I'd like to elaborate on this valuable point for the sake of integration
Educating ('Educare') as 'bringing out' through love is totally different from in-formational teaching of filling in. While the informer tells his audience what he sees for their eventual use, the educator inspires the educated to see it on their own. For this the educated needs all the confidence that love provides. Love also generates trust in another which is often useful, for without it children would eat pebbles instead of bread. However, trust is also often manipulated into brainwashed blind acceptance. Thus, education as advanced by Satish Kumar is one in which love, by not being interventional inspires the confidence necessary for one's seed to grow from its own potential. Trust alone is like telling the one we trust: 'I believe that your intention is for my good, but I don't believe that you are omniscient'.
From my purview love pedagogy is an on going process of reorienting oneself in relation to other people's experiences, not necessary through the perception of a person's identity. Identity politics do not often call for love as a response to violence enacted in the name of difference. In my artistic practice I seek to hold space where subjective experiences are accepted as fact, and developing of a relation through accepting difference results in loving actions. The following quote guides my line of thinking: Love … is a quest for truth … truth in relation to something quite precise: what kind of world does one see when one experiences it from the point of view of two and not one? What is the world like when it is experienced, developed and lived from the point of view of difference and not identity? That is what I believe love to be. -Alain Badiou’, "In Praise of Love'
By 'reorienting oneself in relation to other people's experiences, not necessarily through the perception of a person's identity', I guess you mean that identity calls for a lower level of love since it demands to preserve the dividing self entity. (The etymology of 'id' is said to stem from it so that identity objectifies an entity.)
Based on your love thought that distinguishes between love's point of reference whether from identity or from difference, one can see a sequence of love levels. Another level could be added in which the differences of interest are not present since the love relationship is within the perspective of love within Being as a whole. This third level is one that is called in psychology 'a total collapse of ego boundaries'. We could name those three levels: love, meta-love and post-love. In love, we retain our identities, but open the door of love to the loved. In meta-love the walls of identity disappear and the beloved meet in a reciprocal passageway despite differences in their backgrounds. In post-love, love is no more a relationship between the beloved alone, but part of their oneness within the whole.
'Do what you do with another human being (in the sense of judging and punishing), but never put them out of your heart' - Kabir Das
In a 1992 film 'A Stranger Among Us, towards its end (1:37-1:38:30), Ariel has to kill Mara, but he right away breaks down into tears for having had to do it!
@Elise Goldstein
Another quote from Kabir à propos the seed of education being sought in outer complexities, while it is to be found right in one's inner midst:
'I laugh when I hear that the fish in the water is thirsty. You wander restlessly from forest to forest while the Reality is within your own dwelling' - Kabir Das
This reminds of the following Biblical verses:
'Thus, the [heavenly commandment] is very near you; in your mouth and in your heart, so that you may do it' - Deuteronomy (30, 14)
'For My people have committed two evils: they have forsaken Me; the source ('La Source')of living waters, to carve out for them broken wells, which do not contain the water' - Jeremiah (2, 13)
There is a famousstory about one who had a dream that his fortune lay in a far away place, only to find out by going there that it lay in his own garden. The moral of the story is the principle of the above point. It teaches that looking out being easier is chosen at first over introspection. However, not being rewarded, looking out directs at last to introspection as the successful solution.
Satish Kumar implicitly reminds of an important point about words (language) in general and especially with regard to love. Words bridge between a state that lacks in focus or clarity and a state of experience beyond words. Once this state is reached, words have no place within the experience since they distract from and even break the experience. Words are bridges not residences!
🎯 Blending @Marc Hoffman's point into the three love stages of love, meta-love and post-love perspective and its above illustration; love is the attitude before crossing the separating bridge between confusion and pure experience, meta-love is the attitude while on the clarifying words' bridge and post-love is the state of having reached wordless experience!
'When [in the Garden of Eden] we ate the [fruit] from the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and [Bad], we became conscious... self-conscious... as separate entities (id-entities - a.m.). We lost that sense of oneness with nature, with the rest of the universe. And this loss... is symbolized by our banishment from Paradise... We cannot go back [like through the abuse of drugs] to recapture that deliciously warm and fuzzy sense of being one with nature once again. We can only go forward... through the desert of life, making our way painfully over parched and barren ground into increasingly deep levels of consciousness'. - Scott M. Peck, Further Along the Road Less Traveled p. 18, 108, 136
I'd like to elaborate on this valuable point for the sake of integration
Educating ('Educare') as 'bringing out' through love is totally different from in-formational teaching of filling in. While the informer tells his audience what he sees for their eventual use, the educator inspires the educated to see it on their own. For this the educated needs all the confidence that love provides. Love also generates trust in another which is often useful, for without it children would eat pebbles instead of bread. However, trust is also often manipulated into brainwashed blind acceptance. Thus, education as advanced by Satish Kumar is one in which love, by not being interventional inspires the confidence necessary for one's seed to grow from its own potential. Trust alone is like telling the one we trust: 'I believe that your intention is for my good, but I don't believe that you are omniscient'.
From my purview love pedagogy is an on going process of reorienting oneself in relation to other people's experiences, not necessary through the perception of a person's identity. Identity politics do not often call for love as a response to violence enacted in the name of difference. In my artistic practice I seek to hold space where subjective experiences are accepted as fact, and developing of a relation through accepting difference results in loving actions. The following quote guides my line of thinking: Love … is a quest for truth … truth in relation to something quite precise: what kind of world does one see when one experiences it from the point of view of two and not one? What is the world like when it is experienced, developed and lived from the point of view of difference and not identity? That is what I believe love to be. -Alain Badiou’, "In Praise of Love'
@Zoya Sardashti Great perspective!
By 'reorienting oneself in relation to other people's experiences, not necessarily through the perception of a person's identity', I guess you mean that identity calls for a lower level of love since it demands to preserve the dividing self entity. (The etymology of 'id' is said to stem from it so that identity objectifies an entity.)
Based on your love thought that distinguishes between love's point of reference whether from identity or from difference, one can see a sequence of love levels. Another level could be added in which the differences of interest are not present since the love relationship is within the perspective of love within Being as a whole. This third level is one that is called in psychology 'a total collapse of ego boundaries'. We could name those three levels: love, meta-love and post-love. In love, we retain our identities, but open the door of love to the loved. In meta-love the walls of identity disappear and the beloved meet in a reciprocal passageway despite differences in their backgrounds. In post-love, love is no more a relationship between the beloved alone, but part of their oneness within the whole.
@Aron Mueller
'Do what you do with another human being (in the sense of judging and punishing), but never put them out of your heart' - Kabir Das
In a 1992 film 'A Stranger Among Us, towards its end (1:37-1:38:30), Ariel has to kill Mara, but he right away breaks down into tears for having had to do it!
@Elise Goldstein
Another quote from Kabir à propos the seed of education being sought in outer complexities, while it is to be found right in one's inner midst:
'I laugh when I hear that the fish in the water is thirsty. You wander restlessly from forest to forest while the Reality is within your own dwelling' - Kabir Das
This reminds of the following Biblical verses:
'Thus, the [heavenly commandment] is very near you; in your mouth and in your heart, so that you may do it' - Deuteronomy (30, 14)
'For My people have committed two evils: they have forsaken Me; the source ('La Source') of living waters, to carve out for them broken wells, which do not contain the water' - Jeremiah (2, 13)
There is a famous story about one who had a dream that his fortune lay in a far away place, only to find out by going there that it lay in his own garden. The moral of the story is the principle of the above point. It teaches that looking out being easier is chosen at first over introspection. However, not being rewarded, looking out directs at last to introspection as the successful solution.
Satish Kumar implicitly reminds of an important point about words (language) in general and especially with regard to love. Words bridge between a state that lacks in focus or clarity and a state of experience beyond words. Once this state is reached, words have no place within the experience since they distract from and even break the experience. Words are bridges not residences!
🎯 Blending @Marc Hoffman's point into the three love stages of love, meta-love and post-love perspective and its above illustration; love is the attitude before crossing the separating bridge between confusion and pure experience, meta-love is the attitude while on the clarifying words' bridge and post-love is the state of having reached wordless experience!
'When [in the Garden of Eden] we ate the [fruit] from the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and [Bad], we became conscious... self-conscious... as separate entities (id-entities - a.m.). We lost that sense of oneness with nature, with the rest of the universe. And this loss... is symbolized by our banishment from Paradise... We cannot go back [like through the abuse of drugs] to recapture that deliciously warm and fuzzy sense of being one with nature once again. We can only go forward... through the desert of life, making our way painfully over parched and barren ground into increasingly deep levels of consciousness'. - Scott M. Peck, Further Along the Road Less Traveled p. 18, 108, 136