Marrianna does the Cryptoquote on the puzzle page of the Raleigh News & Observer every day. Once in a while, it's especially interesting for some reason, and she tells me the solution. I listen, but seldom think about it anymore, or again. Today's was different. I recorded it on my digital recorder, and have listened to it again, and now I'm writing about it.
It's a nice thought, and certainly sounds deep and meaningful. But, is it true? I like its premise, and think it deserves thought. First thought, does the source really mean that we do not have civilization now? If not, what do we have?
If one reads the newspapers, listens to radio and television news, and follows several internet news sources, obviously we have changed our life styles an inconceivable amount from, let's just go back to the beginning of the last millennium. Doesn't that indicate that we are a civilized species? But, from any other, perhaps more sane viewpoint, the atrocities, wars, starving, diseased people, and destruction of the environment certainly do not indicate, at least to me, that we are civilized.
Then, if the entire world is not civilized, can't we at least say that some of us are civilized? No, probably not, for we, all of us, allow and participate in that list of uncivilized behavior.
Next, can we agree that love of power is the block keeping us from becoming civilized? It seems to me that it is absolutely true that the love of power corrupts, spreading its tentacles into every part of our cultures, choking relief as much as kudzu chokes fields and forest. At the base of almost any ill that besets us lurks the love of power. Name a crime, a war, an atrocity, and surely among its base will be found the love of power.
I do not mean to say that the love of power is the sole source of all these. Clearly it isn't. But, power, in all its forms, money, armies, armaments, crime, and even many social ills, prostitution and pornography come to mind, is surely entangled deeply into their roots.
If that is true, can we say the the power of love should replace it? It's a real shame that I cannot say that it is. For too many, the word love is synonym for some form of religion, and organized religion another form of separation, exclusion and misuse of power.
Previously, I defined love as: "... willing to do something to enable another person to grow in body, in mind, in his emotional self, and his spiritual self, I can be said to love that person." I still believe that is a very good definition of love.
I feel certain that if I could coin another word for love, using that definition, much confusion would be cleared. Love is used in so many forms today that it loses its strength and meaning. I thought of using 'agape', but that doesn't carry an exact meaning; nor does eros, or philia. I cannot, so I suppose i will simply use the cryptoquote, and wish that my definition of love will replace all other definitions in other's minds.
It doesn't fall off the tongue easily enough to ever be used as an anonymous source for a cryptograph. But it means more to me, and that's enough.
-s
s