Philosophy 352
September 20, 2008
Chris Harris

In Beyond Romance Martin Dillon examines and critiques contemporary conceptions of love and its effects on culture. Dillon explores this subject at length breaking his analysis of it into types of love such as romantic love and what he calls: “sexlove”. From his insights and conclusions a new perspective on perceptions of the other may be explored. The reassessment of these perceptions reflects and contributes to that of the phenomenological field; and subsequently any individual willing to evaluate contemporary concepts of love.
Dillon begins his analysis of love by highlighting different interpretations of what love is and could be. He notes that the question of what love is could be the definitive philosophical question. He declares that all love, in one form or another and that this love helps to find quality within our lives. From here Dillon assess social structures, such as children coming of age and their subsequent introduction to sexuality. From this foundation Dillon begins to examine what traditional romantic love is. Romantic love to Dillon is built on prohibitions, he states that: “romantic love is dependent upon the prohibitions emanating from its shadow, enduring love” (p.9). Because romantic love stems from prohibition Dillon postulates that historically romantic love may be linked by past restrictions set by religious institutions. Dillon then moves on to discern how influence of the institutions influenced individuals appeals and arguments in terms of natural law. He finds that people who generally contend with what they consider perversion such as homosexuality, abortion, and, divorce base their arguments on natural law rather than on any other grounds. From this assertion stems the reasons for the “demonization” of such things as homosexuality being contradictory to procreation, and so forth. Natural law’s reasoning to him is on unsteady ground at best. He follows this with the argument that natural law theory has no permanent general consensus and is suitable to pursue based on rampant fallacies. The motivation of these arguments against that of “deviant” behavior are motivated on the grounds of not only morality but a kind of practical survival which Dillon relates to prohibition; a driving force in the problem of romantic love.
Romantic love is characterized by prohibition states Dillon. The unrequited love is the love most desired because it is not attainable and elevates the loved to a “godlike” status. This desire for the prohibited stems from taboo in religious institutions and grants the conception to the lover. With this perspective we can see that the loved is an ideal and not an actualization in any form. Because the lover “projects an ideal” onto the love it fails to take into account the actual person and when realized ends. Once the love is attained, it ceases to be idealized and the reality of what the other is recognized. As put by Dillon “The clutter in the bathroom obtrudes upon the vision illumined by candles” (p.21). Dillon also attributes the perpetration of such conceptions and failures to that of postmodernists. He critiques and rejects postmodernists who claim that they cannot truly know or touch one other. Arguing that carnal knowledge and knowing the other as opposed to idealizing the other leads to a more appropriate formation of love. It does however kill the concept of romantic love, and from the synthesis comes sexlove.
Sexlove to Dillon is the way in which we can pursue this new authentic kind of love. This is the more important aspiration as it gives individuals the means with which they may obtain a more fulfilling life as well as an alternative to romantic love. Sexlove has first the quality of carnal knowledge, that of the physical embodiment of the other, but it also requires a cognitive aspect. The cognitive aspect of sexlove is damaged like that of romantic love by deceit. Deceit in turn comes from the kind of insecurities manifest in individual experience. Separation from the other or the isolation and mistrusted generally felt by individuals fuel this dilemma. This dimension is added by the inability for individuals to experience all dimensions of a subject. Overcoming this dimension comes from mutual carnal knowledge and a building of actualized identity.
Dillon concludes the book by making observations on the practical use of his work. This includes his affirmation of an ethics based collaboration to stop kinds of sex from being demonized and set problems in perspective by making models and education instead of perpetuation “mystifications”. Dillon concludes by stating that risks are entailed by doing this but the value gained is adequate. His final statement in the book focuses on related value and the risk yielded by putting oneself in at risk. He reaches the conclusion that not putting oneself at risk is worse than the former. In his words: “The meaning of a thing is how it is related to other things…The relationship that confers meaning, the relationship that, more than any other, defines our relationship to the transcendent whole of human existence is, I believe love” (p.156) This highlights the driving force behind Dillon’s thought and summarizes the goal he hopes he can reveal to people’s perceptions.
Generally speaking Beyond Romance illustrates a conceptual undertaking that focuses not only a concept of perception based on the self, but that of a shared sensory experience with another. Parallels may be drawn to temporality and how it affects a given experience but in this way cumulative experiences build, and build the bonds that Dillon seeks. What we may relate quite directly to our readings is the focal point on sensory experiences and the many examples; specifically the subject of carnal knowledge. By far the essence of experience pervades Beyond Romance and contributes to understanding the work in general. When Dillon refers to carnal knowledge he understands it as being beyond a self only experience. That is the perception of feeling’s one self, a doorknob, and another person produce three different perceptions and sensations. In this way as well as in relation to others our “self” as a whole can be linked to the body rather than as a separate incarnation. Dillon states: “The ecstasy of carnal union derives from the reversibility of touch” (p.115). By this Dillon purports that because we can both feel and be felt we may experience another person as something beyond just our own perception. He sees this as a possible transcend horizon in the human experience. When this is related to our studies we may see something beyond an interesting perspective, we may find a kind of perception that can alter a multitude of contemporary ideas and ideologies.