. Spinning .

One of the things I’d noticed in Symposium, and that Phaedrus elaborates upon in his opening statements to Socrates in Phaedrus, is a further separation of form of love into lover and beloved.  This notion has become foreign to us in this day of equality, of choosing partner by love that is mutual (although by no means is this a fact in all relationships).  But another point that Phaedrus makes is more relative; that of the honesty between non-lovers becoming of more importance in its very freedom:

Further, I say that you are likely to be improved by me, whereas the lover will spoil you. For they praise your words and actions in a wrong way; partly, because they are afraid of offending you, and also, their judgment is weakened by passion. Such are the feats which love exhibits; he makes things painful to the disappointed which give no pain to others; he compels the successful lover to praise what ought not to give him pleasure, and therefore the beloved is to be pitied rather than envied. But if you listen to me, in the first place, I, in my intercourse with you, shall not merely regard present enjoyment, but also future advantage, being not mastered by love, but my own master; nor for small causes taking violent dislikes, but even when the cause is great, slowly laying up little wrath-unintentional offences I shall forgive, and intentional ones I shall try to prevent; and these are the marks of a friendship which will last.

This to me brings up the notion of more perfect love.  The unions formed by friendship rather than romance or lust.  It doesn’t depend upon gender, and as a matter of fact, should not be affected by it.  While in Plato’s time the man/youth relationship was a strong and loving one, it was affected eventually by sexuality, just as still today we see the bonds of male/female relationships and the possibilities negated often by the implied physical form of love. 

I’ve always fought this notion; even when greatly proven wrong time and again.  My greatest friends in largest number have always been male.  Unfortunately, my partners have almost always needed the inclusion of a sexual relationship to comprehend the friendship.  So it is not hard to understand the bond of man to man, woman to woman, in the comprehension of the way of thinking, and yet the gender places boundaries on that love–for it is often truly love that brings the minds together.

Finished Plato’s Symposium and will be moving on to Phaedrus, but I know that I would like to eventually get the book form (I’ve been reading it online) as it seems to be wanting of a more continual thinking on the premise of the place and meaning of love that indeed, may change in meaning as one changes with learning.

Of the speeches on love by those present at the discussion, one appears to build upon the other in exploring the forms of love, in separating the physical from the spiritual, the good from the disruptive, the purpose and the happiness it offers on a higher plane.  It covers homosexual love, but in a way that I would think is elevating it to a place beyond the sexual attraction just as male/female love is disregarded for its baser instincts to focus on the friendship of love.

There are implications of love’s ability to go awry in its being sought for wrong purposes, and there is promise of its everlasting nature if understood and not abused.  There is obviously much more here to read into Symposium, and I’m sure I’ll be rereading portions, especially as Socrates tells of his teaching  by Diotima in the theory that ties in Boethius’ own concept of seeking good, along with the next reading of Phaedrus as things become more clear.

In the midst of a deep dinner discussion about the forms of love, I find this amusing bit:

"Pausanias came to a pause-this is the balanced way in which I have been taught by the wise to speak; and Aristodemus said that the turn of Aristophanes was next, but either he had eaten too much, or from some other cause he had the hiccough, and was obliged to change turns with Eryximachus the physician, who was reclining on the couch below him. Eryximachus, he said, you ought either to stop my hiccough, or to speak in my turn until I have left off.

I will do both, said Eryximachus: I will speak in your turn, and do you speak in mine; and while I am speaking let me recommend you to hold your breath, and if after you have done so for some time the hiccough is no better, then gargle with a little water; and if it still continues, tickle your nose with something and sneeze; and if you sneeze once or twice, even the most violent hiccough is sure to go. I will do as you prescribe, said Aristophanes, and now get on."

The move of the conversation is towards a form of love that is held in higher place than simply of the body, and perhaps is why they relegate male-female love to a lesser plateau than that of man and youth.  Though while this may include a romantic and homosexual form in its physicality and feeling, it is also, to me, a place to which heterosexual love should aspire, as well as that of friendship which is deep enough to encompass all. 

Some quotes and thoughts will follow soon.

Well, this is what I’ve decided on as my next classical reading, mainly because they’re short, and I’m just reading them online.

It just seemed to make more sense to take this journey up through the centuries–though of course, the words exist in the present and will in the future, just as they have in the past.

Neat tie-in with Divine Knowledge, eh?

Well, maybe pushing it a bit…