This fascinating question arises from the experience of teaching in an elementary school. It would seem, first off, that love is a double-edged sword. It can provide great inspiration and take us to lofty heights, but, as Eliot put it, 'humankind cannot bear too much reality..'
Again, it seems that society at least
pays lip service to the idea that young children need large helpings of love... It also seems to be the case that in practice, this type of socially desired love diminishes in importance pari passu, as the person evolves into the adolescent and the grown human being. The investment banker neither brings, age 25, to his job love nor expects to receive it in the workplace.
Now stand the argument on its
head. For love replace peace. In such a Swiftian analogy, the older a person became, the more legitimate it would be to make war on him. I need not spell out how gory this would be. So there may be ethical constants such as love and peace which even now need a closer examination, and their desired deployment in society needs a better definition. Re love, it is at present left up to the individual. It is a kind of add on. If you can manage it, maybe good... But at your own risk. The key signature, the one with just two sharps, is indifference; or at best, a
kind of controlling calculated charm
dosed with a small glimmer of goodwill. My quest for countries more nearly expressing my ideal of love will continue. Meanwhile, Hungary has been an excellent learning curve.