I just finished read the Book of Eric From “the art of loving”. I liked the book a lot, and I agree with what this guy says in his book. But in the last chapter, I had a surprise. Practically, the guy explain in simple words what art is and how to “practice” it, so to speak. So I will leave here a piece that I really will ask you to read it, this of course if you really are interested in this.
"the practice of any art has certain general requirements, quite regardless of whether we deal with the art of carpentry, medicine, or the art of love. First of all, the practice of an art requires discipline. I shall never be good at anything if I do not do it in a disciplined way; anything I do only if "I am in the mood" may be a nice or amusing hobby, but I shall never become a master in that art. But the problem is not only that of discipline in the practice of the particular art (say practicing every day a certain amount of hours) but it is that of discipline in one's whole life. One might think that~ nothing is easier to learn for modern man than discipline. Does he not spend eight hours a day in a most disciplined way at a job which is strictly routinized? The fact, however, is that modern man has exceedingly little self-discipline out- side of the sphere of work. When he does not work, he wants to be lazy, to slouch or, to use a nicer word, to "relax." This very wish for laziness is largely a reaction against the routini- zation of life. Just because man is forced for eight hours a day to spend his energy for purposes not his own, in ways not his own, but prescribed for him by the rhythm of the work, he rebels and his rebelliousness takes the form of an infantile self-indulgence. In addition, in the battle against authoritarianism he has become distrustful of all discipline, of that enforced by irrational authority, as well as of rational discipline imposed by himself. Without such discipline, how- ever, life becomes shattered, chaotic, and lacks in concentra- tion.
That concentration is a necessary condition for the mastery of an art is hardly necessary to prove. Anyone who ever tried to learn an art knows this. Yet, even more than self- discipline, concentration is rare in our culture. On the con- trary, our culture leads to an unconcentrated and diffused mode of life, hardly paralleled anywhere else. You do many things at once; you read, listen to the radio, talk, smoke, eat, drink. You are the consumer with the open mouth, eager and ready to swallow everything — pictures, liquor, knowl- edge. This lack of concentration is clearly shown in our difficulty in being alone with ourselves. To sit still, without talking, smoking, reading, drinking, is impossible for most people. They become nervous and fidgety, and must do something with their mouth or their hands. (Smoking is one of the symptoms of this lack of concentration; it occupies hand, mouth, eye and nose. )
A third factor is patience. Again, anyone who ever tried to master an art knows that patience is necessary if you want to achieve anything. If one is after quick results, one never learns an art. Yet, for modern man, patience is as difficult to practice as discipline and concentration. Our whole indus- trial system fosters exactly the opposite: quickness. All our machines are designed for quickness: the car and airplane bring us quickly to our destination — and the quicker the better. The machine which can produce the same quantity in half the time is twice as good as the older and slower one. Of course, there are important economic reasons for this. But, as in so many other aspects, human values have become determined by economic values. What is good for machines must be good for man — so goes the logic. Modern man thinks he loses something — time — when he does not do things quickly; yet he does not know what to do with the time he gains — except kill it.
Eventually, a condition of learning any art is a supreme concern with the mastery of the art. If the art is not some- thing of supreme importance, the apprentice will never learn it. He will remain, at best, a good dilettante, but will never become a master. This condition is as necessary for the art of loving as for any other art. It seems, though, as if the proportion between masters and dilettantes is more heavily weighted in favor of the dilettantes in the art of loving than is the case with other arts. " come on guys, it's not so long the text, huh? and to finish this post I will show another cover made last week This cover I´ve made it for E.M.Kaplan and the title is The Condolence Screener
6 thoughts on “the art of loving”
No, the text was very long. I really didn’t have the patience to sit through it. It was hard to concentrate on the words and, well, it took a lot of discipline to actually do it. I was hoping for instant gratification and I got all fidgety when I had to sit there… 😉 Yeah, I pretty much agree. It is one reason classical music has died – to really enjoy it takes time to study and understand it.
I like the book cover.
I really enjoyed reading that. It confirms many things that I have put into place. Thanks!! 🙂
youre welcome 🙂
Good post and very true! I need to learn more discipline with my writing. Thanks for sharing
you are very welcome!
That which we focus on we get good at… So where does the focus go …and guess what? we are constantly focusing or attending to something…