What is it that is never changed even though everything is changed? It is love. And only that which never becomes something else is love, that which gives away everything and for that reason demands nothing, that which demands nothing and therefore has nothing to lose, that which blesses and blesses when it is cursed, that which loves its neighbor but whose enemy is also its neighbor, that which leaves revenge to the Lord because it takes comfort in the thought that he is even more merciful.
Kierkegaard, Three Upbuilding Discourses, III 275, 1843
There is an oddly intimate relationship between self and hate. While the two are not the same thing, the insistence on the self produces hate. It is here that hate originates. Is it not so? Let us follow the path. For in insisting on the self, one finds oneself at odds with a world of other selves which likewise insist on the self, but not that self which belongs to me. Rather it is their own selves which they insist on. And so, one divides the world between that which is “for me” and that which is “against me.” Of course, in natural human relations those who are “for me” are not truly “for me” but are for themselves, yet our “selves” share a common interest or cause and so they are considered “for me.” And still it is inevitable, one’s self crosses paths with another self which does not share the common interest or cause, and it is here that one feels the struggle, the tension. Here in the presence of this other self, one experiences that horrific possibility, that unthinkable prospect of the “not self.” For when the two selves are at odds the struggle for power and dominance ensues, and only one can stand in the end. This other self’ dares to not acknowledge or recognize “my” self, this other seems to dismiss “my” self altogether. So one must now insist on the self again. But that obstinate other, that other which will not see the importance, the value, of “my” self must be convinced.
…Ah, but did you see it? How elusive, how subtle it was. Just that quick the pocket was picked and all was stolen away. One is now looking to the external for validation of the self, and those who are “against me” have been given all the power needed to invalidate one’s personhood. They need only to withhold and the self is lost. And that shadow of a self that remains fumes in hatred, either toward those “others” who withhold, or towards the self that so easily lost itself. But the battle for the self was lost in the first step, it was lost in even going to battle. For in going to battle one insists on the self, and in insisting on the self, one conceives of the possibility of not self and the self is negated. Hatred is born and replaces the self that is lost, in proportion to that which has been lost.
This hatred stands justified by that shadow of the self that remains, and the two become intimately acquainted. When the shadow of the self which remains despairs, it is hatred which consoles it and casts the blame outward to those “others” who would dare to not acknowledge and validate my “self.” And when that shadow of the self’ doubts hatred, begins to consider that perhaps there is another way, a way without hatred; well hatred turns on the self with all its force berating and belittling the self which remains, abusing and accusing it for losing its chance at happiness in this life. In so doing, hatred keeps the self subservient and dependent. It convinces the self that without it, the self would be lost altogether and die alone, without validation of existence. It offers instead a half-life, an abusive relationship but one in which the self feels justified in its bitterness.
But perhaps there is another way, one in which this “hatred” does not follow from one’s insistence on the self. Perhaps when one’s self crosses paths with that other self, and the two are at odds, perhaps here one can hold to the self in inwardness without relying on the external for validation. Would this not then thwart hatred? One could stand strong in oneself, insisting on the self in inwardness, clinging to that self and self-soothing when the external dares to not acknowledge it. When that obstinate other will not recognize one’s “self” then one can pull back from that other, keeping for oneself the power to validate that self. One could not put so much stock in the other, even ignore them all together. Yes, that’s it, one retains for oneself the power to validate the self and gives none of it away. Not one bit of it goes to that obstinate other! And not just him/her, but no other is really safe to entrust with such power to validate one’s self because there will inevitably be a time when the two find their selves at odds. One must be very careful then to not rely too much on any other, to not give them such power over the self to wield as they may. This is far too dangerous, for eventually some other will withhold that power and deny one’s self. And then all will be lost and one will find him/herself steeped in hatred once more. But is this too not a form of hatred? It is true, one does not rage with hatred in the same way the one who has been robbed of the self by another does, but is this one not him/herself withholding from others now? Is this not the road to indifference and apathy in relation to the other? And what is more hateful than to withhold oneself from another in need, to pretend as though they do not even exist? Alas, this too is hatred, and of a stronger and more devastating form. For when one rages against another for not acknowledging one’s self atleast he/she cares, but this latter form of hatred, this indifference, there is no care, no hope, no desire in it. The other has no effect on one’s self, and it is as if he/she doesn’t even exist at all.
And isn’t this clinging to the self in inwardness not something like masturbation? Yes, as masturbation takes what is designed to be shared with another in the physical/sensual realm and turns in inward on itself, this self-soothing, inner self-validation is a form of spiritual masturbation. A soul turned inward on itself in order to keep itself assured of itself. Such is the way of the modern existentialist, making meaning for oneself, clinging to oneself in inwardness. In the world this path has strength, it remains unaffected by others, but does it not also deceive itself by losing all that is worth living for? Does it not loose love itself?
… as conceited sagacity, proud of not being deceived, thinks, that we should believe nothing that we cannot see with our physical eyes, then we first and foremost ought to give up believing in love. If we were to do so and do it out of fear lest we be deceived, would we not then be deceived? We can, of course, be deceived in many ways. We can be deceived by believing what is untrue, but we certainly are also deceived by not believing what is true. We can be deceived by appearances, but we certainly are also deceived by the sagacious appearance, by the flattering conceit that considers itself absolutely secure against being deceived. Which deception is more dangerous? Whose recovery is more doubtful, that of the one who does not see, or that of the person who sees and yet does not see? What is more difficult—to awaken someone who is sleeping or to awaken someone who, awake, is dreaming that he is awake?….To defraud oneself of love is the most terrible deception; it is an eternal loss, for which there is no reparation, either in time or in eternity.
Kierkegaard, Works of Love, p. 5-6
But let us now follow a different path. The one who loves, who “gives away everything and for that reason demands nothing,” what comes of this one? This one gives no care to the self, but rather uses that self in earnestness to live, to love, to serve and care for others. There is a simplicity about this one, this one who simply accepts that the self is and immediately puts it to use. This one receives the self from The One in inwardness, and since it is there secured it requires no validation in the external. It is simply and immediately put to use. This one does not conceive of the possibility of the not self, and would find it laughable if he/she could. And in not conceiving of the possibility of the not self, the self is actually held secure in inwardness. But not just in inwardness but in relation to Love Himself in that inwardness. And this love is fully trustworthy, for it is in His nature alone to constantly give of Himself, all of Himself, to any who will have Him. And those who will have Him will likewise manifest Him. And here now, the one who loves has her/his task, to make use of the self to manifest the eternal within the temporal. Moment by moment, hour by hour, day by day, the self is to be the conduit by which that which is eternal bursts forth into temporal time. “And only that which never becomes something else is love.” Love is that which is eternal, never resting and always seeking its incarnation in the temporal/external world. It is never wasted, but always “accomplishes that which it desires, and achieves that for which it is sent.” Love binds up the hate within oneself and then plunders his house, rescuing the self that was enslaved therein. Where the light of love is shone the darkness of hate flees, for it knows that it cannot stand in the presence of that consuming fire.
What a beautiful paradox! The self is eternally secured where no one can snatch it away only when one readily gives that self to others in love. And in contrast, one loses the self at the very moment he/she begins insisting on the self.
But what does this mean? In love should one allow the self to be run over and dominated by those around him/her? Does love insist that one just go along with whatever others want or desire, always at one’s own expense? And what of other’s wants and desires that are destructive and harmful?… should one just go along with these?
Quite right! This is NOT the way of love. Love does not merely serve our whimsical wants but serves our deepest needs. And in love one does not abandon the self to the other, but abandons the self to love… which yields love for the other. Loving the other is then seeking the good of the other (not just what he/she wants), and while the good of the other takes many forms, it is ultimately found in their learning to likewise yield to love (and not to oneself). Loving others is to want for them what love itself has for them, and to risk or give away all in making room for love to address them. It is to prepare the way for love to take root in the world and to then get out of its way.
Yes we live in desperate times, with fading words and shaking rhymes… there’s only one thing here worth hoping for.
With Lucifer beneath you and God above, If either one of them asks you what you’re living of… say Love, say for me Love, say Love.
The Avett Brothers, Living of Love, Emotionalism
*Listen to this song by finding it in the accompanying music at the top right of the blog.
Life Existante 