posted April 27, 2010 05:29 PM         

Does that sound too jaded?

posted April 27, 2010 06:07 PM         

Of course you can call love an illusion.
Aren't we all illusions?

posted April 27, 2010 06:25 PM         

As far as other people go, God is a number of things most of which are rationalities. God is the reason some people behave better than they would if they didn't believe. Of course the opposite is also true.

Divine Love in the context used here seems to be an excuse, like a pastor ignoring his wife for the sake of his congregation. If you have love for one, it logically follows that you should have love for the other, or more precisely that you don't shun one for the other.

And if I'm aloof, then I'm aloof. If I can't relate to people in the same way other people do, maybe I wasn't meant to. No need to justify it. It just is. There may be something special in the way I relate, but it requires neither voicing nor justification.

posted April 27, 2010 07:43 PM         

quote:

---

I'm pretty certain those valid reasons include valuable lessons for the people involved.

---

posted April 28, 2010 12:19 AM         

My own understanding is that it's very easy to stand back and criticize a bold position, but that it takes a lot of courage to create one (especially when you know the cowards are waiting in the wings to tear it to shreds). Anyone can divert attention from the argument, and voice their jaded suspicions about the personal lives and motives of the one(s) making it, but not everyone can evaluate what is said on it's own merits. Again, that takes balls.

And it takes balls to admit when there's nothing more to say, -- nothing but "Kudos!", or "Wow! That gives me a lot to think about. Thanks!" Sometimes, we find an issue, position, or question that has been so beautifully, forcefully, thoroughly, and brilliantly articulated and encapsulated, that all we can do is muster the courage to admit there's nothing we've got that could possibly add an inch of height, breadth, or depth to the discussion. We may even have to admit that it's utterly beyond our comprehension or sphere of interest. We may have to ask ourselves why we opened the thread in the first place. Eventually, we may have to move on; not to greener pastures, but to ruffage we can stomach.

At the end of the day,
you have to be yourself,
and let others be themselves.

Or just let them peck at you,
if that's all they know how to do.

Good luck!

------------------

The sage awakens to light in the night of all creatures.
That which the world calls day is the sleep of ignorance to the wise.
-- The Bhagavad-Gita

posted April 28, 2010 01:33 AM         

I have a tendency towards laying out an opinion the way I see it, and in this instance I see an idea which lives in a mind. That this mind can conceive of a world where humans do not possess the qualities that they possess makes the thinking space corrupt. We can not reshape the laws of things without taking the physics of those things into consideration. That is why I have trouble with this notion.

"All things" are not required or compelled to be oriented towards God. At least that's what any atheist would say, right? Why should we consider a more polyamorous viewpoint more aligned to a Divine Love? Is there nothing Divine in commitment, and committing to a family? Is the thread of family more valuable to society or less? One doesn't wonder if it's possible to love one person more than another without being and becoming increasingly estranged from Divine Love, particularly if one sees no reason to imagine a Divine Love, or imagine a Divine Love that resembles the one you speak of. All of these things are predicated on swallowing your belief system to the exclusion of others. Surely, not even you would endorse such a route under any normal circumstances.

So much of this stuff is imaginary, which makes assertions of it's truth or boldness seem misplaced. What God lover doesn't speak with God about their loved ones? Why would God's permission need to be asked to love another mortal? Did he not create us with the capacity to love one another? Why would we be afraid/terrified to speak to God about the feelings we have for others?

Forgive me for not spelling out every dissent previously, but there's plenty to be examined here, and it's not beyond my mind to do so in my typical practical fashion.

posted April 28, 2010 03:44 AM         

I've read your response. I could answer you in my sleep, but, like you said, I have no reason to justify myself, right? So, why would I? Dig your heels in all you want. I think it's great that your mind is turning and you're asking these questions. I think you can go further. Try answering them yourself. Suspend the earthy "common sense" for a second, and try to imagine how those questions could be answered. While you're at it, ask yourself how well monogamy worked out in your last relationship. You might come up with something new. As it is, you're coming up with something. I think it's cool, and I hope you get inspired to start a thread about monogamy, lol. The fact is, you and I are very different people, travelling very different paths. If you're not meant to see it my way, nothing anybody says will possibly convince you of its validity. I'm sorry I don't have the time or the inclination to explain to you, line by line, and word by word, what is literal and what is figurative, what is art and what is polemic, and in what sense a statement ought to be understood. I'm sorry if it's frustrating for you, not being able to make sense of my work. Despite the fact that you can't take your eyes off it, perhaps it's not intended for you? Plenty of good people find it cohesive and illuminating. Maybe we're all flakes. I don't think so.

posted April 28, 2010 04:45 AM         

To qualify you must have 5 or more of the following...

Has a grandiose sense of self-importance (e.g., exaggerates achievements and talents, expects to be recognized as superior without commensurate achievements)

Is preoccupied with fantasies of unlimited success, power, brilliance, beauty, or ideal love

Believes that he or she is "special" and unique and can only be understood by, or should associate with, other special or high-status people (or institutions)

Requires excessive admiration

Has a sense of entitlement, i.e., unreasonable expectations of especially favorable treatment or automatic compliance with his or her expectations

Is interpersonally exploitative, i.e., takes advantage of others to achieve his or her own ends

Lacks empathy: Is unwilling to recognize or identify with the feelings and needs of others

Is often envious of others or believes others are envious of him or her

Shows arrogant, haughty behaviors or attitudes

These people are also referred to as emotional vampires.

posted April 28, 2010 05:51 AM         

quote:

---

God can't wake me up doing a Bob Dylan impression at 7am, that makes me crack a rib laughing.

---

God JUST DID.

quote:

---

Seriously though, what of the belief that we are all God?

---

Um, y-e-a-h! What of it?

It's what I've been talking about.

quote:

---

The God within? That's what I think "God" is.

---

I think you're right.

And "He's" more than that, too.

quote:

---

What of my belief that in my current relationship I have been closer to God and Godly principles than ever?

---

I think it's awesome. And when you're ready for it, you'll find that love inside you. It will accompany you and encourage you as you dig wells in Uganda and carry food to skeletal children. Hopefully, your partner will follow you there.

quote:

---

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Have you been wed to the Divine? Have you been penetrated with Divine Love?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I think I have. He's not the Messiah, he's a very naughty boy, but yeah, I think I have.

---

LOL. Good to hear. I'm glad you're living the most sacred life possible, entirely allied to God through this "naughty boy". Careful about making claims, though. AG might want to murder you, so he can dig you up thirty years later and see if you've decomposed, or if you really did find sainthood. Or did you mean something else?

posted April 28, 2010 05:58 AM         

I won't be digging any wells in Uganda or feeding any hungry children though. Having seen first-hand the attempts at "humanitarian aid" in developing countries, big no thank you from me. Mostly it consisted of big well-fed people driving around Sri Lanka in new white Humvees, vaccinating dogs whilst cattle collapsed in front of them.

posted April 28, 2010 06:01 AM         

quote:

---

Hard to know what to do.

---

posted April 28, 2010 12:23 PM         

So, the thing that stands out, what I find fascinating, is the similarity of your response to the response of your detractors. When you challenge people's beliefs many of them can't articulate everything they have to say about why their beliefs are the way they are. You are the same. You say you could answer in your sleep, but you didn't, and if you did you would probably be right in assuming it wouldn't suffice --just as your detractor's reasoning is never sufficient for you.

This is a really interesting set list so far: People Are People, Optimistic, and Bittersweet Symphony.

quote:

---

Try answering them yourself. Suspend the earthy "common sense" for a second, and try to imagine how those questions could be answered.

---

But I think imagination is the culprit here. I think that if you had attempted to answer my post it would have been full of ungrounded imaginations. Why should I suspend a more earthy common sense in favor of untested imagination? Why shouldn't I demand that you consider real human nature?

quote:

---

While you're at it, ask yourself how well monogamy worked out in your last relationship.

---

Monogamy worked just fine in my last relationship, and it's interesting that you bring up my last relationship, because if you could have witnessed I'm pretty sure you'd see that I insist on more freedom for myself and my partner than you likely do. We were together til she moved back to the East coast. It was the most graceful end to a relationship I could imagine. We never fought once in two years. I never made her cry. I thought about bringing up this relationship when you were assuming that you have a more libertarian view of your relationships than I do. I don't think you do. I'm pretty sure you don't.
`

quote:

---

I'm sorry I don't have the time or the inclination to explain to you, line by line, and word by word, what is literal and what is figurative, what is art and what is polemic, and in what sense a statement ought to be understood.

---

There's another thing I don't get: If these are supposed to be cohesive, defendable positions you're taking why would they include artistic license? You like to claim you can debate circles around your detractors. I don't think this is possible if you acknowledge the element of imagination. Or does the artistic inclusion make it more debateable, because you can come back later and claim artistic license?

quote:

---

Plenty of good people find it cohesive and illuminating.

---