There can be a duality of meanings, of course — of doing X “out of love” or “being” out of love. The two are opposites, or of conceptual antonyms. What does it mean to act “out of love” — in the first sense of the phrase? Does being compensated for doing something necessarily and immediately cancel any notion that one is doing it with the pure motive “out of love”?
Take the following hypothetical: A man foregoes a career and all advancement opportunities to take care of his sick uncle. He does this without complaining, always with tenderness and care. The neighbors are full of empathetic praise, saying things like, “Oh, what a wonderful and caring young man,” and “He is so devoted to him!”
Later, in the gossip columns of life’s entreaties, there is a footnoted notation that the young man inherited a large sum of money, and that the source from which the inheritance came had a contingency of requirements: In order for the young man to receive the money, he “had to” take care of his uncle and never complain about it. Do such revelations extinguish the previous praise showered?
And of the “other” conceptual bundle: How does one fall “out of love” — as if love is something we mistakenly fall into, to begin with, like a cavernous hole in the middle of our paths that we accidentally stumble into and, still later in the relationship, we similarly “fall out of” in the same manner? Do conceptual confusions as applied to individuals have any meaning when universalized?
For instance, can a greater society do things “out of love” for its citizenry, and retract them just as quickly because it has later fallen “out of love”? Politics aside, the wide pendulum of policymakers tinkering with an employee’s benefits can make a difference for the individuals impacted.
For Federal employees and U.S. Postal workers who suffer from a medical condition such that it becomes necessary to prepare, formulate and file an effective Federal Disability Retirement application through the U.S. Office of Personnel Management, whether “out of love” in the first sense, or from the perspective of the Federal Agency or the Postal Service who once thought of the Disability Retirement applicant as the paragon of the great worker but has now fallen “out of love” in the second sense — the necessity of filing for FERS Disability Retirement is a reality that must be faced.
We all have to contend with misapprehensions of motives and intentions; of gossip and people talking about the personal affairs of others whom they barely know. Supervisors, coworkers, and all of those who make judgments in an offhanded way — that is not what should be the primary concern of the Federal or Postal employee who files for Federal Disability Retirement benefits.
Instead, whatever the motivation — of a system which allows for an early medical retirement “out of love” or of a Federal Agency or Postal Service which has fallen “out of love” with an employee — the primary focus should be upon one’s own health, and to take care of one’s self “out of love”.
Sincerely,
Robert R. McGill, Esquire