This reflective essay is an analysis of your semester-long learning about the concepts of love and friendship.  The portfolio should be a 12-20 page double-spaced composition with 1” margins, 12 pt. font, and proper citations, completing the below tasks.  Make sure that your essay is a cohesive composition with complete paragraphs and sentences, proper spelling, grammar and punctuation.

1.Reread your HW #1 response.  How have your views on the nature of love and friendship evolved from your initial assignment response? In what ways is the love that you feel for a parent or sibling the same or different than the love you feel towards your lover, spouse, boyfriend or girlfriend? Do you think there are any requirements or goals of friendship?  Why or Why not.  In what ways have your views about marriage evolved over the semester?

2.Select 4 relationships, two from Beale Street, one from Mary and Max, and one from Shrek, that demonstrate a concept of love or friendship.  Your analysis of these four relationships should exemplify at least three different types of love.  For example, if you select a relationship from Beale Street as an illustration of storge, then your other selected relationships must exemplify two additional types of love. Your classifications for these four relationships should be fully supported with substantial, descriptive examples from the text or videos.  

3.This portfolio should fully demonstrate your understanding of the four different types of love (eros, storge, agape, and philia) discussed in this course. Your essay should also connect various philosophers’ views discussed in the module notes, assigned readings and other course materials to exemplify the four types of love. Your composition should additionally provide examples of specific relationships covered in the course to illustrate each type of love and offer evidence in support of your categorization of each relationship.  

4.The reflective portfolio should be written for a reader that has never taken a philosophy course and is wholly unfamiliar with any terms, content, or materials discussed in your essay.  That means that students are expected to fully explain any philosophical terms used to demonstrate understanding of the concepts.  You will also need to provide comprehensive descriptions of content rather than merely referring to events or character interactions.

(1a) The prompt for our first essay was to write what we could about love, friendship, and marriage without referencing outside sources‒ basically to assess the personal intuitions and wisdom on the subjects we had accumulated to date. To take such a snapshot at the beginning of this course as a “before” that can now be compared to what we've learned as an “after” is the work of a wise instructor, and I appreciate it. As a man in late middle age, who has had the advantage of much life experience (decades more than the typical college student) I knew quite a few things about love already, and stand by my initial responses as a representation of that. Three marriages, being the father of a son who is now grown, and gradually witnessing the passing of most of my older relatives (my mother less than two years ago); all these events and more gave me some depth on the subject of love in its various forms.

            That being said, Philosophy of Love and Friendship has enhanced my understanding more than I would have anticipated. One doesn't receive much, if any, useful instruction about love as they grow up; only exposure to the Hollywood and romanticized literary versions. Perhaps the good fortune to have parents who love each other and set an example, but usually nothing beyond this. And in hindsight, for myself and many others, that is a real shame. Some objective and practical advice on love might have prevented some really bad life choices. Or maybe not. But it couldn't have hurt.

            I think the main commonality of the excellent essays we've read is their objectivity, the way that the authors do their best to examine love in a laboratory setting; dissecting it and revealing the components without any sentimentality. A highlight for me was Robert Nozick's “Love's Bond”‒ an impressive assemblage of insights, including what I consider the best definition of love I've ever encountered: Your own well-being is tied up with that of someone (or something) you love. I've tried but cannot come up with any example that would refute that. Considering even the most altruistic act of love, there is still something in it for the giver, some inner reward or peace gained in the exchange.

            To augment the modern essays with writings from the ancient Greek and Roman philosophers, movies such as Shrek and Mary and Max, and the wonderful If Beale Street Could Talk... I feel as if I've been immersed in the subject of love and friendship, and that the full benefits will be a while in their fruition. So much to absorb, especially in a half-semester's time, that I hope to go back and read some of the material again. I have learned a great deal, and now know where to go to learn more.

            I stated in the first essay that it was hard to see how love was as important an emotion in the evolutionary scheme as something more primal, such as fear. But I think I have to retract that now‒ love is primal, and quite possibly an even bigger motivator. I don't think the sex drive alone could have compelled males to form families, and certainly not to consider monogamy. Likewise for females, their submission to males and devotion to the children needed something more than the reproductive instinct to see the family evolve into tribes, communities, and eventually nations. Love might well have made civilization possible.

(1b)     The various types of love are something I had never given a lot of serious thought to before. We all experience them, but generally don't tend to analyze or compartmentalize our emotions. It's good to step back, however, and observe love from the outside looking in. There are both similarities and major differences between the types, such as eros (erotic/romantic) and storge (familial). While both of these have great depth at times, the intensities are markedly different.

            As very young children, the love of our parents qualifies as what Cicero called a “love of need.” There's no deeper love than that which parents feel for a child, but the child's is actually sort of shallow. We don't truly love our parents until we develop some empathy, and that might come as late as our own adulthood. A full appreciation of parents cannot be realized until you've been a parent yourself.

            The romantic love of a boyfriend/girlfriend or spouse is in some ways antithetical to family love; it's a rebellion against the latter, ironically compelled by an urge to start your own.

            “Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh.” (Genesis 2:24 KJV).

(I'm not a particularly religious person, but very much appreciate the Bible as a literary resource). As the “Eros as Passion” section in the modules observes, this type of love can be seen as a form of temporary insanity; it eclipses all of ones' other primal needs (hunger, sleep, etc.) when it kicks in. Such is the overwhelming impulse to procreate, which we can witness in the elaborate and sometimes Herculean mating rituals of other animals. Eros is our animus (intent); our id (instinctual sub-brain); and our inner beast. A mere several thousand years of civilization have hardly tamed it.

(1c)      Speaking of animals, friendship (philia) is an entirely different species in the love menagerie. We don't need friends to start families, nor to help us take care of them‒ an aspect that gave C.S. Lewis reason to describe friendship as “the least necessary love.” I think most would agree with that, from a practical standpoint. But friendship enhances most human lives to such a degree that it is hard to imagine where mankind would be without it. More than anything, I think it comes down to a kind of reassurance; a realization that “I am not alone... other people feel this way... see the beauty I see here... think this is funny, and that sad.” Those may not be goals or requirements in life, but surely the feelings of close companionship that people have enjoyed from time immemorial were crucial in how far we've come, and kept us from giving up at many difficult junctures along the way.

(1d)     Marriage. My views of marriage have evolved over the course of thirty years of having been in one or another... or another. Three marriages is enough, and two of them, although mistakes, remain as parts of my life in which I partnered with someone, with the best of hopes. I can regret the errors in judgment made afterward, but not that initial impetus. There's something noble in the endeavor, I think.

            While my overall perception of marriage cannot be said to have “evolved” all that much in just eight weeks, albeit intensive, spent reading and thinking about love, I certainly have gained some useful perspective from the varied writings. To see it through the eyes of the ancient Greeks up to the present; from both genders; and from multiple cultures and even motivations‒ is certainly enlightening. I had been aware, from other studies, of the relatively recent notion historically (and still not subscribed to in large parts of the world) that marriage should be based on romantic love. It wasn't always such a study in sentimentality and ceremony.

            I find that the varying viewpoints, from Plato's utilitarianism and Schopenhauer's bleak outlook; the surprising take of John Stuart Mill and the Marxists that marriage exploited women; Bertrand Russell's moral stance; to Simone de Beauvoir's amazing (and depressing) essay on behalf of women‒ all these and the rest, plus the look at arranged marriages... just demonstrate what is observed in the introduction: other than calling it an institution, there are no universal definitions that apply.

(2)        For my analysis of four relationships from the multimedia offerings, and their correlation with a specific type of love, I have chosen the following:

• From Beale Street, as an example of eros (erotic and romantic love)‒ Fonny and Tish
• Also from Beale Street, as storge (love of family)‒ the Rivers family
• From Mary and Max, demonstrating philia (friendship)‒ Mary and Max
• From Shrek, as another example of eros‒ Shrek and Fiona          

(I could not think of a workable example of agape (divine or universal love) from the choices available, but will address my understanding and opinions of that type, as well as more on the others, in Part 3 of this assignment).

            James Baldwin's If Beale Street Could Talk is a moving and vivid story of the strength of love in the face of hardship, set in the Harlem neighborhood of New York City in the early 1970s. Fonny and Tish, the central characters, are two young black people who have grown up as friends and then fallen in love. They have recently become engaged. Theirs is a strong relationship that has given them solace and protection within their often harsh environment (dysfunctional families, racial injustices and prejudice), and which is being tested by particularly poignant circumstances in the present time of the novel‒ Fonny has been jailed after being falsely accused of rape, and Tish is pregnant with his child. She and her family go to extraordinary lengths to exonerate Fonny and free him before the child is born.

            I thoroughly enjoyed this novella, and am not surprised; having previously read Baldwin's short story “Sonny's Blues” (which is outstanding, and a staple of college literature that deserves to be). Beale Street is an excellent feature component in a study of romantic love (eros) and familial love (storge) because the characters exemplify strong qualities of both. Let's begin with eros, through the eyes of Fonny and Tish...

(2a)      Eros is passionate love. It is intimacy, both physically and mentally, between two people. There will often be elements of romance, but that is more of a side-effect/lesser symptom of the disease as it runs its course. The major marker of this “illness” is the ache to be in the presence of one's beloved, and what might best be described as the bliss of being in that state. Tish, the nineteen year-old young woman and narrator of the story, gives an exquisite account of the latter:

            “The train, when it came, was crowded, and he put an arm around me for protection. I suddenly looked up into his face. No one can describe this, I really shouldn't try. His face was bigger than the world, his eyes deeper than the sun, more vast than the desert, all that had ever happened since time began was in his face.” Yes, eros is like that. Or here's another she offers, on that special realm that intimate lovers enter into:

            “I guess it can't be too often that two people can laugh and make love, too, make love because they are laughing, laugh because they're making love. The love and the laughter come from the same place: but not many people go there”.

            Delusions of a lover's grandeur, or an intimacy that welcomes even laughter into sexual union‒ these are classic characteristics of the strong romantic love of eros. But Fonny and Tish demonstrate an even deeper and enduring element, which is an unfailing loyalty to each other. Fonny is in jail, wrongly accused, surrounded by danger, and worst of all facing the possibility that his trial could go badly and he'll lose his freedom for many years; Tish meanwhile carries his baby inside her, and struggles to work, keep their court-appointed lawyer on task, and be there for Fonny at visitation time. It is a highly desperate situation for each of them, yet they comfort each other. Here's an excerpt that describes it beautifully:

            “Every day, when he sees my face, he knows, again, that I love him – and God knows I do, more and more, deeper and deeper, with every hour...And I understand that the growth of the baby is connected with his determination to be free. So. I don't care if I get to be as big as two houses. The baby wants out. Fonny wants out. And we are going to make it.”

James Baldwin does a remarkable job of portraying romantic love in Beale Street. But that's only half the story. The other is the love within Tish's family, the Rivers.

(2b)     Storge. It's an unusual word. It doesn't look right, beside eros, philia and agape; those sound like types of love‒ storge sounds like something you'd catch from it... but that's unfortunate. Storge is affection‒ a “gentle feeling of fondness or liking... synonyms: warmth, devotion, care.” And the most common setting for it is family. There are two families represented in Beale Street; naturally enough they are the families of Tish (the Rivers) and Fonny (the Hunts).

            Being part of a family doesn't guarantee love between the members, but it is more often the case than not. There is a marked difference in the families of Tish and Fonny, as the actions of the story reveal‒ Fonny's mother and sisters have basically abandoned him emotionally and otherwise in the face of his legal troubles; only his father Frank still supports him. It is Tish's family (mother Sharon, sister Ernestine, and father Joseph) who rally around their daughter and soon-to-be son-in-law.

            This is how storge is supposed to work. C.S. Lewis writes, “It is the least discerning, turns a blind eye to faults, and revives easily after quarrels.” That is the healthy family dynamic in a nutshell. Unlike friends or lovers, we don't get to choose our family; it therefore makes sense to have a forgiving and open minded attitude among people you may spend the better part of your life with.

            The Rivers' examples in Beale Street speak for themselves as the loving acts of a family: Joseph working (and even stealing from his employer) to help raise legal funds; Ernestine contributing money as well, and dealing with the lawyer: and mother Sharon even traveling to San Juan to attempt diplomacy with Fonny's accuser. We would all hope to have such relatives if we found ourselves in a similar situation.

(2c)      Mary and Max is a 2009 Australian film that utilizes stop-motion animation of puppets on miniature sets. It is very quirky and dark, sort of surreal, but quite a moving story of friendship and how it can develop under even the most unlikely circumstances, and between random and dissimilar people. There are many twists and turns to the plot, but to offer a very basic synopsis:

            Mary Dinkle is an eight-year-old girl living in Australia who lives a very lonely life‒ she is teased at school because of a birthmark, her parents are distant and/or defective, and she has therefore built a sad little existence around a pet rooster, sweet condensed milk, and a favorite cartoon show. One day, when she happens upon a New York City phone-book at the library, she picks a name and address at random and writes an introductory letter, hoping to make a pen pal.

            The recipient of that letter is Max Horowitz, an obese 44-year-old who lives a hermetic life himself, due to mental problems (Asperger syndrome) that make social interactions difficult. It is about as improbable a pairing of potential friends as one can imagine, but it works... because each of them are so starved for companionship that they seize upon the opportunity.

            A very convoluted sequence of events ensues, which include misunderstandings and long lapses in their correspondence; much too intricate to detail here. Let it suffice to say that through them all, the friendship ultimately prevails. It is a strange but endearing story, and philia is the type of love being celebrated.

            Philia is friendship. It is a discovery, of sorts, that another human being shares some of our values and sensibilities. Our friends are not often family members, although that is possible; instead they are usually people we encounter at school or work, or who live nearby. There seems to be a basic and almost instinctual want of friendship, even though it doesn't play a biological or familial role, and I think this stems from Cicero's theory that the first historical examples of friendship were those of “need.” People found that cooperation with each other had mutual benefits, making elements of their individual lives easier‒ hunting or gathering food, for example, or building shelters.

            The philia of Mary and Max is a far-removed and mutated variety from such roots, but which still demonstrates that almost archetypal quality. Friendships make life easier; if not in a rudimentary way, they might simply enhance what would be a more mundane environment. They inspire us, make it a little easier to get up in the morning. And they can even at times be built on the flimsiest of foundations, as Mary and Max so poignantly reveals.

            What do Mary Dinkle and Max Horowitz have in common? Not age (with a 36 year gap) nor gender; not philosophies nor beliefs; not even the same continent, plus they've never met. All they have initially is that both like chocolate, and the same cartoon show. The fact that they can latch onto that, and hold on, even through all the labyrinthine events to follow, is as much a testament to philia as anything. It shows how friendships can grow from the thinnest of soils, survive periods of drought, and still blossom and flourish.

(2d)     Shrek is the biggest surprise for me to find included in the course materials. I had seen it years ago when my son was still a young teenager, and enjoyed the movie, but never watched it again or gave it any thought. Very popular and financially successful, here's a brief outline for the hypothetical person who's never seen it:

            A computer-animated film, which is in part a parody of earlier animation (especially Disney movies) Shrek's title character is a green ogre who lives by himself in a swamp. That is, until a host of fairy tale characters arrive there as refugees, due to a king Lord Farquaad who hates fairy tales. Shrek decides to go to Duloc, Farquaad's kingdom, to remedy the situation, and takes a talking donkey along with him, who knows the way. Meanwhile Lord Farquaad has learned that he is not really a king, and to be one must marry a princess named Fiona who is locked in a tower and guarded by a dragon. Fiona has a secret: she turns into an ogre herself every night, because of a spell put on her as a child.

            Shrek and the Donkey win the privilege of rescuing Fiona, which they do, and then the three journey back toward Duloc. Shrek and Fiona find out that they have much in common and fall in love, but (of course) there is a crisis along the way. Donkey discovers Fiona's secret (her nightly transformation) and in the process of her explanation, Shrek overhears only a part of their conversation and mistakenly thinks that Fiona is calling him an “ugly beast.”

            Thinking their love is over, Shrek brings Lord Farquaad to Fiona and returns by himself to his swamp. Only after the Donkey goes there and explains that Fiona was not talking about him does Shrek realize that he had better stop her wedding to Farquaad so they can be together. Shrek does this; he and Fiona kiss, which breaks her spell. But surprisingly, she stays in ogre form, which (of course) is fine with Shrek, and a fitting and happy ending. (It is times like this when you fully realize the truth of “a picture is worth a thousand words”).

            The eros of Shrek is both in tribute to, and in parody of, the classic “fairy tale” versions of romantic love‒ replete with princesses, kingdoms, a “beauty and the beast” motif, happy endings... it's a formula that has worked over and over. As our module read, “eros as passion is a popular theme seen throughout history and sanctified in our culture... Lancelot and Guinevere or Romeo and Juliet...” Shrek and Fiona are a cartoon version, but it's the same idea: two perhaps unlikely lovers caught up in a conflict, maybe a love triangle, or fighting some bias against them. For some reason we want stories where people have to struggle for their love. We want drama. Why is this?

            It was a literary movement in Europe, beginning in medieval times, that began the trend, with a vision of romantic love that took hold among the upper classes; with a common theme of fair ladies and knights, chivalry and intrigue, that helped changed the level of emotional attachment in marriages‒ mostly an arranged and more formal relationship prior to this “paradigm shift.” In the centuries since, in addition to Shakespeare and Tennyson's characters mentioned above, there have been many influential romance authors that have made an indelible mark on our modern concept of passionate love, and later screenwriters and popular music composers who adapted the same concepts to their medium of choice. We've been inundated with romanticized conceptions of love.

            Shrek and Fiona represent eros as passionate love, in a very traditional sense and with all the usual trappings, from one perspective... but adapted for modern audiences who have a penchant for animation, with double entendres for the parent's enjoyment, and famous screen actors doing the voice- overs. Art imitates life, and life imitates art. Romance and its depiction in culture will continue to evolve, and find expression in new social environments and artistic genres.        

(3)        In a further analysis and description of the four major types of love, and what I've learned about them from this course, I must begin with the one which has received no attention thus far‒ agape. This category is easily the most controversial, due to the belief by many that there is a divine component; that there is a God involved. While this is indeed the original intent of the word from ancient Greece, in more modern times it is a point of philosophical contention, as well as popular debate, whether or not God exists. I exist within that debate as an agnostic, decidedly non-Christian, and also not believing that if a “god” exists it would have any human aspects. There may be some higher order or intelligence, but as to the traditional conception of some anthropomorphised deity, I might as well be an atheist.

            Now that I've gotten that out of the way... I still have plenty of respect for the concept of agape as 1) a love of God, 2) his love for us, and 3) the human love for all humanity. My grandparents, parents, and most all the elder members of my extended family held those first two conditions dear, and I share with them in the third. The influence of the concept of agapic love, on societies throughout history, has been pervasive and formidable. It has undeniably done both a lot of good and a lot of evil.

            I would have to side most closely with Bertrand Russell in regard to agape. Russell raises the objection that I've always had the most problem with about Christianity‒ the coercion to “love” God and honor Him by threats of punishment (Hell) if we don't. It's a tactic I can't accept from a god, as it undermines the entire concept. It reeks of human invention instead; an authentic god would be above it. If Jesus really existed, then his Sermon on the Mount, with its almost entirely secular and humanist advice on how to love our fellow man, extols the direction I wish the Christian movement had gone:

            “But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you.” (Matthew 5:44 KJV)

 This is going a dimension further than the Golden Rule, which asks us to treat others the way we would want to be treated; Jesus was saying that even when we're treated badly we should return that with love. With all due respect to C.S. Lewis and those who take his stance, it is a fallacy to contend that agape is only possible via God. I can say this because I know my own heart, and have felt compassion for my fellow human beings, collectively, at numerous times in my life. I've also befriended strangers in need and even made the effort to clear the air with “enemies” I've made... all of this without believing that a God compelled me to do so. I'll admit, there may be a God who has made me feel those emotions and perform those deeds. But it's a moot point‒ even in a godless universe love would still matter.     

            The best way I can think of to end this reflection on what I've learned about love is to offer personal examples from my own experience, coupled with insights gleaned from the course. I'll go through the four major categories one at a time, and maybe offer some instances where multiple types are present simultaneously.

            Eros. I have had several strong episodes of passionate romantic love in my life, and consider myself the better for having experienced them. Three of these led to marriage, and a couple of others were intense but short-lived relationships. From what I've learned, I now know that all these began as “eros as passion”, because they had the requisite temporary insanity and sexual motivation. They also represent “eros as choice.” Spanish philosopher Ortega Gasset observed that “who we love reveals more about our inner selves than we like to admit”, and I agree with that. My choices of female partners for exclusive relationships have invariably had an element of rebelliousness in them, enough confidence in themselves to go against the grain. That has always been my own mindset, introvert though I am. And perhaps as compensation for my shyness, most were outspoken women. I think it's a mixture of conscious but mostly unconscious perceptions we form.

            Philia. I've never had many friends at a time, but I've had several friendships that were major influences on my life. My musician friend of three decades was mentioned earlier in this essay; he and I shared a strong interest in knowledge itself, as we were both intellectuals, and it was a very eclectic mix of subjects we were into. This has been the trend for all my close friends, and it confirms the three aspects, learned in this course, that are needed for philia: 1) mutual caring (enjoying each other's company, genuine reciprocal affection); 2) intimacy (enough trust to allow oneself to be vulnerable, and reveal deeply personal feelings and opinions); and 3) shared activity (almost invariably fellow musicians in my case as the basis, with various other tangents springing from that).

            I can give two examples now where more than one type of love can be present, from my own experience: my second and current spouse. (Obviously eros was a factor in both, so I'll supply the other component). My second wife was the mother of my son. We were an example of very passionate lovers who had very little else going for us compatibility-wise; we really only married because of her pregnancy... and that brings in the storge, familial love, that I later felt for her. Totally independent of any romantic or erotic feelings (and in fact as these began to wane), I developed a strong respect and love for her relationship as the mother within our small family. This too would dissipate once we separated and divorced, and as my son grew older, but it was at least a brief exposure to what many parents can share over a lifetime.

            My current wife Debra and I have been married twenty years, and our relationship's beginning stages were as passionate, erotic, and tempestuous as I ever dare to experience again; it would kill me now... But as things settled down a little, she also became a loving step-mother to my son. Just like the storge I felt for Levi's actual mother, I felt it for her, and in a way even more so because she had no biological incentive and simply loved my son from her heart.

            After two decades, while the eros lingers, the storge is all but gone‒ my son is now a grown man who we no longer see very often. And while our passion has grown fairly dormant over time, in its place has grown the deepest of friendships; the kind where we almost instinctively know each others' needs and wants, finish each others' sentences, and share our lives through our memories, hopes for the future, and perhaps most importantly from moment to moment. This is surely philia at its finest.

            Storge. I'll have to recant that there is no longer any familial love in our home‒ I've forgotten our five cats. Here in an “empty nest” of sorts, they are surrogate children, there can be no doubt... Family is a tough subject for me these days. I lost my mother to cancer a bit over a year and a half ago. She was 85, a mild-mannered Christian lady all her life; she loved music and I got my talent from her; the full impact of her loss has yet to settle in. My father is still living, 86, and now by himself in the home he shared with his wife over 50 years. I have one younger brother who I see infrequently, and a son who I am all but estranged from‒ no contact from him since my mother died, and I don't know why. I suspect his girlfriend/newlywed wife as a factor (I wasn't invited, nor even alerted to the wedding) but I don't know. His distance began at roughly the same time that their relationship did. This course's offerings on storge reinforced, and gave me some perspective, on what I already know and feel on a gut level. Familial love is the most forgiving, says C.S. Lewis, and I agree. I've chosen to give my son some space for now, because I fear that prying might make things worse. I don't think I could exercise such patience, or be so willing to forgive and forget, for anyone but family.

            Agape. I have felt this “love for all humanity” at many times over my 55 years. You can't really plan these episodes, as they tend to be spontaneous. That may be different for someone devoutly religious, or who meditates daily‒ perhaps they can summon agape more predictably. Triggers for me might be something I read, something in a movie or TV show... maybe attending a music concert where the whole audience falls under the same spell; in the past there were sometimes “altered states of consciousness” involved (and those can be deeply moving, as the body of writing on hallucinogens can attest). Whatever the cause, we “lose ourselves” somehow in these transactions, becoming aware instead of a life force that we individuals are merely cells of. I agree with the Greeks that it could be considered the “highest form of love” because it is such a rarefied experience. And while I don't know whether agape has its source in God or not, maybe there is something instinctual or evolutionary going on, some innate capacity from whence all these forms of love spring from. It certainly hints at some form of intelligent design. Whatever it is, whatever the cause, I think we'll always need it...

 

“There's nothing you can do that can't be done
Nothing you can sing that can't be sung
Nothing you can say but you can learn how to play the game
It's easy...

Nothing you can make that can't be made
No one you can save that can't be saved
Nothing you can do but you can learn how to be you in time
It's easy...

All you need is love
All you need is love
All you need is love, love
Love is all you need.”

 

(Lennon and McCartney 1967)