I Thought I Knew The Answer
I was listening to The Beatles' Abbey Road medley. At the end, which is "The End," they have the famous line:
The love you take
Is equal to the love you make.
Some see this as beautiful summation of what The Beatles were all about, as well as an important message we should all heed.
But is it? At the very least, I'm not sure if the math works.
If this equation is true, it would mean if you don't send out any love, you don't get any back. Sort of nasty, but okay, I'll go along with that. But then, if you do send out love, you will get an equal amount back.
That sounds surprisingly precise. Couldn't a little be lost along the way?
But okay, it's exactly the same. So you send out x amount of love, and get x amount back. Let's just say there are two people stuck on an island, so you're getting back x from this one person. But wait a minute, doesn't the same rule apply to her as well? Except she didn't send out any love. She just sat there and got x amount of love for doing nothing. Sure, she can send back x, but that's up to her.
Or is this love you're taking based on your openness to it, and those who know how to make it also know how to take it? But that doesn't really help us. Say you're really open to receiving love, and you send some out to another person. But the other person is closed, and doesn't get any of this love. So she won't send any back. Or do you get some back anyway--what sort of weird deal is that? She got nothing, and gave nothing, but you still managed to get some back. I don't understand how that would work.
"Can't buy me love" I understand. I even get "the movement you need is on your shoulder." But this hippy-dippy math about making and taking love is just dumb. I'm glad they added "Her Majesty" to close things off.
posted by LAGuy @ 8:32 AM
3 Comments:
Many people would disagree with any "transactional" analysis of love. If we define love as self sacrifice for another it really gets confusing in a hurry if we start putting that on a scale. But if we go there it is clear there are some who take more, or give more than others - whatever we may be talking about. Edison (and team) gave more to technology than most others and we are all pretty much skating on that still. Of course he built that on the shoulders of others. And there are plenty who have taken of others' sacrifice than they have given.
If you assume that sending out love is invalid unless it's received, then the equation might balance. The island boy sends out X in love. If the island girl rejects it, he has not "made" any love, so everyone is at zero and the equation balances. If the island girl accepts the X, then (per the Beatles' axiom) she will subsequently send X back to him, and he will receive X. And in the end, both have sent and received X.
Perhaps the British government should create a special task force to send out love continually. Since it is a law of nature that they will receive back the same amount, no worldwide cataclysm (such as global thermonuclear war) can possibly occur until the love is returned. If the task force schedules things well, nuclear war could be rendered impossible.
Along the same lines, I have always objected to Zeppelin's song "Good Times, Bad Times." This doesn't cover all the possibilities. What about mediocre times?
"Take and make" are not necessarily "receive and send"
"Taking love" means what? Probably not for granted. But its not getting love, its an intentional active process. I take math class, a shower and another piece of pie. How do I take love?
Apparently by indulging in sexytimes
Post a Comment
<< Home