by Brummie 171 Replies latest jw friends
But LT, doesn't your unconditional love or acceptance of Terry depend (a condition) on whether he is what he presents here? For all we know Terry could be Charles Manson with newly awarded internet access. Do you still unconditionally love him?
(Sorry Terry... unless you really are Chuck..., in which case, "a pox on ye.")
Nope.
That doesn't mean that I wouldn't refer him to authorities or medical care, for the safety of himself and others. Nor does it rule out a mercy-killing...
How about another equation for ya, which might be a little simpler to apply:
In the cases where it exists, the quantity/degree of "Unconditional Love" is inversely proportional to the distance between the individual and their theoretical limits.
Unconditional love, or anything that is ultimately true and pure, is not a product of the mind or emotions. It is the reality of Consciousness before the mind paints the surface with graffiti. One simply needs to look past the pictures to what they exist in.
If there is a serious desire to know what unconditional is, look past the mind to what is looking.
j
Let's put this silly thesis to rest, shall we?
Let us take virtues and examine the "unconditional" aspect.
Can a person be honorable no matter what he does? No.
Can a person be virtuous in limbo without reference to his actions, attitudes and consistency? No.
Can a person be a writer who never writes; a painter who never paints, a cook who never cooks? No, no and no.
Virtues, talents and occupations require action in harmony with those concepts. That is why we have rational minds which identify and discriminate these categories in the first place.
By virtue of what fact does a person "love" another person whose actions are so varied as to include behaviors which are repugnant to sanity? I'll answer for you: none.
Things are what they are and we call that their "nature". Whatever that nature is we identify and stick a label on it. Further, we refine the subcategories of that conceptual label with examples of differentia.
What are the categories and subcategories of unconditional love?
It is an ideal and nothing more than that. It is pure Romantic notion.
What would you pay for an item worth $1?
Under most circumstances you'd pay a dollar and maybe bargain for less. But, if your life depended on it, you might pay hundreds if it kept you alive. "A horse; a horse! My kingdom for a horse".
Everything is subject to conditional re-valuing.
Winston Smith in 1984; last page, last sentence: "At last he loved Big Brother".
I think that is what we have here. We've all been to that room and now we are willing to LOVE LOVE LOVE madly without restraint!!
The purpose of Love is what? You identify the thing you value most and bond with it emotionally. Love isn't passive or it would not be a strong emotion that carries you away.
What would be the purpose in bonding with something which is so capable of change that it is the antithesis of what you value?
Why, it would require a complete disconnect between your rational mind (which sees the change) and the heart (the fixed emotional state) with cognative dissonance willful and extreme.
Aha! No wonder it is the religious minded people who cling to this ideal so strongly! That's it!
A person completely given over to the split between rational evaluations and emotional addictions are so accustomed to the habit of cognative dissonance they want to see it as a badge of honor to love without condition.
That seems to be what we are witnessing here.
We may as well say food tastes wonderful unconditionally as we reach for the salt and pepper shaker to render it palatable. It is all split-mind assertions in a romantic stupor of self-induced hysteria.
Unconditional love has no justice at its root. It is unjust to reward what is deplorable and to praise what is reprehensible. That is why God's kindness is called "undeserved kindness" because it is fiction. No god of justice could possibly countenance undeserved favor by rewarding it with the maximum expression of approval.
The death of Jesus (a righteous man) is a horror of logic. Worse still is the lunacy of saying it is part of the Supreme Being's plan to let an innocent person die in place of the true criminal. That is monstrous.
Only persons so immersed in cognative dissonance from years of religious preoccupations (which have wrecked the delicate mechanism of cause and effect in their mind) could seize such a PLAN and declare it wonderful!
Final word: unconditional love is a symptom of a mental disorder.
Terry
James:
Isn't self-love narcissistic?
Terry:
It's obvious you've never been a mother (duh!).
I don't want to get all Freudian on you, but I have to confess that I'm beginning to wonder what your upbringing was like.
Regarding your "final word", would that be a medical definition, or one of your own choosing. Are you licensed to practice medicine, and that in an online environment? The insurace must cost a fortune!!!
"James:
Isn't self-love narcissistic?"
It can be when the "self' is the believed-to-be individual entity, separate from all else. Here, adoration will only compress upon itself more, and squeeze out every last remaining drop of empathy and compassion. The Self, I am referring to, is not at all separate because it is the Self of everything. Here, love is what it is meant to be.
In order to protect our cherished little conceptual self, we have come to believe that awakening to the reality of Oneness is only for a select few, or a total fantasy. Nothing could be farther from the truth. The Self without beginning or end, is the actual Identity of all; right now. It just needs to be seen.
j
Final word: unconditional love is a symptom of a mental disorder.
Please point me to the serious research that has been done on this theory. (not kidding)
J
James:It is that of which I speak.
Since "love" is a relational thing, how does this tally with "oneness"?
(I'll keep feeding the lines, you keep batting them, bro )
Those who object to my opinion about unconditional love have managed to avoid every point I've made in decrying it. There is no rebuttal; only distaste.
Remember, what I'm offering here is not scientific research. It isn't a Master's Thesis. I've never been past the 12th grade. It is my opinion. It isn't etched in sinai stone by the finger of Yah-hoo.
As such (mere opinion) it should be easy to refute, shouldn't it?
If you don't agree take my points as I've offered them and bat them down one by one. Show me how my reasoning and my logic are all wrong wrong wrong.
Otherwise, this "discussion" isn't about anything but brain chemicals floating in a configuration that makes you go "ahhhhh".
Now really!
Terry
