[Flickr - Danske]

In lieu of original thoughts, I have chosen to recycle some postings from a now-defunct journal which no one but my beloved (aspiring actress) sister ever read.

One was on the idea of love, which is actually a very "sticky" word (found on everyone's tongues, in everyone's pockets, and generally gumming up our minds with nonsense) and a very "shady" word (what's the definition again?). But I did find an interesting passage that prompted these thoughts...

I've been long wondering what our idea of 'love' really means. It seems that 'love' is one of those words (like justice or freedom) that people use today to signpost their conversation as interesting. Love screams of passion in movies and sheds tears of loss in songs, it treads delicately in poems, and swashbuckles through in novels, but all of those depictions ring hollow somehow.

Stendhal says:" absence of mistrust is not enough; there must be a weariness of mistrusting, and, as it were, courage must be impatient with the hazards of life. You are unconsciously bored by living without loving, and convinced in spite of yourself by the example of others. You have overcome all life's fears, and are no longer content with the gloomy happiness which pride affords: you have conceived an ideal without knowing it. One day you come across someone not unlike this ideal; crystallization recognizes its theme by the disturbance which it creates, and consecrates for ever to the master of your destiny what you have dreamt of for so long."

And I like this. It seems to be saying that the lightning-flash of love occurs not like the lightning flash of a storm, but rather like the flash of the flashbulb photo. Love comes and freezes you, your self as it IS at a moment, and adorns it with the self of someone else. The someone-else-self that also "crystallizes" your if the adornment of your completed (bored and prideful) self is the adornment of the self you conceived in your mind as an as you are in reality plus you as you would have rather been.

But would you prefer this ideal to your own self? or would you regard this second, as-yet-unrealized ideal self as something necessarily existing outside of you?