*Magnify*
SPONSORED LINKS
Creative fun in
the palm of your hand.
Printed from https://www.Writing.Com/view/2217053
Rated: E · Critique · Romance/Love · #2217053
This is a description of what love is, by its mortal definition.
In a past, there are differences. For a future, there are similarities. We, as humans, desire competition. So much, that we fail to recognize a moment where we may halt our movements, and say to ourselves, "What do we have, so far?"

For those differences, we mistake a past for a certainty. For strength, we should say to the future that it can only be good through hard work and perseverance. We will lean over our shoulder to the past, and say that it is where we began, and this is true, of course. But, a past is only as certain, as it was and is painful both to escape and continue to remember. Within a past, there are those differences, because each person holds their own book, their own tale that describes how they entered this world.

But, how does history repeat itself? It repeats, when we remember a life once lived, because we cannot remember how a person failed. It is here that we objectively know that a person only fails when they die. For each battle we face, there will come a day when we do fail, and that is when we die. So long as our heart keeps beating and we do not forfeit the future, there is a chance to redeem ourselves in a mere perception that we have failed.

For the future, we see uncertainty. Though, that is only because we have attached the past to our future, so that we want to relive it. Perhaps we want to relive it, though are unaware of such a commitment. A commitment to the past, or a desire to dig up or exhume what is believed to be dead or is dead, is to attach oneself to pain. And, we compete. We compete, through the past, with someone else's pain. That is how wars begin, by the past being dug up, for history to repeat itself, and for a future to be full of fear.

Love has no realm in use, because it holds itself upon the definition of collaboration, not competition. Love does not use, because within collaboration, we hold hands out of trust, not to betray the person who trusts us.

Love does not deny what it trusts, because such shared secrets were only ever shared because trust is a mutual agreement.

Love cannot utilize, because we would not manipulate those we trust, or who trusts us. Does anyone disagree with the fact that love unifies? Does anyone disagree with the fact that love connects pain to pain, because the sole wound of humanity was the distance, the open flesh, between one separated human from another?

It is not merely the wound inside that hurts. But, to an empathetic and observant person who sees the distance between people, those are very real wounds. To imagine it, the open flesh of a physical wound, is very much alike in appearance to those who do not embrace each other. They are distanced, very much alike the torn flesh of one gash upon the leg or arm.

Torn open, distanced, but does love utilize these things? It does not, for that would only open the wound more.

Love has no utilitarian property to it. If one disagrees with this, one admits to believing in the words, "Love is the emotion that manipulates, controls, and betrays."

That is speaking of fear, not love.
© Copyright 2020 RomanticPoet27 (peteraww at Writing.Com). All rights reserved.
Writing.Com, its affiliates and syndicates have been granted non-exclusive rights to display this work.
Printed from https://www.Writing.Com/view/2217053