Is Love an Art?
IS LOVE AN ART? Then it requires knowledge and effort. Or is love a pleasant sensation, which to experience is a matter of chance, something one “falls into” if one is lucky?
Exacerbated by social media and apparent limitless “sea of fish”. “There is always someone better! Never settle! Dump them at the first sign of any red flag” etc.
Confusion between the initial experience of “falling” in love, and the permanent state of being in love, or as we might better say, of “standing” in love.
Our whole culture is based on the appetite for buying, on the idea of a mutually favorable exchange.
The degree to which the language (does RU have as many words for love as they do for truth in Evaluation of Russia by finnish intelligence colonel?) and culture (also in How the World Thinks - global philosophy) affect and wire our ways of thinking can not be underestimated. It takes a lot of effort to get out of this seemingly natural viewpoint of keeping score, always keeping everything equal, uniform.
This was also discussed in the book, but we really need a richer lexicon beyond the mere word “love” to encapsulate the myriad manifestations of love. It’s an umbrella term, an all-encompassing term laden with intricate subtleties with a lot of nuance and using only one makes it impossible to ever really define what someone is talking about. In this case mutually favorable exchange, a trade, a transaction undeniably resides at the very fringes of what could be called love.
Could it be that only those things are considered worthy of being learned with which one can earn money or prestige, and that love, which “only” profits the soul, but is profitless in the modern sense, is a luxury we have no right to spend much energy on?
Worse then, that the modern reaction to troubles of the mind (including those from love) is to channel the trouble into “something productive” instead of focusing inwards.
I am out for a bargain; the object should be desirable from the standpoint of its social value, and at the same time should want me, considering my overt and hidden assets and potentialities. Two persons thus fall in love when they feel they have found the best object available on the market, considering the limitations of their own exchange values. As a matter of fact, what most people in our culture mean by being lovable is essentially a mixture between being popular and having sex appeal.
I despise it when people call it the “dating marketplace”, term widely used in internet culture, dating TikTok/Reels and the likes of Everything Dating Podcast etc. Instead of trying to define what love means to people, it seems everyone is trying to construct the definitive list of green and red flags, then adjust themselves according to the list to make themselves attractive. Can you use simplification on love to such a degree that you optimize the variable that is your own being out of the equation?
A second premise behind the attitude that there is nothing to be learned about love is the assumption that the problem of love is the problem of an object, not the problem of a faculty. People think that to love is simple, but that to find the right object to love-or to be loved by-is difficult. This attitude can be compared to that of a man who wants to paint but who, instead of learning the art, claims that he has just to wait for the right object, and that he will paint beautifully when he finds it.
One day my prince shall arrive and all will be well!~
This attitude-that nothing is easier than to love-has continued to be the prevalent idea about love in spite of the overwhelming evidence to the contrary. There is hardly any activity, any enterprise, which is started with such tremendous hopes and expectations, and yet, which fails so regularly, as love.
Most people see the problem of love primarily as that of being loved, rather than that of loving, of one’s capacity to love. Hence the problem to them is how to be loved, not how to be lovable.
Love, the Answer to the Problem of Human Existence
But the more the human race emerges from these primary bonds, the more it separates itself from the natural world, the more intense becomes the need to find new ways of escaping separateness. Man is gifted with reason; he is life being aware of itself he has awareness of himself, of his fellow man, of his past, and of the possibilities of his future. This awareness of himself as a separate entity, the awareness of his own short life span, of the fact that without his will he is born and against his will he dies, that he will die before those whom he loves, or they before him, the awareness of his aloneness and separateness, of his helplessness before the forces of nature and of society, all this makes his separate, disunited existence an unbearable prison. He would become insane could he not liberate himself from this prison and reach out, unite himself in some form or other with men, with the world outside. The experience of separateness arouses anxiety; it is, indeed, the source of all anxiety. Being separate means being cut off, without any capacity to use my human powers. Hence to be separate means to be helpless, unable to grasp the world-things and people-actively; it means that the world can invade me without my ability to react. Thus, separateness is the source of intense anxiety. Beyond that, it arouses shame and the feeling of guilt. The awareness of human separation, without reunion by love-is the source of shame. It is at the same time the source of guilt and anxiety.
In simple terms, man has self-awareness which by definition means that it perceives itself as separate from others, which creates the motivation to return to a sort of unity. I feel this is core foundation to a lot of religions that have taken this idea and reworded it in different ways.
Ehk inimese eneseteadlikkusest tulenev teadmine tekitab igas inimeses põhiprobleemi, et ta on eraldiseisev isik ja eraldiseisvana on ta by definition üksi iseendaga. Põhiprobleem siis on leida leevendus või lahendus sellele üksikusele. Ja raamatu järgi see ongi meie kõigi peamine main quest. Tema lahendus on leida endas armastus enda, elu, teiste inimeste ja lähedaste vastu. Leida soov anda endast leitu ja väljendada seda. Aga ei saa anda ja väljendada, kui pole kedagi või midagi, mis võtaks vastu! Niisiis main quest on leida soov ennast anda ja siis leida kellele ja millele anda, kes selle vastu võtaksid. Ja ma tunnen, et see on see, millesse olen uskunud, aga pole osanud sõnadesse sellisel kujul panna.
Sexual attraction between the sexes is only partly motivated by the need for removal of tension; it is mainly the need for union with the other sexual pole. But in many individuals in whom separateness is not relieved in other ways, the search for the sexual orgasm assumes a function which makes it not very different from alcoholism and drug addiction. It becomes a desperate attempt to escape the anxiety engendered by separateness, and it results in an ever-increasing sense of separateness, since the sexual act without love never bridges the gap between two human beings, except momentarily. Sexual desire, in this concept, is an itch, sexual satisfaction the removal of the itch. In fact, as far as this concept of sexuality is concerned, masturbation would be the ideal sexual satisfaction.
Physical vs emotional attraction and expression. Also I would question if this should be limited to sexual poles, but that’s another matter (wording matters though, why not use more general terms?). Sex is never just physical. There is no worse pain than that of the one after a one night stand. The feeling of apparent fusion and then the quietly violent, uncaring fission is devastating.
In the act of loving, of giving myself, in the act of penetrating the other person, I find myself, I discover myself, I discover us both, I discover man.
The marketing character is willing to give, but only in exchange for receiving; giving without receiving for him is being cheated. People whose main orientation is a non-productive one feel giving as an impoverishment. Most individuals of this type therefore refuse to give. Some make a virtue out of giving in the sense of a sacrifice. They feel that just because it is painful to give, one should give; the virtue of giving to them lies in the very act of acceptance of the sacrifice.
It is staggering to see most people just don’t see how much the 1+1=3 actually holds true.
He differentiates among the affects between active and passive affects, “actions” and “passions.” In the exercise of an active affect, man is free, he is the master of his affect; in the exercise of a passive affect, man is driven, the object of motivations of which he himself is not aware. Thus Spinoza arrives at the statement that virtue and power are one and the same. Envy, jealousy, ambition, any kind of greed are passions; love is an action, the practice of a human power, which can be practiced only in freedom and never as the result of a compulsion.
True love is an action, if love is a passive accident then it is illusory reprieve to compensate for our traumas, not love.
In the act of giving something is born, and both persons involved are grateful for the life that is born for both of them.
One gives, yet both receive. Homeostasis is already achieved by the act of giving and receiving. There is no score to keep, the score is maintained by definition of true giving.
To respect a person is not possible without knowing him; care and responsibility would be blind if they were not guided by knowledge. Knowledge would be empty if it were not motivated by concern. I have to know the other person and myself objectively, in order to be able to see his reality, or rather, to overcome the illusions, the irrationally distorted picture I have of him. Only if I know a human being objectively, can I know him in his ultimate essence, in the act of love.
If there is no knowledge, our love turns to Limerence.
In any kind of creative work the creating person unites himself with his material, which represents the world outside of himself.
Fusion with the world itself! It requires the wish to give to achieve this fusion, which is why I don’t see arts as a viable career choice in the current times. If I am creating art to profit, to serve someone else needs, to provide a trade, then it does not come from the desire to unite with the world.
Love is the active concern for the life and the growth of that which we love. Where this active concern is lacking, there is no love.
You can’t care a little. Love can’t be a bonus, addition that can be discarded at a first sign of inconvenience. It must be an integral part of who you are, deeply woven into your very core.
Beyond the element of giving, the active character of love becomes evident in the fact that it always implies certain basic elements, common to all forms of love. These are care, responsibility, respect and knowledge.
In contrast to symbiotic union, mature love is union under the condition of preserving one’s integrity, one’s individuality. Love is an active power in man; a power which breaks through the walls which separate man from his fellow men, which unites him with others; love makes him overcome the sense of isolation and separateness, yet it permits him to be himself, to retain his integrity. In love the paradox occurs that two beings become one and yet remain two.
The polarity of the sexes is disappearing, and with it erotic love, which is based on this polarity. Men and women become the same, not equals as opposite poles. Contemporary society preaches this ideal of unindividualized equality because it needs human atoms, each one the same, to make them function in a mass aggregation, smoothly, without friction; all obeying the same commands, yet everybody being convinced that he is following his own desires.
Similar to Has the sexual revolution backfired.
All forms of orgiastic union have three characteristics: they are intense, even violent; they occur in the total personality, mind and body; they are transitory and periodical. As long as these orgiastic states are a matter of common practice in a tribe, they do not produce anxiety or guilt. Alcoholism and drug addiction are the forms which the individual chooses in a non-orgiastic culture. In contrast to those participating in the socially patterned solution, such individuals suffer from guilt feelings and remorse.
The problem of what others think and how alcohol and drugs help to unify the masks into a consistent self.
What does one person give to another? He gives of himself, of the most precious he has, he gives of his life. This does not necessarily mean that he sacrifices his life for the other- but that he gives him of that which is alive in him; he gives him of his joy, of his interest, of his understanding, of his knowledge, of his humor, of his sadness-of all expressions and manifestations of that which is alive in him.
Today responsibility is often meant to denote duty, something imposed upon one from the outside. But responsibility, in its true sense, is an entirely voluntary act; it is my response to the needs, expressed or unexpressed, of another human being. To be “responsible” means to be able and ready to “respond.”
Responsibility could easily deteriorate into domination and possessiveness, were it not for a third component of love, respect. Respect is not fear and awe; it denotes, in accordance with the root of the word (respicere = to look at), the ability to see a person as he is, to be aware of his unique individuality. Respect means the concern that the other person should grow and unfold as he is. Respect, thus, implies the absence of exploitation. I want the loved person to grow and unfold for his own sake, and in his own ways, and not for the purpose of serving me.
Giving is the highest expression of potency. In the very act of giving, I experience my strength, my wealth, my power. This experience of heightened vitality and potency fills me with joy. I experience myself as overflowing, spending, alive, hence as joyous. Giving is more joyous than receiving, not because it is a deprivation, but because in the act of giving lies the expression of my aliveness.
In the infant I-ness has developed but little yet; he still feels one with mother, has no feeling of separateness as long as mother is present. Its sense of aloneness is cured by the physical presence of the mother, her breasts, her skin. Only to the degree that the child develops his sense of separateness and individuality is the physical presence of the mother not sufficient any more, and does the need to overcome separateness in other ways arise.
Homosexual deviation is a failure to attain this polarized union, and thus the homosexual suffers from the pain of never resolved separateness; a failure, however, which he shares with the average heterosexual who cannot love.
Interesting thought, also explains a lot of religious thoughts on homosexuality.
The problem of knowing man is parallel to the religious problem of knowing God.
While life in its merely biological aspects is a miracle and a secret, man in his human aspects is an unfathomable secret to himself-and to his fellow man. We know ourselves, and yet even with all the efforts we may make, we do not know ourselves. We know our fellow man, and yet we do not know him, because we are not a thing, and our fellow man is not a thing. The further we reach into the depth of our being, or someone else’s being, the more the goal of knowledge eludes us. Yet we cannot help desiring to penetrate into the secret of man’s soul, into the innermost nucleus which is “he.”
Also discussed in A Diary Is As Much For Others As It Is For You: In Everything Is Television by Solar Sands it is proposed that there are four levels of understanding:
- You understand that the person across from you has the capacity to think in the same way as you. You feel and think so you know they must feel and think. Both given the same information may come to the same conclusions.
- You understand that who you are trying to understand has different life experiences, so given the same information you will come to different conclusions because of that difference in experience.
- You understand that someone with (roughly) the same life experiences may still not think the same way as you. Their moral foundations, the way their brain is wired, personality may lean in completely different directions. You realize that there is no actual “universally shared experience”.
- You understand that even after accounting for personality, morals, memories, genetics and an endless myriad of other conscious and physical variables, there still are an uncountable unconscious and subconscious variables that make it essentially hopeless to really understand and see anyone.
The passive form of the symbiotic union is that of submission, or if we use a clinical term, of masochism. The masochistic person escapes from the unbearable feeling of isolation and separateness by making himself part and parcel of another person who directs him, guides him, protects him; who is his life and his oxygen, as it were.
The active form of symbiotic fusion is domination or, to use the psychological term corresponding to masochism, sadism. The sadistic person wants to escape from his aloneness and his sense of imprisonment by making another person part and parcel of himself.
Union by conformity is not intense and violent; it is calm, dictated by routine, and for this very reason often is insufficient to pacify the anxiety of separateness. The incidence of alcoholism, drug addiction, compulsive sexualism, and suicide in contemporary Western society are symptoms of this relative failure of herd conformity. Furthermore, this solution concerns mainly the mind and not the body, and for this reason too is lacking in comparison with the orgiastic solutions. Herd conformity has only one advantage: it is permanent, and not spasmodic.
The unity achieved in productive work is not interpersonal; the unity achieved in orgiastic fusion is transitory; the unity achieved by conformity is only pseudo-unity. Hence, they are only partial answers to the problem of existence. The full answer lies in the achievement of interpersonal union, of fusion with another person, in love.
Brotherly Love
Love is not primarily a relationship to a specific person; it is an attitude, an orientation of character which determines the relatedness of a person to the world as a whole, not toward one “object” of love. If a person loves only one other person and is indifferent to the rest of his fellow men, his love is not love but a symbiotic attachment, or an enlarged egotism. Yet, most people believe that love is constituted by the object, not by the faculty.
The Power Of Now - enlightenment
The most fundamental kind of love, which underlies all types of love, is brotherly love. By this I mean the sense of responsibility, care, respect, knowledge of any other human being, the wish to further his life.
Parent/Motherly Love
Unconditional love corresponds to one of the deepest longings, not only of the child, but of every human being; on the other hand, to be loved because of one’s merit, because one deserves it, always leaves doubt; maybe I did not please the person whom I want to love me, maybe this, or that-there is always a fear that love could disappear.
At this point of the child’s development a new factor enters into the picture: that of a new feeling of producing love by one’s own activity. For the first time, the child thinks of giving something to mother (or to father), of producing something-a poem, a drawing, or whatever it may be. For the first time in the child’s life the idea of love is transformed from being loved into loving; into creating love.
Infantile love follows the principle: “I love because I am loved.” Mature love follows the principle: “I am loved because I love.” Immature love says: “I love you because I need you.” Mature love says: “I need you because I love you.”
Motherly love, as I said there, is unconditional affirmation of the child’s life and his needs. But one important addition to this description must be made here. Affirmation of the child’s life has two aspects; one is the care and responsibility absolutely necessary for the preservation of the child’s life and his growth. The other aspect goes further than mere preservation. It is the attitude which instills in the child a love for living, which gives him the feeling: it is good to be alive, it is good to be a little boy or girl, it is good to be on this earth!
Erotic Love
If the desire for physical union is not stimulated by love, if erotic love is not also brotherly love, it never leads to union in more than an orgiastic, transitory sense. Sexual attraction creates, for the moment, the illusion of union, yet without love this “union” leaves strangers as far apart as they were before-sometimes it makes them ashamed of each other, or even makes them hate each other, because when the illusion has gone they feel their estrangement even more markedly than before.
Erotic love, if it is love, has one premise. That I love from the essence of my being-and experience the other person in the essence of his or her being. In essence, all human beings are identical. We are all part of One; we are One. This being so, it should not make any difference whom we love. Love should be essentially an act of will, of decision to commit my life completely to that of one other person. This is, indeed, the rationale behind the idea of the insolubility of marriage, as it is behind the many forms of traditional marriage in which the two partners never choose each other, but are chosen for each other-and yet are expected to love each other. In contemporary Western culture this idea appears altogether false. Love is supposed to be the outcome of a spontaneous, emotional reaction, of suddenly being gripped by an irresistible feeling.
In contrast to both types of love is erotic love; it is the craving for complete fusion, for union with one other person. It is by its very nature exclusive and not universal; it is also perhaps the most deceptive form of love there is.
Taking these views into account one may arrive at the position that love is exclusively an act of will and commitment, and that therefore fundamentally it does not matter who the two persons are. Whether the marriage was arranged by others, or the result of individual choice, once the marriage is concluded, the act of will should guarantee the continuation of love. This view seems to neglect the paradoxical character of human nature and of erotic love. We are all One yet every one of us is a unique, unduplicable entity. In our relationships to others the same paradox is repeated. Inasmuch as we are all one, we can love everybody in the same way in the sense of brotherly love. But inasmuch as we are all also different, erotic love requires certain specific, highly individual elements which exist between some people but not between all. Both views then, that of erotic love as completely individual attraction, unique between two specific persons, as well as the other view that erotic love is nothing but an act of will, are true or, as it may be put more aptly, the truth is neither this nor that.
Romantic love, as love in general, is paradoxical and non-dualistic. But there is an important part in finding people that accept your love. We posess the expression, the wish to give and we find those that accept what we give and express. They become our friends and romantic partners, in the truest sense. This is why I reject the idea that the people in our life are there primarily to fulfill some niche for us, they are there so that we can both give and take as equals.
Self-Love
Love, in principle, is indivisible as far as the connection between “objects” and one’s own self is concerned.
Selfishness and self-love, far from being identical, are actually opposites. The selfish person does not love himself too much but too little; in fact he hates himself.
From this it follows that my own self must be as much an object of my love as another person. The affirmation of one’s own life, happiness, growth, freedom is rooted in one’s capacity to love, i.e., in care, respect, responsibility, and knowledge. If an individual is able to love productively, he loves himself too; if he can love only others, he cannot love at all.
The love for my own self is inseparably connected with the love for any other being.
To love somebody is not just a strong feeling-it is a decision, it is a judgment, it is a promise.
Love of God
The patriarchal aspect makes me love God like a father; I assume he is just and strict, that he punishes and rewards; and eventually that he will elect me as his favorite son.
In the matriarchal aspect of religion, I love God as an all-embracing mother.
In all theistic religions, whether they are polytheistic or monotheistic, God stands for the highest value, the most desirable good. Hence, the specific meaning of God depends on what is the most desirable good for a person. The understanding of the concept of God must, therefore, start with an analysis of the character structure of the person who worships God.
In the beginning of human history man, though thrown out of the original unity with nature, still clings to these primary bonds. He finds his security by going back; or holding on to these primary bonds. He still feels identified with the world of animals and trees, and tries to find unity by remaining one with the natural world.
An animal is transformed into a totem; one wears animal masks in the most solemn religious acts, or in war; one worships an animal as God.
At a later stage of development, when human skill has developed to the point of artisan and artistic skill, when man is not dependent any more exclusively on the gifts of nature-the fruit he finds and the animal he kills-man transforms the product of his own hand into a god.
Man projects his own powers and skills into the things he makes, and thus in an alienated fashion worships his prowess, his possessions.
At a still later stage man gives his gods the form of human beings. It seems that this can happen only when he has become still more aware of himself, and when he has discovered man as the highest and most dignified “thing” in the world.
There can be little doubt that there was a matriarchal phase of religion preceding the patriarchal one, at least in many cultures. In the matriarchal phase, the highest being is the mother. She is the goddess, she is also the authority in family and society. In order to understand the essence of matriarchal religion, we have only to remember what has been said about the essence of motherly love. Mother’s love is unconditional, it is all-protective, all-enveloping; because it is unconditional it can also not be controlled or acquired. Its presence gives the loved person a sense of bliss; its absence produces a sense of lostness and utter despair. Since mother loves her children because they are her children, and not because they are “good,” obedient, or fulfill her wishes and commands, mother’s love is based on equality. All men are equal, because they all are children of a mother, because they all are children of Mother Earth.
The next stage of human evolution, the only one of which we have thorough knowledge and do not need to rely on inferences and reconstruction, is the patriarchal phase.
The nature of fatherly love is that he makes demands, establishes principles and laws, and that his love for the son depends on the obedience of the latter to these demands.
As a consequence, patriarchal society is hierarchical; the equality of the brothers gives way to competition and mutual strife.
The more I know what God is not, the more knowledge I have of God. The truly religious person, if he follows the essence of the monotheistic idea, does not pray for anything, does not expect anything from God; he does not love God as a child loves his father or his mother; he has acquired the humility of sensing his limitations, to the degree of knowing that he knows nothing about God.
Bishop Robert Barron - Christianity and the Catholic Church (Lex Fridman Podcast)
Concept of God is only a historically conditioned one, in which man has expressed his experience of his higher powers, his longing for truth and for unity at a given historical period. But I believe also that the consequences of strict monotheism and a non-theistic ultimate concern with the spiritual reality are two views which, though different, need not fight each other.
Love and Its Disintegration in Contemporary Western Society
Human relations are essentially those of alienated automatons, each basing his security on staying close to the herd, and not being different in thought, feeling or action. While everybody tries to be as close as possible to the rest, everybody remains utterly alone, pervaded by the deep sense of insecurity, anxiety and guilt which always results when human separateness cannot be overcome. Our civilization offers many palliatives which help people to be consciously unaware of this aloneness: first of all the strict routine of bureaucratized, mechanical work, which helps people to remain unaware of their most fundamental human desires, of the longing for transcendence and unity. Inasmuch as the routine alone does not succeed in this, man overcomes his unconscious despair by the routine of amusement, the passive consumption of sounds and sights offered by the amusement industry; furthermore by the satisfaction of buying ever new things, and soon exchanging them for others. Modern man is actually close to the picture Huxley describes in his Brave New World.
Thus, the marriage counselor tells us, the husband should “understand” his wife and be helpful. He should comment favorably on her new dress, and on a tasty dish. She, in turn, should understand when he comes home tired and disgruntled, she should listen attentively when he talks about his business troubles, should not be angry but understanding when he forgets her birthday. All this kind of relationship amounts to is the well-oiled relationship between two persons who remain strangers all their lives, who never arrive at a “central relationship,” but who treat each other with courtesy and who attempt to make each other feel better.
It’s not about him refraining from offering kind words about her new dress or her not lending an ear to his concerns. Rather, it’s about their ability to communicate candidly, even when the truth may not be convenient or entirely positive for the other person. Whenever one withholds their feelings out of fear of causing harm, they inadvertently construct a barrier between them. Genuine connection necessitates vulnerability and the willingness to embrace potential discomfort. True love, in essence, is a commitment/promise to give, even at times when it might be less than convenient (“Do you only expect to take from others, the world, god?” from Iraani Konverents).
The situation as far as love is concerned corresponds, as it has to by necessity, to this social character of modern man. Automatons cannot love; they can exchange their “personality packages” and hope for a fair bargain.
The Practice of Love
To have faith requires courage, the ability to take a risk, the readiness even to accept pain and disappointment.
“But I will hurt you so…”
“And you will, count on it, that we can be certain of, and that’s okay. I will hurt you too, even though I would not wish to.”
A third factor is patience. Again, anyone who ever tried to master an art knows that patience is necessary if you want to achieve anything. If one is after quick results, one never learns an art. Yet, for modern man, patience is as difficult to practice as discipline and concentration. Our whole industrial system fosters exactly the opposite: quickness. All our machines are designed for quickness: the car and airplane bring us quickly to our destination-and the quicker the better.
Breath, take a moment, meditate. Life will not disappear or stop. After all, you presumably don’t feel overwhelmed by all the unread books in the British Library – and not because there aren’t an overwhelming number of them, but because it never occurred to you that it might be your job to get through them all.
To take the difficulties, setbacks and sorrows of life as a challenge which to overcome makes us stronger, rather than as unjust punishment which should not happen to us, requires faith and courage.
“Having faith” in another person means to be certain of the reliability and unchangeability of his fundamental attitudes, of the core of his personality, of his love.
While irrational faith is the acceptance of something as true only because an authority or the majority say so, rational faith is rooted in an independent conviction based upon one’s own productive observing and thinking, in spite of the majority’s opinion.
The practice of any art has certain general requirements, quite regardless of whether we deal with the art of carpentry, medicine, or the art of love. First of all, the practice of an art requires discipline. I shall never be good at anything if I do not do it in a disciplined way; anything I do only if “I am in the mood” may be a nice or amusing hobby, but I shall never become a master in that art. But the problem is not only that of discipline in the practice of the particular art (say practicing every day a certain amount of hours) but it is that of discipline in one’s whole life. Eventually, a condition of learning any art is a supreme concern with the mastery of the art.
Worth mentioning that I think both me and the author don’t see the goal of loving and being lovable as something to become the best at. It is that love can not be felt with half-measures, it can’t be a fun little extra to spice the life up, it requires effort, true giving, and giving when it is not convenient, it means giving both beauty and ugliness.