Seeking Solace

On three a.m this past Sunday, only yesterday but an eternity of non-sleep ago, I was informed that my wife had been found passed out in her car and taken to the hospital after yet another attempt to commit suicide. I have been now contemplating on why I continually seem to be unable to dispel her angst; nay, not only do I not dispel it, I seem to accentuate it. My reflections of course are centered around the notion of would she become less depressed if I leave her, or more? I don’t know the answer to that but the cycle has been going on for some time. At any rate amidst these contemplations on love began to emerge.

I, the author, must interject and explain there is no necessary reason to write “Ken and Y” rather than “Y and Ken”, as a couple who are both sharing equal limelight, the phraseology of the coupling of their names are interchangeable, it is pure misogyny, never Juliet & Romeo, always Romeo & Juliet. Never Mrs. and Mr. P; always Mr. and Mrs. P; purely misogynist tradition that presumes the primacy of the male. This author, though male, would not like to suggest that that traditional primacy is acceptable, but years of learning to speak and write in such a manner, nevertheless creates earmarks upon the creativity and makes adjustments difficult.

Just please note, this manner of terminology is habit unintended and generally unbroken, but consciously accepting the habit itself as an addiction similar to smoking which this author has also not been able to curb. Both have nasty repercussions upon society in general and apology is mere feint when the habits persist.

So forgiveness need not be given for habitual reiteration, but the author must in fairness at least become aware of his offensive to some and admit that such habitual uncorrected offenses will indeed offend and place the blame for committing such actions totally upon himself. Which also does not mean no apologies should be given. Offenses that one knows might be offensive should always be apologized for, and repetitive offenses must be repeatedly apologized.I The apology can never become the required self-satisfaction that makes further repetitions justifiable simply because of the apology.

Nevertheless, the consequences of the apology do reflect enough decency to understand one has awareness of the offense; rather than to be so self-presumptuous as to assume one’s offenses are the fault of another.

In another tragedy of love it is said that love means never saying you are sorry. Oh the ridiculousness of such a claim because then all abuses of the love become acceptable as a portion of the love and such a love offends every conceptual illusion as love as emotional rapture; ascendancy into the fulfillment of the purity of love as the achievement of satisfaction.

Much is said about the power of forgiveness as a necessary quality of abrogating oneself from the purgatorial immolation of self from grievances that bring one to a halt and demand blame upon the other.

But do we not have this in a tautological backwardness? Forgiveness can not be given as if it is an exoneration of eternal offense amongst the brethren of humanity and only permits humanity itself to spiral into tumult of becoming righteous enough to allow the perpetuation of humankind becoming an offensive attack upon its own existence.

Would not any supposed epithet to love be that love means always apologizing for even the slightest of offenses. Oh, would it not have been better for Jesus to cry out on the cross, “Father, apologize to us for our offenses you have not corrected us from recurring”?

But, of course, as we have mentioned already, apologies can often not prevent continuance of the offense. But they do accomplish two essential ingredients for the infatuation to develop into long-standing love.

There is, on the part of the offender, at least a recognition of one’s offense. And to the offended that mere acknowledgement can be a release of some of the inner resentments the offense has formulated in the bosom of the offended.

And so as this author loudly proclaims his right to continue his offense of smoking, he continues to offend himself by claiming smoking only hurts himself and the beloved suffers kisses of bad breath and noxious orders upon the body of any would be beloved.

At least this author recognizes the false legitimacy of such claims; and at least this author recognizes his refusal to terminate his habit is retaliatory in nature for offenses he has not been apologized to for.

But of course no lover should be retaliatory to the beloved; but it occurs from without when love is sought as a shelter against the “world” that preserves its offenses to itself without any canonization of recognition that only through the recognition of the offense of that through apology alone can begin the correction and then through such reconciliation can occur.

How can forgiveness be more than fraught with absurdity if what is forgiven is recurring? Then retaliation often itself becomes not an action against the other, but a retaliation against the self who can now assume a stance that I have forgiven and you continue to berate me with your offenses so now I have surpassed you by my forgiveness and therefore you alone are in complete responsibility for all of the offenses you do to me.

There cannot be any true forgiveness in such adorations of forgiveness. Forgiveness has became a self-deluded action of retaliation and assumed heavenly self-exaltation that continues to diminish the self and prevents the necessary action of reconciliation through the corrective action of apologizing forwards towards a goal of loving the other only through reformations that recognize one can not be righteous if more than one is involved. Mustn’t the action of the apology be completed before forgiveness can be more than separating oneself from the beloved by acceptance of an assumed air of being superior through the action of forgiving the other which now has now separated the one who has forgiven from the other.

But if love is the two who have become one the correction must be to longer remain separate from the other by the perpetuation of the two as individuals. The love story reigns in the realm of tragedy and the love remains in the mythical possibility of a protection of the two separate individuals from the massive insult of humanity hell-bent on maintaining its hell.

Love must mean always apologizing against the offense of the one against the other for acting separately in attack of the very sought for solace.

Love remains tragic by its very seekers from its beginnings in seeking to escape into a twoness that comes to be by the retaliation that is sought to escape the offenses of the at-large society that is perpetrated against the individuals.

If love is only the seeking of another against this at-large trauma, if it is only the sought-for solace of self-defense from the broader offense of humanity against targeting individuals as individuals who must seek the solace of sheltering themselves in another who will not be offensive.

The house that love builds collapses by the very nature that leads individuals to seek solace in another to verify the individuality of the other.

But this collapse upsets the entire fabric of love and all of the houses tumble towards a destiny of uncorrected righteousness and a perpetuation that the individual has been failed by the whole.

The lover’s heart falls from him and he goes forth, even more offended, to offend the fabric eve further through righteousness that perpetuates the offense against of the unrepentant selfishness that makes all the love songs develop into the heartbroken self who sought not love but to be loved as an individual who thereby loves not the beloved but continues to primarily love the self instead of sacrificing the self on the altar of the other by reflecting as two on the corrections necessary to no longer need to seek what might be imagined can be found.

The tragedy of all love stories remains the tragedy of the society whose prime offense is through developing offended individuals seeking solace from a cultural offense against individuals through the perpetuation of mythical solace of love for the lovers as individuals.

The first offense of course is a culture that through its offenses that can never forgive its offenses can only lead to the two never being able to revert from being two offended individuals primed to not be capable of rejecting the continuance of their retaliatory desire to find the one who will not offend them and thereby offend the beloved.

So how do we define love as long as we are seeking to be loved rather than by offerings to abandon the selfishness the society has endorsed us with.

Such is this tragedy of love we will try to describe in this tail of woe. The author will now step back from his moral high horse and let the end of our love story begin.