love is the only thing that really matters at all... love for others, love for self, love for earth, love for life... everything else is just a distraction or farce.
if you love yourself, you love everybody else as you do yourself. as long as you love another person less than you love yourself, you will not really succeed in loving yourself. love is relationship to the world, not to one person. people incorrectly think that it is an indication of the strength of their love that they love nothing but the person they are romantic/attached to, this example is 'constituted by the object... not the faculty'. we can think of love instead as an activity (a knowledge not in right thought but in right action), a power of the soul. love is an attitude which is the same towards all objects, myself included:) is selfishness identical to self love? or is not caused by the very lack of it? there is no concept of man in which i myself am not included, thereby.. love for oneself cannot be separated from love/respect/understanding for another individual. if s/he can love only others s/he cannot love at all.......if i truly love one person, i love all persons, i love the world, i love life, i love in you everybody.
erotic love is exclusive and cannot be universal. brotherly love has a lack of exclusiveness. when there are no more barriers to overcome, no more sudden closeness to achieve, this is when artificial love can collapse. the loved one becomes as well known (or should we say little? ;)) known, as oneself. the miracle of overcoming the barriers and addiction to transforming the stranger into an intimate person is a symptom of artificial love. there is an illusion that the new love will be different from the earlier ones. when two persons become well acquinted, their intimacy loses its miraculous character... their antagonisms can begin to kill whatever is left of the initial excitement:( in the beginning they take the intensity of their infatuation as proof of the intensity of their love, while it may only be proof of their preceding loneliness
It is a question in marriage, to my feeling, not of creating a quick community of spirit by tearing down and destroying all boundaries, but rather a good marriage is that in which each appoints the other guardian of his solitude, and shows him this confidence, the greatest in his power to bestow. A togetherness between two people is an impossibility, and where it seems, nevertheless, to exist, it is a narrowing, a reciprocal agreement which robs either one party or both of his fullest freedom and development. But, once the realization is accepted that even between the closest human beings infinite distances continue to exist, a wonderful living side by side can grow up, if they succeed in loving the distance between them which makes it possible for each to see the other whole and against a wide sky!
All companionship can consist only in the strengthening of two neighboring solitudes, whereas everything that one is wont to call giving oneself is by nature harmful to companionship: for when a person abandons himself, he is no longer anything, and when two people both give themselves up in order to come close to each other, there is no longer any ground beneath them and their being together is a continual falling...Once there is disunity between them, the confusion grows with every day; neither of the two has anything unbroken, pure, and unspoiled about him any longer... They who wanted to do each other good are now handling one another in an imperious and intolerant manner, and in the struggle somehow to get out of their untenable and unbearable state of confusion, they commit the greatest fault that can happen to human relationships: they become impatient. They hurry to a conclusion; to come, as they believe, to a final decision, they try once and for all to establish their relationship, whose surprising changes have frightened them, in order to remain the same now and forever (as they say).
i wish to penetrate from periphery to core, like simone weil,
love is a catastrophe, IT'S A CRAZY ILLNESS. LOVE RUINS YOUR LIFE. BUT, I AM VERY SAD WHEN I AM NOT IN LOVE...zizek
butterflies == frail children of the air
i am becoming that which i am becoming:) think truth, live love and justice.. there is no meaning to life except the meaning we give it
both of us are the bow and the lyre
first of all, love is a joint experience between two persons - but the fact that it is a joint experience does not mean that it is a similar experience to the two people involved. there are the lover and the beloved, but these two come from different countries. Often the beloved is only a stimulus for all the stored up love which had lain quiet within the lover for a long time hitherto. And somehow every lover knows this. He feels in his soul that his love is a solitary thing. He comes to know a new, strange loneliness and it is this knowledge which makes him suffer. So there is only one thing for the lover to do. He must house his love within himself as best he can; he must create for himself a whole new inward world - a world intense and strange, complete in himself. Let it be added here that this lover about whom we speak need not necessarily be a young man saving for a wedding ring - this lover can be man, woman, child, or indeed any human creature on this earth. Now, the beloved can also be of any description. The most outlandish people can be the stimulus for love. A man may may be doddering great grandfather and still love only a strange girl he saw in the streets of Cheehaw one afternoon two decades past. The preacher may love a fallen woman. The beloved may be treacherous, greasy-headed and given to evil habits. Yes, and the lover may see this as clearly as anyone else - but that does not affect the evolution of his love one whit. A most mediocre person can be the object of a love which is wild, extravagant, and beautiful as the poison lilies of the swamp. A good man may be the stimulus for a love both violent and debased, or a jabbering madman may bring about in the soul of someone tender and simple idyll. therefore, the value and quality of any love is determined solely by the lover himself. It is for this reason most of us would rather love than be loved. Almost everyone wants to be the lover. And the curt truth is that, in a deep secret way, the state of being beloved is intolerable to many. The beloved fears and hates the lover, and with the best of reasons. for the lover is forever trying to strip bare his beloved. the lover craves any possible relation with the beloved, even if this experience can cause him only pain. - carson mccullers
"Why is love rich beyond all other possible human experiences and a sweet burden to those seized in its grasp? Because we become what we love and yet remain ourselves."
love is the bridge that leads from the i sense to the we, and there is a paradox about personal love. love of another individual opens a new relation between the personality and the world. the lover responds in a new way to nature and may even write poetry. love is affirmation; it motivates the yes responses and the sense of wider communication. love casts out fear. and in the security of this togetherness we find contentment, courage. we no longer fear the age old haunting questions: who am i? why am i? where am i going? and having cast out fear, we can be honest and charitable.
asking my friends for a list of things they love: sleeping, chimneys, sex, dancing, faffing, old pubs, when someone does something for me right in front of me and i get a asmr type shiver through my body, halloween, free things, being given things, bringing pals together, music that makes me feel wistful, when people are tactile with me, when you go round to a friends house and the mum says "i'm going to feed you up', lavender, pottering, homemade peanut butter
asking myself: brushin my teeth, black coffee, reading, being off work midweek, going to a gallery and making drawings of all the (good bits of) art, when you see something you know will make a really good present for someone, head massages, randomly saying some words in french, meeting new people, my friends, my plants, sitting in the sun, telling my guinea pig he's late for work, maria and flo's nts shows, guinness, being in love, every shade of the colour pink, the illustrations of the cakes in bake off, when louise sends me recordings of her reading, getting lifts places, applying green detox wheatgrass powder optimistically to all my meals
regression to an idolatric concept of God is occurring in this epoch. this is easy to see, people are anxious and without principles. they find themselves without an aim except to move ahead thus they remain children, hoping for mother or father to help them advance. don juan: emotional child who proves male prowess in sex because his masculinity is characterologically incomplete. "contemporary man is rather like a child of three, who cries for father when he needs him, and otherwise is quite self-sufficient when he can play. he wants the profitable exchange for his personality and is without himself, his fellow men, nature. life has no goal except the one to move, no principle except the one of fair exchange, no satisfaction except the one to consume" the meaning of God becomes transformed to fit the alienated culture of success.. the belief in God has been transformed into a psychological device to make one better fitted for the competitive struggle.
"...we take care not to touch each other in public, nor do we look into each other's eyes except furtively, because Ivan must first wash my eyes with his own, removing the images which landed on my retina before his arrival." - malina extract, ingeborb bachmann
"Let there be spaces in your togetherness, And let the winds of the heavens dance between you. Love one another but make not a bond of love: let it rather be a moving sea between the shores of your souls,"
thought is only a more subtle horizon of ignorancethe specific meaning of god depends on what is is the most desirable good for a person. the understanding of the concept of god must therefore start with an analysis of the character structure of the person who worships god. my love for god and god's love for me can't be separated. following the maturing idea of monotheism in its further consequences can lead only to one conclusion: not to mention god's name at all, not to speak about God. then God becomes what he potenially is in monotheistic theology, the nameless One, an inexpressible stammer referring to the unity underlying the phenomenal universe, the ground of all existence: God becomes truth, love, justice. God is I, inasmuch as I am human.
SUMMUM BONUM - bearer of all loveconflicts in most people are actually attempts to avoid the real conflict. by their very nature, these small conflicts do not lend themselves to clarification nor solution "Love is possible only if two persons communicate with each other from the centre of their existence!" - they are one with each other by being one with themselves
simone weil - "only a martyr and a mad person can love in the world today".but yet..:)Love is the only sane and satisfactory answer to the problem of human existencei am out for a bargain.. the object should be desirable from the standpoint of its social value (SUCCESS ON THE PERSONALITY MARKETttttt), and at the same time should want me. two persons thus fall in love when they feel they have found the best object available on the market, considering the limitations of their own exchange value -> in a culture in which material success is the outstanding value, there is little reason to be surprised that human love relations follow the same pattern of exchange which governs the commodity and labour market. are you falling in love... are you Standing in love?
love only profits the soulparadise...a state of original oneness with nature, once blocked from paradise man can only move forward by finding a new harmony. prehuman harmony was irretrievably lost. there is no good or evil until there is freedom to disobey. after man and woman have become aware of themselves and of each other, they are aware of their separateness, adam blames eve, this equates to human separation without union or REunion by love, is the source of shame and guilt and anxiety in humankind. how to achieve union.... the history of religion and philosophy is the culmination of the answers to this question:) It seems that after orgiastic experience man can go on for a time without suffering too much from this separateness, anxiety comes from separateness, is overcome by performance of the ritual (orgiastic) alcoholism + drugs are forms chosen in non orgiastic culture but individuals feel more separate after this experience is over and thus are driven to take recourse with it in greater frequencey. the basic need to fuse with another person so as to transcend the prison of one's separateness is closely related to another specifically human desire, 'to know the secret of hu/mankind'. while life in its merely biological aspects is a miracle and a secret, man in his human aspects is an unfathomable secret to himself - and to his fellow man. we know ourselves, and yet even with all the efforts we may make, we do not know ourselves (problem of knowing hu/man parallel to problem of knowing god). with shooting you'll never get at the soul, to where it is in a fellow and how it shows itself
..the sexual act without love never bridges the gap between two human beings except momentarily..(what is a moment? is a moment a forever?)equality meant we are all God's children, you know.. we all share in the same human divine substance.. we are all one. it also means/meant differences between individuals must be respected. .. cus while it's true we are all one, each of us is a unique entity, a cosmos by itself. equality today however looks like sameness rather than oneness.
the longing for love and the dread of the nothing.. in creative work the creator unites himself with his material, which represents the world outside, worker and object become one, man unites himself with the world in the process of creation. in modern work processes there is little left of this uniting process, and the individual ceases to be... s/hee
without love humanity could not exist for a daymasochism is used to escape the the isolation man feels, we make ourselves a part of the other and thereby lose our intergrity, the masochistic person is no longer fully born. mature love is union under the condition of preserving one's individuality, integrity. love is an active power in man, one that permits him to be himself. or herself. whatever self. in love the paradox occurs that two beings become one yet remain two
a man sitting quiet and contemplating is considered 'passive'. in reality, this attitude of concentrated meditation is the highest activity there is, an activity of the soul, which is possible only under the condition of freedom and independence &thus is similar to love. love is an action, the practise of human power, which can be practised only in freedom and never as the result of compulsion.
giving is the highest expression of potency. in the very act of giving i experience my strength, my wealth, my power. giving is more joyous than receiving, not cuz it is a deprivation but because in the act of giving lies the expression of my ALIVEness:). note: the culmination of the male sexual function lies in the act of giving; the man gives himself, his sexual organ to the woman. at the moment of orgasm he gives his semen to her. giving implies to make the other person a giver also and they both share in the joy of what they have brought to life
iam alone in the night time, i wish you knew my mind, i am alone in my day dreams, i wish you dreamt it toorespect=the ability to see a person as they are, from respicere - to look at. to be aware of their unique individuality and still to love them and wish to preserve it.. the concern that the other person should grow and unfold as s.he is, truly truly = love. 'i feel one with them as they are, not as i need them to be, not as an object for my use' are some of the thoughts we might or should have when we love another. respect for another is possible only after one has achieved their own independence -> 'l'amour est l'enfant de la liberte' as in, love is the child of freedom:)<3
the only way of full knowledge lies in the act of love: this act transcends thought, it transcends words. it is the daring plunge into the experience of union. freudian belief that act of sex/ual union is to remove painful tension that arises in the body - sexual desire like hunger or thirst, but then why not just masturbate? love is not the result of adequate sexual satisfaction, but sexual happiness?
in religious and in dream imagery we find the two opposing ideas of the mother. neurotic pathology can be found when one is overly attached to mother or father, this attachment can develop into one of the two opposing ideas of mother. in the case of father, if father's affection is the only one a son has, and if father withdraws or awards the son this affection using a system based on the son's behaviour (when he is being good, he gets a treat, when he is bad, he is ignored, and so forth), son can become fixated on father's love and feel happy when he succeeds in obtaining it. when he fails he feels 'cast out'. in later life fromm states, this type of man will look for a father figure to attach himself to in a similar fashion. in their relationships to women they will remain cold/aloof. 'the woman is of no central significance to them; they usually have a slight contempt for her, often masked as fatherly concern for a little girl. they may have initially impressed a woman by their masculine quality, but they become increasingly disappointing, when the woman they marry discovers that she is destined to play a secondary role to the primary affection for the father figure'. if the wife has remained overly attached to her father she may be happy being treated as a child. as adults the longing for motherly love is hard to fulfil and often finds expression in religious forms. father represents the world of thought "since his love is conditioned, i can do something to acquire it; his love is not outside of my control". do you recognise this in your sex life? the urge to try and obtain the love of the other, the belief that since their love is conditioned, you can obtain it through 'correct/ed' behaviour? if parents dislike each other but do not quarrel, their unspontaneity may bleed into their relationship with their children. the atmosphere of 'correctness' without close contact to either parent can leave the girl puzzled and scared. the girl will withdraw from the world and later re-enact this withdrawl in future relationships. this can lead to masochistic tendencies, an inability to feel natural excitement, which forces the girl into more and more extreme acts in search for feeling. do you relate?
have faith in life! this means, not being over anxious. a mature person comes to the point where they are their own mother/father, they become free from the mother and father conscience outside of themselves but build these figures up inside instead.
the faculty to think objectively is reason, the emotional attitude behind reason is that of humility. we all emerge from the dreams of omniscience +omnipotence and arrive in a warmer place. and i keep hoping to do something better, maybe today. to be loved, and to love, you must have courage, courage to judge certain values as of ultimate concern, and to take the jump and stake everything on these values. in nihilism one throws away life because one is incapable of loving it. notice.. where and when does one lose faith? where and when does one act in a cowardly way and then rationalise it? &does every betrayal of faith weaken us?
while one is consciously afraid of not being loved, the real, though usually unconscious fear, is that of loving.one caannoottt be productive in the sphere of love and unproductive in all others.. there is no division of labour between love for those one knows and love for strangers to love be fair to your neighbour means to feel responsible for and one with him, but that's not love
idolatrous love - if someone does not have a sense of identity rooted in the productive unfolding of their own powers he will idolise the loved one. the '''great love''' we see in forms of media is often depicting a kind of purely idolatrous love, in which the loved one is sat upon a pedastal. the protagonist and viewer neglects all realistic interpretations of them. here we lose ourselves in the loved one instead of finding ourselves. when we become inevitably disappointed upon bearing witness to the truth of the loved individual, we search for a new relationship/idol, in a (never ending?) cycle.
mutual idolatory = folie a deux.sentimental love is another form of irrational love. here, love is experienced only in phantasy, not in the here and now relationship to a real human. these individuals find their satisfaction in the consumption of love products such as songs and films. some couples may only be able to experience love when projecting it into their future, dreaming of what is to come, while in the moment they are bored with one another and struggle to feel joy whilst sharing each other's company. they live in the past.. or in the future.. but not the present.. 'this abstracted and alienated form of love serves as an opiate'.
relationship of mutual projection -- we grow fixated on the problems we see in the other, and ignore our own shortcomings. then we fail to undertake the steps that would help us in our own development. this can happen with children, when we can't make sense of our lives, we focus on making sense of our kids' lives. where there are strong misgivings or doubt in a relationship don't stay together for the kids, Fromm espouses that 'an open break.. teaches them that at least man is able of ending an intolerable situation by a courageous decision.'
love doesn't mean the absence of conflict. proper conflicts produce a catharsis that results in more strength. love is not a resting place but a moving, growing, learning together state; whether there is joy or sadness, this is secondary to the fact that two people experience themselves from the essence of their existence, that they are one with each other by being one with themselves. There is only one proof for the presence of love: the depth of the relationship, and the aliveness and strength in each person involved. this is the fruit by which we can recognise love.
fromm says love takes discipline, concentration, patience, "if i am attached to another person because i cannot stand on my own two feet, he or she may be a life saver, but the relationship is not one of love". capiche? paradoxically, the ability to be alone is the condition for the ability to love. avoid trivial conversation, conversation that is not genuine, avoid bad company.. avoid dead souls !- however, ;) if you react humanly to people in these situations, often their behaviours and responses are changed. 'helped by the surprise affected by the shock of the unexpected'
we take the psychic functioning of the people around us as the norm, without necessarily ever knowing someone who functions well. however, unfortunately, etc, 'in order to be sensitive to oneself, one has to have an image of complete healthy human functioning'
to speak of love is to speak of the ultimate and real need in every human being. that this need has been obscured does not mean it does not exist. to have faith in the possibility of love as a social
and not only exceptional-individual phenomenon is a rational faith based on the insight into the very nature of man.
love is something if you give it away, give it away, give it away, Love is something if you give it away, You end up having more. Love is like a magic penny! Hold on tight and you won't have any! Lend it, spend it, you'll have so many, They'll roll all over the floor!
"the language we use when we are in love is not a language we speak. it is a language addressed to ourselves and to our imaginary beloved. it is a language of solitude, mythology of what Barthes calls an 'image repertoire'". so what is in the repertoire? what is in the lover's cupboard.. ummmm. a series of outfits and actions, images and dances, which barthes claims are severed from authority and its various mechanisms. 'once a discourse is thus driven by its own momentum into the backwater of the "unreal," exiled from all gregarity, it has no recourse but to become the site, however exiguous, of an affirmation. that affirmation is in short the subject of the book which begins here..' oo my i would have married shunned robbed cried to become barthes' secretary..
the code of courtly love, the carte du tendre (map of tender, 1653). the love story (episode or adventure) is the tribute the lover must pay to the world in order to be reconciled with it. the crisis of engulfment can come from a wound but also from a fusion: we die together from loving each other: an open death, by dilution into the ether, a closed death of the shared grave. in love an absence is transformed into an ordeal of abandonment. - an always present I is constituted only by confrontation with an always absent you. To speak this absence is from the start to propose that the subject's place and the other's place cannot permute; it is to say: i am loved less than i love. but isn't desire always the same, whether the object is present or absent? isn't the object always absent? this isn't the same languor, there are two words: pothos, desire for the absent being, (the sparkle of the eyes, the body's luminous beauty, the radiance of the desirable being.') and himeros, the more burning desire for the present being. bring your lips to mine so that out of my mouth my soul may pass into yours.
he praises the other for being perfect, he glorifies himself for having chosen this perfect other: he imagines that the other wants to be loved, as he himself would want to be loved. not for one or another of his qualities, but for his everything, and this everything he bestows upon the other in the form of a blank word, for the whole cannot be inventoried without being diminished.
why is it that i desire so and so? why is that i desire so and so lastingly, longingly, is it the whole of so and so i desire (a silhouette, a shape, a mood)? and in that case what is it in this loved body which has the vocation of a fetish for me? what perhaps incredibly tenuous portion - what accident? the way a nail is cut, a tooth broken slightly aslant, a lock of hair, a way of spreading the fingers while talking, while smoking?
I love you because I love you. What thereby closes off the lover's language is the very thing which has instituted it: fascination. For to describe fascination can never in the last analysis, exceed this utterance: "i am fascinated". Having attained the end of language, where it can merely repeat its last word like a scratched record, I intoxicate myself upon its affirmation: is not tautology that preposterous state in which are to be found, all values being confounded, the glorious end of the logical operation, the obscenity of stupidity, and the explosion of the Nietzschean yes?
could the other be vulgar, whose elegance and originality i had so religiously hymned? i saw the sperm shooting from his eyes. he is possessed by a demon who speaks through his mouth. out of which emerge, as in the fairy tales, no longer flowers but toads. the horror of spoiling is even stronger than the anxiety of losing. the anxieties are already here, like the poison already prepared (jealousy, abandonment, restlessness); they merely wait for a little time to pass in order to be able to declare themselves with some propriety. then, there are moments when a patient needs to be told that the breakdown, fear of which is wrecking his life, has already occurred. similarly, it seems, for the lover's anxiety (taking it badly, an example of releasing the anxiety of waiting): it is the fear of a mourning which has already occurred, at the very origin of love, from the moment when i was first "ravished". someone would have to be able to tell me: "don't be anxious anymore - you've already lost him/her".
do we believe it is love which the amorous subject loves, not the object? what we do is, we take a colourless object, place it in the centre of the stage and there it is 'adored, idolized, taken to task, covered with discourse, with prayers'. it is my desire i desire, and the being is no more than its tool. at the end i will think of my beloved structure and i will weep for the loss of love, not him or her.
the phenomenon of atopos, a ceaselessly unforeseen originality, in love. the other whom i love, who fascinates me, is atopos. i divine that the true site of originality and strength is neither the other or myself, but our relation itself. it is the originality of the relation which must be conquered. most of my injuries come from the stereotype: i am obliged to make myself a lover, like everyone else: to be jealous, neglected, frustrated, like everyone else. but when the relation is original, then the stereotype is shaken, transcended.
i keep the habit of hallucinating the being i have loved: sometimes i am still in anxiety over a telephone call that is late, and no matter who is on the line, I imagine I recognise the voice I once loved: I am an amputee who still feels pain in his missing leg. Am I in love? yes, since i am waiting. the other never waits. The being i am waiting for is not real. like the mother's breast for the infant, (winnicott playing and reality) "I create and re-create it over and over, starting from my capacity to love, starting from my need for it": the other comes here where i am waiting, here where I have already created him or her.
reasons why my lover might ignore me: indifference? distancing maneuver? exercise of a passing impulse of autonomy? simple innocence? "it is unworthy of great souls to expose to those around them the distress they feel" (Clotilde de Veux) ..but passion is an essence made to be seen? yet i want you to know that i don't want to show my feelings. to weep is part of the normal activity of the amorous body. my body is a stubborn child, my language is a civilized adult.
catastrophe: I have projected myself into the other with such power that when I am without the other I cannot recover myself, regain myself: I am lost, forever.
the heart is the organ of desire (the heart swells, weakens, etc. like the sexual organs)..whatever i know, anyone may know, i alone have my heart. my delight exceeds the possibilities envisioned by desire. the fulfilled lover has no need to write, to transmit, to reproduce.
the darkest place, according to a Chinese proverb, is always underneath the lamp.
to make consciousness itself a drug, and thereby to accede to the perfect vision of reality, to the bright dream, to prophetic love.
Hence the situations which happen to impose no responsibility for behaviour upon me, however painful, are received in a sort of peace; I suffer, but at least I have nothing to decide;
slight zones of contact: the figure refers to any interior discourse provoked by a furtive contact with the body (and more precisely the skin) of the desired being. But in fact Werther is not perverse, he is in love: he creates meaning, always and everywhere, out of nothing, and it is meaning which thrills him: he is in the crucible of meaning. Every contact, for the lover, raises the question of an answer: the skin is asked to reply. a squeeze of the hand - enormous documentation.. a tiny gesture within the palm, a knee which doesn't move away, an arm extended, this is the paradisiac realm of the subtle and clandestine signs: a kind of festival not of the senses but of meaning. nothing but signs, a frenzied activity of language. language is a skin: i rub my language against the other. it is as if i had words instead of fingers, or fingers at the tip of my words. language experiences orgasm upon touching itself:)
the vexations of amorous existence; because this meeting has demonstrated the ambiguity of our situation, and perhaps your duplicity, the euphoria has stopped. the incident will now produce an irritation, like the pea under the princess's twenty mattresses; like one of the day's thoughts swarming in a dream.
i am searching the other's body, as if i wanted to see what was inside it. i am calm, attentive, as if i were confronted by a strange insect of which i am suddenly no longer afraid. it is, is it? obvious i am then in the process of fetishizing a corpse.
dedication: a gift for you is purchased with great excitement, the excitement which seems to be the order of orgasm. strenuously i calculate whether this object will give pleasure, whether it will disappoint, or whether, on the contrary, seeming too "important", it will in and of itself betray the delirium. the gift is contact, sensuality: you will be touching what I have touched: a third skin unites us. one cannot give language, but one can dedicate it. what i give by singing is at once my body (by my voice) and the silence into which you cast that body. (Love is mute, Novalis says; only poetry makes it speak.) we cannot say of a text that it is "amorous", but only, at best, that it is created "amorously", like a cake or an embroidered slipper. he performs what the mathematicians call a catastrophe (the disturbance of one system by another): it is true that this mute figure is an angel.
THE GLORY OF PARADISE the translucent veil (1753)Love the animals, love the plants, love everything. If you love everything, you will perceive the divine mystery in things. Once you perceive it, you will begin to comprehend it better every day. And you will come at last to love the whole world with an all-embracing love.
... active love is a harsh and fearful thing compared with the love in dreams. Love in dreams thirsts for immediate action, quickly performed, and with everyone watching. Indeed, it will go as far as the giving even of one's life, provided it does not take long but is soon over, as on stage, and eveyone is looking on and praising. Whereas active love is labor and persistence, and for some people, perhaps, a whole science.