“LOVE IS BLIND, and lovers cannot see.” At times, we hear that old expression said, or re-said. And
SOME TAKE IT lightly, eliciting e.g. “So, you’re blind?” or, “who’s the one blinding you?”, et cetera.
SOME JUST LET it pass by their Hearing – but perhaps murmuring by themselves e.g. “I wonder why he’s saying that. Is he experiencing it right now?” Or, “there it is again; but, how really true, or untrue, is that?” And so on, or other examples.
BUT AS YOU may agree, dear reader, the word or term Love – so overused as it is, may come to the fore – in different situations or applications; ‘Contexts’ – they call it?
OUR EXAMPLES CITED above are in the ‘context’ of the term Love that one feels for another individual of the other gender. Perhaps less mentioned though never really uncommon are other types of love; for instance: love of country, love for fellowmen, love of profession, even sometimes love for things immutable or otherwise. But now,
THE MOMENT THAT ‘Blindness (– as applied to the context of love between individuals of different genders, Supra) is added to these latter contexts, you’ll bet: a lot of listeners – or readers shall depart or digress from the over-said “Love is blind”, light or jesting applications.
THEY’LL NOT SAY – nor hear for instance a [distant?] comment of: “Oh, her love and blindness to her profession is obvious.” Or, “he is somewhat blinded by his love for his fellowmen”; and other unlikely contextualizations. But for today’s Discussion, let’s try three areas of contexts, and see how these can jibe with the use of ‘blindness’ like primordially given to the ‘blind’ situations of two individuals. But the reference of a he – or she who is ‘blind’,
IS HE DEEPLY blind – clinically, that is; or is he/she simply ‘blinded’? Let’s now venture into day-by-day applications, to wit: blinded by his/her ever-yet special someone; blinded by power or rule; and blinded by his own self. Now, the first:
‘BLINDED’ BY HIS/her Ever-yet-special-someone (Eyss). He, or she, is not blind at all: he could see, he has been witness, he knows all, etc., about his Eyss; but
HE IS UNFAZED; he is not to give up his treasured Eyss – in spite of overwhelming and strong objections from his closest friends and relatives that he and his Eyss will not make good lifetime partners – ‘given’ the present and past ‘indications’. But
‘BLINDED’ AS HE is, he is unmoved by anyone – or anything. In fact, he and Eyss have just given public notice of their upcoming Wedding Day. Next, the second:
‘BLINDED’ BY POWER/Rule. Perhaps inwardly or originally, they’re not that ‘blind’ or ‘blinded’ – their past, younger, or former records speak for this. But, what happened? This is what: upon assumption to Office, they slowly abandoned their former Stances e.g. from following to now: commanding; from co-participating to now: ordering; and so on. Have they been so ‘blinded’ by influence, orientation, system observation, etc., that they’re now unlike themselves before their oathtaking? Finally, the third:
‘BLINDED’ BY HIS own self. He is the proverbial ‘over-confident one’: he believes he’ll defeat most of his opponents; that he’ll succeed in his plans; and note: he has Past ‘evidences’ for these; historical and statistical – in Highschool, in College, in his initial Employments.
UNLESS PERCHANCE, HE’LL experience ‘failures’ in Future time – and even if he does, if these will be ‘minor’ ones, he’ll remain as he is: ‘Blinded’ by himself, simply. These cited, it’s time to ask ourselves:
YES, WE’RE NOT blind per se, but how far do we go, act, or think ‘blinded’? Ayuhh!
