.16 line(less)

so here's the thing;


everyone complains about the rules.

sometimes it's about what they say.
other times it's their interpretation or implementation that causes a spot of bother.
occasionally, it's about why they even exist in the first place.

i think this last observation is quite intriguing - it is rare (though not unheard of) for someone to complain about there being any kind of rule at all. most of the time, the argument goes that the rule should be changed, or not apply in these circumstances, or be harsher, or more leanient, or be more enforced, or involve further get-out clauses, etcetera.

most people, in most cases, acknowledge a requirement for some kind of law.

and my question is, (naturally),
why?


well the two alternatives as far as i can see it are,
numero 1,
we have no law at all, no yes/no, no right/wrong, no good/bad and so forth,
and numero 2,
we make it up as we go along.

and here's why we need law.
methinks
there's this grey area nestled in the centre of our conscience which represents the conflict of stuff that is bad (doh) was stuff that is good (yay). (if there is no law at all, this grey area either doesn't exist or everyone at least denies it exists, if we make law up on the way, then it remains permanently grey). law, and by which i also take to mean, something that is both just (hence distinct) and equal (hence constant), draws a line.

it's like saying,
ok, well,
so this grey area...
we're gonna separate that grey from this grey
and you imagine that this grey is black
and that grey is white
(or, so as not to tempt race into this, neon pink is our yay and radioactive green is our doh)
...and focus on staying on that side of the line.

not gonna lie,
the two sides around the line are, well,
still grey.

but at least there's a line now.


without the clarity of the line,
we cross it,
(yes, we do cross it anyway),
from pink to green,
and then complain afterwards that there was no such line.

this way we know.
we know
when it's suddenly gone different,
the light has changed,
the shadow has shifted,
and everything feels colder.

and there's no moving the goalposts.




so here's the thing;


all you need is love.
(excuse us a minute whilst we all choke on the cliche)..,
love is the greatest,
love is the best,
share the love,
feel the love,
love binds everything together in perfect harmony
and so enjoy your sandwich.

BUT -
and if you like big buts, this ones bigger than the dragon's -
too often we treat love like it is the law.
like love is another law.
and, guys i so need to realise this
and live this
and love this out myself,
it isn't.
it really
really
isn't.

never,
never ever ever,
should we be speaking about how we should love this way but not that way to that person but not those people at only these times and never in those places and only if it feels right.

what?

only if it feels right?

as though,
love were some kind of science,
or it was an opt out
take it or leave it
theology
guided
no, constrained,
by thick rules
and barriers
and restrictions
and lines?

no,
oh no.

because law does
not
dictate love.
in truth,
love dictates law.
pink equals love.
green equals not love.
(and, just to be clear about this,
the love came first,
the line second).

and so if,
with love,
all you can see is pink,
and it removes the other tainted side from your possible vision or action>>>
then

love has no lines.
love is no law.
there's the law,
and then,
there's something above,
something beyond,
something that transcends in leaps and bounds and embraces and messages with shared sorrow and unending joy.

pink.
just pink.

and hence,


love > law.


i need to stop thinking about love what,
and i need to strip it of it's lines,
seal it's crevasses,
and simply
love.




ps. so here's the most crazy thing;

if,
instead of focusing on law,
on which side of the line we're on,
we just do the love thing,
the pink thing,
then,
we're
law-
less,
after all?