we want meaning!

georg lukács, though often orange and pixelated,
had some great things to say about perception.
"there is a nostalgia of the soul where the longing for home is so violent that the soul must, with blind impetuousness, take the first path that seems to lead there." - georg lukács

i've heard it said that the mind is a "connecting organ," the entity which allows us to makes sense of the world, to perceive things as meaningful and inter-related, whether they are or not.

this is obviously of biological utility.

but the 19th century scottish philosopher david hume made the claim that we are not suited for considering the metaphysical, emphasizing the distinctions between "lively perceptions" and our (inherently at least intermittently wayward) internal reflections on those perceptions.

is this true?

have we, in the search for what the self deems as necessary meaning, overstepped our bounds? have we strayed from the path of mentally "connecting" as a biological necessity and stumbled into the dense and foggy woods of the metaphysical without good cause?

there is virtually no question in my mind as to whether or not there is a transcendent God, a transcendent reality. but i only know this experientially, and have no tangible proof or logical processes to this effect. we can compare experiences, yes. but is there a logical conversation we can have about the transcendent? or is hume right?

so far, the only thing that i can appeal to is human need. perhaps the human need and desire for love indicates something about the nature of reality.

and this is where i need some help. i need to hear some perspectives on the subject:

- what is love?
- what is the nature of human desire for love?

i really want to explore and write about this more. any thoughts? you can send them in an email to joeldevyldere(at)msn.com or leave them as a comment below. let's keep this conversation going.

as ever,



  1. The heart is more suited to apprehending love than is the mind, but here are some thoughts... Love is the force that focuses all of the lover's resources toward blessing, building up, and encouraging the beloved to manifest their best and highest potential, helping them to live according to their created value. We desire love precisely because we are dependent beings who must draw upon outside resources in order to achieve anything of value. If we do not believe in and receive it from a lover, we fear lack, which means death, and become greedy takers who fall short of all that love might have purposed for us. (Davin)

  2. What is love
    Baby don't hurt me
    Don't hurt me
    no more
    Baby don't hurt me
    Don't hurt me
    no more

  3. 1. This was a fascinating read, Joel. I enjoyed it.
    2. The church says that the metaphysical got physical. Oh yeah babe.
    3. Perhaps the logical conversation we can have with Humes concerns both feeling and fact. Paul at Mars Hill had a logical conversation about the "transcendent".
    4. "he is actually not far from each one of us" (Acts 17:22-31)

    now concerning your last 2 questions... here is my pathetically poetic response:

    love is a dance with many steps. some more precise than others. the nature of human desire for love is of God. our souls want to dance with someone. that first being with God, the marvelous person, who's love for us is deep and wide. yet the enemy of this romance is sin. but God's arms are longer than that.

  4. @nathan
    "metaphysical got physical."
    - i can dig it.

    but is God really not far? and is God?

    and i like your poetic response. "souls want to dance with someone." <-- this is very beautiful.