Good Evening Friends,

Last time we gave the merest summary of a thumbnail sketch of the tip of the iceberg of the philosophy of Slavoj Zizek. We shall go no further, but as promised, we shall try to apply what we discussed concerning his analysis of the nature of belief to love and criminology.

I said last time that my introduction to the ideas of Dr. Zizek made me modify my views on love. I am still reasonably confident in the ontological analysis I offered. I am just no longer as sanguine in the efficacy of trying to apply it across the board. In this way I think I have been incredibly naive and utopian.

I still think it is useful to know the difference between the In-Love and the In-Desire state. I still think that Love and Desire are as I had described them. I still subscribe to alternate analysis of the myth of Narcissus I had offered. But given the massive dislocations, devastations, and horrors most people of the world are subject to (i.e., famine, war, genocide, slavery, disproportionate felt impact of climate change, etc - and not all of these felt outside the United States),it must be mathematically impossible for every couple that comes together to have both members who are In-Love with the other.

Maybe its enough if at least one member of the couple is In-Love and the other is at least In-Desire; or maybe both can merely be In-Desire with one another, even as they both share the belief in love. Maybe its not so bad to be in love with being in love. I think, once again, we may find that the pragmatism of our ancestors had been built on a firmer foundation than we had thought.

On that note, let me pose this question which we shall return to in due time. This is a thought experiment in Existential ethics. Suppose a woman is married to a man. He is In-Love with her and she is In-Desire with him. For all intents and purposes they are "in love."

They are married for fifteen years, live in a lovely home, have fulfilling careers and have brought a pack of great kids into the world. They are very happy.

But the wife, let's call her Susan meets a man, at a convention of some sort or another, with whom she has an affair. Let's call the other man, Derek. They are In-Love. This is the real thing because they summon each other's "avatars," as we have discussed. Here is the question, and remember this is an exercise in Existential ethics: by having this affair with Derek, has Susan honored love or dishonored it? A related question: would she have been right to divorce her husband and marry Derek, if she became aware of her feelings for him, ideally before the two of them actually committed adultery?

I will come back to this matter. But next time I will talk a little about the application of the nature of belief to criminology when we consider the so-called sociopath and the nature of violence itself.

I will be using a simple formula: all violence is an act of greed, and greed always comes from fear. Therefore, all violence is driven by fear. Greed expresses itself in violence, of one kind or another, physical, emotional, or financial; and greed is the result of fear. We shall also be thinking of violence of any kind as a breech of trust, an attack on belief or ideology. Then we will return to the question in our thought experiment.

Good Night and Good Luck!

wingedcentaur