Fake Love, Love, and Really Real Love, Is there a difference?

Hello Readers, Friends and Followers of our Blog,

Greetings to everyone. Again, life kind of ate me for a while and my ideas weren't flowing as I would like so blog entries were few and far between. (I did for the record enjoy epic amounts of Final Fantasy XIII and Borderlands (registered trademarks for respective companies, SquareEnix and Gearbox Software). My idea for today is a trial idea which I'm working through so if the blog entry is a little less clear than normal it means I'm thinking through this idea as I'm typing it.
Today I want to talk about one of my favorite topics, love. I also want to discuss how love is implemented in relationships and explore some phenomenon which caught my fancy and I hope it arouses some sort of discussion because it's a topic I care about a lot.
Love is a funny thing because it appears to manifest itself in many different ways in many different relationships, and all claim that love is present. To parse through what love is there must be some criteria. The best criteria I have read for love is that it does not use people. This includes use for physical things and emotional use. (taken from Love and Responsibility.) These two forms of use negate love because they degrade the gift of a person as a gift in themselves and make a person an object for something else. (An example of this would be using a person to get help from homework and then showing no interest or care for that person in response.) This is what I like to call fake love because you love what a person does for you but do not love the person.
Next, I want to discuss love. Love is a funny thing because there are loves which can look like love but it is not really real. But at the same time, there is some semblance of love so for purposes of this blog entry I'll call it simply love. There are two examples of this which I have found in my own experience. First, is when people love others and are supportive of them, but inside they want the other person to think like them. Even if one is to say that people want conversion because people will be most happy (which is a debatable but unarguable point because what one person finds as most happy will not necessarily be true for another person.) This is common in faith circles where friends are supportive of others, but inside people secretly want conversion to their particular version of faith because there is the altruistic ideal of happiness for the other person (so it cannot be fake love) but it's not really real because it's all based on one person's image of God in this situation. (Though fake support and friendship can happen in many other ways but these tend to fall into the category of fake love.)
Another example of this kind of love is in friendships where one party values another person as a means of valuing God and the other person is seen to have value only as much as that person brings them closer to God. Now this seems weird, but let's follow this idea for a second. It's an odd idea because God is seen as infinite love (infinite everything by definition). If God is infinite love, then love for God should extend to people. However, the difficulty comes when love is impersonal in this kind of relationship. When God is seen as everything, the beautiful qualities of the person (given by God) can become skewed in an amorphous vision. Now this leads to complications because this looks like love, matter of fact it can appear to function like love, but it is not the fullness of love. Love must value people as they are, and people can be a means to an end, even in finding God. But again, the intent of love is there, it is about valuing someone for seeing God-like qualities in people. However, it is not personal because it is about the qualities of a person which remind a person of God, and is not about the person.
So this brings me to really real love. Really real love is something which occurs when one sees the beauty of another person, for being another person. Real love can have as one of its components bringing people closer to God, but it is about valuing the other person. Valuing another person is recognizing their own unique gifts and loving people in spite of their failings. However, the love of another person is something which must go deeper than the gifts one has. Really real love penetrates being itself because it is something which changes both people just by existing. It is really personal, it has feelings, and it seeks the best for both persons. Feelings are not something to be ignored because they are an impediment to truth, rather feelings are something which must be examined, even if they go overboard for a while (because meeting and growing with love is an exciting reality and causes excitement which can be too extreme.) but one cannot know that without having the feeling of exuberance. People can still make decisions even with crazy feelings, and that is part of discerning love.
Love is important because it is what empowers all our lives, and a lack of love is destructive for all being because the sufferings of one person affect the many. To heal being we need this love, we need to grow in really real love for others so we can value the person for being a person and help people grow in life. Though there are many apparitions to really real love, which can have fruit and can have some parts of love, the fullness of love is only possible when people can participate in relationships of really real love.

The Semantics of "Call" and Its Effects on Being

Dear readers,

I apologize for my lack of attention to this blog over the past couple of weeks. I hit a busy time of my semester, got a new game, and was trying to keep all my research together, so blogging has been undone for the last two weeks. I do hope this new article is entertaining, thought-provoking, and everything the blissful hearts of my readers can desire. I also hope it fulfills a need for intellectual discussion and a good introduction on a topic which is important.

It's linguistics time. Today the word on the operating table is the word "call." To call can have many uses, such as calling out to someone in a crowd, calling someone on a telephone, or being called by God. All of these uses have a similar meaning in that one is expressing a desire to come closer to someone or to get their attention. However, for this particular piece, the final expression of call and its use in religious circles is what I want to focus our attention on today.

Can one say that there is destiny? In particular, is it true that God has a specific call for each individual person which will make them most happy? Let us answer in the positive for just a second, before we make a real conclusion. For each person to have a specific call, and everyone to answer that call because they want to be most happy, means that God's work is done on the whole because everyone fulfills their part. This statement in itself sounds nice, because being becomes ordered and makes sense. It is pleasant and powerful to think that God has a special plan just for me. This is a powerful emotion which people experience that cannot be matched. For most, it is a sign of intimacy with God when they find that perfect plan for their lives and meet their desire to serve God's will.

However, and this may have been somewhat predictable, we have a massive problem here. If God is limited by human choice, then by definition He is not God. This is taking the Greek definition of God which is often used in religious circles (mainly Catholic and Evangelical) that God is infinite. If God is infinite, then He cannot be bound by human choice, meaning there cannot be a destiny because this would make God's work bound by our own choices.

Secondly, the "call" is only recognized as authentic when it is recognized by someone else. Keep in mind, spiritual direction is wonderful. Having lots of friends to talk to about theological/philosophical stuff is good because we all learn more about being and the possibilities of God's Being. However, this "call" always wants to lead a person to orthodoxy of some sort by people who influence the institution. If to be called, one must be recognized by someone else, then how does being change if it needs to change? This is where the tension between "the institutional and the charismatic church comes into play." (Rahner, The Spirit in the Church) There is an extensive discussion on how the Holy Spirit is present in the institutional Church at all times, but not always in the actions of every person, and if not careful either the individual or the institution can "squelch the Spirit" in an individual (Rahner, Ibid). The charismatic element keeps the institutional church in check because sensitivities are given to certain people who notice problems in the institution itself. However, by an insistence on "being called", the status quo remains relatively the same, because the people in control of the institution can squelch the call for change. Ideally, members of the institutional church are supposed to help one find God's voice and let the Spirit work as it will (Same source). Whether this actually happens is a discussion possibly for the work of others, or another post.

The word 'call' used in a destiny sense for God's call for one's life is also dangerous because it challenges our relationship with an infinite God, because it calls into question whether He fully loves humanity. If we take the sense of finding God's call in one's life as destiny, that there is one specific thing we're supposed to find in each individual life, then is God really giving humanity a free choice to participate in a relationship. To say that you have a choice, but you won't be most happy if you make the wrong choice, is to say that God is manipulating humanity. But this is not what we see in being. In being, we see people who make choices, and some make them happy, while some do not. You can be unhappy because of a choice you made in life. However, to be really happy is not to find the one specific vocational thing one is supposed to do with their life. To be really happy is to see the grace of God in all people you meet, even if they are not like you and have no "call" to become like you (either in faith or personality). This is to see people as the individual gifts that God made them, and not to desire to make their gifts your own, but to appreciate what is really there. If a call is destiny, the people who proclaim a call have a very specific thing in mind when they talk about the call, so in the end, the word call tends to be used to call people to a being similar to their own. In communication, this is an I-I theory, namely that in communication the presenter is trying to make the audience become the speaker, and not be individual audience members.

Finally, the word "call" favors a supernatural destiny just by the use of the word. To be married or single, sounds like ordinary being, nothing terribly special. But to say one has a call to religious life in any way, shape, or form, seems to give someone a supernatural being, that a person is being called to a special place and a special vocation. Whether one likes it or not, or one intends to or not, this is what happens when one uses the word call to make a drive for destiny because people see something out of the ordinary. When one looks at the dating world, and struggles to understand why people can do the abusive things they can to each other, (and believe me there are a lot of awful things people can do to each other, especially in relationships.) then one of course will see a religious vocation as destiny because it appears to be simpler and less muddled then trying to navigate the dating world and enter into marriage. Phenomenologically speaking as well, marriage just appears to be two people getting together because of an attraction. (What's actually in an attraction remains quite a mystery which has many layers, and needs its own separate treatment.) Religious vocation appears to be something more, because one is not marrying a person and one is not simply living in being (the single vocation). However, this is the impression people in institutional church settings want one to have. Ideally, one would think that they want people who really want to be a part of the church without the need for a supernatural call, an ordination by God if you will. But, this is not always what we see, and the main time when we see it as different from this ideal is when people use the word call.

The Gospel calls all people to one thing, to love others as Jesus Christ did on earth. The greatest challenge, and why this comes up in so many settings, is that no one really knows the best way to follow this example. Even this post is simply an idea and a critique of another in my own exploration. But I cannot say this is the best answer, because knowledge always grows with time, exploration, conversation, and care. (which is why I love comments as much as I do.) However, I can say this, people are definitely being hurt by the idea of destiny in life, and it is giving people an unhealthy image of the person of God. The question now is, "what do we do to respond?" And the answer to this question, is as infinite as the ways in which we need to love. The answer is we need to do a little bit of everything to help people find their talents and gifts which they can give to others in the service of love. When we are willing to do a little bit of everything, with guidance and discernment, then love can be shown and radiate, without the need for a God's call, which in turn, helps people to respect who God really is...

The Metaphysics of Hugs

What's in a hug? Valentine's Day makes people think of love and happiness and the joy of being with someone. One of the ways in which people express themselves is by giving hugs to one another. But what is in a hug? What is there in the act itself, and then in the emotional consequences surrounding the hug? And why does being itself feel like it changes when a hug is given? After we answer all these questions, we can then learn why I like hugs so much, and wants to encourage everyone to give lots of hugs :)

So to start this post, we must explore the act of a hug itself. A hug itself is compromised of two people who wrap their arms around each other and perform an embrace. This means that physical is required to have a hug in the fullest sense of the term. (You can have a spiritual hug but it's not the same, but still useful in certain situations.) So in essence, a physical hug is two people sharing physical space and enclosing the other in that space as a sign of affection (usually).

However, the sign of affection is where we must explore more. Because this changes the nature of the hug, and it changes being itself. A hug by its nature always involves relationship (in the broad sense of the word) and at least two people. (Big group hugs are also allowed in this as well.) Because of this one must explore hugs in the context of at least two people relating to each other. This context gives light to why being changes when people hug each other.

People experience being as autonomous selves (in this I only mean that one person can never fully understand the being of the other, though emotional intimacy allows one to come close.) In being autonomous selves, people have a sense of independence and a function which allows them to act on their own (namely they do not need a puppet master.) However, when one gives a hug to someone, being changes for both people. A hug puts one past the autonomous self and allows another to enter your personal space. It is a gift of trust.

Being changes in a hug because of the emotional context surrounding a hug as well. Hugs, if one is paying attention, can make one attentive to the needs of the other based on the kind of hug the person is giving. Here are a few examples: first, say for instance a friend is hugging you really tight, is hesitant to let go and is shaking a little bit. This kind of hug is the "I need you, something's wrong" hug. Also, a person could hug really tight and one can feel a looseness in the other's arms even in a tight hug. This is labeled the, "I'm so excited to see you hug." The final example I'll give here is the soft, tender hug which the other person gently makes herself comfortable in your embrace. This will be called the, "Hold me gentle, hold me close and I really do want to be here :) hug." Again, this list of hugs is not exclusive, there are many kinds of hugs but it all depends on the body language, which tells one the emotional circumstances behind the hug. This leads to a change in being because one is drawn into the world of the other person just by what her body tells him.

This is an example of how "tenderness" works in human relationships. To be brief, "tenderness is the ability to immerse oneself in the emotions of the other and to be present to them." (paraphrased from Love and Responsibility pgs 201-207.) This tenderness is a true giving of oneself to the other because it seeks to bring the reality of the other into one's own. Hugs are a very good way of acting in tenderness because it allows two people to enter each other's world, in a mental/spiritual as well as a physical sense.

Another positive metaphysical benefit to the hug is in noticing time. Time itself becomes unnoticeable because the only focus in giving a real hug is the other person. Therefore, presence overtakes time, and being becomes happy as there is a taste of the eternal in being in another's embrace. The moment of the hug can go on forever because one does not feel the limits of time. (The "timeless moment" (me in other posts) is one which needs a re-treatment at some point in the future because this is oversimplifying the reality, but it would sidetrack this post to go further.)

However, this mentality can be abused and its something to watch for in ourselves. Human tenderness can be insincere if it seeks as its primary end to use the hug of another in order to fulfill only their own psychological desires for comfort. In this sense, hugs can be taken but not given, even though it appears a physical hug is given. This is not to say one should be judgmental; however, because there are days when people just need to receive a hug and cannot give one (for whatever physical, psychological, spiritual, emotional reason.) This warning is given as a disposition for each one of us individually so that we can give hugs and in return receive them.

Of course, there are people who do not like touch either, which affects the nature of the hug. However, people that do not like touch can show tenderness in other ways. Eye contact is wonderful for showing tenderness, it shows one really wants to be there with the other person. (Eye contact as a metaphysical reality is something which needs its own treatment at some point in the future, because there is a lot in a "gaze" (Jean Luc Marion In Excess).) This desire to enter the emotional life of another person can be in words, gestures, smiles, but for me the best way to enter the emotional life of another is to give a hug :). Even though it's Lent, and we're supposed to be a little more solemn now, do not be afraid to show others around you that you care about them.

Since the subjects of this study are human beings, sometimes people need physical comfort in order to really feel like the beings they are. Sometimes all someone really needs is for someone to really be there, and be present to their own life, their own story. People also need more than someone who is physically there but emotionally not. A hug is a good entryway to bridge the physical need for comfort and the emotional need of someone really being there. This is how being changes, when we show love in this way, we change it for the better, and lights and rainbows shine in the eyes of others. When we show hatred, we plant the seeds of darkness for sensitive people to see and for all to be possessed by. Our actions change being for light or for dark, and sometimes it's not so obvious what is light and what is dark. This is for those who preach against physical touch, who want exclusively spiritual friendship, who fear humanity's potential to use each other by physical touch. We cannot fear the gift which is given by tenderness and touch, because it has the potential to be used, but rather humanity itself must be willing to not use each other. "We must be the change we want to see" (Gandhi). Without this change, no one else will change, and the solution is not to avoid touching people. The solution to the problem is to trust in the grace of God to provide touch which enriches the lives of people and draws us closer to their being and God's being. The answer is to provide the emotional tenderness which so many people need and yet which philosophy tries to drive people away from the touch out of fears of human darkness. However, it is this fear which drives the darkness, not the touch itself. So give tenderness and hugs, for by this openness to emotional and physical closeness with the other, can we begin to see the being of the other.

Oh How I Want to Be a Philosopher, A Philosopher I Want to Be Part 3

But how do I become the philosopher of whom I want to be? What else am I seeing which needs to be reviewed in order to make a synthesis of what I see in being? As I look around and see people and things I see two things. I see things which are me, and things which are not me (or "the other"). In order to understand me and not me, there must be some way to examine knowledge. What do I know about myself? I know that I appear to exist, not only because I feel a recognition of my own existence, but also because "the other" appears to see me as well. (Keep in mind I am only speaking of human subjects, objects and animals are another issue entirely.) So I appear to exist, which we'll consider good enough for now, since we are only taking what we see on sight, and the synthesis comes later. However, I also know that "the other" exists as well. "The other" exists because this person can recognize my appearance, but also has the capacity to recognize themselves. I can understand this capacity to recognize herself because she can tell me about her existence through memories of happenings and occurrences.
"The other" also has differences from me. No matter who "the other" is there are differences; whether they be physical differences, differences in emotional experience, or in ways of seeing the world. "The other" being different is something which is unavoidable. Different subjects have different modes of experience. These experiences affect how "the other" takes in experience and interprets truth, and it will be different from what I see. This leaves the issue of who is correct, myself or "the other", and this has ethical consequences. For now, it is good enough to know the existence of "the other" and to ponder this existence before we move to answer questions about truth.
I apologize for the delay in posting, I was away in Florida for a conference where this issue of "the other" came up in many speeches and I wanted to write about it as soon as I could when I got back. Stay tuned for the exciting conclusion of Oh How I Want to Be a Philosopher, A Philosopher I Want to Be. :)