The podcast can be found here: Love and Relationships
The idea of love has dominated human romantic thought since at least humans where humans. Romantic, fanciful, impractical, unrealistic, that is the internet definition of romantic. Romantic thoughts are those that come from the ends of the probability functions of choices, lowest probabilities, that’s why it is thought of as unrealistic.
What is probable, somethings are probable even if they seem romantic. 500 men combating 40 000 equally armed men and holding the day may seem fanciful, minds on the far end of the possibility spectrum but obviously still a possibility as it has happened in history.
But that a mind can imagine and picture that imagination in their mind, no matter how much the desire. A battlefield leader imagining 500 men beating 40 000 equally armed men is in the realm of possibility it has happened, though very unlikely, realistic romanticism.
One can
also imagine bringing the moon and putting it in their backyard, this is unrealistic
romanticism. It can never happen.
There are two types of romantics these being, the realistic and unrealistic romantic. Realistic romanticism is that which though unlikely falls within the bounds of possibility. Unrealistic romanticism is unrealistic in that it can never happen. It is how one takes the concept of romantic in their minds that matters, one’s desire for humans to exist without oxygen is just nonsense.
Romance being tied to a probability function is about risks, the riskier the more romantic. What is the risk factor in the relationship of love?
Love is embedded in our romantic thought, the princess marrying the commoner, undying love launching wars, only if we love one another more the society would be a better place. But what is love, love of ones spouse, family, society, material things? In love with implies some sort of relationship with. A relationship implies energy being used to maintain that relationship.
One can get the definition of love from the internet dictionary, as usual many interpretations but here are some key definitions:
· a profoundly tender, passionate affection for another person.
· a feeling of warm personal attachment or deep affection, as for a parent, child, or friend.
· affectionate concern for the well-being of others: the love of one's neighbor.
· strong predilection, enthusiasm, or liking for anything: her love of books.
From the definitions we see that love is entirely about relationships, these relationships are mostly in the mind, because at no one time does it suggest that love is a two way thing except making love, having sex which does not necessarily require love, a profoundly tender, passionate affection for another person.
All relationships are random, every human is alive by chance. That tender, passionate affection for that other person is random. As in no way is there a suggestion that love is necessarily a two way thing, the relationships are mostly in the mind, confirmed in the mind by actions of whomever the love is directed at. Relationships in the mind take energy like all other relationships. Neurons in the brain need energy to maintain certain positions for certain memories and emotions, for these passionate affections.
What are affections? They ae from the internet dictionary:
1. fond attachment, devotion, or love: the affection of a parent for an only child.
2. Often affections.
· emotion; feeling; sentiment: over and above our reason and affections.
· the emotional realm of love: a place in his affections.
Affections are basically the same as love, fond attachment, devotion important to remember devotion. The second definition of love we just mention was a feeling of warm personal attachment or deep affection.
an act of attaching or the state of being attached.a feeling that binds one to a person, thing, cause, ideal, or the like; devotion; regard: a fond attachment to his cousin; a profound attachment to the cause of peace.
These are some definitions of attachment. Crucial to understand so we are clear about what love is, best to go to the definitions of the words. If attachment is a feeling that binds one to a person, thing, cause, ideal, or the like, love too must have something to do with a feeling that binds one to a person, thing, cause, or the like. The word binds one too implies a relationship; energy must be used to maintain a relationship.
These feeling can never be underestimated, people have been known throughout history to look for charms to fulfill their desires of love, for it to be returned in one way or another, nobody is certain if the love is returned, only actions from the other party can confirm this.
That is the reality of loving a human, is the love returned, are the emotions rewarded, the reward being the return of the love. How does one react when the love is not returned? There are a lot of problems in the world, love not returned. The golden rule of course takes care of this by saying do unto others as you would have them do unto you. Any action one takes for love not being returned in the relationship one must consider that they must do unto others as they would wish others to do unto them.
Affectionate concern for the well-being of others, is another definition of love. Many claim to love their countries, a country is about people, that is the relationship that determines one’s fate. A claim to love a country is to love the people of that country, human beings are social creatures. Love of a country has more to do with merely love of landscapes and scenery. The landscape and scenery are loved because they are the inheritance of the people of that country, that is to love one’s country.
What does one do when the country does not love them back? There are always civil wars and civil discontent, people obviously feel that the country does not love them back, the love can only come from other members of that country. Love of course starts with accepting each other as human beings, you cannot love somebody who is not a human being in such a way, a human is not a pet or an ox. Accepting them as a human being means having the same rights, otherwise they need direction like dogs or at the least somehow inferior, not yet human if they do not have the same rights.
The idea of the golden rule does not require love, it merely says just treat another human being as you would wish to be treated. This removes the idea that only those you love; you have an emotional attachment to are human enough.
If humans only treat only those they have an emotional attachment to as human beings and others as the other, that is how the culture of that country will develop. Those who are part of the other in that culture will naturally have resentment because they are human beings too, why should they not participate to the best of their abilities to put food on the table and have clothing and shelter.
When countries go to war, they do it in the name of love for country. Note both sides will be saying it is for love of country. Take the Roman Empire as an example, when general Caesar took over Gaul, he di it for the love of Rome. The Gaul’s where defending their territories for the love of their people. Gaul is what can be considered modern day France. But if one looks at map, Gaul is far from Rome, but the Romans conquered Gaul for the love of Rome. Babylon and Egypt are far from Rome, but they where conquered by the idea of love for Rome. At they defended themselves in the love for themselves.
The same applies to Genghis Khan, he conquered so much for the love of the Mongol people and people defended themselves for the love of their people.
Strong predilection, enthusiasm, or liking for anything, one can love their car, love their discipline, love their job. Though it is wise to love knowledge, we are dealing with human relationships in this episode and podcast in general.
If it was just about love, the world is full of love, it is just that it brings out other undesirable results. Human relationships are all random, they happen by chance, one’s life is chance, the act of conception itself is a random event. For love of country, what if that country has no resources of its own and they invade another country for those resources. That other country must defend itself for its own love of country.
If loving was the solution to our problems with relationships in society then it has to be qualified. In a court of morals, one can use love to justify hideous acts. Hitler can stand up and say he loved German people. Cecil Rhodes can stand and say he butchered people for the love of Anglo Saxons, Al Qaeda can claim that 9-11 was an act of love of their ways, Mugabe can claim love for butchering, robbing and starving Zimbabweans. The likes of Malan and Botha can claim love for defending apartheid in South Africa.
Not being qualified love can lead to horrible conditions for humans. A lot of evil can be justified by the fact that one can claim to have acted out of love. This is everywhere in our relationships, at work, one can claim to have acted out of love for their own in their discriminatory practices. A scientist can steal another scientists mind and claim to act for love for their people as scientific works are not to be seen coming from the person they have stolen the works from.
Take all these tyrants, they always talk of the great need to put the nation first, meanwhile they are being tyrannical to the very people they claim to love. That is not affectionate concern, and it is certainly not tenderness. Any dictator can claim love and walk around with a flag, their actions however speak volumes if people look at reality. It is only a refusal to look at reality to admire humans who claim love, yet their people have no food or shoes. The only people who will be admiring such people who even when evidence is provided that people are starving are people who do not have to live with the consequences. The only thing such people are in love with is power.
That love can be used in a moral court to defend a multitude of harm to other people. Take the word hate, it is not the opposite of love. There are very few opposites in nature. One can accuse the KKK of being hate filled, but that hate they can claim is a result of love for their group. What about somebody who hates what they consider as evil, they hate stealing, or killing, or rape, or racism and tribalism, is that a bad form of hate, one can use that meaning of hate to defend themselves in a moral court.
Love and hate can both in an argument be used for what is considered evil and what has been considered not evil. To merely say love more there will be a better world is just not true, he died for the love of his people, well that is a lot of trauma to die for ones people. Qualified love is a way to better relationships in society, but love itself still leaves a lot of chances for causing trauma, and in reality no different from hate.
Let us assume there is an invading army, they are invading for the love of their people, and the defenders are defending for love of their people. Those defending can say I hate invaders, a moral court would support that, they hate invaders because they love their freedom they love to exist. With the idea of love, just like hate one can get what has been termed good and what has been termed evil, that is a matter of how one defines an action.
Love is like the African concept of ubuntu. It basically says a person is a person because of people. It would have been better to start with merely a person is a person. This person who is a person because of the people can be a good person it can be an evil person; the philosophy merely states a person is a person by the people. Anyone who claims anything more is a liar because they are adding into the statement what is clearly not in the statement. Looking for something unique at all costs will lead one to say it is about humanity, well wars, death, trauma, being robbed are also part of human existence.
Ubuntu at the least acknowledges what most philosophies do not acknowledge, it is the people who finally allow a bad leader or bad person to rise and continue, he or she is there because of the people. A person is a person by the people is an exceptionally good defender of the market system, people given a choice will vote by choosing the better product. However, when it comes to organizing society, ubuntu justifies evil systems equally as well as good systems.
Ubuntu like love and hate ends up being either for what can be considered good or evil. Love hate and ubuntu if analyzed properly end up with what in Eastern culture is Yin and Yang type concepts. In real life these blend varying degrees of good and bad in the actions they imply. We are talking of love and ubuntu as core principles end up at yin and yang.
It is truly because of love that humans are where they are, not forgetting the genocides that come with that love, and the ubuntu principle that allowed those who perpetrate genocide to rise and continue. Love and ubuntu are about relationships and they end up at yin and yang. At the least where love and ubuntu end up, at yin and yang, it talks of a constant balancing act to achieve true civilization of culture.
Yin and yang are usually shown as a circle half black and half white as if there is constant motion and in each portion there is an opposite tiny circle of the other, black portion has a little white portion, and white portion has a little black circle, to remind us in all there is a portion of the other, in yin there is yang, and in yang there is yin. In good there is bad and in bad there is good, these can be considered opposites, but they are not describing real emotions, in nature itself there are no opposites as such, just a way for us to understand things, just as in reality you can not isolate anything, but we use the word isolate to make our navigation of the world easier.
Yin and yang of Taoist philosophy and the interactions show that you must mix things, balance things, this means there are many possible relationships one can have with their emotions that result in different actions. It comes back to randomness, humans choose how to behave, their choices can end up in trauma for others and sometimes trauma for themselves if the others have enough arms in quantity and quality.
Appreciating the golden rule over and above love holds the extremes. The golden rule is probably in every culture though not formalised into such a statement as the golden rule, do not hurt the other guy as kids, that’s the golden rule, you know how it feels to be hurt. Hate bad things. Ubuntu without the good side of love is useless just as love is useless for a leader without ubuntu it is meaningless, is it possible to love your subjects without ubuntu, it is not possible to possible to despise or hate them. Do not say wow, love is useless without ubuntu, ubuntu is a big simple concept. Life is ubuntu, where you are is because of the relationships in society, relationships amongst the people, everyone.
The golden rule allows people when mixing the yin and yang of their emotions not to cross certain lines, thus affecting the probability of trauma in a society, affecting the probability of anybody who considers themselves a human being of not inflicting trauma and not receiving trauma. We can only try but people start somewhere.
But one can complain, what if my society does not have resources and I love my people, I am stronger than them we can take it. To reduce trauma why do not you trade for their stuff.
I love my family; I am not good what I do but I love my family they must eat. I know I am a mediocre scientist, but this is how I feed my loving family, I have powerful friends to protect me I take other peoples stuff and pass it off as my own, everybody is doing it for the love of our families. Admit to yourself you are not good enough, be honest to yourself, your family will grow up when you are yourself, and they realize you are not the scientist you claim to be, otherwise you would not need to be a con artist with powerful friends who are con artists themselves. Don’t claim to love that society, say I am a leech all of you say we are leeches, we are not good enough. Start by being honest to yourself, then admit, you enjoy trauma because you know you are not what you claim to be, you know you must steal, cheat, and rob. Crooked scientist, crooked president, all abusing their positions of power, all knowing not capable without trauma. Loving trauma.
I am in love with that girl, no returned love you rape her. Mystics would call it a week heart, love of trauma, there people say world should be more emotional, there is the beautiful more emotions, rejected loved resulting in rape. Punishment, even death, but why use such trauma in the first place, how can it be an insult not to want to be with someone, that is the same as forcing everyone to eat beans. You can not honestly believe in choice if you rape, it is the same as raping society by forcing everyone to buy from you. Trauma.
Passions that harm others need to be offset; golden rule is satisfactory for what we have right now. Love can be too much. But the golden rule when applied to societies is good respect, you can’t love people you don’t know, you don’t harm people you respect. Idealists will ask themselves is it not possible to feel attachment to every human being, to the planet. Is that not he goal of those who want to conquer the world, everyone is their people, nobody enjoys that method but that is idea of conquering world, for all to be attached under you. What is being discussed, is feeling attachment for every human being and the planet for instance, right now by loving them as humans and for being the planet we leave on. What kind of relationships will that lead to?
Bhekuzulu Khumalo
No comments:
Post a Comment