The beauty of community is it can be any where. Often, though, we look beyond our local one to the more elusive and exotic ones. We sojourners often travel six thousand miles to help people of alien culture, language and modes of thinking. When we return, we are proud and feel accomplished. We find it quite compelling to give to children in Africa or to adopt children from China. But what of next door? We look at our homeless friend and feel sorry for him, but do we help? "No," is the usual honest response. We find thousands of impediments as to why we cannot or will not. How is it we can find compassion abroad but not at home? If this is a fair question, you might reply with, "compassion abroad is impersonal." To help the persons I see everyday or know live in my city is grossly personal. This manner of helping requires love. The depth of suffering we endure emotionally, in our society, has hardened our altruism toward the others of us. Worse still is a rising hatred or demarcation between what one believes and what another believes. Right "wing" vs Left "wing". Muslim "terrorist" vs Christian "fundamentalist". Buddhist vs Communist. Gay vs Straight. We forget each human being is us and we are them. By reading articles on Obamahate and passive Elderlyabuse, we have examples of how easy we find it to arouse animosity toward another person or kind.
What then is the criteria for love? Perhaps the better question is what obstructs our path to love? Selfishness perhaps. That, of course, cannot be all. Is it some force which interferes with our connectivity? How often do we want to do thing "A", but in fact do thing "B". What makes us do thing "B"? Is it the mere move toward modernity. Jacques Ellul suggests technology will rise to tyranny over humankind (if it hasn't already). You might see from this an argument toward a new tension within ourselves. We struggle—but with what? The improbable conquering of our technology returning it to a subset of human living. Is it too big? Are we instead struggling to be apart of it? You could say by addressing ourselves in the light of new communication standards, we are creating pockets of protection. We speak with many, but love none. I can satisfy my need for human contact while, simultaneously, blocking their ability to harm me. I need only turn to my new socially mediated "friend". "I will hurt no more," we say.
Our lives have become unbalanced. We have no room for love because we have no room. We choose that which is safe for us. The psychology of our imbalance overwhelms our sense of the other. This statement precludes our ability to love—or not—ourselves first. We are personally overwhelmed, so we invent new satisfaction separate from what is true. Truth here is love. Love of my fellowbeing. A respect for life and the betterment of you. If I watch out for you as much or more than myself, then I open a window into what is transcendental about life. How real is that statement? Let us accept we cannot be God. Let us suppose we can, however, reach an individual divinity. What use is it if we arrive there alone? Only when we are at peace can we truly began to love ourselves and others. It is at such a time when we can build new communities (even if idealist in nature), new relationships, new love.
Namaste.
What then is the criteria for love? Perhaps the better question is what obstructs our path to love? Selfishness perhaps. That, of course, cannot be all. Is it some force which interferes with our connectivity? How often do we want to do thing "A", but in fact do thing "B". What makes us do thing "B"? Is it the mere move toward modernity. Jacques Ellul suggests technology will rise to tyranny over humankind (if it hasn't already). You might see from this an argument toward a new tension within ourselves. We struggle—but with what? The improbable conquering of our technology returning it to a subset of human living. Is it too big? Are we instead struggling to be apart of it? You could say by addressing ourselves in the light of new communication standards, we are creating pockets of protection. We speak with many, but love none. I can satisfy my need for human contact while, simultaneously, blocking their ability to harm me. I need only turn to my new socially mediated "friend". "I will hurt no more," we say.
Our lives have become unbalanced. We have no room for love because we have no room. We choose that which is safe for us. The psychology of our imbalance overwhelms our sense of the other. This statement precludes our ability to love—or not—ourselves first. We are personally overwhelmed, so we invent new satisfaction separate from what is true. Truth here is love. Love of my fellowbeing. A respect for life and the betterment of you. If I watch out for you as much or more than myself, then I open a window into what is transcendental about life. How real is that statement? Let us accept we cannot be God. Let us suppose we can, however, reach an individual divinity. What use is it if we arrive there alone? Only when we are at peace can we truly began to love ourselves and others. It is at such a time when we can build new communities (even if idealist in nature), new relationships, new love.
Namaste.
No comments:
Post a Comment