Perspective: The Call to Love

The call to love experienced by most becomes “conditional” once we have engaged in “love-making” at the intimate [in-2-mate], intermittently physical way.

Most of us will experience the “call to love” in an earthly [physic-all] manner, usually by inter-acting with another person.  It’s easier for us to relate in this form.  This way of love is usually the most desirable, pleasurable, and understandable. Most of us believe we are fortunate to have “love”, to love and be loved with an-Other—as we play-in and engage within this realm called life. Usually a compelling and oft-time compulsive drive is this need, this desire, this form of love—to be with another, to love, entwine, commit and prevail.

An “other” is all we need we are led to believe. Just one “other” to be our lover, our mate, our intimate friend, our wife, our husband, our partner-in-time. That is what means more than most for all, it seems (if it is meant to be).

How joyous it is to love (2love) and be loved in a tactile, physical and sharing way, with another—and how sad when such times or opportunity pass?  We wine and dine, we pine sometimes, we perform the daily grind of “living”, whilst seeking out such “other” wherever they may be.  Like hunters and gatherers, from cultures of old.  Lust and love, need and greed, altruism and narcissism clash, confuse, challenge and stifle, success for some, regret for others.  The call to love—to be “in-love”—compelling, compulsive, seductive.

Though, there is a flip-side to this.  Too many “lover-lovers”, too many losses of the “love-in-kind” can send one into decline, maybe even a reluctance to love again.  Too many fractured disappointments, lying scattered amongst the wake and spray of our own passing-by, can cause more angst than gain. Broken dreams and angry thoughts lay strewn-aside the journey of our travailing.  Sadly, yet too often true for many, “love-in-lives” (loving-lives) become “loving-lies”.

For some, such opportunity comes-less-often, if at all, and “loving-lives”—love-in-lives or live-in-lovers—are few and far between, whilst for others, it may be just a short-lived opportunity at best.

Each departure, each ending, each parting-of-the-ways, has its toll, its price, its cost. Each closure leaves its imprint within the meme-brain* (and possibly the membrane) of one’s existence.

Each memory contains the essence of each “lovers” exchange. Sex is more than just ‘hooking-up’ the genitals—the Spiritual Energy eXchange ignored and discounted—is the main means of their binding — enacting a transaction or transference of self, deep within the fabric of the other. “We may be able to reject the person, yet rarely are we free from their being.”

In the case of “true love”, it cannot be “switched-on or off” at the whim of pettiness and changing circumstance— genuine love is a state of being, and when optimised in exchange with a more familiar, intimate “other”— it rarely is extinguished by whim or fancy.

Genuine, loving love is as if divine, outlasting and sustaining beyond physical/mental, personal desire and need. Natural love can only exist within-eternally, maintaining the sense of one’s “lightness of Being”. Anything less is but an appetising aberration—a learning, and experience, a step towards—just a form or expression of self—and more than likely not Love-It-Self.

Even after separation, a “love-in-friendship” may continue to be — igniting the “flame” or “fire” within each because of their being authentically, genuinely, nature-ally engaged within The Heart (and heat) of Love It-Self—as if the Beloved’s presence remains-within. Such “lovers” stay “in-love” as their love remains authentic and genuine.

True “soul-mates” are unconditional in their natural [nature-all] “love” for an-Other, and are not needy, physically dependent, nor codependent.

Namaste, may “Peace be within You”.

—— * Meme (noun): a cultural unit (an idea or value or pattern of behaviour) that is passed from one generation to another by non-genetic means (as by imitation) (Example: “Memes are the cultural counterpart of genes”)