This article is very shallow. As shallow as Lennon.
There is a confusion of sex, civility and not a clear definition of love.
No where is there any suggestion that the essence of love contains freedom. The freedom from ownership and control.

In fact the article is all about outside control and nothing about self control as espoused by the greatest loving person ever.

The is a need for balance. Christ's Sermon on the Mount has that without all the lovey dovey crap.

Usual suspects, usual method: find a hooray-word and associate it with all the holy impedimenta of the leftist faith. What about people who demonstrate their love for their families by working long hours, maing clever investments or buying cheaper, mass-produced goods in order to save the family budget?

I think after giving religion a hammering under the new defamation laws, we might go after the Loony Left for associating rationality and responsibility with lovelessness.

Wow, imajulianutter and Jon J, where's the L.O.V.E.?

It's alright, I empathise with your good intentions, and enthusiastically embrace your right to feel and express your feelings openly, and I rejoice in your willingness to share your thoughts with us. Really, you are wonderful people. It's just such a pity this forum is not big enough for all the children of the world to participate, and to feel the reciprocated warmth, and the sheer joy, of sharing. Alone we are voices in the wilderness; together we are Family, living, loving, and sharing that extraordinary sense of Freedom we all so desperately need and desire.

L - is for Living in harmony;
O - is for Overcoming adversity with dignity;
V - is for Validating your gratitude for life by helping others;
E - is for Expressing your joy responsibly.

Jon J, >>I think after giving religion a hammering under the new defamation laws, we might go after the Loony Left for associating rationality and responsibility with lovelessness.<<

Dearest Jon J, I sense you do not hold vindictiveness in your heart for religion in general, but rather that your concern is that All may share in a common understanding, without some having to stand apart from the welcoming embrace of community, and humanity at large, by virtue of some unnecessary restriction on their ability to interact fully and openly. What injures or restricts one is an injury or restriction to all. How very thoughtful and caring you are.

I must also share your sympathy for the 'Loony Left' (whoever they may be), if they are living under some mistaken restriction on their ability to appreciate the joy and the Love inherent in shared responsibility and rationality. That must be a terrible burden for them.

Peace be with you.

Dear Caryn,

I respect and appreciate your conviction. Unfortunately Life is not so simple, nor will the savage past and present history of Humanity be so easily salved. Much evidence indicates 'Man' has a greater tendency towards aggression and fear of strangers, and ultimately towards self-preservation, before compassion or altruism or any other finer 'ideals'. Learned, or inherent?

It is natural to keep to one's own, and it is uncertain when or how, if ever, humanity will fully embrace its diversity, and universal rights. Still, I live in hope.

There is a fine line between Love and Hate, and some love their life so hard they feel compelled to kill whoever imposes any real or imagined restriction on their ability, or that of their 'fellows', to fully enjoy Life - and all the potential 'riches' this may endow. And, some kill themselves, often taking others with them, in expression either of their Greater Love for some ethic or some illusion beyond this life, or of their frustration and anger that others can not, or will not, see and feel their hurt, or fail or refuse to extend a necessary helping hand.

"What the world needs now is" - Respect, and masses of cooperation. 'Love' just won't cut it, when what so many need is security, and bread in the basket. When all fundamental needs are satisfied, Love may have a chance. But, just what may be the limits of personal aspiration and ambition - such as would enable all to 'love their neighbour', 'turn the other cheek', and reject 'covetousness'?

"Make Love, not War" is a great philosophy, but it may take several amenable 'mutations' of humankind for this to be anywhere near realisation. As an individual, loving is a wonderful ethic to live by, but en masse there seems way too little to go around - with jealousy and avarice taking precedence. (How about giving us a call in 3513 or so?)

All the same, the aspiration is commendable, it's just the implementation which will take some doing.

What a mean-spirited spiteful response by John J.

Never mind that the kind of soft religion and the associated world view that extends from it has been ruthlessly squashed in most times and places either by right-wing, "conservative", fundamentalist religionists, or the boot-in-your members of the party commisar enforcers of salt-of-the-earth "social realism" of both communism and fascism.

In times past Caryn would have monstered as either a "heretic" or witch by the "catholic" Inquisition (the hammer of witches), the witch burners of Europe and the USA, the Calvinists in Calvin's mini fascist state in Geneva etc etc. She would be classified as a "heretic" by most/many right-wing Christians (both "catholic" and "protestant") in 2013.
She would also be monstered or persecuted in most rigidly patrirachal islmamic countries, and in China too. Just as the members of the soft religion of the Bahai are persecuted in Iran, and members of Falun Gong are persecuted in China. Both of these countries have zero tolerance for the kind of things that Caryn promotes.

Caryn would most probably have had a boot-in-her-face (and raped too) in all of the former European communist states, and in Nazi Germany too. Where salt-of-the earth "social realism" was rigidly and ruthlessly enforced.

Never mind too that ALL "religious" atrocities are perpetrated by RIGHT-wing religionists. And that applied right-wing religious politics are always causative of, and saturated with, violence.
For example ALL of the horrors described and pointed too in these references were perpetrated by dreadfully sane RIGHT-wing religionists (most often to purge their countries or the world at large of the "cancer" of any kind of soft life-affirming religion and culture).

http://www.jesusneverexisted.com/cruelty.html

http://www.logosjournal.com/hammer_kellner

http://www.nobeliefs.com/nazis.htm

Both right-wing religionists and the advocates of hard-edged there-is-no-other-way capitalism were more than enthusiastic supporters of the institution featured at this reference http://www.soaw.org An oufit that trained thugs who deliberately and systematically murdered thousands of people in Central and South America. Basically any and every one who was in any way a soft leftist.

Here is the perfet example of what love isn't.

'--Alone we are voices in the wilderness; together we are Family...

V - is for Validating your gratitude for life by helping others;
E - is for Expressing your joy responsibly.'

That is your view. It vilifies my love, which is deep personal and private nor does it necessarily need to meddle in the affairs of others... Why do I have to express my joy and who determines what's responsible?
This example attempts to force me to do thing I don't want to do, by proclaiming your 'love ' has greater force and therefore validation than mine.

Is that love?

It isn't, it's control.
True love accepts and allows the other to be as they have to be. ie is based in freedom.

Tell me did Mary Magadaline have love? How did she exhibit it? Did Christ have love for her? How did he show it?

Neither in that instance had to include the world in their 'love.'

Your snide suggestion depictimg me as being unable to think broadly, to adopt the views of others, to experience sharing, isn't love it's just manipulative speak and sheer nastiness.

Nowhere in my posts will you see we behaving in a similar vein in trashing the personal, not political, beliefs of others.

That's love.

I have my source of love. Others sources are different but yours is not love it is nastiness and control.

And of course most, if not all, of the worlds problems, especially deliberately dramatized violence (both in-your-face personal and random larger scale bombings/atrocities) are caused by right-wing, "conservative", fundamentalist, religionists. Look at the dreadful tinder-box situation in the Middle East.

Caryn,

1 Corinthians 13 ...

My apologies Julian. Seriously, not the slightest offense intended. I was merely following Caryn's suggestion, somewhat lightheartedly, of respecting other people's views, attempting understanding, and not jumping to conclusions - possibly erroneously. I must review my methodology - it appears fraught with unintended consequences.

As for my L.O.V.E. - just a lighthearted interpretation of the gist of Caryn's piece, as might be applied as part of a practical human commitment to improving human relations generally. I must admit being puzzled at anyone being upset by it (and I hope my repeating it here is not going to cause you any discomfort; I'm just refreshing my contemplation of its content, and potential for misadventure):

L - is for Living in harmony;
O - is for Overcoming adversity with dignity;
V - is for Validating your gratitude for life by helping others;
E - is for Expressing your joy responsibly.

I meant this only as a seed for contemplation - contemplation of the bases of so much discontent and disharmony in our troubled world - and as suggestion for possible insight into a better way forward for humanity. It was not meant to be prescriptive; and 'expressing joy responsibly' is to suggest that it should not be at the expense of others, nothing more.

>>I have my source of love. Others sources are different but yours is not love it is nastiness and control.<<

I'm not at all sure what you mean by this Julian. Nastiness and control? I agree there is no Family-at-Large (here in Oz, let alone worldwide), no Brotherhood of Nations, and no common commitment to any identified path toward universal peace and harmony - most unfortunately, in my view, and I still think it's worth striving for.

I think Christ demonstrated great capacity for love, to Mary Magdalene and many others, and I can only believe His intention was a more universal application of His example, in a more ideal, more harmonious, and more tolerant world.

Whatever is meaningful to you Julian, it is your life and your choice (obviously).

Thank you Pet,

I noted your love proposals and contemplated their essence.

'V - is for Validating your gratitude for life by helping others;'

I found this perscriptive and not at all 'as suggestion for possible insight into a better way forward for humanity'

Why do I need to validate any gratitude for life? And wny do you perscribe helping others as a validation?

Why isn't my belief that 'I do unto others ...' sufficient as the essence of love.

It surprises me also that there is no reference to unconditional giving and receiving anywhere in your 'suggestions'. Such actions to me are pure love.

You see your suggestions are all conditional and/or transactional. In your form of love suggestions, there is also much involvment in taking. ie validation, the need to express gratitude for something that was unasked for and might not be at all desired?(I assume thatintends to make the expresser of gratitude feel better?

We are sadly worlds apart. I reject your suggests as cures for any malaise or any basis for love.

"What the World Needs Now is"?

Excuse me, the world has no needs - the world is dead!

The world has energy, some of it organised into elementary particles, some of which in turn are organised into atoms of the whole chemical spectrum, galaxies, stars, planets and humans. The world also has gravity, the electro-magnetic force and the strong and weak nuclear forces - but guess what: does it NEED them?

NO! If any of these were missing, then the world would have operated differently. However, the world wouldn't care the least about it, the world is dead!

The article simply describes what the author WANTS. For some reason the author is too shy to own her desires and express them as such, but rather feels the need to cover them with "the world needs" - an obvious fallacy.

While the author is generally benign, someone else could have for example written:
"Love is dying for your country"
"Love is fighting your enemies"
"Love is cleansing the world of the lower races and witches"
"Love is purifying the earth from unbelievers"
"Love is impregnating all women (even when they cannot themselves understand the need to increase the superior race)"
"Love is to work hard 24/7 for your boss till you drop dead without asking for anything in return"
"Love is to brainwash everyone else that they are happy in their slavery"
"Love is giving me $$s, lots of them"
...

The 'Starman' of the semi-dramatic Hollywood movie of that title, (in the part played by Jeff Bridges), may have observed of the Human Race (or of our 'species', as he put it) "You are at your very best when things are at their worst", but I really don't think this assessment is borne out in current world circumstance - where conflict is rife, and we, collectively, do not seem to have an answer, a solution. I don't think it's even necessarily true on an individual basis - where reactions to adversity are seen to be highly variable.

He, the 'Starman', also observed that we are highly emotional beings, with a great capacity for enjoying ourselves - in eating, drinking, singing and dancing, music, art, 'loving' and love-making, and so on. In this, he was certainly spot-on, but we also have a great capacity to feel pain, grief, loneliness, fear, distrust, anger, hatred, and a whole host of other negative emotions.

In the end result, I think we mostly seek, and possibly 'crave', order, peace, harmony and 'certainty' - in quest of 'freedom' to enjoy this life, to engender 'positive' emotions, to feel good about ourselves and our 'place' in the scheme of things. Accordingly, anything which threatens our 'internal' or 'external' contentment and composure will generate a torrent of 'negative' responses in all but the most empathetic, compassionate or 'self-controlled'.

'Love', and loving, may be great in a personal sense, making us feel all 'warm and tingly', but it offers only extremely limited efficacy in dealing with personal problems, let alone those at play in the broader world context - in which it can be argued that less 'love' and more pragmatism and practicality is required, and that only clear, unemotional rationality can enable us, as a global community, to attain the 'freedom', harmony and contentment we all crave so determinedly.

Whilst many remain in pain, any contentment we may feel is really selfish, and most probably at someone's expense. The winner-loser game lessens us all - but the 'winners' are not yet ready to share.