Is unconditional love a myth?

@igm,

...I am sorry, your comment it is a fair reply but with a wrong conclusion...my rebuttal although formally addressed to you was more directed to JLNobody so it carried momentum...never mind the passionate form I react it is not meaningful, just pay attention to my ground perspective if interesting enough for you...

0 Replies

Nevertheless, it's the only solution no matter how long one has to compute. Or, whether the loved one has the patience or is still in the picture.

1 Reply

@Pemerson,

...agreed...but then we differently are speaking on resolution, conciliation, and not in temporal terms on unconditional love ! are n´t we ?

2 Replies

@Fil Albuquerque,

The CONDITION of Love is precisely to establish PROXIMITY, meaning, ORDER ! (final resolution)

1 Reply

@Fil Albuquerque,

Theologians explain it in different terms but they mean the same when they say "GOD" is LOVE !
(final resolution)(most people don´t even start to understand what they mean)

1 Reply

@Fil Albuquerque,

Therefore it is possible to establish a metaphysical ground for unconditional Love in atemporal final terms ! What it means is that we cannot calculate it temporally once we are a part of the Whole and therefore cannot contain it or compute it, although we can hint on its NECESSITY !

1 Reply

@Fil Albuquerque,

Final resolution is beyond the "frame work" of the individual, of the "I", such that although the subject can hint on its necessity he temporally cannot ever apply it on its own...he necessitates "GOD", the WHOLE itself for such !
Thus the (temporal) TAO, the way (reincarnation to some ) to get to the WHOLE...(where the "I" is dissolved)

0 Replies

...full proximity it is by definition non informative, ends up in fusion, its dissolution...love as it is meant in humans, requires "alieness" in the other...diversity ! but only so far...
...So the impulse of love is the impulse of acquisition of the "alieness" in the other to get to final resolution...("rest" or "peace" also suffice to explain it)

...on a final note just want to say we went from banality to a non trivial ultimately non boring explanation of Love... eh, that good !

0 Replies

@tsarstepan,

I re-present a quotation from Krishnamurti

Quote:

Where the self is, love is not.

Googling "Krishnamurti Love" will link to his video talks and may throw some light on the OP.

3 Replies

@fresco,

fresco wrote:

I re-present a quotation from Krishnamurti

Quote:
Where the self is, love is not.

Googling "Krishnamurti Love" will link to his video talks and may throw some light on the OP.

Personally, I can understand the quote, as the notion of a self, naturally limits love, to a limited notion.

0 Replies

@Fil Albuquerque,

Paradoxes are, I think you said, expressions of the transcendence of contradictions. Most contradictions are negative in their consequences--they are counter productive in that they are self-negating. But in paradoxical expressions we intend to see through illusory contradictions (i.e., false dichotomies) to rise above the disability of our over-dependence on the logic or grammar of language.

1 Reply

@fresco,

...love is both on the illusion of the "self" from the "other" which is not there, and the other is the world, and in the other from the self which is not here...the desire of proximity imply´s some distance to be crossed, a way, a task, to be accomplished, without noticing that such task in order to be non transcendently possible is already resolved from the very beginning...our incompleteness which is our beingness as a "thing" which is an illusion, is the very same thing which demands for our dissolution in completeness...the way of the TAO which is love...in the crossing of the bridge between two illusions, in the completing...action is dissolved ! Its Death...Love which is relation was in the action itself...

0 Replies

@JLNobody,

...well agreed... but those are not true paradoxes are they ?
...that is precisely what I am trying to do...put at rest all the western foolish paradoxes and dichotomy's...why do you think I love Hegel´s dialectic ?

2 Replies

@Fil Albuquerque,

Re-read former 2 last posts as they were edited...(as usual)

0 Replies

@Fil Albuquerque,

Fil Albuquerque wrote:

...well agreed... but those are not true paradoxes are they ?
...that is precisely what I am trying to do...put at rest all the western foolish paradoxes and dichotomy's...why do you think I love Hegel´s dialectic ?

Have you studied Zeno's Paradoxes e.g summary at this link:
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/paradox-zeno/

Are they not paradoxes i.e. some/all?

1 Reply

@igm,

...the truth of a lie, which is (true to be) a lie, is in the lie of a truth which is descriptively true..."GOD" cannot have soul mates..it is not computable if not in itself as the ended process of a computation...(from which we are a part)

...relative measurement in it yet still is valid or the Whole would not exist trough our process...

...the thing is that the truth of relative measurement is not in the completeness of what it says, which is not there...but in the consistency of the perfectly correlated incompleteness in the answer fitting towards that questions scope...

1 Reply

@fresco,

...hey fresco that guy reminds of the odd strange combination of bullshit and some interesting stuff of Ayn Rand...they are alike except they say opposite crap...

0 Replies

@Fil Albuquerque,

Fil Albuquerque wrote:

...the truth of a lie, which is (true to be) a lie, is in the lie of a truth which is descriptively true...

A form of Gödel sentence ? The liar paradox? e.g. "This sentence is false."
The sentence is not provable but cannot be said to be false.

Fil Albuquerque wrote:

the thing is that the truth of relative measurement is not in the completeness of what it says, which is not there...but in the consistency of the perfectly correlated incompleteness in the answer fitting towards that questions scope......

Yes, I'd say scope can have practical benefits with some seen and unforeseen drawbacks.

0 Replies

This discussion has devolved into twisting terminology. That's the problem with philosophy is you people get so tied up in clever word tricks that you lose touch with any reality.

Look. It really is simple.

I love my daughter unconditionally. That means that I love her no matter what happens, and I have told her so.

Even if my daughter becomes the most demented serial murdering terrorist in human history, I will still love her.

That is what unconditional love means.

2 Replies

@maxdancona,

Maxdancona, you are right. I too am guilty of trying to conjure "clever" hair-splitting phrases for reasons having little to do with the OP. I guess "unconditional" could be taken to mean "complete" and "unqualified". I did say somewhere that it was absolute, but that's unnecessarily abstract. Complete's good enough.

0 Replies

Is unconditional love a myth?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know