Three qualifications before I begin:

1. For this post, I will use the word “love” very loosely. That is to say it will represent “caring” in any form – no matter how shallow or deep – no matter what type of relationship you’re in.

2. Situations mostly are concerning “love” – not practical living (e.g. elections, money, etc. etc.) I feel I have to state this because the things I’m about to say here will contradict how I view other stuff (especially the “fatalistic” part). I can explain those as well, ¹ Mostly because I’m very logical about everything else but it would deviate from the purpose of this post.

3. When I say the complexities of the “human situation/condition” – that’s just saying “life isn’t that simple” Meaning you can take all the books, church teachings, moral or cultural imperatives all you want, but ultimately – we all know the world isn’t black and white – it’s borderline foolish to make decisions “by the book” – because, repeat after me; life ain’t that simple, biatch!

We had a recollection yesterday which I have to admit was very interesting. We threshed out the details of the parable of the prodigal son, and how the turn of events in the story elicited different emotions and suffering. I was also going to discuss some other things related to the parable (a “complete synthesis,” if you will), but I found out that just focusing on “love” already had me typing out too many letters. So in the interest of keeping things focused, let me keep the discussion on “love” (as qualified earlier) for now.

Three types of Suffering.

1. Moral – Suffering inflicted directly by a cause (e.g. physical hurt, selfishness, etc.)
2. Ontic – Something that is beyond human control (e.g. calamities, sickness, death, etc.)
3. Suffering out of Love – Suffering because we choose to love (which is not morally wrong, but still brings about the evil of suffering).

Basically, during that part of the recollection, #3 is the most important – as it is an “evil” that paradoxically “humanizes” us – whereas the other two do the opposite. From what I gathered, “Suffering out of Love” is even needed in a sense.

Coincidentally, it’s pretty close to the Buddhist views of suffering:

1. Suffering of suffering: this refers to the most obvious aspects like pain, fear and mental distress. For me, this is the equivalent of moral suffering; because to a certain extent, we have control over this – whether we ourselves are the agents that bring suffering, or allow it to pervade our lives.
2. Suffering of change: refers to the problems that change brings, like joy disappears, nothing stays, decay and death. I’m going out on a limb here and equate “change” to an agent that is completely beyond our control – regardless of needs and intentions. This is the “ontic” type; where things happen simply because they happen.
3. All-pervasive suffering: this is the most difficult to understand aspect, it refers to the fact that we always have the potential to suffer or can get into problematic situations. Even death is not a solution in Buddhist philosophy, as we will simply find ourselves being reborn in a different body, which will also experience problems. I’m guessing this is the Cathloic equivalent of suffering out of love; the potential to suffer is because of our pre-disposition to love (love being the agent that can get us into “problematic” situation.)

You Complete Me

Us Dazers (people part of the Days With the Lord community) have come across the concept of being “born to love,” and a lot of us fail to grasp the true meaning of term (myself included) because we’re still bound to the complexities of our human condition. But there was one talk which used the famous Jerry Maguire phrase “You complete me” in context of being “born to love.”

Normally, the phrase, cool as it is, would be utter horse-shit when interpreted in “typical fashion.” The notion that the worth of an individual’s existence is dictated by finding their “other half” can be quite ridiculous as it implies that if you don’t find the half that completes you, you have essentially failed at life. ² Because really, why would we want to live a half-assed life and not find/get what it is we’re looking for right? Believing in that notion at face value is naive and will set up false expectations – which I guess is part of the reason why so much people see life as half-empty.

However, the phrase can be true when we take the true meaning of being “born to love” into consideration.

The mistake a lot of us make when considering all this shit about love is that we expect something in return. We feel entitled for our efforts, etc. So to be “completed” in our [misguided] sense can only even begin to be true if we love and are loved in return. And there’s the issue right there: expectations are the bane of relationships.

Instead, consider this: when a person’s presence in our life is able to evoke an emotion of love out of us, in a sense they already have completed us – because our nature is to simply love, not necessarily to be loved in return. ³ Though it would be awesome if they DID love us in return I guess if you would apply this to the Catholic doctrine; given that we are claimed to be fashioned in God’s image and likeness (that of perfect unconditional love) – then we are indeed, born to love, just like Him.

The cool thing about all this, is that even if you take God out of the equation, we still have these feelings evoked from us by other human beings. That is to say even an atheist can come to terms with this fundamental urge of loving with or without the presence of some moral imperative or “belief structure.”

When we love deeply, even if the object of our love is the very thing that hurts us; even if we can rationally come up with a thousand reasons to stop loving them – we simply cannot stop our hearts from doing so. We love them because we love them – simple as that.

A simple, yet concrete example of this is parental love. But it’s obviously experienced in the romantic sense as well (martyrdom), and even in “lesser” relationships (friendship, etc). It is the “all-pervasive suffering” we cannot escape – precisely because of our natural disposition to love.

So as it is, the phrase is correct in that context, but if I were to expand it to a more complete (and articulate) form, it would go something like:

You complete me because you have made it possible for me to love someone other than myself.
You complete me not because you love me; but because I love you.

To say someone has completed us should not be in context because we feel complete that they had loved us in return. To be completed by someone means that someone triggered us to put our natural born tendency: to love – into action. And this expression of love need not be limited to a romantic context, nor defined by a single event, or focused on a single person in our life. Throughout our lives, our “capacity to love” is [hopefully] being applied to all the people around us, ⁴ Love thy neighbor and that, essentially, “completes us.”

Back to Suffering

What I do find beef with the “religious take” of this is that it glorifies such suffering. As if you have to suffer life for it to be worthwhile.

Yes, it is true that God or no God, loving will open us to suffering – and given the complexities of the human condition, we will suffer if we choose to love. There’s no getting around that fact. But to think it stops there; that if you’re suffering, you are “vindicated” by your suffering – I will have to violently object.

To me, suffering ⁵ Assuming you’re suffering out of love is just a symptom – it is far from the “end” – and that’s where “action” comes in.

We have the power to change our situation. Just because you’re suffering out of love, it doesn’t mean that you can throw in the towel and be content that you have “loved” and lost. For as long as you are breathing and capable of action, a human being doesn’t really have any excuse to give up on love – even if faced with insurmountable odds.

Also, it’s worth mentioning that all these hypotheticals are only from one side of the coin; the fatalistic view (which is another pet-peeve of mine). The truth is; WE DON’T KNOW JACK SHIT WHAT’LL HAPPEN! We can over-think scenarios all we want, but at the end of the day, we simply don’t know how events will turn out. So giving up on love simply because we think the odds aren’t good, that’s when you’ve failed; that’s when you are rendered “incomplete” – and it would’ve been of your own doing.

On the other hand, we can choose to be hopeful and see things as half-full. There’s a chorus of a song by Dashboard Confessional called “Currents” that articulates what I feel about this scenario – how I never give up even if something has a big chance of “failing” – simply because I value the journey just as much as the destination.

If it is born in flames then we should let it burn
Burn as brightly as we can
And if it’s gotta end then let it end in flames
Let it burn all the way down

This chorus encapsulates both possible outcomes. And I guess the problem with a fatalistic view is that it assumes the worst; it assumes we will get to the second part of the chorus. But to me, being half-full is about milking life (and love) for what it’s worth. If it’s going to end, then lets make sure make the best of it. If it’s love/passion that ignited it, let it end with just as much love/passion. Yes, it will definitely hurt should it end, but we would’ve done “the love” justice.

To address the fatalistic view directly, we have Alicia Keys’ song Unthinkable which has the bridge:

Why give up before we try
Feel the lows before the highs
Clip our wings before we fly away
I can’t say I came prepared
I’m suspended in the air
Won’t you come be in the sky with me

And as far as “action” goes. I’ve always believed that [for the most part] something only “ends” when we decide to end it. That’s right, even if the other is “gone,” we can certainly still continue to fight the good fight; just like how the father in the parable did.

We are born to love, and we only live once. Make it count.