Philosophy of love

@Cyracuz,

Quote:

So we cannot find the solution to how to act selflessly in the world as it is today.

We are not supposed to act selflessly Cyr. Can't you read the runes. We are encouraged to eschew selflessness all the time. Even those practical methods which lead to a degree of selflessness, narcotics and religious ceremonies and rituals, are under attack. Look how important "our human rights" have become. It's the Age of the Ego.

There is no selflessness in evolution. We do pretence of it which is exaggerated and self-serving and, as such, consistent with evolutionary principles. We get politicians to act for us so our hands look clean.

1 Reply

@spendius,

Quote:

Even those practical methods which lead to a degree of selflessness, narcotics and religious ceremonies and rituals, are under attack.

Yes, it is perhaps a paradox that because of the attempts of the church to monopolize truth in the old days, a powerstruggle arose that has heavily influenced the forming of our modern society. Because the church sought to manipulate religion to rule, the true messages of religion; how to live selflessly, are indistinguishable from the perversion the church created.

And so, the aspects of human existence that go against greed as a motivator and the aquisition of wealth and power for personal gains, are effectively discredited, and the institution that was charged with defending them rendered powerless.

1 Reply

@Cyracuz,

Not true Cyr. You mistake the ideal with the possible. The Church needs to rule to create the possibility. The Church must have a secular aspect to promote the ideal. The ideal is dead in the water without the power to promote it.

You are merely impatient with the substance.

1 Reply

@spendius,

It is not up to the church.

It is up to human beings. My point in bringing up religion is that the apparent unreconcilable differences between reason and faith has created optimal conditions for the corruption that lies at the foundation of our secular rule through capital.
Since religion teaches selfless act, and secular belief is that religion failed, crude and curious logic tells us that selflessness fails. So we live in a world where someone will starve if I get a full belly. It's is an inevitable result of the monetary system. I do not believe that it has to be like that.

1 Reply

@Cyracuz,

But unless you offer a doable policy to have it as you would have it done you are mouthing empty platitudes. They make you look good but have no effect. They are a form of flinching.

An influential English talking head said on Sky News in the last hour--"I'm not a Luddite but I sometimes yearn for......." his voice trailed off in some mutterings in which I caught the expression "simpler life".

There you go. It says it all. He will be attending receptions and embassy gigs 7 nights a week.

The lunatics are in charge goodstyle.

1 Reply

@spendius,

Well, Spendi, I do not share your opinion that it is hopeless.

I think that with only a little research you will find that there is an abundance of suggestions for solutions. Technology is the answer, not "policies".
But technology can never truly aid humanity as a whole before it is freed from greed motivated application and restriction. As long as someone has an economic interest in limited energy supply, they will naturally resist any effort of obtaining free energy in abundance.
The technology to harvest wind, sun, waves thermal energy from the earth and many other things already exists. But since oil companies pretty much own and rule the world, all things that will diminish their profit and power encounter heavy resistance.

I believe we have the technology, and through technology the resources, to provide everyone on the planet with everything they need without the need for anyone to go bankrupt over it.

1 Reply

http://www.thevenusproject.com/

A philosophy of love, in my opinion.

2 Replies

@Cyracuz,

If you gave what I referred to as "the substance" "free energy in abundance" it would go off the rails. It was not far off by late 2007.

And now house prices are up 1.8% in October.

1 Reply

@Cyracuz,

Quote:

A philosophy of love, in my opinion.

If you wish to know anything about that Cyr I recommend Volume VIII of Tristram Shandy which deals with the amours of Widow Wadman and Captain Shandy: the hero of the masterpiece. You might be prepared for Stendhal after that.

0 Replies

@spendius,

Rationalize it how you will. It is a fact that by participating in the capitalistic system by borrowing money and paying debt, taking a job and buying consumer products (which is the only way available for me to live), I am participating in the exploitation of extremely poor people in some far off land.
If you chose to accept this as inevitable and "human nature", then it is my opinion that neither your moral judgement nor your opinion on what a human being is amounts to very much.
I do not say this to offend, merely to say that there are probably things out there for us all to believe that would benefit us more than that partiular belief.

And as to a doable solution, one thing I am doing is to convince you, since I know you like to talk, and you are good at it, which would make you very effective in causing these thoughts to exist in the minds of more and more people. Wink

1 Reply

@Cyracuz,

Wow you seem to have a understnding of ethics more so than others!
I may be wrong but not all of us have the same bio-neurological functions that enable us all to see this! so please forgive those of us who do not. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x5QObhuLxso

0 Replies

@HexHammer,

HexHammer wrote:

The Pentacle Queen wrote:

I've been thinking various things about this, and it's all very watery so I'm putting it on here to try and solidify it.

I'm talking about love in a romantic sense, but also a 'love for the world.'
Bertrand Russell once said, 'love is wise, hatred is foolish.'
I'm wondering what relation this has to 'the self'. (Fresco/JL!)
Surely, if you think of yourself as a unified whole, separate from others and separate from the world, then to 'love' extends this self outwards, whereas to hate re-enforces a one-sided, 'subjective' position.
Does this concept of love relate to non-attachment?

If this 'love' for the world is as profound as I think the implications are, then could love between two people (who think dualistically) in the romantic sense be this profound realisation 'manifest' or 'objectified' thus why it is so important to most human life?
How would a non-dualist 'love' in a romantic sense? Surely phrases such as 'I love you' or more importantly 'I do' are rendered meaningless.

I have read/been told on numerous occasions about love being central to wisdom, and each time thought it was pure sentimentalism and instantly dismissed it until I thought about it in this sense.

What you describe, is many posetive aspects of love, but leaves out the negative sides.

- erotomania
- group think, people who will agressivly defend their idolisation, such as hooligans, fanatic religious people, paranoid people ..etc.
- skitzos, who will "protec" their loved ones, and lock them up so they won't run away.
..etc.

No Hex, just that I don't have anything worth saying in reply. I don't know if those elements of 'love' really are elements of love.

1 Reply

@Cyracuz,

Cyracuz wrote:

It isn't possible.
It is impossible in the world we have created.
We have accepted the notion that a human being is inherently flawed, and rationalized that the way we have it now is the best we can do.
It doesn't matter if you call it original sin or human nature, it is the same socially paralyzing concept. It has us believing that we know what is right, but we cannot do it.

What environment could it work in?

1 Reply

@The Pentacle Queen,

Quote:

Quote:
If that was how my thoughts had formed, I would agree with you and never have said that. However, I assume that there is nothing besides reality and intuition. To realize intuition is one thing we can do, and develop our personality around, mainly by trial and error, while to intuit reality is the other thing, not by trial and error but from an intuitive source that tells us whether it is good or bad, so that we want to keep- or reject it.
What's the 'Good = Hers' 'Truth = His' thing got to do with that bit?

All I am saying is that there are two basic roles, which if they are combined, can find the first cause of a bond between whichever two people, for life.

1 Reply

...that's Ronspeak for Yin Yang.

1 Reply

@The Pentacle Queen,

Perhaps it could work in an environment where you are not forced to compete with others to secure your most basic needs in life. The only people who truly benefit from the economic model which dominates the world today are the people who own the banks. They create value and lend it to you for intrest, effectively ensuring that you will seek employment to pay your debts. But as all money is created in banks, and intrest comes on top of all money that is created, the money to pay the intrest does not exist. There is no place to find the extra money you need except to take it from someone else, who also needs it not to get stuck in debt. So it is inevitable that someone loses if someone else wins. This is not a fact of nature, it is a fact of capitalism, and even though it is what goes now, that isn't to say that it is the best we can do.

2 Replies

@Cyracuz,

Quote:

Perhaps it could work in an environment where you are not forced to compete with others to secure your most basic needs in life.

The most basic needs (physical) are secured in our societies. Other needs are psychological and have no limit. If you want us not to compete for those you need to be campaigning to make advertising illegal. And for setting prices by legislation. I think you might also need to introduce the burka. The beauty industry feeds on nothing but invidious comparison. Explaining why that is would make me unpopular.

And you should think of how to get the population down to Dark Ages levels. Or even lower.

Banks are essential to our system. We have them because they are useful. And I think you will find that we own them. It came to light in the Gulf oil spill reporting (if I may call it that) that the BP dividend is 12% of pension pay outs in the UK and I suppose a significant amount in the US.

Quote:

So it is inevitable that someone loses if someone else wins. This is not a fact of nature,

It is the one big fact of nature. The survival of the fittest. And there is only organised religion to counteract that natural force. I assume the US Constitution's ruling out of an established religion was precisely to encourage evolutionary forces so that the immigrant population could see off the indigenous one just as the grey squirrel is taking over in England from the red squirrel.

I think you underestimate our acheivements Cyr. Rome wasn't built in a day.

1 Reply

@spendius,

Are you sure in your own mind Cyr that you are not competing with us at who is the most saintlike?

How's the guitar playing going. Do you practice to get better?

1 Reply

@spendius,

Pretty sure Spendi.
I have no illusions about sainthood or anything like that. I just object to being forced to commit acts that serve to entrench a system that exploits the weak in favor of the powerful. Simply paying my taxes is such an act.

I am trying to examine our fundamental beliefs objectively. "Monetaryism" is the single most unquestioned fatih that exists today. We seem to think that the system is perfect, because it allows for "human nature" without collapsing, but the fact is that the system requires it's participants to be greedy and selfish in order to function. The system has us all at a debt, while it it impossible to repay that debt with selfless action, because of how money comes into existence.

And the guitar playing is going great, thank you. I practice several hours a day.

1 Reply

@Cyracuz,

Quote:

I just object to being forced to commit acts that serve to entrench a system that exploits the weak in favor of the powerful. Simply paying my taxes is such an act.

But you are here exploiting the powerful by making them objects for your coconut-shy. If we have hierarchy we have the powerful. It is an onerous duty being powerful. Look at pictures of politicians when they come into office and then when they leave it.

Quote:

"Monetaryism" is the single most unquestioned fatih that exists today.

That's argueable. But even allowing it you must admit it is a system which facilitates the luxury of you wrestling with your conscience. Without it you might be wrestling for a loaf of bread.

Quote:

the fact is that the system requires it's participants to be greedy and selfish in order to function.

Careful anthropological studies have shown that beneath the superficial exterior of the arcadian worlds of the "noble savage" there is greed and selfishness and calculation. Our system has reduced the effects of those normal human propensities. The "weak" can hold us to ransom just as easily as the strong.

Selfless action is a choice. It is not required of us to be greedy and selfish.

The perfecting of guitar playing beyond a certain point should never take priority over the message which it accompanies. You should be trying to perfect the message. And the undoable is never a valid message. It is affectation. And it is irresponsible in that it allows others to think "something" is being done when it isn't.

0 Replies

Philosophy of love

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know