Is Love Conditional or Unconditional?

reply to post by Realtruth


I see that there are degrees of love; varying from personal love to universal love. And I think that love is very hard to define - the best definition I've heard was that (conditional) love always seems to exclude something else. That was by unknown ATS user. Can't recall the nick.

I think that love is vain conception trying to describe some universal feeling. I think I will speak of love no more.

-v

Unconditional love is unequal, because if your child also loved you unconditionally, and you were going to die for them, then they would rather die instead of you dying to save them. Conditional love is defined by a set of rules, a kind of justice, and as long as that justice is unbiased, then that kind of love is based on equality. Such as, the young take precedence over the old, because they will be the ones to produce further offspring, however, there are other rules such as evolutionary rules, i.e. the strong survive. If all the blind people were to be given artificial treatment, and have children, then there would be many people that can only see because of the artificial treatment, however, if technological soceity collapsed, then everyone would be blind and eventually die.

Originally posted by SystemResistor
Unconditional love is unequal, because if your child also loved you unconditionally, and you were going to die for them, then they would rather die instead of you dying to save them. Conditional love is defined by a set of rules, a kind of justice, and as long as that justice is unbiased, then that kind of love is based on equality. Such as, the young take precedence over the old, because they will be the ones to produce further offspring, however, there are other rules such as evolutionary rules, i.e. the strong survive. If all the blind people were to be given artificial treatment, and have children, then there would be many people that can only see because of the artificial treatment, however, if technological soceity collapsed, then everyone would be blind and eventually die.

Very well thought out, thanks.

One question, I don't think a society would actually die off due to being blind, they may have to adjust but they would make it. Other senses would be heightened and more intuitions developed.

reply to post by Realtruth


Perhaps not a technological soceity, however if things returned to a state of anarchy or a state of more primitive existence (i.e. hunting and gathering) then the playing field will be radically altered, and individual that were not well adapted to the civilised world might find themselves well adapted to the civilised world. Some might find themselves well-adapted to both worlds, however many might suffer if they had an excessive reliance upon technology. If reincarnation exists, and the individual is truly selfless, then they would live thier lives without wanting to place a burden on the rest of us, and when they reincarnate, then they will hopefully be able to see again. I like to take the example of animals - when an animal is sick, it simply lays down to die, and stops eating, and usually dies a peaceful death. However, when a human being gets a terminal illness, they go to extroadinary lengths to prolong thier life, all kinds of treatments and medications, often living in a hospital bed for many months. If you think about it, all that money spent on prolonging life to those that cannot work or will not have children could be spent on the developing world, where there are millions of starving children, who are perfectly healthy, if it were not for thier environmental conditions. Even now, there are children in Africa that are being born with an immunity to AIDS. If we go and drink their water, we become sick within days, however they drink it all the time, they can drink the water that animals drink and are not affected, however we would never even dream of it because our systems have become dependent on purified water.

I think this guy might be showing us that unconditional love is universal, Loving everyone no matter what there differences. As I do not see how his death would solve much, it seems he is trying to tell us, if we stick up for each other, we can over power the PTB? I think he might be trying to use the same tactics the PTB use against us. They try to drive fear into us, while he is trying to put fear into them, by using love. Maybe he knows something? and giving the PTB a choice, to compromise or kill us all now? Not sure? I do know if more people follow him, he just might get enough people, that have had enough of this control, to step forward. Sort of like working from the bottom, and crawling up from underneath them, to scare them. Your thoughts?

www.youtube.com...

Sorry, I am only new here and do not know how to embed the videos yet NOOBY

I've read that

Love is selfless giving, or even more acurately, the will to give of one's self, for the sake of another's growth or well being ie: to share in their suffering (and their joy)

It's also been said that love, to be love, must be free.

therefore the only love that is real, is both selfless, and unconditional.

They never said it would be EASY. It's simple, but not easy to do, let alone to master.

On the plus side, however, to give love, freely, is to actively participate in love itself, which has a transcendant and eternal element, and so maybe it's not all THAT hard at all. It may be a joy, so large that it's able to carry all suffering and sorrow combined, and still come out laughing at the end of the day, liberated in love, so that's quite the "paycheck"! And so paradoxically, the very capacity to freely give love generates love as the most powerful force for transformation, and creativity, in the universe, even here now at the apex of the eternally unfolding creative process, found, or re-discovered, quite literally in the presence, of the space of nothing (uncertainty), but it's not nothing..
so a person could go practically to any lenghts in this regard, falling in love with love and becoming it, ever moreso, just for fun, and because there's nothing else to do, nothing else going on of any consequence. In the final analysis at the end of the day.

It is therefore accessible, to anyone, doesn't matter who you are, or where you're at on your "spiritual journey" (perhaps an absurd notion to begin with), merely by applying wholeheartedly and selflessly, the love principal in relation to anyone, and everyone, and hey, let's face it, there's a LOT of suffering in our world in dire need of love, that's for sure!

Many people have an object of loving devotion of some kind, and an understanding as well as a practice of bhakti - which is devotional service in love, generating from "within" (and without) a realm of vast new hope, and new possibility, that is, by its very nature, radically and transformatively free making real life, and real love, possible, once again, through us. And so, being a "channel of God's peace and love" (St. Francis prayer), is not only an awesome priveledge, but also fun and creative and the only thing, that makes any rational sense whatsoever in the final analysis!

It's crazy, this thing called love! Insane! But good crazy, big time!

Luv,

NAM

P.S. Or maybe it's not love that is crazy, but we who were..

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/e1fd261989d6.gif[/atsimg]