Originally posted by Raithere
You said...
Love is an abstract concept that we use as a label for an experienced emotion.
I said...
That is your own subjective veiw.
You said....
What else is it then? Can you give me a full definition of love? Please note that simply equating terms is not a definition (i.e. Love is God, is not a definition.).
Using that description, you can say that all feelings are just labels for an experienced emotion, but what is an experienced emotion. Could it be that emotion is an abstract concept for an experienced feeling. The truth is you have no real idea other than how it relates to you. This is where mundane science is useless. Einstein and Newton were well aware of this cut off point.
Upon what do you base your findings, the dictionary, so-called experts or personal experience or even all.
You say “Love is God, is not a definition” but it makes far more sense that love originates from a person than a concept that originates from another concept which cannot be explained but can easily be perceived, or through chemicals in the brain.
For you love may be just a concept or chemicals and that would allow you to act accordingly, but for everybody love seems to be similar but different according to the consciousness of the individual, therefore everybody acts according to their particular consciousness.
In the ultimate sense, yes, that is what I'm saying. Unless you've found a way to transfer you emotions and experiences directly into my mind.
So what about music, books, relationships, television, word of mouth, radio, fashion, magazines, doesn’t these have an effect on the mind, thereby shaping it, therefore creating mindsets.
Are you telling me you have not been influence at all by anything?
Can you say for sure that you are not hypnotised at present and are acting out the will of someone else by sticking to your mindset, not even in the slightest?
Conveying what you experience through words, music, art, etc. you can share a translation of what's in your mind but that is not the same thing.
How do you know?
Based on the propoganda put forth by USA and UK after 9-11, some people immediately went out and killed or brutalised, not only muslims but seikhs, because it said on the telly that it was a Islamic attack, and because some muslims wear turbans, seikhs must also be muslim. Do you think that would have still occurred had the two powers not jump immediately to that conclusion?
Look at the music industry, the film industry, the fashion industry, the majority of people are totally influenced by these, they live their lives according to these things. Look at speech, how that has changed, with the intervention of ‘slang’ people change the way they speak, they change the way they dress, they change their ideals, they change the way they eat etc according to outside influence. Everywhere you turn there is someone else’s influence, our minds are not entirely our own.
Doesn’t that famous ‘war of the worlds’ radio broadcast tell you anything about the fickleness of the human mind?
The shared vocabulary is subjective on both ends of the conversation. This is why it is so important to define your terms.
It is no more important for me as it is for you to define terms, overall knowledge is subjective.
Example: What green is to you is not green to me. I've a partial red/green color deficiency. Can I see green? Yes, I am not color blind.
Knowledge is not all about what you can see. Sight is not the only form of accessing knowledge. You can still understand that green is a colour even though you can’t see it. None of us can see air but we understand, according to our concious level, what air is and how it works, manifests itself and it components.
But what I see is not the same as what you see.
How can we be sure it ever is?
Through higher understanding maybe?
Thus when you use the word green, or the color green in a painting what you are trying to convey is not what I experience in my mind.
But you have your own experience of green, otherwise why are you talking about it. Green does exist to you even though you can’t see it, you can understand it from other people.
No, it doesn't. We can share things that exist in our mutual external reality.
And what is that mutual external reality?
I can prove to you that you can hammer a nail though a piece of wood by doing it in front of you.
But suppose I don’t have arms, does that experience not then exist?
I could hand you the hammer and nail and you can do it yourself. But if you are skeptical of me and all I do is say "I've done it before." Then we have nothing in common to agree upon.
But I also have a brain that can understand this can be done even without you intervention.
What do you mean by a relative world?
Everything is related, so what we do affects the perception of the world, for example before Jimmy Hendrix came on the scene, rock and roll guitar had an identity of its own and then came Jimmy who took it to another level, and it has carried on progressing. He helped change the perception of rock guitar by doing what had been done before but changed its outlook amd expression.
Do you know everything there is to know about love?
Yes. I do.
I seriously don’t think so.
Love is an internal concept.
Internal yes but concept no, at least according to my experience of love, so you don’t know everything there is to know about love otherwise I would have no reason to disagree with you.
But until we develop some mind to mind link we will, in the ultimate sense, fail.
According to your understanding but not mine.
The concept of love is like the concept blue. I can say blue to you. It gives you some idea of what I mean but, in the ultimate sense, it fails. I could be more specific; Midnight blue, sky blue, periwinkle blue? Even these concepts fail the perception of the mind.
That is because blue is not love, you can’t see ‘love’ you feel love, when you say I’m feeling blue then one can understand that you are feeling down, it doesn’t matter whether you understand the colour blue, this concept of 'blue' came about through outside influence, it is not natural.
We can only know, ultimately, what it mean to ourselves.
But what you fail to realise is that it is still knowledge that can be understood, but not in an animalistic sense, like mundane science would have us believe, but in a higher sense, that which is important to our (higher) ‘selves.’
Do I know in any absolute sense that your feeling of love doesn't affect me? No. But then there is nothing that can be known in an absolute sense.
You speak for yourself.
But if your assertion is that it does you'll need to demonstrate it before I even come close to believing you.
It doesn’t matter whether you believe me or not, it doesn’t work like that.
If you wish to understand anything about what I term higher understanding, then you have travel that road yourself, because it is personal.
No. I know that your concept of God does not affect my reality. If it does, I have yet to see any single miniscule piece of evidence for it.
Tell me, what exactly do you have evidence of?
But you are correct; I cannot know for sure. I don't claim to.
For one who says he knows everything about love, you don’t sound too sure of anything.
You are the one claim to know the absolute truth.
I know of the Absolute Truth, getting to know Him is my work.
Thus the onus of proof is on you. So far you have failed.
There is no need of proof, I already percieve the Absolute Truth and therefore have not failed. What you mean is I have failed to convince you, but the irony is, I’m not try to convince you, we are simply debating.
I concur. So why do you feel the need to try to prove it to me?
In what way have I tried to ‘prove’ to you, can you show me any posts.
Why do you keep proclaiming that you own the truth?
Again, can you show me any posts which say ‘I’ own the truth.
It is only when you do these things that I ask you to prove it.
What things?
Aren’t there people here who say God doesn’t exist, in my book that is just as dedicated as saying God does exist. The difference is, these people do try and offer proof and they have failed miserably, that is why they become (violent) offensive.
When you admit that it is an internal experience I have no problem with it.
I know what I know through my own experience first and foremost, then I can relate it to other peoples experience, therefore I don’t have to admit anything. Why should I have to admit I am hungry, if so, I know I’m hungry and can therefore understand that other people get hungry.
I truly try not to stoop to personal insult.
Glad to hear it.
Apart from that I do have evidence for things. I have evidence that the Earth is spherical, that bricks are hard. I have also experienced God.
Your evidence is knowledge, your experience confirms the knowledge.
Unfortunately, I have no proof or evidence of that experience and I would not try and convince anyone that my experience is more truthful or correct than anyone else's.
Was it not truthful to you?
If yes then why try to find evidence, what is more factual than the truth.
For all I can prove, it might have simply been a delusion.
‘I can’ and ‘might’ don’t sit well in the same sentence, they are contradictory.
Love
Jan Ardena.
