The Edge

Some days we find ourselves gauging over the precipice of our fears. There are three options to such a situation: 1) leap into the bluff and feel the exhilaration of the free fall, 2) return to safe ground away from the image of the edge, or 3) take a seat at the edge.

The first two options seem more preoccupied with looking down. By simply taking the leap you don't really take in the view from the precipice. You perhaps become more fixated on the bluff and the sensation of falling. In the second option, you just run away from the edge. You may have looked down briefly, but only enough to cause you to seek familiar ground. But neither provides a significant time to take in anything else but the fear.

Imagine sitting at the edge and looking over to see an endless fall into blackness. Then slowly start looking up. The different shades of black will become present as it moves closer to the brightest light source. Looking ahead you will see the vastness of the area surrounding you. Then looking straight up, you will see the endless depth of the sky that reflects the same depth, if not more, of the fall beneath your feet. You will see what inhabits that precipice and how they have adapted to the environment. You will look at the ground next to you and see the ant that effortlessly walks along the edge, neither falling over nor running from it.

In the seated position, you are in no hurry to jump or walk because it would take effort and calculation to do either. In the seated position, you are almost forced to observe. This observation does not have to be just external, it can also be internal. You can see the fear settle in as you ease into a seated position without falling down the cliff. Hearing your heart beat in your ears. Your breath short and heavy. But gradually your heart and breath ease as you gain comfort in the solid ground you inhabit at this edge and the fear dissipates. The realization of the other two options become visible and viable, but neither will be motivated by fear.

"What would life be like taking that plunge into the unknown? Do I really want to jump?"

"What will I be like returning to what I know? Do I really want to return?"

But only the absence of fear will allow those contemplations to exist. When you are ready, you will be able to once again move with confidence in your decision.

Logic? Love? Logical Love?

A friend presented me with a question: "Love? Or logic?" Funny she should ask me such a question, as I am taking a formal deductive logic course. I felt a certainly level of competence in logic to attempt answering that question.

Her real dilemma was asking, "Should I listen to my heart? Or should I listen to my mind?" As if the two were dichotomies to our being, especially when searching for love in this life. Do the two have to be so separate? My answer, to her question was "logical love." I would say logically sound love is true love. Without arguing what love is (because that is a task that could be endless) I decided to focus on logical soundness. From my course, logical soundness can be defined as follows:

1. The argument is valid
2. All the premises are proven to be true.

Now for an argument to be valid:

1. If the premises are true, then the conclusion must be true
2. There are no counterexamples, meaning there are no cases in which true premises would lead to a false conclusion.
   

Let us go beyond and start applying it to love. We have "Jack loves Jill. Jill loves Jack. Therefore, Jack and Jill are together." We would find instances where supposedly Jack loves Jill and Jill loves Jack, but they aren't together. Hmm... Interesting. Would this be a moment where we would classify this situation as a counterexample to our original example? Yes, because Jack and Jill still love each other, but it isn't true they are together. So, as long as Jack and Jill love each other and are together, we would say their love is valid.

So we have proven validity of their love, but is it sound. It may be the case that Jack and Jill are together, but Jill loves Jim, or Jack dreams of killing Jill in the middle of the night and making it look like an accident. In such a case, that would not be logically sound love. But as long as it has been proven through time and action that Jack and Jill love each other, we could say they have demonstrated logically sound love. This is because 1) their love for each other was stated and they are not going contrary to the original conclusion that they are together and 2) their love for each other has been proven true, perhaps through empirical evidence of some kind.

To address the implied question my friend asked, you may have found love, or "the right one," if your mind and heart can agree. I think Rene Descartes said people are divided into their mind and body. Our body can love independent of the mind and the mind can love independent of the body. But true love is when the mind and body both love the same thing.

So, what happens when the body or the mind love and the other does not? It guess it is like our Jack and Jill situation. The body is in love, but the mind is not. The relationship will be based on sex and no emotional or intellectual connection. Those relationships are usually called flings, or die once the couple gets old. Now what if the mind is in love, but the body is not? Great intellectual conversations and emotions, but nothing physical will happen. Although this relationship can last through decades, I would classify such a relationship as friendship. But to gain agreement from Descartes, both would need to love the same thing for it to be true. So friendship is love, physical lust is love, but both premises must be true at the same time for the conclusion (true love) to be true. And if you can demonstrate both premises to be true, then you would have logically sound love all over again. And logically sound love would demonstrate capable of being true love that would survive through time.