Reciprocation between the self and the unself

  • Thread starter elwestrand
  • Start date
  • Tags
    Self
In summary: Eating is a means to an end, it is not the end itself. Eating is not an act of love, it is an act of sustenance. It is not a way to love another, it is a way to survive. Eating is a way to connect with the physical world and feel pleasure. Love is not limited to any given circumstance or action.
  • #1
elwestrand
86
0
It is the reciprocation between the self and the unself. The self is the individual sense of being a complete individual even in the absence of everything else perceived. The unself is the reservoir of beingness from which the self origionates- it is like the sunlight from which plants grow- yet the two are just two aspects of the same. The relationship between them is always love, it cannot be anything else. The self, who cannot exist without the unself, contains unself as a glass holds water, has as a property of its unique form the ability to "love" according to its uniqueness. You do not love, you are love's insturment. Love is unself (beauty)
perceived and Beauty is that love embodied within all form.

The reason why we do not love everything is because our unique self acts as a filter. It blocks some of the unself radience. metaphysically, although we contain unself, as the glass contains water, we are not transparet against all of it. Thus, we radiate a portion of unself according to who we are and we also perceive it radiating from others accoring to who we are. Plato theorized that we perceive beautry that reminds us of, or resembles "pure form." And he theorized that the place from where our knowledge of pure form comes from is from before our birth. And to believe any of this you must believe that existence transcends birth and death. Plato was right. Love is beauty perceived and beauty is love that is our existence.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #2
The first and last and no less superficial thought is: No wonder our partners are called the better halves. Maybe more latter, love is a profound subject.
 
  • #3
This is shocking, none of us have anything to say at all about the most celebrated notion and arguably the greatest driving force of all times? It does say something about the members.

Anyway I do not have anything to add that has not been generally said, except perhaps the agreement that LOVE IS A MANY-SPLANDID THING and it is the closest experience of heaven you can get on earth. And if you ever have a chance, fall in love, but not without first procuring a copy of Men are from Mars and Women are from Venus - it is a life saver.
 
  • #4
Love is a survival trait. Without feeling a sense of oneness with what ever we are doing or interested in we wouldn't really do it. Eating is a sense of oneness which keeps us alive and the food we eat becomes a part of our body. What we love to do keeps us going. Also hate has an equal part of our survival. We hate pain so we try our best to aviod it. But it's when they collide that people usually get mixxed up. It is the stronger emotion that will win.

For example: a bulimic person who throws up, they do not like the pain of starving and the pain which the acids do to your troat. But they like the feeling of being thin which makes them more acceptable then being fat. They hate the feeling of rejection from certian sports, or someone they try to impress. Or even from family or friends. So The feelings which have the most emotions of hate or love will win over. Maybe they almost die from it then they decide to quit and recover. But the emotion of living on and fear of death will exceed the feeling of trying to impress and be fat in their eyes.
 
  • #5
Hi Polly. I have come to learn that the overwhelming majority of posters here are reductionists--- they don't "believe" in love aside from a biochemical or evolutionist perspective. Moreover, they have no grasp of love aside from a sexual or romantic relationship. They have no grasp of love outside of any give-or-take circumstance. This is very sad because love is not limited in this way at all. They do not grasp that there can be any basis for the mind beyond the level of the substrates of the brain. This is their postulate, their axiom. I have encoutered many reductionist philosophers in my high iq experience. The members of this forum do not accomidate a transcendentalist like me-- They are not formidable or worthy as they are incapable of debunking transcendental tenets from transcendental postulates. They are not equipped to conceive of any postulates ouside of their own.

Hi Thanos. I do not think anyone "loves" eating. If they claim as such, they have not experienced love really. Note that in my exposition, love is the intrinsic relationship between two souls. At the current moment, people seldom love in an absolute sense due to their consciousness acting as filters to their soul. The purpose of life is to make consciousness transparent to the soul and expereince love completely. This is the process of self-discovery. This is why we inhabit a physical body. This is why we exist. This is why everyone wants to reproduce and continue the species but doesn't know why. The why is so that we will have an opportunity to incarnate amoung our progeny to complete our process of self-discovery. Um, a complete philosophy.


There is one more thing to say of cousre, it is very precious knowledge. As a leaf gathers sunlight for all parts of the tree, all emotions are variegated forms of the same longiong. The longing in its purest, most complete form is love. Even fear or hate are incomplete forms of love. I think you will see that this is true. Even the emotions which cause people to deny the existence of love, are made possible by love. That is beauty.
 
Last edited:
  • #6
You may not love "eating" but if you love "life" then eating is a part of that "realationship". Like if one loves their "mate" and if they are asked to do an important run which meant a lot to your loved one. You may not love doing that "run" but it is a part of the relationship. Otherwise what would happen if you said "NO" and didn't do the important run for you loved one? In other words what happens if you said no to eating for you life?
 
Last edited:
  • #7
I think--- the only reason we "love" life is because it makes any other love or feeling expierience possible.
 
  • #8
Originally posted by elwestrand
Hi Polly. I have come to learn that the overwhelming majority of posters here are reductionists--- they don't "believe" in love aside from a biochemical or evolutionist perspective. Moreover, they have no grasp of love aside from a sexual or romantic relationship. They have no grasp of love outside of any give-or-take circumstance.
Actually, I didn't reply because I thought your hypothesis of what love is was not only silly and, if I am understanding what you are saying, unfounded at best, but it doesn't really say anything worthwhile.

Flowers love sunlight?
We can not exist without love?
You do not love, you are love's instrument?

I think it is all far too typical absurd pseudo-Eastern new agey rhetoric that is meant to sound profound and open to make people feel nice and squishy but actually says nothing at all of substance.

I also think that your hypothesis is what is limiting to love, not the one's you accuse of doing just that.
If the flower and sunlight are two aspects of this etheral love relationship (in effect the flower loves the sunlight) then you are saying teh humans love food, water, oxygen and everything else that any individual deems a necessary component of their personal survival. Doing this does a true disservice to romantic love and the passion that it ignites and the flames it stokes, by reducing it even further than momentary lust and even simple desire to gross survival. If you love any inanimate object that serves as nothing more than sustenance fuel for your body, then it is you, not them, that has no concept of what love is, in my opinion.
 
  • #9
you can't deny the feeling. But even if you look up love in the dictionary it also means a sense of oneness. Now you may not have a "romantic" or "passionate" feeling of love for things that keep you alive. Love can mean many things for there are differnt types of love. You can love a child and protect them from as much harm as you can. You can love a hobbie or a collection which makes you feel better about your life. See most love towards life is unconditional which means that no matter how bad it gets you will try to keep going. Which is almost the same kind of love a good parent gives towards their child. But i say love is a survial triat because without it we wouldn't be alive. And giving life is also a part of keeping a part of yourself alive.
 
  • #10
You have confused me with someone else. I did not say that a flaower loves sunlight. I said that the relationship between unself and self is LIKE the relationship between a plant and sunlight. It is just a metaphor. I do not believe that it is possible to love an inanimate object or an idea. That is why I said one cannot "love" food. Of course, you are welcome to think that my "absurd pseudo-Eastern new agey rhetoric" is silly. :) Are you assuming that I don't enjoy being silly? And what is "of substance?" That is a very subjective thing.
 
  • #11
"love can mean many things for there are differnt types of love. You can love a child and protect them from as much harm as you can. You can love a hobbie or a collection which makes you feel better about your life. See most love towards life is unconditional which means that no matter how bad it gets you will try to keep going. Which is almost the same kind of love a good parent gives towards their child. But i say love is a survial triat because without it we wouldn't be alive."

Exactly Thanos. Although I still disagree that you can love a hobby. You are not completely off track of course. SOMETHING is always loved. In my theory, it isn't even that we would die without love, it's that it is not in our capacity to not love, like it is not in a stone's capacity to float. When we feel that we love life or eating or a hobby, it is actually self-love that we feel. The soul must love itself too. We project our self-love onto these things like our hobby and such. Personally, I don't think any other subject can compare in substance. Perhaps it is not intellectually stimulating enough for Raven_one? But in my definition, substance is not what stimulates the mind, but what stimulates the heart -- merely because we are emotional creatures and all we truly seek is happiness. It is love that makes it possible for raven to consider the theory silly-- the theory says that you know.
 
  • #12
Well, like I said, this is if I understood correctly.
Perhaps I haven't.
Maybe something was lost in the translation from pseudo-Eastern new agey to English :wink:.

Maybe you could try and reword it and be more succinct for purpose of clarity?
 
  • #13
Originally posted by elwestrand
I do not believe that it is possible to love an inanimate object or an idea.

Actually, I believe that love in the absolute fullest sense engulfs even inanimate objects. But it is very rare for one to attain that sort of emotional state.
 
  • #14
True-- well it all depends on what level the individual is at really... but it the purest sense, even above loving "everything," actually nothing is loved. Merely, it is just the presence of love longing for itself. The force may be within all things, but it is even an illusion that we feel love for those things. One of the stupidest things I heard was a quote of TV (afn, unfortunately I am in the military). "If a man does not love his country, he can not love anything" Nonsense. Nonsense for me anywhays, maybe he was at a level where that was true for him. In the spirit of my original post, love only deals with souls-- living things. Of course a rock has a soul too but until we are at the level where we can perceive it, how are we capable of that kind of love?
 
  • #15
Depends what you mean by 'soul.'

I prefer not to think in terms of some objectively existing essence, but rather, a subjective experience of it. Sometimes a moment of quiet contemplation will reveal to one a profound sense of awe/reverence/beauty/love about existence. Whether that level of spirituality is best described as a revelation of actually existing souls or spirits, or simply as a profound spiritual feeling is an open question, but for me it is best left to the subjective realm.

Under this interpretation, your question of how one can perceive the soul of a rock in order to love it reduces to a question of how one can engage in a subjective state such that love is felt even for rocks. And it is a very difficult question, even for those who have experienced it momentarily. The true shame is that it seems that most never even approach such a state, even if temporarily. It seems there is no proven formula to achieve it, only ways to actively approach it and be lucky along the way. There is a saying: "Enlightenment is an accident, but some activities make you accident prone."
 
Last edited:
  • #16
Hi. Thank you for talking to me.

At this moment I am feeling a surge of love. I am the type of person who falls very deeply in love, very haphazardly! At the age of 12 one night, I lay in bed and I listened to and felt the beating of my heart. And I felt profound love for all life at that time, tears streaming down my face. Oh I am convinced that the basis for love is a force that is not limited to our perception. And I am convinced that that force is actually alive and it is through it that we are alive. I can feel it in my heart chakra right now. If I could describe it, I would call it feverish. It is a sensation in the actual subtle body near the physical heart-- not the physical heart itself, and there is no lust. I do not rely on religious scriptures to define "soul" for me. I have experienced it myself through dreams. The soul is like an infinitessimal point or speck of consciousness. It is not even "alive" in the sense that it is not an organism. This is not my conjecture, but actually what I experienced through dreams and other expeiences like when I felt my heart beat. I felt that the actual substance of my soul was an intense longing. Consciousness is secondary perhaps, but first the longing. It is longing, simply for love. Now, odd, that that longing force itself IS love. The ancient mystic poet Rumi wrote that love longs for itself and in my experience that is true. So, I would not say that love is subjective or objective, niether external nor internal. It is all of those, paradox.

According to my theory, our soul is covered up by our mind, personality and so forth. But there are inevidably areas that are transparent, where the soul "shines through." It does this according to who we are... moreover, it does this to others in the same way. The two right combinations who can both sense the light of the soul, emanating from the other-- they love. And so I think this is the only "subjective" nature of love.

Anyways, right now I think I am falling in love with this friend of mine. I've never actually had a satisfying love. I've always had my heart broken, never even had a first kiss. (mostly because of my integrity and I don't send the right signals--- young girls respond to sexual signals, subconsciously. I'm not interested in sex, only love.) But anyways is is my Filipina pen-pal. She lives in Cebu, Philippines. I called her on the phone this weekend-- she has the most adorable voice I have every heard! she literally sounds like a child. I'm 21 and she just turned 20. In May I am going to go see her in the Philippines. Hehehe. Once I accidentally called her "katipan." she said "oops why are you calling me katipan?" and she explained that that word means girlfirned, but she forgave me for not knowing and said I may consider her my girlfriend anyway because she is a girl and she is my friend. I made a joke saying I should have called her kapitan (captain). Then I wrote her a sonnet called "you are the captain of our friendship"

"Have a happy natal day (birthday)
Think joyous thoughts and laugh
you are loved beyond what words can say
I hope our friendhship lasts"

I have a feeling, that she might fall for me too. I've never loved anyone aged 20, so mature compared to my past loves. Recently she said to me "muna katipan not kapitan" Anyone read Tagalog? I think it says "first sweetheart/girlfriend not captain"
 
  • #17
Love is a word that we use to describe a feeling. Like all feelings, love can be controlled. But for someone who has spent their life believing that it is a powerful force that, in a sense, chooses for you what you'll love, and guides you through tough times...well the thought of being able to control your emotions seems impossible and downright ridiculous. But I think that the power of the emotionless mind is unparalleled. Although, if you would cease to feel for things (whether it be hate, love, pity, ect.)...if your emotions were "blocked", it would most certainly prevent you from being able to function in our society. In other words: You would likely find yourself in a straight jacket and dubbed criminally insane. Because without our emotions we feel no remorse for disregarding that which is obstucting us from our goal. I think that this would be an excellent experiment if conducted under constant observation. One ought not attempt to seriously try this while still interacting with our civilization because firstly: There can always be injuries and severe mental trauma (which would increase the chances of even more injuries) that usually means government interaction. Government or laws could not interfere in something like this because the emotionless mind is without morals. Secondly: It is probable that if you would ever succeed in accomplishing your goal and ridding yourself of feeling (which is unlikely...so the best test subject would naturally be an infant, which would naturally be considered imoral), you would lose sight of your previous goal, for you would no longer need proof of the power of your mind and proving it to others would be out of the question because congratulations means nothing without pride and gratitude. Basically what I'm saying is...it'd be very dangerous. If you've seen the movie Manhunter, you can deduce that it is phycologically damaging to disregard your own thoughts and feeling in exchange for feelings that are "foreign" to your being. Now imagine ridding yourself of all feeling and knowing that all obstructions preventing you from gaining all possible knowledge must be dealt with accordingly.

...I suppose I went off topic a little. It's just necessary for me to ramble.
 
  • #18
I am writing a science fiction story about love.
As in a rainbowe, the water droplets separate the seven colors inherant in sunshine; the "rainbow flower" brings our the seven qualities of the soul: imagination, perception, memory, knowledge, health, wisdom and happiness. This is very secret. I don't want to tell anyone too much about the story before it is written. The protagnonist finds himself on a distant planet where the sun perpetually hangs on the horizen (the planet is tidally locked, like the moon is to the earth, the same side always faces its sun. Because of the atmosphere, there is a penumbral belt around the planet, right where the sun fades into darkess. because the light travels though 10 times more atmophere to get there, and the atmosphere regulates heat, this band is capable of supporting life. Of couse, the story is full of symbols. The sun side of the planet is futer, the belt, present and the dark half past. The man cannot remember who he is at all-- so he is struggling for memory. He meets a plant on the planet (see plant sentience), and comes to know of their religion. "the rainbow flower" is like God. And it brings the 7 qualities of a soul aforementioned. the man wants memory, and so he digs up the plant and they go searching for the flower. I'll have to make up a way so they search in the direction of the dark side (becsause the man is living in the past as explained later). So the plant is dying, and claims to m=have made up the rainbow flower... but the man think is it the reianbowe flower actually.. and he remembers alittle (or he thinks he does).. so he boards his vessel and flies off and starts recording in his logs, then reads his logs from before he landed and find out that he was a different person from who he remembers. Actually, he was in love with this woman who died and he was so attached to her, he couldn't handle the grief, he was not strong enough and his love was tainted. So he actually went to this planet and intentionally induced amesia so he could live without remembering her. This is not real love. The is where he changes. He suddenly realizes that love is free, beyond birth and death. And that if he really loved her he whopuld feel it just as if she were with him, not grief or selfish wanting to forget. For the first time he feels unconditional love and destroys the chronometer on his arm (which is a symbol for his grief wecause it measures time in the amount of seconds that have passed since her death) Seconds so it wouldn't "feel as long." And at taht instant he realized that LOVE was the rainbowflower, (which the reader knew all along because love was not mentioned as a quality of the soul and the plant talked about love nonstop.) Cool huh? Okay, I gave away the whole story.
 
  • #19
It is not possible to be emotionless. The "Logical" Vulcan is insecure, self-conscious and have motives just like every living thing (motive is an emotion). The "emotionless android" who deeply desires to be human is swelling with emotion (desire is an emotion). The desire to control emotions, become logical.. that too is an emotion. The human mind would not be conscious without emotions. Emotion plays a big role in memory. An emotionless sentient being is an oxymoron. If this being has no desire, no passion, it would not desire even be be a sentient being. Doing anything to stay alive just wouldn't make sense. Of course, not doing these things also wouldn't make sense.. but given the laws of prabability, it would perform these things only 50% of the time. If it were in the street about to be hit by a truck, it would not move, because that would be inconvienent, illogical. It would not care whether it is alive or dead-- it does not know the difference.

There is always the philospher who think very little of emotions, the atheist, the existenialist, the logician and merely wants to brush them to the side. He does not realize that even if it is true that emotions are "mere" biochemical simulations of the brain, he still looses in life. Because at the end of life, the whimisical, nonsenseical philosopher who believe grandois, fantastic things wins, though his own mindset, he is happier. And being happy is unequivocally the goal of life, not "being right."

Oh yes, I could control my love very easily... but I don't want to. Even if I am heartbroken, I feel more alive than if I had not loved at all.
 
Last edited:
  • #20
I disagree. I think that it is possible to be emotionless. I said nothing of a desire, want or will to control your emotions. And I also said nothing of sentient. Because who can really classify (why does everything need to be classified? Does it have to be atheist, existentialist, or logician? Why can't it just be?) a being with the ability to feel but who chooses not to? How does doing anything to stay alive not make sense? Think of insects. It makes perfect sense to anyone slightly familiar with high school biology. Caring and knowing are two completely different things. If you were about to be hit by a bus, you could know it and not feel anything. Cutting off your emotions does not blind you. It most likely would not disable your ability to think either. Now you could move out of the way because it is logical (how is it not? A rabbit runs away instinctively from a persuing bobcat) or, you could move out of the way because you want to live and are afraid of death. I actually said that this would only be an interesting experiment and also advised that it not be tried. It would be best to conduct the experiment on an infant who is not yet familiar with hate or sorrow...not on a philosopher. Because there would be no philosophers if the people of the world did not enjoy thinking and wondering.



There is always the philospher who think very little of emotions, the atheist, the existenialist, the logician and merely wants to brush them to the side. He does not realize that even if it is true that emotions are "mere" biochemical simulations of the brain, he still looses in life. Because at the end of life, the whimisical, nonsenseical philosopher who believe grandois, fantastic things wins, though his own mindset, he is happier. And being happy is unequivocally the goal of life, not "being right."



What are you talking about? If being happy is the "goal of life" (and I suppose I agree I just would have worded it differently) then why does it matter what you believe in? Whether it be "grandois, fantastic things" or "that emotions are biochemical simulations of the brain". And why does it have to be in terms of winning or losing? You can lose and still enjoy what you're doing you know.
 
  • #21
love isn't really an emotion. Only exist because of evolutionary adaptation.
 
  • #22
Originally posted by garytse86
love isn't really an emotion. Only exist because of evolutionary adaptation.

If love isn't an emotion, what is?
All of our emotions exist because of evolutionary adaption, haven't they?

Fear is a mechanism in place to raise the awareness of your senses and reduce reaction time to stimulus.

How is that an emotion, but love is not?

Define and dilineate emotions, please.
 
  • #23
love only exists to maximum the chance of survival of a species.
 
  • #24
It seems we're alittle confused as to what an emotion is. Will, desire .. are emotions. Even when you feel "nothing" that is also an emotional backdrop. Curiosity is an emotion. Try to be emotionless. Tell me how far you get.


"then why does it matter what you believe in? Whether it be "grandois, fantastic things" or "that emotions are biochemical simulations of the brain". And why does it have to be in terms of winning or losing? You can lose and still enjoy what you're doing you know."

It doesn't matter what you believe in-- but in this context, the beliefs are also forming your actions and the manner in which you interact with and identify with the world. A man determines for himself if he has "won or lost" in life. this doen't mean the same thing as winning a bascketball game. Some people begin to die and suddenly realize that they have never lived. They are full of regrets. It does happen. When they were in health, they never would have imagined this. Don't be one of those people. Your belief does not matter so much, but it is shaping your actions and how you relate to the world which in turn determines how you live.
 
  • #25
love only exists to maximum the chance of survival of a species.

If true, then why do so many people risk their lives or sacrafice their lives completely for something they love?-- even if what they love will "survive" either way.
 
  • #26
Originally posted by garytse86
love only exists to maximum the chance of survival of a species.

Possibly, but that does not intrinsically imply that it is not valid, not an emotion or not real and powerful.
 
  • #27
I reject the idea that emotions arise from an "evolutionary" need to survive. Why? because "why survive"? The "desire" to be alive or survive is an emotion, so how could emotions have developed to facilitate the need to survive if emotion is already present, instinsic in the entire prospect of survival? It is a problem of causality. Need does not define or create emotion, emotion defines and creates the need.
 
  • #28
Originally posted by elwestrand
The "desire" to be alive or survive is an emotion

Is it?

Every living species, down to virii (is that the plural for virus?) and bacteria, display actions that suggest a drive to survive individually and as a species.
Does that mean that bactria and virii experience emotions and feel "Love"?
 
  • #29
MushinMunen, if one had no emotions, one would have no goal to begin with. Even seeking knowledge in an objective fashion implies the emotional motivation to seek knowledge.
 
  • #30
Certainly, why not? I remember a study where it was proven that the bacteria in Yogurt has "emotion." Emotion and life go together, even more so than life and consciousness. When a clock was flown in a jet and found to be a fraction of a second out of sync, for awhile physicists didn't believe time "really" goes slower in higher velocities-- it took awhile to grasp. Similarly, every cell "really does" have emotion. This must be the age of solipsism. My Zen master friend says that every living cell has emotion as well as consciousness. There is an underlying consciousness beyond our awareness, at the localized cell level. The induividual cells all over the body perform their functions independant of what you know as "your" consciouness. Infact, the entire body emulsifies-- a very complex thing, probably more complex than building the space shuttle-- am I to believe it is all a "mere" process, like a biological computer programm? If so, why have not not "cracked the code." I'm a trained signals analyst in the military, I know about codes. Genetic therapy so far is an utter failure

I try never to speculate about such important things. It is what I experience and intuitively feel though experienceing thse feelings. Of course, everyone must not take any word on love, but merely experience it for themselves. Nothing else is satisfactory. But, I would not accept someone's word on love who has never in a day felt it, even if his IQ is 200. I wouldn't. Who understands life better? A genetic engineer, or a mother? They are unique understandings of life. If we want to know love, we cannot sit it on a table and dissect it in a lab.

Regarding causality, I feel that "survival- life" was created by emotion as means for expression, rather than the other way around. Besides, no one has answered why (if love is a "mere" survival mechanism), so many people will risk or sacrafice their lives for something loved. Obviously there is more to love than this-- but even if not, you are correct, how does it negate the importance or meaning of love? meaning is not an objective thing. If it were, it would not be nearly as beautiful. So... I fail to see how lying in my bed at 12 years old crying in ecstasy over the beauty of life has anything to do with my survival. I would have lived regardless.
 
Last edited:
  • #31
Hi there,

Sorry for taking such a long leave, I was quite snowed under with work last week.

Since we are on the threat of love, perhaps a love story is not totally irrelevant and it is given to illustrate my point below. My boyfriend and I have dated for 3 months before he was allocated back to London and we have been having this long-distance relationship for 3 years and 11 months since. I still remember how I answered in a true blue buddhist manner that we would develop naturally when he held my hands and broke the news. What emerged after his departure was the darkest, most trying period in my life, I began to lead "half a life and a double life" (I forgot who says that). Workwise it was as if I had had a lobotomy, and I was crying all the time. At my darkest moment I don't just want to die I wanted to cease exising on every possible level of existence. No kidding. The separation was more trying as we began to discover our differences - imagine a buddhist pairing up with a boarding school-Oxbridge highly successful professional who loves good food and knows his wines and find nothing more delightful than his girlfriend (moi) all dolled up and taking equal delight in the same things! And coming both of us from disfunctional families certainly did nothing to help. Anyway the long and short of the story is sensing the vicious cycle of mutual dissatisfaction and the inevitable fini, I began to teach myself about the emotion needs of men and disciplining myself so that he is happier. It was a gruelsome ordeal, next to impossible to try to change your spots. I pressed on (oooh whatelse could I do, I didn't ever want to lose him) and got better and better at it. He was much happier and was therefore able to support my emotional needs. Now when I look back, I consider what has been done our biggest achievement, having started off with a perfect receipe for disaster and becoming now two better (our best personality traits have rubbed off on each other) and well-rounded persons.

My personal theory about love is we have no control whatsoever over who we love, the identity of the persons being part of the legacy that catches up with us from previous commissions and omissions, as the Chinese say there can be no spouses if there is no (previous) enimity and no parents and sons if there is no (previous) hatred. And love has a great utility of forcing you to make up for previous fault. Ultimately I think life on one level is for us to learn what we don't know and practice what we know.

By the way Stalker, I am also meeting him in May. :wink:
 
  • #32
My personal theory about love is we have no control whatsoever over who we love, the identity of the persons being part of the legacy

We do not choose whome we love. "We" do not love in the first place, love merely flows through us, it does not originate in us. We are its insturment. "we" do not love objects of our sences, not another body or a personality. "we" love the other outward flow of someone's spirit. Love itself transcends death, birth, the body, time and space. The flow of love has no beginning or ending, no origin and no destination. Who we are chooses who and how we love. Because we are merely a channel for love, like a riverbed. Why would anyone want to love according to who they aren't?

My Zen master puts it this way:
"Love possesses no pain, no rejection, no loss, no gain, for love is the freely outward giving of one's highest purity, without thought nor inward concern of return. If 'love' must be recompensated, then it is not love, but rather only lust, a physical ego-driven desire for the ownership and possession of a living being's very life. If a loved one remains with us, we are happy, if the loved one leaves, we are happy, and yet even when the loved one dies, the love suffers not, no diminishing of love, no change, for if love can change, then it was never love. Love is a purity of itself, a quality conceptual existence possessing substance, yet it cannot be touched nor seen, it is not physical, but of the soul, a true expression of the purity that exists within the core of decent souls; the deity within all of Reality. "

This is soul love. All people experience soul love, yet most often it is covered up, tainted with other desires. I believe it comes from the frustration we get from problems we have expressing the love. From frustration comes attachment, then lust and then Greed. Frustration comes in the first place from our not understanding the the relationship between the soul and love, the soul and love themselves. For love transcends our desire are the same. to express it. We do not express love, love expresses us. This is unconditional. You might say that expressing this love and experiencing it are the same.

"But whosoever drinketh of the water that I shall give him shall never thirst; but the water that I shall give him shall be in him a well of water springing up into everlasting life", "He that believeth on me, as the scripture hath said, out of his belly shall flow rivers of living water"
 
  • #33
Originally posted by elwestrand
It is the reciprocation between the self and the unself. The self is the individual sense of being a complete individual even in the absence of everything else perceived. The unself is the reservoir of beingness from which the self origionates- it is like the sunlight from which plants grow- yet the two are just two aspects of the same. The relationship between them is always love, it cannot be anything else. The self, who cannot exist without the unself, contains unself as a glass holds water, has as a property of its unique form the ability to "love" according to its uniqueness. You do not love, you are love's insturment. Love is unself (beauty)
perceived and Beauty is that love embodied within all form.

The reason why we do not love everything is because our unique self acts as a filter. It blocks some of the unself radience. metaphysically, although we contain unself, as the glass contains water, we are not transparet against all of it. Thus, we radiate a portion of unself according to who we are and we also perceive it radiating from others accoring to who we are. Plato theorized that we perceive beautry that reminds us of, or resembles "pure form." And he theorized that the place from where our knowledge of pure form comes from is from before our birth. And to believe any of this you must believe that existence transcends birth and death. Plato was right. Love is beauty perceived and beauty is love that is our existence.

And that is a beautiful interpretation of love. I liked reading this elwestrand! :smile:
 
  • #34
Originally posted by elwestrand
(Plato said)Love is beauty perceived and beauty is love that is our existence.

I'd like to look further or even farther into what Plato and some of the other wordsmiths of our millenia have said about love.

To me, the word love has been over-used by commercial interests and even by aspiring and acclaimed poets, writers, etc... alike.

Over-used words tend to lose their origial definitions. The over-used word is watered-down by the repeated and mutated views of so many who tread upon the word in the hope and in the wringing desparation of communicating their personal experiences.

I know what love is, by my own definition. Furthermore, I ain't tellin' nobody, y'hear?@!

'Cause that would not reflect love. It would reflect a kind of infringing totalitarianism. A megalomaniacle approach to the individual's delicate, private repository of experiences they call their own. The place inside you that you know of as love. My definition of love has no place and no right to invade your own definitino of love.

So, bye.
 

Similar threads

  • General Discussion
Replies
4
Views
585
Replies
8
Views
1K
  • General Discussion
3
Replies
71
Views
14K
Replies
4
Views
1K
Replies
1
Views
4K
  • Quantum Interpretations and Foundations
9
Replies
309
Views
7K
Replies
31
Views
6K
Replies
9
Views
3K
Replies
1
Views
1K
Replies
15
Views
6K
Back
Top