Vélo - LOVE AS MOTIVATING ENERGY OR DRIVE

Here's an obvious fact: If you love what you're doing, you have more energy, are more motivated than if you hate what you're doing (or are bored). Love can act as a motor, pushing you to overcome obstacles and to give your best. This rule works both on an individual basis:think of artists and others who love their work and carry on doing it well into ripe old age. And also collectively - groups of people who act in unison out of love for what they are doing: think of a choir, an orchestra, a sports event, or projects which inspire people to band together for a common good - they all give off tremendous energy, which is contagious. Imagine if it could be bottled, harnessed!

But wait a minute, I hear you say, you can also get energy from hate: think of lynch-mobs, soldiers on the rampage, sadistic torturers etc. - aren't they also fuelled, motivated by 'love' for what they're doing?

There's the rub! We're human beings and contradiction is built into our minds. LOVE and HATE exist together in us:we talk about certain LOVE/HATE relationships in our lives but, in fact, our entire relationship with the world is to some degree affected by that contradiction. The most loving person can have hateful characteristics and the most hate-filled person can become loving at times.

I think that LOVE/Vélo is only in its pure form as energy when it is emanating from God, its source. When it enters us, it undergoes a transformation: it splits into two and is thus diluted. We're always being pulled in two contradictory directions and consequently our energy, our power to act is reduced. Free will means we can choose a direction but doesn't guarantee that, once we make a choice, we won't be slowed down or dragged backwards by the opposing voice within us. I can get on my bike full of enthusiasm and determination but if I have to go up too many hills, struggle through dangerous traffic and polluted air, I might lose my impetus and give up the journey.

I've noticed this in my day-to-day experience:I start work on a project I love, am excited by and believe in but which requires disciplined, focused attention for a long period of time. I gather my resources and abilities and begin the long haul, fuelled by love. What happens along the way? I start to lose speed, my energy-level goes down, I get distracted. But here's the key point: what is it that can raise my energy again? It's hate, not love! Let me explain: For example, I read a newspaper or watch on TV the tragic events unfolding at present in the Middle East. A wave of passionate anger overwhelms me, hatred for the evil which is being perpetrated on both sides. This rage motivates me to start writing letters or to speak to people I know, expressing my indignation. But it's not only such world-shattering situations that can arouse my hate-energy: an argument with a relative, or some bureaucratic incompetence, or any number of irritating incidents can do the same thing.

Meanwhile, the project I began (and am committed to completing), fuelled by LOVE, is neglected or seriously slowed down by this new stimulus, this hate-powered energy. And I'm trapped in the middle, not really progressing in either direction. What's the solution to this dilemma? To keep changing horses (or bikes!) in mid-stream, never following through?

No. I think there's another possibility:

If I accept that LOVE/HATE will continue to co-exist within me (until further notice by the Almighty), I could fool the contradiction into working for me rather than against me. How? By allowing hatred for some specific evil to burn as rocket-fuel, giving greater energy to each love-motivated undertaking I pursue.

I can't say if this works, I'd have to try it out first and gather examples from other people's experience as well as mine.

CHAPTER 5

IS LOVE A RESPONSIBILITY OR JUST AN OPTION?

Depends on who you ask and what their focus of perception is. If you ask me, I'd say: I think it's a responsibility, THE primary responsibility in our lives, above all others. That doesn't mean I always act accordingly - I'm beset by contradiction. But at least I try to get back to the main road, after getting lost in many sidetracks. (I used to have a recurring dream that I was on a train or bus going in the wrong direction and it would take ages to return home or even find where home was!)

What do I mean by LOVE AS A RESPONSIBILITY? It means that I must choose to act with love, in preference to any other choice that is put before me, or even that my own nature dictates. This 'must' is not the result of any religious or social indoctrination: it is my own free and rational choice, based on the premise I've already stated - viz:

Love is a real force, more powerful than evil.

There's no doubt in my mind about the truth of this premise but my understanding of how it applies in my own life and in the world around me is limited. So my self-appointed task is to try and expand that understanding by all means at my disposal: imagination, images, words, metaphors, links, exploration and improvisation, research and serendipity, humor and seriousness.

WHAT ABOUT THE OTHER SIDE OF THE COIN?

Since reality is my destination, I want to start including some opposing outlooks, objections and challenges to the viewpoint I'm expressing. It is not, of course, a viewpoint which belongs to me alone but one which has been expressed and believed in every century by at least some of the human race - though not, apparently, by those who hold the power to conduct world affairs.

If there has ever existed a government which had as its basic law the practice of love as its prime responsibility, then either my knowledge of history is deficient or else it did exist but was buried with Atlantis! This could be because such a thing is an impossibility, human nature being as contradictory as it is. Or it could be because not enough people believe that it is a realistic possibility and not merely wishful thinking.

Before I start presenting the opposition's case, I want to make a list of what I think are the basic requirements for what might be called a

LOVE POLICY:

1. Individual responsibility - You are responsible for your own actions. It's your choice, your decision to act with love or not.

2. Smallness - Every large dispute can be broken down into small units and resolved by individuals face-to-face.

3. Imaginative Compassion - Look far ahead to imagine what the consequences of your actions might be for future generations.

4. Treat others as you want to be treated -Take this literally: if you want certain things, be prepared to give the same things to others.

Well, that's a start anyway. Now let's look at what the opposition says.

First of all, let's define: the opposition to what?

There's really no opposition to LOVE per se. Disagreement about it only arises when some people believe that LOVE can and should be applied to resolve all human conflicts (let's call this group the Vélos or bike-riders) and some other people (call them the Motorists because they go faster and have more power in today's world) believe something like this:

You can't apply love in such and such a situation because it won't work and we know from past experience that it has never worked.

The Motorists usually have very convincing arguments to support this view, generally based on a perfectly reasonable pessimism (given the evidence) about human nature. Here are some quotes extracted from discussions at the Minciu Sodas forum:

I for one am very thankful that there are people willing to risk their own
lives and to commit horrific acts in order to hold this side of humanity at
bay, even though many think them inhuman. The wishful thinking and ardent
protests for avoiding violence in the World as it is has made their job much
tougher and the number of horrific deaths much larger -- in my opinion.
Yes, I am passionate in their defense.
I am with you in wanting to change the World to what you want, but how are
you going to do it? While you are working out a sure answer, I am not
willing to let go of our ability to keep the monsters at bay........

I think World peace would be a horror, we would
no longer have any choice, we would have become automatons......

John Leppik

Others give examples of incidents in which love and forgiveness have prevailed over revenge - they praise these instances but generally end their account with more or less the same conclusion that: meanwhile, until the world is ready for a 'love-policy', we have to keep on using the big stick.

Talking about the big stick (yes, I note the phallic connotations!)reminds me that the biggest sticks on our planet are the nuclear weapons we have invented for our presumed security - our protection against evil-doers. Without entering into the pro/anti nuclear debate there's one thing I must mention because it's so relevant - it's not an opinion and not an emotion. It's a rational mathematical equation which has a justifiably dramatic name:The Apocalypse Equation, or AE. It's the brainchild of Bradford Lyttle. Full details about him and the AE are at:

http://www.uspacifistparty.org/bradbio3.html

It's necessary to read the whole of his analysis to understand it but I'll just quote these passages:

The AE shows that given antagonistic nuclear missile systems, the probability of thermonuclear accidents and thermonuclear war approaches certainty. Nuclear deterrence is a "Faustian bargain," that may generate "peace" for an indeterminate period, but only at the cost of eventual, catastrophic nuclear accidents and attacks.

Still another insight that the equation provides is how safe nuclear missile arsenals must be if we are to live with them for any significant period. This safety factor is found in "p." p is made up of many factors, including the mechanical reliability of the missiles, and the psychological stability of the crews controlling them. If it is assumed that p is as small as one chance in one-hundred-million, and there are 4,000 strategic nuclear missiles in the arsenals of the nuclear powers, then it can be calculated by means of the equation that in 50 years the probability of the launch of at least one missile is about 52 % . Even if the daily chance of an accidental launch is astronomically small, some missile probably will be launched within a relatively short time.

( Bradford Lyttle. From 'The Enola Gay and the Apocalypse Equation '1995)

From where I stand, this convincingly demonstrates that it's an illusion and a delusion to continue believing that 'security' or 'peace' is achieved by big sticks, even when kept in arsenals as a 'deterrent'. And because these particular sticks we have invented have a life (a very very very long life) of their own, which can spiral out of our control, we really have to look at the possibility that a LOVE POLICY of some kind may turn out to be the most rational alternative we have, if we wish to survive and flourish in this universe and if we don't want to be the creators of another Big Bang - one that would be the end of life rather than its beginning.

go to P2 index.html