Languages of Love: Difficulty

Upon further reflection, and a long discussion with br. John Mary Jesus, I am reconsidering my analysis of the last three love languages.  As you have probably noticed, there is no direct correlation between the languages of quality time, gift giving, and service and the sense of sight, smell, and taste.  This has led me to consider that there are more than five love languages.  For example, the sense of sight has a love language of its own which I would call a "loving gaze."  It is the difference between simply looking at someone, and gazing at someone you love.  For those of you who have seen the movie Avatar, there is a phrase used to translate this kind of loving respect-filled gaze: "I see you."  But more on that in a future post.

The difficulty comes in when trying to analyze gift giving, quality time and service.  On the one hand, these three languages depend on more than one sense, and on the other hand they depend upon something other than the senses themselves.  Giving a gift has several strong sensible moments when effected in person: there is a gaze exchanged, a "thank you", an embrace, a choice of the gift based on what the other person wants.  Obviously this combines physical touch, affirmation, gaze, presence, and lets call it "taste."  But the physical gift itself plays an important role.  The gift itself is like an incarnation of love.  Love cannot be given per se, but a gift can be given and a gift is a symbol of love.  Service is another language of love that depends upon an action accomplished.  Certainly there are the basic languages of love that demonstrate that a service is being accomplished out of love: it is done carefully (Physical Touch), without complaint (~Affirmation), joyfully (Smile/Loving Gaze), in person (Presence), and according to the preferences of the one for whom the service is being accomplished (Taste).  But the service itself is an action that effectively demonstrates the "idem vele" (same will) of the persons who love each other.  By performing a service for someone you love, you show them concretely that you want what they want.

When two people choose to prioritize their friendship and turn the exercise of it into a life-intention (going from a friendship that provides momentary meaning, to a friendship that provides daily and lasting meaning), it requires an engagement in common life.  Common life is based on a balance between service and quality time, and is renewed and invigorated by giving beyond the norm.  Love is what enables us to be fully invested in the routine, and love also enables us to go beyond the norm because love enables the true gift of self (which is symbolized by gift giving.)  So the fervor of love inspires us both to engage fully in the routine (service and quality time) and, from time to time, to give spontaneously - unexpectedly.  We like our gifts to have the element of surprise, because love itself is surprising and unexpected.  That is why love needs the stability of day to day life to avoid exhaustion, but also rises above the routine.

So how best to proceed with a philosophical analysis of the love languages?  What appears more clearly to me now is that the sense of sight, smell, and taste have their own respective love languages: i.e. loving gaze or smile, personal presence, and acquired taste.  And the languages of quality time, service, and gift giving are compound sensible experiences that make use of an intermediate activity, or object to communicate love.  I began to evoke the need for the languages of quality time, service, and gift giving in the exercise of common life, and I think it might even be better to call them languages of communion.  One of the properties of love, or one of its effects, is communion.  Quality time is communion at a personal level.  Service is communion at the level of nature.  And gift giving demonstrates the order of communion - living for the other person, being other-oriented.

Of course, the last three gifts - Quality Time, Service, and Gift Giving - could also be analyzed according to Aristotle's three kinds of friendships: utilitarian, pleasure based, and true friendship.  True friendship requires spending time together according to Aristotle, and one does not have a true friendship with more than a handful of people during one's entire life.  You have to "empty an entire sack of salt," with someone before you can begin to consider them your friend - it takes time.  That would cause me to pair up quality time as an important exercise of true friendship.  Another aspect of friendship is pleasure, friends like to please one another.  Finally friends like to help one another.  Utilitarian friendship tends to mach up with service, and pleasure based friendship tends to match up with gift giving.  This being said, it is also possible to see how certain gifts may be given because they are useful, and certain services because they make the other person happy.

I will continue to reflect on the last three languages - which I will refer to as the languages of communion - and in the meantime write posts on the last three gestures of love based on the senses: Gaze/Smile, Presence, and Acquired Taste.