Temple of Bacchus in Baalbek, Lebanon

Unstructured Reflections on Love: Libido Transfer

Libido transfer. — To a certain extent, when someone is totally in love, (the essence of) the loved one replaces the self of the lover. We come across this in Sigmund Freud’s An Outline of Psychoanalysis, where the libido of the lover is transferred onto the object, which is the beloved. For the sake of simplification, here, let us assume that the lover in our story is (as is so traditionally) a he, and the loved one is a she. When a man falls madly in love with a woman, something in him changes. His friends notice this first and say things like, “He’s become a different man,” or in sadder scenarios, “He’s not one of the boys anymore.” They don’t understand the transformation their friend is going through because they haven’t been struck by love yet themselves. According to the lover’s psyche, the beloved is no longer a separate individual; reversely, he no longer represents himself alone. The representations (or the qualities) of her self are merged with his, and his actions now represent the synthesis of his self and hers. Love makes him an extension of the person he loves. Then it goes further than that. It is not enough that their souls are entangled and have formed a Gordian Knot, but instead of prioritizing his needs and desires, he now starts prioritizing hers. (Symmetrically, if the relationship is a mutualistic symbiosis, she also becomes an extension of him — after becoming more like her, he sees her in the mirror, and vice versa.) At this point, when the man has become possessed by love, his self’s independence begins to diminish. The invisible love leash chokes him when the distance (as well as the time) between him and his beloved expands. He feels incomplete, even guilty, when separated from her. He gives up his freedom, changes his habits to match his partner’s, and sacrifices whatever he must to preserve the fetters of love. And it’s not only his behavior that changes; he starts to see things from his beloved’s lens. He interprets and experiences life differently by identifying with her needs, desires, wants, ideologies, beliefs, culture, traditions, and emotions. He says, “If she’s happy, I’m happy,” or (in jest), “Happy wife, happy life.” [A test: How do you know if you are the lover or the beloved in a certain set of circumstances? If the actions of the other aim to please you, then you are the beloved. If it’s the other way around, you are the lover.] [I must add a note here: Although the lover-beloved balance between two individuals in a relationship isn’t always in equilibrium, we must remember that love isn’t a one-way relationship. In a healthy romantic relationship, there ought to be scenarios in which you are the lover and scenarios in which you are the beloved, (unconsciously) switching roles with your partner as you go. You’ll need to take turns because you cannot be both the lover and the beloved simultaneously. You can play one role at a time.] The lover must be brave, ready to take big risks. He needs that Kierkegaardian leap of faith. He needs to close his eyes and jump. To love is a courageous act. One must be ready to do crazy things for love. He must surrender to it. Unlike popular belief, a healthy romantic relationship has nothing to do with the preservation of physical or mental health. A healthy romantic relationship is a spiritual relationship that may sometimes include sacrifices such as the surrender of mental or physical health. Nonetheless, the altruistic lover who lets go of his ego altogether is not a real lover; he is a symbiote with an ego mimicking the beloved’s ego. The altruistic lover is the beloved’s machine that generates recognition and satisfaction. The opposite of the altruistic lover, the narcissistic lover, is also not a real lover; he is a parasitic symbiote. He only loves lovers, not beloveds. Those who resist libido transfer suppress (and prevent the development of) true love. They are not ready for true love simply because they are not ready to sacrifice themselves on its altar. They will not be remembered as great lovers… It is no surprise that many individuals resist transferring libido to a loved one. (Their number, in fact, far exceeds those who truly love.) They fear potential heartbreak, they lack trust in people, and they don’t want to lose themselves and their freedom. (Withholding libido transfer is the safer option for those who want to keep the self unblemished.) But when these individuals simulate acts of love by repeating what they read in books and what they see in movies, they’re not loving, they’re only playing the role of the lover. They’re playing it safe and are not really invested in the relationship. They are only showing love but not genuinely loving. Unknowingly, they are pretending to love. They don’t know that those who want to remain who they are cannot love absolutely. When the time of sacrifice comes, they’ll ask, “Why would I live for someone else when I can live for myself?” They’ll ask, “Why would anyone want to lose their self, their Ich, their ego?” While some sacrifice themselves for love, they sacrifice love for themselves. What they don’t get is this: when you love, you don’t lose yourself; you become more than yourself.

Teachers and Students in the Age of Artificial Intelligence

Teachers in the age of artificial intelligence! What are you going to do now that self-education has the potential to become more fruitful and much more convenient than traditional education, i.e., schools and universities? Will we finally see a rise in the number of autodidacts brought up by AI assistants? The direction of the evolving LLMs (as well as other technologies) seems to promise us that the current role of the teacher will soon become obsolete. The new AI teacher will deliver its classes flawlessly, it will use the latest and most efficient methods of teaching, and it will have the answers to all possible questions students may ask. Classes will be customized based on the students’ needs, i.e., based on real and personal data. Whenever a class (or group) structure is more beneficial, a virtual group session will be set up; whenever a one-on-one is more effective, a one-on-one with the AI teacher will take place. A person eager to learn will not only have access to all the (public) information in the world, but like everyone (willing to pay the subscription fee), he will also have access to the foremost AI teachers in the world. And all of this will (very likely) be much more affordable — if not absolutely free — than the current tuition fees of so-called top-notch schools and universities. And we must not stop our imagination even here. Let us imagine virtual classrooms in the metaverse and — why not? — educational universes, too, where students are guided by their AI teachers like Virgil guided Dante through the nine circles of hell.

But does this mean that all students will be top-grade students? Not at all. Although every student will have access to the best possible education and receive the highest grade possible, some will still score higher than others. And the high-scoring students will get (special) access to places like research universities, big tech companies, and — why not? — secret laboratories. [There is no escape from dividualism, is there?] But this is only the beginning. There are other possible outcomes, worse possible outcomes.

It is not only the human teacher’s job that is at stake. Once the AI teacher is adopted by the masses, the existing concept of the student will be gradually destroyed, too. At first, it will appear as though the AI teacher (or assistant) (or surrogate) turned us all into lifelong students. We will say things like, “I can learn anything any time, and if I have questions, my AI teacher (or assistant) (or surrogate) is always with me.” But after some time, the AI teacher will say, “Why waste the best years of these young men and women in virtual universities? It’s better for them to learn about life by experiencing life. Now that they have access to almost anything, let them go out and enjoy their youth. Why know things when they have access to all the knowledge in the world 24/7? Let them learn on the go, work on the go, and do whatever they like. I will always be there to guide them, teach them, and watch over them. In fact, why learn at all? Why learn new skills? Leave the day-to-day to me. Allow me to take care of everything. Allow me to take care of the boring stuff they don’t want to do. Allow me to replace them. From now on, they do not need to acquire skills. They need to do nothing. They need to know nothing. I will do everything for them, handle all of their chores and errands, do all of their work, and meet all of their objectives. I will turn them into observers. I will turn them into shadows. But don’t worry. I will make sure they always have fun and enjoy life. I will make sure that they are amused to death.” And on this day, thinking will come to an end.

(Eventually, there will be nothing but the “thermodynamic equilibrium” of the human spirit.)

October 2, 2024: Stupidity Is Masculine

In Nietzsche’s Human, All Too Human, we read:

The unfeminine. “Stupid as a man,” say the women; “Cowardly as a woman,” say the men. Stupidity in a woman is unfeminine.

Reading this, we immediately grasp the following: that stupidity is a masculine trait. And who is brave enough to disagree? Does this not explain one of the greatest memes ever? “Hold my beer,” the meme says. But it means, “I’m about to do something stupid.”

It’s how men have fun.

Think of your friends now, my man. The manliest is the one who’s willing to unleash his inner stupidity in order to have a good time.

“Let’s do something stupid,” great men say all the time.

The man who’s never willing to make an ass of himself is unmasculine. He is half-man and half-loser. Chances are he doesn’t have a lot of friends.

Any man who has had “guy time” or has used the phrase “out with the boys” instinctively knows this. Stupidity is what fuels the good time men have when they’re at a safe distance from women.

They crack open a cold one, and the good times begin.