Jump to content

Chewy, meaty & philosophical... Here?


Recommended Posts

On 9/5/2020 at 2:43 PM, Gatogateau said:

I'm wondering if this can start a flame war? Probably. The topic is universal love, and not the romantic kind, or at least not exclusively. The "all creatures great and small" kind. The 11th Commandmant that you love each other. 

So what do you think about:

You spend a great portion of your life working at minor activities rather than the major ones—for example, washing the dishes, talking to a friend, or driving to work. Therefore, it is precisely in these daily activities that you walk your loving path, or else you have at most a few isolated loving events. Regardless of how you fare with major activities, you need the skills to love even the smallest creature and the humblest activity in order to cherish the day-to-day circumstances of life. You don’t have to gain evidence of success or find somebody mind-shatteringly wonderful in order to be able to live in love.

Excerpt from The Art and Practice of Loving by Frank Andrews, PhD. and part of my Shabbat readings today.

Usually the off-topic starts about mid-way down the first page. The first quip within one or two comments. Flames on the bottom of page two...

I don't know this fellow, but this concept has been developed by spiritual thinkers from Thomas Aquinas to Gurdjieff. Rodney Collin said if there is nothing else you can do, you can at least give a smile. There is the concept of the widow's mite in the Bible. There is the concept of the Corinthians about love not being show-off stuff. Many people today don't realize the great works and thinkers that came before us and they think there is something new about somebody named Frank Andrews, but he probably read the Torah and Martin Buber, let's say. It's all good, but I will point out that splintering love into a million tiny little acts of "paying it forward" or some other popular culture concept does leave out the backdrop that should exist for this which is God, or a higher power, or "Love your neighbour as yourself". And people don't like that, it's work.

 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 353
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

Wow, I missed the emoticon hugs and smiles in John: 14 on my first read through... (Not to mention "New Age"...) Instead of all the non-quotes and hate filled opinions, wouldn't it be nice in a t

1.8 Billion people take exception to that claim... https://www.learnreligions.com/worlds-muslim-population-2004480

Posted Images

2 hours ago, Prokofy Neva said:

I don't know this fellow, but this concept has been developed by spiritual thinkers from Thomas Aquinas to Gurdjieff. Rodney Collin said if there is nothing else you can do, you can at least give a smile. There is the concept of the widow's mite in the Bible. There is the concept of the Corinthians about love not being show-off stuff. Many people today don't realize the great works and thinkers that came before us and they think there is something new about somebody named Frank Andrews, but he probably read the Torah and Martin Buber, let's say. It's all good, but I will point out that splintering love into a million tiny little acts of "paying it forward" or some other popular culture concept does leave out the backdrop that should exist for this which is God, or a higher power, or "Love your neighbour as yourself". And people don't like that, it's work.

I don't recall saying that the guy I quoted (Andrews) was the originator of the notion behind the blurb in the OP. (Or for that matter, whether I agree with the premise, or even what the premise is, not that Prokofy said I did.) I don't think that the OP requires religious belief or practice, or that atheists can't comprehend the notion of a "universal" love. 

One could also argue that "love your neighbor as yourself" or "do unto others..." at first glance is a noble assertion, but is it really? Wouldn't "love your neighbor as they would like to be loved" maybe a better way? As we love ourselves? So many people suffer from some form of self-hatred, so why foist that upon others? Or maybe the way we like to be treated, for example "leave me alone, don't bug me, stay off my lawn and ffs no hugs!" is not how my neighbor would like to be loved?  Is love your neighbor really work? Or is it actually easier to do than to hold onto mistrust, hatred, resentment... etc?

/me takes a long toke, passes it to someone else in the dorm room and settles down into the role of devil's advocate (which is tough, not believing in the devil).

Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Gatogateau said:

I don't recall saying that the guy I quoted (Andrews) was the originator of the notion behind the blurb in the OP. (Or for that matter, whether I agree with the premise, or even what the premise is, not that Prokofy said I did.) I don't think that the OP requires religious belief or practice, or that atheists can't comprehend the notion of a "universal" love. 

One could also argue that "love your neighbor as yourself" or "do unto others..." at first glance is a noble assertion, but is it really? Wouldn't "love your neighbor as they would like to be loved" maybe a better way? As we love ourselves? So many people suffer from some form of self-hatred, so why foist that upon others? Or maybe the way we like to be treated, for example "leave me alone, don't bug me, stay off my lawn and ffs no hugs!" is not how my neighbor would like to be loved?  Is love your neighbor really work? Or is it actually easier to do than to hold onto mistrust, hatred, resentment... etc?

/me takes a long toke, passes it to someone else in the dorm room and settles down into the role of devil's advocate (which is tough, not believing in the devil).

When you reference a modern author without recognition of past schools of thoughts, and someone points out that there are past schools of thought, and this author drew on them, sure, you can play this game of taking umbrage that you "didn't say that" or the OP didn't say it, or whatever. Or that atheists get to be blessed, too. And all matter of side issues and taking of offense and implications of "don't you know who I am???". But there's a simple premise here. There were schools of thoughts, very deep and complex and enduring, that existed before you did, and perhaps you don't know them, or realize how modern thoughts are taken from them, or whatever. That's all. But this sort of forums conversation is screamingly dull when you have it with anonymous people whose age or location or college level you can't know -- and worse, are supposed to pretend that it doesn't matter, that they are capable of clear, penetrating thought as disembodied pixelated Internet beings.

I think a great deal of this is baloney? To be dead honest.

And that's because you have misunderstood the ancient saying, and tried to impose on it various baggy modern conceptions.

Love your neighbour as your self doesn't mean love the things in your neighbour you find in yourself; love your neighbour as much as you love yourself; love your neighbour by social constructs in society; love your neighbour [fill in the gap with any modern deconstructivist jargon you wish]. Love your neighbour as you would yourself doesn't mean you draw self-hatred as the high bar or the standard; it's not in the sentence. It means love. It doesn't mean you love him for some thing he wish he were appreciated -- for that, he has to find his partner or teacher or someone else. It's not about that. It's about loving people so as not to harm them in a civil society, treating them as equals and lovable beings.

It means that you have empathy, and don't inflict on your neighbour pain you would not wish to endure yourself. You love him unconditionally in a higher sense as you would expect others to love you. It's a variety of "Do until others". It's about reciprocity and community. If you feel the need to get Foucault about this and say that you can't impose concepts of what love is when you love a neighbour, you're just off track. You are in Paris in 1968 and not the real world. It's a saying about a social contract; it's not about you.

I sometimes jump into these conversations because they are so painful to see, and one hopes to reach some thinking being who might rise above them.

But I'm done here now because I don't smoke pot and don't enjoy talking frivolously about the devil by people for whom evil seems to be unreal or relative. Have fun in your SL!

 

Edited by Prokofy Neva
Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Prokofy Neva said:

Various yada

 And all matter of side issues and taking of offense and implications of "don't you know who I am???".

LoL, wut? (rhetorical)

But there's a simple premise here. There were schools of thoughts, very deep and complex and enduring, that existed before you did, and perhaps you don't know them, or realize how modern thoughts are taken from them, or whatever.

Again, lol & wut? I wrote nothing that said there were NOT schools of thought, deep or otherwise, that existed prior to the guy I quoted, me, you, anyone. And that is one heck of a leap to then suppose I do not know about how "modern thoughts" are derived.

That's all. But this sort of forums conversation is screamingly dull when you have it with anonymous people whose age or location or college level you can't know -- and worse, are supposed to pretend that it doesn't matter, that they are capable of clear, penetrating thought as disembodied pixelated Internet beings.

LoL, wut? There's an interesting statement, that in a written discourse, that it matters not what the words state, but it matters about age, location and education. Words speak for themselves and they are either reasoned or not. To treat the SL Forums in the same manner as a rigorous, scholarly treatise is folly.

I think a great deal of this is baloney? To be dead honest.

That, at least, is an honest and valid statement.

And that's because you have misunderstood the ancient saying, and tried to impose on it various baggy modern conceptions.

I posed questions, stating that "one could argue..." Words mean things. I didn't say I was arguing those points. Also, that's what a Devil's Advocate does.

more yada yada, but yada stating a debate point, which aside from the personal jabs I have no issue with

I sometimes jump into these conversations because they are so painful to see, and one hopes to reach some thinking being who might rise above them.

But I'm done here now because I don't smoke pot and don't enjoy talking frivolously about the devil by people for whom evil seems to be unreal or relative. Have fun in your SL!

You're right, I'm too stoopid to be able to talk about anything other than my pixel bits. :)

For someone who doesn't smoke pot, you sure write like you do, and are at the moment. :) There are quite a few very NON frivolous people who do not buy into the notion of a Christian-type devil. :::gasp::: Those would include various religions, including Judaism, and Eastern religions. The Christian notion of a devil does not equate into a belief (or disbelief) into the nature of evil. Concept. 

I am crushed, I tell you, that Prok finds me frivolous. :)

(no sarcasm fonts were harmed in this devil of a comment)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, I guess if you had to read it (the book by Andrews).... not your fault.... 

LOVE, is a monumental pinnacle, embodied in only 4 letters.  What a cruel joke that is. 

Makes the subject wide open for bland gibberish of all kinds, like spitting on your windshield to think you might buff up a better sheen on what you don't comprehend.

Animals understand love in minds that lack words. Ponder that.   

Like any pinnacle, those 4 letters have a pyramidal base of a zillion other words to describe, create it, up-build it from the rubbish, and uphold it in the high airs, and all the while after a millennia of hominid travail, hopes, losses, enlightenment and darkness. 

By now, you either got it; or you ain't. It's inbred, encoded, dna encrypted.

LOVE, becomes a subject over coffee in the afternoon.  Oh look, here is a book by author, So-and-So.  How nice; let us look.  Cream? 

Like anything of supreme value, un-prepossessed by many (SO many) a field of hubris lies surrounding it, pages of books scattering.  Words about something so generic, while unique, as if something simple, existing out there all on its own, and like a stray butterfly wing blown across your vision on a soft breeze, you think, what mystical creature was that!? 

It was not. It was more.  And yet it was less.  When you can box that, and pour it into your empty pickle jar, then you have a life and don't need the gibberish, the interpretations that can never describe what you are. 

Words that take pride in denoting acts of doing. Ho-hum, pardon as I yawn.

There is a difference between doing, and being

You don't even have to talk about the latter one. 

In other words, love is not something you do. 

It is something you be. 

It is something are.

Edited by Lancewae Barrowstone
added (the book by Andrews), added the last lines.
Link to post
Share on other sites

I find it interesting that citing the author of the blurb in the OP is getting so much push-back. From "we don't need your stinkin' PhDs" to "he stole it!" to "sorry you had to read it" (note: I did not "have" to read it, I chose to read it, as it is part of an elective class that I'm taking via Stanford). I have not stated anywhere that I endorse the blurb, or condemn it, although I believe on page 1 or 2 I did write about some of my beliefs.

Yeesh.

I do love [sarcasm font] people who write about such topics with such conviction that they alone know The Truth and The Way and anyone writing about it otherwise is just a poorly educated idjit.

On the other hand, on the OP I noted that the flames usually start on page 3 so we're ahead of the game by being behind (page 8).

Edited by Gatogateau
pointed to sigline in other account :D
Link to post
Share on other sites
56 minutes ago, Lancewae Barrowstone said:

stuff I snipped out

Words that take pride in denoting acts of doing. Ho-hum, pardon as I yawn.

There is a difference between doing, and being

You don't even have to talk about the latter one. 

In other words, love is not something you do. 

It is something you be. 

It is something are.

Ho-hum, pardon as I roll my eyes at your superiority gig.

False dichotomies are rife tonight in the GD subforum! (Probably elsewhere too.)

You are correct about there being a difference between doing and being. However, when you discuss such a vast subject as love, and its nuances, it is silly to say it has to be either/or. It is both. It is a verb and a noun.

Keep the company of those who seek the truth; and run from those who have found it.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Erbody knows it's bout three simple elements,

Us puttin  the Shama-lama, in their Rama-Lama-ding-dong,

us havin the Ooh-mau-mau

and the sugar-dew-dee-dew ;)

 

Edited by Ceka Cianci
  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Love is an interesting subject and I find the greek forms of love especially fascinating as someone who is asexual and doesn't need sexual intmancy in order to be head over heels with someone due to still experiencing Romantic attraction. My love language tends to be on the affrimation side and the physical. I am a big cuddler, I vocalise my love and my partners tend to be the few people that never exausght me in that soical energy manner.

I think it makes sense that love is displayed differently not just by inviduals but who they dhow it to.

 

Also I found that love is stored in the kitty and puppy.

 

 

 

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, Ceka Cianci said:
31 minutes ago, Luna Bliss said:

Oh God

That's what he said.

That reminds me of a question I had for you...why do you say you're not a Buddhist, and what inspired you to read so much about it?

Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Luna Bliss said:

That reminds me of a question I had for you...why do you say you're not a Buddhist, and what inspired you to read so much about it?

First is, I just don't lay claim to any religion or group or want to be focused in one area ever again.. It was really rough falling out of belief with Christianity, But that taught me a huge lesson in looking for similarities in other areas..It's also a huge reason why I'll never be a democrat or a republican or in just any political party.. They are always trying to blind us and keep us blinded..

Buddhism to me isn't really even a religion.. I mean it is if you want to believe in all the things like, flowers blooming from his footsteps as he walked and things like..  What it taught me is to clear that kind of clutter away and see deeper into a much truer reality..I do that when I look at any religions..

Skim the fat to find the value.. There is a lot of wisdom from a lot of the teachers and not so much bullcrap, like mystical happenings and miracles..

I really went full on in researching so much about it when I was falling out of faith with Christianity.. I've told this story a bunch of times, so it's probably gonna be the watered down version..hehehe

Going from feeling all alone with nowhere to go and what was it all for but a waste of time and being lied to.. Then doing some reading and looking into some teachers and feeling things make much more sense as well as more comforting, like the blinders were lifted and I could see a much larger life..That I am not some servant to some god.

I was lost and looking everywhere for some place to find some answers.. The only place that felt good was when I was reading or listening and learning about the teachers in Buddhism..

It wasn't them trying to pin me into worshiping some god..It was to me, them showing how to handle the world and deal with suffering and finding myself and clearing a lot of the clutter that the world tries to have me absorb.. So much more really..

So from then on, I question a lot of things and try to find answers for myself.. I always still keep researching and reading about it because for me a lot of it works..

I just don't claim to be a Buddhist because I just don't want to limit myself to one thing or one way..

 

I'll Say, The Little Buddha is where I first really seen anything about it ever.. Watching that again, really pushed me into the direction I went..

Also, Alan watts was such a huge help as well.. I really listened to him  constantly when I was first getting into it.. He was so comforting and helpful..

 

I've been up all night, so  I'm probably not really explaining myself as well as i would like to.. But just reading about the interactions alone was so comforting and it just all made such good sense when I would figure out what they were meaning.. It just feels like those teachers cut right through the bullcrap and point it out.. hehehe

 

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, Ceka Cianci said:

First is, I just don't lay claim to any religion or group or want to be focused in one area ever again.. It was really rough falling out of belief with Christianity, But that taught me a huge lesson in looking for similarities in other areas..It's also a huge reason why I'll never be a democrat or a republican or in just any political party.. They are always trying to blind us and keep us blinded..

Buddhism to me isn't really even a religion.. I mean it is if you want to believe in all the things like, flowers blooming from his footsteps as he walked and things like..  What it taught me is to clear that kind of clutter away and see deeper into a much truer reality..I do that when I look at any religions..

Skim the fat to find the value.. There is a lot of wisdom from a lot of the teachers and not so much bullcrap, like mystical happenings and miracles..

I really went full on in researching so much about it when I was falling out of faith with Christianity.. I've told this story a bunch of times, so it's probably gonna be the watered down version..hehehe

Going from feeling all alone with nowhere to go and what was it all for but a waste of time and being lied to.. Then doing some reading and looking into some teachers and feeling things make much more sense as well as more comforting, like the blinders were lifted and I could see a much larger life..That I am not some servant to some god.

I was lost and looking everywhere for some place to find some answers.. The only place that felt good was when I was reading or listening and learning about the teachers in Buddhism..

It wasn't them trying to pin me into worshiping some god..It was to me, them showing how to handle the world and deal with suffering and finding myself and clearing a lot of the clutter that the world tries to have me absorb.. So much more really..

So from then on, I question a lot of things and try to find answers for myself.. I always still keep researching and reading about it because for me a lot of it works..

I just don't claim to be a Buddhist because I just don't want to limit myself to one thing or one way..

 

I'll Say, The Little Buddha is where I first really seen anything about it ever.. Watching that again, really pushed me into the direction I went..

Also, Alan watts was such a huge help as well.. I really listened to him  constantly when I was first getting into it.. He was so comforting and helpful..

 

I've been up all night, so  I'm probably not really explaining myself as well as i would like to.. But just reading about the interactions alone was so comforting and it just all made such good sense when I would figure out what they were meaning.. It just feels like those teachers cut right through the bullcrap and point it out.. hehehe

 

So much of this mirrors my own process and thoughts and beliefs for decades. You explained yourself well, imho.

There is a difference between philosophical Buddhism, Hinduism, and Taosim and their respective religions. One doesn't have to practice the religion to gain benefit from the philosophies. (The three I mention have all similar underlying "themes" which makes sense because of how they came about historically.) Alan Watts is a good source, albeit a bit overly wordy as that group of writers tended to be at the time. 

Your lack of wanting to be tied down to a specific -ism also was my M.O. When pressed I would say I was a Boo-Dow-Due (Bud-tao-du) :) Interestingly, to me anyway, is a recent change of events, in a truly ironic, wtf-ery twist that only a link to SL can provide, I have found myself back to near full-circle and back to some monotheistic studies that have a foundation in my distant family history. The cool thing I learned is that I can still hold onto my eastern philosophical beliefs and apply it without some guy on a cloud smiting me. :) ymmv :)

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/11/2020 at 6:35 PM, Gatogateau said:

Keep the company of those who seek the truth; and run from those who have found it.

Yeah, I recognize that technique.  Some who lack original thought like to quote others (in this case, Havel) as a stand-in for what they don't have.  But it's okay.  I'm accustomed to that.  It fades with the substance of any other segment of echo. 

But to quote you directly, "False dichotomies are rife tonight in the GD subforum! (Probably elsewhere too)." 

I'm sorry that I assumed you comprehended the fact that the state of being is more comprehensive than (and inclusive of) the mere state of doing.  You thought it was a comment of dichotomy.   tsk tsk.

 

 

  • Sad 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
45 minutes ago, Lancewae Barrowstone said:

Yeah, I recognize that technique.  Some who lack original thought like to quote others (in this case, Havel) as a stand-in for what they don't have.  But it's okay.  I'm accustomed to that.  It fades with the substance of any other segment of echo. 

But to quote you directly, "False dichotomies are rife tonight in the GD subforum! (Probably elsewhere too)." 

I'm sorry that I assumed you comprehended the fact that the state of being is more comprehensive than (and inclusive of) the mere state of doing.  You thought it was a comment of dichotomy.   tsk tsk.

 

 

Oy. Vey. Congratulations on doing nothing more than drip sarcasm. "Oh you made a quotey-quote, you must be teh stoopidz."  That's an ad hominem, btw. tsk tsk

Just because you declare something as a fact doesn't make it so, and regarding ontological things — all the less factual.

You said, "In other words, love is not something you do. It is something you be," to which I responded that is a false dichotomy, because: it is. Postmortem  adjustments don't alter your original statement.

You probably think you're being droll.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Gatogateau said:

So much of this mirrors my own process and thoughts and beliefs for decades. You explained yourself well, imho.

There is a difference between philosophical Buddhism, Hinduism, and Taosim and their respective religions. One doesn't have to practice the religion to gain benefit from the philosophies. (The three I mention have all similar underlying "themes" which makes sense because of how they came about historically.) Alan Watts is a good source, albeit a bit overly wordy as that group of writers tended to be at the time. 

Your lack of wanting to be tied down to a specific -ism also was my M.O. When pressed I would say I was a Boo-Dow-Due (Bud-tao-du) :) Interestingly, to me anyway, is a recent change of events, in a truly ironic, wtf-ery twist that only a link to SL can provide, I have found myself back to near full-circle and back to some monotheistic studies that have a foundation in my distant family history. The cool thing I learned is that I can still hold onto my eastern philosophical beliefs and apply it without some guy on a cloud smiting me. :) ymmv :)

Honestly, the real reason I don't let myself become tied to any one thing is from reading and understanding and relating to The Four Noble Truths, which lead to the eight-fold path and middle way, which is balance.

I was letting go of something at the time that I was so attached to, that it put my life at a stand still.. So I'm not about to go down that road again..hehehe

For me, I don't look to the religion for things, but look at what caused the birth of them.. The religions usually are not around when the ones that inspired them are walking around..

Those people were not inspired from them when they were walking around, so I try to sift as much of what sounds like man made manipulating bullcrap out, to try and find as much useful core and truth as I can.. There is the source and then there is the grape vine..

This is also one of the huge reasons I don't favor any political parties, politicians or medias.. I have seen all sides using lies and hate and manipulations more than ever before through their teeth, as a means to an end, rather than using the right ways,such as truth and honesty. I'm better off grabbing a National Inquirer and getting more truth than I could from any of the others.. hehehehe

The moment someone say's to me about a subject I may not be up on, That I should care..That is when my spidy senses start tingling.. I'll research and investigate for myself first before I let someone manipulate me into anything anymore..

If I walked away with anything from what I learned from then to now, it's that my feet are firmly to the ground and my body and mind are strong enough that I don't need to lean one way or the other  for support.. They will just throw me off Balance..hehehehe :)

  • Like 4
Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Lancewae Barrowstone said:

Some who lack original thought like to quote others

that's an interesting thought, though not original.

is it possible to have original thought? 

🤔

if so is it possible to express it in its full originality in language which is commonly understood yet nuanced by individual understanding?

I think, therefore

I'm confused..

This is why I like poetry. If you don't really understand what you just said you can simply call it Art.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...