"The Mess of Love" By D.H.Lawrence

 D.H. Lawrence “The Mess of Love”

We've made a great mess of love

Since we made an ideal of it.

The moment I swear to love a woman, a certain woman, all my life

That moment I begin to hate her.

The moment I even say to a woman: I love you! --- 

My love dies down considerably. 

The moment love is an understood thing between us, we are sure of it,

It's a cold egg, it isn't love any more.

Love is like a flower, it must flower and fade;

If it doesn't fade, it is not a flower,

It's either an artificial rag blossom, or an immortelle, for the cemetery.

The moment the mind interferes with love, or the will fixes on it,

Or the personality assumes it as an attribute, or the ego takes possession of it, 

It is not love any more, it's just a mess.

And we've made a great mess of love, mind-perverted, will-perverted, ego-perverted love.

I can’t say for sure but my intuition tells me that DH Lawrence polarizes thinking and sex. He does use the term ‘mistrust’ very often in his novels, the few I’ve read.  In this excerpt (lines 12-14), the mind interferes, the ego takes possession, and ruins it – note the impersonal here in his oft used ‘it.’ Therefore, I think that for DH Lawrence love equals sex. Lawrence presents the natural, materialist attitude over the metaphysical. He likes to wax poetic and perhaps supernatural rather than stoop to the explanatory or the historical. That is, for Lawrence, love is not metaphysical but entirely natural and if there are any higher order considerations, they are supernatural. Explanation, or sociality and politics, of sexuality is denounced by Lawrence. This notion is reflected in his term ‘mess.’ What could ‘mess’ refer to? Perhaps to sex itself as ‘dirty,’ or perhaps to his life experience where the social conditions of his existence contrasted with his ideal notion of sex, or possibly to the complexity of his writing and publishing output. To Lawrence, the reasoning mind opposes sex, to know the other is to hate the other. Nothing but impersonal physical union, the natural, is appreciated; to possess, conquer without companionship or any connection to reproduction is desired. Love is sometimes contrasted to celibacy and chastity which does not refer to a mess but reflects his earlier use of “ideal” (line 2). Other times, there is a group reference: ’we’ (line 1), ‘us’ (line 7) or ‘either-or’ (line 11) which might refer to two wives or lovers! Then, lastly, there is the threefold use of ‘perverted’ which implies a sort of injury or symptom – he is cut off from love, from sex. What could a perverted mess be but something disgusting?

Marcuse - clarifying the Notion of Repressive Tolerance

 Marcuse - Clarifying the Notion of Repressive Tolerance

For Marcuse, particular representations appear universal in mass communications because of their capitalist structure and “official” framing. There are few formal blocks on content since our society is not considered fascist. However, there is a lack of detail, of explanation, of credibility, and differences are absorbed under dominant interpretations, creating an illusion of freedom and truth. Contrasting ideas, oppositions, are cancelled in a ‘higher unification,’ which promotes a one-dimensional public language which unfortunately is full of insults. Marcuse’s “Repressive Tolerance explains how the logic of a neutral marketplace of ideas, like the fiction of a free market, puts minority perspec­tives at a disadvantage - although any oppositional group is formally ‘free to deliberate and discuss, to speak and to assemble,’ it is ‘left harmless and helpless in the face of the overwhelming majority, which militates against qualitative social change. Next to dominant ideas, non-conformist thought seems incomprehensible or becomes compromised as it is evaluated through one-dimensional ‘public language.’ Opposing ideas are incorporated into that which they oppose (for example, a demand for peace is countered by the idea that the war aims to create peace), and pluralist tolerance is nothing but this incorporation.’



The media today no longer follow a ‘balance’ value where destructive statements are ‘balanced’ by their criticism - the original meaning of repressive tolerance. Instead, media today are data-driven by aggregates of followers which are influenced by political parties and lobbyists: corporate news. Nonetheless, “tolerance” refers to cultural superiority that depicts opposition to right-wing populist positions that blame outsiders for social problems as an enemy narrative.  The actual domination and exploitation between the right-wing populists and the so-called outsiders is ignored.  This is a one-dimensional discourse pushed by media which barely represents the opposition, that is, fails to interpret and explain populist mentality, much less criticisms. Repressive tolerance permits extremist and prejudiced views under a veil of neutrality by failing to address militant mentalities and hate-groups.

Class frames our ideological background - work and sacrifice are not intrinsic to human experience, but depend on social circumstances. For Marcuse, the current reality principle ‘applies to the brute fact of scarcity which is caused by the organization of scarcity, and the specific existential attitude enforced by this organization.’ Taibbi denies scarcity and by extension, I presume, believes that prices are caused by supply and demand. The scarcity of non-service jobs (80% of jobs are service jobs), of affordable housing, affordable health care not to mention rational healthcare, nutritious food in contrast to ‘corporate food,’ and social networks where competition and domination are not prominent. The “reality” principle, says Marcuse, stops us from seeking greater fulfillment even though technologi­cal developments could enable it, and is thus an ideological construct serving particular class interests. 

The question is whether the existing social organi­zation can be repurposed towards the needs of the deprived and exploited, sometimes called pluralism or inclusion. The material needs of the subordinated reflects like a mirror the “necessity” of dominant social priorities. ‘Cultural or social revolution’ in the US demands individual rights and freedoms but fails to enact radical change. The lack of individual freedom and the violation of inalienable rights, the channeling and conditioning pushed by the social system and local social networks cause individuals to seek mostly negative freedom: freedom from.

John Rawls Theory of Justice

 John Rawls 1971 Theory of Justice, 1st paragraph

Justice is the first virtue of social institutions, as truth is of systems of thought. A theory however elegant and economical must be rejected or revised if it is untrue; likewise laws and institutions no matter how efficient and well-arranged must be reformed or abolished if they are unjust.

Each person possesses an inviolability founded on justice that even the welfare of society as a whole cannot override. For this reason justice denies that the loss of freedom for some is made right by a greater good shared by others. It does not allow that the sacrifices imposed on a few are outweighed by the larger sum of advantages enjoyed by many. Therefore

in a just society the liberties of equal citizenship are taken as settled; the rights secured by justice are not subject to political bargaining or to the calculus of social interests. The only thing that permits us to acquiesce in an erroneous theory is the lack of a better one; analogously, an injustice is tolerable only when it is necessary to avoid an even greater

injustice. Being first virtues of human activities, truth and justice are uncompromising.

Hebermas on Equality

 Juergen Habermas on Equality

In Virgil Nemoianu's construction of Habermas' dialogue with Benedict XVI, whose name is B. Ratzinger, Habermas is not portrayed unfairly, but it may seem that he has developed a flexibility which we may find difficult to understand. 

Since ‘Theory of Communicative Action,’ 1982, and perhaps even before, the universal idea of inclusion of all viewpoints was obvious in Habermas' work.  Habermas has stated repeatedly in most of his work in the past 20 or so years, that universal inclusion is a moral necessity, all voices must be heard and considered.  

Lately, Habermas has focussed on the term, ‘tolerance,’ to describe what an actualized inclusiveness and a real equality should live up to in ‘Natural Law andReligion, 2009. 

Tolerance is the best word here for an elaborate translation or interpretation. The work of Marcuse and Brienes and others in the 60's found the meaning of tolerance to include a superiority which contradicted equality.  Habermas explains especially in his “Equality of Cultures,” talk given at NYU on Oct 12, 2006, that certain policies impact on the religious identity of individuals differentially, for example, policies related to contraception, abortion, genetic engineering, limiting their freedom instead of expanding it as the policy or norm intended.  

Habermas explains the role of perspective-taking in communication and in the development of a rational understanding through communicative action or universal discourse - the emergence of an objective awareness occurs through the coordination of the 1st and 2nd person perspectives which involves a switching of perspectives. 

Habermas raises the point that secularists are required to take the perspectives of others in terms of their religious identity in order to understand the effect of laws, norms, policies, practices, and events on those other people. Similarly, Christians and Muslims are required to take the perspectives of other sects in their own religion as well as the perspectives of people from other religions. That is, a perspective on equality is not a leveling of perspectives but an inclusion of the differences.  

Historically, it must be recognized that the civil wars in the Middle East for the past 73 years are between different Muslim sects and between Muslims and Christians, and not only between Muslims andJews..

Propaganda is the sole substance of politics

 Propaganda is the Sole Substance of Politics -

Walter Lippmann (1889-1974) on Propaganda and Journalism

Lippmann is best known for his 1922 “Public Opinion” which is considered the founding document of journalism and media studies. Lippmann wrote continuously about democracy and freedom.

Lippmann (Preface to Morals, 1929) defined propaganda as deception: half-truths, lies, ambiguities, evasions, calculated silence, red herrings, unresponsiveness, slogans, catchwords, showmanship, bathos, hokum and buncombe. “They are one and all,” he said, “methods of preventing a disinterested inquiry into the situation.”

Lippmann (1929, Preface to Morals) distinguishes the politicians from the statesmen. “Candor is a bitter pill when first it is tasted but it is full of health, and once a man becomes established in the public mind as a person who deals with habitually and successfully with real things, he acquires an eminence of a wholly different quality from that of even the most celebrated caterer to the popular favor. His hold on the people is enduring because he promises nothing which turns out to be a fake. Sooner or later the politician, because he deals in unrealities, is found out.”  Lippmann goes on, “The words of a statesman have value because they express not the desires of the moment but the conditions under which desires can actually be adjusted to reality.”

Lippmann called the ‘technic of propaganda pernicious,’ and ‘pure democracy a mistake.’ He felt strongly that democracy will work if it is accurately representative. “The propaganda, the pressure groups, the formulation of a law that is higher than the Constitution, and the breaking down of the checks and balances (on the people’s will) are evidences of a radical defect in the conception of democracy” (How Liberty is Lost, 1938). 

Resistance to mass propaganda depends on individualism, on the independence of individuals. Lippmann addresses education as insufficient to protect the people from the media: the propaganda, the journalism, the lobbyists and pressure groups, and the corporations – what is required is self-education.

In “Mr. Strachey’s Case and the Law,” 1938, Lippmann discusses how the democrats believed they could tolerate any form of agitation short of open incitement to violence. However, since WWI, democrats have come to believe that an active defense of democratic institutions, e.g. elections, is an absolute necessity. He points out that the European nations have enacted laws making it a criminal offense to conduct propaganda which incites extreme hatred and thus leads to violence as when the right to meet and parade incites trouble. The democracies of Europe have turned away from the tolerance of agitation and now restrict free speech and freedom of the press when they are used to defame public authorities and to destroy the dignity of democratic institutions. Some nations have specially trained political police. 

William F. Buckley in 1974 said that free speech should be limited when it becomes licentious. Lippmann states the problem of democracy is when others come saying, “I demand from you in the name of your principles the rights which I shall deny to you in the name of my principles.” He addresses the problem of free speech as license to say whatever you like!

In 1957, The Portent of the Moon,” Lippmann contrasted two options for dealing with the Russian technological advance, “One response could be to think of it in terms of propaganda, and to look around for some device for doing something spectacular to outmatch what the Russians have done. The other response would be to look inward upon ourselves and to concern ourselves primarily with our own failings, and to be determined not so much to beat the Russians as to cure ourselves.” 

He goes on to specify our failings as the underfunding of education, a primary democratic public institution, and the scandals of racial inequality, the segregation and separation that contradicts our democratic principle of equality.

Lippmann frequently uses the term ‘propaganda’ as Communist propaganda, war propaganda, unprofessional journalism and the problem of licentious free speech. In 1943, “The Fascination of Greatness,” Lippmann praised Winston Churchill as a great statesman. He contrasts Churchill’s eloquence and magnanimity with this state of affairs: “That is why our spirits languish when their daily food is only the military communiques (the credibility gap), press releases, and an absolutely intolerable flood of gossip journalism, pipe-line journalism, and intrigue journalism about who is in the doghouse now, and how the courtiers (advisors and appointees) at the palace (White House) are planning to cut one another’s throats, and how the misunderstood and underappreciated are those who hand out the dope (the fake news) to those who then lick their boots.”

“The air is foul and stale with it all.”

Cognitive Dissonance and psychoanalysis

 Cognitive Dissonance and Psychoanalysis

The theory of ‘cognitive dissonance’ arises from a common sense belief that, if someone holds two ideas or desires or opinions that conflict, this conflict should cause mental discomfort and that the holder of the opin- ions will do something to lessen the discomfort. 

He or she may abandon one idea, possibly, or gain new information or beliefs to lessen the dissonance; if there is commitment to an idea, the person may adapt their belief or behavior, by forgetting, by reducing the importance of one of the dissonant elements or—in particular—by seeking to convince others whose adherence will confirm the cherished belief.

The "convincing" or persuading occurs by force of attitude or inner state versus by words, or rhetoric.

When people with strongly held beliefs are confronted by evidence clearly at odds with their beliefs, they will seek to resolve the discomfort caused by the discrepancy by convincing others to support their views rather than abandoning their commitments. They will seek, for instance, some means of re-establishing cognitive consonance without sacrificing their religious convictions or metaphysical ideas.

The psychoanalyst Langs felt strongly about this problem and presented the methodology of interpreting the interactions with a patient - verbal, behavioral, psychological - by hypothesizing an interpretation based on given evidence, and then wait for validating evidence later in the therapeutic situation before offering the interpretation. This kind of double checking provided a way of self-refuting interpretations based on counter-transference and establishing convincing evidence for the interpretation.

What Langs does, and what Popper exclaimed about, is to seek to falsify or disconfirm hypotheses that are primarily growing within the inner-dialogue between analyst and analysand on the basis of interpretations of talk.

I suppose however that over the time of a psychoanalysis a long series of hypotheses are generated, some are remaining without being falsified, and the gambit is to consider these as true or false, or as meaningless. But, the main issue of dissonance - convincing others on the basis of your own commitments - is avoided.

Lacan and Language

 Lacan and Language

One important idea that Lacan, the Freudian, disseminated is that the unconscious is language. The unconscious, in both Freud’s notions and other notions like Jung’s, includes the forgotten and the repressed, the distorted and the repeated, the relations between symptoms and language, between affect and language, and the role of language in self analysis, in therapeutic interaction, and in self-understanding, is perhaps the most important notion that Freud discovered and that Lacan recognized and discussed throughout his work. Lacan penetrates language by introducing new ideas, e.g. lack and the phallus, signification and clarifying the meanings of signified and signifier, and by providing new ideas about the most serious psychological problems, i.e. paranoia.

Firstly, the unconscious is affect and language is intricately entwined with affective experiences. 

Secondly, as an individual with a specific social location, the person is ascribed a status by her social milieu from immediate family to lineage to geography to wider social relations: political, economic, demographic and medical, etc., which may be realized or not but qualifies as an aim, an expectation and a role.

Our earliest sensations as an organism, the inscriptions upon and into our subjectivity from the earliest moments of our existence through to a mature language user involves a movement from a very immature and totally determined process of perception to a process of self reflection: a process of examining feelings and images including all sensory data, qualia, through language. 

Language has a doubled edge: clarifies but distorts. The forgetting and repressing mechanisms, which are both physiological and social, comprise the unconscious which contains all qualia, all affects, and the ways that experience has been coded, encoded and decoded in the cultural contexts of our social-historical locations.

The ways that language has been inscribed upon us as a learning process; the way language is ascribed to form our personality and social relations as attributes, speech acts and effects including lies of all kinds, and the way that language as a cultural institution dominates our social behavior, decisions and actions involves our consciousness which is impinged by unconscious mechanisms: forgetting, condensation, metonymy and metaphor, displacements and defenses inhibiting recall of affects and linguistic phenomena we have experienced!

One controversy that Lacan was involved in was his changing of the required 50-minute session length for a psychoanalytic session. Lacan explains the variable length: he states that he cuts off the session when the analysand makes the critical remark so that s/he cannot spend the rest of the session denying it. He calls this technique 'scansion.' The analysand has to deal with the event of the interrupted session! Why? Reflection may lead to some answers, the next session now has a topic! The real work of analysis, the part when self-understanding occurs, is between sessions. At issue is an expectation of 50 minutes, earlier or later leads to a quandary. The analyst is trying to say something!