Love Please, Not Logic

Unfortunately, very unfortunately, what applies for ‘Man-Stuff’ applies equally to ‘Woman-Stuff’.

Lady-Gurus rarely talk ‘Being’. It is on the splendors of Love rediscovered. But you can’t get stuck on ‘Love’, although I would very much like to do so.

‘Love’, far more pleasing at every level than stiff and faceless characters like ‘Being’, is lamentably prone to the same pitfalls. There is nothing particularly special or stable about it [even if ‘stability’ were to be our goal, which it is not].

Do men genuflect to stern high abstractions more readily? And do women love ‘Love’ a little too much? Ask the Poets; this is just Philosophy drone.

Shūnyam does not stand in opposition to ‘Love’. Or any enriching emotion. Or any emotion, for that matter.

You just can’t pin a feature on it like ‘Love’ and expect it to respond in a way that you believe ‘Love’ [or any emotion] should respond. You will feel let-down but it will not be the fault of Shūnyam.

Just as you revel in that most desirable stupor of a new amorous intimacy, the man you thought you would spend the rest of your life with leaves town with your best-friend. And you will blame poor old Shūnyam all over again.


One of my original Posts on file, likely late nineties. Wouldn’t change anything, really.