Mozart calls love the soul of genius. Love is the soul of much we need to do well. But what is love? I imagine that the power elite love power; I imagine that the monied elites love money. A line from Citizen Kane resonates: It’s not hard to make a lot of money if the only thing you want to do is to make a lot of money. But is this love? Love is obsession, love cannot be obsession. To be obsessed with somebody some say is love, others insist cannot be love. Jesus loves and by love saves, Christians say.
Many think of love as a spiritual principal pervading the world. But how can it pervade the world when the globe turns on an axis of contempt, violence, corruption, greed and death? Yet, as I have said above, what if you loved power, what if you loved money? Certainly greed is an obsession, lust is an obsession . . . all the deadly sins are obsessions, we have said in our traditional conception of these losses of light. Sin is darkness; love is light. Love and obsession cannot be the same? Love is forgiveness; obsession becomes jealousy; jealousy is not love? Love is redemption and transcendence; obsession is descent, a falling low, and the kitchen knife in your lover’s chest? But then that’s it. Love can become jealousy; it just doesn’t become a bullet in the heart. Is love of money, though, the same as greed? From the above, no. Love of what you do can make you a lot of money, but the driving force of greed corrupts the love of what you do. Even when a lot of money is not the result; you can love what you do and you can corrupt that love of what you do.
The soul of genius.
Can the very, very rich be rich through the agency of love and not greed, or is the love of money in itself what we mean by avarice. Do his followers love Satan? Is what we call love applicable to Satan and anything satanic. Isn’t Satan and all things satanic a corruption of good, sin again being the absence of good, all things sinful devoid of any goodness, or some goodness? We would need to explicate love further than we have so far herein. We need to define sin, obsession . . . the desire to fuck is in itself love. Love must be then acted upon. Love is a choice. The absence of the choice for love is in itself a choice and all choices have consequences. Make no mistake. Anyone who says sex is not love is an idiot. Sex is in itself love, but to say it is not love is to sidestep the choice of acting with love and for love. To believe sex is not love is like the girl with anorexia looking in the mirror and seeing that she is fat. Wanting to fuck somebody and fucking that somebody are acts of love. I love you now, I love this minute, I love you as I fuck you, I love you until you leave, I love you forever, I love you until death do us part, I love you beyond my death, all of these are variations on love. I love you now but not in hour, or not tomorrow, or until we divorce, all of these speculative and not planned–what? Knowing them is a form of enlightenment. Love is at the heart of humanity, that is a humanity when being human is to be humane.
Now the French still have one word for both words in English. The French notion is that to be human is to be humane. Without what it means to be humane there can be no human. Human is as humane does. The humane is what it means to love in this way your fellow humans, whether sexually, filially, friendly, et cetera. To want to fuck somebody, again, is love, even when one who fucks does so with contempt; the contempt is what he uses to corrupt the love resulting in something less than kind, less than compassionate, less then humane. We animalize our actions day in and day out. Now, how does love function in the creation of humanity? And humanity is a creation. Its essential features are choices made with love. They would have to be. We should know that there is little of what we call humanity without love; love is necessary in order to be humane, of course we could say, but with the history of the world in counterpoint, and the current events of most of the world on the news in the like, it does not seem to be a matter of course. We must love those we can love and humanity presents itself to us every day; our opportunities to love to act humanely are nearly limitless. But we don’t; we choose to turn away even when we do choose to do anything. By doing nothing, by not acting on the ability to be humane we choose the inhumane, sins of omission again.
Love is essential in acts of compassion and acts of kindness. It is essential in all tenderness, in all tolerance. Love, therefore cannot be greed, it cannot be sloth, it cannot be gluttony, it surely cannot be hate or pride. Power is often lustful and greedy and gluttonous. Love of wealth, the same. When love of wealth leads to philanthropy–loving money is not the same as loving what money can do. The kind of philanthropy needed in society can only be enacted by the wealthy. But then when philanthropy is vanity or pride it is not philanthropy, it is business, it is lust or greed or gluttony again. Be seen not praying in the synagogues, Yehuda Ben Miriam says; who does not know the synagogues are the churches, the mosques, the schools, the gala events where the rich overpay for plates and make donations they can easily afford to the applause of audiences. In proportion of their wealth, the rich often do not give more to charity than the poor.
Love is the antidote for the poisons of the deadly sins. Our notions of love, however, are often skewered. How we manage it not always to the best of our potential. We are too exclusive with love, or we are too narrow in our definition of love, where love is acceptable, what love is and for whom and when. We foreshorten, we limit, we narrow, we constrict, we do not fully experience the broadness of love, the depth, the length, the endurance of love and loving.
The first and the last in being human when human is not merely being another kind of animal in the world is to love and love even more. In this love of your fellow humans, you choose the humane. You must. In doing so, you champion humanity. Kindness has its butterfly effect? Now, much of what I have herein said about humanity can be denied, it can even be held in skepticism. I do not, though, recognize the deniability of anything as proof of its non-existence. The fact my dreams are not outside my head within reach of my finger tips is no reason to conclude that they are not real, that they have no veracity.The very inhumanity present in the world can be used as a rebuttal for some of what I have said about the humane, but then it would have to eliminate the references I’ve made about free-will as the essential ingredient in our recipe for the humane; humanity, if we recall, is a choice. I do not claim any determinism for being humane. It is a potential only and once more must be asserted through choosing to be or do so. The fact it must be chosen leaves it subject to free-will, free-will an essential for freedom, freedom then an essential for love, for human/humane.