When we think of a word associated with a name, we think of a personality. The word itself has no connotation to the personality other than a law of correlation, when people say "Kyle" I respond to that name, what they may feel or think about Kyle is not expressed, but how they feel about Kyle can be understood by their body language and apprehension whenever I speak. They may feel Kyle is a pretty good fellow, a nice laugh, cheerful demeanor, above average intelligence. All of these are assumptions one makes about me without my knowledge, unless I am digging knives out of my back or correcting mis-truths at a later point in time that "so and so" said about me because I acted shamefully or conducted myself horribly. Or they may say compliments which I rarely hear and would certainly enjoy the experience of hearing more often. But how does Kyle make you feel? This is the important thing, does Kyle always talk about himself, his fanciful achievements and make others feel worthless and unnecessary? Is he a "Me monster" This is something that I certainly hope is not the case. At the unconscious forefront of most peoples decisions they seem to like and think about things that directly involve them being in it. If I made you feel horrible, the assumption would be that Kyle s a heinous soul and detesting me would be easy. This perfectly describes the duality of our nature, by default you respond to a person based on how they make you feel.
By this same logic it would seem reasonable people on the whole are more prone to like photos on facebook portraying shared expieriences with friends that have them in it. It is something direct and personal shared together that is being projected to the world. Now how does this apply with the emotion of love? Is it possessive? to the extent that to love somebody, or something more because you are directly involved in their lives. As long as we are in it and the thing is beautiful, non-offensive. But this is to miss out on the real essence of the thing itself; if love is an by nature ambivalent, and we see the duality of selfish and possessive vs liberating and freeing love today, many people would agree some emotions in this world are very bad, when one thinks of "love" how many of you think of it in a derogatory negative sense? Probably not many, it seems counter-intuitive to think of the greatest of affections in this manner but this is exactly what C.S, Lewis is getting at in his great classic tale "Till we have faces". In a way, selfish love in attempting to circumscribe the object of love is really more akin to envy, jealousy or even hatred than to love. Real love wants only the best for the beloved, while selfish love wants only the beloved for ourselves, to hoard rather than to diffuse. Selfish love refuses to admit that we imperfect creatures cannot be the center of someone else's universe. Orual sought all her life, only to say of her sister "This is all mine, and the gods cannot touch it" Disfigured and embittered, she hides her face, just as she hides her true identity, her true motives and emotions from everyone including her conscious self. Her hidden hatreds and ambitions and jealousies-these fester inside of her and prevent her from seeing reality as it really is. Until she admits-until she comes clean and lays bare her true identity, faults and all before the gods--they cannot speak to her face.
Now I want to briefly discuss Narcissicm or (self love) in another light, it is subtle and sometimes awkward when exposed, something we become to some degree ashamed of, it is by nature exclusive. For example when one is caught preening and staring at themselves in a mirror by some casual observer, he/she may feel uneasy and flush a darker shade. Where as by nature when one is totally caught up in themselves, it makes a small incarceration. Actor Jack Nicholson was quoted to say "Fame is the biggest prison I build for myself". According to Harry Emerson who sheds some light on this subject of mirrors and self reflection the to get hims day comes when one begins to get himself away; "he has lived let us say in a mind like a room surrounded by mirrors, every way he turned he saw himself. Now however, some of the mirrors change to windows, he can see through them to objective outlooks that challenge his interests. He begins to get outside himself no longer the prisoner of self-reflections but a free man in a work where persons, causes, truths and values exist, worthful in a real sense, thus to pass from a mirror mind to a mind with windows is an essential element in the development of a personality. Without that experience no one ever achieves a meaningful life."
This all ties into Christs death. How He could show us walking his way is liberating opposed to enslaving, without the defects of sin we would not be able to see this, it would seem only drudgery and robotic. Selfish in a sense of the objects affection being dependent on worship and service. Contrary to how the world sees it how could we want to be obedient w/o seeing it was freedom, not drudgery or obligation? This is love freed from obligatory need for ones happiness. Paul understood this principle of the weak being made strong, the first will be last and the last first, contrary to every principle of the world.The manifold wisdom of God is this way is mind boggling to me. St. Paul himself is quoted to have said "It is for FREEDOM that Christ set us free, why would you submit then again to a yolk of slavery" Gal 5:1
Something I oft forget yet consistently need to be reminded of is this:
"Christ is for us not against us"