Thank you for bringing this up. I think about it and wonder. But I do not see this as the real question. It reminds me of a favorite Thoreau quote: “Do not be merely good. Be good for something.”

Is it enough for what? To what purpose is “just loving one another”? Love abides inside the giver, the lover, and is only for something when it is an action. Love someone.

I don’t mean this as a criticism. I am trying to understand as much as anyone, and I write to clarify.

I see that you question the potency of love, the value of it, then describe things that are not love, actions that are not the act of loving. How can I be good for something in that context?

I am only one. I listen to people when they speak to me, try to learn what they mean, who they are, when they talk about guns, motivations, rights, fears, hatreds. It’s hard. I am not much of a champion, but people know, I think, that I am loving them, and they also love me. It’s not political, there is no media. No one else knows. There is no one talking about it. This is the first time I have ever spoken/written about it.

Is it enough for me to love you, you to love me?

No. Not for those people who will die, nor the next or the next after that. Not for the political crisis, nor for gun control, nor second amendment rights, nor the horrific thoughts, images, lies and truths burned into our dreams.

Yes. For you and for me, and for each other person we love in turn and are loved by. It is not just enough, it seems to be the only thing that is enough. We turn aside our pride, humiliate ourselves before another one (yes, humiliate — humble ourselves absolutely), and love them. Allow them to love us. And again.

And again. Love abides. Loving abides.

Will love win? Who knows. It is the only thing that can, and it may not be enough, in the long run. I am sorry for that, sorry for all of us, that love may not be enough. It is still the best, the only thing that is always good for something.