Love?

[randomsomeone]

"Evil", as I call it, or "not Love" is ignorant of what it is doing. It might be aware of the action and it might have a purpose for this action, but this action and this purpose would seem completely misguided if they understood Love. I am willing to make the following assumption: If one were aware of what Love is in its deepest sense, they would not desire anything else. That said, I believe that we live in a world where even most of the most well-intentioned people do not know.

And forgiveness... as I see it, forgiveness is nothing more than understanding.

These are some really wonderful insights!!

We may not ever grasp completely (in this finite realm) full the implications of love, but we surely can cobble enough bits and fragments together to see a world well worth entering into, engaging, aligning with, and devoting our energy into. In other words, we can "go with it" with a very high degree of assurance that we are rowing with the current of all things rather than against.

I have chosen to engage in the world of Christianity for variety of reasons, and within this realm there are some interesting (and inescapable) ideas presented...warnings if you will. For example, in the wonderful text just me mentioned....if we were to have a variety of highly-valued religious expressions, but not love, we have nothing. Also remember the text in which Jesus, at the final judgement, addressed some who justified themselves by the many wonderful things things they had done. "I never knew you" was his response, and this as a bit of a shocker. The amazing thing is that it appears this love we are speaking about even trumps religious practice. If nothing else we are told point blank that love and the Divine Life are completely linked and we do well to not overlook that.

Consider also the implication of this saying for those who choose the path aligned with love: “God is love, and he who abides in love abides in God, and God in him”. This is pretty staggering when you think of it.

 

[Haven]

All this talk of love gives me....

 

[CorLeonis]

I am not Christian, but I still think Jesus said it best, when he said "Forgive them, for they know not what they do."

"Evil", as I call it, or "not Love" is ignorant of what it is doing. It might be aware of the action and it might have a purpose for this action, but this action and this purpose would seem completely misguided if they understood Love. I am willing to make the following assumption: If one were aware of what Love is in its deepest sense, they would not desire anything else. That said, I believe that we live in a world where even most of the most well-intentioned people do not know.

And forgiveness... as I see it, forgiveness is nothing more than understanding.


Agapooka

I'm not entirely sure how this relates to what I was saying.

Are you saying that you think that if people just forgive, and understand, why this person attacked them, then they do or can love them?

(Just trying to understand your point )

 

[Agapooka]

Yes.

But not "forgive" AND "understand". I see the two as the same thing. It's an understanding of the ignorance that goes into actions - of how people treat each other as separate beings, but they wouldn't if they were polarised to the connective force instead of the separative force. The separative force is a delusion.


Agapooka

 

[CorLeonis]

Yes.

But not "forgive" AND "understand". I see the two as the same thing. It's an understanding of the ignorance that goes into actions - of how people treat each other as separate beings, but they wouldn't if they were polarised to the connective force instead of the separative force. The separative force is a delusion.


Agapooka

I agree wholeheartedly on the separation as delusion.

But, on the flip side, I don't have an issue with forgiveness and understanding. And think that's a wonderful idea. But if you have gone through a negative situation with such impact (abuse or rape, etc.) I think it is an entirely self-damaging thing to be in any type of relationship with the person that hurt you in such a way. Whether that's a friendship, or a love relationship. So, I am all for the forgiveness and understanding of that person. I do not believe that you can be in any sort of relationship with that person without fundamentally destroying your own psyche. I am thinking very specifically of many people I've known who have had a Stockholm-like thinking processes. That's what I was aiming at with my responses. That fear and disrespect do not equal love... and I do not believe that someone that has done something like that to YOU can love YOU. Yaknow?

So, I guess I was not including love of humanity in general, but thinking more specifically, in terms of the relationships we choose to keep close to us, and those we need to distance ourselves from, for our own health and safety. Thank you for reminding me to think bigger. haha

 

[just me]

There are so many good things in this thread. I cannot present myself to better say what has already been said over the years, and even right here and right now. I can only ask that we look at love with simplicity to best understand it; as a child holding his/her arms up for the parent in all faith, all trust, and all understanding from a simple mind. This mind has not been prejudiced by books and teachings, jihads and fightings, struggle for power, greed, or envy; this mind knows from whence it cometh and to where it goeth to be loved, accepted, and given that which it needs.

We can do all things in actions, but the heart of each of us is the more important between our actions and our true essence. If we act only to be seen, we have missed the true mark of living.

 

[Agapooka]

Ah, I see the misunderstanding.

When I say "Love" I don't mean "relationship".

It's possible to Love someone whilst recognising that interacting with them could hurt you. Just because someone might "love" a Ferrari doesn't mean he'll step in front of one that is going at 300km/h to be killed by it.

When you Love someone, the way you treat them will be different and you'll want the best for them (and if it applies, their delusion might sadden you), but it doesn't mean that you'll want to be best friends. Someone might also Love their own mother, without ever wanting to start a romantic relationship with her. See, Loving someone has nothing to do with whether or not you'd have a friendship or romantic relationship with them.

And this confusion might more easily be explained by the statement that I don't see Love as an emotion. I see it as a disposition. A orientation of being. Emotions can result from it, I suppose. If I saw Love as an emotion, though, I wouldn't care about it and I wouldn't be here talking about it. Someone mentioned that the minute they saw someone attempting to rationalise love, that they immediately thought it would be an INTP. Indeed, my goal is to understand its mechanisms and to distinguish it from that which it is not.


Agapooka

 

[just me]

I see love as a mindset when speaking of love in general. Are you speaking of philos love toward another individual? Eros? Agape?

 

[Agapooka]

I'm speaking of it in terms of an orientation of being and you just used the word "mindset" that resembles what I meant by "polarity of being". I can try to give examples of individual relationships, but I don't really want to, because it will encourage the idea that Love can only be felt between individuals.

 

[just me]

I'm speaking of it in terms of a polarity of being and you just used the word "mindset" that resembles what I meant by "polarity of being". I can try to give examples of individual relationships, but I don't really want to, because it will encourage the idea that Love can only be felt between individuals.

Thank you for the better explanation. I do not fully understand the polarity of being in reference to love and must research the definition, to be honest. I do agree it does not have to be between a person and another person to have love in one's heart.

 

[Agapooka]

Hmm, I looked in the dictionary, but that might not make it as clear as I want it to be, so I'll just explain my choice of words.

A polarity is a set of two opposites. Now, what I meant by a "polarity of being" is the polarisation towards one opposite instead of the other. The two opposites that I am referring to are "Love" and "Evil". Unlike what I have read in some definitions of "polarity", in this case, there is no attempt or ideal of bringing the two in some kind of equilibrium.

Actually, come to think of it, the more I look into it, the more I think I should replace "polarity" with "orientation"...

I take back my "polarity of being" and now I shall call it: orientation of being. (I shall change my previous posts, so as not to confuse others.)


Agapooka

 

[CorLeonis]

Ah, I see the misunderstanding.

When I say "Love" I don't mean "relationship".

It's possible to Love someone whilst recognising that interacting with them could hurt you. Just because someone might "love" a Ferrari doesn't mean he'll step in front of one that is going at 300km/h to be killed by it.

When you Love someone, the way you treat them will be different and you'll want the best for them (and if it applies, their delusion might sadden you), but it doesn't mean that you'll want to be best friends. Someone might also Love their own mother, without ever wanting to start a romantic relationship with her. See, Loving someone has nothing to do with whether or not you'd have a friendship or romantic relationship with them.

And this confusion might more easily be explained by the statement that I don't see Love as an emotion. I see it as a disposition. A orientation of being. Emotions can result from it, I suppose. If I saw Love as an emotion, though, I wouldn't care about it and I wouldn't be here talking about it. Someone mentioned that the minute they saw someone attempting to rationalise love, that they immediately thought it would be an INTP. Indeed, my goal is to understand its mechanisms and to distinguish it from that which it is not.


Agapooka

I absolutely understand and agree now.

I said in my first response that I can't explain love... but there are some instances which people confuse for love, and that saddens me. And I think it's unhealthy to think of love as something that causes fear or pain, which is why I was making the distinction between what I thought love was not. Know what I mean?

I hope that's making my feelings clearer. I absolutely believe in love for everyone, but do not agree with using "love" as an excuse to hurt others, or hurt yourself.

 

[Agapooka]

Indeed. Also, and I think it was earlier in this thread, I tried to describe how many relationships that are referred to as Love are not and I tried to explain the mechanism of why they were not.

It might just be my INTPness, but I find it important to understand why - otherwise, it can make for some confusing terminology being tossed around about what Love may or may not be and labeling things as Love when they cause destruction...

I'll see if I can find the post I'm referring to. (edit: found it!)

I would argue that if it needs a response (if it has conditions), it isn't Love. If it needs a particular response, it is motivated to initiate the movement of energy towards the Self (taking). It is selfish. I called Love a connective force, not because it must be returned (although ideally it would be, this cannot, by definition, be expected), because while another may not be aware of your Love for them, it causes you to wish to understand them and not to focus on that which separates you from them. If they return it, then this connection is intensified. If it is expected of them to return the Love, the connection has been destroyed. Instead, the other becomes an object (a very valuable object) that one wishes to care for, because something is ultimately desired in return. The outward initiation force exists outside the Self, because the "guilt-giving" function is used, in this case, in pursuit of a reward (to justify taking). The idea of this reward is the initiation force. Also, because Love is a connective force and not a separative force, there would be no need to separate a partner from everyone else and rob them of their freedom to Love you spontaneously. The relationship will continue happily until one or both partners no longer feel/s that they are getting anything out of it anymore. It is then that we see how destructive the forces that they were using actually are.

Agapooka

 

[just me]

Thank you. I must go for now but would like to share my difficulty understanding using the word polarity.

A glass lens for eyeglasses is temprossed or made impact resistant by bring it to the hottest possible temperature before melting or distortion, then cooling it with air blown onto both surfaces as it leaves the oven.
People are made stronger in life with many of the same aspects in life circumstances.

Anyway, there are two polarized lenses placed apart at opposite axis' with a light underneath them. The lens is placed between the two poarized lenses and looked at to see if it has been heat treated. A maltese cross will appear in the picture. This cross will not appear in the picture if the lense is not temprossed.

I will ponder orientation further as time permits.

 

[Agapooka]

I think I used the wrong word, when I used the word "polarity".

That said, I can't wait till you explain exactly what you mean with your analogy...


Agapooka

 

[just me]

I think I used the wrong word, when I used the word "polarity".

That said, I can't wait till you explain exactly what you mean with your analogy...


Agapooka

Please do not call it the wrong word, as my knowledge of the description may have clouded my thoughts currently during my life circumstances.

 

[Agapooka]

I am of course referring to it being the wrong word from my perspective if I compare it to how it is defined in a dictionary.

How does the word evoke the right concept for you? I don't see words as particularly fixed. If a word seems right to use in a particular context, it is because it is associated with a concept that fits that context. What is that concept, with which it is associated in your mind?


Agapooka

 

[Gaze]

I think love can't be so clearly defined as all encompassing either. Many would say, you can't love someone from a distance, because you don't know them well enough. You don't care about their everyday existence, interests, feelings, etc. Is this true or fair?

My question is how much do you know to "know" of someone to say you "love" them? Must love "love" and care about everything in someone's life to be true or "real" love?

 

[just me]

I am of course referring to it being the wrong word from my perspective if I compare it to how it is defined in a dictionary.

How does the word evoke the right concept for you? I don't see words as particularly fixed. If a word seems right to use in a particular context, it is because it is associated with a concept that fits that context. What is that concept, with which it is associated in your mind?


Agapooka

The "word" is also used in religious texts held in high regard in my mind; interesting we should now be discussing words and their uses. "In the beginning was the Word; and the Word was with God, and the same Word was God. The same was in the beginning with God. All things were made by Him; and without Him was not anything made that was made. In Him was life; and the life was the light of men. And the light shineth in darkness; and the darkness comprehended it not." John 1: 1-5

When we add to that "God is love", we may have the ability to look where we may have never looked before for understanding things. It makes for an interesting thought process when looked upon with an open and clear mind. That in itself is a path to light for me. I cannot indulge others with my own concepts regarding this, as it may take writing a book to describe the feelings I have in regards to this; especially knowing my inability to communicate the proper words for others to understand. Maybe I should say it would be very difficult.

 

[Agapooka]

I think love can't be so clearly defined as all encompassing either. Many would say, you can't love someone from a distance, because you don't know them well enough. You don't care about their everyday existence, interests, feelings, etc. Is this true or fair?

My question is how much do you know to "know" of someone to say you "love" them? Must love "love" and care about everything in someone's life to be true or "real" love?

And I would say that Love knows no distance, nor does it require a certain amount of knowledge of the one who is loved. It is an orientation towards all things. Through Love, one does not necessarily have to solve all the world's problems. If you see Love as universal force, it's easy to imagine that every being who is oriented towards Love is a part of it. It becomes easier to understand Love as a living organism. In that sense, each part of the whole has its own role to play, whilst sustaining and being sustained by the whole.

The "word" is also used in religious texts held in high regard in my mind; interesting we should now be discussing words and their uses. "In the beginning was the Word; and the Word was with God, and the same Word was God. The same was in the beginning with God. All things were made by Him; and without Him was not anything made that was made. In Him was life; and the life was the light of men. And the light shineth in darkness; and the darkness comprehended it not." John 1: 1-5

When we add to that "God is love", we may have the ability to look where we may have never looked before for understanding things. It makes for an interesting thought process when looked upon with an open and clear mind. That in itself is a path to light for me. I cannot indulge others with my own concepts regarding this, as it may take writing a book to describe the feelings I have in regards to this; especially knowing my inability to communicate the proper words for others to understand. Maybe I should say it would be very difficult.

I can use "polarity" to describe each individual dichotomy (Love and Evil), but not to describe "Love vs. Evil". They are not against each other. They are each independent and incompatible systems, each representing a polarity between active and passive forces. Their difference is in the orientation of those forces.

Also, I don't deny that one can find examples of Love in the Bible. I'm looking at the big picture, though. Maybe it's the way the Bible gets interpreted, or maybe some weird stuff has infiltrated after thousands of years of being translated and re-transcribed, possibly by people with agendas - I won't criticise your choice, as that's not my purpose. Personally, though, I don't see the need to look to the Bible (or any book, for that matter), in order to understand Love. The inherent problem with books is that they are words that must be interpreted in order to extract concepts - and in some cases, the authors aren't even there to explain their ideas. Even if they were, you'd have to assume good intentions in order to take their word for it. I prefer to understand the concept by itself. If we come to the same understanding, then great, I suppose!

If we add MBTI types to the mix, it seems like each archetype is "designed" to pose (and seek to answer) a few specific questions. My most important question has always been "why?". It's a question that has helped me identify patterns in the past and now I'm applying it to the concept of Love. This is the easy part for me. The difficult part will be negotiating the inconsistencies between what I am and what I want to be.


Agapooka