
than simple, animal, sexual appetite. It is quite possible for a man to look at a woman as
he might desire a well-broiled steak and a glass of fine wine -- woman as means of filling
an annoying animal craving. But this is just so much brutish sexuality.
Healthy romantic love speaks to our deepest psychological and spiritual
needs as persons; we are social creatures; we seek contact with others through many
different associations in life, but the greatest expression of this effort to defeat
aloneness, separation, and isolation is the quest for perfect union between man and woman.
Adler adds:
- "There seems to be no happiness more perfect than that which love confirms.
But there is also no misery more profound, no depth of despair greater, than that into
which lovers are plunged when they are bereft, disappointed, unrequited."
We are now better prepared to answer the question:
- Is true love totally selfless? No, and it should not
be. Self (I do not say "selfishness") must take its proper seat at this
banquet for we are so constituted, as persons, as to seek mutual love, perfect
union, with a beloved.
Dr. Adler here stresses, again, most emphatically:
- The deepest need of persons is to find communion and perfect
union with a beloved; in fact, sexual union -- bodies-in-contact -- is, in a healthy
erotic relationship, merely an expression of something more grand -- of two spirits, two
souls, seeking a much deeper union on a mystical level.
Children, for the spiritually-matched couple, will be desired as a living picture
of their very intimate love-union;
- a child of such relationship, resembling exactly neither of
the couple, in this, represents the mystical, erotic union itself -- their quest
for oneness, completeness, and joy, now spilling over into procreative expression.
Adler, again, alluding to Scripture, points out that, anciently, this process of
sexual contact leading to spiritual union was spoken of in terms of "knowing";
further, from old English law we find eros defined in terms
of "carnal conversation." Adler believes all of this is significant as, even in our
historical use of words, romantic love is referred to in terms of two hearts coming into
contact with and searching for each other. Clearly, eros, properly conceived, is
much more than physical contact.
Adler speaks of Love in relation to Justice (see Editor's essay).
How different our society would be if it were built solely on law. Justice,
primarily, prevents injury; in a sense, offers negative benefits to society.
Justice says that citizens are not allowed to kill, steal, maim, etc. -- and all
of this is necessary. But Justice compels no one to lend a helping hand to anyone in need
-- this is the domain of Love. How sterile our world would be if we lived with Justice
alone!
Also, regarding Justice, we can demand our rights under law; we can demand Justice
if we are injured or threatened. But how different it is with Love! We cannot demand to be
loved. We might beg or plead to be so received (and we will quickly do
so if a beloved has sufficiently bewitched us) -- but demands for love are
counter-productive. This seems to be so because, again, love -- especially, romantic love
-- is a story of two spirits, two independent, mutually self-respecting spirits, choosing
to share their lives -- indeed, their very beings and essence.
Above, I stated that as "human beings we are social creatures; we seek
contact with others ... but the greatest expression of this effort to defeat aloneness,
separation, and isolation is the quest for perfect union between man and woman."
There will be some who will object with: "What about God? Isn't he, as C.S.
Lewis states, our True Beloved?" I believe that he is; and I also believe that my
earlier statement is true as well.
Here is my reasoning: God is spirit -- not simply a
spirit; this means that he is totally unlike, totally other than ourselves, or
even other spirit entities. We, in our 3-D world, have no way of relating to him directly
(the point that Jesus reveals him is noted). The Bible speaks of him in both male and
female terms -- God is not a man, as we know men; not a woman -- neither a he nor
she
. Frankly, other
than God's love for us, we know nothing more about Divinity.
Here
is something you may be surprised to learn. Psychic
reports from the Other Side indicate that spirit-entities over
there disagree and debate regarding what God is really like! Many of them are just as confused
about who and what God is as we are!
The truth may
well
be that even when we live in "heaven" we shall always, even
into the far distant eternities, be "unlike" God. This Great Entity we call "God," for us, may always be "totally
other" - or, at least for a very long time!
- What might this signify? It might indicate that God - One
utterly transcendent - must of necessity reveal himself to
mortals, and to evolving lesser spirits, through the love of
those closest to them.
- This revelation of
love may come to us through the warm, approving smile of a kindly
grandmother; or it may come, if we are so blessed,
by
looking into the shooting star-filled eyes of a dearest beloved, Lord Byron's place of
meeting for "all that's best of dark and bright." Why should we
doubt that to see sparkling love for ourselves in the dancing eyes
of a beloved may be the most profound mystical experience, the
closest we shall come to God in this life and, possibly, even
beyond?
In this
spirit, we read Kierkegaard: "To love another person is to help them love God"; and
Victor Hugo: "To love another person is to see
the face of God."
If Adler is correct in his assessment that the very essence of romantic love is
one of spiritual union, two souls seeking contact with each other -- and, I believe that
he is correct, because I came to the same conclusion even before I read his works -- this
raises some interesting questions about how two people become attracted to each other.
Of course, there's always the element of "pretty faces" pulling each
other into mutual orbit; but, while not to be minimized, this kind of attraction, without
more, can be quite ephemeral -- like last month's gorgeous butterfly, it can all fade
fairly quickly.
But, if romantic love is also, and primarily, a spiritual adventure, then,
especially among psychologically healthy individuals, when a man and woman meet, and are
attracted to each other, they may be recognizing something about the other person
that goes far beyond a "pretty face"; they, in their spirits, may be sensing a
potential for deep union, a near-cosmic capacity to become soulmates (some would
even say that such instant recognition indicates that they are and have been
soul-mates). In such cases, stated another way, the phenomenon of "love at first
sight" may be a poignant expression of spiritual and psychological compatibility. I
believe, in some instances, that this is the case.
Lovers who
experience this kind of deep union are bound together - not by any
written marriage contract - but by natural law; and if so bound,
whether or not they are formally joined by state or church in this
life, they belong to each other, in the most permanent of senses
- and will find one another again, and be with one
another, in a future dimension, despite all present hindrances
and obstacles.
[see full text of an Afterlife entity speaking
on this subject]
The mystical quest
of two soul-compatible spirits seeking union is beautifully and
poetically captured in a phrase by Charles Williams; he cryptically, yet clearly, responds to
his lover's plea:
Romantic love
seems to be most devastating when those involved recognize each
other on a level that runs
much deeper than physiognomy; this exquisite, but unnerving,
experience will be tantamount to meeting oneself
in another form - such haunting encounter of "opposite-sameness" will not easily be forgotten
nor set aside; indeed, once experienced, you shall as easily think
about that
special person, every day of your life, as you think about
yourself.
How could it be
otherwise? "Love you? I am you."
|