Love: There Is No Such Thing

Let's pretend for a moment that facts are things that can be falsified. We'll say something can be a fact only if it is the kind of thing that we can say either is or isn't. With that we'll say that there are certain things that can be described or proposed accordingly. For the sake of convention, let's call those things matters of objective reflection, and so we'll say that matters of objectivity are indifferent or accidental. More specifically, the more certain of a thing's objective factuality you may be, the less it is a matter of concern to you, the observer.*

We should see that this would be a way of talking about things; stuff like: the box is open, the cat is on the roof, the girl is tall, the earth orbits the sun. Whether there is any confusion over what we mean by open, roof, tall, earth, sun, those are the kinds of things that can be communicated, clarified, or translated even if they are not universally known. It is a matter of spatial existence and logical possibility. Open is the kind of thing that a box may be and a box is the kind of thing that may be open. So- to be clear- I don't mean it as a matter of perception- there is no "But, man, did you ever think, like, the box that exists in your mind, is, like, it's like, totally different from the box that's really there?" I mean A is A.

Though I would hate to use the word "true" for things like that, for now, let's say those things are what we would say are objectively true. I would prefer that we would say those things are facts, but as long as we're clearer about what we mean, we can say they are objectively true. Or maybe, to avoid that nonsense, let's say they are a matter for objective speculation.

Well, now that the map has been unfolded, we may see it is a very limited field dealing with matters of that kind. We may see further, that if it were possible to catalogue every last thing we may call a fact so that we have a full scale, detailed description of every thing that is and so also is not, we would have only that. I mean, if you had a complete account of those things about which it is possible to give a factual account, that is all you would have. You would not have anything more than an arrangement of facts; you would most certainly not have any inkling about what ought to be, what is right, what is wrong, what is good, or most importantly, at least if you are concerned with actually existing, how and what you ought to do.

But we are supremely concerned with how and what we ought to do. Well, I am anyway.

I'm losing interest too so I should probably cut to the chase. [There's the concern] What I'd like to get at is that the "oughts" of what we do, as much as we'd like them to be, are not fixed or certain like facts. It is a matter of commitment and decision- drifting in air. Those things that are the most meaningful to us are the most meaningful to us. They are very much not things about which we may be indifferent, objective, or dispassionate. To borrow an idea, if we could cease to be, those things would not matter, and only what was objective or fixed would be of import- only they wouldn't be, because we would not be, so nothing could be of import. Things can only be important if there is some concerned me to be concerned with what is important. But if some thing is objective- it is indifferent to me and it's factuality is not a matter of my concern. I guess, though, if nothing matters, then nothing matters, and that's a bit of a relief. Or it would be if there was some me that existed to be relieved, but there wouldn't be so who cares? Not me, but only because there is no existing me to care. Got it?

No? Do you not buy that? Do you say there is actually some you that is concerned with living, some you that has being, that has to exist in your skin? Do you realize how crazy that sounds?

Hmph. Well, crazy or not, let's go that route. Let's pretend you really are there, things really matter to you- some you is concerned with being. As absurd as that might be, I guess we can pretend it's possible. But with that you'll have to confront that if you really exist, and are some living you, then you cannot accept the relief that not-being allows. You cannot rest in the certain security that frozen not-being offers. Do you really want that?

I mean, it's not like you'll die if you accept not-being. Well, you will die someday, I mean you will not die just because you accept not being. My dogs are alive and seem as happy as pigs in poop; they don't have to confront being. You could do that. Maybe you've been doing that- and have seemed as happy as a pig in poop- just like my dogs. It might be better for you to stick with that. Do you really want to confront uncertainty? It could be miserable. It could be crazy-making. Sure it seems like humans should be being something more than dogs- but it only seems that way. You have to decide to be committed and live as if it is that way, and commitment is hard. It requires commitment. Maybe what you'd prefer is obedience. That works for a lot of people. It's all mapped out and when you get the range of what to obey just right, you could coast for a while.

Coasting seems like a nice middle passage between being and not-being.

But coasting doesn't seem like it would make much sense of concerns like love or justice, and I'm kind of convinced that as a human- a human that's busy being- I am concerned with love and justice. I guess we could think love or justice might be the systematic application of a certain range of "things" to obey. Like each time I give the Qweenbean a flower I have applied a thing of love and so love is a matter of giving more and more flowers. Or applying a thing of justice would mean something like taking the life of anyone who ever took someone else's life.

In fact (hah), love seems like the very kind of concern about which I am completely concerned. Love seems like it cannot have objectivity and requires commitment to a way of being, not not-being. If I am not being, or if I am coasting in obedience, love wouldn't matter. Doing the x,y, and z of obedience would be enough. But love matters- at least to me. Love seems to require a commitment through what cannot be known, almost as if it's a matter of faith and not certainty. Justice likewise.

It would be silly to say we have to live. We don't have to do anything. But to live, to have life- I mean to really have life in a way worth having, a way that is affirming, abundant, full- it seems I have to be willing to commit to uncertainty and be concerned with living.

Or not.

They Say I Got Brains But They Ain't Doing Me No Good
Pet Sounds- The Beach Boys

* We'll say we don't mean that you must exist in order to articulate or express the thing as a fact or give it some existence via your knowledge. That's just dumb.