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.