Puffer fish love
I saw Abraham Twerski video on fish love a few years ago. Was quite impressed the way it started. You love fish no you love yourself. Covered self love vs love for others. Strangely at the end of the short youtube video I was surprised that something just didn’t make sense.
Took me a few more views to figures out what was wrong with the rabbis’ preaching. It then finally dawned on me. While pointing out the fatal flaws of loving oneself (which in itself is not wrong but that is a different discussion altogether), the real issue was that the Rabbi’s explanation of what was no self love was still simply — self love.
The rabbi as a first step says self love is bad. I am guessing he is insinuating that it represents greed. Let us accept that argument for the moment. At this point he seems to indicate that there is something more important than self love and that is “love for the other”. Unfortunately in the example he doesn’t explain what Love for the other means. Then does the big “aha” !
You love those to whom you give
Then goes on to say
Since I have given something to you I have invested in you (sic!) and since I love myself (self love is a given) now I have got to love you!
Get Vivek Venugopalan’s stories in your inbox
Join Medium for free to get updates from this writer.
Oh MY. That feels so wrong at every level, philosophical to simple logic. To top it off, what is being expounded is all about greed which is what he wanted to say love is not!
So let us take that premise slowly shall we? This time we will try to interpret that quote right to left. Self love is a given (wasn’t that supposed to be bad?). If we start with self love as a premise within me, if I can see myself in someone obviously I have to love them don’t I? So how do I go about seeing myself in someone? Here is where the twist lies. We will be able to see ourselves in someone if we give a part of ourselves to someone. So now replay that back to front — Give a part of you, see yourself and love yourself.
Whatever happened to loving the other person unconditionally? Whatever happened to altruistic love? I think we seem to have gone way off track isn’t it?
Let me attempt to set the records straight. Love — especially altruistic love is not about measuring what you give and claiming visitation rights in someone’s life because you think you have given something. Altruistic love is about giving with no expectation whatsoever. It is about giving without believing that you have a right to something in return. It is JUST GIVING!
Why? Because you think you want to or you think it is the right thing to do! If at any point in giving ANYTHING you had an inclination of getting something in return it is not giving it is called BARTER. Do not confuse your barter for giving and diminish the people who truly give!
I was discussing my thoughts with a friend and an interesting point of view came about, Namely expectations from who we love.
When we love we expect them to behave in a certain way or act in a certain way. Let us talk with a few examples. A husband and wife where each expect a certain type of behaviour and an expectation of being there for each other. The perspective my friend had was love is accompanied by expectations.
Another example is one of a parent — child relationship. A parent expects their child to behave or act in a certain way. Is your love for your child determined by the expectations ? If the answer is yes your love is conditional which essentially means you are back in the barter system.
The way to see this clearly is to decouple the expectation from love. They are two unconnected things. We can expect people to behave in a certain way but that cannot define or diminish how we love them. To put it in simple terms, true parental love is altruistic in nature not predicated by the ward’s behavior.
We can safely conclude that the grand idea that is being spoken about in the video is barter and not altruistic love garbed under the image of altruistic love. Similarly love and expectations make strange bedfellows. They are best experienced alone and in their full glory.
