the inevitability of love and indifference

[Faust]

why do you consider conscience to be a form of love? One's conscience is only as wise as the person.

the only tangible definition of love to me is, caring about others. I mean that's the most basic and honest and real definition of love that you can get. If you generally care about someone's well-being, that's love. The more wise you are, the better conscience you have, meaning you want others to become wise since you care about them.

The wiser you are the less your desire to form emotional bonds with other people becomes, which in turn means you spend more of your time alone. Although I wasn't talking about being alone, I was talking about the feeling of loneliness. A feeling which also diminishes as one's wisdom increases.

okay, but conscience is still there without an emotional bond is it not? Do you walk around not caring about others? If someone needs an ambulance would you call for it?

Are you the same person now as you were ten years ago? Are you the same person you were ten seconds ago? Are you the same person you were one nano-second ago? Our memory creates for us an illussion that we somehow exist as the same person continuously. Although under closer inspection you will begin to see that we are a different person each and every moment, or more to the point, we don't even exist.

Actually last time I checked, my character hasn't changed for quite a while. I don't think people change actually, that is, their personalities and character don't change substantially after they've become teenagers. After teenager, all your desires and hobbies and passions will probably stick with you for a long time, if not forever. My character to be a philosopher is certainly not going to change, and this philosophy occured to me about 3 years ago. Likewise, my friends' personalities will probably remain the same, it's hard to convince believers of God into non-believers, and vice versa. Why do we not exist?

Because everything impacts us in one way or another. The fact that the Earth wasn't wiped out by a giant asteroid today means we are allowed to exist in the manner that we currently do.

but nothing is going to change the fact that we're spiritually alone and detached from others is it? We always die alone.

How is one's spirtuality not affected by causality?

because we're individually alone and detached and at times indifferent to others. Causality is just a dead, cold fact, it doesn't have a soul to connect us permanently with one another, so that we don't die alone. It's funny how philosophers here boast of not having emotional attachments to others, but this requires being indifferent to a certain degree!! It's like buddhism, where it boats of ending suffering, yes by being indifferent to others. To not be affected by callousness, we must inflict callousness.

Would you mind elaborating on these claims of yours?

do you not die alone? does indifference not exist among humans? We like to think that we are bleeding for something, bleeding together, our humanity. but we're not, we're bleeding alone.

philosophers think they can live fully solitary lives and end loneliness. but they haven't done it because they know it's impossible. Talking on Genius Forums is not being fully solitary. I would like to see someone go to the woods and live a completely alone and solitary life for a few years. unfortunately we are social animals, even Nietzsche knew that. So it's quite wrong of people here that boast of ending their loneliness, for you are lying.

[Elizabeth Isabelle]

Since you must be talking about emotional attachement here when you say the word love, (if you weren't there would be no reason to defend your position of loving another person as opposed to the all encompasing love that is Absolute Love), there would be nothing to "love" if not for someone's individual characteristics.

You are right that I was not talking about Love, but I was not exactly (yet kind of) referring to emotionally attached love either. I am pointing at a very narrow shade of love that includes a degree of emotion (or what could be debated as to whether or not it is an emotion) but that is not attached in the way that has previously been discussed. It's more of a detachable love, or a mild to moderately adhesive love. Not even really the amount of attachedness as velcro, but maybe more like the stick on post-it notes.

When people fall in romantic love, even their unpleasant characteristics can take on a different spin and be viewed as cute. When something goes wrong with the love, many of these "cute" behaviors can even become a source of annoyance. The behavior did not change, only the perception of love.

The thing that changed is your perception of that person's characteristics you were once romantically in love with, or in other words emotionally attached to. Not the behavior or perception of love. Basically the characteristics that you once thought were cute, now annoy the shit out of you. With that said your first defense of not loving someone's individual characteristics is in shambles.

I stand corrected on what it was being perceived. I should have said "perception through love" or in more detail - "perception of characteristics through the lens of love has changed because the love lens itself has changed." Love is acting as a lens, and different kinds of love act as different lenses, changing our perception of that which we look at. That does not, however, leave my statement of not loving someone's individual characteristics in shambles. It supports it, as without love filtering out the differentiation between the characteristics that make up the individual, it is the individual characteristics that get evaluated rather than the individual as a "whole."

When people have a perpetual love, they become indifferent to certain behaviors that might annoy or disgust them coming from someone else. A bad smell becomes tolerable, passing gas is just a body function, and picking teeth is no longer considered rude - just as a few examples.

Actually it works like this... At first you are indifferent towards all of those things you mentioned, then you become emotionally attached to this unrealistic personality you project on to the person you are "in love with" causing you to become upset by certain attributes that don't comply with the imaginary person you have convieved of in your mind. Then over time reality sets in and you realize the person you are in love with is just a figment of your imagination and the actual person will never live up to it. So this perpetual love you speak of is actually just a compromise between what your imagination has thought up, and the actual person you are supposedly in love with. At this point all you are doing is sticking out with this person because they are your best option. If the circumstances were proper you would leave this person in a heart beat to emotionally attach yourself to someone else who fits what your imaginary ideal lover is like.

Actually, I think we are pointing at two different things. I do not deny that your scenario is true in some cases, but my scenario is also true in other cases.

If there is no emotional attachment to the person you are in love with you would love them just as much as you would love a corpse.

Only if you were only in love with that person's body, and not the person as a whole. Even then as death sets in, the body changes into something different without the blood flowing just the way you liked it, etc. - but if all the physical attributes were to be maintained post-mortem, then that would be just love of the physical, not love of the whole person.

If all one needed for romantic love was the physical, then inflatable dolls would suffice.

and all that happens in between is your individual solitary experience, no matter how many people are around you or how close they get.

I'm not sure about what you mean here, but there are certainly other things "happening" aside from my own consciousness existing.

In that (and all of the previous that I clipped" I was referring to a specific perspective. The perspective you mention is also true.

On the other hand, how can you possibly be alone when there are more than 6.6 billion other people on the planet with you?

It's very easy to feel alone no matter how many people are on this planet.

Aargh. That is what I was referring to as far as the different perspectives.

There is also the definition that we are all One - which would make us All alone because we are Everything that is. Then when you zoom back to your individual unit, you see there is no difference between how silly it may seem to think of us All of us being alone, and the individual being alone with so many cells, normal flora, charges of energy, etc. that make up the individual.

The fact of the matter is, we are not everything. We are each unique and individual beings who, in some circumstances, are completely misunderstood by everyone around us and sometimes one might not even fully understanding their own self, which can make for a very lonely and depressing existence. The Absolute Truth that we are all a part of the totality is entirely irrelevant to this person's consciousness in the manner you are speaking, which I don't find silly, but rather disturbing. Only cause and effect will determine whether this person becomes enlightened enough to their correct their diluted state of mind.

Perspectives Nick, perspectives...

Creepy is just a perception. Life is as creepy as death, or as wondrous, or as fleeting or long - however - as your perceptions themselves. Considering what a perception is made of, such value judgments as "creepy" are shown to have the substance of gossamer.

The way we percieves things defines the reality of our existence, hardly what I would call a gossamer.

Our perceptions are just what is left when filtered through all of our shortcomings in ability to perceive. Perhaps that could be called our reality, but obviously it is not Reality. Our realities are almost nothing in comparison to what is True.

[Matt Gregory]

If anyone wants to prove that we love people and not characteristics, and that this loving of people is not an illusion, they would have to prove that people truly exist. But they don't. People are just a conceptual construct based on characteristics that we perceive. You can't love something that is impossible to come in contact with due its nonexistence.

[Matt Gregory]

Faust,

MG: Okay, but "caring about someone's well-being" is pretty vague. "Caring" can be anything from feeling sad about someone's suffering to actively seeking out suffering people and doing the best you can to relieve them of it. "Well-being" also has a range of interpretations: physical, mental, spiritual, sexual, familial, financial, etc, etc.

F: yes all of this comprises of conscience, I take it you care about other people's general well-being? If someone was dying would you call an ambulance?

I probably would.

MG: I don't see this as the result of a pang of conscience to help you because I don't see myself as primarily doing this to help you, but mostly to help myself by stimulating my mind with new ideas from others and by practicing writing and explaining myself and so forth. If I help stimulate your mind too, that's great, but it's not foremost in my mind when I post to this forum. I'm obviously not against it either, but I wouldn't go so far as to say I care about it unless I was really trying to puff myself up. I wouldn't say someone cares about something unless they make a special effort towards it in some way.

F: So you have no care at all to help people end their suffering and become enlightened???

I care, but the wiser a person is, the less they want to help people and the more they work for wisdom alone. If you've truly undermined your belief in ego, you undermine the belief in all egos, not just your own.

You're just a psychopath that likes to exploit people without caring about them? Trying to puff yourself up???

Yeah, this whole idea of having a conscience that cares about people strikes me as a way to flatter yourself into thinking you're not as selfish as you really are.

Calling for an ambulance for someone isn't a special effort.

Yeah it is. It's dropping what you're doing in order to do something that you wouldn't normally do.

MG: Well I don't normally think of love that way. I think of it as emotional attachment.

F: and that's why you're wrong. love isn't an emotional attachment, that doesn't explain the quality of love.

I define it as emotional attachment regardless of the qualities of it. Conscience, if it's based on love, is still emotional attachment.

Conscience, is the only honest and tangible evidence of love. Caring about people is the most basic and truthful definition of love.

No, that's a bullshit definition to make yourself fell better about your own selfishness. The idea of caring about people is pure crap. It's something only a bullshitter like a politician would say. The phrase "caring about people" turns my stomach to be honest with you.

Basically, if you go around walking down the street, are you indifferent to everyone that if someone needed help you wouldn't help them as best you could?

I try to judge things according to the situation, so it depends. I don't have any commandments that I live by.

I think that vanity being unavoidable when you're around people makes conscience unavoidable.

So would you say that conscience is really just the drive to satisfy one's vanity, because I think you're really getting close to the truth there.

You can control vanity, you can keep your internal state from being negatively affected by vanity through your knowledge of causation, but you can never REMOVE your vanity.

So you don't believe in wisdom? Because if you remove the ego and the lies, vanity goes with it.

Removing your vanity would require you to think that other people don't exist. Vanity is a wretched disease, because it occupies one's mind.

Yeah, I agree.

F: Now what I'm asking is that, can you still care about someone while still being indifferent to their suffering?

MG: I think this question is too vague and open to interpretation to answer in any remotely succinct way.

F: no it isn't. i think the answer lies on the very thin line between tough love and putting up with bullshit.

As you can probably guess, I've decided that the concept of caring about people is bullshit, so the whole question is meaningless to me. You can care about a person's suffering, though, and try to relieve it, but I think it's still totally selfish and the compulsion to do it comes from evolution and our psychological makeup. I would probably help a random person if I saw them suffering and I could help them, but I wouldn't deny the egotism in doing that, at least not to myself.

MG: I would have to say that generally speaking it's appropriate when it would help the person think and detrimental when it would cause them to go deeper into attachment and hinder their thinking.

F: if you think like this it shows that you have a conscience about caring about others, which again is the only honest form of love.

Sorry, conscience that cares about people is emotional attachment, because people don't exist.

[Leyla Shen]

As you can probably guess, I've decided that the concept of caring about people is bullshit, so the whole question is meaningless to me. You can care about a person's suffering, though, and try to relieve it, but I think it's still totally selfish and the compulsion to do it comes from evolution and our psychological makeup. I would probably help a random person if I saw them suffering and I could help them, but I wouldn't deny the egotism in doing that, at least not to myself.

Blimey, Matt.

I have to say, I am really having a great deal of trouble understanding where you‘re not (since you don’t exist) coming from.

If people don’t exist, how can the evolutionary compulsion to help them and human (?) psychology exist to rationally justify the non-existence of people? I mean, what is evolution and psychology without the things to which they apply? Or, do evolution and psychology merely result in “characteristics”?

I can understand the illusory nature of all things (emptiness) and delusion (attachment to permanency and/or inherent existence), but that doesn't seem to be at all what you're getting at there.

This (mis)interpretation of emptiness that is, "things do not exist" is necessarily wrong! You see, you have to acknowledge the existence of something before you can then say it doesn't exist, like you're doing above. Seriously, if anyone thinks they can present the argument that things do not exist cogently, I really want to see it--try and understand it. My reasoning, in fact, tells me that it the very essence emptiness lies in the existence of things. In other words, it is not existence that is illusory, but permanence.

[Matt Gregory]

Leyla,

MG: As you can probably guess, I've decided that the concept of caring about people is bullshit, so the whole question is meaningless to me. You can care about a person's suffering, though, and try to relieve it, but I think it's still totally selfish and the compulsion to do it comes from evolution and our psychological makeup. I would probably help a random person if I saw them suffering and I could help them, but I wouldn't deny the egotism in doing that, at least not to myself.

LS: Blimey, Matt.

I have to say, I am really having a great deal of trouble understanding where you‘re not (since you don’t exist) coming from.

If people don’t exist, how can the evolutionary compulsion to help them and human (?) psychology exist to rationally justify the non-existence of people? I mean, what is evolution and psychology without the things to which they apply? Or, do evolution and psychology merely result in “characteristics”?

Evolution and psychology don't exist either, other than as the characteristics that we ascribe to those things. There's no certainty in that type of knowledge. They're just tools to use for thinking in the realm of conventional truths. In the pursuit of the Infinite, we're stuck in the realm of finite things and we have to use those things to understand the Infinite, so evolution and psychology are sometimes useful for that because they can help people look at the bigger picture. Or a bigger picture, anyway.

I can understand the illusory nature of all things (emptiness) and delusion (attachment to permanency and/or inherent existence), but that doesn't seem to be at all what you're getting at there.

This (mis)interpretation of emptiness that is, "things do not exist" is necessarily wrong! You see, you have to acknowledge the existence of something before you can then say it doesn't exist, like you're doing above. Seriously, if anyone thinks they can present the argument that things do not exist cogently, I really want to see it--try and understand it. My reasoning, in fact, tells me that it the very essence emptiness lies in the existence of things. In other words, it is not existence that is illusory, but permanence.

We're speaking from two different philosophical levels. Your reasoning is basically starting somewhere in the middle and I'm starting at the beginning, at philosophical ignorance. Emotions are childish things and arise from fundamental ignorance. If you're emotionally attached to something, then your mind is equating existence with permanence and you have to deal with it at that level, otherwise your reasoning will leave the attachment untouched.

My reasoning goes like this: First off, a person is just a thing, so I'm going to talk about things for the sake of simplicity. The big question is: What is a thing? If you take a thing and take away its color, its shape, the feeling of it when you touch it . . . if you strip away all of its characteristics until you get at the pure, actual thing, what will you have? Nothing. You won't have anything. There is no actual thing to be had. The actual thing is just the category that we assign to the bunch of characteristics that we perceive and feel like ascribing to that thing.

The category is what we get emotionally attached to because categories are logically permanent, but because that category came from the bunch of characteristics, we mistake the bunch of characteristics for the category and get confused, and when the bunch of physical characteristics changes, inevitably, so that it no longer matches the category, then we suffer.

So when I say "that thing doesn't exist" I mean the category doesn't have a physical referent. There's no actual thing that's physical. Things are empty of inherent existence. I am indeed acknowledging an existence, the conceptual one, in order to refute the false physical one, which is what we get attached to.

[Nick]

the only tangible definition of love to me is, caring about others. I mean that's the most basic and honest and real definition of love that you can get. If you generally care about someone's well-being, that's love.

Do you agree there is a distinction to be made between what most people call love, and the all encompassing love that is Absolute Love? The former simply being a very strong emotional attachment, while the latter is a from of pure compassion resulting from an undiluted perception of Ultimate Reality.

okay, but conscience is still there without an emotional bond is it not?

I never said that. I said one's conscience is only as good as they are wise.

Do you walk around not caring about others? If someone needs an ambulance would you call for it?

Sure, but that doesn't mean I necessarily care about the person, I'm just following my primal urge to help out a fallen primate, which in this case I don't think it's so bad to do so. Although like Matt said earlier, that doesn't mean my ego isn't wrapped up in the whole ordeal. Ultimately the only thing I really care about is truth and wisdom, I just see humans as the only thing capable of understanding these things.

Actually last time I checked, my character hasn't changed for quite a while. I don't think people change actually, that is, their personalities and character don't change substantially after they've become teenagers. After teenager, all your desires and hobbies and passions will probably stick with you for a long time, if not forever. My character to be a philosopher is certainly not going to change, and this philosophy occured to me about 3 years ago. Likewise, my friends' personalities will probably remain the same, it's hard to convince believers of God into non-believers, and vice versa.

The change in your being may not be all that substantial, but if you haven't experienced any significant rebirths since you began philosophizing three years ago then you might want to take a step back and examine the direction you are headed in.

Why do we not exist?

Because we are constantly changing through an infinitely divisable causal chain of events. Meaning we and every other finite thing you can imagine has no inherent, or absolute existence.

but nothing is going to change the fact that we're spiritually alone and detached from others is it? We always die alone.

If what you are trying to say here is that the spiritual path is, for the most part, a solitary one, then yes I agree with that.

because we're individually alone and detached and at times indifferent to others.

Whether your see things this way or not has no bearing on the fact that everything is dictated by causality.

Causality is just a dead, cold fact, it doesn't have a soul to connect us permanently with one another, so that we don't die alone. It's funny how philosophers here boast of not having emotional attachments to others, but this requires being indifferent to a certain degree!! It's like buddhism, where it boats of ending suffering, yes by being indifferent to others. To not be affected by callousness, we must inflict callousness.

It is no wonder you feel that you haven't changed much in character since you began philosophizing, you still value the warm fuzzy emotions over unfeeling Truth. Let me say this though; the Truth doesn't need you or anyone else to recognize and understand it in order for it to be the Truth.

philosophers think they can live fully solitary lives and end loneliness. but they haven't done it because they know it's impossible. Talking on Genius Forums is not being fully solitary. I would like to see someone go to the woods and live a completely alone and solitary life for a few years. unfortunately we are social animals, even Nietzsche knew that. So it's quite wrong of people here that boast of ending their loneliness, for you are lying.

I never said you have be remain completely solitary in order to pursue enlightenment. All I said was that as one becomes more enlightened they naturally progress into more solitary beings.

[Nick]

You are right that I was not talking about Love, but I was not exactly (yet kind of) referring to emotionally attached love either. I am pointing at a very narrow shade of love that includes a degree of emotion (or what could be debated as to whether or not it is an emotion) but that is not attached in the way that has previously been discussed. It's more of a detachable love, or a mild to moderately adhesive love. Not even really the amount of attachedness as velcro, but maybe more like the stick on post-it notes.

However strong your emotional attachment is to something has no bearing on the fact that it is ultimately delusional. Not to mention the fact that romantic love is by definition the strongest form of emotional attachment there is if you don't include the emotional attachemnt a mother has towards her children.

I stand corrected on what it was being perceived. I should have said "perception through love" or in more detail - "perception of characteristics through the lens of love has changed because the love lens itself has changed." Love is acting as a lens, and different kinds of love act as different lenses, changing our perception of that which we look at. That does not, however, leave my statement of not loving someone's individual characteristics in shambles. It supports it, as without love filtering out the differentiation between the characteristics that make up the individual, it is the individual characteristics that get evaluated rather than the individual as a "whole."

If a thing presents no characteristics to us then that thing actually doesn't exist to us at all, meaning there would ne nothing there for you to get emotionally attached to. Even a child should be able to understand something as simple as this.

Actually, I think we are pointing at two different things. I do not deny that your scenario is true in some cases, but my scenario is also true in other cases.

My scenrio is true in all cases of romantic(strong emotional attachment)love. Like Matt said, any type of emotional attachment means one necessarily views that thing as if it inherently exists, meaning you are automatically projecting false characteristics on to it.

Only if you were only in love with that person's body, and not the person as a whole. Even then as death sets in, the body changes into something different without the blood flowing just the way you liked it, etc. - but if all the physical attributes were to be maintained post-mortem, then that would be just love of the physical, not love of the whole person.

That wasn't my point. My point is that your claim of a romantic love not demanding emotional attachment out of you is completely false. You even admitted this, although reluctantly, in your statement, "I am pointing at a very narrow shade of love that includes a degree of emotion."

If all one needed for romantic love was the physical, then inflatable dolls would suffice.

Right, because those things don't posess enough of the characteristics that you find yourself getting emotionally attached to.

Perspectives Nick, perspectives...

Well let me tell you the same thing I told Faust. The Truth doesn't need you, me, or anyone else to believe in it in order for it to remain the Truth.

Our perceptions are just what is left when filtered through all of our shortcomings in ability to perceive.

More accurately it is our subjective view of the empirical world around us which is left after being filtered through our limited ability to percieve things. Depending on our karma which includes our ability to percieve and understand things, we may end up becoming ignorant or enlightened, which is why I would not call it a gossamer. Spiritually it's a matter of life and death.

[Faust]

the wiser a person is, the less they want to help people and the more they work for wisdom alone.

but you still have a conscience right?

Yeah, this whole idea of having a conscience that cares about people strikes me as a way to flatter yourself into thinking you're not as selfish as you really are.

Selflessness may not exist, but my caring isn't as selfish as you think. That's why I have this thread, I'm a bit worried that spiritual indifference of other people is a pre-runner to Nihilism.

Yeah it is. It's dropping what you're doing in order to do something that you wouldn't normally do.

yeah but it doesn't take that long. It's not as special effort as say, helping a homeless person.

Conscience, if it's based on love, is still emotional attachment.

Soo you can live in a world full of psychopaths around you???? And help them if they needed an ambulance?

No, that's a bullshit definition to make yourself fell better about your own selfishness. The idea of caring about people is pure crap. It's something only a bullshitter like a politician would say. The phrase "caring about people" turns my stomach to be honest with you.

well it still exists as a universal spiritual truth regardless of what you think. Most people have good intentions, even if their methods are mistaken. You've already answered that you would call an ambulance for someone, what the fuck do you think that is?

So would you say that conscience is really just the drive to satisfy one's vanity, because I think you're really getting close to the truth there.

No it's not. Conscience is the sane need to know that you aren't living around psychopaths who wish you death and spiritual destruction.

So you don't believe in wisdom? Because if you remove the ego and the lies, vanity goes with it.

nope it does not. I believe in wisdom, but vanity still exists. Infact, there's no such thing as egolessness. When QRS walks down the street, they have vanity.

I would probably help a random person if I saw them suffering and I could help them, but I wouldn't deny the egotism in doing that, at least not to myself.

Nevertheless, conscience and the moral imperative still exists.

[Faust]

Evolution and psychology don't exist either, other than as the characteristics that we ascribe to those things. There's no certainty in that type of knowledge. They're just tools to use for thinking in the realm of conventional truths. In the pursuit of the Infinite, we're stuck in the realm of finite things and we have to use those things to understand the Infinite, so evolution and psychology are sometimes useful for that because they can help people look at the bigger picture. Or a bigger picture, anyway.

If psychology can be used to look at the Infinite, then psychology exists. If there's no certainty in the tools we use to find the Infinite, then the Infinite is not certain. There's definitely certainty in psychology. Instinct is one.

Emotions are childish things and arise from fundamental ignorance. If you're emotionally attached to something, then your mind is equating existence with permanence and you have to deal with it at that level, otherwise your reasoning will leave the attachment untouched.

There's no way to get rid of emotions, unfortunately we're not Vulcans. Isn't the Infinite permanent?

My reasoning goes like this: First off, a person is just a thing, so I'm going to talk about things for the sake of simplicity. The big question is: What is a thing? If you take a thing and take away its color, its shape, the feeling of it when you touch it . . . if you strip away all of its characteristics until you get at the pure, actual thing, what will you have? Nothing. You won't have anything. There is no actual thing to be had. The actual thing is just the category that we assign to the bunch of characteristics that we perceive and feel like ascribing to that thing.

This doesn't say anything. It's like saying, "what is a dog? well if we get rid of a dog, then there's no dog." This paragraph is trying to defy A = A.

The category is what we get emotionally attached to because categories are logically permanent, but because that category came from the bunch of characteristics, we mistake the bunch of characteristics for the category and get confused, and when the bunch of physical characteristics changes, inevitably, so that it no longer matches the category, then we suffer.

give an example of when the physical characteristics change.

So when I say "that thing doesn't exist" I mean the category doesn't have a physical referent. There's no actual thing that's physical. Things are empty of inherent existence. I am indeed acknowledging an existence, the conceptual one, in order to refute the false physical one, which is what we get attached to.

There's no actual thing that is physical???? "Dog" is composed of physical things. Taking away "Dog" would thus leave you with nothing. "People don't exist" is not the same as "people don't inherently exist."

[Faust]

Do you agree there is a distinction to be made between what most people call love, and the all encompassing love that is Absolute Love? The former simply being a very strong emotional attachment, while the latter is a from of pure compassion resulting from an undiluted perception of Ultimate Reality.

Uhh, I would consider pure compassion to be a VERY strong emotional attachment. Compassion of any sort is a very strong emotional attachment. You're a GIANT hypocrite if you think you're totally emotionally unattached but speak rubbish of "pure compassion." There's no such thing as self-less compassion either, it is impossible to be unconditionally compassionate to everyone all the time. Absolute Love sounds like it has a huge emotional attachment, and I would consider Absolute Love to be more cruel than compassionate, since Reality is cruel. Nevertheless, you have proven my point that conscience and some degree of empathy is unavoidable with your 'Absolute Love.'

Sure, but that doesn't mean I necessarily care about the person, I'm just following my primal urge to help out a fallen primate, which in this case I don't think it's so bad to do so. Although like Matt said earlier, that doesn't mean my ego isn't wrapped up in the whole ordeal. Ultimately the only thing I really care about is truth and wisdom, I just see humans as the only thing capable of understanding these things.

You don't care about the person, but it's a primal urge to help a fallen primate???? That's not caring about the person??? What is it then???

The change in your being may not be all that substantial, but if you haven't experienced any significant rebirths since you began philosophizing three years ago then you might want to take a step back and examine the direction you are headed in.

okay, I think the best way to put it is how Nietzsche said, "becoming fully who you are."

Because we are constantly changing through an infinitely divisable causal chain of events. Meaning we and every other finite thing you can imagine has no inherent, or absolute existence.

we don't have inherent existence then, not that we don't exist. We aren't constantly changing in our lifetime though, if that was the case, we would never arrive at the Infinite.

If what you are trying to say here is that the spiritual path is, for the most part, a solitary one, then yes I agree with that.

no, it's an indifferent one. Basically, did love come first or did malice come first, or at the same time? Either way they both depend on each other.

Whether your see things this way or not has no bearing on the fact that everything is dictated by causality.

ok???? And causality doesn't change the fact that we're alienated and indifferent to one another.

It is no wonder you feel that you haven't changed much in character since you began philosophizing, you still value the warm fuzzy emotions over unfeeling Truth.

lameeeee. I don't value warm fuzzy feelings, just that Truth consists of knowing that we live in an indifferent universe. Are you cruel all the time or do you show at any time any sympathy of any sort?? You said you have pure compassion, which is a very warm fuzzy feeling. Because if you show ANY sympathetic feelings at ANY TIME, then you value warm fuzzy emotions. Now that I think about it, being cruel all the time takes more energy than showing sympathy.

Let me say this though; the Truth doesn't need you or anyone else to recognize and understand it in order for it to be the Truth.

sounds very emotionally charged and somewhat desperate.

I never said you have be remain completely solitary in order to pursue enlightenment. All I said was that as one becomes more enlightened they naturally progress into more solitary beings

however there is a limit. If you don't value warm fuzzy emotions, then why do you still socialize with humans???? To truthfully put you to the test, you should seriously live an entirely solitary life, if you don't value fuzzy emotions.

[Matt Gregory]

Faust,

MG: Conscience, if it's based on love, is still emotional attachment.

F: Soo you can live in a world full of psychopaths around you???? And help them if they needed an ambulance?

I already live in a world of neurotics and psychopaths. I don't hold it against them.

F: Conscience, is the only honest and tangible evidence of love. Caring about people is the most basic and truthful definition of love.

MG: No, that's a bullshit definition to make yourself fell better about your own selfishness. The idea of caring about people is pure crap. It's something only a bullshitter like a politician would say. The phrase "caring about people" turns my stomach to be honest with you.

F: well it still exists as a universal spiritual truth regardless of what you think.

What do you mean by "universal spiritual truth"?

Most people have good intentions, even if their methods are mistaken.

Yeah, I'm sure most fat people fully intend to be skinny, but eat crap and lots of it.

You've already answered that you would call an ambulance for someone, what the fuck do you think that is?

It's mostly herd mentality that causes people to call an ambulance. They don't reason out whether they should in any conscious way. Most people would even feel that it's immoral to do so. But conscience that's not conscious is blindness. It doesn't have anything to do with morality, unless you think that everybody is naturally moral. But then you'll have to explain why the world is so full of needless, fully preventable suffering.

MG: So would you say that conscience is really just the drive to satisfy one's vanity, because I think you're really getting close to the truth there.

F: No it's not. Conscience is the sane need to know that you aren't living around psychopaths who wish you death and spiritual destruction.

So it's driven by fear and anxiety and the hope that helping others will make them want to help you if you need it?

MG: So you don't believe in wisdom? Because if you remove the ego and the lies, vanity goes with it.

F: nope it does not. I believe in wisdom, but vanity still exists. Infact, there's no such thing as egolessness.

Then define ego for me and explain why it's necessary.

When QRS walks down the street, they have vanity.

Pure speculation on your part but also irrelevant. That QRS aren't perfect Buddhas doesn't mean that a perfect Buddha can never exist.

MG: I would probably help a random person if I saw them suffering and I could help them, but I wouldn't deny the egotism in doing that, at least not to myself.

F: Nevertheless, conscience and the moral imperative still exists.

Sure, as long as it's understood that any moral imperative that doesn't take truth into consideration isn't really moral.

[Matt Gregory]

Faust,

If psychology can be used to look at the Infinite, then psychology exists.

It can't, only consciousness can do that.

If there's no certainty in the tools we use to find the Infinite, then the Infinite is not certain.

The tools come from the Infinite. The Infinite isn't a product of the tools. But although the Infinite is certain, anything less like tools are finite and therefore uncertain.

There's definitely certainty in psychology. Instinct is one.

I'm talking about 100% certainty. Nothing is 100% certain in psychology. It's all based on observation, which by its nature is uncertain.

MG: Emotions are childish things and arise from fundamental ignorance. If you're emotionally attached to something, then your mind is equating existence with permanence and you have to deal with it at that level, otherwise your reasoning will leave the attachment untouched.

F: There's no way to get rid of emotions, unfortunately we're not Vulcans.

You don't need to be a Vulcan, you just need to be conscious. A little kid will get emotional about little things, like a balloon, but when he grows up he will no longer get emotional about balloons because he's moved on and is no longer attached to them. All emotions are like that. This is why the wisest men teach about total devotion to Truth. Not just making it your number one priority, but making it your only priority and dropping everything else completely. If you love Truth will all your heart then other attachments can't arise and the love of Truth will burn out all your emotions until only Truth is left.

Isn't the Infinite permanent?

Yes, but mistaking finite existences for the Infinite is deluded and that's what we do.

MG: My reasoning goes like this: First off, a person is just a thing, so I'm going to talk about things for the sake of simplicity. The big question is: What is a thing? If you take a thing and take away its color, its shape, the feeling of it when you touch it . . . if you strip away all of its characteristics until you get at the pure, actual thing, what will you have? Nothing. You won't have anything. There is no actual thing to be had. The actual thing is just the category that we assign to the bunch of characteristics that we perceive and feel like ascribing to that thing.

F: This doesn't say anything. It's like saying, "what is a dog? well if we get rid of a dog, then there's no dog." This paragraph is trying to defy A = A.

No, it's like saying, "If we got rid of the concept of a dog, where would we find it again?"

MG: The category is what we get emotionally attached to because categories are logically permanent, but because that category came from the bunch of characteristics, we mistake the bunch of characteristics for the category and get confused, and when the bunch of physical characteristics changes, inevitably, so that it no longer matches the category, then we suffer.

F: give an example of when the physical characteristics change.

When a dog dies it becomes a lot more difficult to think of it as the same dog. You definitely won't be playing fetch with it anymore.

MG: So when I say "that thing doesn't exist" I mean the category doesn't have a physical referent. There's no actual thing that's physical. Things are empty of inherent existence. I am indeed acknowledging an existence, the conceptual one, in order to refute the false physical one, which is what we get attached to.

F: There's no actual thing that is physical???? "Dog" is composed of physical things. Taking away "Dog" would thus leave you with nothing.

Right, a dog is composed, but the way we use the concept is atomic and indivisible. But there's no physical dog that's indivisible, therefore "dog" doesn't exist outside the mind. The mind creates this "dog" and sticks it on pieces of reality, just like associating a name with a baby. Solway wrote about this in Poison For The Heart:

Name and form

It is clear enough that names are merely labels stuck onto forms. What desperately needs to be understood is that forms too are labels - stuck onto Reality.

"People don't exist" is not the same as "people don't inherently exist."

It would be if you understood the way I'm using these words.

[Faust]

I already live in a world of neurotics and psychopaths. I don't hold it against them.

so you wouldn't be angry if no one called an ambulance for you if you needed it?

What do you mean by "universal spiritual truth"?

I mean that conscience is a universal spiritual truth because it pervades throughout humanity. people mostly have good intentions. I wouldn't know how consciousness between people would sustain itself WITHOUT morality.

Yeah, I'm sure most fat people fully intend to be skinny, but eat crap and lots of it.

no, fat people still want to be healthy, just that they're mistaken that their fatness is unhealthy and lazy. They WANT to be healthy, but they're mistaken and lazy. Of course some DON'T want to be healthy, but that's good intentions for themselves I guess. Also, I meant good intentions also towards others, most people are.

Most people would even feel that it's immoral to do so. But conscience that's not conscious is blindness. It doesn't have anything to do with morality, unless you think that everybody is naturally moral. But then you'll have to explain why the world is so full of needless, fully preventable suffering.

Why would most people feel it's immoral to call an ambulance?? What about conscience that is conscious? I'm sure it would call an ambulance. Everyone is naturally moral and immoral, except we're evolutionary more on the moral side for survival. What's ironic is that many good intentions have mistaken means, causing unnecessary suffering. Also, suffering would be removed IF we WERE more moral!! So that only confirms the importance of conscience.

So it's driven by fear and anxiety and the hope that helping others will make them want to help you if you need it?

actually, I think to a large extent we manage to care about people despite knowing sometimes that the help would not be returned. Fact is, if our society ends up being a totally dysfunctional, merciless amoral world, it will go down the drain.

Then define ego for me and explain why it's necessary.

self-identity, Being. I mean, the ego recognizes that you exist, although not inherently, yet still exist.

Pure speculation on your part but also irrelevant.

Hahahha yeah right. Irrelevant??? Dan once said that he had self-less love.

That QRS aren't perfect Buddhas

oh so you agree with me.....

doesn't mean that a perfect Buddha can never exist.

I never knew Buddha sought to get rid of vanity. In any case, it's impossible. To remove vanity would require you to not acknowledge the existence of others.

any moral imperative that doesn't take truth into consideration isn't really moral.

already know that. so you agree that a truthful moral imperative exists?

[Faust]

It can't, only consciousness can do that.

ok.......psychology is the study of consciousness.

The tools come from the Infinite.

that's NOT what you said in your previous post.

But although the Infinite is certain, anything less like tools are finite and therefore uncertain.

how can the tools be uncertain and finite if they come from the Infinite??? How can you claim to know the Infinite if you use these tools?

I'm talking about 100% certainty. Nothing is 100% certain in psychology. It's all based on observation, which by its nature is uncertain.

????? Psychology is just the study of consciousness. So saying that nothing is certain in psychology, is saying the same thing about consciousness and the Infinite. Observation is most definitely not uncertain by its nature, back to A=A.

This is why the wisest men teach about total devotion to Truth. Not just making it your number one priority, but making it your only priority and dropping everything else completely. If you love Truth will all your heart then other attachments can't arise and the love of Truth will burn out all your emotions until only Truth is left.

This is rubbish. Fact is, you cannot get rid of all emotions 100%. QRS and you get angry and mad at times, tired sometimes, perhaps depressed at times. The love of truth is an emotion. Not all emotions are unproductive. Didn't you move in with some girl recently??

No, it's like saying, "If we got rid of the concept of a dog, where would we find it again?"

where ever we found it before.

When a dog dies it becomes a lot more difficult to think of it as the same dog. You definitely won't be playing fetch with it anymore.

yeah, it's called a dead dog, what's your point?

Right, a dog is composed, but the way we use the concept is atomic and indivisible.

atoms are divisible.

"dog" doesn't exist outside the mind.

why does it not??

F: "People don't exist" is not the same as "people don't inherently exist."
Matt: It would be if you understood the way I'm using these words.

no it wouldn't. the way you're using the words only says "don't inherently exist."

[keenobserver]

[
what perplexes me is that love and indifference are unavoidable in social interactions. you say that love is impossible, well what is a conscience then?
.

Having a conscience is behaving wisely.
Behaving wisely has nothing to do with love.

[keenobserver]

Psychopaths generally already assume that everyone else is just like them . . .

Elizabeth;
The other thing I wanted to share with you is a fascinating talk by Helen Fisher on "The science of love, and the future of women":
http://www.ted.com/index.php/talks/view/id/16
[Anthropologist Helen Fisher studies love: its evolution, its biochemical foundations and its vital importance to human society. She outlines the three stages of love (lust, infatuation and long-term attachment]
clyde

Vital importance to human society!
Lust is vitally important? Infatuation and attachment is VITALLY important to human society!?
ha!

God-damit, what a load of poisonous feminine crap this is. Sure its vitally important if we want human society to continue to exist in the torturous painful way it currently does!
Sure its vital if society endeavors to remain retarded, childlike and unenlightened. Then yup, it sure is vital.

Is this evil misguided womans' work being supported by the American taxpayer? Is this person teaching this false intuitive garbage to our students and young people?

There, thats what lacking a conscience looks like for those who were wondering.

[Elizabeth Isabelle]

My point is that your claim of a romantic love not demanding emotional attachment out of you is completely false.

If that is your entire point, you completely missed my point. You can't sensibly agree with me and tell me I'm wrong at the same time.

However strong your emotional attachment is to something has no bearing on the fact that it is ultimately delusional.

My point is that your claim of a romantic love not demanding emotional attachment out of you is completely false. You even admitted this, although reluctantly, in your statement, "I am pointing at a very narrow shade of love that includes a degree of emotion."

We're not even on the same page yet, so lets get there before debating the point - if it even needs to be debated once we clarify our definitions.

My definition of emotion is broader than the QRS definition of emotion because I include ranges of feelings that the QRS consider too light to be defined as emotions, but define those as just feelings. Where I am pointing is in that range that the QRS does not call emotions but I do.

Also, the crux of what we are debating involves the definition of attachment. If we define attachment as delusional and leave it at that, then what you say would be true; but "delusional" is not the definition of attachment - it is a value judgment based on the Ultimate Reality of All things. From that perspective, romantic love does not even have a place, so that is not what I was referring to anywhere in the entire line of reasoning (this is what I mean by we were not even on the same page). Because it is, however, part of the Infinite, I am revisiting that people do have such things as romantic love, and describing how it looks like it works.

Actually it works like this... At first you are indifferent towards all of those things you mentioned, then you become emotionally attached to this unrealistic personality you project on to the person you are "in love with" causing you to become upset by certain attributes that don't comply with the imaginary person you have convieved of in your mind. Then over time reality sets in and you realize the person you are in love with is just a figment of your imagination and the actual person will never live up to it.

Actually, I think we are pointing at two different things. I do not deny that your scenario is true in some cases, but my scenario is also true in other cases.

My scenrio is true in all cases of romantic(strong emotional attachment)love.

Fallacy of composition - and I am not getting into a "Does not! Does too!" shouting contest.

Like Matt said, any type of emotional attachment means one necessarily views that thing as if it inherently exists, meaning you are automatically projecting false characteristics on to it.

I disagree. Even a child who loves bubbles recognizes that they will burst, recognizes that they would not exist except for the bubble solution and other causative factors that the child does not love like bubbles, experiences some sadness at the loss of each bubble - but makes more bubbles and loves them as well. The child does not love bubbles like it loves its parents, but a wise adult sees all things are like the bubbles.

BTW, I'm not sure if I should acknowledge Matt's statements since he does not believe he exists. ;) Eh, I'm not even sure he's reading this since he doesn't think we exist either...

The Truth doesn't need you, me, or anyone else to believe in it in order for it to remain the Truth.

That is true, but throwing in true statements that are not directly relevant to the debate at hand does not prove your point.

Our perceptions are just what is left when filtered through all of our shortcomings in ability to perceive.

More accurately it is our subjective view of the empirical world around us which is left after being filtered through our limited ability to percieve things.

Our subjective view is the sum of our perceptions, so we're saying the same thing here.

Depending on our karma which includes our ability to percieve and understand things, we may end up becoming ignorant or enlightened, which is why I would not call it a gossamer.

I'm not quite sure what you're getting at. Perhaps you are not attributing as much substance to gossamer as I am. If you required surgery, would you be opposed to your surgeon wearing a gossamer veil over the eyes?

Spiritually it's a matter of life and death.

Yes. Do you seriously believe that life and death are any more ultimately True or Real than love?

Elizabeth,

I meant to reply to this earlier, but I've been jumping around and confusing myself.

I believe it is possible to love a person rather than just the individual characteristics, and here is my evidence:

When people fall in romantic love, even their unpleasant characteristics can take on a different spin and be viewed as cute. When something goes wrong with the love, many of these "cute" behaviors can even become a source of annoyance. The behavior did not change, only the perception of love.

Okay, I can see how this might happen but I've never been that deep into it. That sounds more like a love of love to me, where the drug of love is just knocking the person upside the head and making him unconscious.

Obviously, this only operates on the level of consciousness where people exist.

When people have a perpetual love, they become indifferent to certain behaviors that might annoy or disgust them coming from someone else. A bad smell becomes tolerable, passing gas is just a body function, and picking teeth is no longer considered rude - just as a few examples.

I think this phenomenon has to do with ignoring the bad and concentrating on the good in order to make life as pleasant as possible. I still think it's the benefits of being with the person that are loved. I think one big benefit is familiarity with the person, which makes it seem like it's the person that's loved, but familiarity is a big comfort to us.

This is also true. People can love familiarity, and confuse that with loving the person.

keenobserver and clyde, I'll get back to your posts later.

edit - cleaned up bad formatting

[David Quinn]

Elizabeth wrote:

My definition of emotion is broader than the QRS definition of emotion because I include ranges of feelings that the QRS consider too light to be defined as emotions, but define those as just feelings. Where I am pointing is in that range that the QRS does not call emotions but I do.

You mean like feeling hot or something?

If feeling hot causes us to have irrational thoughts, then we can say that emotion is involved. Otherwise not. That would be my basic criteria for assessing what is an emotion.

Also, the crux of what we are debating involves the definition of attachment. If we define attachment as delusional and leave it at that, then what you say would be true; but "delusional" is not the definition of attachment - it is a value judgment based on the Ultimate Reality of All things.

The idea that attachment is delusional isn't a value-judgment, nor is it simply a definition. Rather, it is a logical conclusion derived by those who appreciate and value the truth of non-inherent existence.

Attachment is delusional because it springs from the belief that the self inherently exists and that this self needs to be protected via an attachment to something else, also wrongly thought to inherently exist.


-

[Faust]

Having a conscience is behaving wisely.
Behaving wisely has nothing to do with love.

what the hell does 'behaving wisely` mean to you and how does it relate to conscience???? You ignore the fact that conscience means the moral imperative which includes the desire to help people become enlightened. I consider the moral imperative the only basic and truthful definition of 'love.'

[Nick]

If that is your entire point, you completely missed my point. You can't sensibly agree with me and tell me I'm wrong at the same time.

Romantic love is emotional attachment, emotional attachment means you belive something inherently exists, which means you are insane.

We're not even on the same page yet, so lets get there before debating the point - if it even needs to be debated once we clarify our definitions.

Romantic love is emotional attachment, emotional attachment means you belive something inherently exists, which means you are insane.

My definition of emotion is broader than the QRS definition of emotion because I include ranges of feelings that the QRS consider too light to be defined as emotions, but define those as just feelings. Where I am pointing is in that range that the QRS does not call emotions but I do.

Romantic love is emotional attachment, emotional attachment means you belive something inherently exists, which means you are insane.

Also, the crux of what we are debating involves the definition of attachment. If we define attachment as delusional and leave it at that, then what you say would be true; but "delusional" is not the definition of attachment - it is a value judgment based on the Ultimate Reality of All things. From that perspective, romantic love does not even have a place, so that is not what I was referring to anywhere in the entire line of reasoning (this is what I mean by we were not even on the same page). Because it is, however, part of the Infinite, I am revisiting that people do have such things as romantic love, and describing how it looks like it works.

Romantic love is emotional attachment, emotional attachment means you belive something inherently exists, which means you are insane.

I disagree. Even a child who loves bubbles recognizes that they will burst, recognizes that they would not exist except for the bubble solution and other causative factors that the child does not love like bubbles, experiences some sadness at the loss of each bubble - but makes more bubbles and loves them as well. The child does not love bubbles like it loves its parents, but a wise adult sees all things are like the bubbles.

Romantic love is emotional attachment, emotional attachment means you belive something inherently exists, which means you are insane.

Do you seriously believe that life and death are any more ultimately True or Real than love?

A=A

[clyde]

If feeling hot causes us to have irrational thoughts, then we can say that emotion is involved. Otherwise not. That would be my basic criteria for assessing what is an emotion.

David;

There are many causes for irrational thoughts, including extreme hunger and thirst, lack of oxygen, senility, some mental disorders, various ingested drugs, etc. Since I don’t believe that you intend to include ALL possible causes, what is it, in your view, which defines emotion?

And, can’t you feel an emotion and still think and act rationally, just as one may feel hot or cold, hunger and thirst, etc? I think that the ability to feel an emotion and not act irrationally is the mark of a sage.

clyde

[Elizabeth Isabelle]

Elizabeth wrote:

My definition of emotion is broader than the QRS definition of emotion because I include ranges of feelings that the QRS consider too light to be defined as emotions, but define those as just feelings. Where I am pointing is in that range that the QRS does not call emotions but I do.

You mean like feeling hot or something?

If feeling hot causes us to have irrational thoughts, then we can say that emotion is involved. Otherwise not. That would be my basic criteria for assessing what is an emotion.

I mean like that feeling that causes one to laugh or smile (this emotion would be happiness or amusement), or the feeling of wanting to spread wisdom or go for a walk (this emotion would be desire). I categorize these as emotions, but you do not.

clyde and ko, I still have not had a chance to watch the 23 minute video yet, but it looks interesting.

[Trevor Salyzyn]

David,

If feeling hot causes us to have irrational thoughts, then we can say that emotion is involved. Otherwise not. That would be my basic criteria for assessing what is an emotion.

When a man on fire screams in pain, does the propositional content of his cries determine his potential Buddhahood?

[David Quinn]

Clyde wrote:

DQ: If feeling hot causes us to have irrational thoughts, then we can say that emotion is involved. Otherwise not. That would be my basic criteria for assessing what is an emotion.

C: There are many causes for irrational thoughts, including extreme hunger and thirst, lack of oxygen, senility, some mental disorders, various ingested drugs, etc. Since I don’t believe that you intend to include ALL possible causes, what is it, in your view, which defines emotion?

None of the things you mentioned would cause a perfectly-enlightened Buddha to engage in irrational thought, at least not of the philosophic kind.

Granted, the ingestion of drugs or a mental disorder could cause him to hallucinate without him knowing it, which would mean that his perception of the empirical world was being corrupted. But even here, he would never lose of sight of his true nature and would never engage in the core delusion of trying to protect himself or react to the illusion of gain and loss.

So an emotion can be classed as any kind of response inside us which causes us to lose sight of the ultimate perspective.

And, can’t you feel an emotion and still think and act rationally, just as one may feel hot or cold, hunger and thirst, etc? I think that the ability to feel an emotion and not act irrationally is the mark of a sage.

On the contrary, it would be the mark of a person who can skillfully compartmentalize his mind and suppress his emotions at will - e.g. a soldier, pilot, policeman, politician, etc. It wouldn't be the mark of a sage.

I realize that you're thinking of a more sensitive, empathetic person here - as opposed to the "robotic" behaviour of a soldier or policeman - but I don't believe that such a person is capable of rational behaviour. Empathetic behaviour, yes; rational behaviour, no.

If you're experiencing an emotion, you are already deluded, as it means you have been taken in by "maya" - the core delusion of gain and loss, life and death, of inherent existence. The emotion is an expression of seeking gain and avoiding loss.

Trying to be wise and rational after becoming emotional is a case of shutting the door after the horse has bolted. It is too late. Your core perspective is already fatally askew.

I agree that it is possible to think rationally while being emotional, but only to a limited extent. For example, an emotional person can still reason that 1+1= equals 2. But it is impossible to take rationality to the very depths of your being while being emotional.

Emotion - e.g. passion for truth, disgust for ignorance, etc - can certainly you take a lot of the way. But when it comes to crossing the threshold into infinite understanding, it becomes an entirely different matter. Emotion itself becomes part of the Great Barrier which needs to be negotiated

-