My only challenge: Love

page: 1
3
<<   2 >>

log in

join

posted on Sep, 20 2011 @ 02:31 AM
link   
This will be my only challenge, on this forum or any other... ever

In my quest for truth i've been through conspiracies, mythologies, history, and most of all religions. I've realize that truth can come in many forms, discriptions, faiths, and beliefs... Amoungst those i've found that many debate and argue about these "truths"...

Also there are assumed "absolutes" in which the "untimate answer" is the real question.

I've heard many points of view, and many pseudo absolutes.... yet there is one that seems to shine through the clouds of this issue... Yes theres many absolutes... The sun will rise tomorrow, and set the next day... If you jump, you will hit the ground eventually... Hold a live grenade just for fun... you're going to die....
etc etc.

The Only Absolute

Understand love, and you will find truth in all things... As i will attempt to show

From the man...

9As the Father hath loved me, so have I loved you: continue ye in my love.

10If ye keep my commandments, ye shall abide in my love; even as I have kept my Father's commandments, and abide in his love.

11These things have I spoken unto you, that my joy might remain in you, and that your joy might be full.

12This is my commandment, That ye love one another, as I have loved you.

13Greater love hath no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends.

14Ye are my friends, if ye do whatsoever I command you.

15Henceforth I call you not servants; for the servant knoweth not what his lord doeth: but I have called you friends; for all things that I have heard of my Father I have made known unto you.

16Ye have not chosen me, but I have chosen you, and ordained you, that ye should go and bring forth fruit, and that your fruit should remain: that whatsoever ye shall ask of the Father in my name, he may give it you.

17These things I command you, that ye love one another.


Muhammad

(SM 141) On Treating Others as Family: Do you love your Creator? Love your fellow-beings first

Krisha

■“Be fearless and pure; never waver in your determination or your dedication to the spiritual life. Give freely. Be self-controlled, sincere, truthful, loving, and full of the desire to serve...Learn to be detached and to take joy in renunciation. Do not get angry or harm any living creature, but be compassionate and gentle; show good will to all. Cultivate vigor, patience, will, purity; avoid malice and pride. Then, you will achieve your destiny.”

yet....

from a dictionary...

love   /lʌv/ Show Spelled [luhv] Show IPA noun, verb, loved, lov·ing.
noun
1. a profoundly tender, passionate affection for another person.
2. a feeling of warm personal attachment or deep affection, as for a parent, child, or friend.
3. sexual passion or desire.
4. a person toward whom love is felt; beloved person; sweetheart.
5. (used in direct address as a term of endearment, affection, or the like): Would you like to see a movie, love?

Which is not love, this is lust... there is a vast difference...

Thus the confusion on the issue...

Love is respect, admiration, compassion, empathy, giving.....

"SELFLESSNESS"

Love is truth....

It is the narrow path defined by Jesus, and many other prophets/wise men within the texts of many religions.

So my challenge is this....

Show me im wrong...

NOT according to the dogma of religon... but according to reality... according to respect, admiration, compassion, empathy, humbleness, giving.....

"SELFLESSNESS"



edit on 20-9-2011 by Akragon because: (no reason given)




posted on Sep, 20 2011 @ 02:42 AM
link   
oh ill bite.....ill give an example....i love my gf that im with right now...currently are religious backgrounds are actual total opposites and most people would assume we should clash.....but we dont we dont base our love off our personal beliefs....now aside from that me and step dad had an argument the other day about love...and i said i never wanted children because i was born with special needs and the way the rest of the world looks at me outside of how my family does is harsh and hurtful...nothing like being shoved aside because of something you have no control over or being born with...and he said well what if your gf/wife one day says i want a baby..i said we could always adopt because i never want to put my child into my position after seeing the world for what it is..then he went on to say well that is what love is you give yourself to that person you give that person a peice of you and you create a child....and i said no that is how you we're raised with your beliefs how can you go and tell me i dont love her if i dont get her prego and give her that baby....what your trying to justify is saying right now i dont love her i dont know what love is because i havnt given her this child....




now i love her i trust her...i feel with love i can tell her anything talk to her about anything be open be myself i hide nothing because i dont fear anything with her.....its like when im with her no matter what being me is perfect and thats it regardless of what the world thinks of me she still loves me for me....i geuss love is would be you feel free to do/say anything without worrying about it coming back to bite you in the ass...assume your not stupid about it....dont go oh yeh hey id totally bang that girl cuz shes so smoken hot withen reason....and also being able to look past the flaws the backgrounds (religion beliefs thoughts w.e) and see the person for who they are....even if they dont agree with you you will still accept what they have to say because you care enough to understand its what they care/believe and you would rather seen them smile over crush their dreams and see them cry.....but thats my input hope it helps



posted on Sep, 20 2011 @ 03:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by Akragon
yet....

from a dictionary...

love   /lʌv/ Show Spelled [luhv] Show IPA noun, verb, loved, lov·ing.
noun
1. a profoundly tender, passionate affection for another person.
2. a feeling of warm personal attachment or deep affection, as for a parent, child, or friend.
3. sexual passion or desire.
4. a person toward whom love is felt; beloved person; sweetheart.
5. (used in direct address as a term of endearment, affection, or the like): Would you like to see a movie, love?

Which is not love, this is lust... there is a vast difference...


I think the dictionary is right, it is love. Though the word has many uses and meanings for context. The directionary is seemingly relating to romantic love, whereas above you related to more of a general and platonic love. Not that they are confusing or anything, just one word for both things, aslong as you understand this there should be no confusion.

Nice post though



posted on Sep, 20 2011 @ 03:15 AM
link   
reply to post by Calex1987
 


You've already solved your own problem my friend, you just don't realize it...


i love her i trust her...i feel with love i can tell her anything talk to her about anything be open be myself i hide nothing because i dont fear anything with her.....its like when im with her no matter what being me is perfect and thats it regardless of what the world thinks of me she still loves me for me....i geuss love is would be you feel free to do/say anything without worrying about it coming back to bite you in the ass

and also being able to look past the flaws the backgrounds (religion beliefs thoughts w.e) and see the person for who they are....even if they dont agree with you you will still accept what they have to say because you care enough to understand its what they care/believe and you would rather seen them smile over crush their dreams and see them cry


If you feel this way about her, why would you deny her this honour?

Look...

i love my gf that im with right now...currently are religious backgrounds are actual total opposites and most people would assume we should clash.....but we dont we dont base our love off our personal beliefs


You believe that people Judge you for what you consider to be a "handycap" if you will...


and i said i never wanted children because i was born with special needs and the way the rest of the world looks at me outside of how my family does is harsh and hurtful...


Ask yourself...

Why do you care what others think?

Would not your child be a blessing regardless of how they were born?

If your child had three legs... would you love him/her any less because of what others thought?

IF you love this girl as you say you do... How can you take such a blessing as joining you and her to make another life... Made from YOUR LOVE... from her?




posted on Sep, 20 2011 @ 03:16 AM
link   
reply to post by Okandetre
 


I think the dictionary is right, it is love. Though the word has many uses and meanings for context. The directionary is seemingly relating to romantic love, whereas above you related to more of a general and platonic love. Not that they are confusing or anything, just one word for both things, aslong as you understand this there should be no confusion.


If you consider that love then so be it...

Who am i do deny you?

edit on 20-9-2011 by Akragon because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 20 2011 @ 03:37 AM
link   
reply to post by Akragon
 


see now this is the part where me and the step dad got into it...because i would love my child and do anything to protect and give them what they wanted....but when im gone and she is....the world isnt going to be as loving and caring....as we we're no to the rest of the world they would be an outcast a burden per say...and thats not something anyone should ever feel i dont enjoy it but i live every day with it.....and you see shes understanding to the way i feel she lost her older brother because of something rare the only at the time 5 canadians had....but at the same time being the way i am its also more of a challange to handle a kid then it would be for most...so rather then risk my child coming into the world with issues i do....can i honestly say i myself could handle such a commitment because it is when you have a baby you commit your life and your loved ones to that child.....and as it is im not fit to do such a thing....maybe one day they will come up with something that can fix whats wrong internally and i can do it but until then its not something im willing to risk or take on



posted on Sep, 20 2011 @ 03:49 AM
link   
reply to post by Calex1987
 


Yet again you've answered your own question..


can i honestly say i myself could handle such a commitment because it is when you have a baby you commit your life and your loved ones to that child.....and as it is im not fit to do such a thing....maybe one day they will come up with something that can fix whats wrong internally and i can do it but until then its not something im willing to risk or take on


Yet...


i would love my child and do anything to protect and give them what they wanted...


So again you have some questions to ask yourself...

If you love her, as she loves you... Is that love enough to deal with what might be?

If you believe it may be.... we return to the original question...

How could you deny her this blessing?




posted on Sep, 20 2011 @ 04:14 AM
link   
reply to post by Akragon
 


i dont doubt my own ability its never really been about me saying ok i dont want one because im special...no it has to do with the fact that when im gone they wont have that guaranteed love n care because society wont give it they will get shoved aside and labeled a burden on society and thats what i want to avoid...i want to avoid what has happened to me.....now to some its a blessing to others its a burden ect sometimes both sides dont want a child its really all on how your raised.....


so yes i think our love would without a question be able to handle a child regardless...my fear is that which is the society that has cast me aside striped me of programs i needed and left me behind in the dust because they didnt see the need or point in wasting anymore funding in it..but this all falls back into risk and reward and personally belief i dont believe im stripping her of anything if one day she really wanted a child and believed we could do it id think about it but if she loved me as much as i know she does she would also understand my reasoning for not wanting one.



posted on Sep, 20 2011 @ 04:35 AM
link   
good point. calex u should listen to akragon.



posted on Sep, 20 2011 @ 04:46 AM
link   
and who says that just because u r special and u have a baby with someone (anyone) that, that baby will come out special as well. ik a lot of ppl in my life who r special and have had children who come out "normal", watevr that is. and who is to say that if u do have a child who is special that when u and who ever u have the baby with r gone that they wont find someone to love, cherish, and care about just like u did with ur gf. and dont listen to wat others say, cuz they dont really know anything. they just believe in wat they want to believe in, and sometimes in the end they come to realize that they were wrong to do wat they did.



posted on Sep, 20 2011 @ 06:52 AM
link   
Your task is not to seek for love, but merely to seek and find all the barriers within yourself that you have built against it.”
― Rumi

My favourite quote.

How true those words are, love is more than the one dimensional description in the dictionary. When you base love from a religious/ spiritual perspective, it is so much more.

it is not only your challenge but mine as well, as i i'm just learning about love (not as described in the dictionay) a universal love for all.



posted on Sep, 20 2011 @ 08:19 AM
link   
reply to post by Akragon
 


Hi friend Akragon,

you are inimitable in your own pleasant way. After having made the aquaintance with you, IAMIAM and other on that path, I have reconsidered my future plans for when the theocrazies try to get back in power and have given my weapon- and explosive-arsenal away. (Possibly making a mistake, as the gentleman in question was brown-skinned, with burning eyes and constantly consulting 'Mao's little red as interpretated by the great Imam').

But to topic. Basically it depends on which 'identity' a person chooses/achieves (according to talent, motivation and opportunity). In the great confusion called existence, where maps aren't the territory...that is, for the wise...and where most people look at the pointing finger instead of looking at the moon, there are such funny concepts as 'relative realities' which for the duration make good 'absolute'-substitutes. Though maybe not so much in the answer-department as concerning method.

As individuals we mirror existence and give it some personal twist to a relative reality, and the 'mirror' is our identity. By now using buddhist terminology I'm not suggesting this to be the only correct one, it's just functional, well-known and convenient.

The buddhist 'ego' with its dualistic cravings, needs and drives is mainly unable to 'tune into' more than mundane 'love'. And it doesn't matter if the center of that 'ego' is intellectual, emotional or physical. That doesn't mean, that all 'ego'-identities are egoncentric monsters, there are many 'ego'-identities demonstrating excellent qualities using their mundane tools of 'love' or similar to its best abiltity.

(Specifications on that point are not for now).

The 'other' love you talk about, the real, selfless compassion is only realistic when 'the totality greater than the sum of the parts' is reached. What the buddhists call the buddha-mind. And this is the bottleneck, it seems so bleeped difficult to be an integrated whole. The various self-disciplinary ways presented by atoning 'sinners' mainly appear to accentuate the problems of identities at war with themselves, and with the benefits of all this misery being after-life speculations (but each to his own).

Alternative ways? I'll leave it open for debate later on this thread.

And the 'why' of this 'integrated wholeness' being my suggestion....likewise (it's an overdue continuation of our former... eventually friendly... bantering).

As you probably remember, I have the opinion, that 'love' (even the higher form of love) isn't the last say concerning reality. But as 'love' is the manifested weak link in the chain, it's pragmatically the best place to start.

Like eating spinach, if you have iron deficiency.

I believe there is some meat on the bone in this post. Dig in (being a vegetarian I'll take a carrot instead). And I know, that I haven't presented many creative answers here, I ran out of guru-juice yesterday.

edit on 20-9-2011 by bogomil because: minor edition



posted on Sep, 20 2011 @ 12:39 PM
link   
reply to post by Akragon
 


You are 100% correct. Love is the central truth and the reason we are here. Want a non-religious example? Just imagine if every single person in the world loved each other as you love your child or parent. We would have not poverty. We would have no war. We would have no ill-will.

Sounds too simple so it's often overlooked but it is true, no matter how much people want to deny it: love can fix absolutely everything.



posted on Sep, 20 2011 @ 01:10 PM
link   
Ladies and gentilmen, unfortunatly i do not have the time at the moment to respond to these posts, only because i am headed to work in about 5 mins, and i want to be able to sit and read every post in detail

I will be back tonight... about 9 hours from now, at which time i will respond to every person as best i can...

Til then

Be love

edit on 20-9-2011 by Akragon because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 21 2011 @ 01:22 AM
link   
reply to post by Calex1987
 


I had not meant for this thread to be "relationship advice" though i could offer a few tidbits...

If this is a long term relationship as it sounds like it may be, you might consider having this conversation with her at some point. If you're not married already and are thinking of that possibility one day, you may want to consider the fact that many women will have a biological need to have a child. There is many cases of couples breaking up, or mariages failing because one part of said mariage would not or could not provide a child for their mate. Now im not saying this will happen to you, but remember... as her biological clock winds down, that need will become greater.

You also said you don't believe you're stripping her of anything... now im not saying that you are, but as the original post stated and underlined... this thread is about love. And one condition of this love, perhaps even the main one... is selflessness...

What it comes down to is this... IF at some point in the future she wanted a child. Its quite possible its something she may have dreamt of since she was a child herself. Its quite common for girls to dream about having a child one day... notice little girls play with babies...

If you love this person as much as you say you do... would you deny her anything she wanted? IF you do, she also might deny you of something you may also want...

Like being with her...

Also consider what Aphrodite mentioned... theres no garentee your child will have the same issue you do...




posted on Sep, 21 2011 @ 01:54 AM
link   
MT 22:37 Jesus replied: " `Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.' This is the first and greatest commandment. And the second is like it: `Love your neighbor as yourself.' All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments."



There are only three types of love mentioned in the Bible. 1. agape (unconditional love) 2. PHILEO 3. Storge
(brotherly love or personal affection and it expects a return.)
Jesus loves everyone with "agape" love, and He tells us to have "agape" love towards everyone. (It's pronounced A-gap-a')

There are four kinds of love: agape, philia, storge, and eros.
Agape -- unconditional love, God for mankind
Philia -- Philiadepia, the city of brotherly love, or love that exists between close friends.
Storge -- Love that grows between family members.

Only three types are mentioned in the Bible, Eros has no mention at all
I guess God reasoned we could sort that one out ourselves!

Eros; A special intimate love between just two people for life; not to be shared or thrown about as is the trend today. When people in love become intimate the are joined in not just a physical act but joined in spirit. Hence the quote "Joined in the flesh" You will become one body.

When I was separated from my wife I was very conscious of being torn in two, half of me was missing!

That pain even after many years still lingers:

-- sexual, exotic love

Source: wiki.answers.com...



posted on Sep, 21 2011 @ 02:00 AM
link   
reply to post by bogomil
 



you are inimitable in your own pleasant way. After having made the aquaintance with you, IAMIAM and other on that path, I have reconsidered my future plans for when the theocrazies try to get back in power and have given my weapon- and explosive-arsenal away. (Possibly making a mistake, as the gentleman in question was brown-skinned, with burning eyes and constantly consulting 'Mao's little red as interpretated by the great Imam')


Thank you, You'll have to explain the rest of that one though... Is this a verbal arsenal that you speak of, because as most know... You're armed to the teeth with said explosive verbiage


I don't know anything about Mao either honestly, nor anything from any Imam, though i have heard that Imams are like prophets from various videos on the net, which i have issues with believing but anything is possible i guess.



The buddhist 'ego' with its dualistic cravings, needs and drives is mainly unable to 'tune into' more than mundane 'love'. And it doesn't matter if the center of that 'ego' is intellectual, emotional or physical. That doesn't mean, that all 'ego'-identities are egoncentric monsters, there are many 'ego'-identities demonstrating excellent qualities using their mundane tools of 'love' or similar to its best abiltity.


Also keep in mind ones definition of ego must be taken into account...

Consider Freud... it seeks to please the id’s drive in realistic ways that will benefit in the long term rather than bringing grief... Freud used the word ego to mean a sense of self, but later revised it to mean a set of psychic functions such as judgment, tolerance, reality testing, control, planning, defence, synthesis of information, intellectual functioning, and memory.

And even though he may have been a brilliant man, something is still lacking in this hypothesis... His ego and the idea behind it revolved around the self, and the selfs needs. Though he was also talking about the id ego and superego being parts of the brain... but its still this persons idea of the word.

Love is not selfish, it is selfless...


Specifications on that point are not for now


then when?



The 'other' love you talk about, the real, selfless compassion is only realistic when 'the totality greater than the sum of the parts' is reached. What the buddhists call the buddha-mind. And this is the bottleneck, it seems so bleeped difficult to be an integrated whole.


Which is why i tell you, as a wise man once said... Few people find the narrow path, and even less are able to walk it.


The various self-disciplinary ways presented by atoning 'sinners' mainly appear to accentuate the problems of identities at war with themselves, and with the benefits of all this misery being after-life speculations (but each to his own).


Right...


Alternative ways? I'll leave it open for debate later on this thread.

And the 'why' of this 'integrated wholeness' being my suggestion....likewise (it's an overdue continuation of our former... eventually friendly... bantering).


You're going to love this answer... which i will refine as our debate progresses.... You ask why?

Well, "because"....
Sorry i had to... i just couldn't resist



As you probably remember, I have the opinion, that 'love' (even the higher form of love) isn't the last say concerning reality. But as 'love' is the manifested weak link in the chain, it's pragmatically the best place to start.

Like eating spinach, if you have iron deficiency.


You're free to your opinion of course... I would not call it the last say, because that would mean there is no other answer... Anyone can chose to deny the path of love, its actually easier most times if you do... Again, who can walk that path... i even struggle with aspects of it.


I believe there is some meat on the bone in this post. Dig in (being a vegetarian I'll take a carrot instead). And I know, that I haven't presented many creative answers here, I ran out of guru-juice yesterday


LOL...ahem, so.... round 2?




posted on Sep, 21 2011 @ 02:03 AM
link   
reply to post by XplanetX
 


Thank you for your contribution my friend, i didn't think i'd ever be giving you a star...

Apparently i was wrong




posted on Sep, 21 2011 @ 02:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by Akragon
reply to post by XplanetX
 


Thank you for your contribution my friend, i didn't think i'd ever be giving you a star...

Apparently i was wrong





I sometimes even surprise myself.

We do have some common ground despite the divergence when I acknowledge that Jesus Christ is God.

peace


edit on 21-9-2011 by XplanetX because: typo



posted on Sep, 21 2011 @ 06:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by Akragon
reply to post by bogomil
 



you are inimitable in your own pleasant way. After having made the aquaintance with you, IAMIAM and other on that path, I have reconsidered my future plans for when the theocrazies try to get back in power and have given my weapon- and explosive-arsenal away. (Possibly making a mistake, as the gentleman in question was brown-skinned, with burning eyes and constantly consulting 'Mao's little red as interpretated by the great Imam')


Thank you, You'll have to explain the rest of that one though... Is this a verbal arsenal that you speak of, because as most know... You're armed to the teeth with said explosive verbiage


I don't know anything about Mao either honestly, nor anything from any Imam, though i have heard that Imams are like prophets from various videos on the net, which i have issues with believing but anything is possible i guess.



The buddhist 'ego' with its dualistic cravings, needs and drives is mainly unable to 'tune into' more than mundane 'love'. And it doesn't matter if the center of that 'ego' is intellectual, emotional or physical. That doesn't mean, that all 'ego'-identities are egoncentric monsters, there are many 'ego'-identities demonstrating excellent qualities using their mundane tools of 'love' or similar to its best abiltity.


Also keep in mind ones definition of ego must be taken into account...

Consider Freud... it seeks to please the id’s drive in realistic ways that will benefit in the long term rather than bringing grief... Freud used the word ego to mean a sense of self, but later revised it to mean a set of psychic functions such as judgment, tolerance, reality testing, control, planning, defence, synthesis of information, intellectual functioning, and memory.

And even though he may have been a brilliant man, something is still lacking in this hypothesis... His ego and the idea behind it revolved around the self, and the selfs needs. Though he was also talking about the id ego and superego being parts of the brain... but its still this persons idea of the word.

Love is not selfish, it is selfless...


Specifications on that point are not for now


then when?



The 'other' love you talk about, the real, selfless compassion is only realistic when 'the totality greater than the sum of the parts' is reached. What the buddhists call the buddha-mind. And this is the bottleneck, it seems so bleeped difficult to be an integrated whole.


Which is why i tell you, as a wise man once said... Few people find the narrow path, and even less are able to walk it.


The various self-disciplinary ways presented by atoning 'sinners' mainly appear to accentuate the problems of identities at war with themselves, and with the benefits of all this misery being after-life speculations (but each to his own).


Right...


Alternative ways? I'll leave it open for debate later on this thread.

And the 'why' of this 'integrated wholeness' being my suggestion....likewise (it's an overdue continuation of our former... eventually friendly... bantering).


You're going to love this answer... which i will refine as our debate progresses.... You ask why?

Well, "because"....
Sorry i had to... i just couldn't resist



As you probably remember, I have the opinion, that 'love' (even the higher form of love) isn't the last say concerning reality. But as 'love' is the manifested weak link in the chain, it's pragmatically the best place to start.

Like eating spinach, if you have iron deficiency.


You're free to your opinion of course... I would not call it the last say, because that would mean there is no other answer... Anyone can chose to deny the path of love, its actually easier most times if you do... Again, who can walk that path... i even struggle with aspects of it.


I believe there is some meat on the bone in this post. Dig in (being a vegetarian I'll take a carrot instead). And I know, that I haven't presented many creative answers here, I ran out of guru-juice yesterday


LOL...ahem, so.... round 2?



The first paragraph in my recent post was just ornamentation, not to be taken very seriously. The verbiage is a result of lubricating my system with linseed-oil, which apart from the omega-something acids, it also gives a smoooooth tongue.

And btw I'm not a freudian, with the freudian obsession of considering the human mind as some kind of latrine, you have to dig out from time to time to prevent unpleasant fermentation resulting in mindbubbles. But mental compostation-technique isn't an issue here.

The Mao/monotheist context had me wondering for a while earlier in my life, until I started on my present 'non-absolute' path. I can now see the mindset-connection of self-proclaimed authority with its 'absolutes' being the common denominator weighting more than the actual details of 'what-to-believe-in'. To 'believe' is more important than the 'belief' itself (for some).

Quote: [" then when?"]

Thanks for giving me an opening, allowing the answer: "Then now".

The various 'emanations' of an alleged (but for the duration assumed) non-cosmic reality are in practically all asian-indo-european religious/myhological contexts traceable back to one or another version of the '3-gunic' system. When cosmic existence manifested (or just 'before' this manifestation), the 'un-nameable' primary source made something from nothing through a tri-polar split (now I sound like SuperEd, but bear with me: 0 = a + b + c). Polarities are just fragmented 'nothing' (~a something nothing).

There's actually a scientific similarity to this also.

But in any case ('as above so below' in a very pragmatic, non-esoteric version) many of the religious/mythological cosmogonies/cosmologies have an associated practise for achieving 'reality', and in those systems/practises the three 'gunas' are in mankind manifested as intellect, emotions and the physical body. Generally 'the western way' and some parts of hinduism is to consider some kind of hierarchial constellations between the various 'gunas' and the method is to 'grow vertically'. A main-part of the asian way is to consider the 'gunas' as 'equal' and horizontally integrate the 'gunas'.

In the 'horizontally' version each practical way (towards 'reality') of intellectualism, emotionalism or pragmatic 'physicalism' has its own tools to work with and none of them is on its own THE answer.

So when manifested (say in a societal context of 'ethics') both rational, emotional and 'practical' have their own optimal answers, none of which are more 'reality-related' than any of the others.

Utilitarian ethics is as functional and 'valid' as empathy ethics and as the practical 'it's bad-for-business-to-fight' practical pragmatism. And vice versa.

Quote: [" You're going to love this answer... which i will refine as our debate progresses.... You ask why? Well, "because".... Sorry i had to... i just couldn't resist"]

My initial 'why' was more directed towards my own comments than a question. But your answer is welcome anyway. The day I can't see any intended humour in 'becauses' coming from you, is the day I need formal laughter-therapy.

Quote: ["LOL...ahem, so.... round 2?"]

You know VERY well, that you and I are corteous between the two of us and supply each other with interesting openings and directions. That was round 1 A. Round 2 is in this post. Round 3 can be on 'specifics' presented here (or whatever you chose).
edit on 21-9-2011 by bogomil because: typo





new topics
top topics
 
3
<<   2 >>

log in

join