|
|
Post by enigma on Feb 3, 2013 14:23:47 GMT -5
I've just been pointing away from those conditioned ideas ABOUT love. Among those ideas is that we all know what it is to act loving and that we can therefore choose it and practice it and ask Mr Love what he would do and such.
but are merely making an effort to direct people away from their ideas about love, onto your ideas about love,
like these ones... To claim love moves in the absence of people, then you would have to exist in a realm
where no one exists in order to see love moving independantly of humans, otherwise it is simply a theory, an idea.
Of course, for you to conclude your idea is a fact, and not just a mind created idea based on your interpretive observations of reality,
you must have had some 'no humans exist' experience and concluded the idea is sound.
However, in order to prove your claim, you would have to set up the conditions where no one exists in order to show others that love moves independantly without them.
To observe love without there being a human observer seems like a bit of a mind trick to perform.
As in how to be dead, and still observe love in a realm where everyone else is dead, then come back to life and tell other living beings what you saw,
let alone take other dead people to this place so they can see it for themselves and bring them all back to life so they can tell others what they saw.
It seems far more plausible and simple to theorise that love is an energy and is transmitted by conscious beings
who are aware of this energy and choose to transmit it towards other things in existance and can sense it coming from other beings.
Also, it seems uncharacteristic of a person who is motivated by love, to bludgeon others with their personal ideas about it
in order to influence others to adopt a love motivated state of being.
However, anyone can talk about love and try to influence others to change, and not be motivated by love when they do so.
Talking about love does not automatically mean a person is motivated by it when doing so.
These people are talkers, not doers. And if they have never done, then what do they know.
They simply share a lot of theory, ideas, beliefs, about the subject but have no real experience, all they have is images in their mindtanks about it.
Theories are tested to check the validity of them, and i can't see how "Love moves independantly of humans" can be tested by a human.
Sure, there can be a ton of words to explain the theory, to make is seem valid, but that's not testing it, that's just expanding a theory.
Making is so big it looks real, solid, tangible.That's funny! ;D I don't have any scientific theories of love to present to the community for independent confirmation. What I mean by 'your absence' is the absence of the belief in a separate, volitional person who's job it is to do love. I don't mean all the humans have to die. ;D Other than that comment, I haven't presented any concept about love so I don't know why it seems to you I'm trying to direct anyone to my ideas. I'm saying your idea of love is not really what Love is. Your idea that I'm "bludgeon others with their personal ideas about it in order to influence others to adopt a love motivated state of being" is your personal idea about what I'm doing and saying. I spose what you would see as a discussion about it would have to look a lot more like your idea of love, which is really the point. Most aren't in a position to know what is and isn't loving. I understand why no-one wants to hear that, but it's not really relevant to the truth of the matter. |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Feb 3, 2013 14:29:06 GMT -5
Maybe it is and maybe it isn't. I'd say the moment mind turns love into a weapon to judge and condescend to others, it's time to see through that game.
Yeah but enigma...
say you are in an incident where a person switches from being nice to you, which Joe or Mary Average would cite, "Oh, being nice, that's a love motivated behavior."...
and the person turns and starts being mean to you, which Joe or Mary Average would cite, "Oh, being mean, that's a hate motivated behavior."...
That the person has not turned love into a weapon, but has simply changed tools of interaction. They were using love and switched over to hate.
So, in light of that theory, the only person using their mind to turn love into a weapon to judge and condescend, is you.
It is you who are observing reality and mentally concluding someone has turned love into a weapon, but they may not have.
They may have simply changed tools mid conversation.
So perhaps it is you who is playing mind games with yourself and are not aware of it because you are convinced your conclusions are the only explanation.
Notice i said, "perhaps" and "theory", so i am not claiming my observations are true.
I state my observations because they fit the scenario and thus become viable theories to explore if a person chooses to.The problem is that Joe and Mary think love must conform to a set of behavioral conditions in order to be love. This is why I say your ideas about love is not what Love really is. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 3, 2013 14:40:58 GMT -5
Yeah but enigma...
say you are in an incident where a person switches from being nice to you, which Joe or Mary Average would cite, "Oh, being nice, that's a love motivated behavior."...
and the person turns and starts being mean to you, which Joe or Mary Average would cite, "Oh, being mean, that's a hate motivated behavior."...
That the person has not turned love into a weapon, but has simply changed tools of interaction. They were using love and switched over to hate.
So, in light of that theory, the only person using their mind to turn love into a weapon to judge and condescend, is you.
It is you who are observing reality and mentally concluding someone has turned love into a weapon, but they may not have.
They may have simply changed tools mid conversation.
So perhaps it is you who is playing mind games with yourself and are not aware of it because you are convinced your conclusions are the only explanation.
Notice i said, "perhaps" and "theory", so i am not claiming my observations are true.
I state my observations because they fit the scenario and thus become viable theories to explore if a person chooses to.The problem is that Joe and Mary think love must conform to a set of behavioral conditions in order to be love. This is why I say your ideas about love is not what Love really is. When you say 'your ideas about love is not what Love really is', should actually read ' all ideas about Love is not what Love really is'. That would then exclude you from 'thinking' that you know what Love really is...  |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Feb 3, 2013 14:59:12 GMT -5
I do know what you're saying but I don't see anybody kissing my ring. What I see is clear peeps and not so clear ones, and the clear ones are not interested in knocking down or kissing, just talking about what's really going on behind the curtain. Anybody who talks about what's going on behind the curtain is going to get knocked down.
According to what i have read since visiting and joining ST is that the majority of people aren't expressing their dislike of their curtain being pulled back,
but the way it is done.
(Granted, some of the deliveries from them are harsh thus not helping the situation. But hey, that's where love shines via forgiveness)
Intuitive call to add this to the post.
How awesome is love via forgiveness?
Well, 18 years ago me missus left me and shacked up with another guy fairly quickly.
2 year down the road, me still in severe inner pain from the breakup, she gave birth to their child.
I was still in 'wanting her back' mode and her having a kid to another man severely tested my resolve.
I chose love(forgiveness) and visited her in hospital, and boy was she surprised to see me there.
One of the scariest and hardest things i have done in my life.
Not the actual visit, but the inner journey to reach a state of being to choose to vist.
I asked if i could hold her child, she wept and said yes.
I held this child and felt love for him and her.
I said to her, i still love her, and i am willing to love(accept) this child as if it were my own,
in whatever capacity of relationship i would have with him seeing as i was not the actual father.
She later declined and years later i divorced her.
Love experiences like that helped change me to become the beautiful awesome person that i am today....true story.
Anyways...back to the main topic...
According to what i have read since visiting and joining ST is that the majority of people aren't expressing their dislike of their curtain being pulled back,
but the way it is done.
I think an apt street vernacular is 'bedside manner'.
Two doctors may have near identical skill levels, knowledge, expertise etc, but if one is insensitive, the patients will simply go to the other for help.
I am currently walking with someone, enjoying our time together and offering my help if i can provide it.
I do this whenever my intuition gives me the go ahead, cus there's so many to help and my time is limited.
Using your words, i am confident that this person is willingly examining deep behind thier curtain,
and they welcome and appreciate my efforts and the journey they are embarking on.
I found my self examination to be a most painful and scary experience, i was sensitive to the slightest bump or sudden exposure.
But with a little compassionate guidance, i slowly got the hang of it and hazzah,
i was into it courageously, passionately and willingly, regardless of what horrors might be discovered, and i found some humdingers along the way.
In my early explorations, if i came across someone with your "bedside manner",
i would recoil back into my safe secure self created matrix castle for long long time...oh long long time.
Now, near complete healing, i don't even feel i twinge of discomfort from the constant derogative remarks you aren't aware you express.
I see people here have been waving their arms at you to get your attention regarding your approach style,
but you just don't seem interested in exploring this or are convinced it's not part of the interaction problem.
Instead, as what i see is a clear example, you claim silver is the only problem in the interaction, that she is using blackmail. This story would be relevant if i knew why Anonsage stopped posting.I'm guessing he stopped posting because he saw that no matter how good his 'bedside manner' was, there were going to be many who would not understand, not be receptive and would be hateful toward him. It's easy to say the problem is that the approach is wrong, and back it up with evidence of personal encounters where our good, loving bedside manner resulted in positive change, but really it didn't. I've got oodles of those stories too, many from online interactions, but what I've come to see is that my bedside manner has very little to do with it. How prone one is to insight and change is a function of how conscious and sincere they are. Whether the one communicating with this person is seen as loving and insightful or judgmental and condescending is determined almost entirely by the listener, and the interaction unfolds from that perception. Whether the approach is blunt or gentle makes surprisingly little difference. Haters are gonna hate. |
|
|
|
Post by silver on Feb 3, 2013 15:03:50 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Feb 3, 2013 15:05:31 GMT -5
Though celibate for over ...~counts fingers~...WHOA, 18 years now (gee time sure does fly when you're havin' fun), Well now we know where all of this energy for the text walls is coming from anyway! |
|
|
|
Post by silver on Feb 3, 2013 15:08:29 GMT -5
Though celibate for over ...~counts fingers~...WHOA, 18 years now (gee time sure does fly when you're havin' fun), Well now we know where all of this energy for the text walls is coming from anyway! Does that apply to all text-wallers? |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Feb 3, 2013 15:17:10 GMT -5
No!
|
|
|
|
Post by silver on Feb 3, 2013 15:25:07 GMT -5
Oh. {I wasn't thinking of you.} |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Feb 3, 2013 15:25:45 GMT -5
I've gone back and reread from page one.
This is where the issue of mild(my opinion) plagiarism was brought up by you reefs.
Although i am of the opinion that authors work should be acknowledged, aka i feel heterodox tripped up a tad by not doing so.
I went back and looked at the exchange, especially the time passed between exchanges. One poster was was expressing limited thought about love, I posted words pointing at a more expansive view. As I pointed out, I've been reading Deepak every day for 20 years, and continue to do so every day. I felt the context of the posts were well within the framework of the discussion, and the intention behind the posts was to express a more expansive viewpoint about love. No hidden motive there. I agreed to quote authors as a result. But I didn't see the same agreement offered by reefs or enigma. Somebody authored the expressions they were sharing. The posts had a rote quality to them. I've never plagiarized. Your attempt to point the finger back is a nonsense that isn't fooling anybody. |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Feb 3, 2013 15:26:08 GMT -5
Oh. {I wasn't thinking of you.} I'm offended that you weren't thinking of me in that regard! Whatami chopped liver!  |
|
|
|
Post by silver on Feb 3, 2013 15:27:54 GMT -5
Oh. {I wasn't thinking of you.} I'm offended that you weren't thinking of me in that regard! Whatami chopped liver! I didn't mean iti that way! You mean you want me to think that your text-walls are a sign that you too are uh...celibate? |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Feb 3, 2013 15:33:32 GMT -5
nah ... nevermind! this is getting to weird!
|
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Feb 3, 2013 15:35:41 GMT -5
The problem is that Joe and Mary think love must conform to a set of behavioral conditions in order to be love. This is why I say your ideas about love is not what Love really is. When you say 'your ideas about love is not what Love really is', should actually read ' all ideas about Love is not what Love really is'. That would then exclude you from 'thinking' that you know what Love really is... Yes, all ideas. That's why I don't have all sorts of ideas about Love that Mr Goat seems to think I'm trying to convert peeps too. |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Feb 3, 2013 15:37:27 GMT -5
Though celibate for over ...~counts fingers~...WHOA, 18 years now (gee time sure does fly when you're havin' fun), Well now we know where all of this energy for the text walls is coming from anyway! ;D |
|
