circumstances and free will

I was going to write about how habits can change so easily -- I'm talking about how I have somehow adapted to not having a computer at home this past 3 weeks, and how I'm trying to minimize my use of the computer when I'm home these days. I find that I actually have more time to do things if I didn't try to multitask, like surf while reading. Then I distracted myself for a bit reading the New York Times, and came across this little line about love. "Love is always a combination of need, desire, compatibility and convenience that converge at any given moment." (Dust to Dust: An Affair Post 9/11, Aug 27, 2006, Nikki Stern) I think it's one of the best definitions of love I've ever seen. If you take away the part about compatibility, we could be talking about habits.

It might be a futile exercise, trying to break down my habits and past loves and try to understand them as parts of their more elemental components (I'm not sure if those 4 headings fully capture the most basic elements). But it's important to recognize that there is a part of the equation that takes into account convenience. Yes, I think that is what struck me. The admission that love, great as it is, is also circumstantial. To me, that means that love isn't really as great as it is.

It's what I've always been afraid of -- what if I had a say in picking my parents? Would I choose the same people? Do I truly love my family, or is it all circumstantial? And exactly what is so bad about a love being made up of, at least in part, by circumstances? I hate the idea that free will isn't enough. I can't explain why it is important that choices were made, and not thrust upon us. I like to think that we are free and responsible people. That we are not certainly troubles me. Because we are human, not animals, to paraphrase Dune.

I admire it when a person is able to walk away from temptation. It is then that circumstances don't matter. He can then say that he's above it, that he is one step closer to God.