The Differance of Love and Hate

Perhaps the most pressing of concerns regarding emotional integrity within the self-as-such is that of the contrast between the existentiel meanings of love and it's opposite, hate.

What is the best way to phenomenologically reduce these two objects of spirit?  To reflect?  To observe?  To circumspect?

The only way to understand, truly, the differance of love and hate is to apprehend the congruence of these apparent contrasting passions as part-and-parcel of each's own negative freedom.  Emotion understood by way of apprehension absolutely delimits the meaning of each in an other.  Love convalesces in loathing and hatred of self and object, unequivocally!  Hatred-as-such is intrinsically intertwined with the mustard seed of loving as understood in a phenomeno-existential sense.

The congruence of hatred and love is freedom from being.

Emotion-as-judgement is to be seen, by virtue of the reduction of passion to it's components constituting selfhood-in-a-world, as the primordial constitution by entities of valuation.  This selfhood is existentially restricted to degeneration into its negative freedom from being.  A destruktion taken from being free to unencumbered coping with objects-as-such.

The very act of cognition of emotion requires a phenomenological apprehension of what a being means in a world of existence.  Existence-as-such and for an existentiel proceeding as part of a totality of involved coping with the worldhood of being-towards-death.  Our own utmost potential as ontical components is, by necessity, limited by absolute Spirit-as-such.  The existent sentimetns phenomenologically delimit their negative freedom from being.

Differance is, for love, the existentiel realization of an ontology of passion-as-such.

Hatred is reminded of it's negative freedom in the absolute primordiality of love as differance.

The signature trace of the basic-in-itself compresses the classical into the post-deconstructionist.  This trace-as-such makes known unto the conscience of passion-as-such within a world-in-itself the limits of apprehension of worldhood.  The world is such that our own selfhood is comprehensively coping within a Cartesian teleological contrivance inhereted from a tradition of complimentary aquiescence to the institutions of normalcy in ethics rather than the delimiting of passion-to-itself.

To contextualize this is to say that one knows hatred often accompanies the emotional strategy of love-as-such.  Love is, as well, very often part-and-parcel with the universal object of hatred-in-itself. 
Each delimits the differance of an other.

To love - let's give good ardent phenomenological inquisition.

To hate - we must give the existential meaning of the differance of opposition a framework in the concretely existentio-temporal worldhood of Being-in-the-world.

To the passions!

\DDU

Key terms and constructions derived from Derrida, Heidegger, Hegel, Solomon, and Nietzsche.

"Differance", "trace","limiting" and "delimiting" are references to Derrida.
"Existential" and "existentiel", "basic", and "coping" as well as "ontical" and the various stitching together of language to create a new concept are derived from Heidegger.
The "Phenomenology" and opposition of concepts are derived from Hegel.
The framework upon which to understand emotion is derived from Solomon; and it is through Solomons interpretation of Nietzsche that the stylizations and revaluations are derived.

What I'm really getting at with this article is taking away the focus on Post-Modernism and positing my own "Post-Deconstructionism".

Thanks!

R.T. Stillwell