Translation? Not!

[psychoanaleesis]

One interesting memory that came into mind was the expression "Mahal kita" which my professor in college boasted about in one of our classes in Psychology. My professor in effect said something like, (I couldn't quite remember if she said this in English or Tagalog but I retained it in English nonetheless...) "Do you see the beauty of our language? When one says 'Mahal kita.' The you and I part are put together as opposed to the American/Western way of saying (or almost any other language for that matter) 'I love you' which implies that these are two separate people..."

She emphasized "Western" individualism as opposed to "Filipino" collectivism's approach to an expression of love and that somehow, the Filipino way of saying it is more effective or rather, "superior". However, I do not think that the interlingual rendition is much accurate in terms of semantics as to warrant an outright comparison of the two systems. The expressions 'Mahal kita' and 'I love you' are supposedly of equal value and definition for the bi-lingual layman. The former implies more than my teacher realizes for she may have subconsciously failed to take into account all manners by which this expression can be interpreted (and I have sinned also by not discerning it thoroughly at that moment). If a person utters the words 'Mahal kita' then what he is actually saying are two things: a. 'I have deep feelings for you' and b. 'I and you are together' thus, it means they are one, the same and/or we. This I think is a contradiction in a sense because if you are indeed together then neither can possess nor express having individual feelings. I think 'kita' by itself is a powerful psychological disguise which deceives the other and himself mostly by proposing that they are equals but are in fact individuals and more so, the person who says this is dominant than the other since the word 'I' has been implicated more than once. This is contrary to the statement 'I love you' which offers no deceit, no contradiction and which recognizes the individual is concerned. Thus, this is a statement that truly expresses equality. It proposes that a person has a deep feeling of affection for another but it does not necessarily anticipate a reciprocal response.

Furthermore, I believe that the linguistic anomaly of expression of togetherness such as 'Mahal kita' states the psychological condition of the person and consequently direct his future actions. This expression alone is problematic for if one does not acknowledge his own existence and the existence of others (people or objects) apart from himself then there could be no existence at all. As he is, but a part of conglomerate of 'others'. Then, it leads to a grievous situation for what if he does not attain the 'expected' result of his confession? Then, I could only discern that it leads to nothing but frustration, a sense of hopelessness that is often reflected by the "modern" arts which most of the world has embraced.

On one hand, to say, 'I love you' only requires your side of the story and if that other person does not see it similarly, then it is fine. For one knows that he can exist without the other but it is still better if the other person accepts. On the other hand 'Mahal kita' destroys the sense of individuality of a person and thus, wastes him/her as well. For the term 'We' cannot exist without at least two people sharing a common attribute.

I shall continue to explore the psychological implications of phrases to their appropriate value for when one says 'I love you/this' it should be the expression of ones highest appraisal of another person or object.

[anthony]

David,

Yes, the three most powerful words/concepts in any language all brought together - subject,verb,object - and the most fundamental Objectivism - consciousness,identity,existence,value - that statement "I love you".

But yet...I fully agree with N.Branden who said in an interview that for today's young, romantic love has little meaning and is very shallow(or words to that effect).

Looking back, that might have been true for the youth of every time - but, no, I think it's at the lowest point right now!

"Mahal kita" does have a poetic ring to it, until one analyzes its undertone, as you've done. "Oneness", or it's assumption, is at the heart of many wrongs, not least, love.

A thought-provoking post.

Tony

[BaalChatzaf]

But yet...I fully agree with N.Branden who said in an interview that for today's young, romantic love has little meaning and is very shallow(or words to that effect).

Looking back, that might have been true for the youth of every time - but, no, I think it's at the lowest point right now!

That might be good news. That means people are seeing things as they are and not as they wish they might be. Down with Romance. Hiss. Boo. It is a form of mental delusion.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[anthony]

But yet...I fully agree with N.Branden who said in an interview that for today's young, romantic love has little meaning and is very shallow(or words to that effect).

Looking back, that might have been true for the youth of every time - but, no, I think it's at the lowest point right now!

That might be good news. That means people are seeing things as they are and not as they wish they might be. Down with Romance. Hiss. Boo. It is a form of mental delusion.

Ba'al Chatzaf

Ba'al,

Some cheap psychologizing here, but anyone who's cultivated such a hard-ass attitude has just gotta be a sensitive soul.

Tell me I'm wrong!

(Promise, I won't breathe a word - your secret's safe with me.)

B) Tony

[tjohnson]

Ba'al,

Some cheap psychologizing here, but anyone who's cultivated such a hard-ass attitude has just gotta be a sensitive soul.

Tell me I'm wrong!

(Promise, I won't breathe a word - your secret's safe with me.)

B) Tony

I don't think so, Tony

[Reidy]

The story you tell in #1 is a classic example of what Rand calls a stolen concept - a concept invoked in the act of denying it. The teacher is trying to sell loosey-goosey cultural relativism (which happens itself to be a modern western notion), but to do this she claims, most un-relativistically, that one way of thinking is better than another as a matter of objective fact that holds for everyone and not as a matter of cultural preference.

[Christopher]

David, you are absolutely right to argue the difference between Mahal kita and I love you as potentially being conflictual in a uniting of beings.

In addition to the viewpoint Rand and Branden enforced, which describes a very agency-oriented scope of phenomenal experiences to which your statement is wholly congruent, there are scopes of phenomenal experiences in which Mahal kita has tangible and valid meaning. I am referring specifically to the philosophical works of Martin Buber and to the psychological works of Carol Gilligan.

Within Buber's described manner of experiencing the world, more common to women, empathy contributes to high levels of shared experiences. Individuals experience the ego as arising from relationships with others. This type of experience is not considered a casting off of ego, but rather is a very "egoic" experience driven by connection. It is connection which fulfills a human need and contributes to fulfillment. "I and you are together" thus represents a phenomenal state of experience that feels like full sharing of identity (which massively contributes to connection), and at the same time the experience is self-centering, gives strength and fulfillment to the individuals experiencing it (opposite the phenomenal costs of true self-dissolution).

[psychoanaleesis]

David, you are absolutely right to argue the difference between Mahal kita and I love you as potentially being conflictual in a uniting of beings.

In addition to the viewpoint Rand and Branden enforced, which describes a very agency-oriented scope of phenomenal experiences to which your statement is wholly congruent, there are scopes of phenomenal experiences in which Mahal kita has tangible and valid meaning. I am referring specifically to the philosophical works of Martin Buber and to the psychological works of Carol Gilligan.

Within Buber's described manner of experiencing the world, more common to women, empathy contributes to high levels of shared experiences. Individuals experience the ego as arising from relationships with others. This type of experience is not considered a casting off of ego, but rather is a very "egoic" experience driven by connection. It is connection which fulfills a human need and contributes to fulfillment. "I and you are together" thus represents a phenomenal state of experience that feels like full sharing of identity (which massively contributes to connection), and at the same time the experience is self-centering, gives strength and fulfillment to the individuals experiencing it (opposite the phenomenal costs of true self-dissolution).

Thank you Christopher. I see your point. However, I would like to know, based on this theory that if two persons "feel they share the same identity" and the experience is based (mostly) on the "connection/relationship with the others", should the connection be severed, where would that the person's ego who was left behind be?

Interestingly, if this theory if founded on 'women', then it could explain the notion that females are more possessive, more likely to get jealous and therefore feel the most scorn should there be a break-up.

Edited March 20, 2010 by David Lee

[psychoanaleesis]

"Mahal kita" does have a poetic ring to it, until one analyzes its undertone, as you've done. "Oneness", or it's assumption, is at the heart of many wrongs, not least, love.

A thought-provoking post.

Tony

Hello Tony:

I forgot to mention this in my original post but there is a direct expression of "I love you" (and for me more poetic/romantic) in my primary language, "Ako ay nagmamahal sa iyo" which implies that the person is currently and continually (consistently) loving the other person. "Ako ay" being "I am"; "nagmamahal" - "loving"/"in love" and "sa iyo" - " with you".

Ah, the beauty of words...

Edited March 20, 2010 by David Lee

[Christopher]

Thank you Christopher. I see your point. However, I would like to know, based on this theory that if two persons "feel they share the same identity" and the experience is based (mostly) on the "connection/relationship with the others", should the connection be severed, where would that the person's ego who was left behind be?

Wow, I really have to draw on my own limited experiences here since I am by far the type of person who lives in the other world... Actually, I am not qualified to describe it. I suppose the best way I can think about it is to recognize that humans have a number of different needs, and the pursuit and fulfillment of each need offers some foundation for this ephemeral thing called an "ego." Perhaps the ego is like a collection of eggs in different baskets. In truth, I really don't know and I cannot answer your question. The works of Buber and Gilligan really blew my mind, but the funny thing is that their observations are based on a non-minority population of normal people in society, and the observations match up like a mirror to self-centric awareness. From what I've read and from a tiny bit of personal experience, it's like a parallel phenomenal universe with equal status to the one most of us on this forum generally reside in.

I have more to say, but it would all be theoretical if coming from me.

[psychoanaleesis]

Thank you Christopher. I see your point. However, I would like to know, based on this theory that if two persons "feel they share the same identity" and the experience is based (mostly) on the "connection/relationship with the others", should the connection be severed, where would that the person's ego who was left behind be?

Wow, I really have to draw on my own limited experiences here since I am by far the type of person who lives in the other world... Actually, I am not qualified to describe it. I suppose the best way I can think about it is to recognize that humans have a number of different needs, and the pursuit and fulfillment of each need offers some foundation for this ephemeral thing called an "ego." Perhaps the ego is like a collection of eggs in different baskets. In truth, I really don't know and I cannot answer your question. The works of Buber and Gilligan really blew my mind, but the funny thing is that their observations are based on a non-minority population of normal people in society, and the observations match up like a mirror to self-centric awareness. From what I've read and from a tiny bit of personal experience, it's like a parallel phenomenal universe with equal status to the one most of us on this forum generally reside in.

I have more to say, but it would all be theoretical if coming from me.

Have confidence Christopher. Do not be dissuaded by "deepeties". You know what's right. Express it even it is actually "all theoretical". Grope in the dark - but grope with your eyes open ready for the light. If you have to leap, leap! But with an aim in mind so you know where you'd eventually land!

[Christopher]

I've actually thought about this problem more in the early afternoon. I suppose I was trying to explain it from a personal experience POV, but I do know it somewhat well from a theoretical perspective.

The idea of "you and I are together" is an experience. The shared experience may coincide with an arena of emotions and intuitions that arise from the seemingly-mutual experience of being one. If/when that connection shatters, the arena of emotions and intuitions that arose through the connection may become lost, but the ability to think and reason still remain. I suppose anyone who reads Buber will understand this experience, and I will not go too much into details. His work is amazing though: http://www.angelfire.com/md2/timewarp/buber.html

The first question: is a sense of self merely a singular scope of experiences? I don't think people generally reduce their sense of self strictly to one set of experiences. As such, individuals can experience both Mahal kita and at a different time when they are alone have a different set of experiences. We know this intuitively: many people feel different about themselves when around family versus at work. Of course any number of psychology-theories can also point out this fact. A sense of self is actually any number of independent parallel self-identities that arise throughout the day.

The next question: is it valid to call a "shared experience" as such a sense of self? Unequivocally I answer yes. What is empathic experience but this? And do we not have experiences everyday that do not necessarily feel like self and yet are ontologically self-expressions (such as recognizing our anima/animus in others, or the natural and occasional feeling of helplessness)? So an experience of being one, although it does not feel singular, does not invalidate the experience as an act of self-expression.

And that's my two-cents.

[psychoanaleesis]

I've actually thought about this problem more in the early afternoon. I suppose I was trying to explain it from a personal experience POV, but I do know it somewhat well from a theoretical perspective.

The idea of "you and I are together" is an experience. The shared experience may coincide with an arena of emotions and intuitions that arise from the seemingly-mutual experience of being one. If/when that connection shatters, the arena of emotions and intuitions that arose through the connection may become lost, but the ability to think and reason still remain. I suppose anyone who reads Buber will understand this experience, and I will not go too much into details. His work is amazing though: http://www.angelfire.com/md2/timewarp/buber.html

The first question: is a sense of self merely a singular scope of experiences? I don't think people generally reduce their sense of self strictly to one set of experiences. As such, individuals can experience both Mahal kita and at a different time when they are alone have a different set of experiences. We know this intuitively: many people feel different about themselves when around family versus at work. Of course any number of psychology-theories can also point out this fact. A sense of self is actually any number of independent parallel self-identities that arise throughout the day.

The next question: is it valid to call a "shared experience" as such a sense of self? Unequivocally I answer yes. What is empathic experience but this? And do we not have experiences everyday that do not necessarily feel like self and yet are ontologically self-expressions (such as recognizing our anima/animus in others, or the natural and occasional feeling of helplessness)? So an experience of being one, although it does not feel singular, does not invalidate the experience as an act of self-expression.

And that's my two-cents.

Boy, Buber is full of "deepeties". So, a person cannot or should not ask his/her partner the, "Why do you love me?" because according to his system, the other automatically becomes an object and not another person and thus, loses the meaning of the relationship. Would it be preferable that your partner can identify the very reason why he/she loves you or you wouldn't like to hear him/her speak of it?

This is where most people commit the fallacy of circular reasoning. Consider the following and see which you'd prefer to hear:

Scenario A

Woman: "Why do you love me?"

Man: "I love you because I love you."

Scenario B

Woman: "Why do you love me?"

Man: "Ah, let me count the ways..." (and causes to which he has come to that conclusion)

"Why" automatically asks the observer to analyze and identify qualities which Buber's theory avoids altogether. In summary, he asks the practitioner to "just enjoy the moment..." while in implication, be blind, deaf and mute about expressing his reasons as to the cause of his feelings.

Christopher, I ask you to look at the monstrosity here which I see: it keeps on emphasizing "oneness" and "unity" while the very name of the system itself has a split: I-Thou. See the dash? Why can't Buber coin a more fitting term for this? I am not denouncing the word "Kita" or "I and you together" because it is part of my vernacular. Please note that I am contesting its appropriateness to attach itself to the concept of love.

Suppose I could ask Buber to demonstrate this in front of witnesses, what would the outcome be? If he and God are one and the same? He thinks in conglomerates and at the same time shattered ideas hastily pasted together to feed those who seek a shortcut. I must say, I am amazed by your stand. Keep at it, that is, if you want to.

Edited March 21, 2010 by David Lee

[Christopher]

David,

I see your logic clearly. Branden wrote and rebutted many statements by Fromm to the effect of "everyone is lovable" with a logic similar to the one you are using. Contrasting Branden's interpretation of Fromm, my understanding is that Buber is not so straight-forward.

Buber's position is not that I-Thou = Love. My interpretation is that I-Thou equals an arena of phenomenal experience in which love can blossom. We can all feel an intimate connection with someone in a moment of joint context. That brief intimacy sounds like Buber's I-Thou. But love is perhaps more rich and more sustained, it is an intimacy that remains constant across contexts, and such a consistency necessarily requires a meeting of values.

The way I see it, love is an experience. The experience is not a cognitive calculation, it is an (unconscious) emotional calculation. The emotional calculation occurs precisely because the loved-person has qualities and characteristics that allow for the experience of love to arise. Objectivism couldn't necessarily argue this position as false, but Objectivism would assert that we should also be consciously aware of why we love a person. Whatever the case, conscious awareness is not required for feelings and emotions to take effect, they only supplement the process.

I agree, it is nice to know why we are loved and why we are in love. It is healthy to know such things, healthy to have this self-awareness. But I also think it is valid to know oneself and to know that the self is in love in order to know that we indeed love a person. The reasons are just... well, reasons.

Edited March 22, 2010 by Christopher

[BaalChatzaf]

Ba'al,

Some cheap psychologizing here, but anyone who's cultivated such a hard-ass attitude has just gotta be a sensitive soul.

Tell me I'm wrong!

(Promise, I won't breathe a word - your secret's safe with me.)

B) Tony

You are wrong. I am getting harder with the passage of time. Major exception --- my grandchildren. I am always soft and mushy with them. For people outside my family I have only justice and truth. No sentimentality. None. Nada.

I consider compassion a major weakness and pity a form of soul-rot. If one must love, let it be tough love.

Ba'al Chatzaf