"LOVE"
by: Charles Boegli
===========
Some years ago I decided the world needed a working definition of the word "Love," and set about to make one. For months I waded through a welter of thoughts of people present and past, finding a bit of enlightenment here, quagmires of sloppy sentiment there. One day as I walked along a city street, my definition suddenly crystallized in my mind: "Love is a sincere and heartfelt wish for the good and happiness of another."
I felt that this brief definition covered not only romantic love, but the love parents feel for their children, people for their pets, and almost any other use to which that word is usually put. It obviously didn't apply to inanimate objects, constructions like "I love chocolate," which really mean "like very much." So inclusive was it that after two years' thought I could add only one phrase . . " - - coupled with a wish that the same sentiment be returned." Not an expectation, not a hope, merely a wish.
I confess that imperfection lies in the word "good," which I used for want of a more precise one. Abrupt, and occasionally harsh, action is sometimes necessary to protect a loved one against clear and imminent physical danger; preservation of life is clearly precedent. But the long-term intent remains his happiness, who soon perceives its goodness.
In the ensuing years, I pondered various manifestations of Love, and reached some conclusions. For one, it seems to me that "friendship" and love are so nearly identical as to admit no separation, yet many people of my country hesitate to say "I love you" while they feel entirely free to say "I'm your friend." Indeed, for one man to say "I love you" to another gives rise to unsavory speculations - happily, that is not true everywhere!
Love may urge, but never force. It does not imprison a loved one, but sets him free. It cannot be otherwise, for no man can really be certain of what another's happiness needs. To hold the contrary is to confer virtue on those who, through the ages, maimed and crippled others, and subjected them to unspeakable cruelties, in the name of saving their souls or "correcting" erroneous beliefs. If a loved one takes a seemingly dangerous course, Love may advise against it, argue against it, point out its consequences, but never raise a finger to prevent it. It can do nothing but wait in the sidelines, pick up the pieces, console, and support one whose action has led to grief. If Love's object shrieks "Go away! I don't want you!" then Love's only recourse is to turn away, and shed regretful and helpless tears.
Almost all married couples claim to love one another, yet think nothing of imposing rigid rules on the behaviors of their mates. This, it seems to me, flies in the face of a sincere wish for the other's happiness. It is tantamount to saying "I shall dictate what you need ," and often adds "You will suffer these consequences if you do not obey." Does this square with Christ's admonition to "love thy neighbor as thyself?" Making laws and imposing penalties may be called Justice (which builds courts and trials and jail cells with open doors) but I see no part of Love, or true Justice, in it. Who has ever heard an executioner or torturer say to his victim "I wrench your arms from their sockets and burn your eyes out of their sockets for love of you, my sincere wish that you will avoid such unhappy errors in the future"? The victims of the Inquisition, and some unhappy abused children in today's world! No! Judgment is not part of Love but of something else, something far less noble. Such admonitions and prohibitions arise, in the first place, from the inner feeling that no one can be trusted.
Love is an attitude manifest in action, not an action itself. Sex can be a rich expression of Love, but Love does not languish without it. Love does not judge, it accepts It does not channel, it suggests. Freedom is inherent in the word "wish;" one has a right to wish, but never to command. Even to limit Love is inimical to Love.
Raise your eyes still further, and realize that a God of Love cannot be a God of vengeance! the two are entirely incompatible. I reject teachings to the contrary. I shan't be surprised now to see some people rise up in righteous anger. They will be those who claim that Love must meet their own convenient definitions. Who cannot see the bitter derision in the words of Voltaire: ". . . our Creator and Father will say to the wise and virtuous Confucius, to the lawgiver Solon, to Pythagoras, to Saleucus, to Socrates, to Plato, to the divine Antonines, to the good Trajan, to Titus, the delight of the human race, to Epictetus, and to so many other model men: 'Go, monsters, go and submit to a chastisement infinite in its intensity and duration; your torment shall be eternal as I. And you, my beloved Jean Chatel, Revaillac, Damiens, Cartouche, etc. [assassins in the cause of the Church], who have died with the prescribed formulae, come and share my empire and felicity for ever.'"
Let them propose - and test - a better definition! I shrink in horror from such beliefs, even more from those who espouse them in the name of Love.
Charles Boegli 6/1/98