Types of Love and Their Fake Surrogates: A Satire
Unless we are buying into certain traditional or religious beliefs about "our souls choosing our next parents for new earthly schooling in another incarnation" -- we didn't invite ourselves into this world.
And, while there is such a thing as "family planning", much more common are the cases of children born out of an unprotected sex, many branching into a definition of an "unpleasant side effect of it".
So, let us separate a genuine parental love from its socially programmed surrogate, merely meaning a legal and traditional obligation to care and raise those initially unwanted kids. Namely, in their overall limited capacity for joy in life, such parents are bound to experience their children even as a sort of a nuisance, while simply having adjusted to their parental role.
It's a biological fact that it doesn't take any genuine interest and invested love into parenthood to produce kids, and conceiving them is not even in a category of "efforts". Besides, it's not in social practices to screen future parents, as if giving or refusing to them a "licence for parenthood".
There is no society in this world where somebody of authority would question "parental qualifications". So we get all those emotionally unstable folks, as well as those cynical, unfriendly, paranoid types, alcoholics, druggies, criminals, even psychotics -- and now you finish the list -- to become parents.
Along with those poor souls in some typical Third World country, without even basic hygienic conditions, let alone anything like a medical care -- producing kids one after another, letting them starve, go sick, and die, while being exposed to hardships they themselves had to endure.
So, where is anything like a "parental love" in all that, if parents are not capable, for one reason or another, to give it to their kids?
Not even bothering to go far into those quite common cases of men just fathering their kids and leaving it to their woman to take care of them. Such cases are showing how some of us, despite our advantages over animal kingdom -- or maybe even due to those advantages -- fall inferior, because animal will love and protect its offspring with its life.
Well, I am not here to generalize, and an untold number of parents are wanting, loving, and protecting their kids. But I just wanted to point at a still low level in process of our consciousness evolution, where as basic love as parental one, can be missing from our hearts.
While in this same investigative, if not satirical mood, here I go for a friendly visit to our divine love. I mean the one spelling "love for all mankind".
O.K., aside with the whole theory of religiousness -- not in the mood for that, especially now with another Christmas approaching -- but let me examine that "divine imperative to love".
Well, sorry for some of my more bombastic expressions being used here, but human beings are way too much full of crap as to fulfill that solemn duty dictated to them by their holy books. Namely, the legit question arises whether only our immoral actions, or also our secret negative wishes upon others are the ones that count as "sins". For, "loving thy neighbor" doesn't mean a suppressed hate for thy neighbor.
Observing this world, I am pretty much prone to say that we are disobeying twice as many Commandments than were listed on the dude's stone tablets. We are even inventing new and new sins, which were not foreseeable in those biblical times. Ours are a part of our supposed "evolved moral awareness" since that era when stealing someone's sheep defined a deadly sin. I have from ever been under strong impression that human stupidity is evolving side by side with smartness.
In the name of our "love for the whole mankind" we are so incredibly quick to start hating any nation that our government labels as our "enemies". And we'll also go to kill the poor bastards, even though they haven't really done anything to us, and most of us couldn't even find their country on a map -- if only it happens to be in our "national interests". (Think Vietnam, just for a little example, but you don't have to stop at that).
Then the administration changes, we are friends with them again, shoving under the rug the shame of killing all those folks -- for nothing. Well, as long as we are calling our dead soldiers "heroes who died for their country", there must have been something dignifying about that idiotic war.
So, who are we really kidding, folks, with our "divine love"? In our sinful fancy we have slept with more women outside the wedlock than a sheikh has in his harem, beat up more noisy neighbors, pushed aside more people in long lineups, and fantasized more other sins than our priest would be willing to listen to in that confession booth.
Then we just put it all under the umbrella conveniently called "human imperfection". Allegedly, our God loves us "exactly as we are", as long as we keep visiting our church leaving some money there, or preaching around about "miracles of altruism and selfless loving".
While addressing this theme, I'm going to use a lot of those rhetorical questions.
So, how exactly are we loving our country?
Isn't that patriotic love, in reality, just hate for those who, in our opinion, don't love our country with "our-and-only-valid" kind of ideology?
Now, hard to understand as it appears to be the case, "country" is not an abstract, sterile intellectual construct within our personal worldview -- but a living, breathing mass of people in a bond called nation. Regardless of our political preferences, we are all under the same flag, speaking the same language, calling ourselves the same name.
While seemingly claiming the same love for our country, we sound and act like a Christian and a Moslem as they talk about loving their respective gods -- apparently saying the same thing but meaning something different. Do we really love our people, or we're just in love with our political concept of a "country" as we are envisioning it?
While shouting out all those slogans about "freedom of expressing our opinion", aren't we monopolizing it, denying it to the others? It seems like the only idiotic excuse for our togetherness would be a hypothetical attack from the outside.
Starting from the most basic forms of coexistence like a marriage, isn't it true that only genuine love is that driving force seeking a harmony, a middle way, a compromise? Ultimately, isn't a true patriotism behind finding ways to overcome our differences?
What's all that yapping about our national glory if, under a pretext of "freedom to oppose", we keep maintaining a discord which makes us look so undefined in the eyes of the world? Like the saying goes: "Respect is not demanded, it's deserved", and no amount of intimidating tactics can gain us the world's respect if we are acting like we don't know what the hell we really want -- while being so busy "loving our country".
Conflicts don't spell love, no matter how much we may try to give them some justifiable name. There is something like "mass hysteria", when people get brainwashed into literally seeking new and new reasons to hate. Foreign targets are not enough, so we look for domestic ones, calling it "patriotism", feeling righteous, while not seeing how, by "wishing the best for our country" we are actually defeating that very solemn motivation.
I've been married to the same woman for over half century, which doesn't make me a "veteran with all bruises to prove it" -- but simply a dude who knew from the start what he wanted out of marriage, and then didn't sabotage it.
Is the love same as the one of the wedding time? Yes, with some modifications which normally come with the process of maturing. After 55 years, we still don't argue, we do disagree, being two different personalities -- and I mean different. No raising voices, no name calling, never even used as much as the word "crazy" for each other. (For those of you that know me as an oddball -- O.K., I am not denying a possibility of my wife at least "secretly considering" a few of those names}.
And it's only one of many reasons why during my relatively long life I had this distinct feeling of "not being of this planet". Observing what passes for "romantic love", I often can't believe my eyes and ears. But then, explanation comes suggested by that same point mentioned earlier at the theme of parental love.
Namely, people get married without really having a developed capacity to nourish a meaningful relationship. Sex is the universal trigger for contemplating marriage, or rushing into one. Then comes the moment of habituation, and all those individual differences start emerging as reasons for anything in the range from a stoic tolerating to an outright marital war. So many with a "father/mother issues" use their spouse for unconsciously settling that score, doing to them what they didn't dare to do to that parent.
I could never fully understand why people get "fed up" with anything, from a new car, a new home, job, to a spouse. Why something is appreciated as a novelty, only to depreciate with time? Is it true what the proverb says that "man enjoys process of conquering, not one of possessing"?
With so many variations of lousy relationships, I am not here to list them all, or even to create a short version -- I just had to add this form of "love", where more obviously than in any other forms, we simply suck, despite all our much advertised smartness. Just look how many academics are displaying an awful primitive ability to handle many aspects of marriage. Even that "father of psychoanalysis" Sigmund Freud was allegedly abusing his wife -- while counselling his patients how to save theirs.
Well, of course, all this is meant to be a satirical approach, not a generalization about every mentioned form of love. Satirizing love sometimes has more potential to inspire us for improvements to be made than glorifying love would do. Without an ambition to make it perfect, or including all aspects of our failing in love -- I am humbly satisfied for at least trying.
© 2019 Val Karas