( Kapital-i, in 'I, myself', now spels Il as in isle or aisle.
Leter y spels ryd for reed or read and partys for parties.
Leter w spels swn for soon. )
Links to sektions:
By a siens of lov is ment the normal yus of sientifik method, to achyv a greiter understanding of the subjekt, and from wich praktikal benefits to sosiety may be expekted.
It has byn asum'd that the divin emotion of lov is not amenabl to a
koldly objektiv analysis. But that syms to stem from a misunderstanding of
sientifik method's natur. For instans, it has byn argu'd that yu kan not
mesur wether diferent pepls subjektiv fylings ar the saim. Wer-as, any number
of pepl kan mesur, say, the motion of a body down an inklin'd playn, or of a
planet in the hevens.
But any system of nolej must hav a starting point that kan be related to
experiens. In klasikal jeometry, this primitiv konsept is a 'point'. It is the
basik undefin'd term, that other konsepts, lIk lIn and sirkl ar defin'd in
terms of.
Similarly, 'lov' kan be taken as a basik konsept, in terms of wich the
other emotions kan be defin'd. For exampl, fyr is of losing lov. And anger is
direkted against thos we fyr wil tak lov away. The so-kal'd dedly sins, or
the mental ilneses kan also be konsider'd as blok'd or unbalans'd lovs.
In this way, uon kud bild up an emotional 'jeometry' or jeometrys of lov.
Nolej of the basik konsepts in a subjekt dos itself evolv. Fysisists study
the posibilitys of yet mor basik konsepts than the 'mas point', such as
'strings'.
LIkwIs, we may think we no wat lov is, only to find our fylings wer
rather limited on the subjekt. Not defining lov is to admit we asum nothing
about it. And making lov a konsept universal to our system of emotions is to
admit ther is every-thing to no about it.
Jeometry or erth mesurment is uon of the erliest kinds of mesurment. But the lojik of mesurment has byn study'd, as it aplIs to the sienses in jeneral. For instans, I yus'd the 4 main skails of mesurment to defin the singl transferabl vot as 'Sientifik method of elektions'. Ych suksesiv skail brings an inkrysing power of mesurment. In the kais of elektoral method, this represented greiter frydom of chois resulting in 'power to the pepl' or demokrasy.
This fulfil'd the profesy: no the truth and it wil mak yu fry. The
fashionabl segregation of siens and ethiks, or nolej and frydom, had to be
chalenj'd, first. I was at ods with 'valu-nutral' or 'valu-fry' siens from
my student days.
My eventual alternativ viw is given as 'The moral sienses as the ethiks of
sientifik method'. ( Both this esay and 'Sientifik method of elektions' ar
link'd-to from my 'home page'. )
Of kors, my kolej tychers edukated me to the debait and provided me with the
esential klws, from wich I kud, quIt properly, mak up my own mind.
The relating of voting method to sientifik method mayd it posibl for me to kontemplat a siens of lov. But not befor I was given an esential klw. This tIm my tycher was from a bwk, 'The Four Loves' by C S Lewis. He was alredy uon of my favorit authors.
The publishers klaim'd this was the first tIm al 4 kinds of lov wer tryted in uon bwk. It turn'd out that the ancient Greeks had 4 naims for lov. As in so many other things, they wer pionyrs. A nw siens begins with klasifIing the kinds of thing under study. And indyd the first skail of mesurment is kal'd the klasifikatory skail or the nominal ( myning the 'naiming' ) skail.
Thus the Greek nolej of lov distinguish'd eros, wich naim Lewis also yus'd; philia or frendship, in Lewis' bwk; storge or afektion; and agape or charity.
Lewis tryts thys 4 lovs as a progresion thru lIf. Uon starts off with afektion, in the bosom of the family, as it wer. Uon begins to find frends, as uon movs out-sId the family sirkl. Sexual growth sertainly promots eros, by wich Lewis myns romantik lov. ( But this is not nesesarily sexual lov, wich he kals 'Venus'. ) Finaly, a sort of growth of the soul, thru lIf's trials and tribulations, may achyv charity.
This is a perfektly rysonabl way to aproch a diskusion of the 4 lovs. Lewis shows how lov may gradualy wIden out in thys 4 ways. He denIs, tho, that uon's experiens of lov must always folow this path in lIf. Never the les, I was struk by the fakt that som progesion of the for lovs mIt korespond to the lojikal progresion of mesurment, in for skails.
We hav alredy met the first of the for skails, the nominal or klasifikatory skail. The next is the ordinal ( or ordering ) skail, folow'd by the interval skail, and finaly the ratio skail.
The ordinal skail simply myns that wen uon has desIded wat boxes, individual items belong to, uon kan then aranj the boxes themselvs into a skym, lIk a fraim of pijon hols. For exampl, kolor'd lIts mIt be brodly klasifI'd akording to, say, six basik kolors. But thys kolors mIt also be order'd on the lIns of the kolors of the rain-bow: red, oranj, yelow, gryn, blu, violet.
The chois of kolors to mark out intervals on the rain-bow is
som-wat arbitrary. Tradition has seven kolors, inkluding indigo betwyn blu
and violet. Diferent kulturs hav diferent naims for diferent ranjes or
intervals of kolor. But uon kud kompar diferent kulturs' diferent
interval skails of kolor, by the komon standard of the rain-bow.
Similarly, diferent temperatur skails, such as fahrenheit and centigrade,
kan be translated into ych other.
But with respekt to the ratio skail, we no much mor than this. Diferent lIt kolors korespond to diferent wav-lenths. Red has the longest wav-lenth on the visibl spektrum and violet the shortest. But al lIt movs at the saim velosity, bekaus lIt velosity equals wav-lenth tIms frequensy. And the shorter the wav-lenth, the greiter the frequensy.
To show how this works, supos yu sy Abe Lincoln and his wIf - 'the long and the short of it'. They ar walking together, that is going in the saim direktion at the saim spyd ( wich myns moving with the saim 'velosity' ). Abe's strId, that is to say his 'wav-lenth' is thry fyt. His 'frequensy' or how many strIds he is taking per sekond, is tw. Therfor, Mr Lincoln's spyd is wav-lenth tIms frequensy, in other words, lenth of strId tIms number of strIds per sekond. That is, his spyd is thry tIms tw equals six fyt per sekond.
Mrs Lincoln is also walking with a spyd of six fyt per sekond. But being
much smaler, her strId or 'wav-lenth' is only tw fyt. To kyp up with her
husband, her 'frequensy' or number of strIds per sekond must be thry strIds
per sekond.
She has to yus mor enerjy to kyp up. LIkwIs, violet lIt with its faster
frequensy is mor enerjetik than red lIt.
Frequensy or the rait of wav-lenths per tIm is an exampl of a ratio
skail of mesurment. Yu wud no tw kulturs had a similar perseption of
a kolor, ther languajes had diferent naims for, if they mesur'd similar
ratios of velosity to wav-lenth, that is similar frequensys, for a shaid
they'd diferently naim'd.
Exaktly similar or equal ratios defin proportion. The ability to mesur
proportion is karakteristik of the ratio skail.
The question is: kan som progresion of the for lovs be match'd to the
progresivly mor powerful for skails of mesurment? To anser this
question, do the for lovs poses an order of greitnes?
The BIbl givs us a klw wen it says of faith, houp and charity, that the
greitest of thys is charity. Charity is som-tIms render'd as lov, in bibl
translations. It is perhaps not tw fansiful to relat houp to kortship or
romantik lov and ( kyping ) faith to mary'd or family lov.
Lewis himself tryts charity as the last and greitest pyk of the lov
ranj to klIm.
At lyst in uon important respekt, Lewis' own lov lIf is mislyding. He
admits that the romantik lov most pepl find in ther twentys, did not
hapen to him til his sixtys. Romantik lov is also tryted leit in 'The
Four Loves' - just befor charity.
Lewis' leit marij has byn mayd into a play, BBC drama and a film, wich starts-off by saying, this is a tru story. ( Tru in the sens, I supos, that 'Hollywood's version of history' is a tru story. ) How-ever, 'Shadowlands' in uon version or an other is stil worth watching.
Lewis' stiking to the orijinal Greek term 'eros' for romantik lov is
unhelpful. We think of eros as myning erotik or sexualy charj'd. Lewis
dosnt myn that. He myns wen a kupl hav 'a romans' - a pasionatly
exalted regard for ych other.
Romans had a much wIder myning for Lewis. He lists ten difering definitions
in his leiter introduktion to his first bwk, The Pilgrim's Regress.
The joy he eventualy found in his wIf Joy Davidman was only the kulmination of a lIf-tIm's hoping to be 'Surprised By Joy'. Joy was in the soul-expanding vistas of tIm and spas that the old northern lejends and modern siens fiktion intimated. That inkluds the Wellsian and other romanses that Lewis rowt to such poetik efekt.
As the best English term we hav, I shal yus 'romans', hyr, as
short for romantik lov and wat Lewis ment by eros.
In trIing to match 4 lovs to 4 skails of mesurment, I alredy had
help from matching the lojik of elektoral prosedur to the lojik of
mesurment. That is to say the progresivly greiter mesurment of frydom
of chois kud be kompar'd to that of loving relationships.
The basik prinsipl of elektions was the klasifikation: 'uon man uon vot'. Mindful of womens rIts, we say, uon person uon vot, nowadays. But the older freis puts uon in mind of 'uon man uon wIf'. Dr Samuel Johnson said the ryson for monogamy was that so ther wer enuf marij partners for every-uon. At lyst nominaly, monogamy is a sort of universal sufraj of marij.
The uon-to-uon relationship is karakteristik of the klasifikatory skail of mesurment. At this level of mesurment, it dosnt mater wich man chwses wich woman, or vice versa, or - bering in mind gay rIts - wich person chwses wich person, provided they al hav uon partner ych, by mutual konsent.
But uons the choises hav byn mayd the relationships ar exklusiv and every partnership is equal in worth or equivalent to an other. This is striktly wat the klasifikatory skail of mesurment myns. It also deskribs the idyl of kortship betwyn kupls. Kyping faith with uon partner is stil wIdly regarded as the test of a romantik relationship or a marij.
Even wIl tynajers ar dating diferent partners, ther is a tendensy to 'going stedy' and finding hw uon wil 'setl down' with. Aksepting a nIt on the town with a nw dayt mIt send a signal that the kurent boy frend or girl frend is not taken seriusly. He or she kud respond in lIk maner and so wer away a tI, that ther may be no way bak to.
'Tw's kompany and thry's a krowd' is abov al tru of lovers. It is tru that the lov'd uon may regard the rest of humanity with a benevolent glow of fyling. This is from the fortres-lIk fastnes of a sekur relationship. Yet, it is a posibl bais for wIder relationships, wich kan be thot of as 'loving', in a non-romantik sens.
'Tw's kompany and thry's a krowd' kan also aplI to frendship.
Partnership and frendship kan be hard to tel apart. Tw childhud frends
ar 'inseparabl', wen they hav a pasion for ych other's kompany. This is
perhaps a 'romans' that puberty hasnt interven'd yet to giv a sexual bias
to.
It is a romans shurly in a wIder Lewisian sens of adventur at the prospekt
of an enchanting nw world that the tw stranjers' amiabl qualitys ofer
ych other.
Ther is, how-ever, a distinkt fashon in wich fast frends ar not ryly
romantik kupls. Tho, it is notisabl that children wil derid ( perhaps
unfairly, out of jelusy ) frends as being tw fast. A frend, how-ever much
uon's leitest craiz, is never mor than uon's 'best frend'. Ther is rwm for
other relationships of that sort. It is just a mater of priority, such as: my
aranjments with my best frend kom first, but if yu dont mind myting at
som other tIm, that's alrIt.
British Telecom kurently has a 'best frend' diskount greiter than the
diskount alow'd for a given number of other frends.
In short, frendship, even at its most klamorus, is not esentialy an
exklusiv relationship lIk romans. Frendship is a mater of degry, the
lIking of som pepl mor or les than others. Our frends' kompany is
prefer'd to others.
Thus, our sientifik mesurment of lov starts with romans on the
klasifikatory skail, as the basik exklusiv relationship of our lIvs.
Sekond, koms frendship on the ordinal skail, by wich we order our frends,
akording to hws kompany we most lIk to sher.
We dont hyr of sekond or third best frends etc. That dosnt myn to say they dont exist or that we hav never mayd such lists up in our hed about hw we kud best relI on. After al, a sekond or a third or leser frend mIt bekom a first frend, shud the others desert uon. This is not unkomon in childhud, to say nothing of bak-stabing profesions lIk politiks.
The best frend is the prominent frend rather as the elekted kandidat is the prominent kandidat, at lyst for a term of ofis. Romans is also kompetitiv but uons it elekts for marij, the term of ofis is the hereditary uon of raising a family.
If we said no mor about romans and frendship, it wud re-infors the komon impresion of our kultur that frendship is a sort of sekond rait lov, mayd up of minor tIm-pasing mytings with pepl we quIt lIk, just to mak a chanj from being with uon's mait or family.
C S Lewis thot romans and frendship about equal in valu. How kud this be? Firstly, the
valu of romans as a kind of lov is the shyr worship of the partner. This is valuabl, if only
from a praktikal biolojikal point of viw. Raising a family is the proses of superseding
uon-self. Perhaps this has to do with post-natal depresion in a woman, for hwm the shyr
fysikal efort of child-ryring is burden enuf.
But a wIf, lov'd for her own saik, with a selfles servis, by the
husband, regardles of desir for an heir, is not evolution's druj. If heven is a stait of
mind, the tru lovers alredy hav a sher of it.
The power of romantik lov is such as to put hart and soul into making a relationship work. The ryly praktikal pepl ar thos hw say, mary for lov. That is the singl most important faktor. Tho, the belyf 'Love konquers al' is liabl to disapoint. Much of literatur is about how it may not be enuf, if al kinds of social sirkumstanses ar tu much against it.
No wonder frendship syms prety taim in komparison to romans. Aktualy, ther is a progresion of sorts. The fokus is no longer a sher'd wonder at ych other but a sher'd wonder at the world. The wonder of frendship, lIk the wonder of romans, is spesifik, only it is not spesifik to ych other; it is spesifik to som interest, such as a sher'd hoby.
The word 'hoby' provoks skorn as the triflings of amaters. The greiter the obsesion, the krazier the out-sider is lIkly to konsider thos obses'd. The hobyist, lIk the man in lov, is a puzl to pepl hw do not sher his fylings. Wat dos he sy in her? She's perfektly ordinary. Wat dos he sy in it? Wat a boring pursuit!
At this point, how-ever, frendship has uon big advantaj over romans. Frendship fyds off an exchanj of interests. Som-uon hw wud be a frend enkurajes partisipation in a pursuit, but not the pursuit of his intended. A mania, in komon, for uon woman, is not a pasion the rivals wud wish to sher. Ych suitor wants to belyv that his fylings for the belov'd ar the most special he has. Ych brings his own individual apreciation, in the houp of making a unyk lov match.
The enthusiasm of frendship is not for the frend but for the sher'd interest, they lIk to
talk about. The greiter frends tend to be mayd in finding they hav most in komon.
Yu notis this in John Stuart Mill's 'Autobiography'. Frends hw sym'd to agry about
every-thing important sudenly find a rift of opinion open up befor them. Or, in Mill's kais,
he finds a pasaj to the 'terra incognita' of his oponents. This som-wat separats him
from old frends but helps mak nw uons.
Nor was this the fait of a myr doktrinair, hw jujes pepl by how much they agry with his pre-konsyv'd notions. He was a radikal liberal, hw rowt with apreciation about the traditional konservatism of Coleridge; a lojician hw valu'd poetry. It was said of him as an MP that he kud put his oponents' point of viw beter than they kud, themselvs.
Romans may start by sying a world of interest in the partner. Then may find that world rather impoverish'd. This is especialy the kais wer women hav not had equal rIts and oportunitys. They hav byn left with the narowest of horizons. The husband may lyv her lounly in her domestik konfIns.
It has also led to a low opinion of woman, lIk the lower klases, depriv'd of edukation. Uon of the karakters in Dickens' 'Bleak House' douts but the squalor of a family is tu myn a kondition to be worthy of jenerosity. The efekt of denIing equal rIts is to mak the depriv'd sym unworthy of them.
Akording to Lewis, mary'd lov, in ancient Greece wer women had no rIts, was the exeption, to be laf'd at. In 'The Allegory Of Love', C S Lewis says kortly lov orijinated in medeval France. Sertainly, it was direkted at the woman of position. Modern kortship in romantik fiktion, inkluding siens fiktion, is stil of som 'prinses' - som-uon hw koms first in our loyaltys and devotion.
But beyond that, the kort lady was edukated in the social grases. Her akomplishments wer to be admir'd. The pesant girl was regarded with no chivalry and sexualy exploited without skrupl. Even today, the word pesant is yus'd as a term of dismisiv kontempt for an onorabl, not to say esential, okupation.
The point is that romans, from the start, ow'd much to a lady's training in the arts. She'd byn to medeval charm skwl. Kortship was not myrly snobery. The lady kud interest and entertain. She was not myrly an unkultur'd objekt of sexual desir. The fakt that she was edukated enuf to be the frend of any man mayd her sym worthy of kortship's special konsiderations.
How self-suficient kupls sym in the fulnes of ther lov! This may promis the unworldly power of lov. Yet it is evident that romans, by itself, is not enuf even for our short lIf-tIms. Romans is desir'd as much as ever. And som folk never grow beyond wanting to repyt the experiens, as swn as they get tIr'd of ther old partner.
Perhaps we had beter distinguish betwen romans sustain'd by having diferent partners, to refresh a jaded sexual apetIt, and romans sustain'd by frendship's komon interest in staying together. In the later kais, kupls ar not only partners but alIs. They dont forsaik ych other, bekaus they also valu ych other's suport, in the way they sy the world and relat to it.
The trust, expekted of a romans, is strenthen'd, if it also has the qualitys of frendship to sustain it.
Frendship is a vital ajunct to romans. Yet, that may not be enuf to sekur a loving relationship. For that, yu nyd afektion,
the third of the for lovs. Afektion syms a myr sentiment of gud wil. That is its strenth.
Romans starts so strong bekaus of wat it dos for the lover. The lov'd may not return
the pasion and even heit the lover for being on an emotional hI that the lov'd
dos not sher. Al som-uon's pasion may inspir in uon idolis'd is to mak the idol go
away and idolis som-uon els, if only for how gud it fyls to worship.
Frendship eskaips an exklusiv pasion betwyn tw pepl for ych other. Frendships ar pasions for any-thing that kan be sher'd by any-uon. But pepl ar stil partikular about hw they ar frends with. They must sher the saim interest or hoby, much as relijus pepl may kyp to a sekt. Som-uon talking about a hoby uon dosnt sher is liabl to bor and driv away from his kompany.
Afektion has the power to transform a bor into a plysing eksentrik. Yu ar not interested in ther obsesion. Yu just lIk them any-way, for ther own saik. They hav grown on yu.
Afektion kan also grow out of romans. A girl, hw has always enchanted yu, uon day lwses her glamor for yu. You dont no wI. But to yor disbelyf, she lwks just lIk any other girl. Uon observs, humbly, that she is hapily sekur in yor komplyt atention.
Yu rylIs that, of kors, every-uon is just any-uon. But she is the uon, hw mayd yu belyv that every-uon isnt just any-uon. She deservs yor gratitud and loyalty. Yu hav kom out of the trans her myr presens put yu in. And you find that yu lov her, for uons, not bekaus she is majikal but bekaus she is ordinary. Befor, yu lov'd the individual, now yu also lov her as the universal girl.
Afektion is a matur lov. That maks it sound unexIting, tho, in truth, pepl get exIted enuf about it. Romans says 'to no yu is to lov yu', myning that just myting yu was enuf. Romans is often lov at first sIt. And yu dont hav to no much about any-thing. Kupid's arow kan strIk in kindergarten. An infant with a pius lwk, piking flowers, kan be enuf to mak a klas-mait fal in lov, without ever noing ther was such a fait.
Frendship koms leiter than romans bekaus it taks tIm to lern wat uon kan do and
hw uon kan get on with. Frendship koms befor afektion, bekaus in erning a living,
uon has to play to uon's strenths or natural aptituds and that puts uon in the kompany of
kindred spirits, to kompyt or work with.
Admitedly, this asums a sosiety that taks advantaj of its members natural bents
and alows them to do work, fairly klos to hart.
Romans is the most intensly personal lov. The personal element of frendship is insidental to som-thing about the world at larj, that the frends sy with lIk mind. Afektion dosnt requir an enthraling personality or matching mentality. Al afektion requirs is the experiens in wich understanding kan kreat sympathy for an other human being.
Afektion is first and formost family lov, if only bekaus that is wer familiarity is most
lIkly. With any luk, family lov is alredy bilt on both romans and frendship betwyn
the parents.
Smal children wil find suficient romantik interest in ther pyrs, if the sosiety is not
represiv about 'pupy lov'. LIkwIs, frendship is natural betwyn thos at the saim
staij of development. Familys ar lIkly to sher aptituds and provided this is so, it is
a tremendus advantaj for a child hw is an abl and wiling aprentis to a parent. Tho, for
som children, the family bisnes ( geting rerer ) was a ded-end.
Churches, nations, partys, and such-lIk social in-grups depend on afektion for familiar
languaj, ritual symbols and kustom. Les personal again than family lov, they draw on a
prId in belonging, and a ( perhaps misplas'd ) fyling of mutual suport.
How-ever, persekuted grups may be drawn together into ryl komunitys.
Afektion, then, is perhaps the lyding lov in world afairs. But it was the purpos of the founders of the world relijons to bring al pepl together in a brotherhud of mankind, under uon god, that koms befor al the mor or les personal loyaltys of the leser lovs.
The forth lov, charity dos not supersyd the other lovs. Rather, they ar part of a progresion, that the planet must rylIs, if disaster is to be avoided. The afektions for the old tribal and super-tribal loyaltys wil and shud remain. Beyond that lIs a loyalty to God and God's kryturs.
Ther is a distinktion betwyn God or the kreator and the kreation, perhaps lIk that betwen
a work of art, as a kreation, and wat the artist ment to expres by it. God's
myriad kryturs may mor or les fryly expres ther mor or les exhalted pasions but
they ar not themselvs thos pasions. Rather, they ar the evolutionary works of 'art'
that hav gon into expresing ther pasions.
So, it is the lov of the kreator ( if yu lIk, 'God' ) we shud worship, and the kreation for
the lov it is ment to konvey, in so far as it dos so. We apreciat thos of God's fry
kreations, hw ar gud rather than bad 'artists', in living as the art of loving.
In the Kristian gospels, the tw greitest komandments ar the lov of God and the lov
of others as uon-self, that folows from it.
In 'The Four Loves', Lewis says
It is probably impossible to love any human being simply 'too much'. We may love him too much in proportion to our love for God; but it is the smallness of our love for God, not the greatness of our love for the man, that constitutes the inordinacy.
In this pasaj, Lewis, hw had no pretensions to 'siens', is taking the mesur of human lov, in terms of the kontroling tw of its for skails: the ordinal skail, wich mesurs priority, and the ratio skail, wich mesurs proportion.
Just as they ar a mesur of lov, the ordinal and ratio skails also mesur frydom. To be presis, elektoral frydom is defin'd by a preferens vot and a quota kount, the ordinal skail voting and ratio skail kount in proportion, that defins the so-kal'd singl transferabl vot.
Uon kan sy wI a mesur of frydom shud also be a mesur of lov. After al, frydom is to folow wat uon truly wishes. A tru nolej of mesurment maks this posibl. Uon's wishes ar the hart's desir, not myrly in the narow sens of voting. An 'elektion' is not just the institution that rejisters opinions. To elekt myns to chws out. This inkluds every-day desisions that afekt wat we do now or our houl lIvs.
Never the les, the sientifik method of elektoral frydom kan serv as a formal model to help distinguish the diferens betwyn afektion and charity. The typikal expresion of afektion in voting is to vot for kandidats on grup lIns. That is to say for a given party, or the body that is behind it, wether ekonomik, ethnik, relijus, ideolojikal or som other social faktor.
It is perfektly natural to vot in this way, to start at uon's point of orijin, as it wer, and work uon's way outward towards thos we hav les in komon with. The main obstakl elektoraly to the growth of lov in the world is the restriktion to kinds of voting method that only alow the expresion of afektion and not charity.
In fakt, only the sientifik method of elektions ( the transferabl voting system ) givs the frydom to vot an order of kandidats akros party lIns, that mesurs ( proportionatly ) a sosiety's degry of unity, or the charity towards thos hw dont belong to uon's own grup.
Yet mor remot than afektion, charity syms to myn helping far-away folk about hwm we no litl. Lov, konsentrated on uon person, usualy as romans, tyches us the numinus. We graduat thru lovs les related to ourselvs, ultimatly perhaps to a universal lov.
The over-welming power of sex dominats the first haf of lIf. Tho, that is not
to redus romans to sex any mor than a flower kan be redus'd to its syd.
Freudian sykolojy kovers the yuthful konserns with survival in this lIf. Jungian sykolojy
kovers older folks konserns with survival in an other lIf.
Carl Jung found that many patients, by the sekond haf of lIf, wer alredy bekoming pre-okupy'd with deth, and the relijus myning of a lIf so short. For Jung, sykolojy had to kom to the aid of an aij in wich it had byn observ'd that 'God is ded'.
He held that this was bekaus the old relijus forms wer losing ther potensy. And nw belyfs had to be justify'd in akord with a sientifik aij. Teknolojy had given men a sens of koming mastery over natur. But it was al tu evident from the twentieth sentury that man lak'd mastery of himself.
Man had evolv'd an idea of God. But that did not myn man had 'kreated' God. Jung held that we do not hav the power to mak the gods. Rather, al we kan do is chws our god. In our litl lIvs we run the gamut of emotions that every-body els has and wil. We dont hav emotions, they hav us. But we kan chws, to som extent, betwyn thys emotional masters. Hens, the greit world relijons of a god of lov.
Richard Lung.