My own daughter (a toddler) teaches me truth in every moment (even when I think I’ve got to or try to be “in charge”).

Sweet Simple Truth

She's my twin on the fresher leg of the journey.

She is much closer than I to a time when ALL wisdom was fully present, fully felt.

She holds the key and I look on in awe.

The mere idea of me, as Being A, having to be some kind of an authority to her Being, who actually completes the greater picture, is oppressive. Yet, I still often feel pressure to be "in charge".

That pressure comes from my own self-consciousness...

Small me.

Anything created by anything gets created to complete a greater picture. Therefore the thing or Being that’s been created is of the utmost value.

A and B worship each other in their divine journey back to completion.

Now, that feels real.

Hallelujah!

Praise the A's and the B's and the birdies in the trees and the moon up above, and the thing called LOVE.

I wonder what A would feel having parts of itself (B) worshipping it's Self.

It feels a little ludicrous.

A being all sustaining, in whole (toto), would be unable to NOT sustain B...as B are facets of A.

Good point.

If I am not the I I am then I must be the I I’m not.

Praise every last bit...

Even the pains in the ass of life.

Oh wow the A, B, and C, and D even don't even know what SIN or divide means?

They just share and get along regardless in what the world thinks.

One big hippie family full of alphabet galore.

Ok - I liked what ArtGurl had to say, but I see it a slighlty different way.

If A is all that exists - then there has never been anything with which A could interact with (on any level) Therefore A could not experience any emotion at all. Think about what emotion is, how we come to experience it and the purpose it serves. Think about it at a very root level.

Then ask yourself, how could A have any emotion at all?

If A is without emotion and A has always been the only thing to exist, then what motivation would A have to do anything, except exist?

Now if A 'discovered' it could create - that would mean that A created without having a clue that it was the cause of creation, at least until A realized that new creations were popping out of it.

Kind of like, humans, in that primitive man had no idea that sex was the cause of babies - babies just happened.

So now, if A became aware that it was the source of what was being created, then wouldn't that be the first sign of self-awarenss for A? For if A had really been self-aware in the first place, than surely A would have known all its own capabilities - you think?

Anyway, if A became self-aware and realized that it had creating all along, then maybe A did take responsibility for the chaos it had created. Maybe A set in motion set of universal laws meant to direct and protect all that A had already created. What if A created a universe in which to keep its creations contained? What if A allowed for growth and development within the universe? What if AFTER putting everything into the containment of a universe, complete with universal laws meant to protect the 'system' it (A) moved on?

What if A was just learning about itself, like any creature that suddenly becomes self-aware? What if A went on to practice its creative skills, each time containing all it created in little universes?

Now here's the big question, after doing all this, would A have developed the capacity for emotion? Has A actually interacted at all with any of its creations?

Before we assign human attributes, like emotions, to A we need to be assured there is some reason for A having developed them.

In the meantime - if there is a possibility of such a creature as a lone A - we must assume that A either creates hap-hazardly or simply becasue, like any scientist, A is testing it's power to do so, with no emotion in process.

Is Love an emotion?

Please understand that I am playing the devil's advocate here for one reason alone. That is to attempt to see things from as many different perspectives as humanly possible.

The proposition itself troubles me, and I will say why as clearly as possible.

We are assuming two completely contradictary elements. The first being that 'A' is everything, which in and of itself is not problematic. The second being that 'A' has is conscious. That presents a serious flaw in the rest of whatever follows from that. This is because a 'conscious' being must be experiencing something other than itself. If the being is everything then no experience is possible. Therefore, if anything came from such a being, as a result of physical interactions, it would be done so without a purpose.

Yes, love is an emotion.

One can take an action that appears to be love, but if it stems from a self-serving purpose, no love was felt for another.

Love is an emotion.

Creative, I was responding whimsically, because of the nature of the Abra's first post was so obvious.

However, I was making a point similar to your own. I agree, if A were a conscious being and it was all that existed, what would be to be conscious of? What thoughts could A possibly have without anything to stimulate that thought?

That was why I suggested that IF A was creating, A was unaware that it was doing so. Although I do allow for the A to develop a consciousness as it began to recognize 'other' forms. Possibly even developing a realization that it was, itself, creating what had been stimulating its consciousness.

Still, once it became conscious, how could it become self-aware, in other words, how could it define 'self'? Is self, separate? or is its self part of all it created? How could it possibly 'relate' self unless, it related self through its own creations.

That could turn some things around.

Hiya Di...

Yeah, I kinda figured as much. We have had enough conversation in the past to have established our common linear thinking in that regard...



Love though, I dunno...

Seems like another topic...

Spinoza had an interesting approach on it, however, it goes completely against what you just said... I believe.

Gotta run...

Kiddo stuff.



Somebody mention love?



Peace!!

I think what we call love is a mixture of many different emotions, but not an emotion itself.

NO.

Thankyou.


If A is Love...and B is facets of A, then all is Love based.

Anything outside of that is fabrication, and illusionay delusion.

Being B is a figment of Being A's imagination.

To Michael and Di,

I agree with both of you. It makes no sense for A to be self-conscious. Or even aware at all in any cosmic sense as a 'designer' with intent.

It was purely a hypothetical question. A "What if" question.

The purpose of the question is to ask, "If this were true, then where would responsibility lie?"

I agree that it makes no sense to consider this idea as reality. However, let's face it, the VAST MAJORITY of humans on earth take this situation for GRANTED.

On emotion being the driving force

I also agree that give the original hypothesis emotion could not be the driving force. Perhaps curiosity might be a driving force. Like Di mentioned, 'A' would just be experiementing with it's capabilities.

So that is possible, we may be A, manifest as B, experimenting with the possiblities. We have hidden the actions of our spiritual right hand from our left so that we don't know that we are indeed the experimenter. And this gives rise to the illusion of emotion.

On Love

I believe that love is indeed emotion. But before we can have emotion we must have fear. Without danger there is no need for emotion.

Even in something that appears to be perfectly SAFE, like say a very productive constructive game. The excitment is usually assoicated with the possiblity of failure (that's fear). After all, where is the emotional triumph in doing something if there is no challenge of any kind? The very idea of challenge implies that something could fail (fear).

If an automated machine provided us with all our sustance would we feel that the machine 'loves' us?

Where does love stem from but the emotion of the care-giver?

Love is all about emotion. Without emotion there'd be no such thing as love.

In fact that's quite interesting, because in order for a 'God' to be 'love', that God must also be emotional. But emotion runs the gambit of all possible feelings. How could any being be 'pure love'? That would imply that it is incapable of feeling any other emotion.

In fact how does it even make any sense to talk about the 'wrath' of a God that is supposed to be 'pure love'? That's an oxymoron right there.

Therefore 'A' cannot be said to be pure love whilst threatening 'B' for getting laid by 'C'.

Hmmm?

That's pretty convincing logic right there doncha think?

I am just waiting for some Busy Bee to start bashing this thread.

I think I will go with being part of the 'I am' rather than the
'I am not"

If love is not emotion, then what is it?

Responsiblity?

Be careful. If you say that love is to 'care' about another, then what does it mean to 'care'. Is not 'caring' an emotion? I think it is. To care is to have emotion for someone.

Can you love someone without caring about them?

What would it mean to love someone and not care what happens to them?

Isn't love and caring the same thing?

Aren't they both ultimately emotions?

What is love if not emotion?

Please explain.