January 14th, 2009
Am trying to re-post old posts August of last year which were not backed up.
best regards,
ian
—
More Than Words (More Ramblings…)
One of my all-time favorite songs is “More Than Words.” It became a monster hit in 1991 or 1992, spawning a long list of other “unplugged” numbers. The song, written by Nuno Bettencourt and Gary Cherone (of the now disbanded “Extreme,” a funky-metal band similar in style to Red Hot Chili Peppers, with lyrics that usually tackled religious and philosophical issues), had a beautiful melody, wonderful vocal harmony, with only a bare guitar and a bongo drum for its accompaniment. At a time when most songs were overweighed by layers of instrumentation with technological gadgets, synthesizers, etc., it was a breath of fresh air to hear this song that was pure and naked in its beauty, honesty, and simplicity. No gimmicks, just the bare essentials.
It also expressed for me an important lesson that I learned from Karl Marx and the existentialists. Karl Marx says that “Life determines consciousness; not consciousness, life.” Thus, the emphasis on praxis (practice, not as “rehearsal,” but as “actualization”), over and above theory. Of course, the existentialists harp on the call for authenticity.
More than words… you say you love someone, then it has to be more than words. As they say, talk is cheap. Again, as they say, words are johnnies-come-lately. They always come after the experience. They are supposed to provide a bridge between the reality that we experience and the people to whom we would like to communicate and build a community with. And yet we must never take the words for reality itself. There is a big chasm between words and experience.
Mind you, I love words. (Despite admiring Marx, I preferred Kafka, a wordsmith, to him.) But if they do not lead us back to experience, what’s the point? They remain words… empty, meaningless, arbitrary sounds. (Hamlet: “words, words, words.”)
The ultimate value of any theory then (as Marx affirms) is practice.(Anti-greek and anti-hegelian?)
Nietzsche: “What is ultimately of interest in a particular philosophy is the kind of life from which it springs forth…” Or something like that… (don’t have the exact words…)
That’s why I loved, and still love, Nietzsche. He says he writes with his blood. And I believe him. You can almost feel the throb of life in his words. (Maybe I’m just biased.)
It’s not so much that I do or don’t believe in the existence of unconditional love. It’s just that I feel that many of the assertions of “unconditional love” that we encounter are cheap talk. Cliches. Formulaic words repeated again and again. Bereft of understanding and experience. I think one should really, really examine his/her life before he/she utters that he/she loves unconditionally.
Why, if love is ever-growing and encompassing, should we oppose self-love and love for others? If you love yourself truly, then wouldn’t if follow that you’d love others, too? If you love others truly, doesn’t it follow that you love yourself too?
This is a real question for me. Can I, who’s naturally primarily concerned with my own interest, transcend myself and love unconditionally? Or maybe I’m asking the wrong question?
This is what I hope to try out through the practice of meditation. I’d like to try it out, as an experiment of sorts, a life-experiment. Why not? After all, it is desirable to be a more compassionate, loving person. If through meditation, we come to realize, through the framewok of our body, that there is no “I” (anatta), then perhaps we’d be able to love… (dare I say it?) unconditionally.
For in our heart of hearts, isn’t that what we want too? To be loved “unconditionally.” To be loved for ourselves, warts and all.
But isn’t this desire a blemish to that other goal of loving unconditionally?
This is what Nietzsche rails against. That, in the tradition of Christianity, eros (not simply “sexual love” but also “love as desire”) has become a poison of sorts. What’s so pernicious about wanting/desiring to be loved? It is as if we want to rid ourselves of our very being as humans and become angels or God. We have become ashamed of our humanity.
What does Nietzsche propose? Here’s how I see it: Accept reality as it is (accept/love your condition as time and desire-bound beings). “Let your love remain faithful to the earth.” Power is not so much domination and exploitation of others (this is the desire of the weak), but love, accepting reality as it is, in all its imperfection. Love is a manifestation of strength. If one is not yet strong enough to love, let him express his anger/negativity. Better that he exorcises it, than for him to suppress it and let it poison his mind as resentment.
In college I read this small novel which concludes: “Self-denial is the worst perversion.” It struck a chord in my innermost being because I felt that my passion lay in the arts. Shouldn’t I, as my faith enjoins me, deny myself, take up my cross, and sacrifice my own happiness for my people (the people of god)? I feared that I’d find myself (someday when I am old) resenting the very people for whom I made my sacrifice.
Why should this so-called loving God put a burning desire in my heart and then expect me to quench it, out of love? Isn’t that the height of cruelty? (This is perhaps why I could never relate with Abraham’s willingness to sacrifice Isaac. That really is a matter of faith. As Kierkegaard says, “the absurd” in “Fear and Trembling.”)
A small voice was telling me: “Follow your heart.” Love is never forced. Love is always an exhortation, an invitation. It doesn’t make demands on the lover that he/she isn’t willing to make. Otherwise, it becomes a loveless duty.
And so, I did. Follow my heart. Now, I realize, it’s not so much that “self-denial is the worst perversion.” It’s just that self-denial without love becomes life-decimating rather than life-enhancing.