The immoral soldier of love

This moral in continuous collapse that love builds, whose horizon is the growth of "subjective" algorithm to reach a total "relativization" of morality, to the complete occupation of moral space for personal moral standards born from the adaptive biography of the individual, lacks, as has been said, of any ethical support whatsoever.

It can be said that, in love, there are no more ethics, which means no more distinction between good and evil after principles that can be understood by the individual, than the simple increasing adaptation to sex-sentimental needs of the same individual. In the growth of critical anger against love betrayals, the individual is individualized, morally dissociated from the rest of members of society, in order to learn to recognize and hide her/his demands. S/he discovers that the morality of love becomes coherent only in the radical individualism: Where the good and evil begin and end in the appetite of the same judgemental consciousness.

To discover the underlying consistency to the contradictory ethic of love is to replace the contradictory principles by subjective desire, by full "subjectivity" and "relativism", to find that, once such substitution is done, the contradictory principles have finally achieved overall consistency. Their withdrawl as guiding principles of the collective life makes them bloom with meaning, because it provides their highest and most secretive principle: The moral of love is not the moral of coexistence, but the clash against each other in pursuit of the satisfaction of sex-sentimental appetite.

Behind the rule of "all against all", advantages generating conditions that determine the dynamics of exploitation must necessarily be hidden. The "all against all" can only be a marked cards game where victory always falls on the same side. The other side of poetic ethic of love is patriarchal and capitalist exploitation. Love is presented by the system as the area where we escape the system, where the guiding principles of the system are abandoned in favour of a moral utopia. Not only is it worth to refuge when the system gives us a truce, but also what is worth believing as an alternative on which to build opposition to it. However, building the system of love is to advance the unveiling of the exploitative system which is intended to be abandoned. The other side of the system is the system itself, turning its back on us.

By the contradictory principles that condemn us to colloquial relativism, the system gradually disables us for every social harmony. As we hide personal adaptations of the morality of love behind the curtain of subjectivity; as we accumulate elections in favour of self-interest at the expense of the principles that seemed to protect the common interest, and we do it legitimized by loving relativism; as love discovers us that its quest is the pursuit of self interest, and that love is love for the subject's own object of desire; as this happens, we disclaim our commitment to the common good, to our collective consciousness, to our condition as social beings. In the seclusion of our dedication from the common good to individual desire, this desire begins to acquire relief. The true science of love becomes discovering the characteristics of what is desired. To know about love is, ultimately, to know what you want and, once "discovered", embark on achieving it with all the means amorality makes available. If we take a look around us we will frequently discover that people who love the most (along with those who love the least), are those who exhibit a most perfectly set selfishness.

Its curious what we want is to be discovered. It seems that if you want something so hard to make it worth it to put all the effort, even at the cost of final disposal of morality, that if a wish is so disturbing and haunting, at least in most occasions should present a clear object. However, the powerful appetite brought to light by the amorality of love desires hard, or at least disturbing, but not clearly. The powerful appetite does not react to its proclamation with the expression of a wish, but with the manifestation of distress. This anxiety is driven anything but spontaneously toward determining an object of desire that is expected to be fulfilling.

Given the need to form a desire in order to pronounce in a clear and decisive way, appetite becomes even more permeable to external influence. As an absolute king of the powers of the individual, to whose service are them all once the moral has been extinguished, appetite becomes desperate apprentice in what is the most reputable school it finds at its disposal. The king seeks a teacher, counselor, someone to delegate his power and his decisions to until he is mature enough to make them for himself, from the assimilation of knowledge that the teacher will imbue in him. Thus, the individual immoralized by love, in the exacerbation of her/his condition of loving individual, turns his entire gaze to system’s propaganda and bare handed, unprotected and desperate, her/his ability to desire. The system, whose apparent self-describing message is "I must get to convince you to want what I offer you" gets, thanks to the culmination of immoralization inoculated by the morality of love, a message not only much more powerful than that which the system issues to the individual, but capable of reacting with this mentioned message to multiply its effect as a nuclear enzyme. The individual seeks the authoritative and prestigious voice of the sysem’s propaganda and asks it: "Tell me what should I want!".