The mission of this project is to expand our research on the 'philosophy of love' to the mainstream--YOU. The success of this collaborative project crucially depends on hearing from you. So whether a response to the questions, just a word or full-on rant, we'd love for you to join the conversation, thanks!

email us:

Sunday, October 25, 2009

"More than an accent," feat., George S

George speaks on the simultaneously advantageous but distracting quirks that come with being a British man in America on the dating scene.

'real talk' (video):

"Everyone denies it. People don't want to be thought of as people who would fall for someone immediate based on an accent... Nobody wants to be classified like that."

Yeah, it sounds bad. But if we're honest about what made us initially fall, say through deep introspection (or hypnosis), we indeed usually fall for someone for the most ridiculous reasons. -- Oh what a gentlemen, he opened the door. Damn, if he can dance like that he must be fucking awesome in bed. Her mom is so hot, I forecast an excellent future ahead. The way the sun was setting that day we met, her eyes looked amazing.

So for those of you, who became interested/intrigued with George in virtue of his accent; don't deny it. You may fool yourself, but it is what it is. But look. Accept it, because, really, it's not all that bad. Because it's not what (normally) constitutes you loving a person. And, presumably, that's what really matters. Whatever the point of entry of a loving relationship (for some of you it's even based on a base sexual point of entry), after you're engaged in interest with someone, try "to see what I'm going to be like in a couple of weeks," as George says. Let the accent be the accepted point of entry, let it become one of the things you love about a person. love a person in virtue of an accent?! Surely, that shit never really actually happens; I'm just being silly in considering it now, right?

Not so silly. Slow think this part with me. Many people love in a particular kind of way--they love a person qua some feature (or resources). As accents go, accents stop at just being accents. But a shit ton of cash is this world's gateway to provide the many things that people seem to find so fucking valuable. (Can I get an 'Amen' from all you self-rationalizing gold-diggers out there?). But the essential difference here is merely pragmatic. The kind of love, may be the same here.

Think about replaceability. When love of this kind is constituted, people can replace 'their beloved' in a step; just another British accent to find (or another hot girl, etc). But the more one needs are being met (say, by hella cash), the costs of breaking up become higher, and the prospects of finding a replacement are daunting. There is a single kind of love in play here, which varies only in the 'worth' attached to the features and resources provided, on a sliding scale from accents to bank accounts. It is a love intrinsically constituted with a price.

Beyoncé's hit is quintessentially representative of this. But it comes with a dark irony. We've all sang along with it---"You must not know 'bout me, you must not know 'bout me. I can have another 'you' in a minute, matter of fact he'll be here in a minute. Baby." What Beyoncé doesn't realize in making this statement is that we just found out a whole lot about her, not the person she dumped. She is unwittingly outing herself. We find out, precisely, the way in which she loved a person. Insofar as you love a person qua features or resources, you love them replaceably.

So dig it, that some of you out there love a person in virtue of 'accent-like' (pragmatically-amped) things, you are essentially offering and constituting a love no better than loving a person in virtue of an accent. Not so silly then. That kind of shit happens...all the time. My bad.

Still don't believe me? Well try telling Mary who loves 'rather ordinary' Tim. Try telling her that she can replace Tim so easily. She'll think you're crazy. You'll think she's crazy. But you two are talking passed each other. Because her love for Tim fixes on his bare identity; the "i love you because you're you," that so many of you find sooo dissatisfying. She loves Tim, pricelessly. And you cannot simply decide to love in this way.

George is a co-founder of Hacksaw entertainment, and is a constant front-runner at throwing events featuring new promising bands and DJ's. Check out his stuff! And see you there!

(See David Velleman and Harry Frankfurt's academic work on 'love' for more on the issues raised in this post).

Sunday, October 18, 2009

"I should have been a widow," feat., Jackie Ross

Jackie Ross speaks on the travails of her Divorce, the scorn for one, and the love for the two 'blessings' that make it all worthwhile.

real talk: (don't miss Jackie dancing it off at the end!)

"I have to make levity off the situation because it was painful." Making light of some dark realities in life. That's how some of us cope, in order to strive, to maintain. I get it. We laugh hard, from and to soothe the heart, even while we bleed. Better than, diving into that tub of ice cream, chunky monkey; that line cocaine, giving up to the streets.

But not merely to maintain. Jackie wrote that letter in that fight for custody, she tells me, on the kitchen table with fresh tears from her eyes. Straight pen to the paper, to Diane Feinstein. From a love to boot, wished a widow instead of a divorcee, she bore the two loves she speaks of near everyday I see her, evidence of her considered true blessings. On the other side, no calls for birthdays, no christmas time. - Thank the heavens the court system got it right...despite the gold and red Niners starter jacket over a hot pink jumpsuit (though, to be honest, i do think that's actually pretty tight).

Can it be, to rather be in a penitentiary, than to be friends with a person with whom, surely, there must have been at some point at a least a sliver of real intimacy? And if a redo, not a divorce but a widow, she would be, really? Hear this out, let me grind with this for second.

Sometimes scorn (Jackie, if I may) is actually backwards evidence of love; yes, love for person who is the object of even hate and all those things mentioned by Jackie in the video above. Stay with me on this, hold up. Because sometimes when you hate a person, it's in virtue of an underlying love, the source of which the really fucked up things a person does bares the conative attitudes that makes you want to fuck them over in return; like you know, making yourself a widow. To then, if and ever when, the hatred ceases, then twice over it's time for the slow singing and flower bringing, because along with hate, love is then dead too.

But other times, the evidence points to something else. Jackie's scorn, if that's what it is, shouldn't be mistaken. Let me say it again, it's important to not mistake Jackie's humor, and real scorn, as any kind of sign of the depraved. Because in Jackie's case, I think the case is plain. Not plain in what her and her daughters had to go through, but plainly a case of scorn for him, as a reflection of a deep steadfast love for them--the blessings. Yes - The scorn for one, in virtue of a love for two. So tell it, Jackie.

If anybody were to cross my babies (to be, in a future tune), I think I'd do anything to protect them too. "One love," Jackie always says. But a love she spreads to a very many.

Jackie Ross is a native of San Francisco, and a Hayes Valley neighborhood original of many generations. She is a daughter, a mother, and a grandmother. Oh, her age? - 48 :) And she slaps a mean bass guitar. Word. And oh, Johnathan Logan for city council in Vallejo!

Til again, it drops on Sunday at Midnight (from here on out EST, 9pm PST). Again, no 'melt to write' to share. But peace, much love.

Sunday, October 11, 2009

"Looking for love in all the wrong places," feat. Jay Harley

Jay Harley speaks on his varied experiences in probing for love, and what in want remains beyond the demands of needs met.

* real talk:

Looking for love in all the wrong places then? -- Surely, Jay is not saying that the places we look for love are 'wrong' because there is nothing to be found. Indeed, there is usually aplenty to find. For instance, even in the 'business-like," of which Jay dislikes, in the reciprocal demands for each to get their needs met--even Jay glibly proclaims that "this works for many people, that "this is a very functional relationship." Plenty here, folks. But of what?

Slow-think it, if you will, with me. Yo, I get it--the human psyche is rife in perception, of then seeing into, then as it were an 'access' to that which is 'beyond' mere perception; this makes us special, we think. - For instance, there's a famous side-by-side big ass couple of rocks that are collectively dubbed "a reclining nude"; and the matter turns to, whether you have 'some it' by which you can perceive, two rocks a nude.

But what the fuck? Because we're not talking about making a dollar out of fifteen cents, where the 'mode of currency' here is simply currency. Nor even something like turning water into wine, where liquid into liquid still calls for chemical impossibility. Nah. We, yes we, make two physical rocks into an abstract artistic entity; two seeming incommensurables--like saying heat makes blue. Okay, now let's carry the analogy through.

Sometimes when we have two rocks, all we really have are just two fucking rocks. But sometimes, somehow, two rocks, a reclining nude. So then, what of when the complex needs of a partnered two are met, does this make 'a love connection'? Functionality, sure. Compatibility, no doubt. But love, if you will, 'a reclining nude'? - We might, here, be trying to see the face Jesus on a slice of bread. Seems to me, there's just two rocks here, folks. A pair of rather functional, compatible, practical, fucking (pun-intended) rocks, mind you.

So what of Jay's talk of the "spirit of," something that is patently ambiguous. And this less ambiguous but still not quite satisfying talk of "getting someone's back." What, really, in the hell is that? Jay says, "it's the support, and the love which is beyond the checklist of 'you did this, you did that; therefore i love you'." A checklist, that is, of needs - the "therefore I love you," of met-functionality. Okay, sure, we 'think' love is 'beyond' that. But who's not to say we are not asking heat to be blue?

The problem is, as I see it, is that when we probe a place looking to find, with already in mind a conception of what it looks like, we tend to not allow ourselves to be aware of what we actually find. I'm serious. This is why humankind is capable of mind-numbingly ridiculous shit like seeing an imprint of the face of Jesus on a slice of bread.

So, perhaps, a cautionary; and then onwards to the juice. - Jay says, "love is within yourself." Careful then, when you 'look' for love, in the difference between merely projecting (what what you have in mind as) love onto things that just turn out to be rocks. For the 'love beyond', it's not like a matter of the 'right kind' of rocks to find. And here's where the analogy runs dry. There are no rocks out there that you need to find to constitute love, folks. It is something you suddenly find within, after the fact. Yes, like cancer. Yes, like psychosis. And this is why you find yourself changed, suddenly behaving in different ways, caring and supporting *not merely for a need to fulfill--all that of which, you getting your beloved's back, is evidence of. These things don't make you love somebody; they are rather reflections of the fact that you do. At least, insofar as we are talking about the 'love beyond'.

the difference, then, between the "therefore i love you" of met-functionality; and the "i love you, thus..." of Bobby's striving, Judah's looking out together, Jay's getting your back.

Ladies, Jay Harley is an awesome guy and single! His phone number is 415.336...ah, just email me and I'll give you his digits. Word. See you next Sunday; drops at midnight!

the melt to write: (this one was too personal to publish; maybe next time)

Sunday, October 4, 2009

"It's a looking out together, not looking into each others' eyes," feat., Judah Dwyer

Judah Dwyer speaks on various kinds of 'romantic' relationships; and the implications within each, of the 'magic' we seek and the 'foundation' in need.

* real talk:

To apply the import in that '30 years' where, of "my best friend, pal, buddy and partner" digs in, consider what Judah 'asks' of those that don't work out--"did it have more expectations than it had actualizations?" I take it that her point to be not so much one of balance, but of substantive and fundamental difference between. 'The friendship in partnership' as opposed to 'the moment sparked by' -- "It's a looking out together, not looking into each others' eyes."

The actualized, she describes, as the 'everyday' sense, "you need that everyday concept because that's what you're going to be doing in the everyday." It's everything together--the romantic, the intellectual, and actual. Judah says, "you gotta have a foundation, a solid friendship, it's the shared principles has got to be the stuff to see you through." But before you dismiss this kind of 'romance' you might find dry, take a second to see the analogy through, before off again to seek and clutch to that 'moment sparked by'.

I've been there, as have you, to gaze into another's eyes, in the smitten stare to hold each others' hands. But the question, then, is what happens when, the each of you turn to look at the world with your own set of eyes? I've been there, where my eyes wander in the wonders, and my feet take me to place to place. To find then, without realizing exactly when I had loosened and let it slip--the hands of whose eyes I used to gaze into so lovingly; turns out, a grip that held only when fixed into each others eyes. For years and years, I would reply, to the question of who i'm now with, with a "same girl, different face."

But why, Judah, I asked, why can't we have both? She gets it, you can see it in her eyes. "So we want the magic and the best friends, right?-together; why not, I know, I'm hip, does happen. ...I saw that in my parents." Well, the way I see it you really do have to be pretty fucking 'hip' to see this. And something quite charmed to achieve. Because we have the tendency to, to bificurate 'magic' and 'partnership'; as if there be, only an all-or-nothing choice between the two. So to the analogy again, to tell it again as a combination or blend of the two.

The "looking out together," without 'magic' to sacrifice, I suppose I see it happening in this sorta way. -- Where times comes when the two must do their own respective world-gazing, and when there is some wonder seen, that there is a squeeze of the hand, and a hand that squeezes back; and a simultaneous skip of a beat for two; wherever the gaze, two hearts in hand.

The 'magic' and the 'best friends', that storybook pajama tandem; i want it, don't you?

Check out Judah at: