I have heard it said that love is the most confusing concept that mortals deal with. I seek to correct some misconceptions on this issue.

A former friend of mine, who is a brilliant writer and thinker, wrote that “love is beautiful and hatred is ugly, and never the twain shall meet.” In fact there are many situations in which the twain do meet. There are many people who both love and
hate their partners. There are many people who love their country and hate their neighbors. There are many people who love God and hate Satan. In all of these situations, the twain do meet.

Then there are people who see some kind of incompatibility between love and anger. This is also very wrong. If you love your child, you would be angry at someone who hurts your child. Expecting anything else is not enlightenment. It is foolishness.

I have also heard it said that love is the most powerful force in the universe. In fact love is quite fragile. I have known of many situations – and had one in my life – in which someone would deeply love someone else, only to have some Iago tell
them a pack of lies and poison them against their partner. In all of those situations, love gets destroyed. This would not happen if love was the most powerful force in the universe.

I said that love is fragile. I did not say that it is worthless. Its value is its beauty, not its power. Flowers are fragile as well. That does not make them any less beautiful. The solution is to value the beauty and to use whatever power one has to
protect it, and in so doing preserve its value. Do not expect things to be powerful that aren't. Value them for what they are and use whatever power you do have to defend them.

I have also heard it said that love is something that one should generalize on the whole of humanity, even on all sentient beings. The correct response to that is, What do you mean by love? I cannot be expected to love every person the way I love
Michelle or Julia. Nor can I be expected to love every child the way I love my daughter. It could be valid to expect me to extend to others goodwill and compassion; it is not valid to expect me to extend to them passion or partiality.

An input upon this subject comes from W. H. Auden. He stated that “the error made in bone of every women and every man... not universal love, but to be loved alone.” I do not see how that is error at all. If you are married to someone, it is rightful
to expect that they love you alone. I would not expect anyone else to act in any other way.

Another claim I have heard is that romantic love creates attachments, and that attachments are always painful. That may very well be the case; but maybe avoiding pain is not what it's all about. I would rather have beauty in my life even if it is painful
than not have beauty in my life at all.

Then of course there is the claim that there is some kind of incompatibility between love and ego, or between “flesh” and spirituality. That is also totally wrong. Romantic love is both physical and spiritual. There is the meeting of spirits, and
often there is also physical attraction. There is no incompatibility between such things; they work together.

Even if there is some kind of a self-interested component in love, that does not damn it either. The current political and economic system is based on self-interest and protection of people's rights. If you think it selfish to want to be loved, you will
have to also see the same in your living in comfort until age 70 in a democracy instead of tilling a two-acre plot of land, living till age of 30, and having your sons drafted into the military and your daughters into domestic servitude.

With psychological explanations, most are dead wrong. Freud mistook the memories of childhood sexual abuse for erotic fantasy and, as a result of this wrong core analysis, came to a number of completely wrong conclusions, including his most grievous
error – that love is transference from a parent. Nor is it anything like “narcissism”; it worked very well for the World War II generation that has never been accused of any such thing. It has nothing to do with “self-esteem” or any other such
thing; it happens regardless of how you see yourself. All of these explanations are absolutely wrong.

Then there is the claim that it is about “external validation.” It is not about any kind of validation at all. It is not about what you feel about yourself; it is about what you feel about the other person. I can validate myself all day long. That
does not reduce the love that I have for Michelle or Julia.

Nor is it, as some in feminism claim, a “patriarchial racket” or any kind of a racket. Playing women is a racket; love is not. I am not a player. I love whom I love genuinely. I seek their well-being even if it is not the same as my own, and I've
proven that when my former wife left me to be with another man.

A useful idea on this matter comes from a very unlikely source – Ayn Rand. She said that love is passionate approval of the other person with your whole being. This is certainly a better explanation than any of the preceding; but it's not only about
approval. There is a lot more to it. You also seek their well-being even if it is not in your own immediate personal interest – a concept of course which is alien to Ayn Rand.

Then there is the claim that the concept of love was invented by Greeks, who used it to have sexual relations with boys. The people who make such a claim have obviously not read the works that were formative to the Greek civilization. There are many
epics and plays, preceding Plato, that feature love between men and women. Plato used the concept of love for wrongdoing. That does not damn love; it damns Plato.

Even in the Indian civilization, in which marriages are arranged, love came to be through the works of a woman poet named Murabai. Here is a society that has done its darnedest to get rid of love, and even there it came to exist. Murabai was not a man
pulling a racket. Murabai was a strong and courageous woman. She has far more the right to the title than any Third Wave feminist.

These are the main misconceptions that I have encountered, though I am sure there are many others. In “A Beautiful Mind,” the mathematician John Nash stated that he had found the greatest truth in “equations of love.” This is a person who was not
irrational in any manner; he was better at reasoning than just about anyone. There is no incompatibility between love and reason. Nor is there incompatibility between love and spirituality, or between soul and flesh. Love is not the most powerful force
in the universe; its value is not its power but its beauty. See things for their actual value and avoid misconceptions that anyone else may create.

Ilya Shambat
https://sites.google.com/site/ilyashambatthought

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

Someone once told me that more wrong has been done in the name of love than right. He didn’t know what he was talking about.

I have known a number of marriages in World War II generation that started with love and were going strong when the parties were in their 90s. These people weren’t flakes and they weren’t narcissists. They were military people, distinguished
scientists and successful inventors with strong intellect and strong values. These people were highly rational and highly responsible. Much more so than most people who militate against love.

When something is under attack in society, its manifestations are going to be in a bad way. When love is being attacked, that puts lovers at a disadvantage. I am not looking for love for myself. I have had love. I seek to make love possible for more
other people.

I do that by confronting anti-love cognitions in society. The claims that it is childish or irrational or narcissistic or anything of the sort are completely wrong. Once again, I’ve known highly rational and highly responsible people of World War II
generation who started their marriages with love. That there are player types who pretend to love the partner while loving nobody but themselves is not the fault of love. What we see here is confusion between a value and the misuses of the value.
Anything with appeal to people can be used for wrong. It does not make it wrong in itself.

My experiences of love have been painful, but they have also been beautiful. I am glad that I have had them. My relationships did not last all life long; but many beautiful things came out of them. If you don’t want pain, don’t fall in love. And also
do not live.

So for example we have feminists claiming that love is a patriarchal racket. In fact love favors women. When a man is in love with a woman, he would do a lot for her. I sacrificed a very nice setup in America to go to Australia to be with a woman I loved.
Once again, that there are player types who pretend to love when they only desire does not damn love. It damns players.

In many cases, we see confusion between the value and the abuses of the value. Some see abuses of beauty by stupid teenagers and unscrupulous plastic surgeons and damn beauty. Some see abuses of money and damn money. Some see abuses of moral values such
as altruism and patriotism and damn moral values. With love, once again, a distinction needs to be made between the value itself and the abuses of the value.

When my former wife left me, there were a number of people observing how the situation would go. They thought that I was going to become her enemy; but I didn’t. I still love her even though she is no longer with me.

There were people who thought that I lacked insight and intellect because I have been in love. This is completely wrong. John Nash, a great mathematician, said that greatest truth was found in the equations of love. Here is someone with massive insight
and intellect. And his message is better than that of the love-haters.

Insight and intellect can be used against love; they can also be used for love. Insight and intellect are what you are using them for. The anti-love people think themselves insightful and intelligent; but they are not more insightful and intelligent than
John Nash or the people I’ve talked about. As for myself, I will use whatever insight and intellect is at my command to make possible for other people the wonderful things that I have experienced myself.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)