It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
originally posted by: Krazysh0t
originally posted by: kaylaluv
a reply to: Krazysh0t
Yes, I have maternal/paternal love for my child. I feel protective of her, and want her to grow up happy and healthy. But I also know that I will never withdraw my love from her, no matter what she does or doesn't do. According to your definitions, that is unconditional love.
Except, you love this child because she is your daughter. In other words, "if person is my daughter, then shower with boundless love" That is a conditional statement. If I presented you with a random girl that wasn't of your blood, would you feel the same way about her?
originally posted by: Aphorism
I can agree with that.
But with a little introspection, we can see that the "deeper pool" is merely one's own delusion. For instance, unconditional love, would, by necessity, reach to Adolf Hitler and child-rapists. Of course no one would admit that they love child-rapists or Adolf Hitler, so therefor the idea and proclamation "unconditional love" is used only when it suits them.
When you say "them," who exactly are you referring to? Anyone who claims such a state? I still think it is too language-based to continue thinking that "unconditional love" would mean one would be emotionally "in love with" individuals who commit atrocities. Even if that were the case, if a parent had a child that grew up to be such a person, how would it be approached? That parent might always hold onto the hope that their child would "reform." Even if it meant sending them on to the next life, whatever that may be.
Such a state means approaching everything and everyone from that state, it has little to no correlation with how the actions themselves are perceived as actions are, by their very nature, conditional. The state is unconditional, but we as humans are not. So, what would an unconditional experience tempered through a conditional experience really look like? Individual things and people are approached with equality, but when a power attempts to directly take these things away from the very ones you love.. what is the course taken that is bound to be defined by the human experience? I think the same situation might arise, on a less important scale, within a family. What does a parent do if 2 of their children bully and pick on the third? There will, of course, be a myriad of different approaches, but some will be focused on equality between all three as that is the way they are seen. Now, what would happen if those two siblings were focused on killing the third sibling? Would the "loving" thing to do, even just in the case of the emotion, be to allow it to simply happen? I dont know many that would say "yes"... The parent monitoring the situation may still come from a place of viewing their children equally, however, their actions will reflect the "reality" at hand rather than abstractions. Note that I also used an example where the majority was not "right," so this is not always something that refers to the "needs of the many" as it is commonly construed. It does however create a type of system that ends up addressing the needs of the many, rather than solely addressing the few that cross the line.
Extrapolating that point out, one who deliberately attempts to trounce such equality and "rights" of those who are not our children can be approached from the state of unconditional love without compromising the integrity of the system. A parent can still love their child while they punish them. Such an approach is not solely relegated to that position alone though. In this way, the individuals who commit such acts are dealt with accordingly, however, the source of the manifestation is also approached and addressed so that it, ideally, does not happen again. This type of thinking is not that prevalent in our modern society, where we prefer to "chase the dragon" rather than fix the source. We tend to focus on the individuals rather than the illnesses in society as a whole that were the catalyst. I think the best mathematical example of prediction of action of this state is the Tit for Tat strategy. I also think all of this can be communicated with mathematics. Punishment of such people is not only possible while maintaining the state->model->strategy, it is essentially mandatory.. In such cases, where every individual item is given equal weight, but there is the constant pursuit of improving quality of life, it is a rather straight forward equation.
In the end, I think the best thing we could do is start calling it something else that does not insinuate emotions that most people dont even understand in the first place. I think math is a more accurate place to look than emotions.
originally posted by: Aphorism
Yes I am referring to those who claim they love unconditionally. I am merely taking the concept to its logical conclusion. It seems that they use the idea to make their own viewpoints sound better, a sort of marketing rather than actually conforming to it. I don’t think they actually love these individuals—for how can someone love someone they’ve ever met or do not know, unless they love unconditionally their own ignorance—but that they simply use the idea because it is convenient.
I don’t think it is any actual state, as it presupposes unmitigated absolutism, a form of mental totalitarianism. If anything, it is blind love, or ignorant love, or an attempt at loving things we have not considered for the sake of upholding love qua love. As your examples point out, such ideas are impractical if not outright dangerous.
I think a mathematical formula, though easier to understand, may remove too much pathos to achieve an objective understanding, and risk marginalizing some perspectives. I believe a biological interpretation should be achieved first, for biology is a necessary precondition to all mathematics.
Well, if it makes it easier, "I" am "They." I would even go so far as to say that the state I am referring to is a "natural" state of sorts. Possibly even a result of evolution of the species, as yet another method to experience the entirety of the world us. Our species has gained several of these types of senses throughout our evolution (hearing, vision, mind, taste, etc.). At some point in "our" past, we were not able to "see" any wavelengths of light whatsoever. Think how revolutionary those beginnings must have been! Though, I doubt "we" had the coherency to really question otherwise. I do wonder what the next steps will be..
I experience it as a chosen state. However, in my experience, it only represents absolutism of ones current perspective. That frequently doesnt even include the entirety of ones own being, much less anything outside of it. It is more of an experience of a bubble within something much larger than itself, and it can grow to include new things. The stuff we grow to learn and include can either be stored in memory, or actively applied in our constant awareness. Things tend to be stored in memory whether we like it or not, but we are able to choose what is in our actual perspective right here and now.
At some point in the past, I decided to try out a few different "states" where I would invoke that state as constantly as possible for long periods of time. When it was in a disarray, or not in a constant state of awareness (much less a certain semi-continuous state), it all seemed like a disconnected slide show, devoid of much more than the movement itself. It was intended as a researched exploration of my being, and how it was affected by what I chose to focus upon. One of the things I noted was that what I chose as a state would actually determine how it was written into my memory. I assumed this would be common sense in a way, but its much more nuanced and tricky than I bargained. I was also writing an extensive report on the continuing "experiment."
Eventually, I decided to try remaining in a state of "love." Not the emotion itself, but that spark that one can sometimes feel in those fleeting moments. After a time, I found interesting things and decided to stick with it.
I do agree. Marginalization of perspectives is definitely an issue when we are dealing with so very many of them. And, I think that it takes some of the "personality" away from things, which perhaps should be embraced rather than discarded. Sometimes I do wonder what the results would be if we created a language that was mathematically based, but manifested as specific waves of sound representing it rather than numbers. Wonder if it would sound like singing, or a horrible screeching racket.
originally posted by: Aphorism
Maybe then I am not understanding. What “natural state” are you referring to? Unconditional love? I don’t necessarily believe in “states”, let alone natural ones, but I do understand the concept. Are you speaking of a tendency or natural capacity to love unconditionally?
I think we can choose how to value and arrange certain ideas to build our perspectives, yes, but, although this happens right here and now, we make our values and arrangements after the fact and in hindsight.
Very interesting. I can’t wait to read it if you happen to share.
I wonder why you’d force it? That spark is found in all emotional contexts. Is it more pleasurable in that state?
Mathematics itself is already a mathematically based language. Mathematical equations and geometry can be spoken. It has its own grammar and syntax. Formal logic is pretty much shorthand for sentences and propositions.
I am not so sure I can agree with that statement. While physiologically, it could be determined that stimuli only comes into perception after a few moments in time, I am speaking of the active state of consciousness. In the past, this has been called many things by many people.. everything from mindfulness, to awareness, to "be here now," to what I called the active perception.
This was something that I had to build up, much like a muscle, before any attempts to hold a specific "state" were successful. I guess I left that part out though didnt I? This is the type of awareness that many currently might call enlightenment, but that is quite the faulty term. There were many steps before I attempted what I spoke about with "states."
It was an attempt to explore the combination of my perspective and reality, as they evolve in real time insofar as my perspective perceived it. There were a lot of things that helped retain this initial type of "active" awareness, but I am thinking that those might be different for everyone. I can relate them if you are actually interested, otherwise I will remain silent.
originally posted by: Aphorism
In order to stay on topic, is your active perception an instance or state of “unconditional love”? Second, what benefit or purpose do you hope results from your experimentation?
The ankh (/ˈæŋk/ or /ˈɑːŋk/; Egyptian: IPA: [ʕaːnax]; U+2625 ☥ or U+132F9 𓋹), also known as key of life, the key of the Nile or crux ansata (Latin meaning "cross with a handle"), was the ancient Egyptian hieroglyphic character that read "life", a triliteral sign for the consonants ꜥ-n-ḫ. It represents the concept of eternal life, which is the general meaning of the symbol. The Egyptian gods are often portrayed carrying it by its loop, or bearing one in each hand, arms crossed over their chest.
The word cross comes ultimately from Latin crux, a Roman torture device used for crucifixion, via Old Irish cros. The word was introduced to English in the 10th century as the term for the instrument of the torturous execution of Jesus as described in the New Testament, gradually replacing the earlier word rood.