Question for ATSers- Do you love unconditionally? Should you?

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?

Maybe, if I truly bonded with this random girl, but the definition of unconditional love in your post doesn't say that the unconditional love has to be for a random stranger. Some parents may have maternal/paternal love for their children, but don't have unconditional love for them (Flyersfan is probably one of those parents). Some parents don't even have maternal/paternal love for their children (my cousin is an example of that). Some adoptive parents have maternal/paternal love for their adopted children who aren't of their blood. Some of those parents may even have unconditional love for those adopted children. Yeah, you have to bond with the person, but that's the case with all types of individual love.

Before and right after my daughter was born, I had maternal feelings for her, but not the type of unconditional love I'm speaking of. That feeling didn't happen until she was around 4 or 5. I think we made a connection that goes beyond just the parent/child maternal instincts. It's okay if you don't believe me, but I know how I feel.

a reply to: kaylaluv

Oh I believe that your love is great and very fulfilling for you and your daughter. Of that I have no doubt. I just don't believe it is unconditional. It may be close, but like I said, unconditional love is unattainable. If you wanted to acheive unconditional love with someone, you'd have to pick a completely random person out of a crowd and then proceed to love them without question. Remove ALL conditions from your love, and even then you may still fail at attaining unconditional love status. Actually, not may, probably.

Like I said earlier in the thread, unconditional is akin to perfection. It is impossible to reach, but we can get infinitely close to it.

A reasonable example of Unconditional love would be something like:
Designing Energy that WILL gain awareness of its surroundings and in possession of its own uniqueness and letting it go within a "playground"/ learning center on its own to GROW. And thru mistakes made it will mature and eventually Ascend back to where it came. Only left to learn / play until mature enough to ascend.

NAMASTE*******

If I said to you, you listen to music conditionally because it depends on sound waves and ears and then took those away, unconditional love would be continuing to hear the music anyway. It comes from inside.

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.

a reply to: Serdgiam

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Very good points. Punishment is another interesting idea. Punishment requires one to stoop to the level of whom he is punishing, in order to inflict it. For instance we might condemn someone to death for condemning someone to death. Like you said, this is more of a bandaid over a symptom, rather than an attack on the disease causing the symptom. If someone is dealt with accordingly, it is according to society and its norms. In the end, there are three victims of this disease: the victim, the perpetrator, and the ones doing the punishment.

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.

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.

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 around 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 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 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 specific 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 bring into my constant awareness. 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. At this point, it is there unconditionally and will be as such until my death.

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.

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.

a reply to: Serdgiam

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..

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 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.

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.

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."

Very interesting. I can’t wait to read it if you happen to share.

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 wonder why you’d force it? That spark is found in all emotional contexts. Is it more pleasurable in that state?

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.

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.

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?

You are correct in not quite understanding, though to be fair, its not exactly an easily relatable concept. My eventual thoughts on it were that it is a natural state of sorts, but that the emotion is only a facet of a significantly larger experience. Evolution was brought up, though in thinking about it, that perhaps confuses two different lines of thought. At the very least, this is something that has been talked about for thousands of years.

Perhaps we are not on the level with the definition of "states" either. It is possible, as with many things, to conjure up a variety of imagery, concepts, and contexts for that word (like all others). I know, I know.. its linking wiki, but most everything here could be used to point at the same type of thing I am speaking about. The only exceptions would be the literature and the theology section (the irony is not lost on the latter, hope you enjoy it as well). I set up a system of parameters for the active awareness (which could be called a state, or system, itself). The "spark" was the only parameter that was seemingly self-sustained in that it required only the same amount of focus as the active state itself, rather than in addition to it.

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.

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.

Very interesting. I can’t wait to read it if you happen to share.

I will be more openly sharing my beliefs from here on out. It may be immature in some ways, but I got a kick out of playing off of others assumptions. I think you know what I am talking about with that.

I wonder why you’d force it? That spark is found in all emotional contexts. Is it more pleasurable in that state?

It was all part of the experiment. I "forced" all of the states. The largest difference was that that spark didnt need forcing. In fact, it seemed quite the opposite. The harder I tried to grasp onto it, the harder it was to hold onto. I didnt figure out that spark was found in many other places until later down the road (we are talking about something I started 15 years ago, and studied deeply for about 5 years before sticking with something).

I cant say its more pleasurable, but there are so many things that factor into that idea of "pleasure." I could say its more peaceful, though.

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 happy to see you use the qualifier formal when relating logic to mathematics!

Perhaps it was just a previous sound engineers imagination at work. When we speak, waves of sound are formed. Everything we can experience trends towards application in mathematics. Our language is used to relate concepts in a very loose fashion. Instead, it is possible to design a language that communicates the base pattern for the listener to build upon rather than expecting both parties to imagine even the basics, like a "house," in a completely equal fashion. Basically, I think there is a possibility that through language, we can better understand math and logic as a biological construct.

Totally off topic, really. Just something I think about with language, math, and communication of experience.

a reply to: Serdgiam

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.

I would argue that all perception and awareness, regardless of what it contains or what one focuses on, is the same, being that it all occurs currently and as the same bodily activity—indeed it is a one-to-one ratio with the body, which I believe is the closest we will ever come to any sort of state. This “active perception” you speak of seems more passive to me, however. And I do not believe in consciousness, despite the fact that it is now a truism, although I do understand the concept. In terms of Eastern philosophy, I am closest to the Lokāyata school and would be considered a Nāstika, since I am opposed to these ideas.

I used to partake in such meditative activities, and concur that it takes a sheer act of will to think without words, and to simply notice what happens, but I found no benefit nor joy in it. I find it a contradiction to struggle to attempt to negate certain mental processes, i.e. thinking in words, contemplating the past and future, in favour of other mental processes, i.e. focusing on “now”, when it all occurs in the now anyways. I find it wiser to learn to use those abilities than learn not to use them.

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?

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?

Staying on topic would be good.

Just to clarify though, there is a limit to what we can be aware of in any given moment. This awareness, however, can absolutely be "grown" to constantly include items that might have always been present, just not actively considered. A metaphor would be "the rock in the shoe." Where, if we have a rock in our shoe we are only aware of it once we step on it. It was always there, we just were not aware of it. After we step on it, it is then something that is brought into our awareness. In much the same way, its the very basis behind learning, innovation, and progress. In the terms of the experiment, it all started with becoming aware of my breathing at all times, which is relatively standard fare. It was always there, but I certainly wasnt always aware of it.

The active perception is not necessarily a state. Just a recognition of processes running concurrently with the awareness of them. Within this, was where I "imbued" certain states. Admittedly, there are not many capable of reaching the first step, much less being able to directly attempt what I am speaking about. Or, it might be more accurate to say that there are not many that are willing rather than capable. It was, in essence, a "deep" exploration of the human experience. In my naivete, my intent was to disprove God(s).

The results would be used to determine how I wanted to approach life.

The study basically went from comparative religion (and lack thereof), to active practice of various methods, to designing a baseline foundation made to shift while still remaining stable, and then practice putting things (and nothing) in the "sandbox" to see what would happen.

My tentative conclusion at this point is that the "spark" that is felt is a phenomena that goes beyond the human experience, but since it is experienced as a human, it is naturally understood within contextual parameters.

The benefits were unknown, other than it allowed expedited exploration of various topics.

The results of that choice now are much more clear, but some things can not be shared openly at this point in time. The threads referenced in my signature outline a bit of it, but it is very, very specifically catered towards societal communication. It also involves an array of other topics, most specifically technology, wherein the threads I made were in preparation rather than empty suggestion.

This will undoubtedly be immediately dismissed by anyone reading, but I suspect that "spark" might very well be a principle of induction from the movement of the universe and ourselves. Much like a magnet (human) being dropped down a pipe (travelling through space-time), to use a popular thread currently on ATS. Which, I might add, is extremely disappointing that so many were so unaware of such a basic process... But that is more of a judgment of the education system rather than individuals.

So, while our current culture views it in light of emotion, I view it in light of physical properties of the universe. However, I believe that it is one that has the possibility to connect with a space that does not have time as a constituent. Its base is the pattern that "brings things together in space-time." Which could also be correlated to its duality, repulsion. I think that going too deep into this part of things may be going too far off topic, for the context of this thread. But, basically, I think it is a connection between the fundamental oscillation of the universe, and our active awareness. It was always there, I just had not stepped on it yet.

I suspect that my own benefits would differ just as much as anything else from someone who would attempt to actually explore these arenas of perception. My own agenda was completely shattered at the time. But it has evolved drastically over the last decade or so. Hopefully, I have constructed this conversation in a way that was productive. I will say that while there were benefits, there were also drawbacks (as might be expected). Isolation from other people is an obstacle, so I tend to just keep things "basic."

ETA: Which, really, ends up being not very basic at all.. It usually feels like the disconnect between the majority of the populace on the term "theory," and the scientific take on that same term. The former is a wild guess, the latter tends to have a bit more weight. I have been working on ways to jump the hurdles of communication, but words are so damn tricky. That can be useful as well though, one way is essentially "gatekeep" people from reading your posts based on length alone (tricky!). Perhaps you can see a bit deeper as to why I enjoy your threads so much. When I say something, it will inevitably mean something different to me than it will you. And even in the most slightly nuanced of differences, those gaps can lead to massive, massive discrepancies over an entire thought process or conversation.

a reply to: Serdgiam

I admire you and your ideas Serdgiam. Anyone who spends this amount of time exploring himself and the world around him is what we need more of in the world. Thanks for the patience in explaining some of your ideas. They are rational and don’t resort to meaninglessness. I will have to think about them.

Yes language is a cruel mistress, and articulating ideas such as these clearly and concisely always proves difficult. It is my belief that language is still the no man’s land of thought—there is very little on it—and a notion that still requires much much insight into. In the end, I believe language will lead to our most important philosophies.

But in order to no longer derail the thread, I will have to look through your own threads for further ideas, and I will U2U you if I have any further questions.

Thank you.

I don't know that such a thing is possible. Perhaps I am looking at the bigger picture and the OP was meant to address the love we feel for our family/friends and such. All I know is, do I unconditionally love organ traffickers/human traffickers, pedophile priests, serial killers, rapists, people that abuse children and/or animals and other such people...NO! I know I am not judge/jury/executioner/God, etc,. but just one human being that is capable of love but there are limits.

Love is a wonderful thing but cannot and should not be given freely and without some limitations.

Should we love mercenaries that do horrible things to people/interrogators/rogue police/pervs and so forth? Take the "mercs" for instance, they say, "Kill them all and let God sort them out". Do they even really believe in God considering what they do? In the case of such individuals, I say, "Let God sort THEM out" but I still can't find love in my heart for folks of that ilk.

Having love and kindness in our hearts for our family/neighbors, etc. is a good thing mostly but could we maintain such if one of them were one of the types of loveless and horrible people mentioned above. There probably will be limits and a lot depends on circumstances/situations, etc.

a reply to: FlyersFan

maybe i'm naive but,
i agree with others that love is mostly about forgiving.
imho it is also fine to protect ourselves, if someone attack us physically.
but i usually avoid people who is incompatible because i love them and i dont want to hurt them.
i will try my best to help those who need help and will never expect anything in return.
but there are also some people i will not help when i see that they are capable of overcoming their barriers.
there is no true or false about love imho.
life as a human being is short, so do our best to love others
even if there is only one person you can love, i guess that's good enough.
and dont forget to love ourselves (not in selfish way of course)
(there were times when i helped others, i felt like i helped myself)

peace

a reply to: Aphorism

Thank you as well for the wonderful conversation. Parts of it might have been a bit OT, but I think that the term "unconditional love" really leads down some blind alleyways. I think it is referring to something different than a direct notion of "be in love with everybody."

When its presented that way, it seems to be like so many other control mechanisms.. which, imo, has the possibility of being quite the conspiracy. Its presented in a way that whether you agree or disagree, one never really approaches the real topic at hand.

Perhaps if we approached language, and even society, the same way we do science.. it would help overcome some of the barriers that we have put into place. Though, it seems to be an undercurrent of every approach that we always run the risk of being swept away by the power of thinking we already know everything. I think it would be significantly more successful to accept the opposite, but always strive to do better. Already knowing that we will never reach "perfection."

Our species working as a team would be a sight to behold, but would only be a stepping stone in realizing our true potential (whatever that might be).

I look forward to learning more with you, should you decide to do so. U2U's are always welcome.

Ankh

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.[citation needed] 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.

en.wikipedia.org... See link and look below for crosses in religion/culture internationally.
The Ankh and the Cross are 2 obvious mixes.
The egyptian culture influenced the greeks which inflenced the romans. The romans wrote the story of Jesus to persecute the semetic nations of jews and arabs.

Unconditional love was used at the time as a binding of brotherhood through a sect/organized religion.
During those times, There were constant overthrows of power as multipul cities and settlements were pillaged throughout the ancient world.

Unconditional love was ideal for slaves, Since they were treated so poorly. Where as the ancient semetic/jewish taught to punish evil acts. According to the torah by stoning in most cases.

So where did we shift to unconditional love? Well when you and your family are slaves to an empire that persecutes everything that isn't *unconditional love* (Irony through condratiction?) because they were dangerous and offensive to *God*

As a general rule of thumb, you don't need a religion to understand that helping people and setting up a positive future is ideal. But second to that, naturally people seek fame and glory and in todays society. Soldiers and generals are not seen with as much respect as they used to be.

Back in ancient times, Soldiers and generals/commanders were spotlight figures. Some gladiators as well.
Yes, much of the public figures were important military leaders and heroes.
Much of the glory in our culture and society is economic now. As many people view warriors as barbaric and mentally unstable.

Which is not the case, Soldiers and military leaders must be the most level headed individuals in all situations expecially anarchy/chaos.

Anyways, for everyone to co-exist things like the 10 commandments were created off of variations of previous rules set up ancient societies which had law and order: A legal system.

42 Negative Confessions (Papyrus of Ani)

I have not committed sin.
I have not committed robbery with violence.
I have not stolen.
I have not slain men and women.
I have not stolen grain.
I have not purloined offerings.
I have not stolen the property of the gods.
I have not uttered lies.
I have not carried away food.
I have not uttered curses.
I have not committed adultery, I have not lain with men.
I have made none to weep.
I have not eaten the heart [i.e., I have not grieved uselessly, or felt remorse].
I have not attacked any man.
I am not a man of deceit.
I have not stolen cultivated land.
I have not been an eavesdropper.
I have slandered [no man].
I have not been angry without just cause.
I have not debauched the wife of any man.
I have not debauched the wife of [any] man. (repeats the previous affirmation but addressed to a different god).
I have not polluted myself.
I have terrorized none.
I have not transgressed [the Law].
I have not been wroth.
I have not shut my ears to the words of truth.
I have not blasphemed.
I am not a man of violence.
I am not a stirrer up of strife (or a disturber of the peace).
I have not acted (or judged) with undue haste.
I have not pried into matters.
I have not multiplied my words in speaking.
I have wronged none, I have done no evil.
I have not worked witchcraft against the King (or blasphemed against the King).
I have never stopped [the flow of] water.
I have never raised my voice (spoken arrogantly, or in anger).
I have not cursed (or blasphemed) God.
I have not acted with evil rage.
I have not stolen the bread of the gods.
I have not carried away the khenfu cakes from the spirits of the dead.
I have not snatched away the bread of the child, nor treated with contempt the god of my city.
I have not slain the cattle belonging to the god.[29]
en.wikipedia.org...

en.wikipedia.org...

Ammit (/ˈæmɨt/; "devourer" or "soul-eater"; also spelled Ammut or Ahemait) was a female demon in ancient Egyptian religion with a body that was part lion, hippopotamus and crocodile—the three largest "man-eating" animals known to ancient Egyptians. A funerary deity, her titles included "Devourer of the Dead", "Eater of Hearts", and "Great of Death".

Ammit lived near the scales of justice in Duat, the Egyptian underworld. In the Hall of Two Truths, Anubis weighed the heart of a person against the feather of Ma'at, the goddess of truth, which was depicted as an ostrich feather (the feather was often pictured in Ma'at's headdress). If the heart was judged to be not pure, Ammit would devour it, and the person undergoing judgement was not allowed to continue their voyage towards Osiris and immortality. Once Ammit swallowed the heart, the soul was believed to become restless forever; this was called "to die a second time". Ammit was also sometimes said to stand by a lake of fire. In some traditions, the unworthy hearts were cast into the fiery lake to be destroyed. Some scholars believe Ammit and the lake represent the same concept of destruction.

Ammit was not worshipped; instead she embodied all that the Egyptians feared, threatening to bind them to eternal restlessness if they did not follow the principle of Ma'at.

Ammit has been linked[who?] with the goddess Tawaret, who has a similar physical appearance and, as a companion of Bes, also protected others from evil. Other authors[who?] have noted that Ammit's lion characteristics, and the lake of fire, may be pointers to a connection with the goddess Sekhmet. The relation to afterlife punishment and lake of fire location are also shared with the baboon deity Babi.



The 42 laws of ma'at do not say that people cannot be punished i.e not acting on love but agression, even on principal( You don't want to punish them but based on principal of preventing harm to others you do punish them)

the laws of the 10 comandments are major highlights of these 42 laws.
When you are judged by the God of death/underworld you are judged based on these principals.
Likewise Christianity is a clone of the same beliefs.

Horus=Jesus(Light-Sun)- the son Osiris=Yahweh(Underworld-Creation-Darkness) The new testament is the Light cults- Old testament is the Night cults- I.E the Son(Sun) The Father(Creator night) For there was only darkness(Yahweh) Until There came Light.

a reply to: FlyersFan

I find lot of success with unconditional love, which I give to many. It makes me a better person to be able to devise ways to handle many different situations in many different ways - when someone messes up, it is almost always because there is something going on with them in their lives -

being able to defend myself from other people while still teaching them a higher path is a skill worth having because I end up surrounded by good people, even if they used to be criminals, even killers.

Some people with a bad past are even more interesting to be around and a lot more adventurous - a lot of their behavior harms them, of course, so just showing them how to improve it and how to still enjoy life in a more wholesome manner has great benefits for everyone.

Of course, I'm a little rogue and unconventional, so no religion for me - I prefer more adventurous outlets. But I've had a lot of success with this philosophy.

But since I'm an adventurous person, I hang out with adventurous types - it just takes skill, but most people are receptive.


-----

In fact, I have had WORSE luck when I try to get revenge, or hate someone, or keep track of the bad deeds they do in order to extract something from them later - I end up corrupted and it really sucks, sometimes it isn't easy to get out of. Definitely less favorable.

a reply to: FlyersFan
Unconditional, conditional, it is simply rhetoric. Love is not something that can be categorized and put in a neat little shelf for your comfort. Incredibly complex situations in life arise which you can not predict how will affect you or what may arise in you. Can you forgive cheating, or can you forgive murder and go on loving the person the same way you did, or maybe your love will grow? Unconditional love is simply an fnord, new age bull# that takes away from the ineffable qualities that each human experiences in relation to another.