Prima Secundae
Lecture 79: The Effects of Love: Union, Indwelling, Ecstasy, and Zeal

Transcript
================================================================================

Whether some other passions of the soul are a cause of love, right? Analogously, whether some other, what, act of the will, right, is a cause of, what, love, right? To the fourth one goes forward thus, it seems that some other passion can be the cause of love. Hey, if that was going to take the other side, he's going to just admit to that in a way that this is possible. For the philosopher says in the Eighth Book of the Ethics that some are loved on account of, what, pleasure. But pleasure is a passion, right, a different passion than love. Therefore, some other passion is a cause of, what, love, huh? Kind of funny, I'm reading Boswell's Life of Johnson, right, and Johnson in Boswell talks about, you know, spending, you know, an hour with Johnson, you know, it's like his mind being infused with a greater mind, you know. He's so delighted with this, you know. So it's delightful to get some kind of station with him as a cause of loving the man, right? More of a desire is a certain passion also, right? But we love some on account of the desire of something that we expect from them, right? Just as it appears in all friendship, which is an account of usefulness. Therefore, some other passion is a cause of love, huh? Want some money? You have plenty of it. I came to like you. My dad always used to say about the dog. He said, love means food. He's going to get food from you. He loves you very much. No permanent interest. Only permanent interest. So, more of what Augustine says in the Tenth Book of the Trinity, that of that thing to be obtained, one does not, what, have hope, I guess? Yeah. Either he loves... Tepidly. Yeah, wickedly, yeah. Or altogether does not love, although he sees how, what? Beautiful. Beautiful it is, huh? Therefore, hope is the cause of, what? Love, huh? So, he's got pleasure, desire, and now hope, right? But against all this, all the other affections of the soul are caused from love. So, how can one of them be before love? As Augustine says in the Fourteenth Book of the City of God. Well, of course, there can be, what, more than one good, right? Okay. My answer should be said that no other passion of the soul is there which is not, we suppose, some love, right? So, behind any pleasure or desire you have or any hope you have is a love of some, what, good, right? And the reason for this is because every other passion of the soul either implies emotion towards something, like desire does, hope, or rest in something, like joy or pleasure, right? But all motion towards something, or rest in something, goes forth from some connaturality, right? Or some, what, adaptation to it, right? And that pertains to the ratio of love, huh? Whence it is impossible that some other passion of the soul be the cause universally of, what, of all love, right, huh? But, and this is the distinction he wants about, but it can happen that some other passion to be a cause of the love of something, just as one good is the cause of, what, another, right, huh? So, that's the example that he used to then to solve the first objection, right? To the first, therefore, it should be said that when someone loves something on account of pleasure, right? Well, it's not denying that pleasure is not a cause of love there, right? But that love is, what, that love is caused from pleasure, right? But that pleasure itself, huh, again, is caused from some other, right? Precedent. Yeah. For no one delights except in the thing that he loves in some way, right, huh? That makes sense, huh? So, in one sense, he admits that some other passion can be a cause of love, but it's not the love which it itself proceeds, right, huh? Okay. The second, similarly, can be said that the desire of something always presupposes the love of that thing, huh? So, you never want something that you don't like. I never want salmon, because... I don't like Brussels sprouts. My wife went down to Boston yesterday to see some friends, and, uh, what did you eat? I said, it was salmon. I said, oh, I got it, I got it in there, I said, uh, so... She said, I think, she said, I think when Warren comes down, we'll take salmon, I think we'll make some salmon. I said, well, I'll go, I'll go to McDonald's, I said, it's... I'll have pizza delivered or something. The even smell there, you know. Sports bar and have some buffalo instead. Yeah. You know, my wife likes, likes, you know, fresh lobster, right, huh? So, on the honeymoon we got up to Quebec and coming back to Maine, you've got to stop and have some Maine lobster, right? Of course. And they're kind of inexpensive, I mean, compared to what you pay me to down here, maybe. And they're little, you know, very simple places, you know, huh? But you had to stop here, you better have a thing. And the only thing besides lobster is potato chips they got there, you know, it's like, like she's eating this lobster, you know. So you jump, oh, it's a food dog marriage. That's a jump, but... Once and once she gets a lobster, you know, and sometimes they're still alive, right, you know? And she sits on the counter, roll sleigh, that thing is moving! Well, probably, I'm from Minnesota, you know, and Minnesota, it's freshwater fish, right? Oh, yeah. Walleye pike, huh? With all the stuff, that's really good, you know? When I was in Fisherman's Wharf in San Francisco, I'd like to be, hey, here's some walleye pike, I don't know where they got it, but that's our order. But you don't have that seafood taste, you know, huh? You know, but you grew up in Massachusetts, like my wife did, you know, then they were more exposed to the seafood, you know. I can eat shrimp, you know, and that sort of stuff, but I remember going down to a restaurant and, what was it, make you, and they got a shark, you know, they kind of got... They call it a steak, though, right? My son Marcus thought he was getting a steak. I thought he was getting a piece of shark. Yeah, yeah, yeah. That's what he did. He ordered the damn thing. Swordfish steak. Yeah, swordfish is not too bad. But the desire of one thing can be the cause that another thing is what? Love, right, huh? Just as one who desires money loves the one in account of whom, right? I'm convinced that he receives money from him, right? To the theory it should be said that hope causes or increases love, right, huh? Both by reason of the pleasure, because it causes pleasure, right, when you hope to get something, right, huh? And also by reason of the desire, because hope fortifies the desire, right, huh? Not that, what? We did not so intensely desire things, we did not hope to, what? So this is the story of the sour grapes, right? His desire for them was there, but he lost hope in his desire. And that probably, you know, sour anyway, you know. But nevertheless, the hope itself is of some good, what? Love. So, no, no, this is kind of dissipating what you're going to say thereon, that does hope come before love and the theological virtues? Well. You've got to be careful, actually, because, you know, in the Verbum Dei, right, you know, in the Minivisant Premium, right, at the end, it quotes Augustine, right, that by believing we might come to hope, and by hoping come to love, right? Well, there he's talking about the order of what? Generation, right? So faith is generated first, and from that, in a way, it generated hope, and then from hope is generated love, right, huh? You say, well, how can hope be the source of what? Love, right, huh? Well, there's going to be some kind of love there before, right, that is necessary for that hope, right, huh? But once you love God, then you have more hope in God, right, as Paul says, right, charity believes all, hopes all, right? In the early generation, there could be a way in which hope is before that love, right? And is it the love of wanting that you have there, or what? It's behind that hope, right? Because charity is the love of friendship, right? This is the love of wishing well. So, you see how this kind of prepares away, though, for kind of a discussion, at least, of the order of hope and love, right, huh? So that's a beautiful text there, you know, that premium to the Verbum Dei, right? Okay, so, we've considered love in itself and its kinds, right? What love is in its kinds. And then we look before love at its causes, right? Now it remains to look after love at its, what? Yeah. Very thorough guidance, Thomas, you know? Very, very, very well-ordered, it seems to me, right, huh? You notice how, in the, like, when you apply it to the third objection there, you can see how the distinction even between, what? The love of wanting and the love of friendship, which came in the previous question, right? It's presupposed, right, to understanding something about these causes, right, huh? Okay? Because the different kind of likeness is the cause of the two kinds of, what? Love, huh? So, what kind of a love did I have for Deconic and Monsignor Deion? Hmm? Yeah, yeah, yeah. So, it's a love of wanting, right, huh? I wanted to know, right? And this man can, what, illuminate me, right, huh? I remember when Charles Deconic used to come down sometimes on a kind of a lecture tour, you know? And he would talk at some of the colleges and talk at the St. Paul Seminary and so on, right? And, you know, I could talk at the college and hear him talk at the seminary. And then, we used to have kind of concerts of all the colleges, you know, where they would, you know, study something. And he spoke of that, too, you know? So, I remember this one friend of mine, my brother, just, you know, I could just have him, you know, once a week or something, you know, huh? You give it up to think about for the whole week, you know? You need a beautiful lecture, you know, huh? My brother Martin talked about the first time he had Deconic. It was a time, man, really to explain things, you know? Really, this is a guy you can learn from, you know? I told you, my teacher, Kasuri, went up to Deconic, and he had heard about Deconic, you know? He had given up philosophy for a while because it was so poorly taught. And he went up there, and he was older, and he said, Deconic, if you teach philosophy the way it was taught to me in the States, I'll get up and leave your class. And Deconic said, fine, you know? And then he gets so attached, you know, to Deconic, you know, I mean, yeah. And so this makes you learn from, right, huh? So, but as I became wiser, maybe you could have a chance for a little bit of love of wishing well, right, huh? As a young student, it's a love of wanting, right? But there's a likeness there, too, that he loves the same thing as usual. Yeah, yeah, yeah. But see, that's what I was saying, the older man in the art, right? You know, when Mozart went to London with his father, right, he's a little boy, you know? But, you know, they heard him play, you know, and so I was this guy. And he used to sit on, you know, Johann's, not Sebastian Bach, but the youngest, you know, Bach there, right? The one who became a Catholic, right? He'd sit on his lap, you know, and play the piano together, you know? So, you know, it was kind of like a father-son thing there. But he was encouraging Mozart, right, huh? And some of the early pieces of Mozart, they're just, you know, and Christian Bach, right? He's maybe turning a little sonata by him into a little kind of a concerto or something, you know, Mozart is, you know? There's, you know, officially 27 piano concertos on Mozart, right? But in Girdelstown's book on Mozart, piano concertos is 23. Well, the first four are just kind of copies and imitations of Johann, you know, Christian Bach, you know? Einstein speaks of a pre-established harmony between Mozart and Johann Christian Bach, you know? Or the Johann Christian Bach has been described, you know, as Mozart was something missing. But there's a sort of affinity right now, and I kind of enjoy it. I kind of enjoy Johann Christian Bach more than the great, you know, father of Johann Sebastian Bach, you know? There's kind of an affinity between him. Johann Christian Bach, you know, he left Germany, went down to Italy and taught there and played there and so on. Married an Italian, I guess. Became a Catholic, only Catholic. And then he went to London and so on. But there you see that affinity right between the Wallace and the greater man, huh? And they used to play the, you know, the quartets in the home there. And Mozart wanted to play along with them, you know? And his father says, well, you play along with so-and-so, you know? And pretty soon the older man just put down his father and both had to play, you know? Like he played always the piano, you know, I mean the violin without, you know, practice. So it's an incredible, incredible guy. The thing is that Mozart writes for every musical instrument, huh? I mean, there are oboe concertos and a bassoon concerto and, you know, violin concertos and piano concertos. But he seems to, and horn concertos, you know, but he seems to adapt himself to each instrument, you know? He doesn't feel for how an instrument should be. He should, you know, write for it, huh? Probably writes for the human voice, you know? I always say, you know, no one realized how beautiful a woman's voice can be until Mozart wrote Arius for it, you know? He seems to be so beautiful, you know, you don't realize how beautiful it could be, the human voice, you see? Okay, now we get to the effects of love, right? And now, look at that fifth one there, whether love is a passion harmful to the lover, right? I don't know about this love stuff, huh? Then we're not to consider about the effects of love. About this six things are asked, right? And first, their union is an effect of what? Love. Love, huh? You know, the great Dionysius says, vis unitiva, right? I was reading that thing in the sentences this morning there, where Thomas is commenting on what Augustine says. He says, they're all one in account of the Father, they're all equal in account of the Son, and they're all united because of the Holy Spirit. He explains why each of these is so, right? He explains it first in terms of their number, right? Because the Father all by himself is something very much one. But equality requires, what, two. And with the Son, you first have two. And then the connection, right? You need three, you know? Two to be connected and one to connect them. So that's the Holy Spirit, right? But then he explains it in terms of the properties of each one, right? And in terms of the Father being, what? The beginning of it all, right? The beginning of something one, right? And the Son, you know, all his names, huh? Son, Imago, huh? Son, Vera Boomer, right? They all have the idea of equality there, right? And then, of course, the Holy Spirit, because he's the way of love and love. And you're at nights, right? Beautiful, beautiful. I wonder when you see God face to face, whether we really start to understand the Trinity better. So it's such a marvelous subject, right? It seems to me that contemplation of the Trinity is kind of the highest point of theology, huh? There's nothing greater than that. And it's really extremely interesting when you try to understand it, you know? You know, he's talking about the, I mean, the article the other day, there are these sentences there where he's talking about the appropriation, you know, and of course he first talks about the common appropriation of power, wisdom, and goodness, right? But then he's talking about some other ones from Hillary and Augustine, right? And, you know, beauty is what? Attached to the sun, right? It's appropriated to the sun. And of course, the objection is, you know, poison, beauty, and goodness go together, right? Like Dionysius says, and goodness, of course, is appropriated to the Holy Spirit, right? And Thomas says, well, insofar as beauty takes on the clothing of the good, right? It's good, right? But in itself, it involves what Dionysius says, consonants, harmony, and clarity, right? And magnitude. And these are all found in the sun, right? Because he's the perfect image of the sun, right? He's the word. So there's a consonance, right? And so beauty is what? Appropriated to the sun. This is by Hillary, right? So they have to be careful, right? You see? I remember years ago, I'm thinking about, is it more the object of love or of the reason, right? And I was, you know, taking lovely as a sign, right? Lovely being a synonym for beautiful. And, you know, doesn't that indicate, you know? And then you get, you know, all these things of the poets there, you know? And Spencer, you know, the hymn to earthly love and earthly beauty. And the hymns to heavenly love and heavenly beauty. Beautiful things there, right? You say, well, isn't love and beauty going together and the beautiful and the good, right? And, but you get to this thing in Hillary, right, huh? Where speech, as beauty, right, is appropriated to the sun, right? Rather than to the Holy Spirit. So if it was tied more closely to goodness, right? It would be appropriated to, you know? So, you know, so I think I was, you know, mistaken as a young thinker, you know? Well, except you're a retract. Yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah. And you think, why do I love Mozart's music? Well, it's so beautiful, right, huh? I said to Warren Murray, I said, who is more beautiful, Mozart or Shakespeare? Well, he admitted that Mozart was more beautiful, right? Mm-hmm. And Shakespeare, I mean, Aristotle talks about that in the last books of wisdom, right, you know? And so, it's more the object of the reason, huh? The way Thomas argues there, he argues from, he takes the text of Dionysius, right, that beauty consists in consonants, right? Trying to translate that harmony or something like that. And clarity, right? Well, clarity, you know, comes from the mind, right, huh? Chaining, right? And then he quotes Aristotle and says, he's going to have some magnitude, right? A beautiful body can't be a shrub. Of course, because the son is perfectly equal to the father, right, huh? He has magnitude, right? So, he got the whole thing there, right? Beautiful, beautiful text. Augustine has a definition of beauty called equalitas numerosa. But it has a sense of equality. Mm-hmm. Yeah. That's the idea of harmony, right, huh? And maybe that's the numerosa compared to the magnitude. Yeah, yeah. You kind of see more the idea of the son being in harmony with the father, right? Even though they're all the same substance, right? But from his way he proceeds, as the imago, as the son, right? It's the word perfectly expressing the father, right? It's interesting, you know, when Alphonsus is arguing for the Immaculate Conception, right, which wasn't defined in his time, right, huh? But he's, I think his word had something to do with that, too. But, you know, he kind of perceives, if I remember right, you know, the Trinity, right, huh? Because she's the daughter of the father, you know? Because she's the mother of the son and the spouse of the Holy Spirit, you know? He argues with each one of these things, you know, that she must have been. Yeah. And she comes and says, she's, I am the Immaculate Conception. I mean, deficit. Okay, then we're not to consider about the effects of love. And about this, four things are asked. Whether union is an effect of love, huh? That's where he begins, right, huh? And secondly, with their mutual, what? Dwelling within, you might say, right, huh? Inhesio, right? I know that's in a sense similar to union, but it's a little bit stronger in some sense, right, huh? Okay? And then with their ecstasy, huh? Being outside yourself. I'm beside myself, huh? Is an effect of love, right, huh? When they take the discussion between Moses and Elias there in Christ, you know, during the Transfiguration, and what are they talking about? Well, as far as the Gospels tell us, they're talking about his coming excess. Wasn't that kind of, his ecstasy, he's going to die for us, right? You know? He's kind of forgetful oneself, you might say, right? Dr. Bratlinger points out one of his books. It's the only place in the Greek New Testament, the only place where the word exodus occurs, the Latin excesus, the Greek is exodus. The Greek word is exodus. Yeah. It's way out. That's the effect of love, right? Fourth, with your zeal. I guess you've got to be careful with the word zeal, because it's got, includes the idea of jealousy and so on, these things, you know. Uh-huh. But it has kind of a richness of meaning, though. What sense of zeal does he have? Primarily he's talking about love. And why does he put that forth, you see? Because the first things are kind of effects of love with respect to the one you love, right? It unites you with what you love. There's this mutual indwelling of you and the one loved, right? And then you've kind of gone out of yourself into the one loved, right, huh? Uh-huh. Okay. What is it? Is it in... It's not in Roman Juliet, but in Much Ado About Nothing, right? You know, where the father is completely identified with his, what, daughter, right, huh? And she's apparently disgraced, you know, doing a misunderstanding very much to do about a new thing. It's kind of a pun, I guess, a pun. Nothing in noting kind of pronounced the same way. And so someone has noted something falsely, you know, in appearance. But he's kind of, you know, something gets to you, right? You know, he's so identified with his daughter, right? That it's like he's no longer, you know, he's living anymore without her. But now zeal is with regard to what? Something that is opposing what you love, right? So you can see why he orders that afterwards, right, huh? He orders things well, you know? He looks before and after and gets them in that right order, right? And I was asking about another professor one time. I was more enthusiastic about it. And he says, well, he doesn't order things the way you do, I said. And God, he's just perfectly ordered. Just a delight to see that. The kind of good order things, you know. But Thomas is in superior to them. But now, all of a sudden, after all this wonderful build up here, comes number five. Where the love is a passion that is what? Harmful. Harmful, huh? Injurious to the one loving, right, huh? Just look at that poor guy Romeo there at the beginning of the play there, right? Rosalind, is it? You know? What does he do, huh? Sunlight comes, you know, he goes into his room and closes the doors and closes the shutters and so on, right? And, you know, his friend is Benvolio, right? So the father asked Benvolio, which means wishing well, right? As opposed to Melvolio, the character in what you do, I mean, the Twelfth Night. Melvolio, right? So Benvolio, what's, what's, what's, why is he so glum, you know, why is he so? So, and now, whether love is the cause of everything, the lover, what, does, huh? That makes love quite something, that is a cause of everything you do, huh? So, whether union is the effect of love, huh? To the first, one goes forward thus. It seems that union is not an effect of, what, love, huh? For absence is repugnant to, what, union. But love, what, is compatible with, what, absence, yeah. As the Apostle says, the Galatians 4, right, huh? Be always, what, always emulate the good in good, and not only when I impress it before you, right, huh? Your reunion is not an effect of love, huh? Gee whiz, huh? Romeo loves Juliet, but he's exiled there, right, huh? Since makes the heart go fogger, people say. Moreover, every union is either through, what, essence, nature, substance, as form is united to matter, right? And an accident to the subject. So as my soul is united to my body, right? And my knowledge of geometry, my substance, right? And as part to whole, right, huh? Or to another part, the constitution of the whole, right? Flesh and bones are joined together. Or it is through the likeness of, what, genus or species, right? Or some accident, right? So I'm like the cat in my love of beef or something, or steak. Or the species, the other human being, or another philosopher, right? Another lover of Mozart, and so on. But love doesn't cause a union of, what, essence or nature. Otherwise, never would there be had love to those things which are divided in their, what, nature. And the union, which is through likeness, love does not cause, but more it is caused by it, huh? Therefore, union is not an effect of love. So Dionysius must have been mistaken, right? Quite clear, I don't see any way out of it, you know? See, again, I'm thinking that union is an effect of love, right? Moreover, the sense in act is a sensible in act, huh? So sometimes, and the understanding in act is the understood in act, right? Okay? So you used to define knowing as what, receiving the form of another as other, or retaining your own form. So you become one with this thing, right? But the one loving in act doesn't come to be the loved in act, does it? Therefore, union is more the effect of knowledge than of, what, love, huh? So am I more attached to Mozart by hearing him, or by loving his music? Then am I by listening to it, huh? Right. Aren't I united more to his music by listening to it? Not by, you said about attached, I think, attached to affection. I used to, when I was first listening to the Major Figaro, you know? The old Glyndeburn Festival recordings on the old big disc, you know? I put it on the machine there, you know, and it took me right up to the thing, you know? Was it, you know, enjoying Mozart through my ear? Not through my heart. And all you can say against all this nonsense is that Dionysius says, in the fourth chapter of the Divine Names, that love is a power that unites, huh? A virtus unitiva, huh? Thomas begins by seeing a distinction, right? Pointing out a distinction. I answer it should be said, that two-fold is the union of the lover to the, what? Loved. One in the thing itself, right? Secundum Rem. As when the loved is present to the, what? To the lover, yeah. Yeah, the one loving. One loving, yeah. In another way, according to, what? Affection. Affection, yeah. Which union should be considered from the grasping that is preceding, right? For the appetitive motion follows the, what? Grasping. Grasping, right? So, Romeo has to, what? See Juliet, right? Before he, what? Yeah, yeah. Shakespeare makes it very explicit there. Now, since there, however, is a two-fold love, to wit, of concupiscence, or wanting, and a friendship, or wishing well, right, huh? He says, both of these proceed from some grasping of the unity of the loved to the one, what? Loving, huh? For when someone loves something, as it were, desiring it, right? Wanting it, huh? He apprehends it, or grasps it. See, that's speaking Latin, apprehends. He grasps it as pertaining to his well-being, huh? Likewise, when someone loves someone by the love of friendship, he wishes to it, to him, a good, a good, just as he wishes good for himself. Whence he grasps the other as another self. You're just like me. You're another me, huh? Somebody's speaking that way. And therefore, it is that a friend is said to be another, what? Self, huh? That's a little bit of Greek, I know. O philas esten homos autos. Friend is another self. Shakespeare sometimes calls a friend a second self. It can't be the first self. The first self is yourself. Yeah. It's another self, right? Or a second self, huh? And Augustine says in the fourth book of Confessions, Well, did he say about his friend, half of my soul, right, huh? He's always saying, my wife is my better half, right? And then he's always smiling when I say it. It's approval, you know. He says, the first. union, love makes what? As an efficient cause, right? Effective A, right? Because it moves us to wanting, right? And seeking the presence of the, what? Loved, huh? As it were, as being suitable to oneself and pertaining to oneself, right? So when I was in college, I said, when I get out making some money, I'm going to get a complete collection of Mozart, right? But luckily I said, I started doing it with these little discs, rather than these big things, you know? And so I had just about everything Mozart wrote, you know? That's why they come up with some little obscure thing they think is by Mozart, you know? But the second union it makes as a kind of, what? Form. It's a very subtle distinction, right? Because love itself, huh? It's not now an effect of love, right? But love itself, and you can see it, no way it's an effect, no way that the form is an effect, but because the love itself is such a union or what? Connection, right? So the mere fact that I love somebody, right? There's a certain union between us, right? Even though we might be separated, right? Like Romeo and Juliet or something, right? Like Barr's all getting depressed, he's got to go back to Scotland, right? And we'll have the company of Johnson there, right? And his mind being, you know, infused with his superior mind. Once Augustine says in the 8th Book of Opportunity that love is as a life, huh? Joining some two, huh? Or desiring to what? Join them, right? The one loving and what is loved, right? Now, Augustine makes a distinction that Thomas is talking about. When he says copulons, right? He's referring to the union of affection, right? So does that where you get the word couple? In logic, you know, they call it, and they divide the statement sometimes into noun and verb, but sometimes into subject and predict and copula, right? Yeah. But he explained the words of the great Augustine here, right, huh? Duo aliqua copulons, right? Vel copulare appetens, right? When he says copulons, he refers to the union of affection without which there is no love. But when he says in copulare intendens, that's another union, that pertains to the real union, right? To be together with that person, right? Okay. So is there a two-fold union that is an effect of love? Yeah. And one necessarily follows the love, right, huh? Because the love itself is a bond between the lover and the loved, right, huh? But the real union is something that there might be war and one is separate from the other, right? Or you go to different parts of the country, right, huh? I have two brothers, right, huh? One ended up on the West Coast. I ended up on the East Coast and Richard was, he was on the East Coast first and then he went, you know, went back to Minnesota, you know, and taught there, so we divided the country up, you know, we used to make a joke about this, you know. He couldn't get one, couldn't have all of us, you know. But that's kind of what happened by chance, you know, huh? I guess my brother Mark was stuck by for a job, you know. He was about to, you know, go to a college or university on the East Coast there, you know. But one of the questions they asked in interviewing was, you know, is he finished his coursework and he had to go back, you know, to finish coursework. And there was a misunderstanding, you know, that he had to go back first. There was a delay, you know, before he corrected the mistake, and then he got Southern Africa from California out to California, so, you know, to find providence, right, because somebody just read a letter, right, and there was a delay, and he'd take the word in the hand, and so on, right. So, it was kind of by chance, you know, we could spread out like this, you know, but… What? Where was the other university? Oh, I forget what it was, but it was on the East Coast, you know. I don't know who she was, I can't remember now, but… So, so you might be separating some of your love, right, because of whatever it might be, right, or death, yeah. I mean, just in life, you know. Boswell was separated from Johnson, you know, so… Johnson had his fridges against Scotland, you know, huh? The finest thing you ever seen in Scotland, there's a road that leads to England, you know. And Boswell wanted to be introduced to Johnson, right, and I think it was Thomas Davies, the bookseller there, who said, well, I'd introduce you to him, you know, huh? And then, one time he was visiting Davies, and Johnson came into the shop, right, and he says, he's out there, you know, we can use some, yeah. Yeah, yeah, use some, yeah. He says, Mr. Boswell, from Scotland! What's the wrong thing to do? You know, look at Joe, you know, he does Johnson and this stuff. So, what is Thomas saying in the body article that love is a cause of two kinds of what? Yeah. Yeah. But not in the same way, right? One, he used the term, what, formally, right, huh? And the other is what? No, effective, isn't it? Yeah. And the one that has necessity, right, huh? And the fact that I, I love you, right, huh? I am in some way united with you, right, huh? And, but not really, huh? See, but that's going to make me seek that real union, right? My cousin Donald was in the Navy four years, and guys were playing these radios, you know, with all that horrible music, you know. And, uh, I guess he was in Chicago, I think it was. Yeah, you know, some naval thing there. And, uh, he had a chance to go to the, the Chicago Symphony Orchestra, right? Oh, I mean, what a relief, you know. These guys were, these guys, you know, they're radio theaters, they were fanatics, right? You know? And, uh, so my cousin used to, you know, he used to go sleep in the, in the workshop, something like that, because he could get a little bit away from them. But the funniest thing he told me was that they, they were in court one time, and this guy was getting bad reception on his radio, this little thing, right? So he'd blow the hole in the savage little thing, so he could stick out, right? But then when they'd load the ship, they'd ship. There's a hell to pay for that. This is a stupid thing to do, you know. Yeah, it was a little better, right? Like, they'd show off at night, convert to their radio and get their, get their junky music, you know? Yeah. And another guy who was in the army for a while, you know, and, you know, and, you know, the guys let them play the, those little radios at nighttime, they drive to sleep, you know? And so, you know, you hear these, these ugly melodies all day long, and pushing your head like all day long, you realize how big brainwashed if they wanted for, for, for torturing you, I don't want to, it's just, just a terrible thing, you know? You can see why Papa Buneet would send money to stop. I'm sure it wasn't as bad as his stuff. Okay. Now, what about the first objection, right, huh? Well, there's love, but absence, right? He says that objection proceeds about the real union, right, huh? The union in things, which requires, what, pleasure as a, what, as a cause, huh? But desire. is in the real absence of the what? Loved, huh? But love is both in the absence and in the what? Presence, right? That's important, you're going to talk about charity because charity remains, right? Because love is both in the absence and in the presence, right? I used to say the same thing about, you know, philosophy, the love of wisdom, right? You can have the love of wisdom when you desire wisdom but don't have it and then you can love it maybe even more when you have some, right? So love in the absence, real absence of the object gives rise to desire and in the presence it gives rise to delight, pleasure. Now, in the second objection, Thomas is going to see now a three-fold distinction. Union has itself to love in three ways. I know that second objection is based on the idea that union is, what, the cause of love, right? You might be already a lover of Mozart and I'm already a lover of Mozart so we have a certain union there, right? Then we discover, hey, you love Mozart too. So then our union is the cause of our love, right? I know that's what Thomas says, a union triplicitary, see how about that more? Just like that beautiful text there, love is said in three ways. Listen, God, for there's a certain union, some union is a cause of love, right? And this is the, what? Substantial union as regards a love by which someone loves himself, right? And as regards the love by which one loves another, it's a union of what? Like this, huh? So I like you because you're like me. Well then, that's the cause, right? But another union is essentially love itself. And that's what you said above is formally, right? Cause. And this is a union according to the, what? What is the best way of translating? Co-optation. Co-optation. But it has something I did to be adapted to too, though. Fit, yeah. Okay. Which is like the union, substantial union, insofar as the lover has himself to the loved, in the love to it of, what? Friendship. As to himself, right? But then the love of incubusens has something of oneself, right? So that's what Mozart is, all he quit. Me, huh? Something of me. And a certain union is the effect of love, right? I notice he calls, what? A little different way of speaking here than he spoke in the body of the article, right? Because, you know, the distinction that you have between the effect and the cause is more clear in this union that's real. Where you have to pursue the thing, right? To be joined to it, right? Or to be with it, right? But in the case of what? That formal union, right? Union of affection. The bond that you have because of love itself. It seems to be almost the same thing as love itself, right? That's the way he speaks of it here, right? It's not an effect of love, but it's love itself, right? You know, is it an effect of wisdom that I'm wise? Or is it my being wise that I have wisdom, right? Is it an effect of health that I'm healthy? Well, you could say formally, right? One is healthy by health. One is wise by wisdom, right? One is a geometer by geometry, right? But in other words, you might say, but that's geometry. So it's interesting the different way of speaking it right now. It's as if this other union is an effect of love, right? It's a real union. And the first union, which is real, too, in another sense, but is love itself. And this union is according to the, what? The suitability of love, as the philosopher says. Where Aristophanes says that those desiring or loving desire from, what, both to become one. But if from this would happen that, what, both or others would be corrupted, then they seek a union which is suitable and what? Yeah. They shouldn't hug the girl too much, right? And they'll be destruction of both of you, right? And you shouldn't try to be more one than you can, right? Sometimes they hug the little child, you know? Or child's almost out of breath, right? Yeah. So they seek the union which is suitable and be fitting, right? That they speak, or live together and speak together, right, huh? And in other things of this sort are what? Joined. Joined, huh? So we don't become so much one that we are one. Because it wouldn't be, the two of us would be around anymore. That's right. Now, notice this third objection here, right? To third it should be said that knowledge is perfected by this, that the known is united to the knower by its, what? Like this, huh? I have played the painter, Shakespeare says. But love makes that the thing itself which is love is in some way united to the one loving. Whence love is more uniting than knowledge, right? Well, that's nice to say, you know, if you love disgusting things, you are disgusting, right? If you love stupid things, you are stupid, see? But if you know disgusting things, are you disgusting for that purpose? If you know bad things, are you bad because you know bad things, huh? Are you, uh... But if I love bad things, I am by that fact. Bad, right, huh? So what unites me more to the bad, knowing it or loving it. So the knower, the known is in the knower according to the way of the knower, right? And, uh... But love tends to the thing as it is in itself, right? And if you have these beautiful differences, you know, the great Plato and Aristotle there, they said that there's the same knowledge of, what? Opposites, right? But is it the same love of opposites? Ethics is a knowledge of both virtue and vice, right? You learn both. I told you about that craft student out there in California there when I was teaching, you know? He said you shouldn't, what? Teach ethics, because you learn what vice is as well as virtue. And since we're more inclined to vice than virtue, you're making this do this worse. I thought he had a point, you know? It's like, you know, I was going to talk one time and I was touching on what Aristotle says in the beginning of the Dianima there, that all knowledge is good, right? But some knowledge is better because it's more certain about better things and so on. And so this one parent in the question period said, now this sex education, is that good knowledge for the kid to have? I said, no, you're right, it's not good. But is the knowledge as such bad? It's because of the disposition of the young man, right? That this knowledge is, the action ends, bad for him, right? So I wasn't denying, I think it's disgusting, the sex education too, right? And it puts, you know. Suggest things to the student that he wouldn't get by himself, right? Probably. But you have to see the distinction between the as such. All knowledge as such, we'd say, is what? Good, right? Is it good for me to know where you hide your money? Good for you, definitely. Well, if I'm inclined to take what isn't mine, or what I'd like, then you say, it's not good for me to know that, right? So you can give me an example, but it's always prejudice, right? Because of the something else in me, right? It's good to know how to shoot again. Lay your bill foot on that. Take a little break here.