“Love, could be a word of great pleasure or of miserable pain and grief; for some, it could be emotion that means the world is full of candies and glitter, and for some, it could mean it is nothing but a nightmare, a thing that wakes you up late at night, full of sweat and lack of breath. Now, no where you stand, love could something you want or lack or have; wherever you stand, you and I know love little to bit, if only in pieces and scattered, puzzling you or your peace.
Love stands staunch and upbeat, that has haunted me in so far my endeavor of the world that I have resided for 21 years, and I believe (or hope to), with my own conscious experiences for at least 7–8 years. I dont’t remember how I was introduced to this word, coming from an Indian family where such word or feeling is openly talked, at least in much of a romantic sense, rather only in an obligatory sense of care for children, respect for elders. Because of my skepticism of my experience and no actual complete reliable memory of my childhood, I can only associate my first association with such a word through cinema or through social groups of friends, and from them again the same, so forth and so long, till we meet at same question again of the “first cause?” of who termed the word love or defined it. Regardless of both, due to my oblivious nature to concern into the question of point, present what I believe is the bigger problem: from Plato’s Symposium to Žižek calling love inherently evil, we all are oblivious to what love is and how do one gets to know of it. So here and forth, I propose something that is not true and facts, rather abduction done with whatsoever relation I had with love and whatever inferences made through love and by love.
The premise I put forth is something that is not extraordinary or revolutionary, that is not said before, but I do, I believe, that love can be known through love for thyself. A person who can’t love the self can’t really know what love is, and same can’t be reciprocated to the other who he deems himself to be in love with. Note here, the word he, or pronoun that in general parlance would signify a man, are used in most gender neutral form and way. Going forward, to know what you feel for other, in any regard, that too in love, you must, must feel the same for yourself, and that can’t be held true if one neither knows what love is, if he doesn’t feel the same for oneself to begin.
To further addition, I believe love is the very state a person is, not something to be or some extra ordinary way of being. That is why preferably believe one must feel such for oneself to know what it is. That is also my critique of the term “self love”, that truly disgust. It makes love for oneself, that I honestly and in earnest believe is the state of being of a person, rather than something that must be explcityly stated. As I will explain my stand, it will become clear, with some inconsistencies due to the grammar of language, that love for oneself requires self to be in grammar; but I, as Jiddu Kirshnamurthy believed, in love there can exist no self. So, self love as term can’t really exist, as there can only exist the love, the verb of love, the being of love, and not any noun or pronoun to it in addition.
Now to one the most profound thing one can say to other, the three magical word, as often described by media and cinema, with immense use of such. It, to me, has lost all meaning to begin with. Regardless, I believe such statement or mixture of word is nothing but vain, a urge to loved rather than a declaration of love for other. “I love you” stands with an imaginary question mark, awaiting a prompt response as acceptance, rejection, or congruence of such plea and urge in vain rather than in love. One will never say one loves oneself and wait for an response, though even annoncoing love for oneself or self love is counter intuitive to begin with. Regardless, in that, what exist is just love for self rather than wait for response for acceptance for such love.
Love, how often and will always describe, is something that is the very means and goal of the same, but “I love you”, as through it own vanity our disregarded use has made it something of means for a goal of being in love, where love has been something of search of acceptance and, when often lacks such, none accpetance in any form could ever be enough. Further, love might or might not exist in spectrum, but thing or being in love will do things in love, for love, as it remains the mean and goal of same. Even a sick body, which might take medicine, will take medicine not just be healthy as an obligatory thing one must do to take care of oneself; one will do such is the very mean and goal of one’s love for oneself. If not, than one would not care to take meds to begin with. Care, good health, or anything that is explicit and an influence will never truly cover love for oneself or love as whole, though form of love may be different in way one expresses it to oneself, but the mean and goal will, regardless, will always be same, that is love. Grammatical failure is in love as premised earlier there must be no self the regard of self is with ego, ego reside within the self itself to putforth simply, i and you exist as subject-object which makes it something where there exist a proper distinct of two even in acceptance of two individual, there can be no object of love to begin with love is just being or verb acting upon verb and if being generous than on subject itself and both are subject to this whole and not in parts.
Further, if ever possible, love will inadvertently only exist within a paradox of acceptance of individualism of two beings with removal of self, where the grammar of language won’t affect one’s being with other, where the two beings don’t exist as two but one, though also as two, appreciation or embrace for each individual and self and disregard for self as well. The impossibility of grammar and such ideal is the reason love will always exist as verb acting upon itself as love. That is why love as thing will inadvertently fail itself to begin with, because to in put the being, the verb, in complete sentence where noun, object, means and goal are all separate, it will always defeat itself, for worse or best. For every nightmare where you wake up full of sweat and lack of breath or every cinematic dream for such you have is because and unduly as the self or the ego can never subside, between the paradox of love allowing individual fulfillment as well as removal of individual too, a stern balance required in self and individual and in their negation, yet again what remains will remain un answered is what and who truly termed love, we might know the roots and etymology for such never the reason of such word was formulated and to define what?, when to be in love is the very measure to know love and realize love exist, by very nature it is a causal existence, rather than something unique.”
