Sideshow

Sideshow

          What is the main event of one’s life?  I think we would all have a hard time not agreeing that it is love.  And that means that the love we give not the love we get.  As the saying goes, think about loving, not being loved.  If we would all agree to that, why is there so much hatred all around us?  The obvious reason is that how we express our love is widely divergent.  The most obvious issue is a function of how far our love extends beyond ourselves.  If we are the only pebble on our beach, then our definition of love only extends to the limits of ourselves.  If we are just about our nuclear family, then anything beyond that “circle of trust” as Robert DeNiro said in Meet the Parents, is beyond love.  If we are people of community, then our protective love extends to the limits of town. If we are nationalists, our love for country might be inclusive of all members of our citizenry.  And if we are globalists of the true order (that is, globalists who are not globalists of convenience for our own benefit), then we have love to share with others around the world.  If we are humanists, we love mankind (and, contrary to the old joke, we also love people).  Some even go so far as to love all living things.  Those people have halos around their heads.

          I believe we are all born with a certain tendency towards empathy to differing degrees.  It may be the defining characteristic that determines where we take our love boundaries.  I have met fine people who have limited love to give.  I know someone who clearly and somewhat disappointedly declared that those limits existed and that their love needed to be rationed to those deemed most important (in this case their children).  At first, I didn’t believe that was possible, but over time I came to understand that it was very real and very true.  It is logical that something as valuable as love would be in scarce supply.  The world is not awash in love, as much as we would like it to be.  So, if there are limits to it, then it is logical that it must be that individuals have personal limits to their storehouse of love to give others.  Hmm.  Taking this theory to the logical limits, that must mean that a world of nine billion souls versus, say, one billion souls, might have the same amount of love spread out among a larger group.  This love dilution might be at the heart (pun intended) of the problem.

          We know that if we group rats or humans too tightly in a constrained space, they tend to exhibit less and less love towards one another.  I know biologists would say that it devolves to Maslow’s basic need fulfilment in that environment.  But that Darwinian limitation of good will would seem to be quite consistent with the love dilution concept.  Subjugation of self for the greater good of the collective requires a powerful level of love.

          One of the big political conundrums I have always felt is that of the wealthy liberal.  It is often argued that it is easy to be liberal and show love of others (i.e. the unwashed masses) when one has enough to effectively not giving up much of self to that end.  A starving man giving up his bread to another is different than a well-fed man giving up his extra bread to another.  So, is it fair to suggest that love is only evident when self-sacrifice is involved? I think not, since there are those who have abundance that do not share their abundance under any circumstance.  That can only be attributed to the notion that some people find it their obligation to love others beyond their close boundaries and others do not.  That “conscience” is at the root of the world’s biggest issues. 

          Now we need to ask whether that is simply an “out of sight, out of mind” problem or is it immune to awareness?  This seems to be yet another filtering process with some people having a level and capacity for love that is both boundless and not obligatory that ranges to those who have tight limits to their love and willingness to share it.  From Mother Theresa to J. Paul Getty (as depicted in All the Money in the World).  She would hug a leper and he would not ransom his own grandson.  She had nothing, and he had everything.

          Charity may sometimes reflect selflessness, but it may also be a function of one’s confidence.  I know that when I am asked to give, my inner sense is that I either don’t need it as much as others do or that I can always replace it in the future due to my confidence in my own abilities.  But that confidence changes over time as the prime of life slips slowly behind.  Does the charitable tendency also erode?  Somewhat is the only answer that can honestly be given.  The love and desire to show love doesn’t necessarily change, but many will suggest that the shift from liberalism in youth to conservativism in old age might suggest otherwise.

          I am listening again to Morning Joe and hearing about Donald Trump’s royal visit to England.  My instinct says I should rag on Trump some more about his lack of love for mankind and his self-centric ways.  But that is not a loving thing to do in a story about love.  My love, if it is true, needs to extend to the most love-deprived of humankind.  I can think of few who are less loved than Trump (I exclude serial killers and pedophiles…including the trump pals like Judge Roy Moore, Jeffrey Epstein, George Nader and others).  I do feel sorry for the man because I see the coming disgust for all things Trump that lies in his future.

          So, where I find myself on this reflection of love and its limits is to be hopeful that love is a limitless resource, but that it must be understood that Maslow had it right that man cannot reach his potential in a spiritual sense unless and until his basic needs of life are met.  We, as a world, have the technology to make those basic needs available to every human on earth.  What an amazing experiment it would be to see if mankind can rise to its full potential for maximum love and thus maximum collective prosperity any happiness.  All it would take might be to provide those basic needs.  I know “realists” will suggest that man’s baser instincts will not be so easily obliterated.  But what a worthy trial to see if that needs to be the case.  If life is the main event, isn’t any other idea just a sideshow?