Brain Fertilizer

Last year I had some freaky melt-down. Those who were reading me at the time (you won't find it in my archives, it was among those lost in the mists of time before I became part of the mu.nu family) may remember me getting all cryptic and mysterious about some strange denoument.
Basically, it was the realization that despite living in the same world with the same common vocabulary and most of the same end-goals, men and women's mutual understanding of each other's views of something as primal and basic as "sexual intercourse" remain so woefully incomplete as to be near-total incomprehension. And if it were impossible to get any real understanding on something so primal and basic and universal as that, then there was no hope of really understanding complex issues like parenting and life-goals and how to deal with in-laws. And from there I realized that the conceptual differences between even obvious words like "Hello" and "Hi" and "Greetings" are such that every single person on the planet has a slightly different understanding of each of those simple, obvious words, so how can we hope to have any meaningful conversations on complex topics that include discussions of "good" and "progress" and "unfortunate" and "irony", and so forth. Going further, I added to the mix the idea that written communication lacks tone of voice, body language, facial expression, and so forth, so that written communication often is only 40% as effective as a face-to-face conversation, or worse.

So I felt, what's the point of trying to explain anything? What's the point of trying to talk at all?

Well, the feeling faded, enough that I'm still trying to communicate, still trying to explain, still trying to discuss. But the realization stays with me, somewhat. Enough that I don't get as upset by misunderstandings in blog-talks, enough that I keep the inherent ambiguity in mind at all times.

Well, I've had another such denouement today. Of a different sort, not one that will make me go cryptic and stop blogging.

It was just on the idea of love. The shorthand version is that we humans talk about 'love' as if it were an object that can be measured, or a destination that can be reached, or something existing as a separate entity within ourselves. I now think that love is a flavor, and a natural response, and a color, and an impetus for deliberate action, and a mixture of all sorts of elements.

My wife and I are splitting up. We file for divorce tomorrow. It's really complicated, and I don't really wish to explain much. But I was grieving yesterday over the loss of our love due to a certain occurrence 3-4 years ago...a friend pointed out that it probably wasn't that occurrence, necessarily, but that the occurrence merely highlighted the mis-match of hearts. And I realized that I can't say I still love her, but I also can't say I don't love her anymore. The love I felt will always be with me, but the circumstances of our marriage are such that the feeling can no longer be expressed properly and adequately, or relied upon as a source of togtherness, closeness, understanding, and renewal. Shadows of love imply the existence of love, however. If loved isn't acted on, is it still love? What use is feeling without action?

If you love someone and that person dies, do you still love them? What happens to the love? Is what you feel only an echo? Or a slowly-fading after-image? What if the person is still alive but merely departed? What if the person merely grows or changes to the point they are no longer the person you loved? If it is true love, shouldn't it be totally accepting? Can "true" love be so accepting that it accepts a returned contempt or disregard? Should it?

I'm beginning to think that "deciding" to love or marry or leave or stay probably indicate a betrayal of self in some manner, in that if you truly have love with someone, being together will simply be the most natural thing in the world. If there is no "true" love, then separating will simply be the most natural thing in the world. But what if it's somewhere in the middle? You probably can have a "successful", satisfying marriage without actually having what I've just described as a "true" love. In fact, most marriages probably are based on a "less than perfect/true" love. But that makes me think too many people commit to or marry someone we probably shouldn't; it might be better to wait for the right person...even if it might mean never entering a loving relationship for an entire life.
But then, maybe "finding the right person" and experiencing "true" love depends more on your own maturity than on matching with a person. If both of you are sufficiently mature, maybe you can experience that feeling of total peace and security that comes with an idealized love.

If all of this is on anything close to the right track, then this says some very profound things about God and his Love for us. God is Love, remember? And: "For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life."

God's Love is far more mature than any human can understand in the span of one lifetime, and on the basis of His love for us, the sacrifice of His life to save us was the most natural thing in the world, a sacrifice perhaps utterly beyond the comprehension of humans as immature and selfish as we are.

...I need to think more on this. Maybe I'm just full of crap.*

*Again.