Return Home
It is currently Wed Jul 17, 2024 4:08 pm

All times are UTC-06:00




Post new topic  Reply to topic  [ 23 posts ]  Go to page Previous 1 2
Author Message
PostPosted: Mon Nov 23, 2009 5:50 pm 
Offline
Normal User
Normal User

Joined: Tue Dec 02, 2008 3:06 pm
Posts: 31
I'm wondering if someone can share their views on "being loving".....as related to the above posts.
I think many times people "act" loving or charitable....but they feel differently. For instance, they resort to good manners or respectful behaviours etc., but on the inside they're feeling somewhat annoyed or downright resentful!

It seems to me that the internal feelings must be just as important as the outward action. If you "act" in a loving manner towards someone, but hold pity or resentment, or think yourself higher evolved or whatever - haven't you just defeated the whole purpose of "being loving"???

Isn't it more "loving" to be honest and congruent.....even tho the action may not be interpreted as loving?
I frequently hear and see people "being loving". They tolerate all kinds of inappropriate behaviour of others as well as themselves and consider it "being loving".

Debbie


Top
PostPosted: Mon Nov 23, 2009 6:23 pm 
Offline
Power Poster
Power Poster
User avatar

Joined: Thu Sep 11, 2008 10:35 am
Posts: 9999
Location: Ridgecrest, CA
Honesty and kindness together seems good. Relativity seems important too, to consider the consciousness your are interacting with. If I love someone, and to hear me tell it I love everyone, then being as honest as possible during interactions is the only way any honest interaction can take place that pieces of our puzzles can get exchanged in. If I get around someone and feel honesty not appropriate I guess I would get the heck out of there, fast. I would be very confined by the fact that my honesty could get my butt kicked, perhaps, in my behaviors with that person or situation. Sometime just saying, hey why are you being such a, well, whatever, which is honest, can allow the other to say why they are seeming to be that way. It could end up having been a big misunderstanding, a misinterpretation, or overdramatization of an unactualized event.

If one is faking being loving they probably aren't being loving (oh crap, talked myself into a corner).
Love :)
Bette

_________________
All That Is
what is?
Consciousness.


Top
PostPosted: Mon Nov 23, 2009 7:15 pm 
Offline
Curator
Curator
User avatar

Joined: Tue Oct 21, 2003 6:16 pm
Posts: 11788
Location: Fort Oglethorpe, Georgia
Debbie,

One thing that you must keep in mind to understand 'love' is that there is more to it than the single 4 letter word in English implies in our normal cultural usage. If you look in an English thesaurus for synonyms you find words like: affection, attachment, devotedness, devotion, fondness, passion and we frequently add distinctions by linking love with another descriptive adjective. If you go back to ancient Greek, such a root source in our society and culture, you find the following list: philia (dispassionate virtuous love which includes loyalty to friends, family, and community, and requires virtue, equality, and familiarity - compare to filial love), eros (love in all of it's sexual flavors - compare to erotic love), agape (thought of as a more pure and idealized form of love, divorced from the physical but in modern times developing that meaning also - a concept of love often used in religious contexts - perhaps compare to pure love), storge (the affection of a parent for a child - parental love), and xenia (an almost ritualized friendship and caring for, formed between a host and his guest - perhaps caring love). This could be carried on into outer languages and cultures. You can pursue this on your own at the library or on the Internet and go on for quite some time. The English word love simply does not have simple equivalents within other languages and cultures and it's biases simply produce difficulties in understanding this usage. The simplest way to approach a single better word is the ancient Greek agape, in my opinion.

Let me describe the context of love within which Tom, in my understanding, uses it and equates it with very low entropy. This context is that our existence within Consciousness Space where we exist as IUOCs and as such are integral parts of The One Consciousness as we communicate over the RWW and thus are The One Consciousness. Thus we in concert are and create and are the driving force or Mind behind Consciousness Space in all of it's features and functionality. Simultaneously, we are time sharing our beings as IUOCs as virtual selves in order to participate independently within virtual realities such as NPMR and PMR. Tom has spoken of this as an alternate way to view our selves and The One as one integral fractal thing that is in fact every thing and the only thing that exists. When we as individual IUOCs reach the point at which we can comprehend this fractal existence as integral parts of The One Mind/Consciousness and simultaneously as Individuated Units Of Consciousness, engaged in the mutual expression of our existence, developing our individual selves through interaction and simultaneously The One into every more complete expressions of individuality and yet the expression of the power of this One Thing as ever more complete understanding of Itself, reduced entropy. This is the context of 'love' as it is used by Tom. Love of the Whole, this Union, for it's constituent parts and of the constituent parts for each other and of this Union, in recognition of this Union, this integral and mutual relationship.

So is it any wonder that you have difficulty with these fiddly little details when you start to apply love and develop an understanding of love in our PMR social context and what 'people' do with each other and to each other. This is frankly why I am leery of the bald use of the word love without putting more into the context to clarify what is meant. This is not a criticism of Tom's choice of usage of love for this so all encompassing concept. I can understand why he chose this approach, having basically no choice in a PMR reality within which there is in fact no word for what he needed to convey. So he uses a word that is no less difficult to understand than alternatives that he might have chosen. This is just as he chose a more linear, discrete object based conception embedded within PMR concepts of his model within My Big TOE. To approach this from the direction of science and within a society speaking English, what choice did he have? Things and relationships and interactions and rule sets are the nature of the scientific world view and must be expressed in the language of our society. But once you go so far with this world view, you come up against the need for some of the imagery of the mystical viewpoint in order to further approach to the truth in the comparison, the conflict of these two points of view. Thus it was not that long ago that he first spoke of a fractal Union as all one thing as the need arose.

Ted


Top
PostPosted: Mon Nov 23, 2009 8:41 pm 
Offline
Power Poster
Power Poster
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jun 29, 2009 1:54 pm
Posts: 2707
Location: Miami, FL
Great post Ted. I vote to mark it for an archive thread about "love".

I am just thinking of a creative definition:

LOVE: A weird type of energy that defies Physics because the more you give away the more of it gets created.

In MBT definition it is also a little weird: The more love you have the less entropy you have, so the more synergy you have (more available energy). The more love you have the more energy available you have. Now, the more love you give away the more energy available you get. You give more energy and you get more energy back.

This way it doesn't make sense, but if we think of it with the opposite "fear" it makes some sense. When we love more we fear less, so we convert (-) energy (fear) to (+) energy love. The love going out (from A to B) removes more fear to another system (B) which converts more fear to love. B sends back love to A.

"Fear" reminds me of "Anti-energy" or "negative energy".

Just thinking ...

Claudio

_________________
"Every moment can be as good as you want it to be."
"Experience is the ultimate teacher."

> http://soprano.com <


Top
   
PostPosted: Tue Nov 24, 2009 9:33 am 
Offline
Normal User
Normal User

Joined: Tue Dec 02, 2008 3:06 pm
Posts: 31
Thank you Ted. Great clarification of Tom's position of Love in the context of MBT. That was exactly what I was looking for and it feels "right" to me. It's also in alignment with my own views on Love.

I second Claudio's vote!!

Debbie


Top
PostPosted: Sat Oct 29, 2011 10:33 pm 
Offline
Normal User
Normal User
User avatar

Joined: Sun Oct 17, 2010 6:12 pm
Posts: 25
Location: USA
Lumpy wrote:I was wondering if there is really right and wrong recently. These odd random questions keep poppin up in my head lately and I wanted to know everyones opinion on this. So I was thinking about my question and wondered if this right and wrong thing was just a manufactured up by consciousness or if there actually is a universal right and wrong. The thought came to mind about the first people on earth and if they could look at something and distingush between right or wrong, or if it just came by what was best for their survival at the time and then pass that on to their offspring which would mean our conscioussness manufactured it? Does every living thing that can think for itself go by the same code or is it whats best for whatever species? and does that mean that since we are all consciousness that consciousness itself would manufacture things like right and wrong,love, and so on for its sake of surviving?, which leads me to the conclusion that there is more than conscioussness.
IMHO, what I see is that the fractals are vectors from which to view truths pertaining to where one is conscious in the fractal system (sort of like a 3-D+ gaming board). This is my subjective reality that occurs when I expand out from the ground-based identity into the perspective that I have in higher or more expanded vectors.

So, yes, in this ground-based identity reality, there is morals and right and wrong, vengeance, overwhelm, degradation, victims, victimizers, grosser sensations, more fixated non-life games with "opponents", and eventual game loss for both winners and losers. It is associated with where we are in the games matrix of this universe.

However, when I gain ground through my mental decluttering practices I expand out to higher vectors and see that I simply have an aspect of myself that lives all this out, and I am connected to it because some of what it is experiencing or doing is important to me.

For example, at the end of one session I saw that higher up there I was in the identity of a female reptiliian identity/archetype and I was using and influencing the aspect here (me who is typing this) to conspire to upturn the tables on the planetary male dominance, and flip it back into female dominance. However, after the session (for both of us), balance was restored and that non-complementary fixed compulsive goal no longer exists as far as those two games players are concerned.

The "magic moment" was when the female reptilian looked up and saw that she was being played (just as she was playing me) by a being on the next level up (a male being, ironically enough).

Of course, the usual disclaimer, all of this is for entertainment purposes only. The real tangible result, is that many things related that I did and thought this lifetime rushed past me and I am no longer unconsciously acting out this negative purpose as regards what I cleared up.

We are not on terra firma anymore, get used to the multiple focii points. You will be larger for it. What great adventure!

_________________
May our communications be complementary.


Top
PostPosted: Tue Nov 01, 2011 6:07 pm 
Offline
Normal User
Normal User
User avatar

Joined: Sun Oct 17, 2010 6:12 pm
Posts: 25
Location: USA
soprano wrote:Great post Ted. I vote to mark it for an archive thread about "love".

I am just thinking of a creative definition:

LOVE: A weird type of energy that defies Physics because the more you give away the more of it gets created.

In MBT definition it is also a little weird: The more love you have the less entropy you have, so the more synergy you have (more available energy). The more love you have the more energy available you have. Now, the more love you give away the more energy available you get. You give more energy and you get more energy back.

This way it doesn't make sense, but if we think of it with the opposite "fear" it makes some sense. When we love more we fear less, so we convert (-) energy (fear) to (+) energy love. The love going out (from A to B) removes more fear to another system (B) which converts more fear to love. B sends back love to A.

"Fear" reminds me of "Anti-energy" or "negative energy".

Just thinking ...

Claudio
Hello Claudio, What you said sounds really close to me. There is a physics of "love", and this physics also explains sensations, love being one of them, and how and why all sensations contribute to expansion of materium (a word that Cliff High likes to use). This physics of love is between Walter and Lao Russell, and well written in "The Secret of Light".

I am not far enough along to ascertain to what degree Tom and Walter dovetail.

On a personal note, I have retrieved a connection with my "Twin Flame" (both of us created simultaneously out of expressions of joy and love) and the high, refined sensation that left almost no space between us, but what did fill the little space there was, is indescribable, near-nirvana, I re-captured this lifetime, and we are on our way out together too, albeit, much tattered and burdened for all our separate adventures.

Since then I have also been able to break through the barrier installed by the one who created us and became the eyes and ears and mind of that creator, and from there back to being the "I" of the "Void" (as seen in the TAO symbol) wanting to "Aware", and thus this pearl excreted (the white of the Tao), wanting to "Exist", thusly and then "Others", so that I think I am right to agree with Tom, except that I for now stick with my own expressions, but I agree that any one of us can realize the truth of ourselves as that prime source.

Also, in my personal travels I saw that "To Create/To Be Created" was, for me, a prior goal to "To Love...", in terms of refinement of sensations. I created first, then love. Of course, this is for entertainment purposes only, and strictly self-reported data.

_________________
May our communications be complementary.


Top
PostPosted: Mon Dec 05, 2011 9:49 am 
Offline
Normal User
Normal User

Joined: Fri Dec 02, 2011 1:04 am
Posts: 21
bette wrote:Perhaps it seemed like a good idea at the time.
Love
Bette
Probably so. LOL!


Top
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic  Reply to topic  [ 23 posts ]  Go to page Previous 1 2

All times are UTC-06:00


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Limited