as promised, i am taking a stab and writing a little treatise on love. throughout my many years i have felt different aspects of love. familial love, brotherly love, elderly love, obsessive love, emotional and erotic love, and many more. the many facets of love, all or them real and genuine, would often contradict each other. and thus frankly, i cannot tell you what love is. i cannot tell you what love means. but i can tell you what love isn't, and what love does not mean. and from those excluded impossibilities, i can tell you what love should encompass, what it should include and what beauty it should hold therein.
this very question had been asked by the ancient greeks aeons ago. modern people would probably scorn at that notion, dispensing love as a mere personal taste and affection, and a spur of "feelings". while love may include those affections and feelings, do you not think that love is very limited and dry if that is all that love means? if love means exactly that, would we not use "love" and "feelings" interchangably as synonyms? but no, we don't. and that very fact points to the obvious truth that love is much much more than mere feelings and affections.
in c. s. lewis' book "the four loves", he attempts to reemphasize the ancient greek notion of love. for the ancients, love has four main facets: philia, storge, eros, agape. it is a comprehensive and umbrella encompassment of love, rather than a linguistic and succinct definition. the ancients know that love is not a matter for dialectic discussions. it is more or less a subject of empirical experiences. and so, the greeks outlines four possible types of experiences and relationships that would incur that notion of love. and these four types of experiences then become what is known as the four pillars of love. they are pillars because a long-lasting and genuine love must have each of the four facets within. they are fundamental and reinforce each other.. as i shall discuss in the following..
philia is a love of familiarity. while it can also be used in the context of "i love chemistry" or "i love my pillow", it is usually used in the context of knowing a person and having an affection towards each other because of that habitual understanding. it is a love that is built on time, habits, understanding, and thus imply mutual respect and tolerance.
storge is brotherly/sisterly love. it is a love that is founded on metaphysical bonds. it is a love that is shared because of a formal state of relationship (including friendship). that is to say, a person loves her boyfriend exclusively because he is her boyfriend, and therefore no others. storge thus imply fidelity and bonds, followed by a set code of responsibilities and ethics.
eros is the facet of love that is most comprehensive for modern people. eros is the emotional affections, the burning feelings and passions (well, the ancient greeks actually meant sexual love by eros), between a couple. while it signifies the feelings and passions, it also implies the frail nature of such carnal affections. this is why storge and philia preceeds eros, providing it a structural and formal basis. without these basis, men and women are no different from beasts on all fours, hunting for or flirting to the next prey for mating. this is exactly why i abhor the concept of regarding love as a mere affection, and then proceed to measure every relationship by a matter of "feelings". it is only a small part of love, and definitely not the entire context of love.
agape is the greatest love of all, according to the greeks. originally intended to decribe the love of the city state or nation, agape is the love for which a person is willing to take up arms and sacrifice himself. in medieval era, this facet of "selfless, self-giving love" is used to describe the theological love that Christ has shown. it is then extended to describe a devoted love, wherein a person is willing to sacrifice herself and become one in spirit with love itself. it is a concept that had eluded most modern people...
in a nutshell, love should encompass all four facets: philia, the love of familiarity and understanding; storge, the love from bonds and fidelity and trust; eros, the exclusive feelings and affections between two people; and agape, the selfless devotion each person renders to another, which fulfills the physical kinship or relationship with a metaphysical commitment. so.. next time when you think you are in love, think again. can you envision yourself sharing all these four facets with the person you are looking at? was it a mere familiarity? was it just simple kinship? was it mere feelings and a spur of passion? think clearly, before you wake up and realized you have erred, and have permanently marred your conscience as well as someone's heart.
2007/02/23
Time, Constancy and Change
both Kant and Russell define time as a constraint for the identification and classification of phenomena. and yet time itself is meaningless unless there is something that abides the constraints that it imposes. that is to say, unless there are variances with respect to time, time itself is a trivial and meaningless property, and not a constraint.
and there are variances that depends on time. namely, all changes and constancy imply a time span. when we see something and define something, we assume constancy. when we describe something and expect something, we assume change. and so, time is an inherent and prenatal concept rooted in our cognitive and epistemological faculty - because we live in either constancy and change, and we need to define them and make use of them to live and to think.
and yet, very few people are aware of this little logical fact. people often assume that the world is eccentric, or even solipsic. in doing so, they deny the flow of time, and redefine constancy and change as "phenomena that revolve around their petty cognition and comprehension". and so, for these people, time means little, and they fail to grow. we call this the stasis.
for the sage, things revolve as they are. time flows, and even the self is a subject of these torrents. humility is the first step to acknowledge the presence of time. and yet, few people have such courage and wisdom to admit this obvious fact. they would think that man is invincible. pah! nay. neither the pyramids nor the ziggurats last longer than the sands of time. pride has always been mankind's undoing.
now, back to the first question: are you in a stasis, or are you aware of the constancy and changes around you?
and there are variances that depends on time. namely, all changes and constancy imply a time span. when we see something and define something, we assume constancy. when we describe something and expect something, we assume change. and so, time is an inherent and prenatal concept rooted in our cognitive and epistemological faculty - because we live in either constancy and change, and we need to define them and make use of them to live and to think.
and yet, very few people are aware of this little logical fact. people often assume that the world is eccentric, or even solipsic. in doing so, they deny the flow of time, and redefine constancy and change as "phenomena that revolve around their petty cognition and comprehension". and so, for these people, time means little, and they fail to grow. we call this the stasis.
for the sage, things revolve as they are. time flows, and even the self is a subject of these torrents. humility is the first step to acknowledge the presence of time. and yet, few people have such courage and wisdom to admit this obvious fact. they would think that man is invincible. pah! nay. neither the pyramids nor the ziggurats last longer than the sands of time. pride has always been mankind's undoing.
now, back to the first question: are you in a stasis, or are you aware of the constancy and changes around you?
2007/02/22
尋找幕後更卑劣的策劃者
何俊仁因拒助申請綜援被毆一案﹐法官說幕後有更卑劣的策劃者﹐因此易打鹿仝人決定尋找這位密謀申請綜援而不惜重金禮聘打手的真凶。這星期六﹐會去替何俊仁報仇雪恨﹗
新浦京﹐我舉族來找你算賬﹗
新浦京﹐我舉族來找你算賬﹗
2007/02/20
Change and Metamorphorsis
change is an indicative alteration of a subject's property over a time span. metamorphorsis, on the other hand, is an indicative transformation of a subject's entity. the two process are different per se. and yet, they often have the same kind of root and cause. I shall write about their causes in this passage; their differences in nature shall be discussed later.
it is apparent that man is a creature who loves complacency and stability. for this reason, change is something of great abhorrence, and time something to be feared and fought against. here is a simple fact: most people fear death, because it is the finite constraint of time, and it embodies uncertainties beyond the change of life and death. most people prefer to have the future just like now, and have a peaceful and stable stasis that never changes.
for this reason, human character and human mentality seldom change. there is no need to. the only way the human ming and character can change is under compulsion; that is to say, people change only when they must change. and so it is: we see people change when they are prompted and stimulated.
yet, the human wish for complancency is great, and this stimulus must be equally great if not greater, to prompt such change. in short, such "stimulus" ought to be castastrophic, if not detrimental. this sudden check of reality is called "meteor strike", analogous of a rock falling from the sky and hitting the subject's head.
such is the way of the weak, and the way of the herd. for the wise, contemplation and realization are the reality checks. will power and determination are the compulsion in lieu of pressing needs for survival. the sage anticipates what is to be, and grows and changes with the flow of time.
so.. are you resting and rejecting changes now, or are you contemplating and looking into the future?
it is apparent that man is a creature who loves complacency and stability. for this reason, change is something of great abhorrence, and time something to be feared and fought against. here is a simple fact: most people fear death, because it is the finite constraint of time, and it embodies uncertainties beyond the change of life and death. most people prefer to have the future just like now, and have a peaceful and stable stasis that never changes.
for this reason, human character and human mentality seldom change. there is no need to. the only way the human ming and character can change is under compulsion; that is to say, people change only when they must change. and so it is: we see people change when they are prompted and stimulated.
yet, the human wish for complancency is great, and this stimulus must be equally great if not greater, to prompt such change. in short, such "stimulus" ought to be castastrophic, if not detrimental. this sudden check of reality is called "meteor strike", analogous of a rock falling from the sky and hitting the subject's head.
such is the way of the weak, and the way of the herd. for the wise, contemplation and realization are the reality checks. will power and determination are the compulsion in lieu of pressing needs for survival. the sage anticipates what is to be, and grows and changes with the flow of time.
so.. are you resting and rejecting changes now, or are you contemplating and looking into the future?
Goodbye Dr. MacDiarmid
Farewell, Dr. MacDiarmid. I will always remember your kindness and generosity. In fond memories of your polyacetylene and iodine vapour, may you rest in peace.
訂閱：
文章 (Atom)