I don’t want to write about that.

Well, let it serve as an introduction. I recently saw another excerpt from a lecture that dealt with the question: Why do you love me?

Slavoj Žižek answers something like this: That’s a good question. If you can answer that question, then by definition it’s not love. Love is not (sorry for the vulgarity) – ‘I have three women, this one has nice legs and a nice smile, this one has nice eyes, this one has whatever,’ and then OMG, this one gets 4 points, the other one gets 1 point.NO – now a little theology: intelligent theologians are dogmatic in a correct Marxist way, they know very well that if you say ‘I believe in Jesus Christ because I’ve studied all religions comparatively and Christianity has the best arguments’ – if you were in medieval times and somebody claimed that, I would say – ‘burn him immediately’.

In another (or the same) lecture, he goes into this again, expanding on these thoughts with ‘That’s attraction, that’s superficiality, surface, etc.’ and then ending with ‘that’s not love.’

Thank you, Slavoj Žižek, for this introduction. So where was my leap of thought?

I’m sitting here at breakfast thinking about ‘the concept of art.’ In the sense of: what is art, is what I do also art, how does art differ from ‘non-art’, can we judge art by denying art to be art? Do we have to be ‘someone’ to do that? Now I think of what Slavoy says about love, and is art love here – could that be a good explanation?