posted March 27, 2018 01:35 AM
quote:
Originally posted by SecretGeek:
I think of love as the compliment of self (soul).
I’m having some difficulty following this thread, but what I think we keep getting back to is the existence of something if it’s not perceived. I feel like we’re talking about a spiritual love that transcends the human experience. I’ll admit that I don’t really understand that!
I think of love as an experience of the self.
"If a tree falls in a forest and no one is around to hear it, does it make a sound?" (I’m going to assume you’re familiar with the discussion this question intends to provoke.)
Lol
Isn’t love a manisfestation of our senses: seeing, hearing, smelling, tasting, touching? A Taurus thing? What is love without these things? What are we without these things? Dead? Potential energy without form?
“Can we assume the unobserved world functions the same as the observed world?”
In bundle theory, an object is its sense data.
“The anthropic principle suggests that the observer, just in its existence, may impose on the reality observed.”
Is love (as we know it) a subjective experience of our existence?
Consider this:
“The definition of sound, simplified, is a hearable noise. The tree will make a sound, even if nobody heard it. The definition states that sound is a hearable noise. So the tree could have been heard, though nobody was around to do so.”
So let’s say love can exist without the human experience. Does it matter?
"A truly unobserved event is one which realises no effect (imparts no information) on any other (where 'other' might be e.g., human, sound-recorder or rock), it therefore can have no legacy in the present (or ongoing) wider physical universe. It may then be recognized that the unobserved event was absolutely identical to an event which did not occur at all."
“If a tree exists outside of perception then there is no way for us to know that the tree exists. So then, what do we mean by 'existence', what is the difference between perception and reality?”
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/If_a_tree_falls_in_a_forest
Again, I think of love as an experience of the self. To experience it in its entirety we must accept selfishness and ugliness. Without that point of reference, how would we know love?
In the garden of Eden, to become enlightened meant becoming evil... to know good and bad. Before that, we were simple beings! Lol. The world is more complicated than a perfect garden void of badness and selfishness. In pre-sin Eden, It would be easy to love everybody with their perfect selves! Love would be meaningless without bad. Yin yang!
“Agape love involves faithfulness, commitment, and an act of the will. It is distinguished from the other types of love by its lofty moral nature and strong character.”
http://www.google.com/amp/s/www.gotquestions.org/amp/agape-love.html
“An act of the will”, meaning it takes conscious effort. It involves morality and knowing good and bad. Can we rid ourselves of these unsavory qualities and still know love? Wouldn’t we become Vulcans lol?!
Neptune at its best knows the difference between selfish and self-interest.
“Self-interest is essential for your happiness and well being. It enables you to provide food and shelter for you and your family. Self-interest is necessary for your economic and career success. If you are not concerned about yourself, who will be?
Selfishness is different than self-interest. Selfish people tend to be exclusively concerned about only themselves. They don’t care about anyone else and have no regard for other people. Selfish individuals may act in a manner that’s detrimental to others.”
http://www.presspublications.com/opinionsc olumns/146-dare-to-live-without-limits/7386-self-interest-vs-selfish-there-is-a-difference
We have to be self-interested? Why exist otherwise? Even acts of altruism involve some ego gratification.
Hopefully that wasn’t too hard to follow.