Commitment

The preceding post has a number of implications for Relationship. I've already indicated that there is nothing about the nature of Love that prohibits concurrent loving relationships. I am tempted here to comment on polygamous marriages, but I will pass over this to concentrate on the single partner relationship.

If there is nothing inherently prohibitive in my formulation of Love, should we then have open marriages and relationships? I should clarify here: There is nothing prohibitive in the possibility, in the formulation of Love, but there is, however, a prohibitive element when we speak of -Commitment-. While it is possible for subject A to create a multitude of love formulations, it is precisely in the decision to narrowly define relation AR1 (for example) exclusively that subject A manifests prohibition. This is common sense. A choice is always a relatively free act, but a prohibitive/exclusionary one. I always choose A rather than B. It is in this sense that B is excluded or prohibited. I'm not sure I would go as far as some philosophers and declare therefore that Love is evil. Love, for them, is always a necessary choosing against, an exclusionary act which says, "this, but not that". I choose you, but not you. No, for me Love is the formulation of a relation between subject A and another, and is fundamentally a possibility within a multiplicity. It is not exclusionary whatsoever. It is, rather, the decision, the -commitment- which excludes. But is this decision/commitment a negative rather than positive act?

No, here I will borrow the language of Heidegger. Commitment is not a being-against-others, but a being-for-other (I will not discuss whether or not this is secretly a being-for-itself). Commitment is here framed in positive terms: the existence of another love subject does not concern the primary formulation of a commitment. It is a non-issue. Each time subject A is confronted with -another- he/she is faced again with the decision and commitment. Each time the decision is reaffirmed, it is a positive affirmation. It is not primarily a No to others, but a Yes to a specific formulation. It is life and freedom in this sense.

Have I escaped the consequences of this Yes? No, not entirely. I believe, however, that what remains for the one whose shared formulation with subject A is "non-that" is to either accept and rejoice in the positive affirmation by the other, to be indifferent, or to reject it and attempt to force the formulation. Here we are able to legitimately speak of evil at last. Evil, in this context, is the illegitimate forcing of a specific formulation. In this sense only should Love be considered evil.