Dr. John Vervaeke, a cognitive scientist I admire deeply, talks about knowing by loving rather than loving by knowing. I’m not sure, but I’m guessing he’s at least, in part, influenced by a book called “Loving to Know: Covenant Epistemology” by Esther Meek, who casts a wide net of philosophy about the topic. This kind of loving is unconditional; it’s a heart-open-wide loving that allows for a full knowing – even of that which you might not like.
Loving by knowing, however, *is* conditional – once I “know” you (whatever that means for you in a given circumstance), *then* I’ll love you. In this way, as I know you more, I may deepen, maintain, or withdraw my love. Knowing can be based on actions and words (or a lack thereof!) and will, guaranteed, change over time. There’s a lot of pressure to continue to “know” someone/something and then make a corresponding decision to love or not.
Knowing by loving can open us to different perspectives and possibilities; there’s a post-tragic assumption of goodwill, innocent yet devoid of delusional naivete, an inner trustworthiness informing our hearts about whether we’re truly sensing good faith engagement, and in turn prompting us to course-correct accordingly.
Unconditional love doesn’t mean unconditional relationship, as a wise friend once told me. Course-correcting might be ending a relationship, or withdrawing an active expression of love. It might be asking more specific questions, or giving a hug. But it doesn’t (have to) mean love withdrawal. Amor fati – love of fate, i.e. love of everything.
What do you think about knowing by loving?