Love & Friendship
Lecture 10: Union as the First Effect of Love

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

You understand something very, what, understandable, like when you're thinking about God, right? Then when I turn back to think about, say, the triangle in geometry, well, it's easy, that stuff, you know, you see? And they say it out at TAC, you know, when the freshmen are trying to learn Euclid, right? And then the softness of Jesus' senior has gone to more difficult things, right? So you look back at all this stuff, it looks so easy now, you know? But when you first study it, it's quite difficult, you know? And then, so that your ability to understand increases as you understand more things, huh? But then Thomas takes another one from the commentator, from Aaron Arwes. It's a real comparison, really. He says, he compares growth of charity to the growth of numbers, right? Now, I think to understand this comparison, you have to realize that in a strict sense, you're able to do something only when you're one step away from it and doing it. So, is a student who has never learned, say, plain geometry, is he able to learn solid geometry? No, no. Simply speaking, you say no, right? Okay. And even in plain geometry, you know how one theory builds up another one, right? I was bugging my colleague there in the next office. I said, how do you find the center of a circle? It's under a flosser. Well, he doesn't know how to do it, right? Do you know how to find the center of a circle? How do you do it? Right angles. Yeah. What you have to do, what you have to do to find the center of a circle is this. You draw a straight line somewhere in there, right? Then you have to bisect the line, right? And then you have to draw a straight line and right angles to that line, right? And then bisect that. And then you can prove that that point must be the center of the circle, huh? But if you don't know how to, what, bisect a line, you've got to bisect this line, and then later on to bisect this line, and how to draw a straight line at right angles, are you able to... No, see? So it's only one step away, right? So two is able to be what? Three. But it's not able to be four. See? It's one step away from three, right? But now that you get three, you have something which is able to be four. That's one step, right? Now you get four, so it's able to be five. Okay? So, what I've very much pointed out in Thomas' reading, is that as you add the numbers, you're also getting new ability. When I add two is able to be three, but not four. But when I actualize the ability of two to be three, and I now have three, I have another ability to be four. Then I get to be four, I have the ability to be five. You see? And it's beautiful. Like Aristotle compares thinking to numbers, you know? It's like that, huh? You know? Each theorem I learned in Euclid enables me to know something else, right? And then when I get to know that, I'd be able to be able to know something else, and so on, right? So that if every ability I actualize, I get a new ability, I never fully actualize, I think, right? It's like I have the impression that I do geography. This could be an endless thing, right? Because everything I learn helps me to learn something more. So my ability, I'm getting new ability every time I actualize the previous ability. So it's never going to end, is it? And then Thomas said, well, that's what an immaterial power is like, see? So when I reach a certain level of God, right, huh? Then I'm capable of loving him even more. And when I reach that higher plateau, then I become capable of even greater love. And so if every time I get an increase of love, I become capable of a new degree of love, it's never going to stop, is it? So he says that there is no limit, see? By the material ability, there is a limit to how much I can what? You see something, right? So you keep between the lights on brighter and brighter, and finally it starts to blind me, right? it becomes a material organ there's a limit as to how bright the light can get, right? It's a bit like you go into the shower, let's say, right? You have the warm water and you're used to it, maybe you can turn the hot water on even a little more, you know? But can you do that forever? No, it makes you so hot, it helps your body, right? Your body would be destroyed by, right? You see? But the more I, what, learn theorems in Euclid, right? Then there are theorems I'm now able to learn that I couldn't before, right? Once I've learned plain geometry, I'll be able to learn solid geometry. Once I've learned, in book one, you learn about bisecting lines and drawing perpendiculars to them and so on. And it's not until I know those things that I'm able to find instead of a circle, right? Once I know that, I'm able to do some other things I couldn't do before. So my ability keeps on increasing as my actuality increases. It's kind of a strange thing, right? But as I get, what, as the light gets brighter and brighter inside of my eyes, my ability to see is not increasing, is it? You've got to see the limit, huh? Eventually, you know, I get, you know, snow blindness or something like that, right? My vision could be actually destroyed, right? By the brightness of the light, huh? Or you could burn my tongue off, you know, hot enough. I went with my wife one time to a Chinese restaurant there, you know, and, you know, eats an ordinary meal. I said, I think I've got all these hot meals. I said, you know, I'd have to have about four or five bites of things. I have the brain sensation. I couldn't taste the meal anymore. I couldn't, you know. I said, this is just agony, you know. I mean, I reached my limit, you know. You know, you hear some of these contests, you know, at the Indian restaurant to see if you eat the hottest food, you know. And this guy was describing these guys at the Indian restaurant there in England there. And this one just pointed on the face, you know, and saying, who can eat the hottest stuff, you know. And he said, it's not my way of enjoying a meal, he said. But there's a limit as to how much, you know, the senses can take, you know. But I think there's a beautiful comparison he makes there, you know, going back to what our style points out there about the difference between, it's kind of a sign, too, that difference of the immateriality, the understanding, compared to the senses, huh? And I think that's something true, too, about, you know, the will in comparison to the emotions, huh? It's kind of a level where the emotions just break down, right? I mean, you can't, I don't know, their ability, what Brother Marcus said, you know, but the first sip of beer tastes the best, and then it gets downhill from then on, right? The second beer, you don't enjoy as much as the first beer, right? In other words, the capacity of the emotions is, what, limited, and the body just gives out, right? So, it's not the more beer you drink, the more your ability to enjoy beer is increasing, no, it's actually, what, yeah, you know, the old saying, what is it, not absent mix art, go find it, I suppose that's true, too, but what's all about food, huh? Hunger is the best sauce. Yeah, yeah, hunger makes good sauce, yeah. And, uh, I don't know, if you like something like poppers, Mike Gatch, you know, you know, if you gorge yourself on poppers, you get kind of disgusted with the stuff, you know? So, I mean, it's better to make popcorn in a small amount, and then you never get tired of popcorn, so, you see? But, you know, my ability to enjoy popcorn is not increasing the more popcorn I eat, my ability to enjoy popcorn is decreasing, right? My ability to eat popcorn. You know, these guys who eat all these pies and these contests and the state fairs, you know, I mean, people get so tired eating a turkey, you know, at Thanksgiving time, you know, turkey and then leftover turkey and turkey and turkey, you know? And so, you don't, if I don't enjoy turkey anymore, right? It's just too much, but the more I understand God, the more I understand even Euclid, right? The more I'm able to understand and the more I'm impressed I am with the whole thing, you know? So, so next week we'll talk about the The first three effects of love, you know. In the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. Amen. God, our enlightenment, guardian angels strengthen the lights of our minds, board and illumine our images, and arouse us to consider more quickly. St. Thomas, Aquinas, and July Doctor. Pray for us. Help us to understand the word you've written. So, I admit I'm a heretic, right? I uphold the rule of two or three. Three, that's my heresy. Now, what is the rule of two or three? Every word is logically divided or dividable into two or three. Yeah, the logical or understandable division is usually, not always, usually, for the most part, most of the time, right? Into two or three. And that if you divide into more than two or three, you are what? It's not understandable. Yeah, or you're giving a division with a subdivision and the results of that, right? Or, you are what? Criss-crossing two divisions, right? Okay. So, if I divide human beings into good men, bad men, good women, bad women, how do I get four? Yeah. Men, women, good and bad, right? Okay. Now, what does that have to do with the treatise of love, right? The treatise of love is divided into how many parts? Two or three? Three. Three, yeah. And the three questions correspond to that, right? The first question was on the, what? No. The nature and the kinds of love. The second was divided into what? Well, it was the second, rather. Part. And now the third part. Yeah, this. That's in the three, right? Okay. Now you go back to the first part and how many articles were there in the first question. Now, what are you going to do with four articles? Who could understand that? It goes beyond our intelligence, right? But notice, the first two articles on the nature of love, the third and fourth were on the, what? Kinds of love, right? So you had two divisions of the kinds of love, right? But notice, the first two articles would be divided against the last two, right? Okay. Now, second question. Causes of love, right? How many articles? Four. Four. Scandalous. Four, right? Okay. But, if you think about that, right, the first two causes went together, kind of, didn't they? Like, Saitama said that the knowledge is the cause of love for the same reason that the good is the cause of love. What was that reason? What was it? Knowledge is on the side of the subject. Good is the subject. Sorry. And the object, yeah, yeah. That the object of love is the cause of love, right? The good is the object of love, therefore the good is the cause of love, right? And the knowledge is, in a way, a condition of the good being an object of my heart, right? The good as known, right? So the first two articles go together, in a way, right? They're on the side of the love, right? Which is the good, right? The good as known is the cause of love. What about the third and the fourth article? Well, the third article is that likeness is the cause of love, right? And so as you expand on that in the question here, Why do I love you? Because you're like me. Well, because I love myself, right? Am I the loved or the lover? Well, I'm more the lover, right? So the third was on the side of the lover more, right? What about the fourth article? What was the fourth article? Where there's some other emotion in me, right? Or where there's some other act of my will, right? It could be the cause of my love, right? So if I love health, right? And therefore I want to be healthy, right? Therefore I want to take the antihistamine or something, right? So my love of one object is the cause of my love of another object, right? So the third and the fourth article are both on the side of what? Me, the lover, right? The first of the two articles are on the side of what? A loved, right? Okay? I love God because he is good. And because I know that he is good, right? I didn't know he was good, I would love him, right? Okay? That's on the side of the love, right? But I love you because you're like me and I love myself. Or I love antihistamines, but I do. Because I love what? Health, right? Do you see that? So you could divide the first two articles against the last, what? Two, right? Do you see that? Okay. Now, the third question, right, is on the effects of love, right? Now, how many effects of love are there? Tom Satekha? Three. Six. I mean, there are six articles, right? Okay. Now, I divide these into three and three, not because of that sort of division, but because of the multitude of the words, right? Okay? And now, perhaps the first four articles are talking about the effect of love in comparison to the love, okay? These are the effects of love now. In comparison to the love, okay? And the last two articles, I can miss up, maybe, for the first part. The effect of love in comparison to the what? Love, yeah. Okay? Now, in comparison to the lover, what's the effect upon me as a lover on the fact that I love? Am I a better person or am I a worse person, right? Well, maybe if I love God, I'm a better person, right? Maybe if I love truth or I love wisdom, I'm a better person because of that love, right? If I love candy, right, maybe I'm not a better person. Okay? So, am I a better person or a worse person from the fact that I love, right? That's an important question, right? And very often in poetry and so on, love is said to be a disease, right? Shakespeare, we saw it in Shakespeare, right? So, if I'm diseased because I love, then love is said to be what? Words, right? Okay? So, that's one effect upon me of my lover, right? A better or a worse person because of my love, right? Now, the other effect upon me is, what do I do, right? Because I love wisdom, I read Thomas Aquinas, right? Because I love candy, I go to the drugstore, right? Okay? Get some candy. Okay? Okay. Okay. So, the sixth article is to be about how love is the cause of all that I do, right? You see? So, if you love God in the way a Christian should love God, that could be the cause of all that you do as a human being, right? You see the idea? So, articles five and six are in comparison to the, what? Lover, right? What's the effect upon me for the fact that I love? Once I heard you, he used to quote that thing, better to have loved and lost than ever to have loved, right? Am I a better man for having love, right? You see? Well, it comes to going to be nuanced, right? What did I love, right? Okay. If I love bad things, I'm a bad man because of the fact that I love bad things, right? If I love good things, especially if I love the better, among the good things, right? Then maybe that made me a better man, right? We are shaped and fashioned by what we love, as Gertz has said, right? And also, my love is a cause of what? Some kind of love is a cause of all that I do, right? You see that? So, five and six down here will be the comparison letter. Now, how are these first four articles? Well, we can't understand division of four, can we, right? It's got to be either two and two, or what? Three and one. That's why I just couldn't understand what the heck is all about, right? Okay. And in this case, it's in two, what? Three and one, right? Now, the three articles we're going to talk about today are in comparison to the love, right? Okay. And the love unites me in some way with the thing that I love, right? It attaches me in some way to the thing that I love, right? The second article is that what? If I love something, there will be a mutual staying within of me to the thing I love and the thing I love in me, right? So, if I love something, I try to get into it, right? Both with my mind and my heart. And I keep it in my mind and in my heart if I love it, right? So, there's a mutual staying within of me in the love and the love in me, right? And then, in the third article, I go out of myself into the love, right? Ecstasy, right? Okay. And more so, if I have the love of friendship, of wishing well to another, than the love of what? Wanting, right? Even there, I go out of myself to get the candy, right? Okay? But because I bring the candy back to myself, I don't go out of myself, right? But if I have an unselfish love of another person, the love of wishing well, I seem to go entirely out of myself, right? And I'm going to go ecstasy, right? Okay. Now, those three articles are very close to you lately, right? See everybody in order? What's this odd word down here, right? Well, in Latin, it's one word. But in English, there isn't one word, right? There's fourth articles about zeal or jealousy, right? It depends upon whether I have the love of wishing well for you, or the love of wanting, right? If I have the love of wanting for you, or something, right? And something's getting in the way of my enjoying you, or getting what I want, right? Then I have, what? Jealousy, right? Okay? But if I have the love of wishing well to you, then I move against what is going to harm you, right? So if I wish well to my children, I move against what could harm my children, right? Okay? If I love the woman, but you want the woman too, then I move with jealousy, you know, towards you, right? Do you see that? So three is with respect to the love itself, right? Four, to something that either, what? Could harm what I love, or could impede me from getting it. or enjoying freely what I love, right? Do you see that? So that's the way these three and the one are divided, right? But they're all in some sense of comparison to the love, right? Either in itself, or to what would harm the love, or what could impede one from getting the love, right? Do you see that? But the last two articles is, what's the effect upon me and upon what I do, right? Do you see the way it's divided, right? So Thomas is still, what, in the six articles, giving us the result of a division into two, and then a division into two, division into three, division into two, right? Okay. I defend the rule of two or three, mainly from my experience, right? Although you can give a reason for dividing into two, and a reason for dividing into three, right? The reason for dividing into two is that we divide by opposites. Good and bad, male and female, odd and even, right? And opposites are, what? Two. Okay. But there's a reason why we divide into three, and that is that beginning, middle, and end, right? Is complete. That's three. Okay. And that's the likeness that we have of the Trinity, the beginning, middle, and end, which is. Okay. So let's look now at the first effect of love here, which is what? To unite one with the beloved, right? Rosalind to Orlando, right? And Rosalind has found her cousin falling in love with the brother of Orlando, right? Okay. Oh, I know where you are, and it is true. There was never anything so sudden but the fight of two rams. That's interesting how Shakespeare compares this emotional, right, love, the man for woman, with the love of, with what? War, right? Okay. There in the very wrath of love he uses that metaphor, right? And if you look at the Summa Theologiae of Thomas, he takes up what? The virtue, temperance, that moderates love, right? And he attaches to that the virtue of what? Mildness. That moderates what? Anger, right? Because I like this there, right? Now, of course, when you're angry, you come together but to fight, right? When you love, you come together to be gloved. But there's a likeness there, right? It's beautiful the way Shakespeare understands these things, right? But when Thomas divides the virtues, according to the cardinal virtues, prudence and justice and forward to intemperance, right? He takes up the four cardinal virtues in order, right? And then he takes up the other virtues by their likeness to the cardinal virtues, right? So he takes up the virtue that moderates anger, but the virtue that is concerned with what? Pleasures of the body, right, huh? Okay? It's beautiful what it's said here. There was never anything so sudden but the fight of two rams. They're falling in love with the first sight, right? That's incredible what Shakespeare did write. And Caesar's personical, huh? Frasso is this boasting character in the plays of the Romans. And that's what Shakespeare, huh? Now, in Latin, it says, Vene vidivici, right? I came, I saw, or I came. And of course, that new church pronunciation of Latin, Vene vidivici, My old teacher, Kassarik, said, you know, I can't believe that he said, Vene vidivici. It must have been Vene vidivici. I came, I saw, or, you know? Well, in Shakespeare, of course, you can't reiterate like Caesar did, right? Vene vidivici. I came, I saw, or I came, right? So he, what? Rhymes. I came, saw, or I came. It's a big difference, huh? For your brother, Orlando's brother, and my sister, actually, her cousin, right? No sooner met, but they looked. That's the danger to look, right? Because, what? Looking is a cause of love, right? No sooner looked, but they, what? Loved, at first sight. No sooner loved, but they sighed, because they didn't have each other, right? No sooner sighed, but they asked one another the reason. No sooner knew the reason, but they sought the remedy. And in these degrees have they made a pair of stairs to a marriage, which they'll climb without any delay. They're in the very wrath of law, right? That's the same metaphor he has when he speaks of the five two rams, right? And they will together. Clubs cannot part them. Well, if you're trying to use a club to part the two dogs, the two rams, you have to have a club to fart. These young people are so... It's incredible that Shakespeare can write, isn't it? I mean, it's just absolutely incredible. Now, in Psalm 36 here, as Thomas, as you'll see in the body of the article, he makes a number of distinctions, right? Between the union that is a cause of love, right? The union that seems to be almost the same as love, which love makes formally, as he says, right? And the union which you seek as a result of your love, right? And here you have a, what? A little bit of a distinction, right? Let me confess that we two must be twain. They can't be joined together in that third sense, right? Although our undivided loves are one, right? They're united by their love, but by circumstances they can't be together, right? So, they lack that ultimate effect of love, but they have a certain union because they love each other, right? You see that? Helena, oh, were that all. All is well that ends well is one of the six mercy and forgiveness plays, right? Beautiful play. Now, Helena is a commoner, right? Son of a doctor. And she's fallen in love with the, what? Count, son. Well, you don't marry nobility, you're a commoner, right? So, how could she ever be united with that, right? But the idea that, you know, love is going to try to bridge that gap, and if you read the play, you'll see how she tries to do it. It's a marvelous play. Oh, were that all. They think that she's upset about her father's death, you know. I think not on my father. In these great tears, grace is remembrance more than those they shed for him. What was he like? I forgot him. My imagination carries no favor in it, but Bertram's. That's the son of the countess. I am undone. There's no loving none. If Bertram be away, he's going to be leaving the court. Now, she talked about the distance in that society between herself and Bertram. Poor all one, that I should love a bright particular star and think to what it is. How could I marry a star, right? They're so far above me, right? He is so above me, right? In his bright radiance and collateral light, must I be comforted not in his sphere. The ambition, my love, thus plagues itself, right? She has this ambition to love this man way above her, but there's no way in that society you can be denied to such a man of both of you, right? And that's it. It's a play, right? Unless someone doesn't love you in return. The hind that would be mated by the lion must die for love. Well, t'was pretty, she says, though a plague, no disease, to see him every hour, to sit and draw his arched brows, his hawking eye, his curls. Now, heart's table. Heart too capable. Don't say I did it. Loving is an undergoing. Remember we saw that in the first question. A heart too capable of every line and trick of his sweet favor. But now he's gone, and my idolatrous fancy, idolatrous, fancy, imagination, love, must sanctify his relics who come to see her. Now, but she's determined to get virtue, right? Beautiful. This letter. It's a little quick. It'll be divisive on Shakespeare's part. Our remedies often ourselves do lie, which we ascribe to heaven. The fated sky gives us free scope. Only death backward pull our slow designs when we ourselves are tall. What power is it which mounts my love so high, right, to this man way above earth society, that makes me see and cannot feed mine eye? The mightiest space in fortune, right? He's a son of account. She's a son of a medical doctor, right? The mightiest space in fortune nature brings to heaven. join like likes now that's the cause of love right likeness and kiss like native things impossible be strange attempts to those that weigh their pains in sense and do suppose what hath been cannot be whoever strove to show her merit that did miss her love the king's disease now she's a son i mean excuse me the daughter of a medical doctor right a very great doctor right and he left her a potion you know that's very good to cure diseases and the king is what the kingdom is what set right is almost given up on being cured right and she's going to go to that king and what cure him right and as a reward she can have the man she wants her husband and she would choose printer right like it's a platform involved in that because he's going to be very annoyed at this fact that she's using this to get him right you know but my project may deceive me but my intents are fixed and will leave me but notice i'm giving her this fact that her love is so strong for bertram right that this great distance she's going to try to what overcome that right huh okay just like the distance between us and god is even what greater than between um helena and bertram right but love will try to bridge that whole gap right huh okay i mean why should god become a man right now i mean man is further away from god than even the angels and even that infinite distance right so why should you go over that whole distance right but only love explains the fact that you go over the whole distance right cinderella marries a prince the prince marries cinderella despite this great distance right because love has this first and proper effect to unite the lover and the love right so we should go over the whole distance of the prince down to cinderella or all the distance from hell no way up to bertram right even more so from god all the way down to the what miserable creature that we are right the things in eternal is a very difficult poem and it's one of shakespeare's uh great love poems and of course he's playing upon the idea that the the two lovers here are two but in some way they're one by what love so they loved as love in twain love in two right had the essence but in one two distincts they're distinct the two lovers right but there's no division between them because they were united by what love number there in love was slain now you got to be an ancient mathematician understand that right because one is not a what number when euclid defines number it's what a multitude composed of ones or units or shakespeare says a multitude measured by the one right so one is not a number for euclid right for a sense of number right they tell the students that's really the first meaning of number a multitude always so i said i don't have a number of heads i have a number of hands do i have a number of heads um if one was a number then i have a number of wise don't i know is that it you see so notice what shakespeare says number there in love was slain why because the two became one by the other and one is not a number see how subtle that is hearts remote right the two different hearts yet they weren't asunder distance between the two of them right one's here one's there yet no space was seen twixt the turtle and his queen but in them it were a wonder something to wonder about how can two be one so between them love did shine that the turtle saw his right flaming in the phoenix's sight either was the other's mind i'm you and your money property was thus appalled that the self was not the same single nature's double name neither two nor one was called now reason can't make any sense out of this right because how can two be one reason says contradiction right reason in itself confounded saw division grow together to themselves yet either neither simple were so well compounded then reason cried how true a twain seemeth this concordant One, how true a two seems is concordant one. Love hath reason, reason none. If what parts can so remain? It's a beautiful, beautiful example. It takes the understanding of how union is the cause, effect of, what? Love, right? How can two be one, right? Reason is puzzled by this, right? As You Like It is now one of the, what, second three love and friendship plays. And of course, at the end, Hymen is the goddess of love, right? Then is there mirth in heaven, when earthly things made even atone together, right? At one together. Good Duke, receive thy daughter. Hymen from heaven brought her, yea, brought her hither, that thou mightst join her hand with his, whose heart within his bosom is. Now, Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologiae. Whether union is an effect of love, to the first one proceeds thus, it seems that union is not an effect of love, for absence is opposed to union. For the apostle, meaning St. Paul, it's by Antonio Messiah, he's called the apostle, right? For the apostle says in the epistle to the Galatians, but be zealous for that which is good in the good always, speaking of himself, as the gloss says. And not only when I am present with you, therefore union is not an effect of love. Absence makes the heart grow fonder, right? How could there be more love when they're absent, right? When union is the cause, it's the effect of love, right? Moreover, every union either is by nature, as the form is united to matter, as your soul to your body, right? An accident to subject, like your health to your body, in part to whole, like your liver to your whole body, or to another part to constitute a whole, or is by likeness, either a genus, like you and the cat, or species, like you and the other man, or accident, like you and another monk. But love does not cause the union of nature, otherwise love would never be had towards those who are divided by nature. And the union which is by likeness, love does not cause, but more is caused by it, as has been said. Therefore, union is not an effect of love. Now, Thomas, as I was anticipating, is going to point out that union of one kind is a cause of love, right? Union of another kind is almost the same thing as love. And there's a third kind of union that you pursue as a result of love, right? So this is taking, this objection is kind of touching upon you, right? And the third objection is a different kind of rejection. And this is saying that knowing unites us with the thing known. Okay? So if I know you, I've got your shape, your color in my head, right? So I'm in some way united with you by knowledge, right? And Thomas is going to argue that, what, love unites us more with something than knowledge does, huh? Moreover, the sense in act becomes a sensible in act, and the understanding in act becomes the understood in act. But the lover in act does not become the loved in act. Therefore, union is more an effect of knowledge than of what? Love, right, huh? But against this is what Dionysius says in Chapter 4 in the Divine Names, that any love is a uniting power. Thomas had a great respect for Dionysius, right? He thought Dionysius was a Dionysius that St. Paul converted in Athens. Now we don't think that is so, right? But that's part of the authority of Gregory the Great brought Dionysius' works back from, what, Constantinople to Rome, and then he became a great authority in the ages. So Thomas has a commentary on the Divine Names, and Albert the Great has a commentary on the celestial archery of Dionysius. But they both knew both works. Now Thomas is going to distinguish, right? I answered that it should be said that there is a two-fold union of the lover with the loved. One is according to things, he calls it, right? For example, who in the loved is present to the lover, and another by what? Affection, right? Okay, so I have a union with my wife right now by affection, right? But not in things, they're not together, right? She's somewhere else. I don't know, somewhere in the state. Do you see? Okay, so two different unions, right? And another by affection, which union should be considered from the preceding grasping, for the movement of desire follows grasping. That's quite easy to see, right? You can like somebody, but not be with them, right? Different unions, right? But if you like somebody, you seek to be with them, right? But there are two loves, namely of wanting and of friendship, and each proceeds from some grasping of the unity of the love of the lover. For when someone loves something as wanting it, he grasps it as pertaining to his well-being, okay? So I want food, right? And I perceive that food is necessary for my well-being, right? Okay? I love wisdom. I perceive wisdom as necessary for the good of my mind. Likewise, when someone loves someone by the love of friendship, he wills good to him just as he wills good for himself. And hence it is that a friend is said to be another, what? Self. Well, so I had my Greek course at the College of St. Thomas there, huh? Hophilos estenalus autos. Greek proverb. A friend is another, what? Self, right? Shakespeare uses the expression, the second self, right? And Augustine says in the fourth book of the Confessions, Someone said well about his friend, half of my soul, right? So it's not just husband and wife can speak of their spouses or better half, right? Wouldn't speak of one's friend as half of my soul, right? That's it. That's how it would say that, right? Now he says love makes the first union, then it's efficient cause. And what is that first union he's talking about? My being together with you, right? Okay? My being together with the food, right? It makes that union as an efficient cause, right? As a mover or a maker, right? Because it moves to desiring and seeking in the presence of the love. As something suitable to oneself and pertaining to oneself, right? It makes the second union, the union that he called before, by affection, right? Formally, right? Because love itself is such a union or binding, huh? They speak of the bond there between the mother and the child, right? Okay? Because that bond between the mother and the child, she seeks to be with the, what? Child, right? When they draft the child, they send him off to war someplace, right? It's not a union in things, but it's still a bond to the heart, right? Okay? And love makes that union, what? It says formally, right? Okay? The fact that I love you means I'm attached to you, right? And therefore, in some sense, united with you, right? But then I seek a further union as an efficient cause or mover. I seek to be with you, right? You see that? So it's two unions that are in effect of love, right? And one is automatic, you might say. Because of the fact that I love you, I'm attached to you, right? Because I love candy, I'm attached to candy, right? But then because I'm attached to you or I'm attached to candy, I seek to be with you or I seek to get some candy, right? And that's the second union that is in effect of love. But something could impede me from being with you, something could impede me from getting the candy I want, right? Do you see? But those are two different effects of love, right? Do you see that? Whence the great Augustine says in the eighth book in the Trinity, that love is as a certain life joining together, right? Or desiring to join together some two. Name the lover and what is loved. For when Augustine says joining together, he refers to the union of affection, right? Without which there is no love. Now I use the word life there in the singular, right? Like in Shakespeare's prologue to Roman Juliet, right? We'll use the word life for Mary Juliet in the singular. How can that be, right? The same way Augustine says. And when he says desiring to join together pertains to the union in what? Things, right? As I say, the article is about the effects of love, so it just distinguishes two effects of love that are union, right? The union we have from the mere fact that I love you or the mere fact that I love candy, right? And then the union that I seek as a result of that with you or with the candy, right? The real union, so to speak, right? But two different unions, right? Both in effect of love, right? But one ipso facto by the very fact of love, right? I'm attached to you or I'm attached to candy, depending on the kind of love it is, right? And the other one that I seek that could be impeded because of circumstances, right? But in the replied objections, he will speak of a third relation of union to love is a union which is a cause of love, right? So I'm attached to my brother Marcus or my brother Richard because we have the same, what, parents, right? Or I'm attached to somebody because they're like me, right? To the first, therefore, it should be said that that objection proceeds about the union in things which pleasure requires as a cause. So I enjoy being together with you if I love you, right? I enjoy having some candy if I love candy, right? Desire to be sure is in the real absence of the loved, but love indeed both in the absence and in the presence, right? So I like candy whether I have it or don't have it, right? But when I don't have it, I have desire for it. When I have it, I have pleasure, right? Okay? Now, the second objection is adding something to what we saw about the causes of love, right? Because the third cause of love is likeness, right? But if I love you because you're like me, well, then I must even more so love what? Myself. Not because I'm like myself, but because I'm more than like myself. I am myself. Richard loves Richard. That is I.M.I. at Shakespeare's King Richard III, right? You see? Okay? And so this is adding a little bit to our understanding of what cause, right? To the second, it should be said that union is to love in three ways now, right? This is very important to see. It can also be a cause of love as well as a being, but almost the same thing as love, and then the union that we seek is the result of our love with somebody. For some union is a cause of love, and this is a union of substance, identity, as regards the love by which someone loves himself, right? As regards the love by which someone loves another, it is a union of likeness, as has been said, right? You see why I put the likeness as a cause of love on the side of the lover, right? Because he unites the two of them together during the end of the union, right? I love myself because I'm one with myself, right? I love you who are like me because we're one in kind, right? Okay? Birds of a feather flock together, as they say, right? Okay? But some union seems to be almost the same thing as love itself, right? But some union is essentially love itself. And this is a union by the fitting together of affection, which is like the union of substance insofar as the lover is to the loved and the union of friendship as to himself and the love of wanting as to something of himself, right? You see that? Okay. And that's why we do speak of that. If you like something, we are said to be attached to it, right? Right? From the very fact that we love it, right? Even if we don't have it, right? All the time, right? So that attachment is a sign of our being united in some way with the thing we love, right? It seems to be almost the same thing as love, right? For me to love you, for me to love candy, is for me to be attached to you or to be attached to candy, right? Do you see that? So he says love makes that union formally in the body of the article, right? But here he speaks as if it's almost the same thing as love, right? Okay. And some union is the effect of love, right? And that's the...