Great point: "There are these ideas that to get rid of love or sexuality would get rid of the social complications, but it is doubtful if the social would even exist without these complications called love. I really don't think so. We could also say that if love is not, or no longer, so trendy, as it used to be, but appears more as a source of unnecessary complications that could be avoided, that this has a lot to do with how the social infrastructure is disintegrating rapidly, all around us. So as subjective and exclusive as it could be, love is also a social affect, we cannot be without these things."
As the Lenin said once."Love for whom? Love for what?" (paraphrasing his answer about freedom ) Is Valentin's day for all kinds of loving, or just specifically for affection love to your sexual partner? Is that include love for your cat? your nephew? your grand mum? your friend? I think (and felt that every february the 14. every year...) that consumerism highjacked our most precious and most intimate feeling we still have.
Love does seem to be born out of our social-relations as an obstacle. While sexuality, on the other hand, as something that needs to be emancipated, does not at all seem correct, under the present social-relations.
"Eccentric core" ! Me like ... However as long as keep pushing the idea of love along the line of degrees and levels these paradigms evermore will disturb the very act of loving. Loving in all it's spectrality. The concept always will.put limits to an operation which needs no description. The deeds PRRECISELY stand and fall for and by themselves, I claim. SORRY, I talk too much😊
This age old attempt to fuse the public with the private, rather skillfully done here, remains nonetheless a very old social ironist dance we might do well to abandon.
