Philosophy of love

You are correct in your concept of non-attachment.

Krihnamurti wrote,


This is implies transcendence of everyday language of the form "I love A".
Such language is evoked by transitory events. "Wisdom" is awareness of that.

There's a loose analogy that is sometimes made between the process of life and the relationship with ego that is connected with feedback systems and it is that of a thermostat. So with a thermostat there are boundaries at which the heating is turned on/off, over a temperature/under etc. This is a self regulating system, moving back and forth because of the boundaries.

Ego slips in as it were, as the question of current state and desired state. As the system checks whether the temperature is too cold, the perspective has to be from I am state x and the goal is x + 1, likewise checking for too high a temperature implies I am state x and the goal is state x -1.

Non dualistically I think the point is that such perspectives are relative to the whole process. Love seems most often associated with the dissolution of boundaries. Although I suspect most people who have spent time observing the ego would suggest declarations of love are usually enclosed in further boundaries, i.e. love OF something. Really it seems more like a game, especially from a non dualist perspective. Games always have boundaries, even if only implicit agreements. In that sense, if love is seeing the process rather than the part, it seems like an ingenious move.

What exactly are you implying by 'transitory events?'
That time is unified in the same way we are unified?

I am glad I am on the right track.
Before I had thought of this track I would have looked at that statement and thought of it as naive sentimentality. I am glad I now have a better form of understanding.
In this case, both hatred and 'conditional love' are forms of attachment? But 'love of the world' is non-attachment. Is there a better term for this type of love?
How would we define it? If it is possible to?

There is a need for tumesence.

Lovely, spendy.

Follow the way of love

If I have the gift of prophecy and can fathom all mysteries and all knowledge, and if I have a faith that can move mountains, but have not love, I am nothing.

If I give all I possess to the poor and surrender my body to the flames, but have not love, I gain nothing.

Love is patient, love is kind.
It does not envy,
it does not boast,
it is not proud.
It is not rude,
it is not self-seeking,
it is not easily angered,
it keeps no record of wrongs.
Love does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth.
It always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres.

Love never fails. when perfection comes, the imperfect disappears.
When I was a child, I talked like a child, I thought like a child, I reasoned like a child. When I became a man, I put childish ways behind me.

And now these three remain:
faith, hope and love. But the greatest of these is love.

Could you explain that a bit further, Ashers, please?

pq,

"Events" are defined by "selves" (little me's) who see their world in idiosyncratic terms. But "selves" are ephemeral and constantly changing. Wisdom comes from experiencing this, not simply understanding it intellectually.

"The love of a thing consists in the understanding of its perfections."

Spinoza.

And, obviously, at the risk of being declared homophobic, knowing what those perfections are not.

Can we understand perfections? What are perfections, really?

In the absolute, just some concordance between an external element and your own concept of "ideal"..

Nothing that one can rely on..

For sure Francis. How can we expect real perfection when large industries are dependent upon imperfections which they can exaggerate by suggestion?

Further-imperfection can be reduced by encouragement.

"Baby can't be blessed
Till she
sees
finalee
that she's
just like all the rest
with her fog, her amphetamines and her pearls."

I think Francis is thinking of Dulcinea.

Perfections are 100% pure conservations of the ideal -- that which is
most to be desired in the subject matter, devoid of any liberalism;
i.e., devoid of any deviation from that ideal.





David

Fresco.
What would you say it means to 'like' something?

To like something is to approve of it,
or to enjoy having it, like an abundance of cash
or an exceptionally flavorful pastry.

If u approve of it enuf,
or enjoy having it enuf,
then u LOVE it.





David

pq,

When you think about it "liking" is always a communication to others, never to "self". It is the report of what gives limited pleasure.

A pertinent thought, Spendi, I'd say.

I'm always thinking of Dulcinea but, alas, I hardly can get there with my Rocinante..

I am perfectly free and able to like something
without communicating that sentiment to any others.





David