I have a quote on my refrigerator that I (obviously) like: “Happiness come more from loving than being loved; and often when our affection seems wounded, it is only our vanity bleeding. To love, and to be hurt often, and to love again–this is the brave and happy life.” J.E. Buchrose. I have no idea who that is. It was in one of my planners, and I cut it out.
This seems true to me. I think all of us have this well of enthusiasm and affection in us, which wants to get out. Given that we all have it, all of us would be giving to each other all the time, if there were no blocks to it. And yet manifestly we live in a world where indifference to others is common, and cruelty not as uncommon as we would like it to be, and apparent fascination with sadism growing.
I have commented on this often, but the destruction of our shared culture has been proceeding apace for some time: through violent media (which reduce interpersonal trust, and foster cynicism and even depression); less face time with one due another due to the alternative of the virtual presence of other virtual human beings; and attacks by socialists on all subjects of sentimental attachment, like “God” (however we individually conceive of him/her/it), patriotism, our history, our identity, marriage itself, and even shared rituals like Christmas.
Home is where we come from. Home is where you leave from. Home is the energy from which you create yourself, and explode into the world.
What if you have no home, in the most general possible use of the word? What if you inherit no creed? What if you reject the teachings of your parents and community? What if you reject your history, and your traditions, and your rituals? What if nobody ever even tries to teach any of these things to you, and just lets the TV be your parent and guardian, as happens often enough?
You never know who you are, and you never know who other people are. This makes the process of community building much, much more difficult. If you look at many inner cities, there functionally IS no community. That is the role that gangs play, and a vitally useful social role this no doubt is for many confused kids.
But even in the suburbs, who are you? You exist in an air conditioned home, with plenty of food (much of it processed beyond recognition), and shop and strip malls. Maybe you go to Abercrombie and Fitch, and for a time think sex is going to solve all your existential problems. Then it doesn’t. To the extent it was what you hoped it would be, it is so through the eyes of your jealous friends (in most cases: no doubt “true love” continues to occur). If you’re a guy, you get your rocks off, then she suddenly seems less interesting. If you’re a girl, you’re hoping to get affection and esteem by giving yourself up, but you are almost always disappointed, and in many cases destined for future cynicism.
These are obviously recurring themes for me. Yet I think they are recurring themes for radicals too, who reject the banality they have known for a political zero-sum racket which on some level they KNOW will lead to general suffering, even for them.
You have to have a reason to suffer. Love is as good a one as you can find, but historically this has often been achieved through rigid social codes.
Think about this, though: is an Untouchable at the bottom of the Hindu caste system worse off than a person who regularly contemplates suicide because life has no meaning for them? The children of wealth and privilege kill themselves regularly.
No doubt the life of what Gandhi called “Harijans” were (and are, if they still exist, as they likely do in muted form in rural India) difficult, but most of the misery that matters happens between your ears.
In my view, the person who is racked with confusion and self pity is worse off than a person who knows who they “are”, and what his or her role is in the world.
To be clear, I am not advocating a return to feudal hierarchies. We have evolved, in my view, past the need for such things, if we will just rationally take stock in what we have.
We have the ability to create ourselves. So does everyone else. And if the most important source of happiness is loving, then freedom gives us the greatest capacity for choosing our own passions.
As I see it, we don’t just love people. We can love activities, or ideas, or places. The more places you can direct your love innocently, the happier you will be.
I don’t think it is overstating the case to say that some people are married to their careers. If it is something they genuinely love, then it satisfies the need in them to give generously and spontaneously.
So often we think we need to get love to give love. Mathematically, if we have a Keynesian style Demand failure–if the loving process doesn’t get started properly, or declines–then we are stuck with a world full of selfish, unloving, and unloved people. That is stupid. And it gets the causation error backwards in my view.
The need to love is primary, but we have somehow convinced ourselves that the need to BE loved is primary. This is a beautiful setup for the generalized pity party that characterizes so much of our nation and wider world today.
It need not be so.