Who exactly is (are?) the rhetorical "we " here? And is that the same as the editorial we, the royal we, the majority we or the Pontifical we?

As you might guess, I'm tired of authors who say "we" when what they obviously mean is "you." I'm tired of scolds and preachers who try to hide the fact that they're preaching and scolding by changing the personal pronoun to disguise themselves as shills in the audience-- a feeble and unconvincing literary device if ever there was one.

So speak for yourself, my dear Leo, and when my turn comes (er, assuming you're a man of your word and that you really do mean "we" here), I'll speak for me. Love, I truly believe, obliges you to humor me to that extent.

I have to agree with Nemo, WE who? I would much rather here about you and your struggles and triumphs.

As far as love is concerned, it is a touchy subject for me. I have come to realize I cannot give away something I do not have and right now I do not love myself. That is really scary for me. I think I believe G-d loves me but to openly say I love and forgive myself, well that is a work in progress.

Shawn

.He died in !998 a little late..You could pray he have doubly what you want Ha!!!!

Billy,

Literature is timeless and the author's death is never the demise of the book. As Robert Frost (d. 1963) put it, "No tears in the writer, no tears in the reader. No surprise for the writer, no surprise for the reader."

Yes!! That is why I so enjoyed this because i could Identify with the writing !!!"Me" and it jump started my continuing exploration...Timeless indeed!!!

Billy,

And equally timeless, I would say, is this:

"The more one seeks 'the good' outside oneself as something to be acquired, the more one is faced with the necessity of discussing, studying, understanding, analyzing the nature of the good. The more, therefore, one becomes involved in abstractions and in the confusion of divergent opinions. The more the 'good' is objectively analyzed, the more it is treated as something to be attained by special virtuous techniques, the less real it becomes. As it becomes less real, it recedes further into the distance of abstraction, futurity, unattainability. The more, therefore, one concentrates on the means to be used to attain it. And as the end becomes more and more difficult, the means become more elaborate and complex, until finally the study of the means becomes so demanding that all one's effort must be concentrated on this, and the end is forgotten... a devotion to the systematic uselessness of practicing means which lead nowhere. This is, in fact, nothing but organized despair: 'the good' that is preached and exacted by the moralist thus finally becomes an evil, and all the more so since the hopeless pursuit of it distracts one from the real good which one already possesses and which one now despises or ignores."

From "The Way of Chuang Tzu" by Thomas Merton (d.1968), New Directions Books, Introduction p. 23.

When one is giving an opinion, we don't need to assume that opinion applies, or does not apply to each of us.

In my opinion, Love is a learned behavior that takes alot of practice to get better at with all of the traits Billy mentioned. We can learn how to love more but this being an imperfect world, our love will never be perfect. Such is the human condition.

Only God's Love is perfect!

We take love for granted. We assume we are all perfect lovers and all we need do is wait and our love will grow and blossom as readily as a flower in spring. Not so. Love doesn't grow unless we do. It takes patience, knowledge, experience, determination, and every positive trait we possess. In addition, love is always changing and unless we stay aware and change with it, it eludes us.

I in the place We Me!!!!
thankx Bob