@fresco,
fresco wrote:
I can assure you nothing significant appears to have happened.
I recognise an esoteric aspect of this thread which theists might call "an epiphany", but which meditators might associate with "transcendence of self".
Only those who have experienced such a state will agree/commune with the OP thesis of "unconditionality". The so called "rational" argument could indeed deconstruct that thesis. This is not to say I or anybody else will function on a daily basis according to the thesis but "functionality" is not what the thesis implies.
i'm not sure that i entirely believe you, for what is significant when surrounded by "silence"?
You regularly cite the experience of meditators, but the "transcendence of self", which you seem to identify as a similar experience with "epiphany", is a temporary state, attainable only by self-training. Doesn't that imply that one's access to "unconditional love" is conditional? Kierkegaard's "leap of faith" landed one on the same, or at least an indistinguishable, level of earth, thus the absurdity of the human condition.
i know that i am being more than a little bratty in contesting your definition of unconditional love, because i recognize the ineffable kernel in every experience. But i cannot help thinking that transcendence is a poorer attitude for love to hold. Abstract love has no value, nor does it have the ability to evaluate. Love is one of the roots of any valuation; for all of its allure, it has no role in rising above the ontic level. However, love is precisely one of those behavior modes accessible to our physical selves that allows us to transcend...to downplay that capacity (that is, to pretend that it only exists on a higher level) is to (ironically) to demean it. To love another, without failing to take note of the differences between our different selves, is a condition of transcendence...
i'm not sure that makes sense at all, but i remain sure of this: love is a fragile thing -- it is a form of caring that requires self-conscious care. Self-consciousness is thus one of the conditions of "loving". And just so, self-consciousness is one of the conditions that must be overcome to achieve transcendence.
Just for the record, i have practiced meditation in the past, for several years. Perhaps it was a personal failure, just the sort of thing that meditation is meant to resolve, but i never received much satisfaction from it. The denial that meditation requires never drew me above my personal problems, it merely prevented me from reaching the means to dealing with them. Although i've yet to conquer the problems that beset my person, as is to be expected, i achieve much greater satisfaction dealing with them in person than I ever did impersonally. Perhaps transcending complementarity is my personal antithesis to achieving balance...untangle that knot if "you" will. Balance is only possible in a state in which complementarity exists, and love may be one version of that balance.