Love: from myth to science

 

Schopenhauer is perhaps the first to seriously tackle the problem of love as a weird phenomenon with its natural causes. The Greek praised love and warned its consequences. But curiously enough, all those great thinkers of the time, especially a man as systematic as Aristotle, did not try to find out what is behind it, although he dealt with virtually every other subject in the universe. Also, as we all know, the love they talk about is a certain kind of love, which Schopenhauer calls pederasty.

If Plato is happy with surrounding love with myths, fables, and jokes, how did the other philosophers score? According to Schopenhauer, the adorable Rousseau, the great Kant, and the admirable Spinoza all did poorly on this subject. Therefore, he has “no predecessors either to make use of or to refute”. As for how his approach might differ from what an elegant discussion of the topic should constitute, Schopenhauer warns,

Moreover, least of all can I hope for approval from those who are themselves ruled by this same passion, and who accordingly try to express the excess of their feelings in the most sublime and ethereal figures of speech. To them my view will appear too physical, too material, however metaphysical, indeed transcendent, it may be at bottom. (533)

Indeed, what Schopenhauer proposes here, as we will see, is nothing but a science of love. And if a science is too physical, too material and too bottom as it appears to its reader, there is nothing we can do about it. Schopenhauer’s idea about love should be examined from a scientific perspective, instead of from a metaphysic one, since it is there it belongs and it is there it shall be properly evaluated. But is what Schopenhauer proposes good enough to stand for science in today’s standard?

It is not impossible to summarize Schopenhauer’s “discovery” in one sentence. This is: love is a manifestation of the species for which an ideal set of characteristics (most of them physical) are sought in the child thus begotten. What the individuals involved in this business call love, then, is nothing but an illusion, an imperative of the higher order, which demands his/her total sacrifice and persuades them somehow to take this will as theirs. Here is how he argues:

The true end of the whole love-story, though the parties concerned are unaware of it, is that this particular child may be begotten; the method and manner by which this end is attained is of secondary importance.

The essential thing is not perhaps mutual affection, but possession, in other words, physical enjoyment. The certainty of the former, therefore, cannot in any way console us for the want of the latter; on the contrary, in such a situation many a man has shot himself.

However loudly those persons of a lofty and sentimental soul, especially those in love, may raise an outcry over the gross realism of my view, they are nevertheless mistaken. For is not the precise determination of the individualities of the next generation a much higher and worthier aim than those exuberant feelings and immaterial soap-bubbles of theirs? Indeed, of earthly aims can there by one that is more important and greater? It alone corresponds to the depth with which we feel passionate love, to the seriousness with which it appears, and to the importance attached by it even to the trifling details of its sphere and occasion. (535)

If a highly advanced asexual civilization were to conduct a scientific research on human behavior on earth, they might be able to adopt a strictly objective view on things since they are totally immune to them. A human researcher on this subject, on the other hand, is easily biased, even in the case of a misogynist such is Schopenhauer, since he is vulnerable to the same disease.

But where Schopenhauer has faulted most is not on the general principle of things, but on details, where he advances assertions without any scientific substantiation. For example, for the new individual, he postulates,

This individual will have the will or character from the father, the intellect from the mother, and the corporization from both. But the form will depend more on the father, the size more on the mother, in accordance with the law which comes to light in the breeding of hybrids among animals, and rests mainly on the fact that the size of the fetus must conform to that of the uterus. (536)

Alas, it is good to know that, before Science was divided into more and more highly specialized branches, a person with good self-education can feel confident to talk about anything without the fear of being accused of dilettantism!

At times, Schopenhauer is most brilliant:

Through a thousand physical accidents and moral misfortunes there arises a very great variety of deteriorations of the human form; yet its true type in all its parts is always reestablished. This takes place under the guidance of that sense of beauty which generally directs the sexual impulse, and without which this impulse sinks to the level of a disgusting need. Accordingly, in the first place, everyone will decidedly prefer and ardently desire the most beautiful individuals; in other words, those in whom the character of the species is most purely and strongly marked. But in the second place he will specially desire in the other individual those perfections that he himself lacks. (539)

The last sentence is instructive as it plausibly explains why the so-called sense of humor always appeals to woman since it belongs to their perennial lacks, such as bravery, seriousness, strength and so on. Man, at least the bulk of them, lacks tenderness, sweetness, patience and tolerance. Human vocabulary encapsulates these qualities as womanly and manly, respectively. And I often heard that a woman will love an ugly man, but not a unmanly man.

Although Schopenhauer went all the length to discourse on the force driven from species to individual, he cannot come up with a better idea than that of delusion to account for the mechanism. But how does the species exert any force on an individual since the idea of species means nothing but an abstract group of relatively closely related individuals? An imperative that can work on an individual of free will must work from inside of him, not from any outside source, let alone an idea.

Fortunately science does furnish a pair of ideas that amply deals with this phenomenon. These are Phenotype/Genotype, first brought to my knowledge by Richard Dawkins. In essence phenotype is the outward, physical manifestation of the organism; and genotype is the internal and inheritable coding information that instructs such a manifestation, and is carried by all living species. Phenotype/Genotype are not Dawkins’ invention and they were coined before DNA came to our knowledge. But his creative usage of the pair is that he maintains evolution is centered around the genotype—hence selfish gene. Granted, there are things cannot be explained by gene-centered view of evolution. But so are other major theories of evolutionary mechanisms. Dawkins is often criticized as practicing a sort of Darwinian fundamentalism or strict/teleological adaptationism. I personally don’t see anything wrong with that.

The question remains, however, that, what about a love not aiming at procreation? What about a sexual selection that bears no fruit of inheritable characteristics? I am not only referring to the full range of LGBT activities, but also the heterosexual love that is meant to be savored without actual cohabitation. The European tradition of knightly love is certainly a good example, although Cervantes has made it as ridiculous as possible.

For Schopenhauer the answer is that these men and women are led astray by the sense of beauty, which in his system of explanation, immediately guides the sexual impulse. He also observes that animals don’t have a similar problem (its not regarded as a problem these days) since animals have lesser preponderance of the brain and therefore more instincts. But even instinct can be misleading.

The complexity of the ritual and its potential impact on human behavior is hard to underestimate. If a science can only be applied to mindless peasants, then it probably needs some revision. But of course I don’t expect, as yet, such a science would be able to produce satisfactory results interpreting a Proustian love—that will be the day!

I propose that a scientific study of the human behavior of love should be guided by this: this behavior, like many others, is primarily based on various facts in the animal kingdom: human being as mammal, as primate; and also based on the fact that human being as species has been shaped by the very society it built up.

In this light, Schopenhauer’s theory limits itself in the first category. It is therefore strikingly universal, but sometimes painfully deviant. The parts in which his description becomes inaccurate is exactly the parts where love as a social behavior has surpassed love as an animal behavior.

Video Game Narrative

Last semester a classmate made a presentation about the narrative strategy in video games. He did a good job (Videogaming 101). Yet I find his enterprise suspicious in a fundamental way. The reason is simple: narrative is the last thing that I would care when I play video games. [1] Of course they exist, but it is fairly obvious that they exist as a pretext to carry the gist—the action & interaction. In this sense, I believe the narrative in video games has a similar status in pornography—extremely amateurish and limited. People would say my claim does not prevent video games to create very interesting characters. But I would argue that these characters are established mainly by our playing their roles and our incorrigible habit of making sense of our game experience. A similar identification process exists in cinema, but is understandably much weaker. When we try to remember a film, we do recall events, places, characters, etc. But when we try to see what has left in the memory for a video game, what do we have? Not the same thing. I played the whole series of Tomb Raider from episode one to eight, together with numerous custom levels. The thousands of hours I spent on this series do they enable me to understand better who is Lara Croft? When I try to remember this experience, all I can recall is running, jumping, climbing, shooting and yes, dying, which are abstract gestures in regards to the story. What really evolves in the series, as obvious to any fan, is not the story, but the graphics. This said, human beings are incorrigibly addicted to narratives. To take advantage of this weakness game developers wrap their offerings in a package that can be understood as a story, as about a British woman who is attractively asexual. But really, what the Tomb Raider series offers is not a story about this woman, but rather about a particular setting (adventure around the world) and a particular mode of playing (problem solving, wandering alone in a vast area with occasional enemy). It is the unique combination of these gaming elements that has made the series appeal to a wide range of players, who enjoy being in exotic places, shooting from time to time, and taking a break to appreciate the texture work.

Other games of the same genre offer slightly different combinations of the same elements to establish their uniqueness. Prince of Persia, for example, is similar in both the exoticness of the setting and the fighting, lonely acrobat aspect. The narrative is however strengthened by a purpose: to save, to revenge for one’s beloved ones, to prevent a disaster, to search for one’s own identity, etc. God of War, another highly popular adventure game, is as childish as Tomb raider when it comes to problem solving. And there is practically not much acrobatics. But what is unique about this game is the prevailing, God-defying anger. I was again and again amazed by the amount of hatred weaved into the narrative: what there is to love is lost forever, all that remains is to kill. In Prince of Persia, what I see from the emotional side is the perennial fear for the beast. Compared to these two, the narrative in Tomb Raider is the blandest. There is little character development, no romance (for a young woman!), and absolutely no cause to keep herself that busy!

If I made some observations on game design, I am sure you will find them also applicable to many Hollywood blockbusters—in fact they cross-breed constantly these days. Take the newest installment of Indiana Jones series. Crystal skull or chalice, this imperialist curiosity-greed for all treasure of the world is the same. One needs an excuse to go after something fancy that one doesn’t already have; one overcomes his enemies—Russians, for Jones—and one eventually comes to possession of the treasure—the world. But instead of the factual routine of bringing it back to British Museum—morally unacceptable these days—one leaves it there; but naturally it has to be destroyed onsite, irretrievably buried, so that nobody else can get it.

---

[1] If I had ventilated my reservations to my classmate’s proposition (I didn’t say a word), I imagine he would have argued that he talks exclusively about RPG games, from Dungeon & Dragons, Diablo to The World of Warcraft. And his arguments could be partly valid in this particular genre, although we do have to redefine what narrativity is in this circumstance.

KÀ

I have never seen any Cirque du Soleil show—despite that I have lived in Montreal for five years. Circus is never my cup of tea and I ignored the 2004 Midnight Sun for the Jazz festival—I dislike any orgy on the street since I have to stand and watch. But I heard that their major resident shows are quite different: the only inconvenience—they are in Las Vegas. And the reason is simple: they all need special designed theater and a devoted show-going audience to cover the huge production cost.

There are five shows by Cirque du Soleil in Vegas. They are O, KÀ, Mystère, Zumanity and Love[1], of which I need to choose one (budget reason). So KÀ. This is because this show is designed by Robert Lepage, one of the best Canadian filmmakers. Lepage is well known in Quebec cinema, but his major area of work is still theater, in which he is an accomplished international celebrity (better than Bergman). And I have not been able to catch a glimpse of his theater work either. So this would be a double opportunity for me to fill in the blanks of being a Montrealer.

I am not sure to which extent Lepage is responsible for the show. But he certainly helps to transform the traditional style of a circus show into a different animal. There are still vestiges of this traditional style, that is to say, the circus elements. But overall it carries a distinctive flavor of a mixture of oriental fantasy[2], innovative stage design and multimedia incorporation—all Lepage’s repertoire. It also tells a story better: conflict, dualism, etc.

Upon arrival, guests are showed in by gatekeepers, which are just your average usher dressed in fancy costumes—they come in handy when you need a souvenir photo. When one first enters the theater, one notices that on two sides there are gigantic metal works—platforms, stairs—that extends the stage far into the audience area. We expect it to produce astonishing effects during the show, which is not exactly the case—it might be a potential that can be fully exploited in future revisions. 

The way KÀ demonstrates how there is to be no flash photography or cell phone usage is exemplary. Several minutes before the show starts, the counselor and his son (both bad guys, mind you) invite someone from the first row. While they are engaged in some harmless talking, we hear phone rings from this unfortunate guy’s pocket. He is immediately thrown into a bottomless pit that is the stage—with a harrowing scream.

 What is most noteworthy of the KÀ show is definitely its floating stage, 25 x 50 feet and weighing 50 tons. It creates unprecedented visual variation to traditional stage art in that this  platform can rotate to any imaginable degree of tilt. At one scene, it emulates a steep mountain where the princess and her escorts try to evade and fight their relentless pursuers. Here the platform is seen virtually vertical, with protruded shafts—assumed arrows—on various spots. The performers climb up and down the platform with the help of these shafts with a truly acrobatic agility. Note that the shafts are individually controlled and their appearance and disappearance are carefully choreographed with the action. Therefore I assume the route by which those acrobats maneuver the platform is far from random. Towards the end of the scene, the savage pursuers fall one by one; the last of them hangs by the shaft and then lets go, falling into the pit. Thus we are suddenly made aware that those shafts have all been withdrawn.

Such is undoubtedly the forte of Cirque du Soleil production. But what I find especially touching is another scene where the twin brother is taught the art of shadow play by the protective court jester. Again the platform is seen vertical, with its smooth surface reflecting shadows from a powerful lamp installed just in front of the two performers. The positioning is such that the shadow of their hands are magnified so that all audience can have a clear view. Now I imagine we all more or less played the same game when we were young—often when there is a blackout—but it is truly amazing to see that such a simple trick can become so vivid, so poignant. The whole experience is beyond description and amounts to, at least for me, an overwhelming nostalgia of the lost childhood.

It also has to be said that the show makes extensive usage of the versatility of the platform’s surface. As mentioned it serves the backdrop of a masterful shadow play. It is also used in the final confrontation of the two armies, to have video sequences projected on it, where the platform is again vertical. The effect is that whenever a soldier steps onto the platform (they are all airborne), it produces a small whirlpool as if he is tapping on the water. If this video sequence is prerecorded, then each performer must hit exactly the right spot on the right time—which is definitely too difficult. Otherwise there must be a technology, motion detectors or touch sensors for example, that can evoke computer generated whirlpool graphics whenever a performer touches the surface.

In another scene the platform emulates a sea shore—hence it is entirely covered with yellow sand (actually made of granular cork imported from Portugal). We have some cartoonish characters here: silly turtle, mischievous starfish (urchin), crab and even a potato bug—all human performers disguised. Later when the scene ends the platform just tilts up to get rid of all the sand.

You may get the impression that the platform is a perennial presence on the stage. Well it is not. In several scenes the stage space is penetrated up and down—it breaks the bottom of the stage, one might say. Because human vision is essentially horizontal, stage entrances are normally left and right, seldom up and down. But this show frequently uses these other two sides to make entrance and exit. There is especially a unforgettable scene in which the stage emulates the twin brother plumping into the ocean bottom. With the help of lighting, and bubbles—no idea how this is done—the visual effect is mesmerizing. Then the jester swims heads-down to retrieve the boy and they both emerge upwards.

Yet another scene features a gliding bird which hovers above the audience before descending into the pit/abyss. But the itinerary of the flight is pre-defined and lacks much suspense.

Other less impressive scenes include the first, where the imperial court celebrates with a sequence unmistakably borrowed from Beijing opera. Staffs and spears are flying in the air with performers bouncing them constantly and exchanging positions. Palatable to most of the audience, I imagine, but a bit tedious for a Chinese. It is said that this sequence also borrows from the Brazilian Capoeira dance. Both resemble martial arts yet are distinctively different.

I think a complete transformation of the circus show is to let the acrobatic acts serve a narrative or stylistic purpose. In other words, acrobat for acrobat’s sake damages the show. Some of the above instances manifest a good example of this transformation while some other scenes are too conspicuously circus style. After the Chief Archer's daughter sets the twin brother free, she had some time of her own to play a solo with a flute. Haven’t we seen enough rhythmic gymnastics? If she can do a hundred clubs at once I might even applaud. But she got only two. Later, in the slave cage scene, two acrobats walk the spinning wheel, clockwise, or counterclockwise. What’s the point? As if all of a sudden the plot gives way to some nonsensical and low grade entertainment. The beach scene, too, reminds me of this type of interlude that shows up in virtually all vaudeville. It never fails to entertain its audience, for sure. But it weakens the plot.

Overall I feel that this show is at times brilliant, at times insipid. If this is already the better of Cirque du Soleil shows, I am afraid the others wont be able to meet my standards. A show has a long way to go to match the kind of narrativity cinema or traditional theater can furnish. But come to think of it, I believe most of the audience are there looking for visual impressiveness as the main ingredient. This is why although some of the acrobatic acts fail to function in the narrative, they are still wholeheartedly welcomed. I am sure Lepage is aware of this, but for the same reason, he cannot afford to not to include them.

---

[1] The new one, Criss Angel BELIEVE (Luxor) will premier shortly.

[2] The language these characters use sounds most like Japanese, but naturally it is not.