Random thoughts regarding "love"

[ZeroEffect]

no one says what they mean, or means what they say.

in the new millennium love is dead.

Is it possible for one to alter the mindset that people
actually mean what they say, and that there is such
a thing as love?

To survive in these times and be on an emotionally even
keel, one needs to jettison the archaic values of
"love" and "fidelity" and adopt the cold calculating
values of "self" above all else.

i guess my thought is how does one divorce oneself from
antiquated ideas and adopt the new selfishness?
is it possible?

(....sorry no pics) ((weak stab at humor))

 

[Descartes]

<< i guess my thought is how does one divorce oneself from antiquated ideas and adopt the new selfishness? is it possible? >>



Yes. Alter your perception of selfishness.

 

[n0cmonkey]

love is just lust mispelt

 

[StageLeft]

I fail to give merit to statements that "times used to be better" and "where is the world going" and all this. The world is more similar than it is different from the past. Your observational skills may have changed, but the world hasn't.

 

[Descartes]

<< love is just lust mispelt >>



mispelt is just misspelt misspelled

 

[notfred]

Can you explain why you're advocating selfishness as better than love? I just don't get it.

 

[Descartes]

<< Can you explain why you're advocating selfishness as better than love? >>



Is love not inherently selfish?

 

[mOrphine]

i've never thought of love as being selfish, isnt that contrary to what love is?

i've been advised b4 to be selfish so as to not get hurt, but i cant love a person and hold something back for myself, it's too insincere and doesnt feel right.

if u love person, there's no holding back, imo

having said that... love sux right now

 

[notfred]

<< Is love not inherently selfish? >>



no, it's not, I take it you've never been in love, and don't have any kids?

Love is the opposite of selfishness. If you really love someone, you will put thier needs above yours. Only after thier taken care of to the best of your ability, will you take care of yourself.

Granted, this is the extreme case, and I'm not saying that if you bought yourself a new video card instead of buying your wife the new (insert girly thing here) that she wanted, thatyou don't love her. But if you do love her, you will consider making her purchase instead, and probably consult her about the video card, and if she really wanted the (girly thing here) you would have bought it instead of the vid card...


(damn, that's confusing... I wonder if it makes sense to anyone else)

 

[Descartes]

<< no, it's not, I take it you've never been in love, and don't have any kids? >>



Yes to the former, very profoundly.
No to the latter. I do have two cats though!

I was merely pointing out that, to love, is to satisfy one's own interests. You can't love purely for the interest of others.

Any act of perceived selflessness is still an act of self. Is there a point to that? Not really.

 

[nateholtrop]

whoa..this conversation just went over my head...shizzle

nate

 

[Descartes]

I'd also like to point out, that we as humans have very basic requirements in this respect:

- We need to be loved
- We love those who will love us as well

What happens when you love someone who doesn't love you? It's a mutual manifestation of selfishness (love to be loved), so ostensibly it negates that fact. Can you love someone who doesn't love you? If so, can you sustain those feelings? Can you love something that is not capable of love? Perhaps the purest form of love is that which cannot be reciprocated?

 

[notfred]

Descartes - your viewpoint seems to be that EVERYTHING is a selfish act, and no, you're not the only one who thinks that way. But if we're gonig to use this theory, then love is one of the least selfish things out there. I mean, YOu could rescue a drowner swimmer and say that you didn't do it to help them, you did it to keep yourself from feeling bad that they drowned, and that would be selfish. But it's nowhere near the magnitude of selfishness exhibited when you, say rob a liquor store to buy drugs with. I'd put love a lot closer to the drowning swimmer scenario.

 

[Athanasius]

Love, in its purest form, is neither selfish nor unselfish. To live in True Love is to discover the true reason that selves exist in the first place. However, the one who feels called to move towards True Love will perceive that as a self-sacrifice and would act, at least initially, in ways that we would call altruistic. That one will make decisions based on the conscious choice to value other selves above his own self. Not to love the person for how that person makes that one feel, but rather to seek the other person's best interest even if it breaks his heart or crucifies him.

Hence, "Love" appears to us to be the opposite of "Selfishness."

Really, True Love has no opposite. The one who continues in true love is the most fulfilled person the world will ever see. But Love has no equal antithesis. Rather, it is the foundation upon which all of our acts appear to be either selfish or altruistic.

So, in response to this quote from the initial post:

<< To survive in these times and be on an emotionally even
keel, one needs to jettison the archaic values of
"love" and "fidelity" and adopt the cold calculating
values of "self" above all else. >>




"Cold" and "calculating" are instruments of intellect. Intellect divorced from Heart does not find value in love. But the Heart of Love is capable of profound Intellect. It can be quite "cold" and "calculating" in hemming you in and cornering you until the naked choice between altruism and selfishness is left before you in a way that cannot be denied by the incessent, yapping, voice of the rationalizing intellect.

Choose altruism. Persevere and discover that the choice between altruism and selfishness was not the foundation of life but simply the door to discovering the foundation that presents itself to our intellect in such a dualistic fashion.

 

[n0cmonkey]

<<

<< love is just lust mispelt >>



mispelt is just misspelt misspelled >>



Thanks for the correction

 

[Moonbeam]

Since love is selfless it can be said to be dead to, non existant in, any action that springs from self. In my opinion the challenging question for the new millennium is, 'Is it possible to die to self?'

 

[Viper GTS]

<< Since love is selfless it can be said to be dead to, non existant in, any action that springs from self. In my opinion the challenging question for the new millennium is, 'Is it possible to die to self?' >>



Moonbeam, lay off the mush...err...

Hey, he's making sense for once!

Much of today's society is too self oriented to love.



Viper GTS

 

[linuxboy]

In my opinion the challenging question for the new millennium is, 'Is it possible to die to self?'

And the following question to answer, "After such death, what is life?"


Cheers !

 

[linuxboy]

Also,


i guess my thought is how does one divorce oneself from
antiquated ideas and adopt the new selfishness?
is it possible?


That's an easy answer. Yes, of course it's possible. By one's own volition man can achieve any number of destructive states. Just look around you and you shall see the insanity present in this world. To divorce self from "antiquated ideas", this requires an adeherence to pure logical living based on an ethic of egoism. I think what you are arguing is close to what Ayn Rand was spewing in her books. To do this personally, one just needs to make up one's mind that self is God and in that everything goes to self. Nothing is sweeter than to think that there are no limits and that "everything is allowed". Such experiemnts have been tried before, read the history of philosophical thought if you want to emulate the behavior and adopt the ideology involved.


Cheers !

 

[Moonbeam]

Viper GTS, If I made sense, I am profoundly sorry. I will try not to do it again.

linuxboy, if it's possible to die to self, might it be possible too, that after that, there are no questions?

Who would ask them?

 

[Viper GTS]

<< Viper GTS, If I made sense, I am profoundly sorry. I will try not to do it again. >>



Good, I would expect no less from you.



Viper GTS

 

[Athanasius]

Think for a minute about where selfishness ends....

If I reject the antiquated ideas of love and fidelity and consider embracing an egocentric selfishness, then it would be wise to count the cost before I step into that vortex. Once I step in, it will be incredibly difficult to step back out.

Simply look at earthly relationships. If I consciously choose selfishness, then I will only undertake those things that I calculatingly believe can maintain the illusion that I am the center. No healthy relationship will last in this absorption.

Furthermore, I am faced with a slow but steady, irreversible law of diminshing returns. My world will shrink, because I will only be able to enjoy or participate emotionally in those activities where I perceive myself to be exactly where and what I want to be.

But this means that I can only enjoy the dance of life when I can participate in it on my terms. One eventually learns that life cares very little about my terms. The facts of life are that I will grow old, that my ability to interact with this world will diminish, and that I will likely spend the last years of my life in significant isolation. If, in the days of my vigor and youth I start down a path where I only gain satisfaction by bending reality to my will, then I am certain to end my life in isolation, dependency, impotence, regret, and the empty vacuum accumulated by the slow steady., repeated choice to "Wander in the World of Self." Even other selves will only be valued to the extent that they conform to my will.

When the nurse brings me my pill on time and changes my diaper the moment I declare that it should be done, then I will be happy. When the nurse doesn't conform to my desire, then that person will be a insolent, subhuman, demon that torments me.

Thus revealing the sad and tragic fact that makes Eternity weep: I am in danger of becoming an insolent, subhuman, demon of torment.

But, the dance of Joy goes on, I just have long since lost the ability to choose it because I could not endure the pain that is part of it. And now all I have left is the pain I so desperately sought to avoid by isolating myself in the world of self. That which I so selfishly sought to avoid is now what I find myself totally immersed in.

"All neuroses result from a wrong response to suffering." - Carl Jung.

 

[Swag1138]

I have loved, and been unable to tell because I dont think I deserve her. Is this selfish? To leave here loose to find somone she deserves more than myself?


(yes, I have very low self esteem , but thats because Im a heaping pile of decaying organic matter, I am the all singing, all dancing cra.....waitaminnit...sorry)

I think true love is so the opposite of selfishness, because I would love just to let it out in the open, but that would more than likely cause undue pain on all sides.


And before you say it, yes, I can see how it might be selfish to not want to cause that pain, but to that I say PBPTPBPTPBPTPBPTPBPTPB

 

[linuxboy]

linuxboy, if it's possible to die to self, might it be possible too, that after that, there are no questions?

Who would ask them?

Possibly (actually, very likely). But suppose questions do not originate in the self and they must be existent after death. That is somewhat unlikely, but if possible, would the questions have worth in the same sense they do now? Would they have the same form? Would they serve the same function? Hmm, this is a like watering a brick.


Cheers !

 

[ZeroEffect]

truly, thanks for the feedback guys... i need time to digest
some of the great posts in reply.

again, thanks.