{"id":11377,"date":"2016-04-16T19:21:31","date_gmt":"2016-04-16T23:21:31","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/wordstudy.newchurch.org\/?page_id=11377"},"modified":"2016-04-16T19:21:31","modified_gmt":"2016-04-16T23:21:31","slug":"affection","status":"publish","type":"page","link":"https:\/\/societies.newchurch.org\/wordstudy\/spiritual-glossary\/affection\/","title":{"rendered":"Affection"},"content":{"rendered":"

We all know (or think we know) what affection is: It is simply<\/span><\/h4>\n

liking someone or something, taking joy<\/a> in it. It is not as big and serious a deal as \u201cloving\u201d something, and it doesn\u2019t necessarily have to make a lot of sense -- it\u2019s just something that makes us happy.<\/span><\/p>\n

But Swedenborg<\/a> lends some significant weight to the idea of affection, at times stating that angels<\/a> are nothing other than affections, that we in this world are affections, and that the good things<\/a> we do are forms of affection. That seems like a lot to hang on a rather casual idea.<\/span><\/p>\n

So it may not be surprising that Swedenborg has a rather specific (and quite beautiful) definition of \u201caffection,\u201d which\u00a0illustrates the importance of the role it plays. The book Divine Love\u00a0<\/em>says that\u00a0\u201cby affections are meant the continuations and derivations of love. Love<\/a> may be compared to a fountain, and affections to the streams issuing from it.\u201d<\/span><\/p>\n

That\u2019s a neat image: We can imagine love as a large, sort of generalized pool -- we love the Lord<\/a>, love people<\/a>, love peace and goodness<\/a> and joy. And from that pool flow small, specific rivulets that are affections for particular things. Maybe it is an affection for reading stories to children, maybe it is an affection for nurturing seeds into plants, maybe it is even an affection for solving tricky math problems -- each of them one little specific stream flowing from a great pool of love. They could have countless forms, and no one of them is so important on its own that it needs to be thought of as love, but they are all ways that love enters our lives.<\/span><\/p>\n

And while each affection might seem in some way trivial, collectively they are hugely important. Love comes to us from the Lord, and is our inmost<\/a>, but to become anything it must flow out into our minds and bodies. It does this through affection, somewhat like stretching out a finger to touch a button that sets the mind in motion. Then that affection becomes the inmost of a thought, and the thought can inspire action in the body, and the body can actually do something that expresses that affection and makes the world a better place.<\/span><\/p>\n

Our affections, then, are no less than the pathways through which love coming from the Lord can pass into our minds and take form through our actions -- which is a pretty significant thing!<\/span><\/p>\n

\n

Passages from Swedenborg:<\/em><\/h4>\n

Divine Love (Whitehead) n. 9<\/b><\/p>\n

By <\/span>affections<\/span> are meant the continuations and derivations of love. Love may be compared to a fountain, and <\/span>affections<\/span> to the streams issuing from it. Love may also be compared to the heart, and <\/span>affections<\/span> to the vessels leading out and continued from it; and it is well known that the vessels that convey blood from the heart resemble their heart in every point, so as to be as it were extensions of it - from this is the circulation of the blood from the heart through the arteries, and from the arteries into the veins, and back to the heart. So with <\/span>affections<\/span>; for these are derived and continued from love, and produce uses in forms, and in these proceed from the firsts of the uses to their ultimates, and from these they return to the love from which they started: from all which it is plain that <\/span>affection<\/span> is love in its essence; and that use is love in its form.<\/span><\/p>\n

[2] The conclusion from this is, that the objects, that is, the ends of <\/span>affections<\/span>, are uses, therefore also their subjects are uses, and that the very forms in which <\/span>affections<\/span> exist are effects which are effigies of the <\/span>affections<\/span>; in which they proceed from the first end to the last, and from the last end to the first, and by them they perform their works, offices, and exercises.<\/span><\/p>\n

From what has now been said, who cannot see that <\/span>affection<\/span> alone is not anything, but that it becomes something by being in use; and that <\/span>affection<\/span> for use is nothing but an idea, unless it be in form; and that <\/span>affection<\/span> for use in form is nothing but a potency, the <\/span>affection<\/span> first becoming something when it is in act? This act is the very use that is meant, which in its essence is <\/span>affection<\/span>.<\/span><\/p>\n

Now, since <\/span>affections<\/span> are the essence of uses, and uses are the subjects of <\/span>affections<\/span>, it follows that there are as many <\/span>affections<\/span> as there are uses.<\/span><\/p>\n

Divine Providence (Rogers) n. 198<\/b><\/p>\n

198. We showed above that a person has no thought that does not spring from some <\/span>affection<\/span> of his life's love, and that thought is nothing but a form of <\/span>affection<\/span>. Since, then, a person sees his thought and cannot see the <\/span>affection<\/span>, <\/span>affection<\/span> being something he feels, it follows that from what he sees, which is caught up in the appearance, he decides that human prudence accomplishes all things, and this not from the <\/span>affection<\/span>, which does not come to view but is only felt. For <\/span>affection<\/span> displays itself only through some delight consciously felt and the pleasure of reasoning about it, and this pleasure and delight are then bound up with the thinking in people who from a love of self and a love of the world are impelled by a belief in their own prudence. The thought then drifts along in its delight like a boat in the current of a river, to which the boat's captain pays no attention, giving attention only to the sails that he spreads.<\/span><\/p>\n

Divine Love (Whitehead) n. 16<\/b><\/p>\n

    \n
  1. XVI.<\/span><\/li>\n<\/ol>\n

    Every man is an <\/span>affection<\/span>, for the reason that his life is love, and the continuations and derivations of love are what are called <\/span>affections<\/span>; consequently <\/span>affections<\/span> in themselves are loves, but subordinate to the general love as their lord or head. Since, therefore, life itself is love, it follows that each and all things of life are <\/span>affections<\/span>, and consequently that man himself is an <\/span>affection<\/span>.<\/span><\/p>\n

    Divine Love (Whitehead) n. 17<\/b><\/p>\n

      \n
    1. XVII.<\/span><\/li>\n<\/ol>\n

      Since <\/span>affection<\/span> is the man himself, and use is its effect and work, and is as a field or theater for its exercise, and since <\/span>affection<\/span> is not found apart from its subject, even so the <\/span>affection<\/span> of man's life is not found apart from use; and since <\/span>affection<\/span> and use make one, so man, who is <\/span>affection<\/span>, is known as to his quality from use,-imperfectly and slightly in the natural world, but clearly and fully in the spiritual world. For the spiritual discloses the <\/span>affection<\/span> and all its particulars, since in its essence the spiritual is Divine love and Divine wisdom, and in its manifestation is the heat and the light of heaven; and these disclose the <\/span>affections<\/span> of uses, as the heat of the sun of the world discloses objects of the earth by odors and flavors, and its light discloses them by its various colors and distinctions of shade. Every man has eternal life according to his <\/span>affection<\/span> of use, for the reason that <\/span>affection<\/span> is the man himself; consequently such as the <\/span>affection<\/span> is, such is the man.<\/span><\/p>\n

      [2] But <\/span>affection<\/span> of use in general is of two kinds; there is the spiritual <\/span>affection<\/span> of use and there is the natural <\/span>affection<\/span> of use. In external form the two are alike, but in internal wholly unlike; for this reason they are not known the one from the other by men in the world, but are readily known by angels in heaven; for they are wholly opposite, since the spiritual <\/span>affection<\/span> of use gives heaven to man, while natural <\/span>affection<\/span> of use, without the spiritual, gives hell; for the natural <\/span>affection<\/span> of use looks only to honors and gains, thus to self and the world as ends, while spiritual <\/span>affection<\/span> of use looks to the glory of God and to uses themselves, thus to the Lord and the neighbor as ends.<\/span><\/p>\n

      Arcana Coelestia (Potts) n. 1904<\/b><\/p>\n

        \n
      1. Sarai, Abram's wife, took. That this signifies the <\/span>affection<\/span> of truth, which in the genuine sense is \"Sarai the wife,\" is evident from the signification of \"Sarai,\" as being truth adjoined to good, and from the signification of a \"wife,\" as being <\/span>affection<\/span> (explained above, n. 915, 1468). There are two<\/span>affections<\/span> distinct from each other,-<\/span>affection<\/span> of good, and <\/span>affection<\/span> of truth. When a man is being regenerated the <\/span>affection<\/span> of truth has the lead, for he is <\/span>affected<\/span> with truth for the sake of good; but when he has been regenerated the <\/span>affection<\/span> of good has the lead, and from good he is <\/span>affected<\/span> with truth. The <\/span>affection<\/span> of good is of the will; the <\/span>affection<\/span> of truth is of the understanding. Between these two <\/span>affections<\/span> the most ancient people instituted as it were a marriage. Good, or the love of good, they called man as a husband; truth, or the love of truth, they called man as a wife. The comparison of good and truth with marriage has its origin in the heavenly marriage.<\/span><\/li>\n<\/ol>\n

        [2] Regarded in themselves, good and truth have no life, but they derive their life from love or<\/span>affection<\/span>. They are only instrumentalities of life; and such as is the love that <\/span>affects<\/span> the good and truth, such is the life; for the whole of life is of love, or <\/span>affection<\/span>. Hence it is that \"Sarai the wife,\" in the genuine sense, signifies the <\/span>affection<\/span> of truth. And because in the case before us the intellectual desired the rational as an offspring, and because that which she speaks is of this desire or <\/span>affection<\/span>, it is therefore expressly said in this verse, \"Sarai, Abram's wife, gave to Abram, her man,\" which there would have been no need of repeating if it did not involve such things in the internal sense, for in themselves these words would be superfluous.<\/span><\/p>\n

        Arcana Coelestia (Potts) n. 3849<\/b><\/p>\n

        [2] He who pays attention may also know, from the nature of man's understanding, that it is no understanding unless the will is in it; the life of the understanding being from the will. This again shows what truths without good are, namely, that they are no truths at all; and that truths derive their life from good; for truths belong to man's intellectual part, and good to his will part. From all this anyone can judge what faith (which is of truth) is without charity, which is of good; and that the truths of faith without the good of charity are dead; for as before said the amount and the quality of the<\/span>affection<\/span> in truths, determine the amount and the quality of the life in them. But that truths nevertheless appear animated, even when there is no good of charity, is from the <\/span>affections<\/span> of the love of self and the love of the world, which have no life, except that which in the spiritual sense is called death, that is, infernal life. It is said <\/span>affection<\/span>, and thereby is meant that which is continuous of love.*<\/span><\/p>\n

        [3] From all this we can see that <\/span>affections<\/span> are means subservient to the conjunction of truth with good; and that <\/span>affections<\/span> are what introduce truths, and also dispose them into order-genuine <\/span>affections<\/span>, which are of love to the Lord and love toward the neighbor, into heavenly order; but evil <\/span>affections<\/span>, which are of the love of self and the love of the world, into infernal order; that is, into the opposite of heavenly order.<\/span><\/p>\n

        [4] The most external <\/span>affections<\/span> are those of the body, and are called appetites and pleasures; the next interior <\/span>affections<\/span> are those of the natural mind, and are called natural <\/span>affections<\/span>; but the internal<\/span>affections<\/span> are those of the rational mind, and are called spiritual <\/span>affections<\/span>. To these last-spiritual<\/span>affections<\/span> of the mind-doctrinal truths are introduced by means of exterior and most external, or natural and bodily <\/span>affections<\/span>.<\/span><\/p>\n

        Divine Love (Whitehead) n. 18<\/b><\/p>\n

          \n
        1. XVIII.<\/span><\/li>\n<\/ol>\n

          THE WILL OF MAN IS HIS <\/span>AFFECTION<\/span>.<\/span><\/p>\n

          The will of man is his <\/span>affection<\/span> for the reason that the will of man is the receptacle of his love and the understanding the receptacle of his wisdom; and that which is the receptacle of love is also the receptacle of all <\/span>affections<\/span>, because <\/span>affections<\/span> are merely continuations and derivations of love, as has been said above. It is called the receptacle of love because love cannot be given with man except in a recipient form which is substantial; without such a form love would have no ability to effect, to reciprocate, and thereby to be permanent.<\/span><\/p>\n

          Divine Providence (Rogers) n. 194<\/b><\/p>\n

          194.\ufffdIn the aforementioned treatises we demonstrated also that the life's love produces from itself subordinate loves, which we call <\/span>affections<\/span>; that these <\/span>affections<\/span> are exterior and interior; and that taken together they form as though a single realm or kingdom, in which the life's love is lord or king.<\/span><\/p>\n

          Moreover, we demonstrated, too, that these subordinate loves or <\/span>affections<\/span> attach to themselves partners\ufffd-\ufffdeach one its own partner\ufffd-\ufffdinterior <\/span>affections<\/span> taking as partners what are called perceptions, and exterior <\/span>affections<\/span> taking as partners what are called thoughts; and that each dwells with its own partner and so carries on the functions of its life.<\/span><\/p>\n

          Divine Providence (Rogers) n. 76<\/b><\/p>\n

          76.\ufffdEveryone with an unobstructed rationality can see and comprehend that without the appearance that it is his, a person cannot be moved by any <\/span>affection<\/span> for knowing, nor by any <\/span>affection<\/span> for understanding. For every delight and pleasure, thus everything pertaining to the will, springs from an<\/span>affection<\/span> having to do with love. Who can wish to know something or understand something if he does not feel the pleasure of some <\/span>affection<\/span>? And who can have that pleasure of <\/span>affection<\/span> unless that which<\/span>affects<\/span> him appears to be his? If nothing were his, but everything another's, that is to say, if one were to infuse from his own <\/span>affections<\/span> something into the mind of another who lacked any <\/span>affection<\/span> for knowing or understanding as if of himself, would the other receive it? Indeed, could he receive it? Would he not be as something we term a brute or log?<\/span><\/p>\n

          Arcana Coelestia (Potts) n. 3080<\/b><\/p>\n

            \n
          1. And the damsel was exceeding good to look upon. That this signifies the beauty of the <\/span>affection<\/span> of truth, is evident from the signification of a \"damsel,\" as being an <\/span>affection<\/span> in which is innocence (see n. 3067). That \"exceeding good to look upon\" signifies beauty (here the beauty of the <\/span>affection<\/span> of truth, because it is said of the damsel) comes from the fact that all beauty is from good in which there is innocence. Good itself when it flows in from the internal man into the external, makes beauty; and from this is all human beauty. This may likewise be seen from the fact that no one is <\/span>affected<\/span> by the face of another, but by the <\/span>affection<\/span> which beams forth from the face; and that they who are in good are <\/span>affected<\/span>by the <\/span>affection<\/span> of good which is there, and in the measure in which there is innocence in the good. Thus it is the spiritual in the natural which <\/span>affects<\/span>, but not the natural without the spiritual. In like manner they who are in good are <\/span>affected<\/span> by little children, who appear to them beautiful in proportion to the innocence of charity in their faces, gestures, and speech. (That goodness and charity are what form and cause beauty, may be seen above, n. 553.) Hence then it is that the \"damsel exceeding good to look upon\" signifies the beauty of the <\/span>affection<\/span> of truth in which there is good.<\/span><\/li>\n<\/ol>\n<\/div><\/div><\/div>

            \"\"<\/p><\/div>

            Who (or What) is Swedenborg?<\/span><\/h4>\n

            The ideas on this site are based on the works of Emanuel Swedenborg<\/a>, an 18th<\/sup>-century Swedish scientist and theologian. Swedenborg claimed that his religious writings, the sole focus of the last three decades of his life, were done at the behest of the Lord<\/a> himself, and constituted a revelation for a successor to the Christian<\/a> Church.<\/p>\n

            In keeping with Swedenborg\u2019s own statements, modern believers downplay his role as author, attributing the ideas to the Lord instead. For this reason they generally refer to Swedenborg\u2019s theological works as \u201cthe Writings,\u201d and some resist the label \u201cSwedenborgian\u201d as placing emphasis on the man rather than the message.<\/p>\n

            Since \u201cthe Writings\u201d would be an unfamiliar term to new readers, we have elected to use the name \u201cSwedenborg\u201d as a label for those theological works, much as we might use \u201cIsaiah\u201d or \u201cMatthew\u201d to refer to books of the Bible<\/a>. The intent, however, is not to attribute the ideas to Swedenborg, any more than we would attribute the divinity of the Bible to Isaiah the man or Matthew the man.<\/p>\n

            So when you read \u201caccording to Swedenborg\u201d on this site, it\u2019s really shorthand for \u201caccording to the theological works from the Lord through Swedenborg.\u201d When you read \u201cSwedenborg says,\u201d it\u2019s really shorthand for \u201cthe theological works of Swedenborg say.\u201d<\/p>\n<\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div>","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

            We all know (or think we know) what affection is: It is simply liking someone or something, taking joy in it. It is not as big and serious a deal as \u201cloving\u201d something, and it doesn\u2019t necessarily have to make a lot of sense — it\u2019s just something that makes us happy. But Swedenborg lends […]<\/p>\n

            Read More<\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":17,"featured_media":11925,"parent":10647,"menu_order":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","template":"template-article.php","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[5],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-11377","page","type-page","status-publish","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-spiritual-glossary","blog-style1"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/societies.newchurch.org\/wordstudy\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/11377","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/societies.newchurch.org\/wordstudy\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/societies.newchurch.org\/wordstudy\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/page"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/societies.newchurch.org\/wordstudy\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/17"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/societies.newchurch.org\/wordstudy\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=11377"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/societies.newchurch.org\/wordstudy\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/11377\/revisions"}],"up":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/societies.newchurch.org\/wordstudy\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/10647"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/societies.newchurch.org\/wordstudy\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/11925"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/societies.newchurch.org\/wordstudy\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=11377"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/societies.newchurch.org\/wordstudy\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=11377"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/societies.newchurch.org\/wordstudy\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=11377"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}