Wednesday, January 30, 2013

The fire must come from your belly, else it must fall, or reconstruct.

In the last two posts(1 & 2), I've spoken about a contributive economy - one which is created by the dynamic of individuals contributing to it, as opposed to just filling spaces that are vacated and being cogs in the ever-growing cyclic machine of the world today. Being a contributor in this economy is rather difficult, despite the noise and jargon the majority of educational institutions in this country make their sales pitches on and the  horn that the majority of the corporate world blows every so often. A contributive economy is one that is constantly original, in the sense that it only starts at the individual's conviction with what he injects into it (and which  plays out collectively, with each one contributing with this principle always intact). He shouldn't necessarily be playing by the rules, unless:

1) The economy serves/has been serving the interests it exists to serve, better than with the method of the individual.
2) The economy has less downsides than when practiced with the method of the individual.

This cannot happen when the economy in question ends up functioning for its own sake i.e is not self-sustaining in achieving its intent which is why it has constantly added in-built supports that only require further support. The fire must come from the belly, else the economy must fall. We are scared that if it falls, all hell will break loose. That's because we've created a monster that actually owns us, and we let it, when we keep adding support to it in fear that it will. We are scared because we haven't really encountered the idea, for ourselves, of active contribution to an economy, or just the idea of what we primarily need in an economy before relevant luxury should even come in. We've been brought up by a flawed one that has never let us out of its sight and the luxury and necessity of which defines our versions of what luxury and necessity is.

This has one essential self-contradiction - it denies its roots. Today, it won't take a step forward unless it can see a hundred steps after that, as clear as sparkling blue water on an ocean. Unless we can predict those steps, we refuse to get out of the mould - and a half-economy filled mostly with greed and an incessant hunger for 'more' which is strangling itself. While we constantly loosen the strangle, we only have that many resources that can actually hold it up. We can only squeeze so much, even if we're squeezing ourselves. We'll be martyrs for nothing, and it will leave us high and dry. The value which we've created in our riches will be nothing compared for the value of staying happy and peaceful, if alive, and hoping to live a few days more with all of that in our pockets, bank accounts and assets absolutely devalued, if not meaningless, when such an economy falls flat to the ground.

The very roots of our economy were hopeless, but necessary. It is like planting a seed that we hope will grow. We had some understanding of how seeds grow, but we had to have hope that the whole thing will sustain, and fill a field, and many more fields creating a growing security, sustenance and growth potential for a growing need. The only reason for a brighter future is a bleaker present, and the cycle must replicate - only this time, we're on the other side. The bleaker present is now and the brighter future is in the seeds we plant. The only problem is that we may not have a perfect foreseeable idea about how it unfolds, which is why we stick to our 'safer' growth graphs but that's what it will take - more risk than the sum of corporate and sales jargon that we belt out can afford. Our marketing agendas won't be able to afford them and we're inherently inadmittedly desperate even if we console ourselves, insufficiently at best, with all that our trained 'expertise' can vomit. The drastic steps we take in our economies today sometimes reminds us of this but we keep those steps to just when things are going to tip over - and then we're back again at making sure the machine runs when the band-aid works for as long as it does. 

What's more depressing is that we have lost confidence in our natural ability to cooperate with each other and make one, without worrying about any particularly academic understanding of what it should be, one that easily flies over our most of our heads. Have we forgotten to be human or have we been ingrained with the idea that a perfect economy cannot be anywhere close? The world almost thrived with a whole bunch of micro-economies before we made a mess of uniting it. Of course, it had its shortcomings, but as if we didn't have any. At least, they didn't cover them up. They rose from contemporary culture and the values of the time and were natural to the age. More importantly, it moved forward and made up for shortcomings in doing so. Society worked before we meddled with it, before we were obsessed with the smaller more important things and built them up into bigger, successful and self-sustaining things. The fire in the belly was from us, and not just from us. We breathed life into it. Now it sucks life out of us. The only thing dynamic about it is its defense.

As opposed this destructive-soon-to-blow-up chaos, a contributive economy keeps the fire coming from the from our own belly. It has a natural means of taking care of the needs of the ones it caters to and is sensitive too - that means its values are straight as well. It responds to need, and can be dismantled when needed and reconstructed to serve purpose. We wouldn't be servicing it. It would be servicing us. You don't build a monster unless, of course, the fire in the belly is coming from the monster itself.

It allows society to respond, individually and then collectively, to problems all round - in this case of demand and supply and every other issue remotely associated with it, most importantly, keeping the values that dictate the interfaces it has with us as solid as rock. If we don't watch our step, we might just become soulless and never ever know it. The best part of this will be that, with this freedom, we can look for open doors to the the unnecessary luxuries that actually take us to more holistic, higher and better versions of ourselves. We'll be well pleased with what we see in the mirror every time we look at it, instead of counting brownie points that we scored that we can claim at another corporate bum shed for nothing that will make us proud of ourselves when we look at that mirror, except for 'more' of that.

We will be contributing to, vibing with and co-creating a world that has way more peace-when-you-hit-the-bed-at-night potential because of the things you did during the day with our lives. We will also be less hungry because we recognise the benefit of this camaraderie as opposed to abject competitiveness that drives us now. It's almost the same as competitiveness except the spirit won't be cut-throat. It will be uplifting and ecnouraging with equal gusto.

When we are stuck with the many problems, which we now react to and simply endorse and defend the mess that is now, we will actually take the innovative, creative steps to advance over them casting the next most logical, reasonable and hopeless seed into the future in line with the best that we can make of the world and really hope to let the potential in us shine. We could also end up just breaking them down and reconstructing them. We won't be dictated by the comfort of a plan that stops letting out the power of our true collective potential over constantly providing life support to an ailing system. One that is self-serving and not humanity serving.

The thing about injecting our ideas and potential into it is that we can make real the potential in us that we dream about instead of cowering in a system that doesn't entertain anything but servanthood to it. We can imagine and explore what we don't know we have yet, each of us individually, together, and reach higher ground that fullly represents our potential and further humanity instead of simply serving an economy. As long we take care of ourselves, along with living our dreams, the economy will take care of itself. It's the means, not the end. In such a natural process, we will not ignore our needs. We needn't fuss over an economy, if we embody it and become it. When we are responsive, and effective, we become original, and more importantly, us. We don't need to tow the line if we don't see the reflection in the mirror. We'll combine our needs and our progress into one sweet ball of dynamism that moves, grows and progresses with us as we move along the same journey - a true living tribute to the power of human potential, not a static goalpost that myopically instills fear in us in the event that it may fall. With all our advancement, we should have known by now that a fear is best destroyed, than entertained - for generations together, at that.           

If there is no bleak present, and we're actually all happy and gay, we actually wouldn't need to do that and all. We will realise that we achieve a bright present, if we don't try - to restrict and box, but just let be and grow according to natural need and not have external greed that doesn't fit in the picture. 'Economy' would just be a word  then, not a phenomenon.

 It won't be survival of the fittest. It will be let's all make it to the end together

Saturday, January 26, 2013

It's not less, easy and simpler, dufus. It's more, a little more difficult and a tad more complicated if you want to set the world right.

Taking from the last post...

In this up and coming, upwardly mobile, modern, 21st century world, 'more' is the keyword. I needn't reiterate. What that has translated into is easy, simple, less... basically more for us. Any way that we can walk in, squeeze something of its worth, claim dream/goal victory and move to the next thing. It's like a drug. You can never be satisfied. When you can only see so much juice potential in something, and it clearly doesn't meet the present self-upgraded definition of 'more', you squeeze something else - and leave the juice in that ilk to rot because it has lost its value. Even a waste disposal system for all of that is of no use to you. Why concern yourself with it?

There's just one problem  - there is only so much you can squeeze. If that doesn't service your snort pipe 'more' enough, you're gonna be stuck, and the bad news is that you are going to be stuck. Positive thinking makes you think you can make your own world. Dream it and create it and that's the whole purpose of life and do it again and again. That's because the world has sold you dreams. But, dude, you only have that much clay to play with, only so much more wet mud to make clay with and so much more mud only to make wet mud to make clay to play with. There's that scene in The Lorax when the greedy Once-ler watches the last tree fall and then almost instantly (instantly, I'm sure, if just time and space contracted and allowed people to make their choices in quicker time frames with their already contracted small minds) everything also falls apart, just like that. Be thankful that the last tree hasn't fallen and you're not regretting those decisions while reading this blog post. Also be alert and keep a ear out to see that if it falls while you're reading it, just incase.

Instead of check mating yourself in pre-more-dangerously-innocent-than-you'll-ever-know pride, check mate yourself now. You only are as free as your resources. Wait, no. We are as free as our resources. We, not just the 'us' you can count on your fingers or in your head as you read this sentence. We, the human race. Every single, living, breathing, thinking, intelligent, college-educated cell-form that will be existent on the Planet, when that last tree falls, lest it should. This tree I'm talking about is both metaphorical and literal. I mean what I mean, by this blog post, environmentally and every other resource-wise.

We have proved one thing by our response to the world around us. We have a very short attention span, of course, along with tonnes of pride in our heads. The pride probably factors in more than we know. We cannot healthily boast of less, unless we mean so only terms in eventually used consumption (in the case of natural (and natural-based) resources. We cannot healthily mean easy and simple, unless only in terms of the non-commodification (non-cogification perhaps?) in terms of how we make use of the vast sea of all human resources (the people with the potential in them intact and used).

Any basic economics principle can be used to deduce that if you systematically squeeze the resource, the resource will go dry and, perhaps even cease to exist - or become a couch potato. It's sheer wonder how some people are used while being sold the idea of eventual couchpotatohood. We sometimes exalt in that, even the ones being used in this evil plan by their full consent, and claim success by it as if it is some sort of achievement. A lot of them will have a relative-to-the-recentish-past humungous bank balance to show, which has either bought them over or silenced them. As in all cases, in exceptions, there are ways to get that cash, incidentally or through means that I am not against as well. I address what I believe those means to be in the previous post, as linked.

When did selling yourself become a good thing? Do you externally define your value, or do you internally define them? Does it add up to a distinct, maybe seemingly selfish, individual contribution to the world that you know runs in your blood? One that mirrors a missing reflection when you see the world? If you do, it's not selling, but it could be self-entertaining. It can be either a celebration of sorts or an act of service of sorts - either this or that. Are you celebrating a privilege that few only have? You'll know if the celebration is with everybody, and everybody does not include the group you're cool with and you hang with. Check in circles way outside yours. It could very probable that your bubble's thick and sound proof. If the voices you hear outside are the voices you hear inside, you're relevantly safe. If you don't understand a bit of the voices outside, you need to remove your shell and level up. To have the things we want, like, fancy or simply demand is a privilege barely many people have on this planet. Even the small little things starting at the availability of electricity at your nearest plug point whenever you want it, or that yummy, tasty, maybe expensive snack that you open your fridge to find inside everyday. Just because it's available, that doesn't mean you should have it. Just because it's there to take and fits your desire, it doesn't have to be yours to take - finders keepers, losers weepers.That's only a privilege you will have if you are privileged enough to have the space to think like that. More people (than not) have the time of their life just finding enough to live by each day.

Sometimes the privileges we celebrate are so inbuilt we don't really consider them so until we see that the other half the world doesn't have them. Even if we can't give away some, being defined by them is a more worse state to live in. It's like living in a virtual dreamland. Irrelevancy like that should be criminal. Check its relevance to the world at larger levels, proportional to the size of the effort and the resources you plough into it. Can they be used to level out your world with the rest? Then, when you actually have that celebration and the roof comes down, it won't be so awkward from the outside of the party because there won't be any one languishing there.

Some further points to note. Each action done in the world had a consequent effect, and an effect that took place when a resource you have now became yours. No resource you use is yours, ever! It was always somebody else's before it came to you, and it should have been bought/got free, fair and humane on all possible counts as much as possible. Was there deprivation of any sort, even in the context of the accepted economic systems through which it came to you? Is it benefiting the many or the few? Is it riding on the principle of its affordability among the fewer who actually can pay? Or maybe the question is, more, who can actually access it in the first place, forget about affording it?

If that's the case, do you trump an elitist achievement conveniently to people who are taught that that's what makes dreams worth dreaming and a better reality than their other options, which is effectively based on stealing/half-stealing something that's not theirs? You'd go to that extent to endorse the survival of the fittest method? And, by the way, what exactly behind what was achieved is your genius? The conniving result of the exercise, or those really awesome marketing, consumer behavior or/and economics classes you took which, in conjunction with your genius, created a world where supply meets demands in a cycle that is just and fair? I know the world is complicated and it's near to impossible to achieve that - but you could be that guy who you are stamping on, while he is trumping the idea you are right now because of your decision not to look in to these things and go ahead with what the world sells you. Any dialogue on this topic is a better start to a free and fair acquisition system than just signing it off as well-camouflaged really sad economics.

We humans have certain few traits which me probably will never recognise, regardless of the amount of education, reasoning and free-thinking we may think we have/do. One of those is the one that seeks self-pleasure, and it overrides most other processes that have a say in decision making. We are in either side of it.  - like falling prey to ourselves - except that we will probably kill ourselves in the process. A very weird state of failed self-realisation. We fall prey to it when we, in the context of this post, market it as products and when we, as consumers, fall for it like some people fall for chocolate like we've never eaten it before - every single time. It manifests as the need to upgrade, grow, for better... when this translates as 'more', merely being augmentative, not a process that fills a real need anywhere at all - for you or for anybody else.

Here's a pointer as to how you can differentiate the two to start with. It's not necessarily perfect, but it starts you down the road to there at least. When you're doing or are engaged in something that you are unaware of, you have no time to check on what your soul's feeding on, or you have just enough time to make sure you get your dose. And the reason you're unaware of it is because it is necessary to you - either to your existence , or to your growth and development. The kind of things you would do anyway, either if you were left no choice (things you would do existentially) and if you were left all the choice (but only for wholesome, holistic indulgence, existential or not, in something that truly completes you and calls you). It's possible irrelevancy is something that you should cross-check even then. Sometimes, even the most basic things that will pass by this method will be irrelevant because the world is that cruel.

We can use precious resources, which the world has, for entertainment we demand for, when we have given the rest of the world what we have already, first - and we can all party together. Till then, the party will be out of place and just plain weird. Instead contribute to your world in a manner that does not merely serve profit margins and your self-interests. Any true sustained hope the world needs is not going to be corporate savvy because it is not going to be interest worthy because it is not going to give any returns. It will be hopeless given the circumstamces the world is in. It must be hopeless and the only other option we are left with is the possibility of it being hopeful and the corporate bums won't budge otherwise. CSR just tips their moral balance right so that they can sleep well at night. It doesn't do more.

So, it's not less, easy, simpler and extremely hopeful, dufus. It's more, a little more difficult, a tad more complicated and tonnes of hopelessness we need to be hopeful about instead as the only hope that will set things right. Make your alternative steps, at least individually, towards that ideal. At least let's dialogue about this, honestly. The world is not going to turn on its side while we rape its resources, hoping that it will.      

Saturday, January 19, 2013

Darwin is right, because of you.

Man's an animal. We've gone the old academia route to actually establish and tell our children that, way when they are in school. Before they can make a full and complete choice how, and what, they want to make of themselves in life. As this post will prove, even before they can see the potential of humanity otherwise. We layer on that teaching of good moral values and teaching that we must be human - because after all that's what we are.

The truth is that, whether man is a animal or not, man has become one. One with a tie, suit and a business plan. One with a developed knowledge and intelligence that masks his animalistic instincts and gives them a shine before turning them into accolades that generations that follow must aim for. One that has made himself into a self-industrious robot to do more, more and more... more, more and more... more, more and more... and more like that... always and ever more - else life is meaningless.

We have become that which our natural fate is, despite being given the intelligence to identify it. That indeed makes us no less than animals. Animals follow that religious cycle, generation after generation after generation. You don't tell a lion to think of the suffering he inflicts on the next organism in the food chain. He just eats it and everyone down the line plays their subsequent role in the chain. The lion has no clue what he's doing, but he's driven by hunger and gets what he wants when he's hungry (and I'm sure even angry) even if he has to do it himself. He's an animal. That's what animals do. They simply do what they do. They're not plagued by a morality. So they don't make choices on moral bases. They're wired. They are nature's version of robots.

That's what we've made ourselves into. Robots. We also just do what we do because that's what we do. Only thing: with that little layer of morality around us, we divide out animalistic tendencies into a few negative and a thousand fold more positives. The negative ones keep us from a complete moral collapse - more psychological than anything else. They make us feel good. The positive divisions are where the animal in us kicks in, creeps in and infests silently.

Darwin's idea seems to make more sense to us than the natural world it seems, with consequences it poses and costs it incurs - except that we call those 'unavoidable' costs. Some, we have become hardened to over time as well. We, in our unconscious animalistic response, endorse the survival of the fittest theory, mostly unconsciously. We endorse it with ways that seem way more noble than they actually are. We've been washed over by the greed that capitalist and corporate principles have bought us over with. Who paid the tab? Our ego, selfishness and pride, and they're squeezing every bit of the price out of our souls, again, without us knowing.

We're like that metaphorical horse with the carrot hanging in front of it. The dream is achievement. In case you're wondering what achievement - any achievement. Anything that's pretty and backward proves your industriousness. Anything that's more than the last, better than the other guy (or the the guy you expect to beat you), fancier than you've ever seen yet... we're basically entertaining ourselves through and through. Only a well-to-do generation can afford that, like a more or less well to do urban yuppy rich kid who hits the mall and goes shopping every now and then because his pop made that kinda money making the career on the exact principles I'm describing. He (and we) barely need half of it, even if there weren't people who die in most other parts of the world who don't even have food to eat. Even if that wasn't true, we'd still have better non-(self)entertaining ways to use our resources as a generation of individuals who uplift the human in us (because that's what we are - humans) and serve needs and facilitate holistic growth of individuals, who are capable of much more than just toeing the line of that evil seed which is planted in us - not just mere augmentative growth.           
Our marketing strategies are only reflective of how we so easily recluse into that animal zone, with everyone else as well. When hungry, eat. When desire, get. Dream and achieve regardless of what principlic precedents you set for the world. Live like the world's yours to conquer while it's all yours to take - and the rat race helps build competition. It may make you bleed but it strengthens you to be stronger to do and achieve more and more and more.

Will we stop this mad cyclic rat race? Till when will we still 'follow our passion' because of switches that have been turned on in our heads? Till when will our minds be made of switches that people can switch on once they key in on our animalistic weakness with their animalistic connivery and support their actions with perfectly noble excuses? We gleefully run to the next thing that can buy us over, like criticizing a movie before it is even made because the director didn't choose to have your favourite stars in it. While he wanted to introduce you to a whole new world, you wanted him to entertain you.

The tragedy of the world, as a result of this, is that we live in a fulfilling economy, not a contributive one. It's advancements only provide replacements, or upgrades, that is while they are trying to fix its inherent flawed state and natural liabilities. It's not one which is, or that is allowed to be, representative of each of our potential. One particular statistic is the mismatch between the particular academic expertise and career choosing - most of us go for the moolah, which is there mostly in the service industry. It is only natural that an already existent/hidden client base funds an industry - but that just spins the same old circle faster and it's one of the most important cogs in the nation's moneymaking machine. A lot of these people are of potential that is more than just  the various levels of service jobs they do. Some are hidden artists, writers, creative people whose expertise can span so many levels of human requirement, entrepreneurs with brilliant ideas and so many other kinds of people... but they all simply, for a career, service the billions who give the moolah because the moolah is what we want right? Of course, it has its tags - prestige, respect, status, 'getting somewhere in life'. What is irking is that their mode of servicing the billions is not through breakthrough ideas that come from the breakthrough human potential but through glorified basic sales reasoning, masks over the consumer's face and conniving enticement to their minds to put money in the banks of the few who run the world and pay the bills.    

If one did notice, capitalism and the theory I purport have much in common - except they end up at opposite ends. One purports extreme individualism. Every man has the right to become what he wished and must be given the equal means to. He's the saviour of the world who actually provides the jobs - him and other folk like him. The system's all based on merit and trods on more people than it can ever amount to benefiting. The other is also individualistic in nature but it puts the hope of the world being all that it can be on each individual - their potential, insight, courage and confidence in their individual potential, held together against what it can holistically do to the world and how it can progress both the individual and man on principles that are human and not animalistic. Those that set precedents that allow us to reach the pinnacle of our human capability and score for the world in contributing to it while we build ourselves simultaneously - and not go right back to our animals ways, however glorified the day and age has made them.         

So, Darwin is right, because of you. You choose where to side, and only you can.

Click here for Part 2   

Tuesday, January 8, 2013

The L Word

I'll start with this. Read that first. What kicked me about it is this bit -

"We’re tal­king away, when sud­denly I inte­rrup­ted her quite suddenly.
“Hmmmm…” I say, “You’re kinda cool… I’m kinda cool…”
A slight pause.
“We should kiss!” I exc­laim, rather jokingly.
Cindi looks at me for a moment, says nothing, then sud­denly leans over and plants a big one on the ol’ lips. Hurrah!"

Now I think you have sufficient reason to read it.

Secondly, I was watching Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire and will soon continue onwards from where Harry and Ron are stuck with finding someone to go with to the Yule Ball. After being clueless about what to do, just when they sorta get their act together, the turn of events is unexpected. Harry runs in to Cho (who's been eyeing him a while) for the second time and she turns hims down because she was going with someone else, before extremely apologetic about it. This is after Harry and Ron take pains at figuring out how the heck to actually get a date for the evening, watching others do it way more graciously. Ron has a worse experience with Fleur Delacour. What hit me (while I accept that it's just a movie and representation of society's ways way particularly over in England) is the irrational social stigma that dogged everyone who hadn't got a date yet.

Now to the point. Love. As expected (with our miniscule minds), we have converted love, with all that it means, into a silly little word that we throw around like fishing hooks as a consequence of many things that we don't really understand about ourselves. What is wonderful, layered, fun, fulfilling and which has many more noble qualities has been turned into a badly abused meme that is confused and linked disproportionately with dating, romance and being "with" and "without" among the lot. We use it as an excuse for our insecurities, lack of identity and rather classy sexual animalism - like animals when they just do what they do because that's what they do. Like we just gotta have it.

The problem is that, while we barely understand it ourselves, and why we need it as bad in the first place, we have adopted very self-conflicting paradigms, or multiple paradigms to live with it in order to justify the conflicting nature of our beliefs about it. We are commitment freaks. One of the paradigms we follow is to commit, but commit first. Before we know what we're getting into. Before we discover ourselves in the light of each other. Before we know what the heck we are committing to. As long as we're committed, with no clause as to what should happen in case of that commitment being broken. It's a recipe for heart break. A date is no more just a date. It's a code word for the above, more so in case it all goes wrong. You don't go from dating someone to gradually being in a relationship. You get locked in immediately, into a relationship, and have to squeeze your way out at any point hence, like it is an obligation to stay in once you're in. You've default signed a contract,
of course absolutely without your knowledge, the consequence of which is only death by separation. Then when there is no space but squeezing out space, you blame "love". There are exceptions of course. Some people adopt sensible paradigms of response to the constrictions that life presents and don't choose to dig a pit they can fall in. Without them, love would really be buried six feet under. There would be no proof of happy romance at all.

Given that we barely have a clue about what we're getting into, why would we want to pre-seal the deal before we know what's going to unfold? If we like the danger, why do we then complain of heart break - a natural consequence of a bad choice of risk? Bad sportsmanship?
We're always "with" someone, as we speak. I wonder what happens when we're "without" them. Do we become half of what we were, and therefore incomplete? And now onto find a better half so we can feel complete ASAP? If no man is an island, we are all islands together, but a bunch of individual islands before we met. If we needed completion before we met another, we have some home issues to solve, or together we are just an awesome doublesome which, in any case, makes it more awesome. No security or identity issues there.

Instead of playing out our romantic dreams and aspirations and bringing them to life in these ways, as fast and desperately as possible, I suggest, in the midst of all this hidden confusion, to unname love and take out all these forms of expression - walls and barriers. We should let it be what it is and express it as it comes. The moment we give it a form, and box it in, it probably won't spread its wings to fly and take you along with it. Instead of being deterministic, we should be explorative. When in a box, we can get protectionist about it. It can be something we run and hide to, not in a warm, fuzzy manner. When out without walls, it will be something we run to like it's a green open field for miles and miles surrounded by beautiful waterfalls, hills, caves and the sea and its hush waves.

When we give it a name, it's a place we aspire to reach, sit pretty and get old after we get there. When nameless, we won't really know whether we're there yet to even think of that, let alone the possibility. When it's the word we've had it become, we trust those magical three words to capture our heart's desire. When it's not, it's so much more fun, and effort we look forward to to go along with. The poetry will start to flow and love will become just the word it can reasonably hold the meaning of. We will start to describe love in terms of what it makes actually do when we're actually in love like when free men are - bound men cannot know the feeling. Jump down a waterfall. Fly to the moon and actually bring it down. Go on an everlasting hitchhike. We will use roo (like Van Morrison), belong, keep... or even go with Hugh McLeod with his "
You’re kinda cool… I’m kinda cool…"  

Anything but 'love'. Bleh!