Logic of Love1
Name: Brian W. Becker, Ph.D.
Institution Affiliation: West Los Angeles VA Healthcare Center
Title: The Logic of Love: A Personal Account of Moving Toward the Particular Other
Introduction
In neuropsychology, we are trained to identify the cognitive act called a perseveration.
This is when an individual unintentionally gives a repeated response to a presented stimulus. For
example, one is shown various pictures on a traditional test of word naming. Rather than
correctly identify the correct object, one may become fixated on a previous item and provide the
same verbal response to the different stimuli. One says dog for a cat, dog for a zebra, and dog for
an elephant. Perseverations can also be behavioral, as, for example, a repetitious arm movement.
Neuropsychologically, perseverations are frequently associated with frontal lobe dysfunction,
which acts as the primary inhibitory mechanism for the brain.
These perseverative behaviors are believed to be secondary to neurological insult. This
audience is perhaps more familiar with an idiopathic or psychogenic origin for repetitious
behavior called reenactment. Reenactment involves the repetitious acting out of a previous
trauma through memories, dreams, and behaviors. We attempt to correct what went wrong by
recreating as much context of the original trauma as possible. Then, we try to fix the problem
and resolve our angst. However, we never truly correct the original trauma because the same
event can never be recreated. In fact, we invite further pain by including people similar to those
involved in our original trauma. Like a person who constantly finds him or herself in abusive
relationships, there is no resolution but only further trauma. Sartre said that hell is other people.
However, hell is better defined as trying to do the same thing and expecting different results.
Logic of Love2
Analogous to reenactment, is a psychic stuck-ness in which, immediately following a
trauma, one attempts to freeze their current existence to hold onto as much as it as possible, to
somehow correct the immediate trauma by trying to keep as much in place as possible. Yet, one
cannot because, like humpty dumpy, the pieces cannot be put back together again. We may try
to hold on to the broken pieces, taping some, using a little glue here and there, but there is no
fixing the situation, there is no return.
I will discuss my own journey into this sameness, into this enclosed existence, the
different manifestations of it in my lived experience and my attempts to extract myself from this
enclosed existence to allow the new, the other, to enter into my horizon. Sameness, though
phenomenologically an inevitable part of our lived experience, not only fails to allow the other
into our frameworks. It can manifest itself as a kind of sickness that is at the same time painful
and yet safe. I will attempt to show how the logic of love, as French philosopher Jean-Luc
Marion calls it, helped me to move out of my enclosed existence and toward a life for the other.
The particularly unique aspect of this logic of love is that it calls into question the popular idea
that one must love oneself before loving another and that this love resists any form of abstracting
love into a principle (e.g. love of the human family, love of the world, etc.) that goes beyond the
individualized relation between two persons.
My story
It was to be my last year of graduate school. I was at the midway point of my internship,
had already secured a post-doctoral fellowship, was in the middle of writing my dissertation, and
feeling very passionate about my clinical and theoretical work. A year earlier, I had presented a
piece of my dissertation on Jean-Luc Marion in front of Jean-Luc Marion. He gave a positive
response. Then a rather sudden and jolting event took place. My marriage ended. I will not
Logic of Love3
describe all the precipitating events that led to this, but it was one that felt necessary as the
differences between my spouse and I, and after several prolonged attempts at couples therapy,
revealed that this relationship was at odds with what I perceived to be my highest values in life.
It was a relationship that refused to let the other in. The other was seen as a threat to the
relationship’s existence and as a result, all difference that did not confirm to the sameness of the
relationship was excluded.
Yet, while wrestling with the fact that the relationship did not welcome the other, I also
wrestled with my responsibilities to the other in the person of my wife. How could I live a life
for the other in my wife while also living a life for other others? This is not so unusual of a
problem as most relationships wrestle with the negotiation between the two persons involved and
the inclusion of those outside of it. However, my relationship could not negotiate it in a
satisfactory way. Again, for the sake of protecting privacy, I cannot express the reasons for the
failure to successfully navigate this problem. However, the consequence of this failure was a
nagging emotional pull, a calling for something more than what was being given to me in this
relationship. Where was the source of this calling? Was it the call of the external other placing a
demand on me? Or was the call of an internalized and ostracized other that was seeking to
destroy what was good in my life? How could I ever disaggregate the intertwined callings
simultaneously originating outside myself and from within? Answering could result in a true
responsibility to the other, while answering to another could result in a greater fortification into
sameness.
Yet, a decision was made, and the aftermath of that decision resulted in a degree of
emotional pain that I had never experienced. I want to discuss some of my experiences during
Logic of Love4
this time because I believe it reveals, in a magnified way perhaps, a psychological analogue to
the phenomenological idea of sameness and the exclusion of otherness as discussed by Levinas.
To allow the other in is to allow for something new to enter into one’s horizon. It alters
and transforms our horizons. This process is not terribly comfortable as the piercing gaze of the
other puts us in a place of weakness and vulnerability. It requires of us to empty ourselves as a
way that can loosen up our preconceptions. So when one is in such acute pain, how can one
related to the other? How can one welcome the new into their horizon when once is so consumed
with the preexisting contents of their own existence? In my case, I did everything I could to
preclude the other. What is most striking is the various manifestations that my fortified sameness
took. I will discuss some of these manifestations because I think they provide useful examples
for how we do this on an epistemologically as well.
For years now, I had not watched much television. The only exceptions included the
television medical drama called House M.D. The show is about a misanthropic, narcissistic,
emotionally-stifled drug-addicted medical doctor. The second show I watched was called
Dexter, a show about a forensic analyst working for the Miami P.D. who lacks empathy and is a
serial killer of other murders. During the time following my separation, I would watch these
shows repeatedly. I can honestly say I watched several episodes over 25 times within a year
period. I would have it playing in the background of my apartment as I lay in bed for many
sleepless nights. I would feel such comfort by watching these shows. They helped me forget
about a painful and uncertain reality, and I would have full knowledge of the outcome. I knew
exactly where the story was heading for each episode. I could recite the lines before the actor
said them. Along with the certainty of knowing the outcome of the story, I also could identify
with the characters, or at least wanted to identify with them. Both House and Dexter represented
Logic of Love5
emotionally stunted men. They appeared to lack much guilt and remorse. You could see
elements of humanness creep in but these were exceptions to their general character. For myself,
ridden with guilt, remorse, and anxiety, I longed for the emotional numbness that these
characters appeared to have. It seemed even more appealing than being happy. I just didn’t want
to give a damn. I was persecuted by pain. The persecution of otherness was too much, and I
needed to do anything to protect myself with a fortified shield of predictability and expectation.
Along with the repetitious viewing of television programs, I was also writing a
dissertation. This dissertation was examining the phenomenology of relationality drawing upon
the philosophy of French thinker Jean-Luc Marion. I was paradox personified, talking about
relationality and the philosophical importance of the concept of love while my personal life was
in shambles. A major part of this paper will be to discuss the interaction of the personal with the
theoretical. So in the section that follows I will extract excerpts from my dissertation to both
illustrate how I was thinking about relationality in the context of my life.
Most of my dissertation writing took place in the context of being married. It was only a
few months following my separation that I defended my dissertation, limping the whole way
there. I successfully defended and all I needed to complete were edits. However, just like my
watching of those television shows, I would read and reread my dissertation multiple times,
reediting and adjusting things, even the content despite having already successfully defended. I
was acting like I was still preparing for the defense, unwilling to let the dissertation go.
Something in me needed to hold onto it. Even after the first submission and further edits were
needed, I spent months on the edits, rewriting and rereading. Again there was something
familiar and safe with my dissertation, and I would spend all my extra time reading it over and
Logic of Love6
over again. I stopped reading new books. If I picked up a book I had not read before I would
become filled with anxiety, and I would quickly put it down.
These were some of the perseverative behaviors I engaged in during this dark time. I
wish I could say these were the most severe and damaging actions I took toward myself, but they
are the ones I feel most comfortable disclosing today. I discuss these examples however because
they highlight, in exaggerated form, the manner in which one can push away otherness., to shove
it as far away as possible in order to perpetuate the illusion of security and of feeling at home.
How many of us have trouble reading books or watching films we disagree with of hearing the
other. How many of stick with what is familiar in order to avoid what is off putting or even
scary? Perhaps the democrat turns off the voice of the republican (or visa versa), the
conservative Christian turns off the voice of the liberal Christian (or visa versa). How many of
us who espouse the high minded ideals of intellectual openness truly live this out by reading
those whose philosophies appear to us, at first glance, as narrow minded? And not just to give
lip service to the voice of the other but to authentically listen that that voice with the attitude that
maybe I could learn something from this voice. Does welcoming the other involve welcoming
the other who rejects other others? And why do we reject the other? Perhaps it is due to an
epistemological narcissism but also perhaps it is fear of the unknown and the feeling of wanting
to feel at home. Levinas discusses how being for the other is a life of homelessness. This makes
sense as home is a place of comfort, of self-soothing, and familiarity. For myself, everything not
familiar, even what was formally attractive, was repulsive as it called me to open myself up to
newness. I imagine this is at the heart of many psychic defenses, to maintain the old and familiar
at the cost of the new and unknown.
Trying to Climb Back Out By Opening Myself Up: The Logic of Love
Logic of Love7
As mentioned, I was paradox personified: a dissertation on love and relationality in the
context of an emotional desert. Although the re-reading of my dissertation was itself a
manifestation of my sickness, the content of what I was reading was asking me to welcome the
new into my horizon. It would call me into question and, provided a voice to speak to me outside
of myself and that served as an alternative to the voices of House and Dexter. It was a voice of
love, or as Marion calls it, the logic of love that both serves as my point of origin, the call of the
other outside myself, and the measure of the adequacy of my response to that call.
In regards to the meaning of this love I wrote:
Marion states, "I instead reach [the other] in his unsubstitutable particularity, where he
shows himself like no other Other can. This individuation has a name: love” (p. 324).
Love is a manner of relating to others in their absolute particularity. Yet, the notion of
intergivenness can still be useful as a prolegomena to love in psychology. In fact, the
term ‘love’ in psychology quickly moves far off from Marion’s usage (Sternberg & Weis,
2006). The term intergivenness can provide a link in the chain to introducing a notion of
love that does not break down into cliché or become reduced into operational definitions.
However, in the following chapters, the theme that governs this dissertation is the
overcoming of metaphysics in relational theories so to think more deeply and allow more
fully the logic of love to manifest its power over the mind and heart. For without the role
of love, this dissertation will inevitably slip back into the dogma of modern metaphysics.
Love particularizes and love demands nothing less than a perpetual return to the
concrete event of a relational encounter. This is the ultimate end that this dissertation
seeks to accomplish.
Logic of Love8
Love particularizes and without love we return to the dogma of modern metaphysics. I
felt unlovable and unable to love. This emotional state led to the experience of an immobilization
of my identity. I tried to keep all the parts in place, no new internalized objects or emotionally
corrective experiences. Just the same reality, again and again. The fear of not living for the other
is that we lose ourselves. The expression goes: “I must love myself before I love another,” “I
gotta care for myself before taking care of you,” and “I have to know who I am before I decide
who to know.” However, I found the opposite to be true. By being removed from others, I lost
my identity, my self-care, my identity. Who am I if not first a lover?
Many would say that this is a form of enmeshment or signals a lack of boundaries.
However, this criticism is correct only if I make the other a means to my end, to make me feel
better about myself to make me feel whole. If I love the other as a response to a call, and if I am
receiving without expectation of receiving anything in return, then I am, paradoxically, given
everything. Conversely, when one decides to love oneself first, to care for oneself in opposition
to love and care for the other, then one loses much. Those who truly do “lose themselves” who
have no identity within their relatedness to others are in fact more concerned for themselves,
more self-focused. In considering this point, and despite the messages by those that say I need to
just take time to care for myself, I realized that the worse thing for me was to live for myself.
Living for myself was what was perpetuating my disease.
Another part of my dissertation that spoke to me was in thinking about Marion’s use of
the philosopher Blaise Pascal. I wrote:
If Descartes represents the foundational figure of modern metaphysics, Pascal
represents the model for attempting to move beyond Cartesian thought. Of most interest
Logic of Love9
to Marion is Pascal’s (1659/2003) claim that there are different orders of knowledge and
choosing one order over another depends upon the type of object to be known.
Pascal offered the orders of the mind and the heart as two epistemological
approaches. These orders of knowledge represent a response to Descartes (1637/1968),
who sought certainty through a universal and singular methodology. Pascal determined,
however, that Descartes’ system proved useless and vain for thinking about what matters
most. Metaphysics needed to be rendered destitute by a higher reasoning, which for
Pascal derived from the heart. Only knowledge provided by the heart can surprise the
restrictions of Cartesian metaphysics and open up the excessive features of experience
encountered only through a form of love called charity. Charity is a sacrificial love that
is not simply a form of action but a way of knowing. This creates insight into one of
Pascal's (1659/2003) most famous lines that "the heart has reasons that reason cannot
know" (p. 78). This line was a direct attack on the Cartesian metaphysical system and its
apotheosis of mathematical reasoning or reasoning from the head.
I continued:
By allowing for multiple rationalities, Pascal (1659/2003) breaks free from the
universal reason that must reduce all experience to objects of the mind. Marion suggests
that the Pascalian overcoming of Cartesian metaphysics is non-violent unlike the
approaches taken by Nietzsche, Heidegger, and Derrida. These three thinkers attempted
to overcome metaphysics by completely rejecting it and replacing it with their own
philosophies, whether it was the Will to Power, Being, or différance. Pascal, rather,
suggested that the way to overcome Cartesian metaphysics was not by rejecting it but by
arguing for instances or crevices of experience that opened to something other than
Logic of Love10
metaphysics, or as Levinas (1961/1969) would later put it, “otherwise than Being,” and
not “rather than being.” For Pascal, charity leaves metaphysical thinking destitute by
thinking of a possibility that exceeds it. Philosophy as a whole, in fact, is incapable of
seeing the phenomena to be revealed through the knowledge of the heart. Such
knowledge always remains invisible to philosophy, just as God remains unknown through
the language of Being (Marion, 1982/1991).
Though written in abstract prose, the content of this text was calling me to live out a
different kind of rationality. I had thrived by what I could do with my mind. Growing up in an
emotionally abusive home, my mind was one way to garner the respect of family and peers and
was my way of coping with scary situations. However, with my divorce, I reached the limits of
my ability to use my mind to think myself out of this situation. This is the failure of any
approach that utilizes solely a cognitive approach to therapy. There was no thought stopping, no
reexamination of the situation that could change my emotional response to what happened. Yes,
I could say to myself that this change in my life was for the better, that I will get through this too.
But no amount of this kind of thinking could resolve my pain. No, this situation was dark,
messy, and unavoidably painful, and it was important to accept this fact. If I was to move out of
my fortified existence, I needed to operate by a different logic, one that originated from the heart
rather than the mind. The logic of the heart, Pascal called charity or a self-giving love.
However, is not love an emotion or action? Certainly it is not a form of logical analysis or
reasoning! Not so according to Marion. Love, in fact, provides the basis or ground for all
reasoning. For reasoning of the head deals with phenomena of lived experience, but this first
requires for there has to be a willingness to see the phenomena as it is given and this willingness
Logic of Love11
precedes traditional logic. This will to see or will to receive what is given Marion calls the
rationality of love. Love allows new phenomena to appear by the eye that is initiated in charity.
There is always more to know, an infinite hermeneutic. “To love somebody is always to
need more time to know him. You don’t have enough information about him. You never will
have enough information” (Marion, 2005b, p. 10). The overwhelming nature of this experience is
so great that the subject encounters itself as being the object of the phenomena’s gaze. For love
to be fully accomplished it demands nothing short of an infinite oath and leap of faith that moves
the subject outside of itself to receive that which it fundamentally is not (Marion, 2003/2007).
Through this process, the subject’s identity is formed and transformed by the perpetual need to
accommodate to the infinite datum of the phenomena (Marion, 1997/2002c).
The logic of this love is in its particularity. It is not loving humanity but in loving a
particular other, this other, rather than the other, more generally. Citing Montaigne’s
commentary, he shows how in friendship there is a necessary unsubstitutable particularity that
governs the logic of that relationship. Marion (2001/2002d) quotes Montaigne stating that “If one
presses me to say why I loved him, I sense that this can only be expressed in replying: because it
was him; because it was me” (p. 38). Walt Whitman (1867/2004) also comes to mind with
attempting a poetic line that states, “Day by day and night by night we were together, all else has
long been forgotten by me” (p. 144). Or as Marion, himself, states
I can only love…another that, precisely, I do not know, at least in the sense of being able
to comprehend him as an object and define him by a concept. I can only love him who
remains for me without definition, and only for as long as he thus remains, which is to
say as long as I will not have finished with him. (Marion, 2005b, p. 14).
Logic of Love12
The logic of love has become a focus of mine during this time of healing. This logic
demands of me to get past myself in order to make space for the particular other who stands
before me and to not talk about it in generalities. Moving into the logic of love means moving
past abstraction and into the gritty singularity of this other. Not to be a better friend. But, David,
to be more responsive to you. Not to be a better romantic partner. But, Elis, to give you my entire
heart right now. I will not be a lover of humanity or to think about lofty abstract philosophies,
but my journey requires me to move outside of myself with a degree of responsiveness that is
highly individualized. Sometimes, my response will be to not kill the other, but it maybe stated
more positively, to love this other, to feed this mouth, to caress this hand before me.
Concluding Comments
I leave with these thoughts. The logic of love entails a phenomenology that looks at the
lived experiences of highly relevant but overwhelming concepts such as gratitude, forgiveness,
sacrifice, and tenderness. These make up the many facets of the logic of love, and a paper could
be written on each of these ideas: the way they manifest in my lived experience, what is required
of me to receive such experiences. Personally, my focus on trying to live out this logic of love
has called me outside of myself and helped to move past the psychic stuckness that resulted from
my divorce and to try to receive the identity of being both the beloved and the lover. Broken
down the word beloved is: be-love-ed. Thus, to be the beloved is to have one’s being defined by
having been loved. But how do I really know that I am loved? I could be fooled. But I cannot
give what was not first given to me. Therefore, to know that I am loved, I must first love another.
This provides the evidence of my identity as beloved because I cannot give what I did not first
receive from somewhere else. This is a prime example of how the logic of love provides one
with an identity not as cogito, Dasein, but as the gifted, the one who receives who he or she is
Logic of Love13
from outside of themselves: the first and most primordial gift being one’s identity as beloved
and, then, as lover.
Although I am still working myself out of some of this stuckness still, there is forward
momentum. I hope this paper has illustrated how the theoretical and personal can intersect and
provide material for thinking about our own lives. I wrote this in part as being therapeutic but
also because I think the personal living out of a philosophy is difficult to comprehend often
because the philosopher may have never meant for a concrete “action plan” to emerge from his
or her thought. Yet, as psychologists were are highly interested in meaningful applications of
philosophy for healing psychic pain and to bring the person to greater wholeness, whatever that
may mean. I am certainly not claiming to have lived out a philosophy for the other well or even
adequately. This was an account of my struggle to do so and the resulting consequence of this
struggle on my identity and the ability to begin emerging from the self-enclosed existence I had
been living.