What does it mean "to love"?

[nin64]

Seriously, what does it mean? Why are there people out there who constantly saying love love love?

I mean, are we really loving creatures? Don't the collapse of the Soviet Union show how greedy human are?
By greed, I don't restrict it to material objects. In fact, I think people who pursue materials only are, well, stupid.
Shouldn't we all do like Nietzsche said, to become an overman? To have the will to power, power itself. To have the power to control our surroundings. To throw away our sympathy because that is more harmful than any vice.

And yet... there are strange people out there... Just today, I read how to have a super memory by Harry Lorayne. The system works, magically, wonderfully.
But one thing cross my mind. Why don't the author keep it to himself? Why? Why did he share this? If I were him, I'll keep all that knowledge to myself. Or do like Robert Kiyosaki did with Rich Dad and make money, but then again, I really don't care about money.

I don't get it.
When the Modern Nazi blog post was posted, there were so many people touched or... feeling love toward... blah! Why are there people have feeling for those... useless creature? What have they done to you?
I mean, I really have no emotions toward those creatures.
Seriously, why do people need to have feeling for other creatures, be it human or some little creatures.
knowledge have been created by experimenting on animals.

Why? Why do you need to have feelings for others? Why? Doesn't it stop you from greater power? Why? If you have feeling for animals (or human), then how can you heightens your power?
I am willing to kill other people for knowledge. If I were to live in Renaissance period, I will kill people to get detailed information about human anatomies. To create great work of arts.
Yes, nothing satisfy me more than knowledge.

I can't think of other things to write about for now. I am actually irritated.


But I want to know something (I'm going to hate myself for typing this one year later.)
How actually do you "love"?
If I were able to love, how will my world look?

[Michael Chui]

I had a similar question a while back. This was my answer: Aqualgidus.org > The Definition of Love

[SmartAlx]

Does this definition of Love work for you?

Originally Posted by nin64

I mean, are we really loving creatures?

By nature. Yes.

Shouldn't we all do like Nietzsche said, to become an overman? To have the will to power, power itself. To have the power to control our surroundings. To throw away our sympathy because that is more harmful than any vice.

Absolutely not! The pursuit of selfish desires is most harmful. We are meant to be cooperative. Two people working together can always accomplish more than both working seperately.

Why? Why do you need to have feelings for others? Why?

Because if I scratch your back you'll scratch mine.

Doesn't it stop you from greater power? Why?

No! Being selfish stops you from attaining greater power.

If you have feeling for animals (or human), then how can you heightens your power?

How can you obtain power by using unenlightened actions? Love conquers all. It's not just a warm fuzzy sentence. It's proven time and again to be a law of the universe.

I am willing to kill other people for knowledge. If I were to live in Renaissance period, I will kill people to get detailed information about human anatomies. To create great work of arts.
Yes, nothing satisfy me more than knowledge.

Wow. Are you a sith lord or something? This sounds a bit too bizarre. I'm beginning to doubt that this is a real post. It's almost like something Satan himself would say. Are you the anti-Christ?

Saying that, I do not believe in evil. I think that you either try to do good, or you are insane. And this fact that we all want to do good is evidence that God exists. There is a movement towards goodness, an inertia, a tide, a current that pulls us all along towards being good. Even Hitler thought he was doing good. We'll argue all day long over the definition of what good is. We'll even get into wars over it, but we'll still want to do what we define as good.

[brendannz]

Shouldn't we all do like Nietzsche said, to become an overman? To have the will to power, power itself. To have the power to control our surroundings. To throw away our sympathy because that is more harmful than any vice.

Jimi Hendrix (I think) said something about the power of love overcoming the love of power..

I'm not sure if Nietzsche expected every person to become an overman, he just said that the herd, are held back by slave morality, and can't develop their own creative potential... Throw away your sympathies to the point where they're patronising to the other persons growth. It can be insulting to assume the other person is pathetic and weak, and unable to do anything on their own, so you shower them with love and sympathy. As well, all you're seeing is this base creature with no recognition for their potential.. So rather than saying to someone "awww.. you poor pathetic worthless human" and patting them on the back, it may be more useful to question why they're not as awesome as they could be, or empathising with how they feel, because you've felt that way before...

Why? Why do you need to have feelings for others? Why? Doesn't it stop you from greater power? Why? If you have feeling for animals (or human), then how can you heightens your power?

How can you have feelings for others, if you don't know how they are feeling? You can know how other people are feeling by recognising that they have the same needs deep down for love that you have.. and so treat them how they'd like to be treated.

I am willing to kill other people for knowledge. If I were to live in Renaissance period, I will kill people to get detailed information about human anatomies. To create great work of arts.
Yes, nothing satisfy me more than knowledge.

Leonardo Da Vinci did this, although I don't think he murdered anyone. It was questionable from the church in his time... Google Alex Grey, and see his awesome anatomy. He worked in a morgue for many years to develop this understanding for human anatomy. Working in a morgue would be a good suggestion of mine..

How actually do you "love"?
If I were able to love, how will my world look?

I suggest you read Steve Pavlina's article on Soulful Relationships, and Erin Pavlina's article "You are worthy of love." I don't think love is a verb, its more a noun, and expression (of love) is the verb.

[brendannz]

Does this definition of Love work for you?

I think if you replaced the term selfless-ness with the egoless-ness it would resonate with me more. I think selfishness can sometimes be a good platform for great generosity and selfless-ness can be a platform for selfish manipulation..

[Brutha]

Shouldn't we all do like Nietzsche said, to become an overman? To have the will to power, power itself. To have the power to control our surroundings. To throw away our sympathy because that is more harmful than any vice.

And yet... there are strange people out there... Just today, I read how to have a super memory by Harry Lorayne. The system works, magically, wonderfully.
But one thing cross my mind. Why don't the author keep it to himself? Why? Why did he share this?

You don't understand power either.
Resistence isn't a sign that someone is powerful.

[SmartAlx]

Originally Posted by brendannz

I think if you replaced the term selfless-ness with the egoless-ness it would resonate with me more. I think selfishness can sometimes be a good platform for great generosity and selfless-ness can be a platform for selfish manipulation..

Huh? How can selflessness be selfish? How can selfishness be generous?
They are polar opposites.

If you really care to answer, how about giving a specific example...

And you know what? Maybe it would be best to stop the hijack in this thread and bring the discussion to my thread about the definition of love.

Agreed?

[nin64]

Originally Posted by SmartAlx

Absolutely not! The pursuit of selfish desires is most harmful. We are meant to be cooperative. Two people working together can always accomplish more than both working seperately.
Because if I scratch your back you'll scratch mine.No! Being selfish stops you from attaining greater power.How can you obtain power by using unenlightened actions? Love conquers all. It's not just a warm fuzzy sentence.

See, even you fantasize about conquering. You help people because they will help you in return.

Originally Posted by SmartAlx

Wow. Are you a sith lord or something? This sounds a bit too bizarre. I'm beginning to doubt that this is a real post. It's almost like something Satan himself would say. Are you the anti-Christ?

Really? I thought Leonardo da Vinci and Michelangelo kill others to get detailed look on human anatomies.
Oh, I don't believe in Judeo-Christian religion.
And I'm trying to share myself, it seem it have backfired. I should have noticed this.

Jimi Hendrix (I think) said something about the power of love overcoming the love of power..

Jimi... what?

You don't understand power either.
Resistence isn't a sign that someone is powerful.

Define resistance, what do you mean by it.
And define power to me, sound like you are 9001X wiser than me.

How can you have feelings for others, if you don't know how they are feeling? You can know how other people are feeling by recognizing that they have the same needs deep down for love that you have.. and so treat them how they'd like to be treated.

Needs deep down for love? Well, I have been alone almost throughout my life. Being bullied when small, I always eat alone. Most of the time, I only have myself to talk to, I talk to myself a lot.
No. What if you want to make researches about human? What if you want to learn human?
Do you think the scientists who use animals as subjects have love?
But... it's certainly worth a try. Say to one person that I love him/her.

[brendannz]

Really? I thought Leonardo da Vinci and Michelangelo kill others to get detailed look on human anatomies.
Oh, I don't believe in Judeo-Christian religion.
And I'm trying to share myself, it seem it have backfired. I should have noticed this.

I know Da Vinci disected human bodies for study and he had to keep it hidden from the church. Dunno about Michelangelo, but as far as I know Da Vinci definitely didn't kill anyone

"He who does not value life, does not deserve life" was one quote he had about vegetarians, so if he couldn't bear an animal death, I'm sure he wouldn't have murdered humans. Not to mention it wasn't in his nature

Jimi... what?

Jimi Hendrix, guitar player, free spirit, visionary

Needs deep down for love? Well, I have been alone almost throughout my life. Being bullied when small, I always eat alone. Most of the time, I only have myself to talk to, I talk to myself a lot.

Not sure what I can say about this one, but the articles I think I mentioned from Steve Pavlina; soulful relationships and Erin Pavlina; you are worthy of love are what I advise you to read. They'll take up a few minutes of your time, and hopefully you'll find them helpful..

[Michael Chui]

Originally Posted by SmartAlx

Huh? How can selflessness be selfish? How can selfishness be generous?
They are polar opposites.

"I'm so selfless! I'm so generous! I give stuff away, look at me, that makes me awesome!"

[SmartAlx]

Originally Posted by Michael Chui

"I'm so selfless! I'm so generous! I give stuff away, look at me, that makes me awesome!"

See? Your selflessness isn't selfless at all. I know you are trying to show me an example if how a selfless act can be selfish but all you really did was to show how an APPARENTLY selfless act can be ruined with a selfish attitude.

Mother Teresa didn't give the entirety of her life to the poor just so she would win the Nobel Peace Prize and become a saint. She did it out of the goodness of her heart. She did it because she couldn't bear to know that there was suffering.

The end result is not what makes an act selfish or selfless. It's the desire in the heart. WHY did you do the act? Is the act "of the self" or "less the self?"

[SmartAlx]

Originally Posted by nin64

See, even you fantasize about conquering. You help people because they will help you in return.

Wow, are you really so, uh, confused that you automatically latch onto one specific word in a phrase like "Love conquers all" so much that you fail to grasp the meaning inherent in the entire phrase? You fail to see that "Love conquers all" is not about conquest. We won WWII, but what did we win? Did we actually conquer? Did we obtain any land? Was that the goal in us fighting in WWII? No. We kept a tyrant from conquering over love. Love won the war. But it wasn't fighting to get anything.

Can you not fathom someone loving for the sake of seeing someone else happy?

Really? I thought Leonardo da Vinci and Michelangelo kill others to get detailed look on human anatomies.

Wow wow wow. Where on Earth did you get your information? Leo employed grave robbers to dig up already dead cadavers so he could study anatomy. If he was a murderer there is no way that we would consider him to be the symbol of enlightenment that we do see him as. Himler killed in the name of science. Maybe his scientists really made some extraordinary breakthroughs by murdering Jews. I don't know. And I don't care. Do we think of him or any of the scientists that participated in the Nazi scientific endeavors as men of science? No! We consider them murderers.

Jimi... what?

Oh he was only one of the most famous rockers of all time!!!!!! He is the all time best guitarist to have ever lived. This is not an opinion. It is a fact. As much as it is to say that Babe Ruth was the greatest baseball player of all time and that Muhammad Ali was the greatest boxer of all time. Hendrix was so genius he played his right handed guitar backwards. Look at the pictures of him playing! He was left handed so he actually flipped the strings on his guitar. And he taught himself.

Needs deep down for love? Well, I have been alone almost throughout my life. Being bullied when small, I always eat alone. Most of the time, I only have myself to talk to, I talk to myself a lot.
No. What if you want to make researches about human? What if you want to learn human?
Do you think the scientists who use animals as subjects have love?

If you want to study humans, you probably will need to learn empathy first. You yourself are not going to be able to learn about anyone until you can put yourself in other people's shoes.

And get some counceling. If you would really kill to expand your own personal knowledge, you really need it.

[brendannz]

.Oh he was only one of the most famous rockers of all time!!!!!! He is the all time best guitarist to have ever lived. This is not an opinion.

and he was bold as love!

speaking of which, Im going to put on that awesome album now

[Michael Chui]

Originally Posted by SmartAlx

See? Your selflessness isn't selfless at all. I know you are trying to show me an example if how a selfless act can be selfish but all you really did was to show how an APPARENTLY selfless act can be ruined with a selfish attitude.

Wait, how was it ruined? Which part of my example was ruined? The motivation was completely selfless. Upon reflection, the speaker realized they themselves were thus awesome. His motivation was flawless: exactly as selfless as you want. That this person was also an attention whore is what makes him selfish.

Originally Posted by SmartAlx

The end result is not what makes an act selfish or selfless. It's the desire in the heart. WHY did you do the act? Is the act "of the self" or "less the self?"

What is the self? I am those around me. I am them. To be selfish is to give to others, to work for their well-being. I am not any lesser for having helped them; I am more, because I am they as well. When I help myself, I raise up all humanity; when I help humanity, I raise up myself.

[YourHumbleNarrator]

That's easy, son. All you've got to do is look to the stars and ask yourself: what would Captain Kirk do?

Surely no man has loved as much as he.

[Manomanman]

Love is nothing more than a psychological connection to something. We love everything that we think about and focus on in our reality, whether it brings pleasure or pain.

The things that we find joy in connecting with are the things we should strive to love more often.

[SmartAlx]

Originally Posted by Michael Chui

Wait, how was it ruined? Which part of my example was ruined? The motivation was completely selfless. Upon reflection, the speaker realized they themselves were thus awesome. His motivation was flawless: exactly as selfless as you want. That this person was also an attention whore is what makes him selfish.

But the point is that the purpose for the selfless act is unselfish. That's what I was saying. The end result isn't what makes an act selfless or selfish. It's the reason you do it, the motivation as you put it.

We are going to have to backtrack to help you to see what I am saying...

Originally Posted by Michael Chui

Wait, how was it ruined? Which part of my example was ruined? The motivation was completely selfless. Upon reflection, the speaker realized they themselves were thus awesome. His motivation was flawless: exactly as selfless as you want. That this person was also an attention whore is what makes him selfish.

The point is waay at the beginning... In your example the motivation was pure. But that didn't answer what I was responding to. I was responding to this statement...

selfless-ness can be a platform for selfish manipulation.

Your example is different. There isn't any manipulation. Your example isn't this either...

I think selfishness can sometimes be a good platform for great generosity

because the person wasn't selfish.

Really, your example doesn't belong in the argument.

Sorry.

If the person was selfless at the beginning, as you say, then yes, you are right. The selfless act itself wasn't ruined. But if the person toots his own horn, then all of his subsequent selfless acts will have a dark cloud over them. People will doubt his motivation. In fact, HE might begin to start to change his motivation to do good. He might stop doing what's right for the purpose of making other people's lives easier and instead start to do what's right for the purpose of glorifying himself.

What is the self? I am those around me. I am them. To be selfish is to give to others, to work for their well-being. I am not any lesser for having helped them; I am more, because I am they as well. When I help myself, I raise up all humanity; when I help humanity, I raise up myself.

This is just new age gobbledygook. Get rid of the belief that you are one with everyone else then you'll understand what I am saying.

[Michael Chui]

Originally Posted by SmartAlx

This is just new age gobbledygook. Get rid of the belief that you are one with everyone else then you'll understand what I am saying.

How about you get rid of the belief that I'm not one with everyone else and then you'll understand what I'm saying?

[SmartAlx]

Originally Posted by Michael Chui

How about you get rid of the belief that I'm not one with everyone else and then you'll understand what I'm saying?

See, that's just the thing. Science backs me up. It doesn't back you up.

And I do understand your point of view. It's a cop out. Can you understand my point of view?

[Michael Chui]

Originally Posted by SmartAlx

See, that's just the thing. Science backs me up. It doesn't back you up.

Okay. Show me a set of experiments that operationalize the concept of self and provide hard data conclusively demonstrating there exist separate entities called "selves". If you want to claim it backs you up, then show me.

I make no claim that science backs me up. My epeen is smaller than yours.

Originally Posted by SmartAlx

And I do understand your point of view. It's a cop out.

No, actually, it took me a good six years to develop the theory that claims it.

Originally Posted by SmartAlx

Can you understand my point of view?

You claim that the heart has a desire that is either selfish or selfless at any one point, and that this defines the nature of the action undertaken. How this view is helpful, I don't know. Most people seem to share it with you, in some variation or another, and it doesn't seem to have any explanatory power whatsoever.

I cannot say I understand exactly how the cardiac muscle has desires, nor how these supposed desires somehow encompass the concept of self and its inclusiveness or exclusiveness. Maybe you should use a different metaphor for the creamy center of the emotional lollipop? (Psst. It's three licks.)

[SmartAlx]

Originally Posted by Michael Chui

Okay. Show me a set of experiments that operationalize the concept of self and provide hard data conclusively demonstrating there exist separate entities called "selves". If you want to claim it backs you up, then show me.

No. Now what are you going to do? Does me saying 'no' prove that I am wrong? No it doesn't. Besides I don't need to do what you ask. It's obvious. It's common sense.

I make no claim that science backs me up.

And yet you still believe it.

No, actually, it took me a good six years to develop the theory that claims it.

Why did you take so long? Is it that it took you 6 years to BELIEVE it because the opposite is pretty obvious. You even admit it when you say "Most people seem to share it with you, in some variation or another." If it took you so long to believe what you do now, then you did once believe the same as the rest of us and you should then be able to understand what I am saying.

You claim that the heart has a desire that is either selfish or selfless at any one point, and that this defines the nature of the action undertaken.

I don't remember making that statement. We do a lot of things that are neither selfless nor selfish. And there are plenty of things that are both selfish AND selfless. I'm saying that you should consciously filter your actions when you can and attempt to do selfless things when possible. Your concern should be for the welfare of other people instead of yourself.

If everyone did this, then all of your friends and family would be living for you. You could count on a dozen people to be there for you any time you need help. With the selfish way the world works now, you are the only person living for you. You only have one person that you can count on all the time, you.

[Michael Chui]

Originally Posted by SmartAlx

No. Now what are you going to do? Does me saying 'no' prove that I am wrong? No it doesn't. Besides I don't need to do what you ask. It's obvious. It's common sense.

Then science does not back you up. Science is not common sense. It is not obvious. It is empirical. It has data that conclusively demonstrates its claims. If it does not, then it is not science.

You don't need to do what I ask. You are wrong.

Originally Posted by SmartAlx

Why did you take so long? Is it that it took you 6 years to BELIEVE it because the opposite is pretty obvious. You even admit it when you say "Most people seem to share it with you, in some variation or another." If it took you so long to believe what you do now, then you did once believe the same as the rest of us and you should then be able to understand what I am saying.

It didn't take me six years to believe it. It took me six years to figure out why I couldn't believe the opposite. I didn't understand why everyone had the ridiculous idea that selflessness is saintly, yet that no one was ever truly selfless. The best that was ever come up with was an insipid claim that it's a mutation that helps the survival of the species... except that this has nothing to do with genetic mutation at all.

People like you like to wave your arms and say, "Be selfless! It's the right thing to do!" But you cannot explain why. The motivation you yourself put forward: that you could then count on others to help you in your time of need: is as selfish as it gets. It's a parent who raises a child not out of love, but out of the hope there will be someone to take care of them when they're old and frail.

When I act, I do not act expecting people do good things in return. I know they will. I know they are, without prompting, because they are also me. When I fall on hard times, then I have a challenge before me. In surmounting it, with what help I provide myself, in the form of others or not, I discover knowledge useful to everyone. I share that, the same way an immune system shares information about the illnesses it has bested. (And there is no failure to surmount a challenge; there is only that I have not gotten there yet.)

Originally Posted by SmartAlx

Your concern should be for the welfare of other people instead of yourself.

My concern is always for other people and myself. I don't draw lines in the sand excluding myself from everyone else. When I do something, it is either good, in which case everyone benefits, or it is not, in which case everyone does not.

I cannot count on myself. I am only one self. What a useless instrument I am! But when I see that I am everyone, I realize I can rely on myself. I can count on myself to fail, but I can also count on myself to succeed so overwhelmingly in the face of every odd. I know that I've succeeded, and I have faith I will again, because I am not just little old me. I am an extension of humanity. In caring for the world, I care for myself.

You've ended up so busy drawing a line between where you are and where everyone else is that of course selfishness seems evil to you. Selfishness is that which happens only inside that little circle you've defined as your self. Why do you bother with this circle? Why is it so important for you to say, "This is me," and then to look at others and say, "These are not me"? Is this, itself, not a selfish thing to do?

[Diandra25]

michael Chui

i know what you are saying,and it is also my belief.

it took me some time too,to understand that truth,but makes perfect sense to my heart.

i loved these:

I am those around me. I am them. To be selfish is to give to others, to work for their well-being. I am not any lesser for having helped them; I am more, because I am they as well. When I help myself, I raise up all humanity; when I help humanity, I raise up myself.

but no one can show this truth to others,untill they trully feel and know that we are all ...One.

Richard Bach was one of them,but wisely knew where to look,within.to find this Truth

[Diandra25]

in that perspective,i think that you cannot love others,unless you love yourself accepting you as you are - perfect - and then all ones around you will mirror that love for you.

because they are reflections of you.your world would be transmuted from this matrix of materialism -- torwards a spiritual reality.you would finally be close to know what we all came here to do.

[SmartAlx]

Originally Posted by Michael Chui

Then science does not back you up.

Sure it does. Showing you just won't do any good. It's a waste of my time. And me not complying is not evidence that I am wrong. If a child asks why he can't have cake for dinner and the parent says "because I said so" does his refusal to give a real reason invalidate the fact that cake is not nutritious enough for dinner?

Science is not common sense. It is not obvious.

I can't believe I actually have you people saying the things you are saying. One person on this forum told me that murder is okay and now you say that science isn't obvious. Gravity isn't obvious? Sure, we don't know what creates gravity and that is one hope in studying quantum mechanics, but we don't need to study anything to know that things fall down. It's obvious. There is empirical data to back up newton's laws that describe speed, acceleration and vector but we understand gravity pretty much the day we are born. Sure, flight isn't so obvious, after all that seems to defy gravity, something we understand and take for granted because it is so obvious. But we aren't talking about something that APPEARS to defy common sense. We are talking about something that coincides with common sense, that the people around us have a different consciousness.

It is empirical. It has data that conclusively demonstrates its claims. If it does not, then it is not science.

I've been providing evidence for this or that for months and no one who hears it has heard. They don't like listening to dissenting opinions that force them to think logically. Many people on this forum have told me that logic isn't useful for them in finding the answers they seek. How brainwashed can you be! They just want to be in the choir blissfully ignorant that their preacher is a conman. From the way you are talking it's clear that you are no different than anyone else I've been talking to. Your mind is made up and you won't change it. You've been so deceived and brainwashed that you can not see what is right in front of your face. You won't believe any proof I provide you. You pretty much said so yourself:

I make no claim that science backs me up.

You don't need to do what I ask. You are wrong.

No I'm not. And if I am actually you, if we are the same "oneness" then why am I arguing with you? Why are you arguing with me? Why don't we believe the same thing. No one's been able to explain that one. If we are all the same consciousness and you try not to manifest conflict, why is there so much of it in the world?

It didn't take me six years to believe it. It took me six years to figure out why I couldn't believe the opposite. I didn't understand why everyone had the ridiculous idea that selflessness is saintly, yet that no one was ever truly selfless.

So you recognize that there is a conflict between our desire to be selfless and our tendency to be selfish. And your answer to that problem is to give up our desire to be selfless? To embrace our selfishness? To be even more selfish??? That doesn't make sense. It's just giving up! It's laziness. It's denying the progress that came from selflessness.

I didn't understand why everyone had the ridiculous idea that selflessness is saintly, yet that no one was ever truly selfless.

Did you believe it was ridiculous before or after the 6 years began? Did you go into your study in the search of real knowledge or was it a pursuit of finding something to back up your preconceived notion? That's not science. That's pseudo-science. It's the same thing that creationists are accused of doing. It's the same thing that a lot of guests on Coast to Coast do. (Interesting that Coast has turned into a new age show. I miss Art so bad.)

I've studied this question (about why we want to be selfless but so often aren't) before too. The answer is original sin. You might need to understand that I disagree with the idea that we started off selfish and gained altruism. Granted that is a preconceived notion too. But I didn't go into the study with that in mind. I didn't even know that evolutionists even pondered the question. I went in with the preconceived notion that everyone tries to do good. I'm pretty comfortable with that preconceived notion. You even agree with me.

We are meant to be wholy selfless. After all the pursuit of selflessness is universal. Everyone tries to do good. Disagreements are in how we define good, not that it's wrong to do good. This forum is the first place that I've ever been to where people think it's bad to do good. (Just goes to show how evil new age is. That just confirm my belief that new age is satanic. But that's a different argument. Hmm... I wonder if new age attracts clinically psychopathic people. I wonder if there are more psychopaths in the new age movement than in the general population.)

We are meant to be wholy selfless but we are cursed by many factors such as nature and nurture and chance so our ability to be wholy selfless has been diminished. That is what I mean by original sin. We are born pure but certain outside influences cause us to make mistakes. Yet we do still have the universal desire to be selfless, psychopaths excepted. That desire to be selfless is what pushes us forward. Without it there would be no progress. No light bulb. No computers. No medicine. These things were invented out of selflessness. Someone saw a need and wanted to help mankind.

Sure they wanted fame and fortune too. But look at Tesla. I think his desire was more altruistic than Edison. His dream was to provide free energy to all of mankind. He was more altruistic than Edison.

Progress is dependent upon selflessnes. But you want us to put away our desire to be selfless. It worries me that the notion that we ought to is becoming more and more popular. Just imagine a world full of psychopaths! I don't mean a world full of mass murderers. I mean a world full of clinically psychopathic people. What a disaster that would be. But that is precisely the world you are advocating.

The best that was ever come up with was an insipid claim that it's a mutation that helps the survival of the species... except that this has nothing to do with genetic mutation at all.

I've never heard it put that way before, an actual genetic mutation. I'm pretty sure that scientists believe that selfishness came first and altruism developed later as a result of peer bonding. That instinct to protect your kin developed into compassion for all. I don't agree with it, being a Christian.

People like you like to wave your arms and say, "Be selfless! It's the right thing to do!" But you cannot explain why.

Of course I can! That's what I've been doing for months here... or has it been a year already?

The motivation you yourself put forward: that you could then count on others to help you in your time of need: is as selfish as it gets. It's a parent who raises a child not out of love, but out of the hope there will be someone to take care of them when they're old and frail.

I can understand why you would get that from what I wrote, but it's missing the point. I made a different point but was also putting it into words a selfish person can understand so they can the benefit from a selfish perspective.

You've ended up so busy drawing a line between where you are and where everyone else is that of course selfishness seems evil to you. Selfishness is that which happens only inside that little circle you've defined as your self. Why do you bother with this circle? Why is it so important for you to say, "This is me," and then to look at others and say, "These are not me"? Is this, itself, not a selfish thing to do?

That's blasphemy. I don't believe in the new age oneness theory. And you know what? Most people don't either. The reason I don't though isn't that I'm Christian, or that it's not popular, nor that it feels wrong. No, it's because when I project everyone looking out for #1 into the future, chaos erupts. Again, imagine a world of psychopaths.

[Michael Chui]

Originally Posted by SmartAlx

Sure it does. Showing you just won't do any good. It's a waste of my time. And me not complying is not evidence that I am wrong.

You expect that it will "do any good" to write a massive post in response to me, but you think it's a waste of your time to actually back up your own claim?

I think that speaks for itself. It doesn't say you're wrong, I agree. But that's all. You have said nothing.

Originally Posted by SmartAlx

Gravity isn't obvious?

The point of science is that things are more than merely obvious. They are tested and seen to bear out their obviousness with actual, repeatable data with independent verification. When you look at something, do you immediately perceive its atomic structure? Do you know the melting point of any old piece of metal?

Originally Posted by SmartAlx

They just want to be in the choir blissfully ignorant that their preacher is a conman. From the way you are talking it's clear that you are no different than anyone else I've been talking to. Your mind is made up and you won't change it. You've been so deceived and brainwashed that you can not see what is right in front of your face. You won't believe any proof I provide you.

What proof? How could I believe your proof when it hasn't been presented?

Originally Posted by SmartAlx

No I'm not. And if I am actually you, if we are the same "oneness" then why am I arguing with you? Why are you arguing with me? Why don't we believe the same thing. No one's been able to explain that one. If we are all the same consciousness and you try not to manifest conflict, why is there so much of it in the world?

Oh, I am definitely trying to create conflict in the world. Definitely. But you aren't arguing against me anymore anyways. We must be in harmony or something. I'm not doing very good, am I.

Originally Posted by SmartAlx

So you recognize that there is a conflict between our desire to be selfless and our tendency to be selfish. And your answer to that problem is to give up our desire to be selfless? To embrace our selfishness? To be even more selfish???

I pointed out in another thread you started that selflessness is essentially non-existence. Maybe you prefer to be meaningless. Me, I make the world better and I don't pretend that I'm a saint because I do.

Originally Posted by SmartAlx

That doesn't make sense. It's just giving up! It's laziness. It's denying the progress that came from selflessness.

No, it's understanding that progress from a different perspective.

Originally Posted by SmartAlx

Did you believe it was ridiculous before or after the 6 years began?

Yes.

Originally Posted by SmartAlx

Did you go into your study in the search of real knowledge or was it a pursuit of finding something to back up your preconceived notion?

Actually, I was trying to figure out what the word "love" meant. I got through about four drafts during those six years. The nature of self just happened to be one of the many things I needed to figure out as part of the groundwork. It ended up being an integral part of my definition.

Originally Posted by SmartAlx

That's not science. That's pseudo-science.

When I said that my claim was not backed up by science, maybe you should have given it some thought: I AM NOT DOING SCIENCE. Neither are you.

This is philosophy. Or, if you prefer, theology.

Originally Posted by SmartAlx

I've studied this question (about why we want to be selfless but so often aren't) before too. The answer is original sin.

Sure. And let's rephrase "original sin" to mean "small-mindedness". Usually, to be small-minded is simply a synonym for "selfish", but it also throws in phrases like "constrained in thought", "inconsiderate", or "narrow focus in lieu of the big picture".

It means that most people don't think about others (constrained in thought). They do not consider them (they're inconsiderate). They ignore them because they're self-centered and concerned more about themselves than others.

What's the natural opposite of this? Magnamity. Generosity. Kindness. Mi casa es su casa. What's mine is yours. Who needs property? We share, because we are brothers, because I will be sad if you are without something you want, and you will be sad if I am lacking. You need some help, sure, everyone pitches in. Who owns this? Everyone does. It's ours. Who owns this piece of land? No one. It's just land.

Originally Posted by SmartAlx

We are meant to be wholy selfless.

I think I understand our disagreement now. You worship this word, "selfless", as if it were God himself. I am not attached to words.

Originally Posted by SmartAlx

Sure they wanted fame and fortune too. But look at Tesla. I think his desire was more altruistic than Edison. His dream was to provide free energy to all of mankind. He was more altruistic than Edison.

Yes, but it was also just as much a love of discovery, fulfilling a joy that was in himself. Isn't that selfish? I think so. It was self-serving. That his selfishness was paired with a dream to raise up all of humanity doesn't surprise me: that's what made him admirable. But I think trying to reconcile those two concepts would be more difficult for you.

Originally Posted by SmartAlx

Just imagine a world full of psychopaths! I don't mean a world full of mass murderers. I mean a world full of clinically psychopathic people. What a disaster that would be. But that is precisely the world you are advocating.

Your grasp of logical argument amuses me. Here's the fallacy you're using now: Appeal to fear - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I do not expect people to be logicians, but I dislike it when people who run on with dozens of fallacies laced together start whining about their opponents' lack of logic. It's hypocritical, and it doesn't help anything.

Originally Posted by SmartAlx

I've never heard it put that way before, an actual genetic mutation. I'm pretty sure that scientists believe that selfishness came first and altruism developed later as a result of peer bonding.

There are thousands of cases of apparent altruism in animals. Look it up. You'll definitely find a lot of literature out there studying this phenomenon. Maybe while you're working on that, you could also find me one of those experiments showing how science backs you up, hey?

Originally Posted by SmartAlx

I can understand why you would get that from what I wrote, but it's missing the point. I made a different point but was also putting it into words a selfish person can understand so they can the benefit from a selfish perspective.

If they did, then they wouldn't become more selfless, would they?

---

There's a bit more to my post, but I've run out of space.

[Michael Chui]

Originally Posted by SmartAlx

That's blasphemy. I don't believe in the new age oneness theory. And you know what? Most people don't either. The reason I don't though isn't that I'm Christian, or that it's not popular, nor that it feels wrong. No, it's because when I project everyone looking out for #1 into the future, chaos erupts. Again, imagine a world of psychopaths.

Look. Here's what I see in you.

You have made this remarkable claim that selflessness is good and therefore selfishness is evil. That makes sense, since you also claim that love is selflessness (with, I might also add, no justification whatsoever) and according to the Bible, God is love, and God is good, so by transitivity, selflessness IS good.

But right next door to the assertion that God is love is the point that "There is no fear in love, for perfect love drives out fear, as fear has to do with punishment. One who fears is not made perfect in love."

You've gotten yourself all wound up over a difference in semantics, which is what this is. You've accused me of a dozen charges, none of which I'm guilty of, except that I'm using terminology that you disagree with.

Your stance gives you groundwork with which to deliver judgment. With your thinking, you are then able to look and say, "This is selfless. This is selfish. Let the first be given the glory of eternal life, and let the other perish as it must." Your thinking, therefore, is that if people would rid themselves of selfishness, then everything would be okay and the psychopaths would magically disappear.

I think this is arrogant of you. Whoever loves God must also love his brother.

You've charged me with New Age spiritualism. I cannot deny that, since I cannot claim antiquity for the ideas I have had to work out for myself. I did, after all, ultimately develop this line of thinking from a chance comment a friend made pointing out that people must take ownership of something before they will care about it. A premise out of Locke's ideas about property, I believe. But since I disagreed with Locke, I could hardly stop there.

And I find most New Age stuff more despicable than you do. You have the luxury of seeing it as non-Christian, and thus blasphemous. I have to actually wallow through it, understand it deeply, see the minute bits of validity is does have, and then finally take it all together and recognize the result is trash. Granted, I mostly leave such judgments for the privacy of my blog, where people are reading because they want to hear my opinion, not to follow a conversation, but here: I think LoA is crap. I think SR is crap. I think I-M is crap. Does that make you feel better? I doubt it.

You've repeatedly insulted me and belittled me, lumping me in with all the other people here. I could easily have written you off as one of the teeming masses of Christians and accused you of condemning everyone to Hell, but I did not. That would not have been logical, in this conversation. Perhaps you would find more traction for your ideas if you only offered them when you were ready to see them shown wrong. I asked for evidence of your counter-claim, and since I do know of science studying the nature of self, I expected you to show me something of substance and explain to me how it showed that I was wrong. It was possible that science could debunk my theory. It is not infallible.

The purpose of my theory is to be useful. Sure, it is obvious that there are walls between each person and every other person, just as we may only see God through an intermediary. If you want people to treat others better, show them that other people are like them. That they have the same feelings, the same hopes and disappointments, the same acrimonious banter with their mothers-in-law. Show them that the differences between them are really quite small, and they will naturally treat them better.

There's no call to selflessness here. Nor is there a call to selfishness. There is just sameness, and wow, I wouldn't want someone to say the nasty things I've said to me. That's not selfish, nor is it selfless. It is not good nor evil. It's recognizing that people think in certain patterns and that you can make the world a better place by aligning with those patterns.

[brendannz]

That's blasphemy. I don't believe in the new age oneness theory. And you know what? Most people don't either. The reason I don't though isn't that I'm Christian, or that it's not popular, nor that it feels wrong. No, it's because when I project everyone looking out for #1 into the future, chaos erupts. Again, imagine a world of psychopaths.

If you take the world's population then Christians are a minority as well.

The belief "I am absolutely right, and you are absolutely wrong" is the cause of most of the world's Psychopathy I think

[SmartAlx]

Originally Posted by brendannz

If you take the world's population then Christians are a minority as well.

There isn't any religion, belief system or non religion that is a majority. That said, I did mention that my reasons (for believing that looking out for #1 first and foremost is bad) are not because of my Christian faith.

The belief "I am absolutely right, and you are absolutely wrong" is the cause of most of the world's Psychopathy I think

Psychopathy is the extreme indifference to other people's suffering. Most people are not psychopaths. Still. Imagine if most people were. That is something not unlike where we might be (probably are) headed if this attitude of selfishness continues.

[brendannz]

Originally Posted by SmartAlx

Psychopathy is the extreme indifference to other people's suffering. Most people are not psychopaths. Still. Imagine if most people were. That is something not unlike where we might be (probably are) headed if this attitude of selfishness continues.

I also hope that doesn't happen!

Like I said in the other thread, I go by the passage in the bible, (though I'm not a Christian) that says "Love thy neighbour as thyself," so i think we should love ourselves to the best of our ability so when we love our neighbour as thyself, it will be the best possible love..

I also think that looking out for others, is a good way (maybe the best way) to get over your own self-absorbed anxiety.