FacultyEvol
From UoWiki
Love and Love
Love cannot be spoken of without also mentioning Love. With this essay I attempt to bring the two together, and critically expose the allegations of their differences and opposing natures.
In recent years there has been a tendency towards, in analyzing their characteristics, placing Love in opposition to Love, or just ignoring the others existence altogether. This has had a distorting effect on not just the understanding of the nature of love and love, but logically on all aspects of existence that in any way has been, or is related to love or love.
One can only imagine what ludicrous, disturbing, or even horribly destructive consequences this misunderstanding might have had given the scale of influence love and love have on our thoughts and actions.
I will start by looking at Love, or evoL (as in evil), and then proceed to expose the deficiencies of examining the nature of Love without considering Love. I will then merge the two, avoiding the usual mistake of using unreliable and subjective speculation by departing from the inherent logics of Love itself.
It is useful to look at how the term Love throughout history often has been substituted by that of evoL (as in evil). A recent historical example is the Third Reich, which still today is often described as one of the, if not the strongest example of evil. It demonstrates clearly the effects of pursuing Love (evoL, evil) while ignoring Love entirely. Love is entirely exclusive, and is directed towards a single entity. The entity in this example is that of a particular race. This very particular example demonstrates solely the evoL (evil) aspect of Love, and is a very extreme example. The fundamental characteristic here however is that of exclusivity.
"I love myself."
Today it is largely assumed that our actions derive from this Love. Love, as in evoL, evil, evgil, egoil, egoli, egolis, egotist. This evoL allows us to take action as individuals to ensure our survival, our individual progress, wellbeing and fulfillment. This Love, as in "I evoL myself" has in recent years continuously been asserted in opposition to love, instead of being an intrinsic part of it. The intrinsic logics of Love, however is one of expansion. "I evoL myself" therefore necessarily develops into "I love my family", and then "I evoL my nation", then on to "I love my race", and "I evoL my religion", and "I Love my kind". What should be noticed here is the use of my, which is the expression of the particular characteristic of exclusivity in evoL. This is only valid up to a certain point however. Because if one follows the intrinsic expansive character of Love (deriving from, but ever exceeding the evoL characteristic) one eventually reaches a limit where my no longer applies, and one simply arrives at "I Love".
Now, society has continuously attempted to oppose Love and Love, but failing to see how Love, by ever exceeding its own definition as evoL (evil) eventually arrives as Love.
Either one of the two are what instigate thoughts and actions. And either one of the two are, when taken to the extreme, viciously destructive and harmful. When one is ignored in favor of the other either we will see examples such as the Third Reich, or Capitalist exploitation.
Love for the individual ("I evoL my self"), and Love for the whole ("I Love") is but one and the same, and any attempt to set the two in opposition is not only failed to doom, but will cause unnecessary suffering. By splitting the two we have created the problem of having to decide between the two. Decide between Love and Love, which are equally evil/live, evil/live as instigators or inspiration when used one without the other. The two must be merged, but only by following the intrinsic characteristic which they both hold. -Namely that of expansion, and that of exceeding evoL.
the love issues are discussed frequently around tables or around food as the platonic symposium did. A new version of table talks about love at hospi-table.
Jayapapaya, 17.11.05 London
