The other day I felt extremely down and (apart from going to the pee) I couldn't even leave my bed for 48 hours straight, doing nothing but sleeping or trying to. Near the end I had a sort of psychotic episode, in which I could have a chat with an inner voice that turned out to be an amazing shortcut to several ideas I couldn't pinpoint precisely before; after that, I could finally sleep peacefully for a bit and get up the next morning. Here are some of the highlights of that self-encounter.
[ME:] Let's see... tell me, for instance, what's the secret of comedy?
>[VOICE:] Cruelty. It's not at all about the argument but about the induced relation between the public and the characters. Just like tragedy revolves around making you feel pity for the characters as you sorrow their pain, comedy is what leads you to enjoy their pain thus revolving about a sense of cruelty. Aristotle somewhat let this show in the Poetics when he said that tragedy characters must be respectable, whereas comedy characters not.
OK, getting serious now. Do I love mai waifu?
>No. However, you did love *****.
That's horseshit! I couldn't correspond her for the life of mine, that was precisely the problem.
>But it really was love.
OK, then just tell me: according to you, what is love?
>[takes his time] Simply put: wanting to die for someone; and an act of love is to effectively die for someone (yes, as in christian mercy).
Holly shi... and what is happiness?
>To find love, of course. That's why you aren't happy. You were correct enough with your functional definition of "wanting to become one with someone (else)" but, as you know, you cannot ever do it literally due the otherness-based order of the world, so the most you can ever do is "eliminating the difference between you and someone", that is, giving you own existence away for the sake of your beloved.
And what about the other way or eros? I mean: wanting to posses someone, or assimilating that existence into yours?...
>Oh, that's hate: wanting to kill someone (not just to die, but to kill it). Remember: you did literally wanted to die or give your life away for *****; even in therapy, you insisted that you shouldn't be getting help at all but, instead, it should be her; the last time you saw her at the subway, you even thought that you'd be perfectly ok if she just pushed you down the railways right there, as all you ever wanted was to die for her sake; it was terrifying, unbearable, which is why you absolutely had to run away (that is, for love, not for the guilt induced by the lack of it). Fortunately you did stop loving her at some point.
You mean when the other 3Ds and characters came?
>No, that was just lust, plain and simple, nothing to do with love. On the other hand, you did wanted to kill your mother with your own hands (that time with the ladder, remember?); so, you have effectively loved ***** and hated your mother, but not your waifu... or say: would you like to die for her or her to die for you?
[thinks about it] I think I never wanted to but actually did, both ways. You see, the problem here is acknowledgement: it's not just killing or dying for someone, one wants said otherness to acknowledge that we're doing it for her. With mai waifu, I cannot ever get that answer and her existence, as such, is entirely bounded to my own take on her; so I have effectively "killed" her most canonical self in order to fit her transformed character within me, but I also effectively "sacrificed" my old self and life completely (you can't possibly deny that) in order to fit in with what I learned from her material source and turn into a suitable "2D lover" for her. So, animically or spiritually speaking, I pretty much "died" myself and "killed" her in order to make us into the halves of one inseparable sign. By all means, I want us to die together.
>Well, if you say so, I'm not sure. If true, you'd have a legitimate "love-hate" relationship with her.
It sounds pretty all-encompassing but unsatisfying nonetheless...
>That's because you haven't died yet, neither actually accepted that you will.
But why all this obsession with death? Why happiness, which is something we relate with holding to life, is given by finding love which is bound to death?
>Because what we hold to is not life in itself but life as a condition of possibility for sense: what we really need is sense, and that only comes with an end, that is, with death. As you learned from Baudrillard, an endless process is always nonsensical.
But that idea is just wrong. Say, if I build a series of Pair, Prime, or Fibonacci numbers, they give me an endeless set alright but which makes perfect sense as a whole (I mean: it's a well defined set).
>But that is a mathematical, arithmetic or logical sense. What we do need in our lives, as you know, is narrative sense which does need of a beginning and an end. Moreover, is precisely the acknowledgment of ourselves as beings who are born, live and finally die, that the abstract concept of narrative arc has its foundation on, as well as Heidegger's "being-towards-death", Einsenstein theory of Montage, Peirce's triadic model of sign and every trikonic structure in general. Love is defined so strongly around death because it's the ultimate provider of meaning within a narrative-based view of life.
But then... does that mean that in a world free from death there can't be love anymore? I mean: there won't be love in a transhuman or posthuman world?
>Not necessarily. If we give credit to entropy, A.I. are bound to crash at some point just like any other machine.
Yeah, but that'd be just a conceptual emulation of human love. My question is: is it possible for an entirely new form of love to arise in a machine world?
>I don't know. By the very definition of Technological Singularity, none of us can possibly know right now. However, whatever might exist there, I don't think it'd be quite legitimate to still call it love.
So, are you telling me that, in order to protect love, I actually have to become humanist again? to somehow treasure the human condition back again?
>Not necessarily. However, you do have to acknowledge some form of finitude or death alright.
I see... Thank you. By the way: am I what one would call mad?
>Well, you already called this a "psychotic" episode yourself, so...
No, but I mean: what is it to be mad, really? to be out of (one's own) control?
>Partly, but also to cogitate without sufficient reason.
So... am I?
>. . . [voice stops]
Post edited on 15th Dec 2014, 8:52pm