Bitcoin Forum

What a pile of horsecrap.

I am disappointed, cbeast. I thought you would give me some insight.

I was being polite.

There are some who say there is no such thing as a "selfless act" - all acts are, at their root, selfish, for the basic reasons in the quote in the OP.

I'm not sure I agree, but there are certainly compelling arguments to make either way.

No.

Why?

Because you, and/or whomever it is you are quoting, are confusing love with the byproducts of love which arise when the ego (hence, selfish) gets involved.

Something similar would be like saying "love hurts."  No, it doesn't.  Jealousy, anger, frustration, etc. are some of these hurtful byproducts.

Another similar example is like saying "I'm worried about you because I care about you," but worrying about someone and giving care to someone are two completely different things.

All of these negative byproducts (jealousy, anger, frustration, worry, etc.) and even the positive ones (lust, pleasure, etc.) are not love.   If you experience these and think it's love, you are wrong.  These byproducts are intense but shallow; love is subtle but deep.  Because  the byproducts (the derivations) are intense, they are what are often noticed; because love is subtle, it is not often noticed in it's purest form and rather it is confused like in your quote.

Stop making sense. You'll overload his circuitry. He's only built for pointless endless loops.

He should be your new avatar, then.

Touché, sir. Touché.

What is love then? Unicorn dust? Absolute self-sacrifice?

You do it because you value the person, period. It's selfish.

Caring for someone is a selfish act: You want to maintain the person's existent for your satisfaction. You will be upset otherwise.

You can't have it both ways.

You: I don't need anyone.

2 minutes later

You: Can you guys please explain life to me? Pweeeaze?

Love = wanting someone/some thing to be happy.  This is selfless because your focus is not on what it does for you, but rather it is determined as a result of who you already are.  The more a person loves himself, the more content they are and they will shift their focus naturally from wanting to make themselves happy to wanting to make others happy.  People who love themselves more are happier and act less selfishly -- people who do not love themselves are not as happy and act more selfishly.

Remember when I said projection is not only a defense mechanism, but also a truism?  This is a perfect example of that.  When you are less and less happy, the "love" you show will be more and more selfish.  When you are more and more happy, the love you show will be more and more selfless.  This is because your attitude inside is projected outward.

All we are arguing is about the word selfless. I think it's retarded.

True selflessness is death; you don't exist. Yes, I love seeing people happy but that's not selfless. I selfishly enjoy bringing joy to people's faces. It includes ME. I am not out of the equation.

That's all I am saying.

Who loves bitcoin?

http://profile.ak.fbcdn.net/hprofile-ak-snc4/276603_169145469835633_974106608_n.jpg

I don't really blame Atlas personally for being a douschebag. I see a lot of this beatnik type lost generation that endured a decade of senseless war, recession, and raised by the "Me" generation ex-hippie hypocrites. The best advice I can give anyone that has been a survivor is "fuck-it, it ain't worth worrying about." Make a plan and stick to it. Ignore the fucktards, and drive it like you stole it.

I love being a "douchebag" because it gets what I put my mind to.

Everyone else is just jelly because I don't act like a weakling and let them stomp all over me. That's what we call selflessness.

Love sounds robotic.

Atlas's love is robotic because it involves lots of animatronics moving their hands up and down his rectum.



You put your mind to douches?

I'll try to make this short because what you just said requires a lengthy response if it is to be comprehensive.

It's not so much an argument about the word 'selfless' as it is an argument about conditional vs. unconditional states.

My guess is that you define yourself, as you do love, in conditional terms (e.g. I am Jon, I am Atlas, I am a solopsist, etc.).

All 11 definitions of 'identity' in Webster's Dictionary imply stability over time.  True identity is unconditional (e.g. a towel is both wet and dry otherwise how could a wet towel be the same as the dry towel it was before?).

I'm betting you're having a hard time with the word "selfless" because you haven't experienced moments of your unconditional identity with full awareness.  Similarly, I'm betting you haven't experienced moments of unconditional love with full awareness.  FYI, if you have experienced your unconditional identity with full awareness (for example, in a meditative state), only then will the words "selfish love" make sense.

Selfless, unconditional love is love that is free.

Selfish, conditional love is love that is bound.

I don't understand. If love is determined as a result of who you already are, then it is bound. Is it not?

Oh shut up. Love doesn't exist.

Focus is determined, not love. 

So is returning selfish love selfless and thus a virtue?

Again, this is retarded. Love involves yourself no matter what.

The only reason love would have to involve yourself is if it were perception based--- which it is-- proving that love doesn't exist.

Love is a longing for, no?

No, that's obsession, lust, loneliness, etc.

It depends on the frame of reference.

In normal experience, we are subjects surrounded in a world of objects.  We view these objects as conditional and we identify with certain conditions.  This is selfish experience as the self (subject) is separated from everything else (object).

In a meditative state, subject and object become one.  This is verifiable.   There is a region of the brain that allows an individual to distinguish between their self and their environment;  in meditation, activity in this region of the brain ceases such that from the meditator's perspective, he literally becomes one with his environment.  It's also subjectively testable.  "I've" had this experience on several occasions.  I put "I've" in quotes because "I" takes on an entirely different meaning in a meditative state.  It is not a human experience in any way, shape, or form. There is also no way to accurately describe it in words.

The whole matter becomes confusing to understand because there are multiple frames of reference operating simultaneously.  Love can be selfish when it is experienced in the unified frame of reference (where subject and object are the same).  Love is selfless when the subject/object dichotomy is erected.

Are you not supposed to feel lonely if gone without a person you love for some time?

I agree, love is (usually used as) just a nice sounding word for being willing to put up with extra BS from people since you are used to them. It is an excuse for what, at first glance, appears to be irrational behavior. On the whole it averages out to your genetic advantage though.

I personally prefer conditional love. I'd like to be valued for how I behave, what value I bring others, etc rather than because someone is one with their environment or addicted to me.

What part of the brain is this?

Loneliness and love are not the same.

Only your ego makes you feel lonely when a person you love is gone for some time.

With no ego involved (the ego can be systematically dismantled, just as it has been systematically constructed throughout the course of your life), there is no requirement to feel lonely when a person you love is gone for a long time.

Let's talk about this in a different, non-Atlas thread so actual critical discussions can be had.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=74192

I do not see the need for another thread.


I didn't say love and loneliness were the same but that love can cause loneliness. So is love, according to you, the feeling that one should care for another? Does that mean it is compassion?

Honestly, I don't know.  I have a book called "The Art of Knowing" by Christopher Langan and he mentions it in almost the same way I mentioned it (except I believe he said it was located in the rear/top part of the brain).  Most of his writings are full of a bunch of words I've never even heard of before, but this book was specifically intended for the very casual and average reader.  My guess is that he didn't include the name not because he didn't know it, but because it was simply one of many 'scientific jargon' words that was omitted for the sake of an easy read.  I've actually wanted to know this myself, but I didn't really question it as it already aligned with what I have directly experienced (and direct experience is the purest form of knowledge).

Well, plenty of nonsense gets published in books. So I wouldn't take that as fact.

Compassion, yes, that's a good word for it.  It's unconditional compassion.  Why love a person who does cruel things to you?  Because wisdom can tell you that a person who does cruel things only does cruel things because they are not happy inside, or because they are ignorant, etc., and so you can begin to feel compassion for the poor state they are in.  You want them to become better, to become happier, and then they will not do such cruel things.  It is no wonder why happier people have more patience with others, are more tolerant of others, and are more willing to sacrifice their time or possessions to those who need them.

Love only causes loneliness when the ego gets involved.  The ego is what identifies with things.  The ego tells us, "Hey, I invested MY time and MY feelings and MY effort into this relationship, and now the object of my investment is gone.  NO!!!!!!!!"  But, we can systematically train the ego to sit the fuck down  ;D

Well, would you maintain this compassion even if someone became a murderer?

I agree completely.  However Christopher Langan has a tested IQ above 180 (he broke the ceiling on a normed IQ test administered by 20/20, the researcher was quoted to say that he's never seen anybody ever test so high in his 25 years of psychometric testing; it was published in a Popular Science magazine article called "Smartest Man in America").  And while Langan seems like kind of a dick, and while a high IQ means nothing in terms of fabricating information, my guess is that he didn't need to make up a region of the brain just to add an extra line to a 100 page book.

Yes, and I have.  I've worked with murderers at my job.

Right, but the research may be flawed to begin with, the uncertainty and alternative interpretations ignored, conclusions exaggerated, etc. This is not uncommon. In fact it is pretty much expected. Due to selection and publication bias, I say there is 80% chance any given published result is a false positive. This doesn't make it uninteresting, just inconclusive. I would like to look at the research he is referring to though. I am sure meditation does have some effect on brain function.

And would you say this type of love is an end in itself, inherent to oneself, or is it chosen as a means?

PET scans show the dopamine production region lit up like a lightbulb in meditation.

It's an end in itself.  It can be described as "chosen" if one has chosen/intended to systematically dismantle the ego to let love/compassion shine through.  But really, the love and compassion is always there.  It's kind of like the sun on a cloudy day....love/compassion is the sun and all the shit the ego identifies with are the clouds.  People naturally become more loving and compassionate when their ego is passive.

I do think there is an inherent compassion with human beings that causes as pain at other's suffering. I do think it does become over-rided by over factors (and in some cases that may be a good thing) but it is still there.

Are you sure this was not a dopamine receiving area? Dopamine production occurs in the VTA (ventral tegmental area) and I don't really see any PET studies of this during meditation, although I may have missed it.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vefh5e05d7A

Yea he says production, but that is not where dopamine is produced. Maybe it is a translation problem. Anyway I can't find the actual data anywhere, just narratives describing it. This makes it pretty useless.

Thanks!  That's good to know.  I'll learn more about it.