Selfless love...

[Matthew N. Wright]

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.

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

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

You put your mind to douches?

[1715176565]

1715176565

[1715176565]

1715176565

[1715176565]

1715176565

[the joint]

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.

[the joint]

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.

[bb113]

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.

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

[Matthew N. Wright]

Oh shut up. Love doesn't exist.

[the joint]

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.

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

Focus is determined, not love. 

[Jon]

So is returning selfish love selfless and thus a virtue?

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

[Matthew N. Wright]

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.

[MatthewLM]

Love is a longing for, no?

[Matthew N. Wright]

Love is a longing for, no?

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

[the joint]

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.

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.

[MatthewLM]

Love is a longing for, no?

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

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

[bb113]

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.

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.

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.

What part of the brain is this?

[the joint]

Love is a longing for, no?

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

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

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.

[Matthew N. Wright]

Love is a longing for, no?

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

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

[MatthewLM]

I do not see the need for another thread.

Love is a longing for, no?

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

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

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.

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?

[the joint]

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.

What part of the brain is this?

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).

[bb113]

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

[the joint]

I do not see the need for another thread.

Love is a longing for, no?

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

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

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.

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?

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  

[MatthewLM]

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