Prima Secundae
72. The Effects of Love: Union and Mutual Indwelling (ST I-II q.28 a.1-2)
Class of 2012-04-26
https://berquistcourse.com/course/theology/11-prima-secundae/072-the-effects-of-love-union-and-mutual-indwelling-st-i-ii-q/

[0:00] Okay, now we get to the effects of love, right? And now after that, look at that fifth one there. Where the love is a passion, harmful to the lover, right?

[0:14] I don't know about this love stuff, huh? Then we're not to consider about the effects of love, about this six things are asked, right?

[0:27] And first, their union is an effect of what? Love, huh? Now the great Dionysius says, "vis unitiva," right? I was reading that thing in the sentences this morning. There, where Thomas is commenting on what Augustine says, defending it. He says they're all one in account of the Father. They're all equal in account of the Son. And they're all united because the Holy Spirit. He explains why each of these is so, right?

[1:03] He explains it first in terms of their number, right? Because the Father, all by himself, is something very much one. But equality requires what two? And with the Son, you first have two. And then the connection, right? You need three, huh? Two to be connected and one to connect them. So that's the Holy Spirit, right? But then they explain in terms of the properties of each one, right?

[1:33] And in terms of the Father being what the beginning of it all, right? The beginning is something one, right? And the Son, you know, all his names, Son, Imago, Son Imago Verbum, right? They all have the idea of equality there, right? And of course, the Holy Spirit because he's the way of love and love. You're in lights, right? So beautiful, beautiful.

[2:08] I wonder when you see God face to face, whether we'd start to understand the Trinity better. So it's such a marvelous subject, right? It seems to me that you know contemplation of the Trinity is kind of the highest point of theology, huh? There's nothing greater than that. And it's really extremely interesting when you try to understand it, you know. You know, he's talking about the. I was reading the article the other day.

[2:43] There, these sentences there, where he's talking about the appropriation. You know, and of course, he first talks about the common appropriation of power, wisdom, and goodness, right? But then he's talking about some other ones from Hilary and Augustine, right? And you know, beauty is is what attached to the sun, right? It's appropriate to the sun, and of course, the objection is, you know, why doesn't beauty and goodness go together, right?

[3:14] Like Dionysius says, and goodness, of course, is appropriated to to the Holy Spirit, right? And Thomas says, well, insofar as beauty takes on the the clothing of of the good, right, it's good, right? But in itself, it involves what Dionysius says: consonance, uh, harmony, and clarity, right? And magnitude, and these are all found in the Son, right? Because he's the perfect image of the Father. he's the Son, right?

[3:49] He's the Word. So there is a consonance, right? And so beauty is what appropriated to the Son. This is by Hillary, right? Mm-hmm. So they gotta be careful, right? You see, I remember years ago. I am thinking about: is is it more the object of of love or of the of the reason, right? And I was, you know, taking lovely as a sign, right? Lovely being a synonym for beautiful, and you know, doesn't that indicate, you know?

[4:21] And then you get you know these things in the poets there, you know, in Spenser, you know, the hymn to earthly love and earthly beauty, and the hymns to heavenly love and heavenly beauty, beautiful things, right? So, why doesn't love and beauty go together? The beautiful and the good, right? And but you get to this a thing in in Hillary, right? huh? Where specia is beauty, right?

[4:48] Is uh appropriate to the sun, right, rather than to the Holy Spirit. So, if it was tied more closely to to goodness, right, it'd be probably, you know, so, you know, so I think I was you know mistaken as a young young thinker, you know. We'll accept your retract. Yeah, yeah, yeah. But you think why I love Mozart's music? Well, it's so beautiful, right? Huh? I said to Warren Murray, "I said who is more beautiful, Mozart or Shakespeare?"

[5:20] Well, he admitted that Mozart was more beautiful, right? And Shakespeare, I mean Aristotle talks about that in the last books of wisdom, right? You know, and

[5:34] so. It's more the object of the reason, huh? Yeah. Yeah. The way Thomas argues, there he argues from, from he takes the text of Dionysius, right? The beauty consists in, in this is in consonance, right? So I don't translate that harmony or something like that, and clarity, right? Well, clarity, you know, comes up the mind, right? The shading, right? And then then he quotes Aristotle, says he's got some magnitude, right?

[6:13] Beautiful body can't be a shrimp. Of course, because the son is is perfectly equal to the father, right? Huh? That he has magnitude, right? So he got the whole the whole thing there, right? Beautiful, beautiful, beautiful text. Augustine has a definition of beauty. I think it's called equaletas numerosa. That's what he calls it, but has a sense of equality. Yeah. That's a harmony, right? Huh? And maybe that's the numerosa comes here to the to the magnitude.

[6:44] Yeah, yeah. You kind of you kind of see more the idea of the of the son being in harmony with the father, right? Even though they're all the same substance, right? But but from his way proceeds his imago is the is the son, right? Huh?

[7:01] As as the word, perfectly expressing the father, right? Complete harmony there. Something those guys. It's interesting, you know when Alphonsus is arguing for the immaculate conception, right? Which wasn't defined in his time, right? But he's I think his word had something to do with that too. But you know, he kind of proceeds. I think, if I remember right, to know the Trinity, right? Huh? Because she's the daughter of the Father, you know.

[7:41] Because she's she's she's the mother of the Son and the spouse of the Holy Spirit, you know. He argues each one of these things, you know, that she must be. Yeah.

[7:53] And she comes and says she's I am the immaculate conception. I mean, Deinde considerandum est de effectibus amoris. Okay, then we're now to consider about the effects of love, and about this four things are asked, Whether union is an effect of love, huh? That's where he begins, right? Huh? And secondly, whether mutua what dwelling within, you might say, right? Huh? inhaesio, right? I know that's in a sense similar to union, but slow, but stronger in some sense, right?

[8:34] Huh? Okay. And then with your ecstasy, being outside yourself, outside myself, is an effect of love, right? Now, when they take the discussion between Moses and Elias there in Christ, you know, during the Transfiguration, and what are they talking about? Well, as far as the Gospels tell us, they're talking about his coming excess. Isn't that kind of his ecstasy? He's going to, he's going to die for us, right?

[9:15] You know, it's kind of, kind of forgetful oneself, you might say, right? Dr. Bratlinger points out one of the books: the only place in the Greek New Testament, the only place the word "exodus" occurs—that the Latin "excessus," the Greek is "exodus."

[9:36] His way out. How is he going to go out? That's the effect of love, right? Forth with his zeal. Okay. Now, I guess you got to be careful the word zeal because it's got, you know, includes the idea of jealousy and so on these things, you know. But it has kind of richness of meaning. But what sense of zeal does he have? Mean primarily, he's talking about love, and why does he put that forth?

[10:07] You see, because the first things are kind of effects of love with respect to the one you love, right? Unites you with what you love. There's this mutual indwelling of you and the one loved, right? And then you've kind of gone out of yourself into the one loved, right? Huh? Okay.

[10:28] Um. Yeah, was it? Is it in? It's not. It's not in Romeo Juliet, but in. Much ado about nothing, right? You know, where the father is completely identified with his what daughter, right? Huh? And she's apparently disgraced, you know, due to misunderstanding. And much ado about nothing. It's kind of a pun, I guess. A pun. Nothing and noting, kind of pronounced the same way. Misinterpreted, and so someone has noticed something falsely, you know.

[11:03] Appearance. Um. But he's kind of, you know, suffering ecstasy, right? You know, he's so identified with his daughter, right? It's like he's. He's no longer, you know, living anymore without her. But now zeal is with regard to what something that is opposing what you love, right? So you can see why he orders that afterwards, right? Now. He orders things well, you know. He looks before and after and gets them in the right order, right?

[11:31] And. I'm sure the I was asking about another professor one time. Why I was more enthusiastic about him? He says, "Well, he doesn't order things the way you do." He said, "And God, he just doesn't say they're perfectly ordered. Just delight to see that. Or the kind of good order things, you know. Just

[11:56] he says something, but Thomas's even superior to them. But now, all of a sudden, after all this wonderful buildup here, comes number five, Whether love is a passion that is what harmful, harmful, huh? Injurious to the one loving, right? Huh? Just look at that poor guy Romeo there at the beginning of the play. There, right? Rosalind, is it, You know, what does he do? Huh? He the sunlight comes, you know, he goes into his room and closes the doors and closes the shutters and so on, right? He's? wounded yeah And uh you know his friend is Benvolio, right?

[12:45] So the father asked Benvolio, which means wishing well, right? As opposed to Melvolio, the character. And what you do? I mean, Twelfth Night, Melvolio, right? So Benvolio. What's what's what's why is he so glum, you know? Why is he so?

[13:10] And now, whether love is the cause of everything, the lover what does? That makes love quite something if it is a cause of everything you do, huh?

[13:29] So whether union is the effect of love, to the first one goes forward. Thus, it seems that union is not an effect of what love, huh?

[13:43] For absence is repugnant to what union, but love what is compatible with what absence? Yeah, as the apostle says, the Galatians four, right? We always what

[14:07] always emulate the good and good, and not only when I am present before you, right? Therefore, union is not an effect of love. It was Romeo loves Juliet, but he's exiled there, right?

[14:27] Absence makes the heart grow fonder. People say. Moreover, every union is either through what essence, nature, substance, as form is united to matter, right? And an accident to the subject, so as my soul is united to my body, right? And my knowledge of geometry, my substance, right? And as part to whole, right?

[15:07] Or to another part, the constitution of the whole, right? Flesh and bones are joined together. Or it is through the likeness of what genus or species, right? Or some accident, right? So, like the cat and my love of beef, or something, or steak. Or the species, the other human being, or another philosopher, right? Another lover of Mozart, and so on.

[15:42] But love doesn't cause the union of what essence or nature. Otherwise, never would there be had love to those things which are divided in their what nature. And the union which is through likeness, love does not cause, but more it is caused by it. Therefore, union is not an effect of love. So, Dionysius must have been mistaken, right?

[16:16] Quite clear. I don't see any way out of it. Yeah. So you got to stop thinking that that kind of union is an effect of love, right?

[16:32] Moreover, the sense in act is a sensible in act. So sometimes, and the understanding in act is the understood in act, right? Okay. So he's to define knowing as what receiving the form of another as other. or retaining your own form? So you become one with this thing, right?

[17:00] But the one loving in act doesn't come to be the loved in act, does it? Therefore, union is more the effect of knowledge than of what love.

[17:15] So am I more attached to Mozart by hearing him, or by loving his music? You're probably more attached by loving his music. Then am I by listening to it? Aren't I united more to his music by listening to it? Not by you said about attached. I think attached, is not perfection Mm hmm I used to. When I was first listening to the Marriage of Figaro, you know, the old Glyndebourne Festival recordings and the old big discs, you know, I put on the machine there, you know, and I play right up to the thing, you know.

[18:02] Was I, you know, enjoying Mozart through my ear, not through my heart? And all you can say against all this nonsense is that Dionysius says in the fourth chapter of the Divine Names that love is a power that unites, a virtus unitiva.

[18:29] So. Thomas begins by seeing a distinction, right? Pointing out distinction. I answer: It should be said that twofold is the union of the lover to the what? Loved. One in the thing itself, right? Secundum rem. As when the loved is present to the what?

[19:06] To the lover, yeah. Yeah, the one loving. One loving, yeah. In another way, according to what? Affection. Affection, yeah. Which union should be considered from the grasping that is preceding, right? For the appetitive motion follows the what? Grasping. Grasping, right.

[19:36] So Romeo has to what? See Juliet, right? Before he what? Yeah, yeah. Shakespeare makes it very explicit there. Very explicit. Now, since there, however, is a twofold love,

[20:02] to wit, of concupiscence or wanting, and a friendship or wishing well, right? Huh? He says both of these proceed from some grasping of the unity of the loved to the one what? Loving, huh?

[20:24] For when someone loves something, as it were, desiring it, right, wanting it, huh? He apprehends it or grasps it. Yes, speaking Latin, apprehends. He grasps it as pertaining to his well-being, huh?

[20:49] Likewise, when someone loves someone by the love of friendship, he wishes to it, to him, a good, a good, just as he wishes good for himself.

[21:06] Whence he grasps the other as another self. You're just like me. You're another me, huh? Yes. Example of his name. Somebody's speaking that way. And therefore it is that a friend is said to be another what? Self, huh? That's a little bit of Greek, I know. O philos esti allos autos? Friend is another self.

[21:49] Shakespeare sometimes calls a friend a second self. Can't be the first self. The first self is yourself. Yeah, it's another self, right, or a second self?

[22:06] And Augustine says in the fourth book of Confessions, "Well, did he say about his friend, 'Half of my what soul, right? ' Huh? "

[22:19] So I always say, "My wife is my better half, right? " And then he's always smile when I say that. Do the proof for you, though. I

[22:38] says the first. First union, love makes what? As an efficient cause, right? Effective, right? Because it moves us to wanting, right? And seeking the presence of the what? Loved, huh? As it were, as being suitable to oneself and pertaining to oneself, right? So when I was in college, I said, "No, when I get out and making some money, I'm going to get a complete collection of Mozart, right?

[23:12] " Well, luckily, I I I started doing them with these little discs, you know, rather than these big things, you know. And so I had just about everything Mozart wrote, you know. Once in a while, they come up with some little obscure thing they think is by Mozart, you know.

[23:38] But the second union, it makes as a kind of what form? It's a very subtle distinction there. Because love itself, huh? It's not now an effect of love, right? But love itself, and you can see it in a way it's an effect, in a way that the form is an effect, but because the love itself is such a union or what? Connection, right? Okay.

[24:13] So in the mere fact that I love somebody, right? There's a certain union between us, right? Even though we might be separated, right? Like Romeo and Juliet or something, right?

[24:27] Like Boswell getting depressed, he's got to go back to Scotland, right? He won't have the company of Johnson there, right? And you know, mind being you know infused with his superior mind.

[24:49] Once Augustine says in the eighth book of the Trinity that love is as a life, joining some two, or desiring to what join them, right, huh? The one loving and what is loved, right?

[25:12] Now Augustine makes a distinction that Thomas is talking about when he says copulans, right? He's referring to the union of affection, right? So is that where we get the word couple?

[25:29] Related to that? In logic, you know, they call and they divide the statement sometimes into noun and verb, but sometimes into subject and predicate and copula, right? Yeah. And joining, it's what joins them together. But you explain the words of the great Augustine here, right?

[25:51] Duo aliqua copulans, right? Vel copulare appetens, right? When he says copulans he refers to the union of affection, without which there is no love.

[26:06] But when he says in copulare intendens, that's another union, that pertains to the real union, right, to be together with that person, right? So is there a twofold union that is an effect of love?

[26:40] Yeah, and one necessarily follows the love, right? Because the love itself is is a bond between the the lover and the loved, right? But the real union is something that there might be war and one is separate from the other, right? Or you you know you go different parts of the country, right? I have two brothers, right? One ended up in the West Coast, I ended up East Coast, and Richard was he was on East Coast first, and then he went he went back to Minnesota, you know, taught there.

[27:10] So we divided the country up, you know. we used to make a joke about this, you know. He couldn't get one, couldn't have all of us, you know.

[27:21] But that's kind of what happened by chance, you know. I guess my brother Mark was applying for a job, you know. He was about to, you know, go to a college or university in the East Coast, there, you know. But one of the questions they asked in interviewing was, you know, was if he finished his coursework, would he have to go back, you know, to finish coursework, and and there was a misunderstanding, you know.

[27:44] thought that he had to go back first. There was a delay, you know, before he corrected the mistake, and then he got another offer from California went out to California, so you know, divine providence, right? because somebody misread a letter, right? And there was a delay, and he took the bird in the hand and so on, right? So it was kind of by chance, you know. We could spread out like this, you know.

[28:05] Where was the other university? What? Where was the other university he first applied? to Oh, I forget where it was, but it was on the East Coast, you know. I don't know which it was. I can't remember now, but

[28:20] so so you might be separated from somebody you love, right? Because of whatever it might be, right? Or death, yeah. I mean, just in life, you know. Boswell was separated from Johnson, you know. So

[28:42] Johnson had his prejudices against Scotland, you know. The finest thing you ever see in Scotland is a road that leads to England, you know. And Boswell wanted to be introduced to Johnson, right? And I think it was Thomas Davies, the bookseller there, who said, "well, I'd introduce you to him, you know?" And then one time he's visiting Davies and Johnson came into the shop, right? He says, "He's helping you to introduce me."

[29:09] Yeah, yeah, he says, "Mr. Boswell from Scotland." Mr. Robinson, yeah, they could tell you know he knew Johnson had this. See, it's funny. Okay. So what is Thomas saying then in the body article that love is a cause of two kinds of what? Yeah, but not in the same way, right? One, he used the term what formally, right? Huh? Okay.

[29:54] And the other is what. Presentiality or over with Effect, no effective, yeah. And the one has necessity, right? Huh? And the fact that I I love you, right? Huh? I'm in some way united with you, right? Huh? And but not really, huh? See, but that's going to make me seek that real union, right? Okay.

[30:23] My cousin Don was in the navy four years, and guys were playing these radios, you know, with all that horrible music, you know. And I guess he was in Chicago, I think it was. he had, you know some naval thing there? And he had a chance to go to the the Chicago symphony orchestra, right? Oh, I mean, what a relief, you know.

[30:49] These guys were these guys, you know, their radios, they they were fanatics, right? You know, and so my cousin used to, you know, he used to go sleep in the in the workshops and like that because he could get a little bit away from them. But the funniest thing he told me was that they were in port one time and this guy was getting bad reception on his radio, his little thing, right?

[31:10] So he drilled a hole in the side of the thing so he could stick out, right? Well, then when they lowered the ship, the ship

[31:21] There's a hell to pay for that. This is a stupid thing to do, you know. You have no better, right? But you see how fanatic. they were to their radio, and get their, get their junky music, you know. And another guy was in the army for a while, you know. And you know, the guys let them play those little radios at nighttime to try to sleep, you know.

[31:43] And so you, you know, you hear these these ugly melodies all day long and put in your head like all day long. You realize how they brainwash you wanted for torture, you know, and just just a terrible thing, you know.

[32:01] You can see why? Papa Buneet would send money to stop. I'm sure it wasn't as bad as this stuff. Okay. Now, what about the first objection, right now? Where there's love but absence, right? He says that objection proceeds about the real union, right? Union and things, which requires what pleasure as a what?

[32:35] As a cause, huh? But desire. Is in the real absence of the what love, huh? But love is both in the absence and in the what presence, right?

[32:51] So that's important. You come to talk about charity because charity remains, right? Because love is both in the absence and in the presence, right? I used to say the same thing about you know philosophy, the love of wisdom, right?

[33:11] You can have the love of wisdom when you desire wisdom but don't have it, and then you can love it maybe even more when you have some, right?

[33:26] So love in the absence, real absence of the object, gives rise to desire, and in the presence, it gives rise to delight, to pleasure.

[33:42] Now, in the second objection, Thomas is going to see now a threefold distinction. Union has itself to love in three ways. Now, I said second objection is based on the idea that union is what the cause of love, right?

[34:11] So you might be already a lover of Mozart, and I'm already a lover of Mozart. So we have some union there, right? And we discover, hey, you love Mozart too. So then our our union is the cause of our love, right?

[34:26] But now, so Thomas says, union tripliciter, see, habet more, just like that beautiful text there. Love is said in three ways, and God, for there's a certain union. Some union is a cause of love, right?

[34:46] And this is the what substantial union as regards the love by which someone loves himself, right? And as regards the love by which one loves another, it's a union of what likeness, huh? So I like you because you're like me. Well, then that's the cause, right?

[35:13] But another union is essentially love itself, and that's what he says up above is formally right cause. And this is the union according to the what? What's the best way to translate coaptation? Power of

[35:34] affection. Okay. Non of affection. Okay. It has some of the idea of being adapted to, too, though. Fit, yeah, yeah, yeah. Okay. Which is like the union, substantial union, in so far as the lover has himself to the loved, in the loved to it of what friendship, as to himself, right? But in the loving of concupiscence has something of oneself, right? Ah, so that's what Monty is all equipped.

[36:09] Me, something of me. And a certain union is the effect of love, right? I notice he calls what a little different way of speaking here than he spoke in the body of the article, right?

[36:30] Because you know the distinction that you have between the effect and the cause is more clear in this union that's real, right? Where you have to pursue the thing, right, to be joined to it, right, or to be with it, right. While in the case of what that formal union, right, union of affection, the bond that you have because of love itself, it seems to be almost the same thing as love itself, right?

[36:55] That's why he he speaks of it here, right? Okay. As if it's not an effect of love, but it's love itself, right? Okay. Just as the way you know is an effect of wisdom that I'm wise, or is by being wise that I have wisdom, right? Is an effect of health that I'm healthy. Well, you could say formally, right? One is healthy by health. One is wise by wisdom, right?

[37:28] One is a geometer by geometry, right? But another way you might say, but that's that's that's geometry. You know. So interesting the the different way of speaking here, right? Huh? As if this other union is an effect of love, right? The real union. And the first union, which is real too in another sense, but but is is love itself.

[38:01] And this union is according to the what suitability of love, as the philosopher says. Aristophanes says that those desiring or loving desire from what both to become one. But if from this would happen that what both or others would be corrupted, then they seek a union which is suitable and what yeah. Just shouldn't hug the girl too much, right? No, there'll be destruction of both of you, right?

[38:38] Yeah, shouldn't try to be more one than you can, right? Sometimes you need to hug the little child, you know. Poor child is almost out of breath, right? Yeah.

[38:53] So they seek the union which is suitable and and befitting, right? That they speak or live together and speak together, right? Huh? And in other things of this sort, what joined, huh?

[39:16] So we don't become so much one that we are one. Wouldn't be the two of us wouldn't be around anymore. Now, notice this third objection here, right? To third, it should be said that knowledge is perfected by this that the known is united to the knower by its what likeness, huh? Okay. I have played the painter, as Shakespeare says. Okay. But love makes that the thing itself, which is loved, is in some way united to the one loving.

[40:01] Whence love is more uniting than knowledge, right? Well, that's nice to say, you know. If you love disgusting things, you are disgusting, right? If you love stupid things, you are stupid. See, but if you know disgusting things, are you disgusting for that purpose? If you know bad things, are you bad because you know bad things, huh? Are you? But if I love bad things, I'm by that fact bad, right?

[40:39] Huh? So what unites me more to the bad, knowing it or loving it? Yeah. So the knower, the known, is in the knower, according to the way of the knower, right?

[40:57] And but love tends to the thing as it is in itself, right? Now, if you have these beautiful differences, you know, the great Plato and Aristotle, there they said that the same knowledge of what opposites, right? But is it the same love of opposites? Ethics is a knowledge of both virtue and vice, right? You learn both. I told you about that. craft Student out there in California, there when I was teaching, you know, he said you shouldn't what teach ethics because you learn what vice is as well as virtue, and since we're more inclined to vice than virtue, you're making the students worse.

[41:36] But he had a point, you know. It's like when I was giving a talk one time and I was touching on what Aristotle says in the beginning of the. De Anima there that all knowledge is good, right? But some knowledge is better because it's more certain about better things and so on. And so this one parent in the question period said, "Now this sex education

[42:08] is that good knowledge for the kid to have?" I said, "Oh, you're right. It's not good, but is the knowledge as such bad?" Say, say,

[42:24] it's because of the disposition of the young man, right, that this knowledge is prejudiced, bad for him, right? So I wasn't denying. I think it's disgusting the sex education too, right? And puts you know. suggests things to the student that he wouldn't get by himself, right? Probably, you know.

[42:50] But you have to see the distinction between the as such. You know, all knowledge as such, we'd say, is what good, right? Huh? Is it good for me to know where you hide your money? It's good for you.

[43:08] Something that you know. Well, if I'm, I'm inclined, you know, to take what isn't mine or what, you know, what I'd like. Um. Then you say it's not good for me to know that, right? Huh?

[43:22] So you can give many examples, but it's always per accidens, right? Because of the something else in me, right? It's good to know how to shoot a gun.

[43:40] Lay your bill foot on that. Take a little break here. Now, whether mutual inhering is the effect of love, right? I notice in union you might think of it as simply as being what in the same room talking together, right? Or if you're hugging or something, right? It's just a contact of surfaces, right? But mutual inhering is something more what intimate or inward, right?

[44:16] The second one goes forward. Thus, it seems that love does not cause a mutual. Now, how would you translate a hesionem I translate dwelling within, you know.

[44:29] Mutual inwelling. Yeah. Okay. Okay. That the lover is in the loved, right? Okay, so it's the idea of inward, right? And a converso, right?

[44:46] Well, what is in another is contained in it, right? But the same thing cannot be containing and contained. Therefore, through love cannot be caused a what mutual mutual inhering, right? That the loved is in the lover and the reverse, right? So if the wine is in the bottle, the bottle can't be in the wine. The present is in the box. The box cannot be inside the present.

[45:17] Maybe resolving there to the imagination, right? And also different senses to the word in. What? Different senses of the in, also. Yeah, but there's something about to the material here. Moreover, nothing is able to penetrate to the insides of some hole, right? Huh? Except through some what division. But to divide things which are joined, secundum rem, does not belong to the desiring power in which there is love, but to reason, right?

[45:52] Right. So you know, Thomas says that what distinction is presupposed to order, right? So when Shakespeare says reason looks before and after, that includes that it looks for what distinctions, right? So if you look at logic, you can see a lot of I was talking about these fourfold distinctions here. Logic there's all kinds of twofold and threefold distinctions too. Therefore, it's not an effect of love, but it's something reason does.

[46:24] Okay. That's the interesting thing. But there's a connection there between the knowing power, right? And if through love the one loving is in the loved and a converso, right? It follows that in this way the loved is joined to the what one loving. Just as the one loving to the one loved, but love is the but the union itself is love, and

[46:58] therefore it follows that always the one loving is loved by the one what loved, which is clearly false. Rosalind does not love. Therefore, there is not. Therefore, mutual inhering is not the indwelling is not the effect of love, right? But against all this is what is said in the first epistle of John, chapter four, verse sixteen: "Who remains in charity in God remains right, and God in him.

[47:32] " That sounds like mutual indwelling, right? But charity is the love of God. Therefore, for the same reason, each any love right makes the loved to be in the one loving and the reverse.

[47:51] Now Thomas is going to point out the many ways that this takes place, right? I answer: It should be said that this effect of mutual indwelling can be understood both as regards the what grasping power, and as regards the desiring power.

[48:18] For as regards the grasping power, the loved is said to be in the one what loving, in so far as the loved continues to dwell right in the grasping of the one loving, right? According to that of St. Paul in the Philippians, "In that I have you in my what. "

[48:46] So if I love you, I keep you in mind. huh There's no grand Children act people in mind right Okay. Now, in that sense, what the loved is in the what lover, according to the knowing power, right? Okay. I'm receiving hearing the advertisement for perfume. You know, if you wear this perfume, you won't be able to get you out of his mind. That's pretty good advertisement, isn't it?

[49:22] But no, it's reversed now because it's a mutual, inhesio right, In the only But this is the same knowing power. The lover, the lover, is said to be in the loved according to what grasping or knowing, in so far as the loved is not content with a superficial right on the surface grasping of the loved, but it what. Strives yeah, that the what particular things right the singular which pertains to love, I will yes seeks them out and thus to what enter into the inside right now.

[50:08] So Warren Murray says to me, you know, did I like Mozart's stupid or something? I said yes. He only does there at the end of the fourth movement, and I said well, kinda. He says, well, he combines, there's

[50:24] four melodies together, right? He said he does. So I've not penetrated exactly right. So I'm going back and putting on the sort of something, listening trying to pick out that right now, you know. And years later there, Don Giovanni there in the grand ball scene there, right now. There's two different kinds of dances there performed, and all of a sudden Mozart just combines the three together. God, what's this guy doing?

[50:48] You know, see, but if you see, I'm trying to what penetrate this right now, you know, okay. Or if you have a painting you like, you know, you keep on kind of studying it, you know, and you kind of notice things you didn't notice before.

[51:04] Okay, and thus about the Holy Spirit, who is the love of God, right? It is said in the First Epistle of Corinthians that he what searches even the deep things of God, right now. Okay.

[51:24] So I'm scrutinizing, scrutinizing, scrutinizing yeah, the Trinity, right? Huh? You know, a little bit trying to understand it, you know. Go through all these articles and sentences sometimes difficult thing. I think oh that rest of my mind now. Look at again tomorrow, you know, and see it makes more sense to me. Don't dwell on it anymore, you know. See something those things. And as regards, so he's saying, you know, Christy made the distinction, right?

[51:59] That there's going to be mutual and dwelling, right? Both on the side of the knowing powers, he's shown that now, right? Okay, I keep the thing I love in my mind. I keep the music of Mozart in my mind, but I try to what penetrate into that, right? Okay.

[52:19] But he says this is also on the side of the what desiring power that the love is said to be in the one loving, in so far as through a certain what. Complacency. Yeah, agreement, right? It's in his what affection, right? Huh? And that he delights in it or in its his goods, right? In their presence, right? And in the absence, through desire, he tends, right? In the thing love through the love of wanting, right?

[52:53] Or in the goods that he wills for the loved, through the love of what friendship, right? Not from some extrinsic cause, as when one desires something in account of another, right? Or when one wishes good to another in account of something other, on account of the what? Agreement of the love interiorly rooted, huh? And that's what Shakespeare says in Macbeth, there, right? The king doesn't know. He's planted you, right?

[53:25] I'm sorry. Whence love is said to be what inward, intimus And he spoke of the bowels, I guess, huh? Of what charity, right? That's the root word for mercy in Hebrew. Yeah. Refers to the inner parts. Literally, refers to a woman's womb. Yeah. So it's sort of that. that Yeah. That's her love for a child, even even physically inside her. Yeah, not the human kindness. Yeah.

[54:05] You see, you know, the point there that he made an impression upon her, or she made an impression upon him, right? Some of they were impressed upon the heart, right?

[54:15] The loved is in your heart, right? But a a converso, the lover is what in the loved, but in another way through the love of wanting, and another way through the love of what friendship. For the love of concupiscence does not rest in just any outside or superficial attaining or enjoyment of the loved, but the

[54:46] he seeks to perfectly have the thing loved, huh? As we were arriving at what the inward side, right? Okay. So when you go to the wine tasting, right, just swing the wine around. Ah, try inside it, right? Huh? Get over there and breathe over it, you know. I see the guys are really good. at this, right, I mean, they can tell you what the ingredients are. So my brother Marco's pretty good at this, you know.

[55:21] And you know, you go to the the old days there; used to have the the wines that they would be made a mixture of different grapes, right? So we're tasting one of these things, and my brother Mark asked the guy what he uses in there. You know, he's kind of cagey because maybe this guy's a spy, you know. And my brother Mark said, "Well, don't use a little bit of this," and he started telling me what's in the wine.

[55:41] Okay, he says, go on the back room here and try some of these combinations. Which one you think is good? We start, brother Mark. You know, huh? You know, he's penetrating, right? But it's made out of, right? But even some is, you know, you know, lady likes a salad dressing, right? You know, they want to know what the ingredients are in the salad dressing, right now, or you got a sauce of some sort in the meat or something, you know, huh?

[56:05] You know. We use the connoisseur of fine incense. We use incense, different blends of things. Good, very. I I smell incense when I come into the church. We only use it three times a day, so. Yeah, you know, sometimes I smell it. You know, I didn't smell today, but some days I do. You know, come in, I can smell it.

[56:29] But he says a a converso, the lover is in the loved in a different way through the love of wanting love. Okay. Okay, that was

[56:42] the love of wanting, right, to have the wine, right? Okay. But in the love of what, friendship, right? The lover is in the loved. In so far as he regards the goods or the bad things that happen to his friend as happening to himself, right? As his own, and the will of the friend as his own, right? Huh? Okay. Your will is my command.

[57:09] As if he himself and his friend seems to undergo or be affected with the good or bad things that happen to his friend, huh?

[57:19] Okay. It's interesting of Saint Alphonsus de' Liguori right, in the Glories of Mary, right. He talks about Mary's partaking in the suffering of our Lord on the cross, right? So what he suffered on his body, she suffered in her heart, right? Huh? So she seems to be on the cross with him, right? Huh? Well, this is the lover being in the what loved, right? Okay. And in count of this, it's a property of friends to will the same things, right?

[57:50] And to be sad or rejoice in the what same, according to the philosopher. That means the philosopher, right? In the ninth book of the Ethics, and he also says this in the second book of the Rhetoric, huh?

[58:06] And thus, in so far as the things of the friend he estimates as his own, right, the lover seems to be in the loved, right? As it were, made the same to the loved, huh? But in so far as conversely he wills and acts in account of his friend as in account of himself, he, as it were, regards the friend as being the same as himself, right?

[58:35] Just as the loved is in the one loving. Now there can be also a third way of understanding this mutual indwelling in the love of friendship, according to the road of what? Loving each other. Yeah. Returning. This is the one that was the touch of an objection there, because now he's loved in return, right? The pangs of unrequited love, as Hamlet talks about, right? Okay. In so far as the friends mutually love each other, right?

[59:03] Huh? And they will and do things, good things, for each other, right? Now he says, by the first objection, right? That the love is contained in the one loving, in so far as it is what impressed, huh? Through a certain what agreement, huh? She made a big impression. Okay. They say that, right? People say that they don't in daily life. But conversely, the lover is contained the loved, insofar as the lover seeks in some way that which is inward to the beloved.

[59:46] And nothing prevents, in a diverse way, for something to be contained and contained, as Aristotle says: the genus is contained in the species, species in the genus, right? Different sense of in. Genus in the species is the third sense of in. Species in the genus is the fourth sense of in. You all know the eight senses of in, I assume. And the order of them, right?

[1:00:17] Okay. Okay. Now the second objection is is talking about what division being the work of reason, right? And Thomas says, well, that's reason for that. To second should be said that the grasping of reason precedes the affection of what love, and therefore, just as reason, right? Searches out. Yeah. So the affection of love enters into the love. This has been said, right? Mm-hmm. I mean,

[1:00:54] first time my brother Richard and Marcus, you know, they brought home the magic flute of Mozart, right? And they played the whole thing, and I listened. You know, I was a pretty docile guy. I never really heard anything, you know. I wasn't really, you know, penetrating, right? But then, as I listened to these things more, I mean, oh my goodness, you know, you know, I mean, the excellence of Mozart's music is unbelievable once you start to hear it, you know.

[1:01:17] And the more I heard it, right, and the more my, you know, so the reason is like the needle, and the thread is like the heart, following it in, you know, huh? Mm-hmm. And so the thread couldn't get in by itself, right? Mm-hmm. And the love couldn't get in without the the knowledge, right? Okay.

[1:01:45] Now the third objection was the one they touched upon the end of the article, right? Huh? This mutual inhesion from what mutual love, right? Huh? But that's not always followed by love, right? Huh. Okay.

[1:02:05] So so what Romeo has mutual inhering in the first ways, right, by knowledge and by love for Rosalind, right? But he doesn't have mutual love from Rosalind, right? Mm-hmm. But then he gets that from from Juliet, right? Huh. Okay. So he says that argument proceeds from the third way of mutual indwelling, which is not found in every love.