Friday, May 27, 2005

Love hurts?

I was discussing the subject of love with a friend the other day. I was suggesting that love hurts, and she was suggesting otherwise. What I was getting at was that evil relies on the non involvement of others when injustice occurs. Just as the saying "Evil wins when good people do nothing" is so, so it is that we inevitably become victims when we rescue people. No war has ever been won without the unselfish cooperation of caring people. Care is priceless, and as such no value can be placed on it. Society relies on unselfish acts, yet at the same time we're living under the illusion that we're in competition with each other.

This is one of the big issues I have with the idea of "codependence". When the chips are really down, we're all codependent. So the issue of whether or not any one of us is in a "childlike state", dependent on a "parent" (speaking transactional analysis here) we're all potential victims. It's only the illusion that we aren't that sustains our egos. Business relies on this ego based illusion. The values that we hold dear to us, particularly in western society, depend on the illusion that some of us have more value because we have more power or money. Yet power and money are relative, and dependent on ephemeral conditions.

The only reality is love, and the commitment to care for another, even if it means putting your own life at risk. It's altruism. Just as fascism creates fear, and depends on people fearing the loss of their own well being and livelihood, love extends itself so that the collective survive. Hence, "greater love hath no man than to lay down his life for another". But that also means, surely, that there can be no greater love than to live in poverty, to suffer, or do anything else so that another may live, or that one's loved ones live freely.

So, love hurts.

Or at least that's the way I see it.

And it also means that we, as humans, rely on loving others. It's what gives us purpose. In effect, what we are doesn't end at our flesh. Our identity is an illusion, as is our ego. At the core of who we are is the desire to be a part of something greater. And that's the sexual drive. It's a result of the spiritual reality that's who we really are.

Evil only denies that. The nazis were the personnification of that phenomenon. And it was the unselfish love of those who sacrificed themselves, and who defied that evil, that won the day.

But martyrs and sacrifice are all part of this. There have to be martyrs, and there has to be sacrifice. Someone ends up picking up the tab, whether they're just at the bottom of the food chain, or are just people with a strong sense of duty or morals. Ultimately, it's the people who care, regardless of power or image or anything else, who pay the price.

It's a peculiar paradox. Because self sacrifice is, oddly enough, reliant on a belief system that one has little value. The coward's self image, which manifests in self protection, is that he is valuable enough to be protected more than others.

Of course I could be entirely wrong...

1 comment:

Jack Lee said...

I think what I'm getting at is the extent to which one commits to loving someone. If love involves the commitment, say, to really help someone at your own expense, at what point do you draw a line? I'm thinking here of extreme cases, of course, but also of things I've experienced myself. I've personally suffered from what's called "survivor guilt", which is the close empathic association with another in a time of crisis. It's common in psychotherapists and people working in the healing arts, to get "too involved" with someone and be drawn into their hell as a result. The movie "What dreams may come" explores this phenomenon quite well, when Robin William's character literally goes to hell in order to rescue his wife from there. A classic survivor guilt situation is of a man who was on the top deck of a ferry that capsized and sank, leaving his family in the lower decks. His attempts to rescue them would lead to his own drowning had he gone further than he did, but he was left feeling as though he'd abandoned them. In my own case, I pulled some people from a car that was about to explode a few years back. I risked my life to save a couple of strangers. Luckily, it turned out OK, but it dawned on me that I'd put myself in a position of real life threatening danger because of my love for them. That may sound pretty straighforward, but the reality of it is far more complex, because it means that my conditioning - unselfishness - puts other people before me. And that means a lose/win situation, given the odds of such things happening again. It means that my nature is to stick my neck out for others, and that means that it's only a matter of time before I'd lose it. So that's what disturbs me somewhat. It's also what, in my opinion, Jesus was on about when he said "forgive them, for they know not what they do". It meant that he was saying that the people that didn't believe in him - or rather in what he was saying - were simply self serving, fearful cowards who didn't appreciate nor trust, nor dare to enter the awesome place of simple, selfless loving that he was daring people to go into. They (the ones that crucified him) were the ultimate cynics. They could only view him as a liar and a charlatan, because they were projecting their own inner selves on to him. So, any truly loving person faces the same dilemma: love, even though you're mistrusted and reviled, probably hated and ultimately abandoned, or join the masses and just do what everyone else does.

Does that make any sense?