You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
RE: What Ails You, O Innocent Heart?
As long as you are not able to tell and to explain what a 'soul' might be, you will not be able to explain, to tell, to understand what 'love' might be, what love could be, what love should be.
There is no escape to 'loyalty' (although you possibly could explain this concept) if you can feel the deficit, not to say: the huge gap between love and loyalty. Let me compare this gap with the difference between rhythm (=loyalty) and song (=love).
To talk about love means to talk about the interdepencies between feelings, mindsets, and languages (!). This is a triangle far too big to handle for me.
Then perhaps the truest counterpoint is this: neither love nor soul owes us an explanation.
We do not need to know the mechanics of breath to breathe. Love, like the soul, moves in a realm before language; it is felt before it is named, lived before it is understood.
Loyalty, on the other hand, feels almost tangible — it can be measured in action, tested over time. It is like rhythm, as you say, a steady pulse that one can follow even in the dark. Love, though, is the song that rides on that rhythm: sometimes harmonious, sometimes dissonant, always elusive. Without rhythm, the song collapses; without the song, the rhythm may endure but feel empty...
0.00 SBD,
0.08 STEEM,
0.08 SP
Warmly thought, beautifully said, soulfully dreamed.
Your comment has been supported by SC-05. We support quality posts, Original quality comments anywhere, and any tags