GENIUS FORUMS

[The following is recovered from the google cache]

the irony of love and indifference
by Faust13 on Fri Jul 06, 2007 5:45 am

i've been reading the Quality Posts section of Sue Hindmarsh, it's quite a solid page http://members.optushome.com.au/davidqu ... lity09.htm and i seem to have found some inconsistencies or some things are not cleared up to me.

here are the phrases that involve my misunderstanding with "you shouldn't 'love' people but love them at a distance kind of thing."


compassion is the vomit of the weak


referring to 'female compassion,' however later she says
The masculine mind, as rare as it is, understands and has compassion for the world


although i know the difference between unconcious and manipulative compassion with so called masculine compassion, this doesn't mean that all female compassion is manipulative, many times, it simply is genuine compassion that both men and women do. yet another problem is this, is all compassion no matter who does it weak? Should we succumb to social darwinism and live like indifferent monsters regardless of "loving from a distance"? Now myself I'm not really compassionate at all, I want everyone to be self-reliant and solitary, but the problem with this is that it doesn't mean that I don't unchoosedly enjoy the suffering of others, i don't want to enjoy it but it still happens. now, the funny thing about cruelty and the indifference of joy is that we're only happy based on our circumstance and situation, thus when our boat sinks (Iranian expression) we find to not be so strong as we might thought, and bear up the callousness of others including genuine philosopher friends. how do you feel when a genuine philosopher friend "loves you from a distance" when you're bleeding alone?

on to the next dilemma.

Sue said
love is evil
now, what about a philosophical love, say of Immanuel? (wrongfuly named Jesus in which the latin suffix SOOS means pig although i've read another website http://www.whyapostolic.com/html/jesus.html attempting to rebuttal it, i guess if anyone's interested they should do a thorough investigation).

How is this philosophical love to be interpreted as not being evil? Because it is at a distance? However one must be careful not to allow this to turn into indifference. basically this philosophical love is tricky because it's not love but it is.

Sue said "
Love" originates, and only exists, in the minds of men; it is felt by them, and can be understood by them
if love needs hate, does this love also need hate?

Sue said
People want to love and be loved, but they don’t realise that love and hate go hand in hand
So how would a philosopher's love work without this? Would you philosophically love someone who is solitary and self-reliant, but also selfish and ruthless? Why not, because they didn't return the love back to you? because you thought it was "egotistical" or really it was because you gave them philosophical love and so thought that because this is valuable you deserve some love back?

Sue said,
The "I'm on your side" mentality
now I know what this means in terms of simply looking to feed the ego, but if a philosopher wants to help people from a distance, how would they go about avoiding this and yet not get angry when someone is self-reliant and ruthless but not returning the signal, "yes i'm also a philosopher i know what you mean" for this is also a form of compassion and longing for acceptance.
amor fati

Faust13

Posts: 303
Joined: Wed Jan 17, 2007 6:29 am
Location: Canada
Top

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Re: the irony of love and indifference
by Faust13 on Sat Jul 07, 2007 3:41 am

soo no one has anything to say for this?
amor fati

Faust13

Posts: 303
Joined: Wed Jan 17, 2007 6:29 am
Location: Canada
Top

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Re: the irony of love and indifference
by Tomas on Sat Jul 07, 2007 6:47 am

.



(bat boy)


Faust13 wrote:soo no one has anything to say for this?



Dumb is what had been.


Tomas (the tank)
VietNam veteran - 1971




.
Tomas

Posts: 269
Joined: Sun Jul 17, 2005 4:15 pm
Top

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Re: the irony of love and indifference
by Faust13 on Sat Jul 07, 2007 7:17 am

Tomas wrote:.



(bat boy)


Faust13 wrote:soo no one has anything to say for this?



Dumb is what had been


how? maybe Sue's comment, "love is evil" is sometimes wrong?
amor fati

Faust13

Posts: 303
Joined: Wed Jan 17, 2007 6:29 am
Location: Canada
Top

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Re: the irony of love and indifference
by Carl G on Sat Jul 07, 2007 1:23 pm

Sue is an extremist. I wonder if she was loved as a child. I wonder if she loves her child. In any case, she knows not of what she speaks. For one thing, "love is evil" is a contradiction in terms, ergo is nonsensical.
Carl

Carl G

Posts: 543
Joined: Fri Aug 25, 2006 2:52 am
Location: Arizona
Top

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Re: the irony of love and indifference
by Sue Hindmarsh on Sat Jul 07, 2007 1:53 pm

Carl wrote:


Sue is an extremist.


I am in the sense that I will not accept at face value the falsehoods most people base their lives upon.


I wonder if she was loved as a child.


Yes - my family were normal ignorant people.


I wonder if she loves her child.


See my post on Worldly Matters thread, Why it is awkward to say "I love you", dated: Fri May 25, 2007 11:19 pm.


In any case, she knows not of what she speaks. For one thing, "love is evil" is a contradiction in terms, ergo is nonsensical.



You'll have to explain what makes it a "contradiction".

-

Sue Hindmarsh

Posts: 628
Joined: Sun Oct 23, 2005 11:02 pm
Location: Australia
Top

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Re: the irony of love and indifference
by cat10542 on Sat Jul 07, 2007 4:59 pm

love is a multi-faceted thing, it can't be all good or all evil. It may be flawed or prone to falsehood. But you can find truth in love. The ideal love...


Love is patient, love is kind. It does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud. It is not rude, it is not self-seeking, it is not easily angered, it keeps no record of wrongs. Love does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth. It always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres.
Love never fails. but where there are prophecies, they will cease; where there are tongues, they will be stilled; where there is knowledge, it will pass away. For we know in part and we prophesy in part, but when perfection comes, the imperfect disappears.
1 Cor 13:4-10


Don't hate me for quoting the Bible, but Faust was talking about Jesus's philosophical love, and I think this quote is a good example. It's not about romantic love, it's about selfless love, and if people can't easily attain it, that makes sense to me cuz people are flawed. We can't fully know the Infinite, we can only glimspe truth. Extremism is just as blind as human love sometimes is.
cat10542

Posts: 6
Joined: Fri Jun 29, 2007 7:36 pm
Top

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Re: the irony of love and indifference
by Carl G on Sat Jul 07, 2007 5:39 pm

Sue Hindmarsh wrote:Carl: Sue is an extremist.

Sue: I am in the sense that I will not accept at face value the falsehoods most people base their lives upon.

Heh, cute. I meant you come across, regarding love, as a "throw the baby out with the bathwater" kind of person.


Carl: I wonder if she loves her child.

Sue: See my post on Worldly Matters thread, Why it is awkward to say "I love you", dated: Fri May 25, 2007 11:19 pm.

Hmm, a research assignment.


Carl: In any case, she knows not of what she speaks. For one thing, "love is evil" is a contradiction in terms, ergo is nonsensical.

Sue: You'll have to explain what makes it a "contradiction".

I will?

Love, by its most basic and common definitions, has an opposite value to evil, therefore cannot be evil.
Carl

Carl G

Posts: 543
Joined: Fri Aug 25, 2006 2:52 am
Location: Arizona
Top

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Re: the irony of love and indifference
by Kevin Solway on Sat Jul 07, 2007 8:35 pm

There's ordinary love, which is experienced between a man and a woman, or between a parent and their child. Popular songs are pretty much all about love. That kind of love is widespread. Let's call that "human love".

Human love is evil because it is based on delusion. (Assuming we agree that delusion is the fundamental evil).

It is true that normal human beings classify their human love as "good" - but that's because they don't know it is deluded, and aren't aware of its consequences.

By contrast, spiritual or philosophical love could be described as a deep understanding, identification, and interaction with all things. It is something that is never experienced by the vast bulk of humanity, at any time.

Kevin Solway

Posts: 1361
Joined: Sun Sep 16, 2001 10:43 pm
Location: Australia
Top

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Re: the irony of love and indifference
by Nick Treklis on Sat Jul 07, 2007 10:54 pm

Sue is an extremist.

There's nothing wrong with being an extremist or a fundamentalist, as long as what one is being fundamental/extreme about is wise. Sue seems like a wise person to me and therefore I have nothing against her extremism. Carl's attitude that extremism is inherently bad is merely an expression of his extreme ignorance.

Nick Treklis

Posts: 609
Joined: Mon Nov 28, 2005 10:39 am
Location: Detroit, Michigan
Top

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Re: the irony of love and indifference
by Carl G on Sat Jul 07, 2007 11:29 pm

Kevin Solway wrote:spiritual or philosophical love could be described as a deep understanding, identification, and interaction with all things.


So you would agree that Sue's statement that "love is evil" is a misnomer.
Carl

Carl G

Posts: 543
Joined: Fri Aug 25, 2006 2:52 am
Location: Arizona
Top

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Re: the irony of love and indifference
by Carl G on Sat Jul 07, 2007 11:31 pm

Nick Treklis wrote:
Sue is an extremist.

There's nothing wrong with being an extremist or a fundamentalist, as long as what one is being fundamental/extreme about is wise. Sue seems like a wise person to me and therefore I have nothing against her extremism. Carl's attitude that extremism is inherently bad is merely an expression of his extreme ignorance.

Ick. A slug slimed out from under a moldy leaf and uttered something.
Carl

Carl G

Posts: 543
Joined: Fri Aug 25, 2006 2:52 am
Location: Arizona
Top

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Re: the irony of love and indifference
by Kevin Solway on Sun Jul 08, 2007 12:53 am

Carl G wrote:
Kevin Solway wrote:spiritual or philosophical love could be described as a deep understanding, identification, and interaction with all things.


So you would agree that Sue's statement that "love is evil" is a misnomer.


I interpreted Sue to be speaking of human love rather than spiritual love.

Kevin Solway

Posts: 1361
Joined: Sun Sep 16, 2001 10:43 pm
Location: Australia
Top

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Re: the irony of love and indifference
by Faust13 on Sun Jul 08, 2007 1:15 am

Kevin Solway wrote:
Carl G wrote:
Kevin Solway wrote:spiritual or philosophical love could be described as a deep understanding, identification, and interaction with all things.


So you would agree that Sue's statement that "love is evil" is a misnomer.


I interpreted Sue to be speaking of human love rather than spiritual love.


but this spiritual love is NOT self-less, it's NOT at all altruistic, you want the feeling returned. This fact proves that spiritual love will always have "human love."
amor fati

Faust13

Posts: 303
Joined: Wed Jan 17, 2007 6:29 am
Location: Canada
Top

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Re: the irony of love and indifference
by Dan Rowden on Sun Jul 08, 2007 1:20 am

I don't get your reasoning (assuming there is any). Why is it not self-less, and what sort of "feeling" is it that one wants to have returned?

Dan Rowden

Posts: 1498
Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2001 10:03 am
Location: Brisbane., Australia
Top

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Re: the irony of love and indifference
by Elizabeth Isabelle on Sun Jul 08, 2007 1:37 am

Kevin Solway wrote:It is true that normal human beings classify their human love as "good" - but that's because they don't know it is deluded, and aren't aware of its consequences.


It is only deluded to the degree that it is based on misunderstanding and false expectations. Pure love has only positive consequences, but humans are not pure. The bad outcomes are results of misunderstanding, miscommunication including falsehood, a poor understanding of causality, selfishness and other examples of poor mental or physical health, and a refusal to accept A=A ( more specifically to this point, a refusal to accept that love is what it is, and love is not what you project that it will be in a few years, or months, or hours).

If one accepts the limitations of humanity, then at least it is less deluded. I seem to recall you saying before that marriage is illogical because one can not know that they can keep a promise like promising to love one particular person for the rest of eir life. If both parties understand that such a promise is actually only a statement of intention based on currently available data, then it is either not deluded (some people do actually love each other for the rest of their lives) or less deluded, knowing that if both parties do not contribute to causality in such a way as to encourage positive effects, and/or if something happens that the cause or relationship termination is external to the realm of influence of the couple, then it is not deluded because both knew it was possible for circumstances to change in such a way that a continued relationship would not be the optimal course of action. That would be a "broken promise" - but as long as both parties entered into the promise in good faith (rather than one entering into the "promise" with the intent to use, abuse, manipulate, and from the beginning, not intending to keep one's word) - then it is still valid truthfulness.

There are no guarantees in life or love, but an intelligent risk is often required for an optimal life. Even if the optimal is not achieved, one should look at whether more improvement over not being in a relationship is coming out of the situation than costs against a solitary life. It is better to be with no one than with the wrong one because the wrong one can suck you dry and leave you far worse off then when you were alone, but the right match can make both people's lives better than solitude.

It is important to understand causality well enough to see both whether both are likely to be better off in the long run, and if both sides are being truthful. As you said elsewhere - it is easier to understand yourself than anyone else, so it is easier to be able to tell if you can handle a relationship properly than if the other person can. I believe that some level of trust in the other person is called for here. If a person is aware enough, then that person should also be aware enough to tell if the other person can handle it or not. You said in a podcast with Nat that in order for a relationship to work, both need to be at least 50% enlightened. Although I still don't like the term enlightened due to all of its baggage, I concur that both parties must be mature and aware enough for any chance at a good relationship. A healthy relationship can only happen between healthy people.

Consider love to be like high-octane fuel, and a lack of love like low octane fuel. A car designed for high octane fuel runs its best on that rather than low octane fuel - although it could still run on the lower grade stuff. Some cars are not designed for high octane fuel, so if you put that in there, it is either a waste or it can damage the fuel system.

It is cruel of Nature to have programmed most of us with a desire for relationships and procreation when so many people are not designed to handle relationships appropriately, but perhaps that is the next stage of evolution after the Information Age. (Now watch the whole board groan at the idea the the next age is the Relationship Age.) I suggest that might be next because evolution seems to target the next most painful trick that Nature has played on us.

Elizabeth Isabelle

Posts: 2518
Joined: Tue Sep 05, 2006 1:35 am
Location: Tampa, FL
Top

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Re: the irony of love and indifference
by Dan Rowden on Sun Jul 08, 2007 1:48 am

Elizabeth Isabelle wrote:I seem to recall you saying before that marriage is illogical because one can not know that they can keep a promise like promising to love one particular person for the rest of eir life.


This is the least of the reasons that marriage is illogical (and delusional). In fact, it doesn't really make marriage illogical so much as that particular promise.

Dan Rowden

Posts: 1498
Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2001 10:03 am
Location: Brisbane., Australia
Top

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Re: the irony of love and indifference
by Dan Rowden on Sun Jul 08, 2007 1:55 am

Elizabeth Isabelle wrote:You said in a podcast with Nat that in order for a relationship to work, both need to be at least 50% enlightened.


I don't recall Kevin saying this, precisely, but perhaps he did. In any event it doesn't make much sense if we're thinking about "relationship" in any remotely conventional way. The greater the degree of enlightenment of a person the less they are in need of any such relationship. The need exists in direct proportion to their lack of enlightenment. Such a relationship would be by it very nature anti-enlightenment. One would have to automatically wish its downfall.

Dan Rowden

Posts: 1498
Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2001 10:03 am
Location: Brisbane., Australia
Top

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Re: the irony of love and indifference
by DHodges on Sun Jul 08, 2007 2:04 am

Kevin Solway wrote:It is true that normal human beings classify their human love as "good" - but that's because they don't know it is deluded, and aren't aware of its consequences.

Reminds me of that song - "If loving you is wrong, I don't want to be right."

DHodges

Posts: 847
Joined: Tue Jan 22, 2002 10:20 am
Location: Philadelphia, PA
Top

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Re: the irony of love and indifference
by Carl G on Sun Jul 08, 2007 2:13 am

Kevin Solway wrote:Kevin: spiritual or philosophical love could be described as a deep understanding, identification, and interaction with all things.

Carl: So you would agree that Sue's statement that "love is evil" is a misnomer.

Kevin: I interpreted Sue to be speaking of human love rather than spiritual love.


Sue didn't say "delusional love." She said "love." Without searching for exact context the page from which this was quoted, I assumed (and she didn't dispute this) she meant all love (is evil). That was why I called her an extremist, and said her position was one of "throw the baby out with the bathwater."
Carl

Carl G

Posts: 543
Joined: Fri Aug 25, 2006 2:52 am
Location: Arizona
Top

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Re: the irony of love and indifference
by Elizabeth Isabelle on Sun Jul 08, 2007 2:17 am

Dan Rowden wrote:I don't recall Kevin saying this, precisely, but perhaps he did. In any event it doesn't make much sense if we're thinking about "relationship" in any remotely conventional way. The greater the degree of enlightenment of a person the less they are in need of any such relationship.


In context, he said something to the effect of it would be for the purpose of necessary procreation.

I fully agree that they would not need such a relationship, but I believe that if they were enlightened enough, they could enjoy it for the time it was functional, but not be so attached to it to experience pain (or at least as much pain) when the partner dies or in some other way circumstances change to make the relationship no longer an improvement over solitude. And I don't mean in some fickle way, either. If one is sick or injured, it would be reasonable to be there for the other person even though it is a temporary cost to the healthy one because of the security of some degree of reciprocity. Even at that, the sick or injured one could provide enough other benefits to make it worthwhile to the other being. One could consider that the condition of being female is almost like being sick or injured because females are not as physically strong as males, and are particularly vulnerable during and shortly after pregnancy. Nevertheless, it is possible for females to provide enough benefits to the male to make up for any weakness.

A wise person could desire a better or more comfortable life, but would not need it - much in the same way that one could desire to sit on a couch rather than a park bench, but a park bench will do.

Elizabeth Isabelle

Posts: 2518
Joined: Tue Sep 05, 2006 1:35 am
Location: Tampa, FL
Top

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Re: the irony of love and indifference
by Sue Hindmarsh on Sun Jul 08, 2007 3:12 am

Elizabeth,

Above you’re describing a relationship still based on reciprocality. That’s what normal ignorant people indulge in all the time. You have your imagined “enlightened people” carrying on in such a way that they’d have to be extremely dull witted to believe that such dealings with one another had any basis in truth.

-

Sue Hindmarsh

Posts: 628
Joined: Sun Oct 23, 2005 11:02 pm
Location: Australia
Top

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Re: the irony of love and indifference
by Leyla Shen on Sun Jul 08, 2007 3:26 am

Irony, indeed.

Marriage is entered into on the premise that those so entering it were free to do so in the first place. Free to make the choice to no longer have that freedom. People who live up to their marital obligations, therefore, were always precisely as free as they were capable of giving up freedom.
"Sleepy time, when I lie..."

Leyla Shen

Posts: 1823
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 6:12 am
Location: Flippen-well AUSTRALIA
Top

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Re: the irony of love and indifference
by Cory Duchesne on Sun Jul 08, 2007 3:57 am

Although I don't have a desire for it......People being attracted to each other in some way, coupling up (establishing a relationship built largely on emotional reciprocity; appeasing loneliness, acts of affection, jealously and what not) and seeking each others company because of emotional compatibility without the contracts and vows, is a somewhat understandable (inevitable, really) trajectory for most people.

However - anyone in this day and age who desires their coupling up to be enhanced by vows, ceremony, legal contract, etc., is direly in need of some sort of psychotherapy and spiritual growth. The act of marriage is taking things too far - it's just too absurd of a thing to do.

I view the desire for marriage as an indication of serious inner poverty and irrationality - - whereas the desire simply to have sexual-emotional companions, to naturally allow a sort of coupling up to happen without the contract and stuff is a bit more reasonable, albeit, for me, it's out of the question.
Last edited by Cory Duchesne on Sun Jul 08, 2007 4:01 am, edited 1 time in total.

Cory Duchesne

Posts: 1199
Joined: Thu Feb 02, 2006 12:35 am
Location: Canada
Top

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Re: the irony of love and indifference
by Shahrazad on Sun Jul 08, 2007 4:01 am

Elizabeth,


A wise person could desire a better or more comfortable life, but would not need it - much in the same way that one could desire to sit on a couch rather than a park bench, but a park bench will do.
I agree here. Just because a person does not need something doesn't mean they should not or could not have it.

I don't need a cell phone at all, but it sort of comes in handy sometimes.

Shahrazad
-----------------------------------

. . . Continued

[The following is recovered from the google cache]

--------------

Re: the irony of love and indifference
by Sue Hindmarsh on Sun Jul 08, 2007 6:28 am

Shah,

If you "desire" something, you think it will make your life better.

A wise person, by definition, desires only to live according to truth. Truth is first and foremost the guiding force behind the wise person's life choices. Other desires exist, as Dan stated earlier on, "in direct proportion to [ones] lack of enlightenment".

A wise person may carry a mobile phone, or drive a car, or live in a flat, or take care of a child, or live with a friend, or go shopping, etc - and still be living according to truth. But; if they value those things more than truth, then truth isn't guiding those life choices - delusional thinking is.

-

Sue Hindmarsh

Posts: 631
Joined: Sun Oct 23, 2005 11:02 pm
Location: Australia
Top

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Re: the irony of love and indifference
by Shahrazad on Sun Jul 08, 2007 7:28 am

Sue,


A wise person may carry a mobile phone, or drive a car, or live in a flat, or take care of a child, or live with a friend, or go shopping, etc - and still be living according to truth. But; if they value those things more than truth, then truth isn't guiding those life choices - delusional thinking is.
OK, I can live with that. Extrapolating, a relationship should be ok and harmless enough as long as the wise person doesn't value it more than he values truth.

Would you have a problem with such a relationship?

Shahrazad

Posts: 430
Joined: Sat Feb 10, 2007 9:03 am
Top

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Re: the irony of love and indifference
by Dan Rowden on Sun Jul 08, 2007 7:43 am

Elizabeth Isabelle wrote:
Dan Rowden wrote:I don't recall Kevin saying this, precisely, but perhaps he did. In any event it doesn't make much sense if we're thinking about "relationship" in any remotely conventional way. The greater the degree of enlightenment of a person the less they are in need of any such relationship.


In context, he said something to the effect of it would be for the purpose of necessary procreation.


Ok, but I can think of zero reason for two people to get together for this purpose. Why would such people need to procreate? In a hypothetical world maybe, but in this one it seems a non-issue.


I fully agree that they would not need such a relationship, but I believe that if they were enlightened enough, they could enjoy it for the time it was functional,


Well, it may be just the wording you've employed here, but I have a problem with the notion of them "enjoying" it. What would that mean, exactly? Certainly two such people might collaborate for the sake of some truth benefiting venture. They might "enjoy" the fruits [as the saying goes] of that collaboration but I'm not sure that's how you mean "enjoy". Perhaps you could elaborate.


but not be so attached to it to experience pain (or at least as much pain) when the partner dies or in some other way circumstances change


There could only be pain to the degree that those persons lacked enlightenment; to that degree the relationship will be delusion based. If any such relationship is actually productive, it cannot end in pain.


to make the relationship no longer an improvement over solitude.


A relationship built upon this sort of equasion contains no enlightenment at all as far as I'm concerned. Even a 50% enlightened person doesn't suffer for his solitude to this extent. And I'm not sure there's any scope for productive development in a situation where making a relationship "work" is actively undermining - as it must - the very seeds of said development. You see, making a relationship "work" is for egotistical people with egotistical needs.


And I don't mean in some fickle way, either. If one is sick or injured, it would be reasonable to be there for the other person even though it is a temporary cost to the healthy one because of the security of some degree of reciprocity.


Well, yes, this seems to be what every mother thinks. I would not want any person caring for me if I thought they could be doing more worthwhile things. The judgement of that would be up to them, but I would not approve of it unless I agreed entirely with that judgement.


Even at that, the sick or injured one could provide enough other benefits to make it worthwhile to the other being.


What, like, pay their way? I guess this is what professional carers do all the time, but I'm having trouble placing it in a philosophical context where wisdom is the primary concern.


One could consider that the condition of being female is almost like being sick or injured because females are not as physically strong as males, and are particularly vulnerable during and shortly after pregnancy.


Sure, women need help during such periods. No doubt about it. I'm still unable to put that in a philosophical context.


Nevertheless, it is possible for females to provide enough benefits to the male to make up for any weakness.


Could you list a couple? Just two will do.


A wise person could desire a better or more comfortable life, but would not need it


As Sue suggested, desire and need are the same thing. I get your point but it needs to be re-worded.


- much in the same way that one could desire to sit on a couch rather than a park bench, but a park bench will do.


It's more that a wise person is not an ascetic.

Dan Rowden

Posts: 1502
Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2001 10:03 am
Location: Brisbane., Australia
Top

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Re: the irony of love and indifference
by Sue Hindmarsh on Sun Jul 08, 2007 1:10 pm

Faust 13 wrote:


i've been reading the Quality Posts section of Sue Hindmarsh, it's quite a solid page http://members.optushome.com.au/davidqu ... lity09.htm and i seem to have found some inconsistencies or some things are not cleared up to me.

here are the phrases that involve my misunderstanding with "you shouldn't 'love' people but love them at a distance kind of thing."


Let’s first make clear that the above section in inverted commas is your own creation and nothing whatsoever to do with my philosophy. Secondly, if that section is the sum total of your understanding of my philosophy, I’m not at all confident that you will understand anything else I say, but I’ll continue on and see what happens.


Sue: compassion is the vomit of the weak

referring to 'female compassion,' however later she says

Sue:The masculine mind, as rare as it is, understands and has compassion for the world

although i know the difference between unconcious and manipulative compassion with so called masculine compassion, this doesn't mean that all female compassion is manipulative, many times, it simply is genuine compassion that both men and women do.



Perhaps if you’d describe what you think the “difference” is, I’d then be in a better position to judge your ideas. It would also help if you described what you mean by “genuine compassion”.

In my work I’m making the distinction between worldly compassion and spiritual compassion. Worldly compassion is based on such false concepts as the existence of an inherently existing self. Spiritual compassion is based on such truths as the non-existence of an inherently existing self.


yet another problem is this, is all compassion no matter who does it weak?


The answer lies in the quotes. (Hint: Worldly/feminine compassion verses spiritual/masculine compassion.)


Should we succumb to social darwinism and live like indifferent monsters regardless of "loving from a distance"?



Once again I’ll point out that the above section in inverted commas is not a quote of mine.

Before I can make any comment you’ll have to describe what you think “social darwinism” is, as well as why you think it will cause us to “succumb” to living as “monsters”.


Now myself I'm not really compassionate at all, I want everyone to be self-reliant and solitary, but the problem with this is that it doesn't mean that I don't unchoosedly enjoy the suffering of others, i don't want to enjoy it but it still happens. now, the funny thing about cruelty and the indifference of joy is that we're only happy based on our circumstance and situation, thus when our boat sinks (Iranian expression) we find to not be so strong as we might thought, and bear up the callousness of others including genuine philosopher friends. how do you feel when a genuine philosopher friend "loves you from a distance" when you're bleeding alone?


You say you’re not compassionate, yet there are times when you “enjoy the suffering of others”. That enjoyment you feel arises directly out of the feeling of compassion. That is: you don’t like it when those you consider to be the baddies do something mean to those you consider to be the goodies. You “enjoy” when the baddies pay for what they have done by suffering. This is a perfect example of how compassion creates further violence in the world.

-

And in answer to your sentence in bold which, yet again, has your sentiments in inverted commas – if I find myself in the situation where I’m “bleeding alone” I’d call an ambulance and not one of my “genuine philosopher friends” who don’t know the first thing about first-aid. : )


on to the next dilemma.

Sue said: love is evil

now, what about a philosophical love, say of Immanuel? (wrongfuly named Jesus in which the latin suffix SOOS means pig although i've read another website http://www.whyapostolic.com/html/jesus.html attempting to rebuttal it, i guess if anyone's interested they should do a thorough investigation).

How is this philosophical love to be interpreted as not being evil? Because it is at a distance? However one must be careful not to allow this to turn into indifference. basically this philosophical love is tricky because it's not love but it is.



Explain what you mean by “philosophical love” and then I may be able to comment.


Sue said: "Love" originates, and only exists, in the minds of men; it is felt by them, and can be understood by them

if love needs hate, does this love also need hate?



A hate of ignorance is a useful tool when you are rooting out falsity to get at the truth. But once you have hold of the truth, you neither need love nor hate.


Sue said:People want to love and be loved, but they don’t realise that love and hate go hand in hand

So how would a philosopher's love work without this?


See above.


Would you philosophically love someone who is solitary and self-reliant, but also selfish and ruthless?


You’ll have to explain what you mean by “philosophical love” – but yes, I have met quite a number of people over the years that reckoned they possessed those characteristics you mention. Most of them used self-constructed skew-whiff versions of those characteristics to build a fortress around them so that they could sit (supposedly) safely inside, thinking about how much more solitary, self-reliant, selfish and ruthless they were compared to all the other people.

Their behaviour only shows how scared they are of life - and being scared of life is not a good basis for entering into philosophy.


Why not, because they didn't return the love back to you?

because you thought it was "egotistical"

or really it was because you gave them philosophical love and so thought that because this is valuable you deserve some love back?


Explain what you mean by “philosophical love” and then…



Sue said:The "I'm on your side" mentality

now I know what this means in terms of simply looking to feed the ego, but if a philosopher wants to help people from a distance, how would they go about avoiding this and yet not get angry when someone is self-reliant and ruthless but not returning the signal, "yes i'm also a philosopher i know what you mean" for this is also a form of compassion and longing for acceptance.


Your idea of “from a distance” underpinned your entire post. It is your idea, not mine. You have built scenarios around it that have absolutely nothing to do with anything I have said in any of my philosophical writings.

You sure do have some wild and wacky impressions of philosophy and philosophers - for example, you ask how a philosopher would “avoid getting angry” when they’re snubbed by other philosophers. That’s sheer lunacy!

Look - the only reason philosophers “help” others towards truth is to assist the survival of wisdom.

And - philosophers recognize each other as such because of Truth, and not because they wear matching t-shirts, or some such other rot.

See a recurring theme there?

Truth is what you need to get hold of first – then you will know everything there is to know about what it means to be a philosopher.

-

Sue Hindmarsh

Posts: 631
Joined: Sun Oct 23, 2005 11:02 pm
Location: Australia
Top

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Re: the irony of love and indifference
by bert on Sun Jul 08, 2007 4:21 pm

spiritual or philosophical love could be described as a deep understanding, identification, and interaction with all things.


So you would agree that Sue's statement that "love is evil" is a misnomer.

I interpreted Sue to be speaking of human love rather than spiritual love.

but this spiritual love is NOT self-less, it's NOT at all altruistic, you want the feeling returned. This fact proves that spiritual love will always have "human love."

Dan:
I don't get your reasoning (assuming there is any). Why is it not self-less, and what sort of "feeling" is it that one wants to have returned?


O,desire,stretch thy ears! In point of extreme hostility spiritual desire is as fatal as the sensuous. A will to succeed towards a "supreme" is a network of deadly deires because of cowardice within, ergo, some unsatisfied wisdom awaiting development to suffer its evolutions.There is no final wisdom - there is no final desire. How can anything end? Has to-day ever ended? These things are endlessness!
you desire things of existence - but where is the difference of desiring the "supreme Bliss"? Which is the more selfish? Which is nearer you? Which pleases the Creator more?

(pardon the act)
bert

Posts: 476
Joined: Thu Aug 18, 2005 8:08 pm
Location: Antwerp
Top

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Re: the irony of love and indifference
by Carl G on Sun Jul 08, 2007 6:05 pm

bert wrote:O, diaper, stretch over my rear. I anoint this *expletive* hosiery to fulfill my desire in natal sensuousness. I will succeed into that supine network of delicato desirees of infantilism because of cowardice within, ego, and some unsatisfied longing for mental suffering. Okay, it's devolution, but there is no filthy jism - and no filial desire. I hope this never ends. How can I be two years old forever? These teething rings are the best!
You may desire things of adulthood - but what is the difference of desiring the 'supreme Bliss' of tight cotton? Which is more satisfying? Which feels better against the skin? Which please the Creator more?

Kinky, bert, but I like it. Damn, you're a poet.
Carl

Carl G

Posts: 546
Joined: Fri Aug 25, 2006 2:52 am
Location: Arizona
Top

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Re: the irony of love and indifference
by Shahrazad on Sun Jul 08, 2007 6:06 pm

Dan,


Even a 50% enlightened person doesn't suffer for his solitude to this extent.
This is an understatement. Even a 0% enlightened person can be very comfortable with solitude. I stopped suffering for solitude 11 years ago, although I admit there have been isolated moments when I have wanted to be with someone.

Still though, I'm not sure that when Eliza says "solitude can be improved upon", she means the latter involves suffering. A car can improve someone's life even if he isn't suffering for the lack thereof.

-

Shahrazad

Posts: 430
Joined: Sat Feb 10, 2007 9:03 am
Top

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Re: the irony of love and indifference
by bert on Sun Jul 08, 2007 7:49 pm

Carl G wrote:
bert wrote:O, diaper, stretch over my rear. I anoint this *expletive* hosiery to fulfill my desire in natal sensuousness. I will succeed into that supine network of delicato desirees of infantilism because of cowardice within, ego, and some unsatisfied longing for mental suffering. Okay, it's devolution, but there is no filthy jism - and no filial desire. I hope this never ends. How can I be two years old forever? These teething rings are the best!
You may desire things of adulthood - but what is the difference of desiring the 'supreme Bliss' of tight cotton? Which is more satisfying? Which feels better against the skin? Which please the Creator more?

Kinky, bert, but I like it. Damn, you're a poet.


I remember age 9 or 10... when I wanted to become a clown and discovery-traveler.
bert
-----------------------------

Sue,

i would consider conscious and genuine compassion to be one that isn't leech-like and manipulating to get favours or be overrated about one's qualities to get an ego boost. Manipulative unconscious compassion would do exactly this.


also, your own posts from the webpage i linked doesn't make a distinction either, first it says "compassion is the vomit of the weak" and THEN it says flat out "the masculine mind has compassion for the world" perhaps YOU should also make a distinction and make it clear.

worldy compassion is based on such false concepts as the existence of an inherently existing self

the self may not be inherent, but it exists dependant how you were born and where you were born, and what you're made of. So we have a finite dependant self, is there a problem with that?

Faust: yet another problem is this, is all compassion no matter who does it weak?


Sue: The answer lies in the quotes. (Hint: Worldly/feminine compassion verses spiritual/masculine compassion.

No it actually doesn't lie in the quotes, because in your own posts on that webpage you don't even make a distinction or say exactly what the differences are! Not only that, but many times women are capable of genuine compassion. Either compassion is the vomit of the weak or it isn't. It's similar to how Poison for the heart talks about Jesus who condemns compassion for its weakness, something to the effect "and a little less compassion." But Q and S turns right back around and claims they have "genuine compassion," you cannot hold two contradicting views together. Genuine compassion isn't self-less or self-sacrificing at all, this fact alone shows that it contains tainted compassion. It's hilarious how you think Dan Rowden and QRS is this holy God that is self-less and altruistic!! I can't believe Dan even claimed that self-less love existed, that was stupefying!

You say you’re not compassionate, yet there are times when you “enjoy the suffering of others”. That enjoyment you feel arises directly out of the feeling of compassion. That is: you don’t like it when those you consider to be the baddies do something mean to those you consider to be the goodies. You “enjoy” when the baddies pay for what they have done by suffering.

i don't do this at all!! I can be perfectly cruel all the time, with no compassion, heartless, and still enjoy the suffering of others. So I can't really be "using" compassion to my own ends and to create more hate if I don't have any compassion in the first place.

what I meant by "bleeding alone" I meant as in suffering alone, spiritually.

But once you have hold of the truth, you neither need love nor hate

this is a nice juicy paradox one can sink their teeth into. You can't neither be loving or hating. Either you care about other

people and recognize that they exist, or you are indifferent and don't recognize that they exist, or do both depending on the situation and your temperment, but you cannot do "neither" since if you don't love or care about people then you are indifferent, or if you do care then there's love. You cannot say you "neither need love" because there's still the philosophical love that needs to be addressed, and all you addressed it with was "you neither need love or hate," which is incongruent.

Their behaviour only shows how scared they are of life - and being scared of life is not a good basis for entering into philosophy

what do you mean by scared of life? When I say self-reliant I mean spiritually independant and uncompromising in one's honesty and courage and nobleness, although this creates a "shell" of its own that's not the purpose of doing it.

You sure do have some wild and wacky impressions of philosophy and philosophers - for example, you ask how a philosopher would “avoid getting angry” when they’re snubbed by other philosophers. That’s sheer lunacy!

it's clear that you didn't understand what I meant. When i mean "snubbed" I don't mean in an argument, I mean in terms of returning the recognition. "help from a distance" is totally your idea as well. First you're against the "I'm on your side mentality," THEN you say "the only reason philosophers “help” others towards truth is to assist the survival of wisdom" now this is still somewhat of a "i'm on your side mentality" but as usual you aren't ever clear or concise.

philosophers recognize each other as such because of Truth, and not because they wear matching t-shirts, or some such other rot

Again you didn't understand what I said. This "recognition" is not altruistic, therefore the statement "you don't need love or hate" doesn't make sense. You should stop trying to refute me with slander and spin doctoring.

Sue Hindmarsh wrote:If you "desire" something, you think it will make your life better.

A wise person, by definition, desires only to live according to truth. Truth is first and foremost the guiding force behind the wise person's life choices.

But a wise person knows that truth will not make their life better. In fact, they know that nothing will make their life better because they are rising and falling and the "self" is a delusion. The term "better" doesn't even have any meaning when you consider the ramifications of causation. So the wise person shouldn't desire anything? It appears that there is a truth/humanity balance here. To fully acknowledge truth would be to cease to live in this human world.

Sue Hindmarsh wrote:A wise person may carry a mobile phone, or drive a car, or live in a flat, or take care of a child, or live with a friend, or go shopping, etc - and still be living according to truth. But; if they value those things more than truth, then truth isn't guiding those life choices - delusional thinking is.

So a wise person could live their life in the exact same way as everyone else in society but simply acknowledge in everything the truth? Or a wise person could commit suicide. Which is more wise?

I started out reading your post, WhorlyWhelk, thinking that you had some interesting ideas about the non-existence of the self and the ‘wise person’. I started my reply to you beginning with a discussion about how I agree with you that the self doesn’t exist inherently, but, according to your description, I'd point out that it does exist causally.

To your ideas about wise people, I was just going to bring up the point that wise people are by their very nature highly critical thinkers who continually discriminate and discern – and that knowing the truth about reality doesn’t put stop to that.

But it was at this point I stopped writing, because having read your last few sentiments, I realized that your thinking at this point takes on a wholly different complexion. To begin with, your feeling that a wise person, upon attaining full enlightenment, “would cease to live in the human world”, doesn’t necessarily follow-on from your previous thoughts in that paragraph. And faced with your very last question as to whether or not it is wiser for a wise person to “commit suicide” - I find that I’m unable to reply, because of a lack of context. I could, of course, make up some context to reply to, but I think it best for me to wait for you to outline more fully why you think a wise person would cease living in “this human world”, and under what circumstances the wise person might consider suicide a wise thing to do.

-

I think the only way to completely remove all emotional attachment and delusion from one's life would be to be dead.

Sue why haven't you replied to my recent post?

There's nothing wrong with suicide from a philosophical and spiritual standpoint. It is noble and courageous to end your wordly life full of suffering and meaninglessness in order to finally come to the inevitable conclusion that every human being faces, in fact, most of our philosophizing is trivial due to the inevitability of death, if you wish to really know the infinite, you must get there faster. Read Schopenhauer's essay on it it's excellent

http://comp.uark.edu/~mpianal/schopenhauer.htm

Faust13 wrote:

i would consider conscious and genuine compassion to be one that isn't leech-like and manipulating to get favours or be overrated about one's qualities to get an ego boost. Manipulative unconscious compassion would do exactly this.

Yes, the thing most people call ‘compassion’ is really extremely nasty and cruel. As you say, it is “leech-like and manipulating” – and done entirely to bring the ego happiness and employment. And yes, of course “genuine compassion” has nothing whatsoever to do with that filthy muck.

also, your own posts from the webpage i linked doesn't make a distinction either, first it says "compassion is the vomit of the weak" and THEN it says flat out "the masculine mind has compassion for the world" perhaps YOU should also make a distinction and make it clear.

You wrote above about un-genuine compassion being “leech-like and manipulating” because it’s all about giving people’s egos a “boost”. That ‘compassion’ is what I’m calling “vomit”. Your “conscious and genuine compassion” is the compassion that I wrote of arising only from the “masculine mind”. (Masculine = Consciousness) I must say that I was surprised you didn’t understand that point, for you yourself stipulate in your first paragraph that genuine compassion is “conscious”.

Sue: worldly compassion is based on such false concepts as the existence of an inherently existing self

the self may not be inherent, but it exists dependant how you were born and where you were born, and what you're made of.

Yes, they exert influence, but I’m not sure what your point is. Are you saying that those things (the how, where and what) have inherent existence?

So we have a finite dependant self, is there a problem with that?

No, as long as you understand that the “finite self” is not static in any way – for it is always changing.

Faust: yet another problem is this, is all compassion no matter who does it weak?

Sue: The answer lies in the quotes. (Hint: Worldly/feminine compassion verses spiritual/masculine compassion.

No it actually doesn't lie in the quotes, because in your own posts on that webpage you don't even make a distinction or say exactly what the differences are! Not only that, but many times women are capable of genuine compassion. Either compassion is the vomit of the weak or it isn't.

I define the masculine as conscious and the feminine as unconscious. Only the conscious are capable of genuine compassion. Women, being unconscious, are only capable of the ‘vomit’ type compassion. Women, (which includes most males and females), are what I call “the weak”.

It's similar to how Poison for the heart talks about Jesus who condemns compassion for its weakness, something to the effect "and a little less compassion." But Q and S turns right back around and claims they have "genuine compassion," you cannot hold two contradicting views together. Genuine compassion isn't self-less or self-sacrificing at all, this fact alone shows that it contains tainted compassion.

Then you don’t believe what you wrote about “genuine compassion” at the top of this post?

Remember you wrote: i would consider conscious and genuine compassion to be one that isn't leech-like and manipulating to get favours or be overrated about one's qualities to get an ego boost. Manipulative unconscious compassion would do exactly this.

What’s happened in the short time between your first paragraph and this one?

It's hilarious how you think Dan Rowden and QRS is this holy God that is self-less and altruistic!!

“Hilarious” alright! Like one of those Hindu gods with lots of arms and legs – but also with an abundance of facial hair flowing downwards. ; )

I can't believe Dan even claimed that self-less love existed, that was stupefying!

What do you find so “stupefying” about that?

Sue: You say you’re not compassionate, yet there are times when you “enjoy the suffering of others”. That enjoyment you feel arises directly out of the feeling of compassion. That is: you don’t like it when those you consider to be the baddies do something mean to those you consider to be the goodies. You “enjoy” when the baddies pay for what they have done by suffering.

i don't do this at all!!

Well, yes you do – you just can’t accept that you’re doing it.

You showed that you have some insight into psychology when wrote about how unconsciously driven compassion is “leech-like and manipulating”, and how people use it to “get favours or be overrated about one's qualities to get an ego boost”. But when it comes to looking at your own psychology, you run for cover. Not that this is unusual, for most people try and protect themselves from the truth about their weaknesses – but, if philosophy is the path you wish to take, trying to hide from, or ignore your own psychology, will naturally bar you from philosophic development.

I can be perfectly cruel all the time, with no compassion, heartless, and still enjoy the suffering of others. So I can't really be "using" compassion to my own ends and to create more hate if I don't have any compassion in the first place.

You sound like you are in hell! Do you believe the emotional vomit you are splashing around in has something to do with wisdom, or striving to become an individual? How is being “cruel all the time” rational?

what I meant by "bleeding alone" I meant as in suffering alone, spiritually.

I knew you had that in mind, but the idea is so very absurd to me I couldn’t bring myself to answer it in any other fashion than the one I did. But we can discuss it more if you like. You’ll have to first explain what you think “suffering alone, spirituality” means, because I’m mostly certain we do not share the same idea of its meaning.

Sue: But once you have hold of the truth, you neither need love nor hate

this is a nice juicy paradox one can sink their teeth into. You can't neither be loving or hating. Either you care about other people and recognize that they exist, or you are indifferent and don't recognize that they exist, or do both depending on the situation and your temperment, but you cannot do "neither" since if you don't love or care about people then you are indifferent, or if you do care then there's love. You cannot say you "neither need love" because there's still the philosophical love that needs to be addressed, and all you addressed it with was "you neither need love or hate," which is incongruent.

When you first begin taking philosophy seriously, your emotional attachment to the concept of truth is strong. You decide that nothing will satisfy you except possessing that knowledge. That attachment drives you on; powering your ability to focus on this one goal. But once you reach a basic understanding of truth, your emotional attachment to it becomes superfluous. From there onwards, truth is the only guide and shaper of your life. To return to that emotional attachment would be an insane regression.

You wrote that “philosophical love needs to be addressed”, but didn’t define what you mean by the term. By the looks of it, I’d say you’d connect it up with emotional love - yes/no?

Sue: Their behaviour only shows how scared they are of life - and being scared of life is not a good basis for entering into philosophy

what do you mean by scared of life? When I say self-reliant I mean spiritually independant and uncompromising in one's honesty and courage and nobleness, although this creates a "shell" of its own that's not the purpose of doing it.

Your original question was: “Would you philosophically love someone who is solitary and self-reliant, but also selfish and ruthless?”

I replied then by asking you to explain what you meant by “philosophical love”, but you have not been forthcoming.

I wrote about people using those characteristics to shield themselves from life because that is exactly what most people do. Only a few rare individuals are able to use their independence of mind and their strength of will to pull themselves out of the emotional mire that those terms usually reside in. Only then can they truly know what it is to be ‘independent’, ‘uncompromising’, ‘honest’, ‘courageous’ and ‘noble’.

Sue: You sure do have some wild and wacky impressions of philosophy and philosophers - for example, you ask how a philosopher would “avoid getting angry” when they’re snubbed by other philosophers. That’s sheer lunacy!

it's clear that you didn't understand what I meant. When i mean "snubbed" I don't mean in an argument, I mean in terms of returning the recognition. "help from a distance" is totally your idea as well. First you're against the "I'm on your side mentality," THEN you say "the only reason philosophers “help” others towards truth is to assist the survival of wisdom" now this is still somewhat of a "i'm on your side mentality" but as usual you aren't ever clear or concise.

Truth is freely available to anyone who wishes to know it. Those who do open their eyes and minds to it know that it is a wholly individualistic occupation. Others may help by pointing out obstacles on the path, but in the end, you have to do all the hard work yourself.

Sue: philosophers recognize each other as such because of Truth, and not because they wear matching t-shirts, or some such other rot

Again you didn't understand what I said. This "recognition" is not altruistic, therefore the statement "you don't need love or hate" doesn't make sense. You should stop trying to refute me with slander and spin doctoring.

I’ve no need of “spin doctoring”, for I know what I’m talking about. I’ve stated the truth simply and plainly there for you to see.

You originally wrote on this subject:

Sue said, The "I'm on your side" mentality

now I know what this means in terms of simply looking to feed the ego, but if a philosopher wants to help people from a distance, how would they go about avoiding this and yet not get angry when someone is self-reliant and ruthless but not returning the signal, "yes i'm also a philosopher i know what you mean" for this is also a form of compassion and longing for acceptance.

My point was that no philosopher expects to exert an influence on anyone. As I said above; those who have opened their minds to truth know that it is a wholly individualistic occupation and therefore expect or require no help from others. But the philosopher naturally writes and speaks about truth because truth is his whole life. Through such works, a young budding thinker may find his own mind opening up to truth. But for that to happen, the young budding thinker must already have in place an energetic rational mind, good at discerning and discriminating - otherwise, he will not know truth though it be staring him in the face.

Such fostering of truth helps it to flourish and survive. But you can’t drag people to truth, or swindle or blackmail them to it – people either open their minds to it, or they do not.

-

Sue, I'm sure you don't think that ALL female compassion is manipulative?

The main issue I have though is that even genuine compassion is emotionally attached, because it's still compassion. You asked if being cruel is rational, I would consider Reality to be more cruel with all the emotional attachments removed. As Kierkegaard said, the more you know, the more you will suffer. I consider even genuine compassion to be spiritually detrimental sometimes, since it involves "giving" compassion to someone.

then you failed to disprove that it's impossible to "not love or hate," since if you don't love then you're indifferent, and if you don't hate then you're not indifferent. But not being indifferent to people means you have a conscience, which is love.