Love Is The Answer?

A humorously serious look at life’s trials & tribulations,
American politics, religion, and other social madnesses by Beth Isbell.

Moderator: roxybeast

Post Reply
User avatar
roxybeast
Posts: 720
Joined: November 28th, 2006, 1:00 am
Location: Oklahoma City, Oklahoma
Contact:

Love Is The Answer?

Post by roxybeast » December 30th, 2009, 2:38 pm

<center>Love Is The Answer?
by Beth Isbell (2009)
</center>
Some people, really most people, think that everybody has to fit in a box, must be labelled to be understood, that there can be no contradictions, that there is no room for gray, ... their acceptance is driven by what is "acceptable," and it is impossible for them to even see why this is a problem not only for society, but for them personally ... and for that matter for humankind as a species!

I suppose almost everything can be broken down & understood by some mathematical formula - every historical event, projections of future events, the composition of matter, ... but of course, these projections are part of the evil of which I speak -- the use of stereotype & labels to predict human behavior, to classify, to subjugate, to attempt to understand. Humans have a compelling biological urge to predict another's behavior instilled in us from our cave dwelling days to try to make sure we and our family are safe, but as we evolve we do a disservice to ourselves and to our species to continue to so tightly grasp such fears & stereotypes & yardsticks of behavioral predictability.

Yes, love is the answer.

Which makes it all the more interesting that our primary societal institutions for the teaching of love - both religion and family - often teach & spew the most vile hate!

The poets have defined true love for us throughout the ages, but do we truly understand, do we listen? Do we have the courage to listen? Do we have the strength of character and unmitigated gall to so act in the face of being staunchly rejected and shunned by society, by our peers, by our family? When we act through love, for love, and thinking only of love, and we stand pure in that love, why isn't this often enough?

Yes, love is the answer, but only when coupled with a complete lack of fear.

Love is the answer, but bravery is the mechanism to achieve it!

User avatar
roxybeast
Posts: 720
Joined: November 28th, 2006, 1:00 am
Location: Oklahoma City, Oklahoma
Contact:

Post by roxybeast » December 30th, 2009, 4:58 pm

"What if we were to admit that we don't know the difference between men and women? Will we not then start to wonder about the way we've organized our entire world?

To take this inquiry to the next level, what if we are not defined by our gender, sexual orientation, religion, ethnicity and other differences, but rather by our commonalities?

Where would the hatred go?"
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/lisa-a-li ... 07218.html

User avatar
roxybeast
Posts: 720
Joined: November 28th, 2006, 1:00 am
Location: Oklahoma City, Oklahoma
Contact:

Post by roxybeast » December 30th, 2009, 7:06 pm

I also don't want this discussion to be "trite." ... I hope that we start understanding that fear is part of our genetic make-up for safety reasons, and that we are taught other fears by religion, family, friends ... but that a good number of these fears stem from ignorance or hatred or impure motives ... and while difficult, we constantly need to re-examine what we are afraid of or unwilling to accept and decide again what is right ... what would Jesus do? is one form of this concept ... but the idea is to live & let live if no direct harm is being done to you or your family ... let God & not you be the judge ... always lead by an example of love!

User avatar
roxybeast
Posts: 720
Joined: November 28th, 2006, 1:00 am
Location: Oklahoma City, Oklahoma
Contact:

Post by roxybeast » December 30th, 2009, 11:41 pm

A friend of mine Mark just posted this, which I like ...

"Love" is an action, while "fear" is a reaction. Love moves toward a goal which is future and eternal. Fear seeks to protect the present through maintenance.

Non Sum

Post by Non Sum » January 2nd, 2010, 10:06 pm

Hi Roxybeast,
I can relate to your description of the problem, but have some difficulty with your 'answer.' My understanding of 'love' is limited to my own experience of love. That experience being, that it arrives much like a falling tree limb to the top of some unsuspecting someone's head, or a lightning bolt from out of the blue straight to you. I don't know how I can just scrunch up my eyes, squeeze my fists, and summon up love's demon at will. Do you know how?

What I can do, and what might serve as a more practical 'answer' are practiced qualities such as: civility, kindness, openness, goodwill. These are mostly acts and attitudes that one can exert themselves towards. But 'love' is just too tall an order to expect from any but a saint perhaps. Personally, I don't really want everyone, or even a random few, to begin loving me. It'd be just too damn demanding on my time and interest. I'd be more than content with a nominal level of civility, mixed with an occasional dash of goodwill, wouldn't you?
NS (Nature's Sweetie-pie)

User avatar
roxybeast
Posts: 720
Joined: November 28th, 2006, 1:00 am
Location: Oklahoma City, Oklahoma
Contact:

Post by roxybeast » January 3rd, 2010, 1:10 am

Non-Sum ... I think the grandest acts of love are completely unselfish. :)

Non Sum

Post by Non Sum » January 3rd, 2010, 10:47 am

Roxy: "completely unselfish."

NS: Is that another way of saying, "idealistically impractical"? :(

User avatar
roxybeast
Posts: 720
Joined: November 28th, 2006, 1:00 am
Location: Oklahoma City, Oklahoma
Contact:

Post by roxybeast » January 3rd, 2010, 4:49 pm

Non-Sum ...

No ... not at all.

While I suppose this discussion and my comments above can apply to romantic love, which you seem to be solely focused on, I am speaking of a broader & deeper form of love - as between parent & child ... 8)

Non Sum

Post by Non Sum » January 3rd, 2010, 8:47 pm

Hi
Roxy: I am speaking of a broader & deeper form of love - as between parent & child ...

NS: So, you are saying that "humankind" should regard each other as if either an actual parent or a child, but not as a lover? :? Either way, it would be an impossible standard to achieve, no?

I've had parents, children, and lovers. No way is parent-child love necessarily "broader & deeper" than that twixt true lovers. I suspect you are intending 'philos,' i.e. 'brotherly love.' The Greeks had three main types of love: eros, philos, and agape; but let's face it, there must be hundreds, with each one capable of a thousand variations, even on a cloudy day.

User avatar
roxybeast
Posts: 720
Joined: November 28th, 2006, 1:00 am
Location: Oklahoma City, Oklahoma
Contact:

Post by roxybeast » January 4th, 2010, 8:53 pm

Nope, not necessarily Non-Sum ...

I like the angst & adventure, the head over heels feeling of romantic love, eros love, if you will, as we all do ... & we all can appreciate the mutually beneficial nature of brotherly or sisterly philos love ... but I do think that love in its purest form is selfless. The Greek philosophers describe this form of love as agape. As I said previously, I think the grandest acts of love are completely unselfish. And while not always practical or realistic, it is a noble goal for any truly meaningful relationship in your life.

I am not suggesting and do not have an "answer", ergo the question mark on the title of my post. The observation, however, is that to obtain true love, in particular, to move closer to an unselfish agape type love, requires the additional step of bravery. Simply stated, to take love to a higher form requires letting go of fears.

But letting go of judgmental stereotypes & fears of societal acceptance would also advance all forms of love in our life & the life of everyone with whom we come into contact. For that, society would be better.

Non Sum

Post by Non Sum » January 4th, 2010, 9:48 pm

Hi
Roxy: I think the grandest acts of love are completely unselfish.

NS: I favor the old saw, "love is its own reward." IOW, even love is self-referential. No deliberate action is initiated without a personal payoff (consciously or subconsciously) in mind. This is not necessarily a bad thing. There is such a creature as "enlightened self-interest," where one sees that what is 'best' can, and should, be best for all involved. Otherwise, negatives will result sooner or later down the road.

Roxy: while not always practical or realistic, it is a noble goal for any truly meaningful relationship in your life.

NS: Yes, but I thought that you were speaking about all of our interpersonal dealings among "humankind"? Who would want such a relationship with everbody? Wouldn't such a generalized "grandest love" for all be cheapened by its very wholesale nature?

Roxy: The observation, however, is that to obtain true love, in particular, to move closer to an unselfish agape type love, requires the additional step of bravery.

NS: That may well be, but aren't you forgetting the one sufficient element, i.e. that Cupid, or the fates, must first deliver their arrow of love, since there is no recipe, or machine with which we can voluntarily manufacture 'love' at will.

Roxy: letting go of judgmental stereotypes & fears of societal acceptance would also advance all forms of love in our life & the life of everyone with whom we come into contact.

NS: 'Fears and judgments' are necessary for survival and advancement in any conceivable society. Your goal would require a new species, even a new nature where action and reaction no longer operate.

"To speak of "loving all men" is a foolish exaggeration, and to make up one's mind to be impartial is in itself a kind of partiality." (Lieh Tsu, Taoist sage)

User avatar
roxybeast
Posts: 720
Joined: November 28th, 2006, 1:00 am
Location: Oklahoma City, Oklahoma
Contact:

Post by roxybeast » January 5th, 2010, 3:03 am

I don't necessarily agree that all acts of love have elements of being self-referential, although certainly most are ... and certainly love can often & does occur without Cupid or the fates delivering fate on an arrow ...

Nor did I suggest that the grandest act of love be dispensed like candy Non-Sum ... you seem to be wanting to argue for the sake of arguing.

Yes, exactly, an advancement of the species to relinquish fears that are unjustified or no longer necessary ... precisely. (And not, btw, the end of action & reaction, nor the relinquishment of justifiable necessary fears).

And for Lieh-Tzu ... one must listen Non-Sum to find enlightenment.

Post Reply

Return to “The Pregnant Pope”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests