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. Love sounds robotic. Selfless, unconditional love is love that is free. Selfish, conditional love is love that is bound. |
|
|
|
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.
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 love would have to mean that you derive no personal pleasure or happiness from the company and the existence of the person you love, and that you are motivated only by self-sacrificial pity for that person’s need of you. I don’t have to point out to you that no one would be flattered by, nor would accept, a concept of that kind. Love is not self-sacrifice, but the most profound assertion of your own needs and values. It is for your own happiness that you need the person you love, and that is the greatest compliment, the greatest tribute you can pay to that person."
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. 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. 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. |
|
|
|
He's only built for pointless endless loops.
He should be your new avatar, then. |
|
|
|
"Selfless love would have to mean that you derive no personal pleasure or happiness from the company and the existence of the person you love, and that you are motivated only by self-sacrificial pity for that person’s need of you. I don’t have to point out to you that no one would be flattered by, nor would accept, a concept of that kind. Love is not self-sacrifice, but the most profound assertion of your own needs and values. It is for your own happiness that you need the person you love, and that is the greatest compliment, the greatest tribute you can pay to that person."
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. |
|
|
|
"Selfless love would have to mean that you derive no personal pleasure or happiness from the company and the existence of the person you love, and that you are motivated only by self-sacrificial pity for that person’s need of you. I don’t have to point out to you that no one would be flattered by, nor would accept, a concept of that kind. Love is not self-sacrifice, but the most profound assertion of your own needs and values. It is for your own happiness that you need the person you love, and that is the greatest compliment, the greatest tribute you can pay to that person."
No. |
|
|
|
When did you install the Bitcoin client? Do you see a "tick" (green OK icon) at the bottom right corner of the program?
If you don't, then you haven't finished downloading the blockchain. You must wait until it's completed 100%.
Thanks! I dont see the green check yet.. it's rotating yellow circle! How long does it take to fully download? It can take a day or 2. If you have one of the newer clients, click on the client, hover your mouse icon over the circle, and it should tell you how far along you are. |
|
|
|
|
Awesome idea to have a scannable, physical bitcoin. It'd give merchants nice diversity along with the scannable QR codes.
|
|
|
|
|
I'm 2 months away from a masters in social work, have a BA in psychology, have about 1200 hours of field experience at 3 locations including ~450 at my current field placement in an adult psychiatric hospital unit.
I have no problem soliciting advice under the guise of an unlicensed student counselor.
|
|
|
|
p2pfoundation is a wiki site to " study the impact of Peer to Peer technology and thought on society". They're close to the Occupy Wall Street movement. Their overview about Bitcoin: http://p2pfoundation.net/BitcoinTheir criticisms: http://p2pfoundation.net/Bitcoin_-_DiscussionSummary of a p2p-based critique by Michel Bauwens
[...] However, the Bitcoin design may also have some serious flaws. First of all, the way it is mined privileges the technical community itself as it can have access to networks of botnets to generate coins, in a way most people can't. Secondly it is a 'scarcity' based currency, subject to hoarding and wealth accumulation (only 21m bitcoins will be created, insuring a constant growth in value), that does not really change what is 'wrong' with the current currency system. As many so-called 'peer to peer' technologies (such as crowdfunding, crowdsourcing, etc..) it may increase wider participation and 'distribution' but without necessarily changing the dysfunctional neoliberal functioning of the market. Nevertheless, what it really shows is that socially sovereign currencies are viable, and could be created as a tool of the countereconomy, though this may require a different ruleset for its functioning. so that true 'social' peer to peer values can be integrated in the design of future 'post-Bitcoin' currencies. [...]
They like Ripple a lot more: http://p2pfoundation.net/Ripple Considering the Occupy Wall Street people can't do mathematics correctly anyway, I would be suspicious of anything they say. "We are the 99%.... of the 1%" Before mathematics they need to focus on their hygiene. ...and hope the effect Ripples. |
|
|
|
I feel like we live in a mix of 1984 and Idiocracy, regardless of what country we live in. I think religions fill the role of thought police along government intelligence organizations.
It's interesting to note that members of the inner party in 1984, were not free, they were just slaves with privileges.
+1 for a president whose middle name is Mountain Dew. |
|
|
|
You're speaking to a solipsist, joint. I am quite aware it's all a matter of perception but I will stand by my preferences. I am not absolutely dependent on them but I do value absolute individual liberty and I will not just simply throw it aside. It costs me nothing for it is who I am.
Is a man not entitled to his desires?
In summary, yes, I can do the same things with a 100-pound bag on my back but is it a sin to want the bag gone nonetheless?
What's more important to you, perfection or happiness? I think you're entitled to your desires...I don't think you're entitled to the things you desire. And, if you agree that "it's all a matter of perception," then change your perception and turn the 100-pound bag on your back into a jetpack. I am happy. That's why I am capable of acting with no remorse. I am also entitled to the things I desire once I have the strength to attain them. Ok. Interesting you respond only to say "Okay". I am interested in your thoughts. Why else would I have a conversation with you? Because if you're happy, what else do you need? I "need" nothing but I still act within my nature. Man does not stay stagnant. It seems your idea of happiness entails doing nothing. I just remember you once saying something about anxiety, and coupled with the passionate nature in which you speak (your eloquent choice of language suits a man who is already in a deserved position of entitlement, no less -- think political candidates here) which I suspect is ironic in that the actual words you choose indicate that you don't have all that you feel is entitled to you, it all seems a little...contradictory. |
|
|
|
You're speaking to a solipsist, joint. I am quite aware it's all a matter of perception but I will stand by my preferences. I am not absolutely dependent on them but I do value absolute individual liberty and I will not just simply throw it aside. It costs me nothing for it is who I am.
Is a man not entitled to his desires?
In summary, yes, I can do the same things with a 100-pound bag on my back but is it a sin to want the bag gone nonetheless?
What's more important to you, perfection or happiness? I think you're entitled to your desires...I don't think you're entitled to the things you desire. And, if you agree that "it's all a matter of perception," then change your perception and turn the 100-pound bag on your back into a jetpack. I am happy. That's why I am capable of acting with no remorse. I am also entitled to the things I desire once I have the strength to attain them. Ok. Interesting you respond only to say "Okay". I am interested in your thoughts. Why else would I have a conversation with you? Because if you're happy, what else do you need? |
|
|
|
You're speaking to a solipsist, joint. I am quite aware it's all a matter of perception but I will stand by my preferences. I am not absolutely dependent on them but I do value absolute individual liberty and I will not just simply throw it aside. It costs me nothing for it is who I am.
Is a man not entitled to his desires?
In summary, yes, I can do the same things with a 100-pound bag on my back but is it a sin to want the bag gone nonetheless?
What's more important to you, perfection or happiness? I think you're entitled to your desires...I don't think you're entitled to the things you desire. And, if you agree that "it's all a matter of perception," then change your perception and turn the 100-pound bag on your back into a jetpack. I am happy. That's why I am capable of acting with no remorse. I am also entitled to the things I desire once I have the strength to attain them. Ok. |
|
|
|
You're speaking to a solipsist, joint. I am quite aware it's all a matter of perception but I will stand by my preferences. I am not absolutely dependent on them but I do value absolute individual liberty and I will not just simply throw it aside. It costs me nothing for it is who I am.
Is a man not entitled to his desires?
In summary, yes, I can do the same things with a 100-pound bag on my back but is it a sin to want the bag gone nonetheless?
What's more important to you, perfection or happiness? I think you're entitled to your desires...I don't think you're entitled to the things you desire. And, if you agree that "it's all a matter of perception," then change your perception and turn the 100-pound bag on your back into a jetpack. |
|
|
|
the joint, a cushy bureaucrat job is not my idea of freedom.
I want the ability to build, to think, to speak and to organize as I please with no restriction. That's what brings me pleasure. All the wealth and benefits in the world would bring no such happiness; not if the potentially great minds of this world are reduced to sheep.
To reach retirement, that's easy given enough patience. I am not afraid of not reaching financial stability. I am not even afraid of having a hard life. I like the outdoors. I like hunting.
What I am afraid of is complete bondage in what I wish to do. That's what I value: True freedom.
An easy living with all the amenities? That means nothing to me. Actually, it's easily achievable for somebody not afraid of sweat.
An easy living with no responsibility is only valuable to the people who have had their spirits broken and their bodies poisoned and bloated with garbage.
People have freedom of interpretation and freedom of mind. The freedom of interpretation allows us to literally create the world around us. Freedom of mind allows us to choose to retain that freedom or, conversely, to place our own constraints. Whenever you think or speak, you use your freedom of interpretation. And, when you interpret the world as being constraining, you are placing your own constraints. Believe me, I've spent enough time at 3 different Universities preaching about how the peer-review system is the largest obstacle to scientific progress. I believe this to be true. But I don't lose sleep over its existence. I'll repeat what I said in another thread in this one: Projection is not only a defense-mechanism, it's a truism. If you see the world as being full of shackles and chains, it's only because of the shackles and chains in your mind. You put them there, and you don't realize that it was only through the medium of true freedom that they exist in the first place. |
|
|
|
The world's "poor" and "middle-class" spend their days buying consumerist garbage, drinking, gambling and wasting their time on prolofeed-like media. The high-level corporate, government and banking classes use the power of law to end competition and collect from the working class through tax-hikes, sanctions and ever-increasing inflation. They live lives of unrestricted leisure while most of us work for them through the interest rates on country's debts, the taxes we pay and, again, inflation. The mass majority voluntarily displays their lives, beliefs and activities on Facebook and "Check-in" location tracking services, which is thereby scrutinized by the powers that be. The NSA collects encrypted and unencrypted web traffic and stores it on the servers indefinitely, to then be cracked and read for potential threats. As we speak, the CIA plans to implant low-power tracking devices in lamps, appliances and other products: http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=7Ct7QwxP23U . They don't want anybody threatening their power. Potential dissidents are tracked, monitored and labeled as terrorists with very broad criteria. Over a million normal people are put on no-fly lists and are subject to restrictions in their daily lives through background checks among other things. What lies ahead could be anything. Honestly, I feel the totalitarian state is already here. How about you? Do you trust the powers that be? Work hard, develop skills, and you can be just as competitive as the "powers that be." That's no joke. People either get wealthy and powerful because 1) they were born into a wealthy and powerful family or 2) they have undeniable and useful talents. If they are born into a wealthy family, it is likely that their ancestors had undeniable and useful talents. If you were wealthy and powerful, wouldn't you like to know that your children, and your grandchildren, and your great-grandchildren, etc. will be wealthy and powerful too? I know I would. My opinions are mixed. Do I agree with all the decisions coming from the top? No. Do I really care? Well, I used to, just like you, and to an extent I still do, but my passion to grapple with authority (I'd be a prime candidate for oppositional defiant disorder) is now mitigated by the serenity of acceptance. I like myself, and I am a product of the same society as the "powers that be." And, since that is the case, I'm pretty appreciative of them. As you like to say yourself, Atlas, truth "is," and things "are." If you truly believe that, you will realize that it is possible to both fight with all of your might and to also have peace of mind. Edit: And to answer the trust question, no, I don't. But then again, I also don't trust the sources that give me information about the "powers that be." So, what the fuck do I really know about them anyway? |
|
|
|
That being said, I have a radeon 5870 getting 460 m/hash at a cool 60C that I will rent for $175/mo, guaranteed 98% uptime, payment for entire length of contract due up front.
Is that a typo or are you kidding? 460MH nets you less than 10 BTC per month, or ~$45 at the current price. If I had any hopes BTC would increase 4x in a month, Id rather place a bet on bitcoinica  . False dichotomy. I put an offer that beats the other guy's offer of 1 g/hash at $1350 for 3 months. If he wants he can spend $500 building his own 1 X 5870 rig. But I'm open to negotiation  |
|
|
|
My math is not spotless but I can't see a 1gH rig that costs $1350 for 3 months being able to make enough bitcoins today or even into the near future to support the rental fee?
From the bitcoin miner reward estimation calculator you can only make ~0.54btc a day with 1gH.
I must be getting this wrong, can you tell me how many btc your 1gH rig is producing?
Regards.
When you rent, expect to pay a premium. Why should you pay a premium? It saves you the hassle of buying the hardware, setting it up, optimizing it, maintaining it, and hoping none of your hardware components die out on you. Also, you are essentially paying for the electrical cost. When most miners mine, they need to pay for electricity. This electrical cost still exists in the mining contract, and it's going to come out of your pocket. And, if the price of BTC goes up, your rental agreement could be a steal. That being said, I have a radeon 5870 getting 460 m/hash at a cool 60C that I will rent for $175/mo, guaranteed 98% uptime, payment for entire length of contract due up front. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
