Reconnoitering The Reality of Love

It is funny, the state of human affairs; we strive to find a delicate balance between the inner workings of our hearts and minds and the outer world around us. Sometimes we fail, rather miserably, and at times there is harmony. But most of the times, all there exists is a struggle between the two distinctly connected worlds. I believe this struggle is what defines life, for most of us. It does so prevalently because it takes up so much of the space that exists between all things; from our careers, education, family, relationship to the bills, car, broken fridge or airconditioner. Life, to me, is a series of such things that are the “realistic” and “practical” aspect but the most important part is what lies within the emptiness. It is the love for the other through self and love for self through the other.

Exploring this idea comes with fear, fear of falling in the trap of redundancy being one. A lot has been said, written, portrayed, performed, sung about Love. Some refer to it as an awakening, some fall into it, some live for it some have died for it, some touch the lengths, depths, heights of intensity and insanity with it, others relish it as a potent elixir of blissfulness, and then there are some who relegate it to materialistic simplicity. The definition and understanding varies as much as one individual does from another; in short, there are consistencies in all, but also things that set it apart.

Lets unravel this with a look at few of the various perceptions and interpretations of love. There is the scientific approach to it, there is a poets foray into the extremities of love, and yet more room for the realistic “novel” grasp of what love is all about and so forth and so on. There is a school of thought in science that perceives Love as just a chemical cocktail, carving love out to be nothing more than a series of chemical reaction in our brain that influence the way we behave. Personally, this intrinsic explanation seems far too simplistic, albeit rationally sound. Then there is what Shakespeare described Love to be as “the star to every wandering bark, Whose worth’s unknown, although height be taken”. There is also the novel way to depict the reality of love through stories in which it is embedded in the heart of the narrative. So, in end, so many ways and versions of conveying the same idea perhaps.?

A question well worth pondering I believe; is each definition exclusive or is there room for all the definitions to be right? Regardless of where you stand, there is no denying the power or presence of something that binds, even science can attest to the fact that something long lasting and substantially meaningful does exist beyond just the conveniences of a day to day life or meeting the general requirements of a stable existence. Or the fact that a majority of people around us tends to gravitate towards and desire the experience, the euphoria along with the melancholy that comes with Love.

So, when something is being written about so much, for so long, sung of, heard of, played of, in all forms and ways, ultimately, it has to exist in some solid form; a form of which perhaps we all see pieces and aspects that appear clear to us depending on where we stand, where we come from, who we are, what we believe, or whatever else it may be. So may be the question should not be about its existence or who has the right definition but the struggle should be about how best to compile all our explanations, understanding, definitions into a picture or a montage that best explains this deep and profound emotion, feeling, lifestyle and necessity of life. John Lennon once said “All we Need is Love”; that may be a question for another day, but today let us conform to the idea that “We Have Love” and embrace it, experience it, cherish it and love it.