Sunday, August 16, 2009

Again, just quick, on love

I didn't mean to suggest in the previous post that love is only real and true in its unconditional form. The specific love for a friend, family member, or significant other is just as real and just as true and just as necessary for meaning in life.

I do also think that for our relationships to be really based in love and not mutual self interest or the enjoyment of charisma or any of the many good qualities that stir up various forms of attraction and attachment there has to be an element of this agape style to it. It's the unconditionality that gives love meaning. Man, when you write and think the word love too many times, it really starts to sound like the cheese ball.

So, refocusing here. Naturally there are limits for those of us who are, in fact, not Jesus. Maybe bwana Yesu could love the people who staked him up on the side of the road, but most of us aren't quite as forgiving. And that's okay. If you get nailed to a cross, don't hate yourself for not loving the nailer. God will still love you. (For our non-Swahili speaking friends, Bwana Yesu is Swahili for boss Jesus or big man Jesus or words to that effect [which still seems like an strange expression to me {Yo, it's big man Jesus!}, but who am I to judge? {Not Jesus, that's for sure. Not Jesus by a long shot}])

Yeah, excellent refocus there, kingpin. Really making strides today. Gonna be on the other side of that rainbow any day now. Okay, let's try this again. I'll just go for the quick here. I think that having an element of the agape, both in yr personal relationships and in yr general dealing with the world is important. It is the noble heart, and that heart, I believe, opens up emotional fields unknown to the shallow quid pro quo style of living and relating and so forth. I would guess that Jesus's experience of pure, boundless love even in his gruesome death was on a level of ecstatic emotionality that rave kids and Terence Mckenna and the like only dream about in their wildest drug fantasies. Within the confines of the literary Jesus, of course. I make no judgements about whether or not he really could maintain that or about his status as god's son or any such things. I'm just using this as an example to illustrate the point. To be clear. And for further clarity, I'd just like to say that I know that judgements is spelled judgments here in the U.S. I still prefer the British spelling, thank you very much.

Aaandd, let's try this again. Again. The point in there somewhere was that the subjective experience of life is probably better for those who love more and more deeply. And the unconditionality of the love makes it deeper or something.

Also, the point about the health care debate from the just previous post was not meant to mean that we shouldn't use medical science to help extend life. I was just trying to make the point that suffering is a part of life, and we all have to face that eventually. No matter how well we insulate ourselves from it with the trappings of material distractions. Wait. Hold on. That's not it. No. I got this. I really do. Just give me a minute. I can come up with it. Just keep typing, and it'll come...

Okay, so, yeah, um, it was something about how we all just want to take a pill instead of care of ourselves, and that's why health care costs are out of control. It was in that range, only more so dazzlingly coruscating (Hey, look at me. I know how to use the thesaurus!) and less generally idiotic. I just don't want anyone thinking I'm suggesting killing their grandmother. There seems to be some general confusion about that, in general.

Well, this has all devolved into a nice browny mud color. I guess I'll leave off, seeing as I intended for this to be just quick and on love.

No comments: