Why isn't unconditional love enough?

[water]

Ellion,

i understand that if you are happy on your side you want to share that with people but what if i am happy on my side what if the side you are trying to pull me out of is much better than your side? fair enough we should always share our experience but to say your side is better than mine is a touch arrogant dont you think?

It is inherent to humans that they tend to think theirs is better, and they try to convince others of that.
Like, you are trying to, at least a bit trying, to convince me that your view is better than mine.

i can never be on your side we are too different we have not had the same experiences in life we do not have the same way of interpreting reality. we dont have the same "mental contents"

Yes.

i can never stand in your space or look at the world through your eyes.

True.

so what was the "stuck in the surface material" a cunning rouse to strike up a converstation along a specific line of thought, perhaps? and me knowing all along and colluding with your game?

No, it was my comment to what you have said. I have not expressed it very kindly, I admit. But it was a comment, in tune with my other thoughts.

BG 2:62-63

While contemplating the objects of the senses, a person develops attachment for them, and from such attachment lust develops, and from lust anger arises.

From anger, delusion arises, and from delusion bewilderment of memory. When memory is bewildered, intelligence is lost, and when intelligence is lost, one falls down again into the material pool.​

Intellectually, we understand and accept things much sooner than we are able to live them.

are you saying that i have not lived?

No. I am just saying that intellectually, we understand and accept things much sooner than we are able to live them.

Have you read the Bhagavad-gita?

yes! does that change my credibility?

??
It does matter whether you have read it inasfar as a discussion about is concerned.

i tell you my problem with this. i see there can be nothing that is not godly.

Then there is no point in talking about the godly at all.

what is wrong with having money, if it is does not deprive another? what is wrong with seeking fame if it harms no one? why should we not seek gratification if it cause no pain?
why should we not enjoy our life this world our bodies?

why do you think these things not godly?

Because they take you away from God.
My understanding of God is different than yours though.

and this has much to do with your relationship with god. do you appreciate that my relationship with god is not your realtionship with god?

Whether I appreciate that your relationship with God is not my relationship with God? Strange question.
Your relationship is yours, mine is mine.

could this be so if we were essentially the same? i do not say these things to decieve you.

We are not finished yet, so while presently we may seem essentially different, at some later point in time, these differences may disappear.

are all your mental contents beliefs?

I conceptualize them as such. I deem those mental contents to be beliefs, considering that they can change. The only exception being the belief in God which is essentially different from any other belief.

of course i dont hitnk that. what i hope you will recognise is the dimensions of cock that i was gifted with are essential to my unique pants contents, similarly and i hoped you would do this work without my direction, the mental contents, the emotional contents are all unique to each and every individual to make all persons non different you would need no contents. eliminate all experience eliminate all charecteristics to all be equal.

With your understanding of God, I can see how the above follows, yes.

if we take the assume part out will the analagoy still serve?

It has been said:

"If we assume people are essentially different one from another, then there can ultimately be no understanding between them, and thus for them, there exists no truth"

Take out the assumption part and take the statement to be

"People are essentially different one from another, so there can ultimately be no understanding between them, and thus for them, there exists no truth"

This follows, but the first premise (People are essentially different one from another) I do not agree with, as you have noticed by now.

do you agree that male and female are different?

Yes, in some ways.

these are material differences not essential differences. yes, i think i see what your saying now. it is this common factor that you are calling essence (or essential). so, when you say 'i am stuck in the material' you are saying i cannot see beyond the differences presented to me by physical appearance?

Yes, along thse lines. Although you have more than just material understanding, of course. I quoted you the verses that mention the material from the BG for a reason.

BG 2:62-63

While contemplating the objects of the senses, a person develops attachment for them, and from such attachment lust develops, and from lust anger arises.

From anger, delusion arises, and from delusion bewilderment of memory. When memory is bewildered, intelligence is lost, and when intelligence is lost, one falls down again into the material pool.​

sanctioning prejudice is bad, i agree.

Find the justification for sanctioning prejudice. If you can.

“ “ truth being that which exists regardless of the observer, independent from the observer" ”

this is truth as external phenomena?

I'm sorry, that was a left-over from the previous post that I missed in editing.

yes!
qualities!
bearing in mind that i was reffering to things not just humans. can you understand a concept? do you need to be essentially the same as the concept in order to understand it?

I was referring only to humans.

Why do you think that you can understand me? How come you have this motive and this ability?

understanding is something i am good at, from expreince, a gift of tribulation, a crown that none may take. i am not certain that i will understand all that you express but i am willing to try. it is motivated by curiosity because i know that all people are different every body has something new and interseting for me. each person has their own message that they broadcast conciously or unconsciously. the more i connect to those messages the more i appreciate people and value their unique interpretations of experience.

I see. I was aiming at something else with my question. Namely, we are essentially the same in that we are all God's creation.

You'll see.

if you can show me.

Still, it is up to you to see.

you think i am after your approval, really?

it is not your approval i seek, your expressions, your experience, the caress of your soul, but i dont really need your esteem, when you give it if you are moved to do so, of course i will value it. but as for seeking approval from you, no.

Maybe you don't call it seeking my approval, but you definitely gave an emotional reaction to what I say, and I thought this to be strange in a discusssion and setting like this.

but would it be true in this sense? when it is yours i could accept it is true, but when you make it a law of nature i have to question its validity. appreciation is appreciation, isolation is isolation. the two are not in any way the saem thing, when you isolate something it is removed form a structural context how do you appreciate something that is part of a structure if you remove it form the structure?

I said:I could also say "To appreciate something, is to isolate it, in a way."
Appreciation is not isolation, but there is a field where both are applied at once: when appreciating x, we isolate it from other elements -- in the sense that we don't appreciate other elements.

i know you dislike relativism and i am in anticipation of your condemnatory labelling.

Please. This is a bullshit attitude and we are merely squandering time and effort if you intend to keep this attitude.

 

[Satyr]

This thread is soooooooooooo cute.

defeatist
adj, nc: (of) a person who considers it impossible to win, be successful etc.

defeatism
nu: the mental condition in which one expects to be defeated

Ever since DarkEyes taught me about opposites I can only assume that the opposite of a defeatist should be an optimist or shall we invent a new term a……victoryist and post the previous definition with slight modifications:

voctoryist
adj, nc: (of) a person who considers it impossible to lose, be unsuccessful etc.

victoryism
nu: the mental condition in which one expects to win.

Now I don’t know which is worse, a gloomy pessimist or a naïve optimist.

What I do know is that words can be such cruel and comforting tools. Mainly because they sometimes describe concepts that have no basis on reality.
I mean look at the term “unconditional” and “love”.

The first taken on its own has no real world example, since man can only comprehend things through cause/effect and therefore everything is conditional.
The second is a word denoting a connection, a chemical reaction in the brain facilitating cooperation and socialization and enabling survival.

Put together they make our breasts warm and our fingers tingle.


Nobody can deny the mirth of the buffoon, he knows too little to be overly concerned with too much.
Does not a child’s carefree, exploration come from its complete obliviousness to what dangers lie ahead or at a complete inability to draw cause/effect lines?

Nietzsche described knowledge as being detrimental to action, in The Birth of Tragedy.
After thinking about it…oops…..I can only agree.

If we really think about it courage is a consequence of not thinking.
Nobody contemplates the repercussions before they run into a burning building, they do it and think about it afterwards…if they survive.

But courage in the face of knowledge and thought….now that is truly rare.
Can we not see the cowardice in religious thought?

The very thing that makes their lives livable again, after some introspection, or meaningful after no evidence of it, is this ….forgetfulness…..this ability to turn away from what is perceived or not perceived and rely completely on the heart and how it always leads to what gratifies it.

The victory of the optimist over the pessimist is that he points to his, feigned or partially real, contentment and he says:

“See? What has your anxiety and questioning offered you? Life is an anathema to you because you ask too many questions.”

The pessimist retorts:
“Yes but I embrace my fears, I explore them, I accept them while you deny them and push them back into ignorance and faith and belief in the unbelievable.”

I add:
“And what a happy medium to see both sides and become indifferent to both?”

Yet, how is God’s love unconditional when there are moral rules and demands and where a standing threat and a promised reward urge us to obey?
The Bible itself is an interesting document.

If I’m not mistaken the ancient Greeks – yes them again – discovered the power of ambiguous language and speaking in metaphorical imprecision.
The priestesses of Delphi regularly spoke in poetics and vagueness.

Then events could be interpreted as to adhere to their predictions and advice.

Nostradamus must have realized this himself and it is one reason morons, to this day, still evoke his name and his verse in the hopes of finding the secret to the future.
The Bible writers must have come to a similar realization.

We can see it in the doublespeak and the manner in which it says all things to all people and is still a subject of speculation and interpretation, as in Biblical studies.

Not surprising then to find that God – this indefinable, illogical, Being living outside time/space – both loves us and punishes us in ways no human father would ever dare and call himself a father. He [this Christian manifestation of the omnipotent] can both give us free-will and place limits to it. He can both be capable of “unconditional love” and still demand specific behaviors and actions for it. He can be absolute ‘Good’ and yet contain the possibility of ‘Evil’. He can be omniscient and yet still go through the charade of history and of testing us. He can be omnipotent and yet display his powers in trivial displays and childish magic tricks. He can exist and yet speak, through the Bible, with contradiction and ambiguity.

The most fascinating aspect of this entire thing is not so much the necessity of a God or for gods or why mankind needs this concept to persist, what is infinitely more fascinating is how the unbeliever, the pessimist, the cynic can be seen as ill or his own worse enemy or something that should be cured, when none of his concerns can be answered, whereas the optimist, the naive lover of life is, reversely, the epitome of human health, from the naturalistic perspective.

Being a thoughtless, happy-go-lucky idiotic, animal appears to be the new example of what man should be like. All else is a product of a dysfunction or traumatic life experiences.

It is obvious that the dumber you are, the happier you are. The less you know the less you have to worry about. The less you question the less you find contradictions and the unanswerable. The less you see the less you are shocked or confused or concerned.

But we aren’t talking here about what is the ideal mindset for maintaining interest in life.
We are discussing ‘truth’ indifferent if what we find is beneficial or detrimental to our well-being.

I would submit that the courage of the town fool is easy and not to be admired. All one has to do to be brave in this manner is to think as rarely as possible.
What is admirable is courage in the face of the horrific, on the precipice of nothingness, in the face of the tragic and the meaningless.

 

[ellion]

water

if your enjoying the BG you may also enjoy the sutra's of patanjali

 

[Rosnet]

Water, you stopped replying to the other thread, in which we were having a discussion about belief in God.

Just curious: are you a girl. I don't know where I picked up that feelin, probably because of your username, which is somewhat feminine. Don't take offense.

 

[ellion]

It is inherent to humans that they tend to think theirs is better, and they try to convince others of that.

do you think yours is better, so you try yo convince others? there are humans who think they are hopless at everything and seek to be told what is better.

Like, you are trying to, at least a bit trying, to convince me that your view is better than mine.

actually what i am doing is trtying to make you aware that you dont know what is better for me. you know what is better for you, and i would never try to take that away from you unless you where beating me up with it.

No, it was my comment to what you have said. I have not expressed it very kindly, I admit. But it was a comment, in tune with my other thoughts.

BG 2:62-63

While contemplating the objects of the senses, a person develops attachment for them, and from such attachment lust develops, and from lust anger arises.

From anger, delusion arises, and from delusion bewilderment of memory. When memory is bewildered, intelligence is lost, and when intelligence is lost, one falls down again into the material pool.

i would be interested to know what you think about Patanjali and A Bailey.

It does matter whether you have read it inasfar as a discussion about is concerned.

i have read it, if you would like to discuss it.

Then there is no point in talking about the godly at all.

not really, not as an exclusively defined principle

My understanding of God is different than yours though.

exactly! now, is it essentailly different or materially different?

Whether I appreciate that your relationship with God is not my relationship with God? Strange question.
Your relationship is yours, mine is mine.

yes and they are different. the reason this is questioned people interpret things in their unique way but they are not aware that there way is unique they belief that everyone is the same. do you see? i was making sure that because water does not see god in all things that she understands that ellion does? that while water relates to god in some specific defintion, ellion has no specific defintity and relates to all things as god.

We are not finished yet, so while presently we may seem essentially different, at some later point in time, these differences may disappear.

they may not, what will happen then or what if it takes such a long time that you change into a different thing altogether. i could make that extremely complicated.

are all your mental contents beliefs?

I conceptualize them as such. I deem those mental contents to be beliefs, considering that they can change. The only exception being the belief in God which is essentially different from any other belief.

if you deem all your menatl contents as belief answer me these questions.

you are sitting observing the sun you have mental content of the sun.

"the sun is bright"
"i love the sun"
"the sun has existed a long time"
"the sun is the source of life on this planet"

are all of these mental contents beleifs? which are? which are not? what are they if not beliefs?

With your understanding of God, I can see how the above follows, yes.

most oif the time it is difficult for me to make myself understood particularly with deeper aspects of myself.

This follows, but the first premise (People are essentially different one from another) I do not agree with, as you have noticed by now.

i noticed you dont agree, thats okay. i am not sure i disagree with you either i just dont get what you mean by essential. it seems to me that what you say is essential is some factor of commonality within humans. or within the animating life force of creation.

I quoted you the verses that mention the material from the BG for a reason.

what was the reason?

Find the justification for sanctioning prejudice. If you can.

what are you asking me? to find why people who are prejudice sanction and justify their prejudice sanctions. or are you asking why i sanction prejudice?

bearing in mind that i was reffering to things not just humans. can you understand a concept? do you need to be essentially the same as the concept in order to understand it?

I was referring only to humans.

but understanding, is it any diiferent when it is functioning toward other humans than to when it is functioning toward non humans. what iam asking is do you have to be essentially the same as the subject to understand it?

I see. I was aiming at something else with my question. Namely, we are essentially the same in that we are all God's creation.

i agree. and is this the essential quality that has alluded me these few posts?

Still, it is up to you to see.

will try to see if, you will show.

I said:I could also say "To appreciate something, is to isolate it, in a way."
Appreciation is not isolation, but there is a field where both are applied at once: when appreciating x, we isolate it from other elements -- in the sense that we don't appreciate other elements.

this is my point again, this is how you do it.
if i appreciate something i do not isolate it as a rule. there may be a point to isolate but as a rule i would apprecaite something in its context.
i feel i can better appreciate understand the subject in relation to its environment (a contextual structure). i think i have real problem with this, we, you business, it is not just your self other people do it to. ithink i heard it called subjective reaosning, sorry, if i grumble about it too much.

Please. This is a bullshit attitude and we are merely squandering time and effort if you intend to keep this attitude.

sorry i didnt mean it to be an offense and i would not want to inhibit you in any way, but i was expressing my expectaions, please say what you feel.

 

[enton]

Can someone enlighten me?

Only God can enlighten you.

 

[ellion]

It is here that the axe must be laid to the root of the tree.

 

[superluminal]

Say what?

 

[ellion]

say what one more time, i dare ya, i double dare ya Fother mucker