So yes- comfort food tonight. Not as salty or greasy as comfort foods tend to be, but smothered with self-reliance, spiced with productivity, and of course, oozing with cheese.
For-- my first love has ended, slid beneath the dark waters of eternity with nary a ripple.
Ah, yes. Munch munch. Oh, cheese. Lovely, delicious cheese.
I’m truly not one to self-medicate with food. Food is not like medicine, a booster or a treat; no, it’s something much more vital-- like.. well, food. Nor am I one to bemoan always getting caught up with the ‘wrong’ guy.. ‘cuz that’s just stupid. You meet who you need to meet, and thus get caught up with those whom you should. I am unhappy with the parting, but am immensely grateful for the meeting and everything in between-- and I accept, and even celebrate, the consummate whole.
So what’s the problem? And there is a problem, since I’m stirring up pots of comfort. And it’s this: I’m wondering if I fought hard enough. In the end, I did my best to ease it’s passing, to let it slip with silent grace into that good night.. I think I fought a good fight when it was called for, but should I have raged on until the end?
These passages are laced with morbidity.. but nothing has
died. The wellspring still flows, as clear and strong as ever. I have carried jars of its water through a dark and searing country, to empty it upon the dry loam. And, at last, there came a time when I felt I would have drained the very vessels of my body, poured out my very last drop of vitality, if it would only nourish the silent earth. But the soil was barren, so what good would that do? Performing the same action over and over again, while expecting different results.. Hmmm, there’s a word for that, and I think it starts with an ‘i’..
The world romanticizes suffering. It loves a martyr, one who suffers for something they hold greater than the sanctity of flesh. We worship them, canonize them into saints, pledge to always remember them, to honor them; various theologies grant them special status in the afterlife. I do not trivialize the suffering of any being at any time; and yet this makes me distinctly uncomfortable. If martyrdom seems to have ‘perks’, doesn’t that vulgarize the efforts of those who truly want to make a difference, and fall by the wayside in the pursuit of their dream? They are who we truly seek to honor.
Not to seem misguidedly iconoclastic, but this same principle of martyrdom is integral to hunger strikes and some techniques of civil disobedience-- which again, stirs up misgivings. But let me explain.
The purpose of such actions are to raise awareness and inspire sympathy for a cause. My complaint is not about how people will let a man on the street starve but snap to when a celebrity hunger-strikes-- because I don’t think that that’s true. I think that any human being, when confronted with the raw suffering of another human being, will have an empathic response. And of course it’s not a pleasant response-- it’s a very painful, gut-wrenching one. And that is the dark heart of this type of protest. You publicly suffer, to cause suffering in others.
And sometimes this is just
right. When employing these tactics for human rights causes, the suffering already exists. People should know about the pain of injustice, and if it is their apathy which allows injustice to thrive, it seems only just that sympathetic suffering drives them from their torpor. And the ends are selfless, and the means are peaceful, and principled, and noble; and in it’s ugliness (in the individual human response to that ugliness) it is beautiful.
Therein lies the problem. The world loves a martyr, and those who suffer are heroes. And that seems like a good thing, a decent thing.
I turn now to the ineffable Homer Simpson, for no one says it (or sings it, in the case of his hunger-strike jingle) better than he:
“I'm dancing away my hunger pangs,
Moving my feet so my stomach won't hurt.
I'm kind of like Jesus,
But not in a sacrilegious way.”
Ah, cracks me up. Great episode. Okay. Back to my point.
It seems too often martyrdom itself becomes an ideal and a goal, rising to overshadow the actual cause. The suffering becomes egocentric, a glorified guilt trip. Something along the lines of adults who cry to get what they want, exploiting the neural pathways that govern our instinctive protection and nourishment of helpless newborns. And end, not a means; or means not justifiable by the ends.
Love is suffering, you hear so often. I think this is absolute codswallop.
Horse shit, if you will. Honestly, if suffering is a sizable constituent of your romance, I think that’s a good indicator something is wrong.
Yet you hear so many “love stories”, where someone is cheated on or treated badly by their beloved.. and they hang on, thinking: the more I suffer, the more it shows I love them. Tied intrinsically to that is the other’s knowledge of their suffering, and a sympathetic response. But what comes of that? What emotions motivate the other’s response? Pain? Pity? The egotistical notion that this person loves them enough to take a grand load of shit from them? Really-- nothing healthy.
If you must have a somberly masochistic axiom, I think it should be
love is sacrifice, and this sacrifice is not intimately bound to suffering. The problem is, once you start thinking in terms of suffering and sacrifice, you’ve entered a realm that is too egocentric and self-referential for you to speak with any relevance about love.
I choose neither sacrifice nor suffering. I'm no saint, I lack the disposition; I threw stones. So deplore my weak inability to the former and to the latter fret that I’m being a cop-out..
But I could suffer, I could rage and I could cry-- and the only direct result of that would be to make a very sensitive person unhappy. (Don’t worry, he’ll never read this. His beefcake masculinity remains intact. Heh heh.) So though the urge besets me to steal out in the dark of night and siphon petrol into metaphorical Molotov cocktails (nonviolent protest metaphors not as fun).. I won't. Because love has no moral high ground. I have suffered no injustice (even though it bloody well feels like it sometimes!). Yes, it's not fair, and yes, it sucks; but if that were something to raise a banner to we'd have a riot every time Stephen Segal got a film role. I'm not saying love's not worth fighting for-- really, it's the only thing that is. But you must be very certain that you're not so drunk on the romance of martyrdom and love that you mistake rapacity for righteousness.
So here I sit, harboring the mad desire to do something crazy and desperate.. and don’t. I’m surprised and grateful that I’m even capable of that kind of passion.. And I’m quietly hopeful that perhaps.. perhaps my motives hold at least a modicum of purity; that I will not squander something so precious on vain posturing and actions that will cause any more pain. Perhaps.. perhaps. I dearly hope so.