Love’s love

Love presents itself to the individual as a promise of happiness and fulfillment.

To do this, it matches two perfections which are the two ideological lines of its disjointed statements. The first line is that love is the fulfillment of all desires. The second is that love is good. As these two lines are clearly contradictory and so is evident in every loving contradiction, friction generates a third line of patch statements: adaptations to each of the wounds arising in the confrontation of these two principles (both false, but not well-matched). The realization of all desires, the apotheosis of narcissism, cannot get very far hand in hand with good, which automatically includes not the other’s desires, but all the others’.

When deploying its propaganda, mastering these three ideological lines adopts the already existing mechanism of deification in the form of a personal god, which I come to analyze.

The meaning of "love" is uncertain. Beyond a simple polysemy, "love" has developed the same semantic wildcard condition that the term "god". Love is so many things that it doesn’t fit, that is not allowed, actually, to speak of any other thing than personal ways of understanding love, just as the old personal relationship with God has now become personal ways of conceiving God; on the alleged existence of as many Gods as people. A curious and contradictory monotheism.

The reason for this behavior is also common to both concepts. Both "love" as "God" perform a semantic getaway, a continuous and crazy meaningful change as a defensive mechanism against a reason that corners them. Where reason localizes weakness in the argument about the existence or goodness of God, its defenders sneaks God leaving a semantic gap in the form of denial. As it cannot be denied the obviousness of the absence or the perversity of that kind of God, it will be said that indeed, that God does not exist or it is not the God s/he worships, but that God, real God, is something different.

"Love" is also intended to play this hideout, but although it finds us much more experts in its dialectical escape his identity becomes cumbersome, and our shrewdness gets exhausted. Soon we are tired to pursue a love that always escapes because he has discovered the trick of not building loyalties to a specific definition. Normaly we have built our reviews, our skepticism, our incontrovertible arguments. But love will not hesitate in leading us to any of its multiple alternative spaces; spaces, familiar to others, where we have less experience and argumentative resources. We will meet soon with ideas that we do not know how to conclusively refute. On us will fall, however, the obligation to exhaust all these spaces. We will be asked to be infallible in the criticism of love. If any argument, any kind of love, is not perfectly disjointed, it will become the stump that love will sprout from like a bulimic vine, ready to take the world again, knowing that, in the first confrontation, it will have to regurgitate much of it.

In a fair fight, this behavior would mean immediate delegitimization of love. But judges are at the side of its subsistence. For them a structural value of our sociocultural system is at stake, and its endless resurrection, consequence of a simple desire to affirm faith in him, will be slyly taken as proof enough for the absence of a truly serious critical.

Let’s return to the logic defenses of the nonspecific, creator usual god.

The defender of the existence of God will tell us that its absence cannot be proved. We know that the proof of the nonexistence of God is its infinite default. In purely probabilistic terms, it is possible, one in infinity, that even there, we have not yet had the luck to meet with it or with an undeniable mark of its presence. At that infinitely small possibility that there is something we have never encountered must be added the possibility that, once it appears, it can justify its absence preserving its attributed nature. Clearly, the logical thing is that if God exists and we do not see it, it will have to do with more understandable reasons than its desire to respect our freedom to believe. Its inability to control our will even using all its power, for example. Or simply its remoteness. Maybe God does not have the power of ubiquity and, ready to go to our call, it has not yet had time to get Earth from the ends of the universe.

We know that such a extremely tiny possibility that God is, and that its being is that of God, cannot be equated with the opposite option, which is extremely major possibility that God is not or its being is not that of God. There is a possibility, always decreasing until it becomes untraceable, that God exists. We know that this possibility is negligible in logical terms, and above all, ethical ones. The logical statement would be that It is stupid to keep giving importance to an almost nonexistent possibility. It is irresponsible, it’s illegitimate, it's bad, would be the ethical one.

But there is something to transform in this reasoning to use it on the deified concept of love. It is true that it is easier to find a relationship that conforms to some extent what love itself states that to proof the existence of God. But if we are rigorous with the analysis of the functioning, if we contextualize it in the patriarchal class system in which it unfolds, the correspondence between the discourse of love and joyful reality that should follow it becomes almost nonexistent. However, what opulence in the opposite case! What generosity in breakdowns! What profusion of examples of all types of faults, mostly so logical, so predictable, so useful to infer the reasons that produce them, inherent in the nature of love!

The database that love provides compels us to conclude its dysfunctionality. The only thing that separates us from the definitive statement of this dysfunctionality is taking the step of contemplating it as a possible thesis. An elementary ethical reflection reminds us that there is no limbo of action, where action stops and responsibility is suspended. Inaction is action too and to let the most unlikely thesis that love is a good idea to endure as a guide to action is an act of culpable irresponsibility. From the evidence that a malfunction of love is infinitely more likely that a good performance, must be followed, or the rejection of love, or the assumption of responsibility for damage caused by it.

Love is therefore another unlikely God who should deserve our contempt only.
And if you do not believe in God, what do you believe in?

We find this reasoning already primitive when faced with atheism, and it seems an obvious recognition of the lack of faith. To believe in God just for the sake of believing is siding with the lie out of lazyness, so that is a basic moral problem again. Truth is believed because it is true, because there must be an indissoluble relationship between truth and belief (if the term “believe” is not used precisely the sense of "faith"; "believing the unbelievable") and because to act from a mistaken belief, no matter how bitter it may be, provides control of the situation that the false belief doesn’t allow. False belief is dependence on chance (and, indeed, in the one who generated the belief), and only reports the advantage of forgetting the problem until reality decides to break into our temporary comfort.

It should be recognized that love’s fortifications are more intact than those of the creator god, and that the argument "love is better than nothing" is still moving. But, anyway, it is a contradiction that should exhaust itself. "Better a lie the the truth" is easily reducible to "it’s better what’s worse than what’s better". Obviously there is an attraction on what is settled, and what is new discourages with its starting absence. Mistaking what exists with good and what is nonexistent with evil is, logically, surrender to status quo; to that movement, that action, so laden with responsibility, as said above, like any other, which is inaction.

As is evident again, most of the arguments in defense of love dissolve in a very simple logic. If they usually fail to do so it’s not because love has an ideological complexity difficult to conquer, but because thought is censored in the field of love. Try to publicly think about love. It is the best way to generate rejection and violence. It will not be difficult to get the message that "love should not be talked about".

We will be said, then, that agamy is choosing a good void at the expense of an evil plenitude. Through the dialectic of fullness and emptiness (not that agamy leaves us without hope, but leaves us without reality!) love tries to frighten again: "Beware rejecting me because apart from me there is nothing ". However, agamy, in its broadest definition, is only the rejection of gamos, of marriage. Love brings together in a single mammothian piece, countless aspects of social, private and intimate life that agamy released for conscious use. Nothing is lost along the way, except a certain configuration of these elements which has amply shown to be harmful and to generate highly toxic by-products. Logically, the paths of agamy are still only slightly defined. But the image of dead point in which we find ourselves rejecting love is just a ghost with which it defends. Agamy itself is not an emotional, sexual or familiar void but a not loving, not preset, different organization, of these elements.

Love seeks to suck in its space the whole existence. Everything is love and nothing is out of love, so if you refuse love you are empty.

Vulgar preacher’s speech preacher.