Cooper Union forum; 3; Spring 1970

BEEP National Educational Radio presents the Cooper Union Forum, a program taken from a meeting at the Great Hall of the Cooper Union in New York City by station WNYC. The program was recorded on October 8, 1969. The chairman is Dr. Johnson E. Fairchild of the Cooper Union. Now to introduce this discussion on the subject Love and Hatred, here is Dr. Fairchild. Well, some people say, well, what do they have to do with each other? My informants, and

my past four years of experience, lead me to believe that there is a very close relationship between the two. And these gentlemen may refute it or back it up as they please, but we have an idea then that love and hate, with regard to the new revolution in psychology and the world today, are somehow related. May I introduce the members of this panel? May I just mention that in alphabetical order, you go by Gail. Would you stand up, sir? Thank you. Here's a therapist, University of Vienna, spoken at Cooper Union at least once before, editor of a journal on sex research, and as editor of a, and is director and secretary

of the Society of the Scientific Study of Search. And I congratulate you, sir. Thank you. I didn't invent it, though. What a job. Yeah. All right. Then he has several publications, advances in sex research, dictionary psychology. Dr. Leonard Kammer. Dr. Kammer, am I pronouncing your name correctly? Thank you very much, sir. Dr. Kammer is an MD and he is associate clinical professor in psychiatry at New York Medical College. His recent publication was up from depression. Dr. Alfred Jones, who probably needs no introduction in the mist group, and co-director of the Mental Health Consultation Center, and executive director

of the Federation of Mental Health Centers, elected here many times, many things. Dr. Bernard Steinzor. Dr. Steinzor. He's a psychotherapist in New York City. He's a lecturing program of psychiatry and religion at Union Theological Seminary. Author of the Healing Partnership, the patient as colleague in psychotherapy, when parents divorce and so forth. All right. Then here are the gentlemen that are going to discuss this topic of love and hate. And as you see, they run from sex to religion to from MDs to psychologists and so forth. And if I don't say it again, I want to thank them all for coming. You're very nice, darling. Appreciate it. As you all know, the format of our program is one in formal. Two each gentleman makes a short statement of his feelings or belief about the subject. And

then after that, we have a little discussion here. And then there is a short break. And then the audience participates and asks their questions. All right. Then starting off alphabetically, by just some weird coincidence, it starts off with B. Well, Dr. Miguel, you know, I think if you just talk into this, you can sit quiet. I can't sit quiet. I'm not going to talk. And I love, as you all know, is one of the most glorified human emotion. Hatred is one of the most denigrated human emotions. As far as we know, both, although we

mentioned them and stressed them as human, are present in the rudimentary form at least in animals. At least those whose reactions we can judge show some form that resembles love and hatred and that in the human society then develops to that emotion problem. We know, for instance, that practically all animals maintain a certain safety distance, a distance as far as you can approach them. If another animal, not of his own species, comes any closer, the bristles get up, the birds, the feathers get up, in the fish, if they change color, they are ready for aggression and some of them actually attack. Now, this is aggressiveness,

but some of these animals know their enemies, not the personal enemy necessarily, but the species for which they are watching out and they attack immediately. Now, there we have something that is very close to hatred. Obviously, they are ready for any science to get their aggressiveness going. The human being is endowed with the same glandular and physiological responses. If he sends his aggression from another being, the agrenals pour out epiphanine into his bloodstream, the heart starts pumping, the breathing goes shallow and he is ready for aggression or for defense. But the human has, in addition

to these emotional or instinctual qualities, two that are of particular importance to him. And that is one is intelligence and the other one is co-operativeness. Intelligence has taught him that this is blind aggression. He may get into a greater jam than if he waits. And so he has learned to hold back and wait for the situation that favours him. In the meantime, he spins his ideas about taking his revenge. He develops his hatred. On the other hand, to who humans is a gregarious bee and all the strengths that he has achieved, the

superiority over the other animals that is the ability to eliminate them if he doesn't like them, he has achieved by the fact that he lives in communities, tribes, groups, families, whatever it is. And he has learned that 10 people can do better than one, especially in a primitive state, like filling a tree or moving a rock. And he has also learned that among 10 people there will be some who have particular skills, which none of the other ones, the other nine, have. Consequently, he has developed a cooperative pattern. Now living together nevertheless doesn't prevent him from being attacked, being short-change somehow, that

someone invades his territory, that someone tries to take away his girl. But society cannot tolerate aggressiveness within their group. However small or big it is, and consequently it has emphasized, and all emphasized, cooperatives, and the tenet of love you enable. Now this leads and directed to the opposite of hatred and that is love. Love is of course not always present, we can love everyone. Besides it is an enormously vague term. Some love money, some love the place where they were on vacation, some love art, and so on. Now that's not

the kind of love this is probably just a loose application of that term. More and closer to our thinking of love is the love of a mother to her child or of the child to the mother, the love of a man to a woman or the love of a woman to a man. Now this kind of love originally seems to be pretty material, materialistic. Now this animal psychologist again has shown us that the four runner of love, that is affection, develops to whoever gives the infant animal security. Usually this is the mother, the mother animal, the mother among the humans,

but they have also found if there is no mother and they put some class over a wire figure and that is warm, then the infant learns, clinging to that wire mother, to that close mother and finds his security there. Now this that develops something in particular which is very important in individual love and that is the skin contact. Whereas Freud had developed several ideas, ideas of how love develops, I don't want to go into that since he don't consider them correct anymore. And psychologists of some other schools have found well the child loves the one who satisfies his horror, who satisfies his tears and his pain. It

has seen that these abilities to satisfy or to remove these unpleasantnesses from life are very contributions to love but they are actually apparently secondary. The first is the skin contact and we as adults when we attach ourselves to another person whom we feel that we love, usually do seek skin contact, love contact, bodily contact. They are in lies sort of our assurance. Now as the human develops into an adult, he is of course not contented with this particular need satisfaction alone. He expects that the person to whom he attaches himself will give him something that otherwise is not so easily

available. We are such small, nobodies in this world. We are surrounded by taboos. We mustn't do this and we mustn't do that. We mustn't even show the need for affection. But with the beloved, we assume this will be the one whom we allow, are allowed to do that, because who we can return to the happiness that we have experienced as infants. One minute. There I am cutting short just when I am starting to begin. Does it seem that we can all love and love gives us certainly happiness except for the fact that they are two society interferes and it has built up to such a glorious ideal that many people,

if they like someone, if they are attracted to someone, are not sure where that is true love. Also we have the idea that love is eternal and unfortunately this is not. Love passes if it passes within a few weeks then we call it infatuation but we can distinguish love and infatuation only behind side because as they are ours they have exactly the same feelings. And then there are of course, I have only a minute now, there are of course people who cannot love possibly because they have never received proper love in their childhood. They love dogs and they love cats and they love birds but they cannot love a human being. And some of those who are afraid that they will not be loved, they love mankind

but they cannot show any kindness or consideration or love to another individual. Thank you very much Dr. Miguel and for your comments and our second discussor, discussant or discussor is Dr. Camer and Dr. Go right ahead, you have a couple of mics here, let's try one of them. I hope this is all right, if it isn't I'll try another. Try that one, this one is all right. Let me present this not as a psychiatrist but perhaps in an area that I feel very comfortable in and that is a biologist. Every time the subject of love

or hatred comes up, you hear words like it's instinctual, it's only human. When you read the signs that the hippies and the younger generation are putting up about let's make love not war, there is obviously a drive there, there is a very real kind of feeling that is being expressed and you can say it comes from the guts, you can say it comes from the heart, it comes from the liver or wherever you want to put the salt but biologically it comes from the brain. You haven't got a brain, you can't fear, you can't think and you can't be paid. This is a very simple biologic truth and then the next question is we are in the brain. Well there have been many kinds of explorations biologically, we stuck needles into the brain, we've stimulated the brain, psychologists have done this, neurosurgeons

have done this and there is no center called the love center. We find that the brain tends to act as a total kind of thing but there are some centers that tend to produce the kind of reflex that Dr. Beigel just hinted at in terms of the adrenaline outpouring, in terms of reflexes, in terms of that nice warm glow that we feel when we feel love or that angry feeling that we feel when we feel hate. Now I think there's a purpose in nature, some people will take exception perhaps and describe peculiar names to some of the ways I think and they'll say well it's teleological or some such thing but nevertheless I will suggest that there's a reason for love and hatred in the human being. My thesis also is that the reason primarily centers about the human need to survive. I don't know why we have

to survive, I don't know why the human being exists, why the human, why the whole universe exists for that matter. I don't know answers to why questions. I stop all my patients from ever asking me why do I behave that way. There's only one answer and the answer is because. But if you say how did it happen that I hate men but I love mankind as Dr. Beigel says, how does it happen that I hate my mother and love my brother and hate my sister mom or I love my dog but I don't love my neighbor then I'm on more solid ground in how we have learned to hate and how we have learned to love, how we have learned to use the instrument that is our body. Some people never learn to dance, we say they have to love feet, some people never learn to walk a straight line because they have some kind of physical defect

in a cerebellum. Some people never learn to love well because perhaps they were born in Harlem and their father deserted them and they didn't get enough food and nourishment. All these things of fact they're true, they can be measured, they can be tested, psychologists, psychologists have done all this. There are enough people in this audience who have seen the show called South Pacific and it was a wonderful song about you have to learn to hate. Now this is so, you have to learn to hate. It's called indoctrination in Yami. Hate the Japs, hate the Germans, hate the Jews, hate the Russians, hate anybody who happens to be your enemy. Hate the North Vietnamese. I can't tell the difference between the North and the South but yet not me. But hate the North anyway. Now this raises a kind of question about how we pervert and distort biologic assets and there is a center for love and hate. It's in the old brain. It's in the part of the brain that is not part

of the cerebral cortex. It's the central core of the brain. It's in the area we call the hypothalamus. Cut out the hypothalamus and of course you're dead but you also can't love and hate. This is the kind of thing however that can be distorted when the kids take too much of a certain drug. It's called speed or what are called lows. This affects the hypothalamus. If they think they're coming amers or if they think they're losing their libido or their hate and love they're actually producing a horrible kind of toxic condition in their body and they're lashing up the hypothalamus. But it distorts the love and hate picture. Now anybody who takes drugs demonstrates the basic biologic fact of nervous function and brain function. That is where love and hate comes in. Now Dr. Miguel sets some interesting things and I'd like to put it a little more in my context.

We do love in order to produce harmony. There's a very interesting biologic fact of life that you as an individual or any of you as an individual are dead without your friends and neighbors. No human being can survive alone. This is one of the horrible facts of the animal kingdom including man. Man can't survive alone. The turtle carries his own house and gets together with his girlfriend for mating but for the rest of it he can get by perfectly well on his own. Human being can't. You go to the mountain you're dead. You must have somebody else with you. Not to have somebody else with you. You're about 11 because you've got to cooperate. Robinson Crusoe needed his man Friday just as much as I need somebody to make my clothes. There isn't such a clothes I'm wearing that I've made. There isn't any food that I eat that I grow. So I depend upon some fire clerk to make sure that the pepper comes wherever the pepper comes to get to my table in the morning because I like pepper. So we depend upon a very complex kind of interreaction between all people especially

any one person. We better love him because we got to live with him. Now that love can get distorted and if you kill him and you're left alone you're dead too. That's no good. The idea of love is born of the need to survive and we love in order to produce harmony. We love for other reasons too because along with harmony we need to be creative. That's because we also have a new brain called a cerebral cortex and my time is running out here. I didn't think I had enough to talk for eight minutes but I'll have more to say when I hear what the rest of you say. I just want to make one quick point that in order to survive you're living in a world that has both harmonic harmony forces and conflicting forces. People get together and make love and reproduce one another and they get together in a form

a thing called teamwork and that's the team and that produces things. Everybody loves the met's now because they demonstrated what love can do. Teamwork. Now this gets us through the need for cooperation and without cooperation again we cannot survive. However there are conflicts in nature in order for a shoot to grow it can break a stone. I'm talking about just a little tiny seed will break a stone. That stone will roll down a mountain or kill some poor sucker who lives at the base of the mountain didn't know to get the hell out of the way the stone. So this is conflict. There are lava eruptions and this kills people. So this is conflict and we haven't quite become civilized yet enough. I feel we haven't grown enough cerebral cortical cells to be civilized enough to know how to deal with conflict in all its very gated ways. So we resort to aggression we misuse

aggression and hate and we hate the wrong people sometimes because in fact I know it's the wrong people because two years later we love them and I often wonder how it's possible for people who have loved each other to sit on the opposite sides of a lawyer's office and hate each other the way they do in the divorce action. So here we see the contrast of what happens in the course of human biology and in the course of our conditioning course of our learning procedure and of course of what's commonly called psychopathology. I've much exceeded my time but I'll get back to it. Thank you Dr. Tom. And now we have Dr. Alfred Jones. Since I'm not St. Francis Assisi I cannot talk about animals or two animals like talk about human beings. I was here last week and took what was to some people rather an unpopular and traditional view. Well due to unpopular

demand let me repeat the error tonight and talk more about hate than love. It seems to me that there are a plethora of books and sermons lectures and lessons in how to make love and of course most of them have to do with sex and most of the sex books deal with technique. Talk about technique as if technique sexual exercise and if I can coin a phrase sex or size is responsible for manufacturing a product without meaning. Patients keep coming up to us and saying if I can confabulate some terms I suffer from emission impossible.

We only have a modicum of books on how to handle hate. As a matter of fact I would very much like to write a book called mature hate. Most of the work most of the research on how to handle hate is by way of cutting down the amount of hateful stimulation that comes from our environment. But this does not get to the possibility of discovering from what part of ourselves the hate emanates and I'm not here taking a simplistic instinctual view that's related to some of the reflex actions of animals and I don't decry that because

there is a continuum between man and animal. What I am saying is that whether we talk about hate as being a product of our instinctual development or our social environment it must from either point of view taken to consideration the phenomenological view and that is to say it must have relevance to the experience of people. Our own children today seem to be less frustrated and less traumatized sexually but with this new sexual freedom we begin uncomfortably to face the idea that if sexuality ceases the trouble mankind our aggressive feelings could trouble us even more. We have to remember with all of the threats of war that we have today that the warrior Achilles stands at the threshold of our civilization

but luckily he has his Achilles heel. You know the story. Let's reinterpret the story. Andri G tells us that Achilles, the great warrior, was made soft at the remembrance of his mother's touch. What are the problems between the love of mother, the love of mankind as the other speaker talked about? The hatred, the aggression of animals and men. Can we believe the apology and heresy and assume that man is basically good or must we follow the Augustinian heritage and believe that man is basically evil? Is aggression and hate primary in man's nature or are they only a reaction to frustration? If hatred, anger, destructiveness, violence, killing, murder and war, our secondary, then we can realize

the utopian ideal and create a world where there is no frustration and so end the destructive this man has forced it or endured in all of his story. Can we say that man is basically endowed with hate and will inevitably no matter what we do exhibit it? Put religiously or at least in terms of the myth of religion is cane the father of man. Does man's hate take precedence over his love? Well, there are too many people here to talk about individual differences. Let's talk about the general problem. The general problem I must confess is scientifically unknown. Apart from the mystery of the basic question of settling with a man is basically good, capable of love or basically bad and capable of hate. We can make some clinical

observations that have validity. We know that the sexual drive reaches a climax and diminishes after the orgasm. But unfortunately, and have you ever thought about this, there is no counterpart in the aggressive drive. The inability to discharge, to finish, to settle hatred, or evil. Perhaps even the ability to settle it leads to such forms as depression, seeming inactivity but underneath a pot boiling full of unresolved hatred. There seems to be unfortunately clinically, not in our observations of people, a crest and a wave of aggression and hatred as there is in sexual excitation and sexual gratification. The problem becomes

further confused when we realize that love and hate can be fused. And it's terribly difficult to tell when the aggressive drive is not disruptive as it is played out in relationships. And to give an example, I'd like to raise sex's beautiful head again. It doesn't have to be sex by the way. It can be art, it can be theater, it can be play. We can talk about the creative act. And the creative act is essentially an interplay between love and hate, because the artist, the child playing, has to destroy what is and then create something that has not been. And I'm not now talking about some of the recent excesses in art. I don't know whether you've heard about it, but I think there's a recent artist who has a nude model that's the Vogue nowadays, and he has a chicken, much like the Vodo ceremonies

of Haiti. And he rings the neck of the chicken, and as the blood flows from the chicken's neck, he describes beautiful forms on the nude model's body. I'm talking more about the work of the Polish theater, for instance, that's shortly coming to New York, where they talk about the concentration camp, and in the display of horror of those experiences, they attempt to give rise to a sense of renewal. But let me get away from art, which is essentially a production, and go back to sex, which unfortunately today is becoming more of a performance and a production than it is an experience. I'd like to point out that the Orgastic Union, the interplay of the rise and fall of sexual feelings, the excitement, the climax between a man and a woman, is for each one of these people a giving up of their own selves. The

French have described the orgasm as la petite mort, the small death. Unfortunately, people can love each other sexually out of a sense of desperation. And they can bring themselves to the sex act, not as an act of love, but as an act of unresolved aggression. Sex becomes a means in the search for power. I'm not simply talking about the selfish partner who is concerned only with his or her own gratification and cares nothing for the other person, because we can talk even about the person who appears interested, who appears so willing, so desirous of giving the other person physical pleasure. But we must remember that such a person phenomenologically in their own inner secret mind may be doing this only to revel in their own artifices. And let's not forget, of course, the psychology

of the slave, who gives more than he or she gets, but always then expects more than it is humanly possible for any partner to give. The maizakist, who enters a relationship as the victim, and then after a while becomes horribly, fearfully enraged at their persecutor. I also am looking at the time. And since I talked about Achilles, and he had his heel, let's talk about Alessis, who I have not been able to discover was a heel. And as Alessis, each one of us, as Alessis, we venture an odyssey to return home, perhaps to return to a state of former bliss, a former love, preambivalence as some of the Freudians would like to call it. And I think we have to remember that we have to steer our course amongst the renunciations

of our gratifications. We have to accept their non-realization, all the mile recognizing that our voyage is an active quest for their completion. And to put love and hate together, perhaps loving, in its truest sense, is not only expression of the bliss of love, but also being aware of our hates, and knowing how to control them. Thank you, Dr. Dome. Thank you, Mr. Fairchild. I hope the rest of you will also thank Mr. Fairchild when I have finished my written address. There's a very funny thing, sir. I always have to

come back. You don't have to. The circumstances which led to the members of this panel addressing you from up here about love and hate appear obvious enough. Yet, I'd warrant there are many more of you who could give all of us a glimpse of what paradises and what hells infuse your imagination. But I say this not only because of your numbers, it is more likely that you would speak to the specific, the concrete experience which you feel conveys your efforts to maintain a balance while we were chosen, I suppose, because we practice the abstract mode. We are supposed to distill the precious stuff from the base, and thus show you away. While you

are here, I assume, in search of a revelation, a happening which you can save for a few moments, or longer if the happening were to be meeting someone whose person would take you beyond yourself. If some of you are now thinking that I may be leading up to demonstrating my views by a living theatre type of happening, like disrobing or hurling invectives, you're wrong. That is not my style. And indeed, if I did so, you categorize the event as another exhibitionistic act, and thus reduce the meanings I'm trying to convey. However, there is much to appreciate in any effort to break through conventional forms and contents, as the

best of all the arts do, and the best of science also does. That breaking through is a critical aspect of loving, I think. In attacking conventions to reveal new possibilities, we can civilize our rage and the service of others. I'm not loud enough. You said bravo. You said congratulations. Thank you. What can I do to surprise you enough and to set you to wonder about your philosophies and behaviors? Certainly not by summarizing the currently favorite theories of why men fight and how love develops in the bosom of the family. Apart from the often fascinating

anecdotes with your company such theories, the basic ideas are available to all of you because they are, whether sensible or not, essentially common sense. That is, they are the outcome of any person's attempting to come to grips with direct and vicarious experience as all humans do. Also, it should be underlined that any theory about human affairs, no matter with what level of sophistication and objectivity it is presented, is a moral track, a sermon if you will. That includes my special views too, and I propose only that what I'm saying is just enough off what you expected, that you can focus your further attention on it. I've already indicated the main theme I decided to emphasize this evening. Love has something to do with an infatuation with the unknown. I could say that at the heart of love for any

particular person is the love of God, but I think that phrase sets off in most of us, so much static that I'd rather use the phrases, love of the unknown, love of possibilities, love of unfolding mystery. It is the essential trust in the unfolding future as interesting and challenging, and when painful, also meaningful, which I think characterizes the process of loving. As long as we feel not only hope, but confidence that whatever assails us can be assimilated and made the basis of a new outlook, we are in love. Love is the developed capacity for affirming the mystery of the life cycle from birth through to the grave. This makes possible intimacy with one another, at least on balance, a good part of the time

of one's life. I can put it in another way, which you will recognize as similar to other commentaries on love. When we feel we meet another person in their being, we experience a breakthrough of all the conventional categories by what we usually meet one another, sex, size, skin, social status, and so on. When we do so, the killing of the other through the violence of physical acts or through ignoring him is eliminated. We contact the spirit through the flesh. This way of considering the experience of love suggests another slogan, the brotherhood of man, that dream of the Western biblical tradition where the meek shall inherit the earth, but not because, as Jackie Warner said, they are too dumb to refuse. To love is to seek justice and equality of persons. Of course, lovers often feel they are too

against the world, and two persons who live in the process of unabashed and unfearful revelation to each other can tolerate much of the abrasiveness of everyday life. Yet the point I'm stressing is that the qualities of love between any two persons are very much affected by the quality of social life at large. To put it in a kind of formula, it takes more effort to be just to any particular person, the less there is of social justice. To love one another calls for a reverence for equality of each other and a hopefulness for equity for all. I recognize too that this is a very, very large order to try to lend some credence to this assertion that to love better means that you try to seek this forever larger groups so that your own personal love is felt as enlarging your engagement with

the universal. Love is a kind of madness of two, participating in a Messianic dream to struggle for its always partial realization is to be out of kilter with the objective events of man's history and the fact of our own death. It is a gift which we, in luck, receive from others, which in modern times we think are mainly our parents, but whether by grace of our father and mother or by grace of the unknown, to struggle to grow and love is to develop it for the future generations. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you very much Dr. Steinberg. Go ahead. Now, gentlemen, let's have a few comments. Dr. Jones, go ahead. You want to make some comments? There was an old teacher

of mine. Can you hear me? Yes. Use both microphones. How's that? I'm sorry, sir. That microphone carries no sound. It only records, so please don't holler. Then listen to my silent voice. Can you hear me now? Okay, fine. I find myself in the position of remembering an old philosopher friend of mine who said, you know, there are two philosophies. One says that man is nothing but the niche else philosophy. He is nothing but a set of conditioned reflexes and nothing but a set of animal desires. And on the other hand, the other philosophy is that man is something more than just these things. And he had an interesting comment to make. He said, you know, the difference between the nothing but or the something more is the difference between the simple mind it and the model head. And my own feeling

about this is that I personally object, not in terms of what any one of the speakers believe in, but rather in terms of some of the theories on the one hand or something more and the empirical facts than nothing but on the other hand, that these are escapes from man. All right, go ahead, Dr. Cameron. Try this microphone. It sounds bright. In both, Dr. Jones in both his comments and his presentation emphasizes the either or sort of thing. Either we are basically good or either we're basically bad, we're either born of cane or we're born of able. Why does it have to be either or? I mentioned the fact that there's conflict and harming in nature. And the very thing that can be harmonious in one situation is

conflicting in another. Two people watch the eight ball and one sees black and one sees white. This could be an either or would side of an adventurer. But nature isn't quite that way. It's more nearly black and white and gray. And I think that in terms of love and hatred, we love. Some people love the rabbit for food. Some people hate the rabbit because it's a scavenger of the agriculture as in Australia. The Australians give you money if you shoot the rabbit and other people love the rabbit as a pet. There is no either or in society. Depends upon the condition to place you're in, it could be both and neither at the same time. This has to play that you're talking about. In terms of growth must evolve is to create a force of love. This builds upon not necessarily destruction, but modification. We don't have to destroy in order to build. We don't have. We can modify.

And it's this concept of either or that always creates a system, a definitional demand for something very specific. And there is no such thing as specific. There is no mind and body. There is just the body. And out of the body, grows our thoughts, feelings and behavior. And this is our mentation. This is our thinking, our feeling and how we behave. There's nothing mysterious about this. I don't know why we have to say beyond the skin, there's a force. Perhaps some people do want to look for the soul and perhaps some people do want to look for the mind. And if you address yourself to the force beyond the human being, well, okay, I don't know. We went out to space and we found out there there was the moon. And then beyond that, there's Mars. What's beyond that? I don't know. But why do we have to say all the time? We love because of that unknown force. The hell

it is. So we love because this woman has a body. This woman is going to provide us with something. She's going to feed us. She's going to nature us. She's going to give us warmth, companionship. She's going to satisfy and need not to be alone. She's going to give us belongingness. She's going to make us feel at one with the universe because the only equipment we have is to be with somebody else. You want to call it a mother? An infant never bites the hand that feeds it. My knowledge. And every baby loves its mother. You can't help this even when the mother isn't a wire mother dressed in cloth. But there was a bubble at the top of that hollows experiment. You see the mechanical mother fed the baby. You must be nurtured. You must find nurturance in the person you love. Whatever your need is, if your schizophrenic can have a need for something mystic, fine. But I'm not talking about schizophrenic. I'm talking about the average everyday person who needs his fellow man. And in his fellow man, he finds the reality of all the things that satisfy his need.

So he loves him. All right, let's go. Dr. Bigel, what do you want to say? I believe there's nothing more dangerous than tooting in that old horn, glorifying love, making love something mysterious, something far beyond the human. I mean, we are humans. As humans, we derive from animals. We have tried to civilize ourselves to some extent. We have tried it completely, but we haven't succeeded. But we still have these emotions, these needs, the need for survival, for instance, and the demand. You love something. Someone takes it away from you. Now you go on loving the one who has taken it away? No. You are

going to hate it. This is a no human reaction. And I think we should rather try to remain humans. To improve our humanity, to climb into those seven heavens of mystery of an unreachable love as it is sometimes even here proclaimed to be. Thank you very much, Dr. Bigel. How about you, sir? You have been listening to a discussion of Love and Hatred by Hugo C. Baigel, Leonard Camer, Alfred Jones, and Bernard Steinser. The chairman was Dr. Johnson E. Fairchild of the Cooper Union. This discussion was recorded at the Great Hall of the Cooper Union in New York City by station WNYC on October 8, 1969. This is the National Educational Radio Network.