Having now finished looking at the five fundamental gestures of love, I will now try to examine the gestures that are essential for building a common life. While all the gestures we have looked at up to now are important in the immediate, and can be employed independently of an engagement in the common life, these last three gestures are specifically constructive to common life. The last three gestures arise from a sense of responsibility. Relationships are ethical to the extent that they are founded on mutual respect - and they are personal to the extent that there is mutual responsibility. If you break it down, the word responsible refers to one's ability to respond. One's ability to respond depends upon a number of factors: maturity, courage, strength, conscience, freedom, willingness, etc.
Responsibility should be clearly distinguished from duty. Duty is something imposed from without, from society, culture, or religion. You could also use the word duty to refer to obligations. Obviously, the Philosopher Immanuel Kant has a lot to say about that, along with the other "Deontologists," but I'd rather not get into that. I would rather emphasize the fact that becoming responsible is not simply the process of becoming aware of obligations or developing a sense of duty. I would even argue that someone whose sense of responsibility depends upon the accomplishment of obligations is not in fact responsible. Responsibility is not a virtue, it is the quality of a person who has discovered both a spiritual good and elements of the common good. Responsibility is not focused on the fulfillment of obligations, responsibility seeks the protection and growth of a personal good and of the common good it depends upon. An obligation is the formalization of a responsibility - so a responsibility that is no longer connected to an affective knowledge, a knowledge of the good that responsibility is meant to protect and serve. When ethics is reduced to its rational element (rational as distinct from intellective), responsibility is reduced to a laundry list of obligations. Acting ethically means acting intelligently - not just rationally. Acting ethically requires a true knowledge of an end-good, a good that is able to finalize. Once this good is discovered for what it is, and for what it requires, I take responsibility for it for the sake of my happiness. Responsibility has to do with what is necessary for my happiness, and by extension, what is necessary for the happiness of those I love. Obligation has to do with what I think is important, or what others think is important, but has no clear tie to happiness. Most people in today's world are seeking happiness and only manage to fulfill obligations with great difficulty or in limited quantities. We have a greatly diminished sense of duty - for better or for worse.
It would be interesting to examine the modern difficulty with fidelity in this perspective. Is fidelity a duty or a responsibility? Well, that depends more on us and on our way of seeing reality than on fidelity itself. Fidelity can be lived as a responsibility or as an obligation. Faithfulness is the responsibility of someone who knows that the person he has chosen to love is capable of giving meaning to his entire life, and who knows that the other person depends upon him for meaning as well. Faithfulness is an obligation for someone who does takes their engagement seriously, but doesn't see infidelity as an obstacle to their happiness, or the happiness of the other person.
We could also contrast responsibility with obedience. Someone who does what they are told is necessarily responsible. Someone who does what they are told and discovers their finality thereby becomes more responsible. So ethical education consists in helping others discover their responsibilities. Strictly speaking, you do not give someone a responsibility, you trust them to become responsible or to discover and own up to their responsibilities. If we educate someone at the level of obligation and duty - telling them there are things they simply have to do - when they are old enough to decide that their priority in life is happiness and not the fulfillment of duties or obligations, they will abandon many of the practices we dutifully obliged them to do.
Education leans on obedience to help another person discover their responsibilities. But obedience is only a true means of education for children, and all those who have not attained maturity. Adulthood is reached when a person is capable of acting in function of a personal good. So using obedience on someone who is an adult is inappropriate. Telling an adult how to discover their finality is treating them as though they were not an adult. And yet, we all need a reminder from time to time about the meaning of our lives, and that there is a direction in which we are headed whether we are aware of it or not. That is why an adult continues their self-education by taking into consideration the councils and perspectives of the wise, but ceases to function under the mode of obedience. God is the only being that could legitimately propose a path of obedience to an adult - and it is precisely because of God's position with respect to human finality. If God exists, he knows us perfectly, and he knows perfectly what we were created for, he knows what our greatest personal happiness is and how we can obtain it. So we can trust God beyond our own point of view, and the point of view of others, however we can only know God's will in faith. Anyone who claims to know the particular will of God beyond the shadow of a doubt is surely illuminated or under an illusion.
All of these thoughts should help us understand the spirit in which we serve one another. Service is part of acting responsibly. Service is a gesture that demonstrates one's engagement in the common good with concern for protecting personal relationships. Service is a gesture of cooperation in the common project of living together. Without gestures of service, it starts to look like someone has no real intention of living with the other people in the household or community. Someone who shows up for meals, but doesn't offer to help in the kitchen in any way, shape, or form is either a guest, a child, a special needs case, or a thief. Unless special arrangements exist, or an exception is made, the shared material goods of a household are maintained by those who use them, and are used for the good of all in the household. An adult member of the household who uses the common good without contributing to its upkeep, or renewing it, or replacing it acts like a thief.
One difficulty arises when someone considers the production of money as a sufficient way to serve the common good. Money is not good in itself, it is a certain power to obtain material goods, it is a means to acquire material goods. Someone who views their contribution to the common good as consisting exclusively in the production of money only contributes virtually. A virtual contribution to the common good does not build family or community. A truly constructive engagement in common life requires gestures of service that maintain the material common good.
Beyond the material common good, a community (or household) also needs to be build on the common concern for the personal good of its members. This concern is a special kind of service, the service of a friend who shows his concern for his friend. A friend wants his friend to be happy, and knows that his friend's happiness depends upon more than just being friendly. This Personal Attention is a special service that can be rendered in the form of initiatives in the realm of service or in the form of councils given when they are asked for. A friend is the one most capable of rendering this service, and it is through our experience of the demands of friendship that we learn to serve other people in a personal way. It is the friendship of a couple that enables them to educate their children to become human persons. Service becomes something we do for someone not simply because we love them, but because we want them to be happy. Not just because we want them to become better persons, but because we are practically engaged in living together.
Service becomes difficult when what one person thinks important is different from the other person(s) in the household. When it comes to cleaning, or maintenance, or cooking, there is always an aspect that can become a point of contention. Some people like things cleaner than others, some people take better care of things than others, and people have different standards and abilities when it comes to cooking. It is therefore important to come to an agreement about what tasks or services each member of a household or community will be responsible for and how often etc. Obviously this requires a dialog and some flexibility.
We could reflect on what a fundamental service might be - one we provide for others out of basic respect. Ethically, does basic respect for other people require us to serve them at all? Basic respect has more to do with not causing hurt or pain than with actually doing good. Basic respect in the domain of service has to do with avoiding causing others inconveniences. Basic respect in the domain of service has to do with behaving oneself in such a way as to not create work for other people. For some reason, it seems like most deficiencies even among adults are found in this area. An example: basic respect in terms of service would require me to put my shopping cart somewhere out of the way of other people's cars, i.e. not behind my neighbor's car in such a way that they can't back-out without moving the cart first. So, if this happens, it could be done by someone who is not yet adult and therefore not able to think of others. If it is done by someone who is adult, it would be because of negligence, inattention, or even spite! Basic respect requires not only that we avoid creating inconveniences for others in circumstances where they will know it was us, but that we avoid creating perceptibly anonymous inconveniences as well.
Beyond the basic level of respect, we find gestures of service that are open to friendship, also known as politeness. Politeness comes from the Greek work polis, which refers to the city. Obviously the city is build on constructive actions of individuals that contribute to the material well-being of other citizens and to the concord between citizens. The Boy-Scouts have a saying that is directed to these gestures of service that are open to friendship - "do a good turn daily" and "Leave the place better than you found it."
We already looked at the service proper to friendship - doing what we can to help our friend achieve their happiness and finality. This can be in the form of giving counsel when asked, or taking on additional material responsibilities to give them more time for an important activity.
Friday, March 12, 2010
Monday, February 15, 2010
Love Languages: Personal Preference and the Sense of Taste
The last sense to look at in terms of ways to communicate love, is the sense of taste. The sense of taste is physically localized in the organ of the tongue. Not only is the tongue the organ of taste, it is also one of the most sensitive organs of the body in terms of touch. The detail that you can detect with your tongue is much greater than the detail you can feel with the tips of your fingers. Just try feeling the back of your teeth with your tongue, then the back of your teeth with your fingers. When you feel your teeth with your tongue,they feel magnified as compared to when you feel them with your fingers. The surface of your teeth appear much more clearly in your imagination when you feel them with your tongue.
The properties of the tongue that make it so much more sensitive are its malleability - its softness - and moisture. The composition of the tongue is not primarily intended to be an organ of touch however - it is primarily intended to be an organ of taste. While the objectivity of the tongue as a tactile organ surpasses that of the fingers, its subjectivity in the realm of taste is surprising.
In order to taste something, you must already begin to assimilate it. In order to taste something, it must become moist, which means it must already undergo a physical change. Odors are in air, flavors are in moisture. Water has a greater destructuring effect on a non-aqueous physical reality than air. When we put something in our mouth it is almost exclusively in order to destroy it and assimilate it. Tasting is the last experience we have of something before we assimilate it. We can still spit that something out if we decide it isn't good, or if we do not intend to assimilate it (something wine-tasters are known to do.)
When it comes to flavors, taste helps us recognize the harmonious composition of food as it compares to our own composition. What we eat has an effect on what we become in terms of our physical nature and body. Flavors that are sweet, spicy, salty, bitter, sour, etc. are from physical realities that have an effect on our digestion, our assimilation and on our own physical composition, harmony, and temperament. Our preferences in taste reflect something of our preferred way of being, of our preferred way of acting and reacting. This is perhaps one reason why our tastes are varied - behaviors and temperaments are different depending on the individual and natural composition of their bodies. The way someone behaves depends upon both their nature and psychology, and on their personal choices. We are not completely predetermined by our nature, by our body, but we are substantially conditioned by it. Our personal choices, which result in our concrete actions and behaviors, depend partially upon what we are made of materially speaking and partially upon the purpose we have discovered for our lives - our finality. Our taste changes with time, and I think that has something - at least vaguely - to do with changes in what we feel is important in life. Often we even compare the events of our lives with flavors: "sweet victory," "bitter defeat," "then things went sour," "his reflections really spiced up the conversations."
So, if we look at gestures that imply taste, gestures that affect other peoples sense of taste, it is pretty obvious that this is the most analogical of gestures. Taste with respect to food and drink is the immediate meaning of the sensation - but musical taste exists too, and so does taste in clothes, art, books, humor, etc; taste, analogically refers to one's personal preferences and interests. So, as in the other gestures of love, let us try to distinguish between "tasteful gestures" at the different ethical levels.
At a basic level of respect, there is the recognition that everyone has different tastes, and that while imposing my own tastes on someone else is disrespectful, acknowledging that the tastes or interests of another person can legitimately differ from my own is basic respect. The level of basic respect should enable us to avoid foolish and useless quarrels - but experience shows that living close to others requires more than just acknowledging legitimate differences in the domain of personal preferences and interests. Certain preferences or interests might seem ridiculous or foolish to our own judgment - but if we do not learn to tolerate or resolve these differences, conflict is inevitable.
Since it is impossible to completely conceal our own preferences or interests from those who live close to us, we must adopt new gestures of taste that are open to friendship. When we desire to begin a friendship with someone, we can start by sharing our preferences and interests, and we can try to discover their own preferences and interests. This basic gesture of openness to friendship has to do with generalities - informing and being informed on basic likes and dislikes. We usually don't start sharing our most unique and perhaps outrageous preferences or interests - but that will depend upon the personality of the other person.
Beyond discovering and revealing preferences and interests, there is the gesture of love which implies taking account of those preferences or interests in what we say or do to or for the person whom we love. And beyond this simple gesture of love, the gesture of intimacy has to do with acquiring the tastes of the other person. It is one thing to participate in an activity with someone because it interests them, and you want to support them (that is a gesture of presence) and another to learn to enjoy the activity itself. It is one thing to sit next to someone while they watch their favorite sports program, and another thing to learn to enjoy that sports program with them. While it is normal and healthy for a couple to have separate activities, it weighs down a close relationship when the persons involved do not occasionally choose to modify their personal preferences or interests in function of the other person. Sometimes that acquired taste can be for something neither person has ever appreciated before. It can be easier to acquire a taste for art, for example, when the friendship is strong. And the developed appreciation for something beautiful or qualitative can be something special that fortifies a friendship. This certainly touches the language of quality time, but quality time is a mix between presence and personal preferences.
The properties of the tongue that make it so much more sensitive are its malleability - its softness - and moisture. The composition of the tongue is not primarily intended to be an organ of touch however - it is primarily intended to be an organ of taste. While the objectivity of the tongue as a tactile organ surpasses that of the fingers, its subjectivity in the realm of taste is surprising.
In order to taste something, you must already begin to assimilate it. In order to taste something, it must become moist, which means it must already undergo a physical change. Odors are in air, flavors are in moisture. Water has a greater destructuring effect on a non-aqueous physical reality than air. When we put something in our mouth it is almost exclusively in order to destroy it and assimilate it. Tasting is the last experience we have of something before we assimilate it. We can still spit that something out if we decide it isn't good, or if we do not intend to assimilate it (something wine-tasters are known to do.)
When it comes to flavors, taste helps us recognize the harmonious composition of food as it compares to our own composition. What we eat has an effect on what we become in terms of our physical nature and body. Flavors that are sweet, spicy, salty, bitter, sour, etc. are from physical realities that have an effect on our digestion, our assimilation and on our own physical composition, harmony, and temperament. Our preferences in taste reflect something of our preferred way of being, of our preferred way of acting and reacting. This is perhaps one reason why our tastes are varied - behaviors and temperaments are different depending on the individual and natural composition of their bodies. The way someone behaves depends upon both their nature and psychology, and on their personal choices. We are not completely predetermined by our nature, by our body, but we are substantially conditioned by it. Our personal choices, which result in our concrete actions and behaviors, depend partially upon what we are made of materially speaking and partially upon the purpose we have discovered for our lives - our finality. Our taste changes with time, and I think that has something - at least vaguely - to do with changes in what we feel is important in life. Often we even compare the events of our lives with flavors: "sweet victory," "bitter defeat," "then things went sour," "his reflections really spiced up the conversations."
So, if we look at gestures that imply taste, gestures that affect other peoples sense of taste, it is pretty obvious that this is the most analogical of gestures. Taste with respect to food and drink is the immediate meaning of the sensation - but musical taste exists too, and so does taste in clothes, art, books, humor, etc; taste, analogically refers to one's personal preferences and interests. So, as in the other gestures of love, let us try to distinguish between "tasteful gestures" at the different ethical levels.
At a basic level of respect, there is the recognition that everyone has different tastes, and that while imposing my own tastes on someone else is disrespectful, acknowledging that the tastes or interests of another person can legitimately differ from my own is basic respect. The level of basic respect should enable us to avoid foolish and useless quarrels - but experience shows that living close to others requires more than just acknowledging legitimate differences in the domain of personal preferences and interests. Certain preferences or interests might seem ridiculous or foolish to our own judgment - but if we do not learn to tolerate or resolve these differences, conflict is inevitable.
Since it is impossible to completely conceal our own preferences or interests from those who live close to us, we must adopt new gestures of taste that are open to friendship. When we desire to begin a friendship with someone, we can start by sharing our preferences and interests, and we can try to discover their own preferences and interests. This basic gesture of openness to friendship has to do with generalities - informing and being informed on basic likes and dislikes. We usually don't start sharing our most unique and perhaps outrageous preferences or interests - but that will depend upon the personality of the other person.
Beyond discovering and revealing preferences and interests, there is the gesture of love which implies taking account of those preferences or interests in what we say or do to or for the person whom we love. And beyond this simple gesture of love, the gesture of intimacy has to do with acquiring the tastes of the other person. It is one thing to participate in an activity with someone because it interests them, and you want to support them (that is a gesture of presence) and another to learn to enjoy the activity itself. It is one thing to sit next to someone while they watch their favorite sports program, and another thing to learn to enjoy that sports program with them. While it is normal and healthy for a couple to have separate activities, it weighs down a close relationship when the persons involved do not occasionally choose to modify their personal preferences or interests in function of the other person. Sometimes that acquired taste can be for something neither person has ever appreciated before. It can be easier to acquire a taste for art, for example, when the friendship is strong. And the developed appreciation for something beautiful or qualitative can be something special that fortifies a friendship. This certainly touches the language of quality time, but quality time is a mix between presence and personal preferences.
Thursday, February 11, 2010
Love Languages: Presence and the Sense of Smell
To begin a reflection on the gestures that engage specifically the sense of smell to communicate love, it seems clear to me that we must take a fresh look at our experience. Love is attraction, and we are attracted to what is good. What is our experience of goodness when it comes to smells?
Before I try to tackle the question, I think a brief divergence is important. Attraction must be clearly distinguished from seduction. Attraction is a natural movement towards a good. Seduction is already a different kind of movement. When I am attracted, I remain free to respond to the attraction or turn away. When I am seduced, on the other hand, my judgment is focused on appearances. Seduction involves the formal cause, whereas the source of attraction is the final cause. We are attracted to what is goo, we are seduced by what is beautiful, by what is perfect. The qualities of a person are kinds of perfections - these qualities may seduce us, but they cannot attract us as such. Attraction requires a personal knowledge of someone, and so an experience not only of their qualities and defects, but a knowledge of their person.
Beauty, talents, and temperament are all superficial aspects of a human person. you can describe a human person, but that description is not a personal knowledge, nor does it necessarily come from a personal knowledge. Personal knowledge implies attraction. The other's person is what causes an attraction. Beyond all the qualities that could cause me to like them, there is the source of these qualities - the person himself. Whereas all the qualities of a human person can seduce me, it is the other person as such who is a source of attraction. Certainly we can talk about "attractive qualities" - insofar as they lead to a knowledge of the person. When we stop at the qualities themselves however, the knowledge we have to the other person is amputated from its source and loses its personal quality. When you say that you know someone personally, it implies that you have penetrated beneath the surface - that you have access to waht is hidden - to what cannot be described or explained abstractly. In France, people like to write books about other people, about what they think, and about why they think what they think, without even having met the people they have written about. Though some people may find books like that interesting, the conclusions of these authors are simply rationalized opinions dressed up to look like personal knowledge. You don't know someone personally if you don't love them, you don't love someone truly until you are attracted to them for who they are.
Philosophically, I think we are obliged to say that so long as we do not love someone, we do not know them personally. If we do not like someone, it is never for personal reasons, it is always for impersonal reasons. We know that we have discovered, or at least have begun to discover a human person as a person when we are attracted to them. Personal knowledge is the knowledge of a good, a spiritual good, which must be discovered "in person," because it is a knowledge of the whole reality.
The gestures we use to communicate love often resemble gesture s of seduction - even though teh intention is completely different. Smells, or odors can be used with the intention to seduce, they can also be used to render one's presence pleasant. The quantity, quality, and areas of application of perfume is a gesture of smell. The intention of the gesture could be seduction or attracting attention to oneself, it could also be to subtly render one's presence pleasant. A gesture has an objective element though, because it acts directly on the senses. The area of application, kind, and amount of perfume a woman puts on can be unintentionally seductive. Just like certain embraces, smiles, and compliments or words can be unintentionally seductive. Modesty is the virtue that governs our gestures so that they correspond to an ethical intention. Modesty takes into account the objective effect of our gestures on the people around us, and renders those gestures as unequivocal as possible.
Lets look again at our experience of gestures that communicate through odor. And to do that, lets just simply start by looking at our experience of smell. We have the experience of good smells, bad smells, the smell of fresh air, the smell of stale air. Something can smell pretty, something can smell rotten. Smells help us recognize the presence of a reality. We can know when someone was in a room by the scent they leave behind. We can know when someone has arrived by their smell as well. Smells can mask other smells, and smells can enhance certain experiences. So if we are to look at the different ethical levels of odor, what could we say?
Is a clean smell basic respect? This certainly varies between cultures (I can testify to this first-hand, as I live in a community composed of brothers from around the world.) Those who use products to mask or perfume their bodies the most are the African brothers, and those who pay the least attention in general are the European brothers. We can all agree, however, that without posing a judgment on personal hygine habits, the most basic level of respect is having a fairly neutral odor associated with one's presence. One step beyond that, which would be a gesture of openness to friendship, is that of smelling fresh or clean. Something that smells fresh or clean does not yet imply perfumes or strong smelling shampoo, etc. Strong odors, even when they are nice, tend to draw more attention than appropriate.
Flowers and potpourri (which in French literally - ironically - means "rot-pot") can be used to create an ambiance that is favorable to the exercise of friendship. These, along with perfumes, enter the third category of gestures of love that have to do with the sense of smell. They make a place even more inviting, they add a little something extra to the presence of the person who wears them. We could talk about cooking here too, the smells of a kitchen can be quite important for the exercise of friendship. If you are a good cook, the simple act of preparing a meal for a friend is a wonderful gesture of love that is communicated by the sense of smell. It isn't just the act of service that communicates love, it is the smell of food well prepared also.
Before I try to tackle the question, I think a brief divergence is important. Attraction must be clearly distinguished from seduction. Attraction is a natural movement towards a good. Seduction is already a different kind of movement. When I am attracted, I remain free to respond to the attraction or turn away. When I am seduced, on the other hand, my judgment is focused on appearances. Seduction involves the formal cause, whereas the source of attraction is the final cause. We are attracted to what is goo, we are seduced by what is beautiful, by what is perfect. The qualities of a person are kinds of perfections - these qualities may seduce us, but they cannot attract us as such. Attraction requires a personal knowledge of someone, and so an experience not only of their qualities and defects, but a knowledge of their person.
Beauty, talents, and temperament are all superficial aspects of a human person. you can describe a human person, but that description is not a personal knowledge, nor does it necessarily come from a personal knowledge. Personal knowledge implies attraction. The other's person is what causes an attraction. Beyond all the qualities that could cause me to like them, there is the source of these qualities - the person himself. Whereas all the qualities of a human person can seduce me, it is the other person as such who is a source of attraction. Certainly we can talk about "attractive qualities" - insofar as they lead to a knowledge of the person. When we stop at the qualities themselves however, the knowledge we have to the other person is amputated from its source and loses its personal quality. When you say that you know someone personally, it implies that you have penetrated beneath the surface - that you have access to waht is hidden - to what cannot be described or explained abstractly. In France, people like to write books about other people, about what they think, and about why they think what they think, without even having met the people they have written about. Though some people may find books like that interesting, the conclusions of these authors are simply rationalized opinions dressed up to look like personal knowledge. You don't know someone personally if you don't love them, you don't love someone truly until you are attracted to them for who they are.
Philosophically, I think we are obliged to say that so long as we do not love someone, we do not know them personally. If we do not like someone, it is never for personal reasons, it is always for impersonal reasons. We know that we have discovered, or at least have begun to discover a human person as a person when we are attracted to them. Personal knowledge is the knowledge of a good, a spiritual good, which must be discovered "in person," because it is a knowledge of the whole reality.
The gestures we use to communicate love often resemble gesture s of seduction - even though teh intention is completely different. Smells, or odors can be used with the intention to seduce, they can also be used to render one's presence pleasant. The quantity, quality, and areas of application of perfume is a gesture of smell. The intention of the gesture could be seduction or attracting attention to oneself, it could also be to subtly render one's presence pleasant. A gesture has an objective element though, because it acts directly on the senses. The area of application, kind, and amount of perfume a woman puts on can be unintentionally seductive. Just like certain embraces, smiles, and compliments or words can be unintentionally seductive. Modesty is the virtue that governs our gestures so that they correspond to an ethical intention. Modesty takes into account the objective effect of our gestures on the people around us, and renders those gestures as unequivocal as possible.
Lets look again at our experience of gestures that communicate through odor. And to do that, lets just simply start by looking at our experience of smell. We have the experience of good smells, bad smells, the smell of fresh air, the smell of stale air. Something can smell pretty, something can smell rotten. Smells help us recognize the presence of a reality. We can know when someone was in a room by the scent they leave behind. We can know when someone has arrived by their smell as well. Smells can mask other smells, and smells can enhance certain experiences. So if we are to look at the different ethical levels of odor, what could we say?
Is a clean smell basic respect? This certainly varies between cultures (I can testify to this first-hand, as I live in a community composed of brothers from around the world.) Those who use products to mask or perfume their bodies the most are the African brothers, and those who pay the least attention in general are the European brothers. We can all agree, however, that without posing a judgment on personal hygine habits, the most basic level of respect is having a fairly neutral odor associated with one's presence. One step beyond that, which would be a gesture of openness to friendship, is that of smelling fresh or clean. Something that smells fresh or clean does not yet imply perfumes or strong smelling shampoo, etc. Strong odors, even when they are nice, tend to draw more attention than appropriate.
Flowers and potpourri (which in French literally - ironically - means "rot-pot") can be used to create an ambiance that is favorable to the exercise of friendship. These, along with perfumes, enter the third category of gestures of love that have to do with the sense of smell. They make a place even more inviting, they add a little something extra to the presence of the person who wears them. We could talk about cooking here too, the smells of a kitchen can be quite important for the exercise of friendship. If you are a good cook, the simple act of preparing a meal for a friend is a wonderful gesture of love that is communicated by the sense of smell. It isn't just the act of service that communicates love, it is the smell of food well prepared also.
Thursday, January 28, 2010
Languages of Love: Smiling and the Sense of Sight
Before looking at the "smile" as a love language, it is important to keep something in mind - something that applies to all the love languages to a certain extent. Love languages are more fittingly called gestures, and gestures are distinct from words. Gestures without words can communicate love very profoundly, but a profoundly loving relationship cannot be founded on gestures alone. For example, Jesus says, "No greater love has a man than to lay down his life for his friends." These are his words. Then he dies on the cross to "prove" this love - which is his gesture. If the only thing we knew about Jesus is that he died on a cross - if he never said anything - we would not see his death as a gesture at all. We are able to see it as a gesture because he said, "No one takes my life from me, I lay it down freely." A gesture's capacity to communicate love depends heavily on the explicit verbal communication of intentions and choices.
Some people are shy when it comes to expressing love. Someone who is shy will have a tendency to avoid words, but will engage more exclusively in gestures in order to communicate love. Gestures are open to interpretation, so if their author provides none, the true meaning of the gesture might be lost or go unnoticed. Jack likes Jill, but is too shy to tell her. He uses the language of service to try to communicate his love to her, but she pays no atention to why Jack does things for her. She just thinks Jack is, "Nice." We could take away from this example the need to pay more attention to the gestures of someone who is shy, and then try to encourage them to express their intentions. Someone who is shy will want to know that their gesture is received positively before they will be able to express their intention.
So even a smile, which can clearly communicate openness and pleasure at seeing someone, can only communicate that when confirmed at some point by words. To put it differently, a smile is much more meaningful when it is our friend who smiles, but when a stranger smiles it is either a sign of openness to conversation, or just simple politeness. Sometimes strangers smile at us in an "intrusive" way. Perhaps you have had the experience of being smiled at by someone you don't know only to discover that they thought you were someone else. Or perhaps you have smiled at someone whom you thought to be someone you know, only to find out that they weren't. This experience is usually accompanied by feelings of embarrassment or awkwardness that reveal the inherent inappropriateness of certain kinds of looks, smiles, or gazes. The affective knowledge we have of a person can be the source of a loving gesture such as a gaze or a smile, but if we misjudge the reality itself, the gesture becomes ridiculous - like a child who takes the hand of a stranger in a crowd, thinking them to be his mother.
There are several levels, once again, of sensible love and spiritual love. So if we are going to consider the ethics of visual gestures, it will be helpful to notice that certain gestures are fitting for certain types of relationships. These gestures are founded on respect, as we have already seen, and they develop according to the level of intimacy appropriate to the relationship.
The fundamental visual gesture of respect is paying attention to someone when they require it. This is an attitude that involves both the body and the eyes. The positive visual gesture of respect making eye-contact during conversation when appropriate. The visual gesture of respect that involves a certain negation is avoiding staring. The visual gesture of respect involving the body is attention, or a position of listening. One of the fundamental visual gestures of respect, therefore, is "showing" someone you are listening or paying attention. And that is something you show by not performing another activity when that someone requires attention. At the same time, when someone attracts attention to themselves without having intended to, basic respect would indicate not paying attention to them. Some cultures use a bow to indicate respect or even veneration.
Beyond visual gestures of basic respect, there are visual gestures open to friendship. The most universal visual gestures that communicates an openness to friendship is the smile. Visual gestures that make use of the hands vary from culture to culture, but it would seem that every culture makes use of hand gestures to communicate - some more than others - and that there are specific visual gestures that use the hands to indicate an openness to friendship. For example, there is a visual gesture that initiates a handshake, or the gesture of "waving" at someone.
Visual gestures of friendship differ not so much in kind as they do in intensity. The eyes are more or less expressive according to the interior disposition. The eyes are like the window of the soul, that is why we have a hard time trusting someone whose eye-contact is strange, exaggerated, or too fleeting. The better we know someone, the more we understand from their gaze too. It is important to realize that our gaze communicates something that words cannot, and that some people are more sensitive to a gaze or a smile than others.
Some people are shy when it comes to expressing love. Someone who is shy will have a tendency to avoid words, but will engage more exclusively in gestures in order to communicate love. Gestures are open to interpretation, so if their author provides none, the true meaning of the gesture might be lost or go unnoticed. Jack likes Jill, but is too shy to tell her. He uses the language of service to try to communicate his love to her, but she pays no atention to why Jack does things for her. She just thinks Jack is, "Nice." We could take away from this example the need to pay more attention to the gestures of someone who is shy, and then try to encourage them to express their intentions. Someone who is shy will want to know that their gesture is received positively before they will be able to express their intention.
So even a smile, which can clearly communicate openness and pleasure at seeing someone, can only communicate that when confirmed at some point by words. To put it differently, a smile is much more meaningful when it is our friend who smiles, but when a stranger smiles it is either a sign of openness to conversation, or just simple politeness. Sometimes strangers smile at us in an "intrusive" way. Perhaps you have had the experience of being smiled at by someone you don't know only to discover that they thought you were someone else. Or perhaps you have smiled at someone whom you thought to be someone you know, only to find out that they weren't. This experience is usually accompanied by feelings of embarrassment or awkwardness that reveal the inherent inappropriateness of certain kinds of looks, smiles, or gazes. The affective knowledge we have of a person can be the source of a loving gesture such as a gaze or a smile, but if we misjudge the reality itself, the gesture becomes ridiculous - like a child who takes the hand of a stranger in a crowd, thinking them to be his mother.
There are several levels, once again, of sensible love and spiritual love. So if we are going to consider the ethics of visual gestures, it will be helpful to notice that certain gestures are fitting for certain types of relationships. These gestures are founded on respect, as we have already seen, and they develop according to the level of intimacy appropriate to the relationship.
The fundamental visual gesture of respect is paying attention to someone when they require it. This is an attitude that involves both the body and the eyes. The positive visual gesture of respect making eye-contact during conversation when appropriate. The visual gesture of respect that involves a certain negation is avoiding staring. The visual gesture of respect involving the body is attention, or a position of listening. One of the fundamental visual gestures of respect, therefore, is "showing" someone you are listening or paying attention. And that is something you show by not performing another activity when that someone requires attention. At the same time, when someone attracts attention to themselves without having intended to, basic respect would indicate not paying attention to them. Some cultures use a bow to indicate respect or even veneration.
Beyond visual gestures of basic respect, there are visual gestures open to friendship. The most universal visual gestures that communicates an openness to friendship is the smile. Visual gestures that make use of the hands vary from culture to culture, but it would seem that every culture makes use of hand gestures to communicate - some more than others - and that there are specific visual gestures that use the hands to indicate an openness to friendship. For example, there is a visual gesture that initiates a handshake, or the gesture of "waving" at someone.
Visual gestures of friendship differ not so much in kind as they do in intensity. The eyes are more or less expressive according to the interior disposition. The eyes are like the window of the soul, that is why we have a hard time trusting someone whose eye-contact is strange, exaggerated, or too fleeting. The better we know someone, the more we understand from their gaze too. It is important to realize that our gaze communicates something that words cannot, and that some people are more sensitive to a gaze or a smile than others.
Wednesday, January 20, 2010
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.
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.
Thursday, January 7, 2010
Languages of Love: Affirmation and The Sense of Hearing
Another way to talk about words of Affirmation, a way that is less psychological, would be to talk about blessing. Unfortunately, the word bless is loaded with religious undertones. The word in Latin is "Benedicere" which means, literally, "to say the good." Affirmation can be undertaken as a kind of method - which quickly comes across as unnatural. And the problem, in my opinion, is the objective. Affirmation can be executed as a form of flattery with a goal to build the other person up, or to gain their trust/good graces. Blessing, on the other hand, is completely "extra," if you will. To say the good to someone or about someone simply because you love them is true affirmation.
Why is it so hard for some people to speak the good? Why is it so hard for some people to hear good things spoken to them or about them? If our sense of touch, which I wrote about in my last post, is the sensation closest to the material cause, closest to the body, closest to reality in a very concrete way, our sense of hearing is closest to our heart in a very affective way. We've all heard the saying, "Sticks and stones will break my bones, but words will never hurt me!" But let us honestly admit that words can hurt us much more profoundly than sticks or stones. Here is where we can discover once again the basic ethical requirement of words spoken. Once again, respect is a basic necessity even when it comes to words.
If I love someone, I realize that their words, and what they say to me, carry much more weight and significance than someone else. Even the sound of the voice of someone I love has deeper access to my heart than a stranger or acquaintance. So, if I realize the kind of influence someone else's voice and words can have on my feelings, I can begin to discover the importance of my own words and vocal inflection in the lives of other people. And we find again that respectful vocal expression is fundamental in an ethical relationship. Respect is fundamental for true human relationships, but insufficient for a loving relationship. Respect is avoiding doing wrong to another person, but love pushes us to go beyond respect - love drives us to form a communion with the person whom we love. And this communion - within a personal relationship - is based on respect and built with truth and love.
We need words that respectfully communicate truth and love to form this communion. And if the communion that we form with someone we love is based on respect, the love that we express is based on truth. Truth without love becomes intolerable in a personal relationship. And love, without truth, loses its strength. So words, which have intelligible and affective dimensions, are able to communicate both truth and love. And words of affirmation speak the truth about that which is good in such a way as to communicate our love for someone. "I love you," when spoken with intelligence and not mere passion is the greatest and most concrete phrase of affirmation. To say you love someone, and to say it with intelligence, is to say it based on a discernment of their goodness. It is the other person, existentially, who draws me out of myself, who makes me vulnerable, and whom I trust with my vulnerability. That is why it can be hard to say, "I love you." Being attracted to someone is one thing, showing them that you care is another thing, but going so far as to put into words the vulnerability you experience in their presence requires a great deal of trust and a personal choice. Saying "I love you," is saying, "You are good. And your goodness is such that my life is altered by you because of your goodness." "I love you," is the blessing, the "benedicere" par excellence.
Now, it isn't just a matter of "what" you say, as we all know, it is a matter of "how" you say it. Here we could imagine a whole slew of scenes where we try to say, "I love you," perfectly. I am not suggesting, however, that saying "I love you," sincerely has to do with any kind of performance or public speaking expertise. Saying "I love you," sincerely doesn't even have to do with adding on a passionate or romantic twist. Saying "I love you," truthfully, means saying it because I recognize that the person I love gives meaning to my life. Saying "I love you," is saying "You give meaning to my life, and I am grateful to you for that." Saying "I love you," then, requires an act of intelligence in order to be said truthfully.
More could be said about how "hearing goodness spoken," is the second love language, and how it depends not only on the content of what is said, but also on the manner and intention. However, I would like to examine one more properly philosophical point before bringing this little reflection to a close: the efficient cause a mode of the final cause.
The efficient cause in philosophy is one of the five causes, and it has to do with the origin of a movement, or the start of something. The efficient cause answers the question, "Where did it come from?" Our sense of hearing is especially well suited to respond to this question. When you hear something move, you might not know what it is, what it is made of, or what it is for, but you can have an idea of where the movement originates. And a voice is a sound that originates somewhere as well. Physically, the sound originates in the voice box and with the vibration of the vocal cords, but the origin of the meaning of the sound is not physical. The origin of the sound is indeed the soul, and not just any faculty of the soul, but the intelligence. Our intellect is what gives meaning to the sounds we produce with our vocal cords. So, the voice is a meaningful sound which originates in the intellect - as regards its formal content - but we could also look deeper and see that we speak not because we have to, but because we choose to. So the deepest origin of the voice is the will - the deepest origin of the voice is the heart. Sometimes we even say, "I'm speaking from the heart," in order to drive that point home. And indeed, words spoken from the heart, cut straight to the heart. Hearing someone truly say, "I love you," is an invitation to receive them at a deeply personal level - and a deeply personal revelation. What is hidden at the origin of a man's actions and words - his mind and heart - are made "tangible" to the ears, and this is the sense of hearing.
Why is it so hard for some people to speak the good? Why is it so hard for some people to hear good things spoken to them or about them? If our sense of touch, which I wrote about in my last post, is the sensation closest to the material cause, closest to the body, closest to reality in a very concrete way, our sense of hearing is closest to our heart in a very affective way. We've all heard the saying, "Sticks and stones will break my bones, but words will never hurt me!" But let us honestly admit that words can hurt us much more profoundly than sticks or stones. Here is where we can discover once again the basic ethical requirement of words spoken. Once again, respect is a basic necessity even when it comes to words.
If I love someone, I realize that their words, and what they say to me, carry much more weight and significance than someone else. Even the sound of the voice of someone I love has deeper access to my heart than a stranger or acquaintance. So, if I realize the kind of influence someone else's voice and words can have on my feelings, I can begin to discover the importance of my own words and vocal inflection in the lives of other people. And we find again that respectful vocal expression is fundamental in an ethical relationship. Respect is fundamental for true human relationships, but insufficient for a loving relationship. Respect is avoiding doing wrong to another person, but love pushes us to go beyond respect - love drives us to form a communion with the person whom we love. And this communion - within a personal relationship - is based on respect and built with truth and love.
We need words that respectfully communicate truth and love to form this communion. And if the communion that we form with someone we love is based on respect, the love that we express is based on truth. Truth without love becomes intolerable in a personal relationship. And love, without truth, loses its strength. So words, which have intelligible and affective dimensions, are able to communicate both truth and love. And words of affirmation speak the truth about that which is good in such a way as to communicate our love for someone. "I love you," when spoken with intelligence and not mere passion is the greatest and most concrete phrase of affirmation. To say you love someone, and to say it with intelligence, is to say it based on a discernment of their goodness. It is the other person, existentially, who draws me out of myself, who makes me vulnerable, and whom I trust with my vulnerability. That is why it can be hard to say, "I love you." Being attracted to someone is one thing, showing them that you care is another thing, but going so far as to put into words the vulnerability you experience in their presence requires a great deal of trust and a personal choice. Saying "I love you," is saying, "You are good. And your goodness is such that my life is altered by you because of your goodness." "I love you," is the blessing, the "benedicere" par excellence.
Now, it isn't just a matter of "what" you say, as we all know, it is a matter of "how" you say it. Here we could imagine a whole slew of scenes where we try to say, "I love you," perfectly. I am not suggesting, however, that saying "I love you," sincerely has to do with any kind of performance or public speaking expertise. Saying "I love you," sincerely doesn't even have to do with adding on a passionate or romantic twist. Saying "I love you," truthfully, means saying it because I recognize that the person I love gives meaning to my life. Saying "I love you," is saying "You give meaning to my life, and I am grateful to you for that." Saying "I love you," then, requires an act of intelligence in order to be said truthfully.
More could be said about how "hearing goodness spoken," is the second love language, and how it depends not only on the content of what is said, but also on the manner and intention. However, I would like to examine one more properly philosophical point before bringing this little reflection to a close: the efficient cause a mode of the final cause.
The efficient cause in philosophy is one of the five causes, and it has to do with the origin of a movement, or the start of something. The efficient cause answers the question, "Where did it come from?" Our sense of hearing is especially well suited to respond to this question. When you hear something move, you might not know what it is, what it is made of, or what it is for, but you can have an idea of where the movement originates. And a voice is a sound that originates somewhere as well. Physically, the sound originates in the voice box and with the vibration of the vocal cords, but the origin of the meaning of the sound is not physical. The origin of the sound is indeed the soul, and not just any faculty of the soul, but the intelligence. Our intellect is what gives meaning to the sounds we produce with our vocal cords. So, the voice is a meaningful sound which originates in the intellect - as regards its formal content - but we could also look deeper and see that we speak not because we have to, but because we choose to. So the deepest origin of the voice is the will - the deepest origin of the voice is the heart. Sometimes we even say, "I'm speaking from the heart," in order to drive that point home. And indeed, words spoken from the heart, cut straight to the heart. Hearing someone truly say, "I love you," is an invitation to receive them at a deeply personal level - and a deeply personal revelation. What is hidden at the origin of a man's actions and words - his mind and heart - are made "tangible" to the ears, and this is the sense of hearing.
Wednesday, January 6, 2010
Languages of Love: Physical Touch
So what can we say about the ties between the sense of touch and the emotional love language called "Physical Touch?"
One of the first things we teach children is about the right and wrong kinds of touch. Indeed, the love language that communicates by means of physical touch requires a basis of respect. Children have to learn that hitting, biting, scratching, etc. are not the kinds of physical touch that favor or foster a relationship with another person. The body of a human person is not just a physical object, it is a personal reality. The more I come to know and love someone, the more I recognize that their body is precious because of who they are. Physical touch, as a language of love, must begin as a language of respect and grow into a language of tenderness, and in one special case - marriage - the language of physical touch is a language of intimacy. As soon as physical touch loses its personal quality - as soon as the intellect shifts to seeing the body of the other person as a thing rather than as a someone - that touch can no longer communicate love. Now, obviously, for those who are already well versed in this love language, the importance of these gestures of tenderness is clear.
But for those of us who do not speak this love language, we find ourselves at the fundamental level, which is physical respect. And the basic tenant of physical respect involves not touching another person unless they need help, or are in danger. But as a love language, physical touch is merely based on respect as its foundation. In order to actually "speak" the love language of physical touch one must actually learn how our gestures of touching or caressing another person can communicate love. It is also important to mention that tenderness is not foreplay. Tender gestures are not an open invitation to intimate gestures, and do not necessarily call for them. Tenderness can communicate a personal love by the sense of touch.
Love, when it is true, is personal. That means - among other things - that it depends upon the person. The love that I have for each person whom I love is unique. No two loves are exactly the same, and in this sense, no two pats on the back are exactly the same. The knowledge I have of the person whom I love will determine in part my physical gestures of tenderness towards them. A tender physical touch does not aim for some effect other than to communicate - based on a foundation of respect - how precious the other person is to us. This basis of respect means that a tender gesture is never imposed, that it can be spontaneous but is entirely relative to the other person. A tender gesture is not possessive or overbearing.
The gesture of physical touch, as a means of communicating "I love you" to someone requires an act of intelligence. It is not a purely passionate gesture, and that is why I like bringing in the aspect of intelligence. Our will is our faculty that undergoes attraction at a spiritual level, but it is only by cooperating with our intelligence that it is able to choose. Our intellect is "responsible" for what we choose to love. Emotions and passions tend to muddle our thoughts, and can even condition our actions to the point that we act without intelligence. So the gesture of physical touch that communicates love is not a cold gesture, nor is it a passionate gesture - it is a means, chosen intelligently, to communicate a kind of respect-filled love and awe. The gesture of physical touch communicates to the one we love that our respect and true appreciation for their person is not abstract, but that it is concrete.
The sense of touch is the sensation most immediately connected with knowledge of the material cause. When we touch something, in other words, we have a special knowledge of what it is made of. On the affective side of things, obviously we are going to speak of the final cause as being the principle of attraction. And since the final cause is the cause of causes (act is before potency) even the material cause - furthest from the finality and closest to what limits and conditions us - exists by the final cause. The body of a human person is not just a shell, it is not "the soul's garment," it is not a prison, nor is it anything impersonal. The body is personal, and that is why we can use gestures of physical touch to communicate personal love.
One of the first things we teach children is about the right and wrong kinds of touch. Indeed, the love language that communicates by means of physical touch requires a basis of respect. Children have to learn that hitting, biting, scratching, etc. are not the kinds of physical touch that favor or foster a relationship with another person. The body of a human person is not just a physical object, it is a personal reality. The more I come to know and love someone, the more I recognize that their body is precious because of who they are. Physical touch, as a language of love, must begin as a language of respect and grow into a language of tenderness, and in one special case - marriage - the language of physical touch is a language of intimacy. As soon as physical touch loses its personal quality - as soon as the intellect shifts to seeing the body of the other person as a thing rather than as a someone - that touch can no longer communicate love. Now, obviously, for those who are already well versed in this love language, the importance of these gestures of tenderness is clear.
But for those of us who do not speak this love language, we find ourselves at the fundamental level, which is physical respect. And the basic tenant of physical respect involves not touching another person unless they need help, or are in danger. But as a love language, physical touch is merely based on respect as its foundation. In order to actually "speak" the love language of physical touch one must actually learn how our gestures of touching or caressing another person can communicate love. It is also important to mention that tenderness is not foreplay. Tender gestures are not an open invitation to intimate gestures, and do not necessarily call for them. Tenderness can communicate a personal love by the sense of touch.
Love, when it is true, is personal. That means - among other things - that it depends upon the person. The love that I have for each person whom I love is unique. No two loves are exactly the same, and in this sense, no two pats on the back are exactly the same. The knowledge I have of the person whom I love will determine in part my physical gestures of tenderness towards them. A tender physical touch does not aim for some effect other than to communicate - based on a foundation of respect - how precious the other person is to us. This basis of respect means that a tender gesture is never imposed, that it can be spontaneous but is entirely relative to the other person. A tender gesture is not possessive or overbearing.
The gesture of physical touch, as a means of communicating "I love you" to someone requires an act of intelligence. It is not a purely passionate gesture, and that is why I like bringing in the aspect of intelligence. Our will is our faculty that undergoes attraction at a spiritual level, but it is only by cooperating with our intelligence that it is able to choose. Our intellect is "responsible" for what we choose to love. Emotions and passions tend to muddle our thoughts, and can even condition our actions to the point that we act without intelligence. So the gesture of physical touch that communicates love is not a cold gesture, nor is it a passionate gesture - it is a means, chosen intelligently, to communicate a kind of respect-filled love and awe. The gesture of physical touch communicates to the one we love that our respect and true appreciation for their person is not abstract, but that it is concrete.
The sense of touch is the sensation most immediately connected with knowledge of the material cause. When we touch something, in other words, we have a special knowledge of what it is made of. On the affective side of things, obviously we are going to speak of the final cause as being the principle of attraction. And since the final cause is the cause of causes (act is before potency) even the material cause - furthest from the finality and closest to what limits and conditions us - exists by the final cause. The body of a human person is not just a shell, it is not "the soul's garment," it is not a prison, nor is it anything impersonal. The body is personal, and that is why we can use gestures of physical touch to communicate personal love.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
