The Paradox of Selfless Love

This occurred to me mid-way through my plate of green and brown at lunch: the paradox of "selfless" love.

"Selfless" love is a sort of self-perpetuating concept riddled with loop-holes and contradictions. This judgement sounds a bit harsh, but let's see how it works out...

Oftentimes, we find ourselves in situations when we have to make choices based on insufficient data, speculations or recollentions. This task is already difficult enough as it is, without the complications of emotions or love. Usually, we have a few of the following choices: ideals (or an ideal option given unlimited or unrestricted capability), reality (or a practical approach that we are sure we can take) and me (or personal preferences which we are most certain of, as compared to the other uncertainties of our situation).

Sounds familiar? Definitely... How many times have you been asked to spread your time between several commitments and tasks, either by your own doing or otherwise (some of us are popular and can't help it), only to have to choose between turning up for one and not the other. How many times have you thought that it was perhaps ideal to spread your afternoon evenly throughout all the activities, perhaps an hour at each location at most. Alternatively, you could also just pick and choose the series of activities that allows you to pack your afternoon to the maximum (most practical). Or lastly, you could always just pick and choose to turn up at the activities that you might enjoy most or suits your current mood the best.

Which is the best choice? No body will ever know, until a choice is made. That's why Murphy's Law comes into full swing and shows you that whatever you thouht "best" was only "better" in comparison to how things eventually worked out.

Without going into detailed analysis the merits or demerits of each option, I think it's safe to say that we frequently see in each situation only two types of approach -- the ideal and the practical (which is itself assessed based largely on "me"). We would then often find it difficult to make decisions involving people because being overly ideal would make us "selfless" but unhappy, but being practical often seems more "selfish" and would make others unhappy.

If we're not willing to take the risk of either approach, then we could simply choose to wait things out and react according to how the situation develops. In the case of outings, we could always wait for people to nag us and let the more "urgent" matters show themselves. In other matters, we could in fact wait for events to develop and respond accordingly, to the new priorities that surface.

This way, you would be at the mercy of the events around you, but whatever the outcome, it would surely seem less "your fault". However, to be proactive would also entail its own risk and demand for much more responsibility. Apply this to a relationship and you would soon see how ridiculous "selfless" love is. On one hand, you'd have to be either very idealistic or egocentric to offer "selfless" love, and you'd still be unhappy. But given that satisfction is only temporary and short-sighted in "selfish" pursuits, we'd sooner just choose to ignore the signs and let thigs "flow". Still, at some point, a choice needs to be made between several unhappy options, and guess what, we'd still be unhappy no matter what our decision is.

So what's the point? Our fuzzy emotional logic comes down to two camps: the people who believe in "why not try", and those who believe that "why bother" is a better way. And of course, there are people who "think too much", as I do. We believe in both, contemplate both types of approaches and constantly try to strike a balance between them.

Such is the tragedy of people like us -- we will never be happy, but we are one step closer to peace. This elusive peace is something our peers jump in and out of, but never settling in it long enough to understand it. This peace is what we move towards, for keeps.



JKLM