26 January 2007

just you. me. us. and words.

why do we write of love, before we're 'in love'--or even before we have love at all? we all do it, romantics that we are and wish to be. why? because it makes the most beautiful, fluid writing and allowing for the clearest images. whether you've ever experienced them or not, you can feel the words...they're all. just. words.

or maybe it's a hope that there is such a thing, perhaps...but everyone loves. even if it's loving your mother or your dog or the flowers they've cared for for so long. everyone loves. and yes. they're all very differrent kinds of love, but still all comes back to a sort of respect and admiration and wanting to care for something. what the even better question is this: why must we define. why must everything have a definition. if what you're loving knows how you love it, and if you know what it means when something makes you its object of love, then what more is important? no one will be able to care/love/like/admire something exactly the way you do. even two admirers of a painting see its beauty in different ways--brushstrokes and colours and detail and accuracy. it's beautiful. all of it. that's why we come to admire something, because we find the beauty in it. and we love something because we don't trust anyone to care for it as much as we will. forget love. the word is just a word. forget 'liking' something or someone...imagine the term 'admire' is gone. i'm standing to the right of this painting. you're standing above it. you'll see a completely different picture. so let's not all imagine identical vocabulary necessarily means identical views...not that this is bad. it just is. i just am. and we all just are.

No comments: