Because I am not getting into the A and Be scenario and I tried to read it and it just did not compute.

lol...

you are so precious...

yes indeed, i can understand...

posted another after that, as i heard the same from me self already, lol...

hope it was better...

peace girl

That's cool we don't need to agree.

I've thought about this more deeply last night and I'm completely convinced that Pathos is the only driving force for everything we do. Logos and Ethos are actually restrictions, not the driving force.

That's my personal perception. If you have a different perception that's fine. Then that's true for you.

I'm in agreement with you completely that eveyone has their own perception of life and reality.

A needs B since it created it and B needs A because it came from and is part of A so both should thank each other have a beer and live happily together.

B sight gets bigger and closer to A sight, which only be larger sight, each time B sight, take what looks like an opposing B sight of view, and deems them both as perfect, and seeks diligently to wonder how the two can be as true???

one B scientist has great passion, for seeing how the globe was once a total ice planet, and that ice covered the B's tropic's???

another B scientist has great passion, for seeing how continent drift works, and finds out all these workings, and so deems ice planet theory not possible???

the two scientist findings seem to contradict one another, and make each scientist think the other must be mistaken???

but the wisest scientist, mesh all theories as one, and deems not what any other scientist find as impossible, but rather first works from the assumption that both findings are and must be accurate, then it can be seen how they may be fitted together, like a jig-saw puzzle, and the mind scientist, that work as this, unveil to itelf many wonderous things, that increase the perception even unto infinite proportions, which each human thing is???

it is a nefarious illusion that this lead to falsehoods contrived, as the "falsehoods", or "packaging", of the two "contraditions" fall off, as the two jig saw pieces are turned and turned to be fitted together perfectly???

with this in mind, anything that strike self as first impossible, implausible, opposite, different, negative, self learn to STOP, as this mark the "sunken treasure spot", of more, and these type eye's look again, then again, then again, and find more than the eye's ever hoped for???

there are no contradictions, only lack of fitting two things together, and the heart that find this has infinite peace and infinite wisdom, that turn the world upside down.

peace in the quest of all as one.

If I took everything away.... I still have something.....


LOVE.... I AM Love...the part of A that wants to experience BEING Love.

That's my feelings too.

What emotions are innate?

When do we learn what love is supposed to be like?

How is that fortified within us?

I think these contemplations will add some clarity.

davidben has made some points here which relate to language itself.



A concept such as love has it's root in language. Our understanding of what it constitutes reflects the understanding of the meaning behind the terms being used to represent it, just as any other concept. It differs from emotion in the sense that our emotions can be identified with specific things that cover any and all perspectives, regardless of language. With love however, that is not the case. It is guided by one's sense of ought, so much so that it changes along with it.

Fear is the only emotion that one is born with that is already well established. The capability to process all others is or is not innate and the environment provides the stimulus by which we process those things.

Adaptation is the key.

Love is self-serving, and although one may consciously do something for another(out of love) that goes against one's current wants, that choice fulfills the ideology behind it.

"I did it because I love him/her." is so often the answer when one is asked by another why they did something by someone who is outside the situation that cannot recognize the driving force(s) behind what looks to be a poor choice. That poor choice was done out of love... specifically out of the individual's idea of what ought to be done out of love.

That is one reason why I say it is a state of mind. When contemplating decision, the notion of love plays a role if it is present.

Well, I can't argue against love being a 'state of mind' since emotion itsself also a state of mind.

In fact, consciouness itself is a 'state of mind'.

All of perception is a 'state of mind'.

The only problem with that view is that it brings nothing new to bear on a specific concept such as love.

Basically all we end up recognizing is that all experience and perception is a state of mind.

So why even single out love at all if you're just speaking in general abstract terms that could be applied to anything and everything.

I mean if we take this to the ultimate conclusion we have.

Love = a state of mind.
Hate = a state of mind.

But what have we gained if we haven't defined the 'state of mind'?

What's the point in even speaking of such abtract circular concepts?

This is kind of philosophical thinking always reminds me of the following Feynman quote:

"We cannot define anything precisely! If we attempt to, we get into that paralysis of thought that comes to philosophers, who sit opposite each other, one saying to the other, 'You don't know what you are talking about!' The second one says 'What do you mean by know? What do you mean by talking? What do you mean by you?', and so on."
--Dr. Richard P. Feynman

This is why I tend to avoid philosophical arguments of 'precise definitions'.

It's impossible to define anything precisely, and philosophers who attempt to do this just end up going round and round in endless circles that can never be resolved.

So the best thing to do is to just say that Love is undefinable and leave it at that.

Like you said initially, every individual has their own experiencial preception of what they mean by love, and who can argue with that? It's their reality.

In fact, why not just leave it at that:

Love is a personal experiencial preception.

There we go, everyone's definition of love has been satisfied.

Including Smiless' who thinks that love means to get laid.

Just joking John!

there is a self centered uni verse being, of all things worthy of word or action, based on self interest and self definition foremost, singular love, formulated and defined from the total sum of what self sought from a child for itself as love, or the centered self universal being, which seek the best interest of all in all universe's, all things worthy of word or action, based on the total sum of all other's worth and value as greater than self, universal love, and the difference is as night is to day.

I guess everyone has their own idea about what love is. I think calling it a 'state of mind' is a strange way of looking at it, since traditionally the heart and the mind have always been viewed as being separate approaches..

Does one make decisions based on their heart (feelings, conscience etc.) or does one make a logical impersonal decision.

Does one choose to purchase a thing that they really want or are they mindful and practical and only buy things that they really need.

To say that "love" is a "state of mind" does not make sense to me because mind is more logical and love is not.

"Falling in Love" is closer to being insane or hypnotized than it is to anything logical.

I would make a terrible student in that class on that subject wouldn't I. I think I would have the world's smallest essay to turn in.

A + B = AB that creates C to have one big family of love.

Love is a chemical reaction that equals getting laid

Go ahead give me a A for this!

James...

Your post leaves me baffled on a few things.



Why would you think this is true?



Or this?



Or this?



I would agree here. Keep in mind that I do not share that view either.



The ladder begins at the bottom, but one only throws it away after reaching the top, for it is there that the unspoken has clarity.



I wanted at first to refute this description of hate, but it would only serve to muddy the already stained waters. I just wanted to note that that was not the direction in which my words led.



Ahhh, and those rungs, my friend lead one to the conclusion which as of now has yet to have been made.



With every piece of genuine interest James, the only thing that is circular here has been your extrapolation of one statement, which failed to account for my own additions to it. The focus is off of the intented meaning(s).



Did you not ask for more precise terms regarding a 'state of mind' throughout the post? Specifically here...



Language has a curious way of leaving things unsaid. I am not at all attempting to refute an individual understanding of what constitutes love.

I believe that to hold love equal to an emotion is a great injustice to the meaning of the concept itself. To state(believe) that love is an emotion is to equate it on a singular level with known emotions. One must first recognize the distinction between love and emotions. Emotion itself is not a state of mind. Conscious experience awakens previously dormant unconscious factors which add to or cause one's current state of mind. Emotions reflect the content of those factors.

Emotions reflect what lies beneath consciousness.

Love is not only caring... nor fear... nor happiness... nor sadness... nor bewilderment... nor contentment... nor etc. [insert your choice of state or emotion]...

It encompasses all of these things and more...

Love is a state of mind which transcends all other states, while fulfilling it's own very personal definition.

Speaking of love, I wrote a song called Imayokpa ona Ayokpachi

In English is means "Love to Smiless"

http://mingle2.com/topic/show/216128

Great job James!!!

I believe that Being A is now responsible for Being B because Being A must not have been that much of a lesser being than being B if it needed to create another being. You didnt mention WHY Being A created Being B. But I will guess that the reason was because one Being cannot manage without another. How can one Being be superior with no other beings to compare itself to? Being A may have been "superior" as you said..but it could not know that until it created another being, Being B. So...in my opinion Being A is now in a seriously dangerous situation. Because now it will begin having many thoughts it never had before, regardless the dependence B may have on A.

That's a truly profound thought right there.

Thanks Abra....This is definitely the right forum for me.....silly me and my "mistake" yesterday, heheh....

IMHO shared experience is all that builds responsibility between conscious beings.

If after creation being A has no interactions with being B, then the only experiences are those of being A.

Being A would have a responsibility to being B if and only if being A is ethical, and moral.

Being B having no experience of being A would have no knowledge of being A.

If being A is ethical then being A will act according to those ethics what ever they may be toward being B.

If being A does interact with being B and they establish a set of cohabitational behaviors then each is bound by the commitments they make to each other.

The longer the interaction, the greater the resultant list of shared experiences, the greater the shared responsibility in the roles that each takes in the others lives (existence).

If being A has nothing to offer being B, and being B has nothing to offer being A, then they will have no desire to share experience what so ever.

To further analyze the situation we need to understand the desires and motivations of each being.



_________________________________

PS sorry I did not read the whole thread, I been a busy dood lately.




_________________________________

Ok read a couple pages.

What if A is nature, and B, C, D . . . . . . ect are just facets of A that arise out of an increase in complexity through natural processes.

Any responsibilities? How does this map to what we know about reality?