Ç Anyone who
loves is mad È
Grace Marlier
I will propose that this
statement is true, if we take Ç madness È to mean the conventional definition
of the term madness; i.e. irrationality, inexplicable
behavior (inexplicable, or at least not explicable coherently, by the
normal standards of most humans). I define Ç sanity È, itÕs opposite, as the
ability to
make rational decisions that will lead to some probable benefit
for yourself, either directly or indirectly.
To further explain what I mean by the conventional definition, or
common perception, of madness and itÕs opposite, I wish to share with you the
following
quotation, from the novel Cannery row, by John Steinbeck :
Ç Once
when Doc was at the University of Chicago he had love trouble and he had worked
too hard. He thought it would be nice to take a very long walk. He put on a
little knapsack and he walked through Indiana and Kentucky and North Carolina
and Georgia clear to Florida. He walked among farmers and mountain people,
among the swamp people and fishermen. And everywhere people asked him why he
was walking through the country.
Because
he loved true things he tried to explain. He said he was nervous and besides he
wanted to see the country, and there was no other way to do it, save on foot.
And people didnÕt like him for telling the truth. They scowled, or shook and
tapped their heads, they laughed as though they knew it was a lie, and they
appreciated a liar. And some, afraid for their daughters or their pigs, told
him to move on, to get going, just not to stop near their place if he knew what
was good for him.
So he
stopped trying to tell the truth. He said he was doing it on a bet- that he
stood to win a hundred dollars. Everyone liked him then and believed him.
They
asked him in to dinner and gave him a bed and they put lunches up for him and
wished him good luck and thought he was a hell of a fine fellow. È.
I propose in contrast to this very terrestrial picture of a being,
great by conventional standards, who is understood, respected and liked
because he has
the good sense, or is perceived to have the good sense to act in a
way that will bring some tangible profit to himself, the following definition
of the greatest
being (a god)- a description that may be found in the Phaedrus of Plato (247E):
Ç Now a
godÕs mind is nourished by intelligence and pure knowledge, as the mind of any
soul that is concerned to take in what is appropriate to it, and so it is
delighted at last to be seeing what is real and watching what is true, feeding on all this and feeling wonderful, until the circular motion brings it around to where it started. On the way around, it has a view of Justice as it is. It has a view of self-control; it has a view of knowledge- not the knowledge that is close to change that becomes different as it knows the different things which we consider real down here. No, it is the knowledge of what really is what it is. And when the soul has seen all the things as they are and feasted on them,
It sinks
back inside heaven and goes home. È.
We
must define love as a phenomena distinct from many other things which are
commonly referred to by the word Ç love È. Love must be distinguished,
for example, from aesthetic admiration, from fidelity, flattery, and the
rendering of services to another. It is equally important to define love as
distinct from Lust.
The property that distinguishes love from other attitudes or
emotions is the Çmadness È of it (Ç madness È by conventional standards). In
true love there is no Ç normal È, Ç sane È rationale. There is no motivating
expectation of reward (as there is, for example, in lust, or in fidelity, which
usually expects fidelity in return), There is just, as Plato says, the delight
to be Ç seeing what is real and watching what is true È, to have Ç a view of
justice as it is È, and to have a view of Ç the knowledge of what really is
what it is È.
Two things that are necessary in order to aspire to, and possibly
succeed in acting out of love, defined as I am defining it, are detachment (by
being Çattached to something È, one takes it as an addition to oneself, and is
thus enriched), and a desire to act in accordance with justice as the
motivation for oneÕs actions.
Detachment
As Simone Weil says in her book gravity and grace;
Ç The
belief in the existence of other human beings, as such, is love È
(Ç la
croyance a lÕexistence dÕautres etres humains comme tels est Amour È)
And, to expand on this theme and connect it with that of
detachment versus attachment:
Ç
Attachment is a maker of illusions, and whoever desires what is real, must be
detached. As soon as one realizes that something is real, one may no longer
have an attachment to it. Attachment is nothing other than the insufficiency in
the sense of reality. One is attached to the possession of a thing because one
believes that if one ceases to possess it, it will cease to be. Many people do
not feel with their whole soul that there is a difference between the
annihilation of a city and their own irremediable exile from that city È
(Ç
LÕattachement est fabricateur dÕillusions, et quiconque veut le reel doit etre
detache. des quÕon sait que quelquechose est reel, on ne peut pas y etre
attache.
LÕattachement
nÕest pas autre chose que lÕinsuffisance dans le sentiment de la realite. on
est attache a la possession dÕune chose parce quÕon croit que si on cesse de la
posseder, elle cesse dÕetre. beaucoup de gens ne sentent pas avec toute leur
ame quÕil y a une difference du tout au tout entre lÕaneantissement dÕune ville
et leur exil irremediable hors de cette ville. È)
One prerequisite to love is to harbor no illusions about that which is loved. One must believe in the existence of the other Ç as such È, not as the figment, even in part, of oneÕs own imagination, in order to justly claim love for the other. Because attachment is Ç a maker of illusions È(for starters, the illusion that something/someone ceases to exist when they cease to be attached to you), one cannot believe in the existence of the other Ç as such È if one is attached to
that other. Thus, Love for someone to whom one feels attached is
impossible, illusory. This contradicts one very common (mis)conception of love
: The Ç IÕll stand by you, never let you go È, Ç I ainÕt too proud to beg (you
to not leave me)È, Ç I got you, babe È, Ç IÕd die without your love È etcetera
model, to be more specific).
As Weil says, in the same book:
Ç To
feel a pure gratitude (the case of friendship being put aside)I need to think
that someone is treating me well, not out of pity, or out of sympathy, or
on a whim, as a favor or to reward some privilege, nor either because of a natural effect of temperament, but out of a desire to do what justice requires one to do. And so one who treats me thus believes that all those who are in my situation should be treated thus by all those who are in his position. È
(ÇPour eprouver une gratitude pure (le cas de lÕamitie etant mis a part), jÕai besoin de penser quÕon me traite bien, non par pitie, ou par sympathie, ou par caprice, a titre de faveur ou de privilege, ni non plus par un effet naturel de temperament, mais par desir de faire ce que la justice exige. donc celui qui me traite ainsi souhaite que tous ceux qui sont dans ma situation soient traites
ainsi
par tous ceux qui sont dans la sienne. È).
Examples given here of things that may be confused with the
motivation to treat someone well (treat someone with love, as indicated by the
Ç case of friendshipÈ being put aside), are pity, sympathy, whim, as a favor or
to reward privilege, or by a natural effect of temperament.
All of these are false sources that lead to imitations of love,
and not to love itself.
The true source of an act of love is this: The desire to do what
justice requires be done in relations with Ç the other È, whoever that Ç other
È may be, in a given circumstance.
The person who acts truly out of love acts thus because he wants
his actions to conform to the exigencies of Justice (the perfect justice that
PlatoÕs god orbiting earth in his chariot Ç has a view of È, not the justice of
human legislation, which is changeable and flawed). It is not with an eye to
personal gain that he acts thus, it is rather in accordance with a transcendent
law, and in many cases those who do act on this motivation are viewed as
insane.
The real question is not about the nature of love; it is about the
nature of truth. For if truth is taken to be one thing, and then itÕs opposite,
the world is turned inside out in every sense. I would like to close with a
quotation from Stephen MitchellÕs translation of the Tao Te Ching of Lao-Tzu,
which illustrates this idea:
The path
into the light seems dark
the path
forward seems to go back
the
direct path seems long
true
power seems weak
true
purity seems tarnished
true
steadfastness seems changeable
true
clarity seems obscure
the
greatest art seems unsophisticated
the
greatest love seems indifferent
the
greatest wisdom seems childish.