How well we, in self-awareness, know the
nature of our love: that’s another thing.

The reactions of others to our behaviors
is a formative force either as a constraint
or ‘stoking’ of the ‘fire’ of our love or
principle of our life. Our affections
represent the principal or core thing that
is the gravity-well of our thinking.

Intellectuality may ascend to many things
far beyond our direct affection, and they
become a kind of tendril, or extention, beyond
ourselves. If love, or the willingness to
do and behave in consonance with these
extensions doesn’t also extend likewise:
they are mere ‘fancies’ that perish upon
awaking the next day.

There are obviously different forms of
love: love of goods and love of evils.

We are logically compelled to learn to
discern between them ere we commit our
powers or energies to them.

Volumes of literature an adages and lore
have been writ so as to inform our discretion
so that we might not blindly commit ourselves
in our affections to the evil side of this
equation.

Who can say, in all certainty, what affection
is most perfect and able to render to all
futurity and all posterity: the best?

Selfish interests will always be involved.

History tells us that simple ‘family’
interest is not enough to ensure the
‘greatest’ good.

Beyond self is the body of humanity
somewhat, even far removed from direct
family.

And this gave birth to the idealism of
a balance between small groups and large
groups of our general human family.

And this is the issue of intersection
we know as ‘politic’ or policy for greatest
harmony.

This accruing knowledge developed into
a body of policy we term ‘diplomacy’, or
a method of keeping harmony between great
bodies of groups of humans: all of whom
have in their constituency self-love or
love amongst themselves as the primary
principle.

No doubt, the greatest form of government
is based on mutual love.

Well, then, what is love?

I think nature provides a very good example.

As far as continuity is concerned, the
simple fact is evident in nature that the
parents expend, for the most part, more energy
caring for their children than they do for
themselves.

Obviously there must be a balance, ere the
providers perish and their offspring starve.

This seems to me to point to the aspect
of distribution of energy and attention, wherein
for some period of daily life one is not thinking
about oneself or one’s needs, but the needs
of their children, or neighbor, or anyone
else.

I think it should not be so difficult for
any intelligent person to allot to the hours
they live a segment wherein they are utterly
and completely un-self-aware.

Besides deep sleep, that is.

I mean: a period daily where what they
are doing is directed to the good of another
or some other group beyond themselves or
family, but to a neighbor or other nation,
even.

This would be a puny habit.

That is, it ought not consume that much
time, but as an accumulative effect, if
everyone did this, imagine what a change in
the world!

I would deem this not simply attention
merely to humanity, but to any form of life
or to the earth itself as a living being.

Dropping self, if only for an hour a day.

Maybe then a greater form of love might
reveal itself or be realized. And our awareness
and intelligence, greatly enriched

“In largely abstract and ironically depersonalized terms, Nathan O’Halloran’s article details how love is the highest form of knowledge. Or at least it attempts to by making grand assumptions. He claims that the ‘secondary reflection’ made available by self-awareness is comprised of nonmaterial impersonal objects and nonmaterial personal objects, and that love is key to unlocking the latter (which is really just a fancy way to say ‘having a functional human connection’). This is fine and all, but why love is the greatest knowledge of all is barely touched; to justify his claims O’Halloran only says that nonmaterial personal knowledge is ‘personal and non-material’, thus making it invaluable. It may just be me, but this seems a little circular, and a little non-responsive. It also fails to address the ambiguity in the word love, something that means something different to every person who encounters it.

The blog post reminded me heavily of the Walker Percy article we had to read earlier in the semester. First, both share intellectual banter that, while good intentioned, drowns in its own need to prove itself via big words and alienating phrases. O’Halloran’s post also seems to be at the heart of Percy’s critique of the modern world; in it, love is reduced to an ideal, a mere form of knowledge, a means of unlocking the secrets of the person. This objectification of the emotion sterilizes it, leaves it dry and useless. We don’t experience love when it’s addressed in this compartmentalized form, we just think of it as a scholarly idea necessary for the next level of social zen.”

Again, sorry if that came off as a little harsh, that’s just how I tend to write critiques or replies for classes. I really did enjoy the article, despite any flaws I saw with it.

Pax,

Henry

May the Good Lord and His Spirit inspire us to
keep growing and have more time to get closer
to Him through such sacred writings!

Here though, simultaneously we are after as much
Jesuit influence on our Spirituality Traditions
as is feasible since there are so few other
mediums to access Ignatian thought, which is
incredibly powerful, and in my life experience,
still insufficiently disseminated to the pews!
Especially when it is the fact, but little known,
that Ignatius’s own mysticism is placed in equality
with that of St. John of the Cross! So stated in
the 5 year research study on the lost Catholic
tradition of foolishness for Christ in Saward’s
book “Perfect Fools: Folly for Christ’s Sake in
Catholic and Orthodox Spirituality”
(Oxford University Press, 1980: pg. 112)

We have yet to go beyond basics in comprehending
such mysteries!

I have been reading the work of a Spanish philosopher – Xavier Zubiri – lately and I suspect you might enjoy his work also – check him out.

Thanks for the tip on Simon Conway Morris.

Pax and good night.

Henry

Also, then, start keeping an eye out for Simon
Conway Morris: I label him a new “Chardin-II”
for his pioneering scientific work as a Christian
that now gives meat to the bones of the simple
expression in Genesis in support of Creation theory
that “we are made in the image of God!”

The source of our love, is His: He is Love!
The Cosmic Christ is the Divine image in every
human being! Christology without Creation is
pure projection! Let us keep living ongoing
Resurrection!!!

I would love to read your article. Can you send it to Nathan and ask him to forward it to me? If you agree, please ask Nathan to give me your e-mail (and vice versa) so we can discuss it via e-mail.

I like your idea about Valentine’s Day very much – let’s go for it!!!

Pax,

Henry

Love is a Divine quality, never shame or guilt
which are not Divine attributes! And in God’s unity,
you and I are not here, likewise neither man, or
woman.

LOVE: what verb does more work? What noun is more
involved? That’s the human problem: the word “love”
means too much and too little.
Love stands for and justifies, just about anything:
strong desires, feelings, emotions, action, inaction,
etc.
People have done things for the love of God
that God assuredly disavows. They have done things
for love of others that have crushed the very objects
of their obsession. They have done things for
self-love that destroyed rather than built up
community!
Therein, the appeal to love is not only often
trivial, it can be lethal.

Love, therefore, is like a chameleon that hides
in the hue of everything and disappears into any
context available. By contrast, feelings are
entertained, love comes to pass. Feelings dwell
in us and remain there, whereas love emanates into
constructive action!
Feelings dwell “in” us but we “dwell” in love!

But not so fast: to use Management Science jargon,
how can we “operationalize” love? In its fundamentals?
This “love” isn’t just anything. It involves heart
and self, will and life, mind and strength,
soul and the Divine -ultimately!
It calls for fidelity. It makes demands. Love
is not mere ardor, it is arduous! It is work!

Love translates itself into action: for others!
Anything less than serving others is not love.
To love only a relationship, only ones family,
only ones workplace friends, is pseudo love. Real
love bridges into and is inter-connected with, to,
for, in community!

Love, when we do it, is the eternal in us
and what lasts of us.
It is an affirmation, a kiss to the universe
around us both in its complexities and in its
immediacy of our present moments, freely given.
Ultimately love is a responsibility of an “I”
for a “thou” in a venture to bring oneself in time,
to the ultimate challenge: to love all!
Only when this stage of living is attained is
one then also ready, to be loved by the Lover of the
universe, and not until then! Because now one loves
the Source of one’s love! In that is unity, peace,
and the beginnings of Eternal Happiness.

I would love to read your essay so yes, please send it to me. I don’t know the background mechanics of a blog but I surmise that Nathan, Michael, etc., can see my personal e-mail address since I have to enter it in order to post comments. So, what I propose is that we both write to them and ask them to give each of us the other’s e-mail address – agreed?

Pax,

Henry

Whereas Christianity took over the Roman pagan feast
on Dec. 25th and named it “Christmas” when will we
take “Valentine’s Day” back from both Paganism
and Secular Society since we are the masters,
the authority, on the subject of “love?” !