In this post we will be revisiting the natures of love as introspected in “What it means to say ‘I love you’?” We will integrate the findings made in this project with the material covered before in project RN (T), tracing it all the way back to Truth theory back in part 1. Hopefully we will by then, come up with a concise statement to capture the true essence of love. This will not be easy, and as of all works before such a simplified quantifier of love will not do itself justice. Nevertheless, it is time to wrap up this series of discussions, and I’ll leave any further discussions therein to personal insight and expansion.
In the earlier post “The definition of humanity” we have concluded, using objective truth and goodness as a measure, that the one mechanism that simultaneously satisfies both measures i.e. provides both objective truth and meaning to the individual, is the mechanism of union, or love. Our current understanding of the phrase “I love you” is in the context of “I want to be in union with you” and “to me, you are good”, and in the next few paragraphs we will be recapping how these may be realized.
Love, as we know now to be, brings about a certain re-affirmation to the individual, which in turns brings about a strengthening of one’s identity. In part three we understand that one’s identity is a collective aggregate of one’s cognition (logical operation), feeling (affective operation) and behavior (manifestation operation). In Project RN(T) we see this identity as a singular domain of subjective truth, and it is via the mechanism of intellectual sympathy and ontological empathy the union and superimposition of subjectivities that the objective domain (of truth) of man may thus manifest.
In project RN(T2), we have again took another step at inducing love in the context of meaning. In part 5 we have seen how individual differences arise from the different permutations of deterministic change. And it is in the relativity of qualia, transmuted by these changes, that brings about the relative goodness to man. We have also seen that there is an objective good in man, one that is synonymous to his purpose. In the act of service (via love), an individual acknowledges and promotes the dignity of another individual, and at the same time strengthens his conviction (domain of meaning) towards this ideal.
Yet, it is to be noted that our current definition of love is still very abstract, general, and theoretical. The ‘love’ that we speak about is essentially every and any union forged between two individuals, and although we may have a clue that in mutual empathy (intellectually sympathy and ontological empathy) and the act of self giving the truthfulness and meaning of man may thus manifest, we still have little clues on how does this relate back to our quests for the living best, as well as the meaning of life in layman’s contexts.
As we know, our current approach towards love, just as to truth and goodness, is from a ‘back-door bottom-up’ approach. This means that our justification of love does not start from the definition of love to the derivative concepts of love, but rather an induction to the meaning of love based on the definition of its derivative concepts. Now, at this point in time we will deviate from our derivative conclusions stated above. We will now finally give a top-down induction of love so as to speak, and from there see how both inductions may be congruent.
What is love?
Excluding philosophical and theological contexts, we can see by Sternberg’s triangular theory of love (see “what it means to say ‘I love you’” for more information) that the definition of love we see today lies in the different permutations of intimacy, passion and commitment can consequent in different forms of love we see today. By definition, these three bases are independent of each other in nature, since it is in the objective of science to deconstruct phenomena into fundamental bases for analyses. Thus, the definition of love ranges from infatuation to liking, and empty commitment, to romantic, companionate and fatuous love, and finally on to consummate love.
(A graphical representation of Sternberg’s triangular theory of love, can be found from part 4 ‘What it means to say “I love you”’)
Beyond the triangular theory of love, it is noted that relationships may be generally classified into two distinct types, namely: Exchange and communal relationships. In exchange relationships, individuals tend to keep track of their contributions, like to be repaid for favors quickly, feel exploited when they are not repaid, and feel indifferent as and when they help other individuals. Yet in communal relationships individuals to not keep track and demand instant repayment; moreover, they feel happy when they see others benefit.
The determinants to these two types of relationships, as well as to the type of relationships noted in the triangular theory, are both genetic and environmentally disposed. Notably, a secure attachment in childhood with a caregiver will result in a higher probability to consummate, communal relationship and a higher occurrence of prosocial behavior (i.e. helping). On the other hand, an anxious or avoidant attachment style may lead to anxious relationships. Yet we will have to bring into mind that the environmental/ genetic factors to determine a person’s subsequent capacity to love are 50-50.
What does this mean? Biologists and evolutionary psychologists have postulated that love was a learned concept, refined by natural selection and manifested by evolution. Love was a concept originating from prosocial behavior, and it is in kinship selection, reciprocity norms in groups, and group selection that had brought certain groups whose individuals were cooperative to thrive better than others who were selfish. Individuals soon found out that the essence of cooperation, unity, empathy and altruism were essential in survival and flourishing, and from there the value of love was therefore inculcated. This can be seen via the observation of teamwork and altruism in groups of bats and wolves.
Not contradictory, in religious contexts, love is the ultimate state of being what had created existence- as summarized in the six days of creation in genesis. It is the capacity in sapience that humans may understand that love is the meaning of existence, as they contemplate about the meaning of their lives, and come to a conclusion (of union) that there must be a loving God who had created (given definition) that such creations may thus become possible.
As we compare this definition with that of evolution, we see that sapience was a characteristic that was evolved as humans broke away from their primal cousins. From the lower perquisites of natural selection, we have gone a step further to understand the reason and purpose behind the need of union, cooperation, and altruism- all of which may thus be collectively understood as the need to love. Now, it from this realization of truth and meaning we thus are able to participate and manipulate the forces of creation, which is to be stewards of the earth, master over animals and plants, and obtain for ourselves autonomy in deterministic change.
Now, if love was learned, and predisposed, is 50-50- it would not very hard to conclude, without the lofty definitions of objective truth and purpose, that love is in essence still inevitable to us. The need of love is inbred, primary and universal, while the capacity of autonomy and stewardship ensures that love is still by part subjective to the upbringings and values we attach to the love ideal. Simply speaking, love is both a choice and an imperative, making it an inevitable core to us.
This is reflected in the theology of the body, which institutes the primary idea that the human body was designed specifically for love to manifest.
What does this mean?
As we look back at the conclusions of this, and the prior project, we see that love forms and develops truth and meaning in us. This truth and meaning comes in the domain of our personal identities, and that in love we see a greater truth (in ideas and knowledge) and meaning (conviction) than what we may understand as selfish individuals. This can be summarized in the correspondence theory of acquiring truth, that in enacting love we are actually corresponding ourselves to this inevitable core that had formed and defined us.
Furthermore, it is in this understanding that love is both a choice and an imperative, which makes certain our part to play in this ‘concept’. Just as we are a certain steward in truth and meaning, we too have a role of steward to play in the manipulation of love. By the evolutionary develop to contemplate and understand that love serves as the ultimate truthful meaning of life (from part 1-5), the evolutionary milestone we have achieved to value love as a prosocial behavior (genetic determinant), as well as the autonomy to enact love as a value in the types of relationships we wish to forge with others (environmental determinant). We see that it is no more than an imperative, or in Christian contexts, a duty to replicate this ideal that is so ingrained in us.
At this point in time, the love ideal may be visualized as a hazy aggregate of concepts summarized by three points of view- that is the philosophical view, the theological view, and the evolutionary/empirical view. These three views each denote an important aspect of love itself, and re-summarizing, encompasses the idea that 1) we became humans and developed sapience (autonomy to love) simply because we loved, 2) it is by love that created us, and since we are stewards borrowing this authority to create we therefore too wield love as a mechanism to a better life. As well as 3) that love is the ultimate quest that satisfies the fundamental desire in us for accuracy and meaning of this world.
And as we observe closely, the element of progress towards a better is evident in all of the above statements. This induces the fact that love ideal is indeed an ideal for progression, or putting this in a very congenial light, for the realization of the living best.
Now, one of the most important questions that remain is the question on how is it appropriate to enact this ideal, now that we have finally put in perspective from the top-down (evolutionary and theistic) approach, as well as the bottom-up (philosophical) approach. As we bring back to mind the posts in part 4 on ethics, and the implications of saying “I love you”, we see that these are actually derivative aspects of the above-defined ideal. The reason to appreciate life, morality and ethics; as with the implication behind interpersonal attraction, stems from the ideal of prosocial behavior (see social psychology), human values (part 5), ontological union and intellectual sympathy (part 2, 3), now harmonized as one single and coherent picture. Now, what does this imply?
As noted, any of the three views may be used as a quantifying base of the love ideal. Nevertheless, to capture the complete essence of love, all three bases have to be used in conjunction. Specifically, this means that to enact the love ideal completely, our faculties for theism, empirical understanding, and idealism have to be developed each in their own respect, and compatible with each other. The faculty of theism would allow us to see the role love plays in the creation and meaning for existence, while empirical knowledge will serve as a grounding justification on how humans are in communion with (Him). Philosophical idealism, no less, serves as a constant standoff between the real and ideal; and tells us where are we currently standing in relation to the full essence of divine love, as stated succinctly in the complementary doctrine back in the prologue of this series of discussions. In each of the three bases, catechetical (religious), academic, and subsequent ideological knowledge would take over to fill in the specific details.
While the methods of referencing may differ considerably for each individual, since the MBTI has shown that a different degree of realism, idealism, logical, and intuition preference exists for every individual, what is important is the realization that whatever we may classify and value as love is nevertheless an approximate, or derivative of this transcendental love ideal. This is indeed a move into transcendental idealism. Yet as we have noted in ‘the definition of humanity’, progress does not end in the ideal alone, but only when reality itself becomes ideal, and in this respect the love ideal mirrors the ideals of objective truth and goodness, that beyond the realization of transcendental idealism, it is imperative for us to ‘return back to the matrix’ to fully manifest the love ideal.
The above mentioned methods may be succinctly rephrased into three statements:
The life of the highest truthful meaning is actually a simple life lived in service to others, in both cognitive and emotive aspects, on tangible and idealistic aspects. This service is not arbitrary, nor obligated under any jurisdiction. This service takes form of an union, and it is in this union and its derivative concepts that reaffirms one's identity to an objective being. This service is the service of love, and while it seemingly takes form as a humblest act, it fulfils completely the highest transcendentals of truth and goodness in human philosophy.
- There is essentially no distinction between spiritual, intellectual, physical, emotional and social domains. All Truth, Goodness and Beauty theories speak of the same nature as that advocated by catechism, and conventional knowledge. This nature is in essence the love ideal, in which all acts of love approximate to.
- Transcendental realism and idealism are equally transcendent in nature- that being: it is not possible to state that its’ objective better to attain enlightenment, or be within the constructs of reality. Beyond the constructs of the matrix lies room for self enlightenment and idealistic objectivity. Yet beyond the objectivity of transcendental idealism, it is still imperative to return back to reality and realize this ideal.
Notably, these three statements serve as a general framework where subsequent construes may be categorized to. They do not give specific instructions or a direct method on how the love ideal may be manipulated. This is simply because love is not arbitrary, nor does it subjugate itself to the authority of a single individual’s direction. Should further justification be employed, it can be easily verified that these justifications will actually draw context from the above three statements.
