Forum Comments

Attempt at defining Love
In Omni-Connective Love-Studies
Aron Mueller
Apr 16, 2021
Another insight about the above mentioned three levels. First let's quote from above: Post-love is about inclusion not exclusion, in the sense of each part being included in it's proportionate order in the infinite spread. In post-love, the greatest beloveds, will not love each other as an expansion from i to you (regular love) or from i to we (meta-love common purpose), but from finding each other in strong adhesive proximity in the spread of Being. While post-love is not directed to specifics, but to the all inclusive spread of Being, the 'adhesive proximity' of specifics within post-love can include the intensities of regular and meta love. Appreciated qualities attract meta and regular love on a post post-love level. While pre post-love regular and meta love are self centered, post post-love meta and regular love directed to appreciated qualities are purely of decentralized spread, extensive and intensive at the same time. If one identifies qualities within every creature then all have a place within post post-love. (A way to test the higher level of qualities is by how much they are missed. Physical and communicational distance do not diminish mental and emotional presence of yearned qualities!) This is an interesting point about post-love that it doesn't exclude the intensities of regular and meta love. but on the contrary, purifies them to be genuine and untainted by finiteness. This insight alleviates a concern that comes from an impression that post-love creates aloofness which detaches from caring and nurturing. Those who profess to love everybody but actually care about nobody are typical. With the above insight one understands that appreciating qualities within post-love cleanses of fake caring!
0
2
La Source [Love]; 'who needs it?'
In Omni-Connective Love-Studies
Aron Mueller
Apr 15, 2021
Here is a copy of a comment on YouTube introducing La Source and the above mentioned post theism point. Jordan Peterson advocates a theistic approach for the sake of morality, by saying: 'To make a rational argument you have to start with an initial proposition. Well the proposition that underlies western culture, is that there is a transcendent morality. Now you could say that's a transcendent morality instantiated in the figure of God, that's fine. You could even call that a personification of the morality if you want to, if you don't want to move into a metaphysical space. I'm not arguing for the existence of God. I'm arguing that the ethic that drives our culture is predicated on the idea of God and that you can't just take that idea away and expect the thing to remain intact mid-air without any foundational support.' The comment comes as a reply to his point, as follows: You agree that it is ok for the transcendent morality to be 'instantiated in the figure of God' without 'arguing for the existence of God' (as you often imply that it is sufficient for morality that humans behave 'as if' God existed). Now if morality is 'instantiated' in the figure of God, then God is only an anchor that holds on to transcendent morality, but not it's basis - primary reason. This means 'that the ethic that drives our culture is NOT predicated on the idea of God, it is only anchored - instantiated in the idea of God'. Furthermore, if God is only an anchor as a pseudo guardian of morality, then clearly morality is predicated on a deeper idea, which drives to have the God anchor. Once we become clear about the deeper primary reason on which morality is predicated, then we may not need a God anchor anymore. Borrowing your words; we shall then be able to 'take that (God) idea away and expect the thing (morality) to remain intact'. By finding this basis of morality, the moving on beyond God personification, will not let morality in 'mid-air without any foundational support'. On the contrary, it will make it more pure and exact. Now what is the basic non theistic idea for morality? Dawkins and Harris are not too clear about a source for the moral drive besides statistical claims that religion does not contribute enough to morality. (A statistic dividing the matter into three categories is available by listening to Marshall Rosenberg in the name of Milton Rokeach - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hY511ig3slM from 0:40 to 3:25.) Hitchens addressed the atheist morality issue more specifically (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RwaWJLvxKPI), but without much explanation. With introspection though, one may discover that morality is not a mere transactional interest, namely; a will to be viewed favorably by a pseudo Celestine master, which happens to benefit peace within society. Humans recognize a nobler level of morality expressed by a quote from Einstein here below: 'If people are good only because they fear punishment and hope for reward, then we are a sorry lot indeed'. Einstein expressed the underlying feeling of a heroic dimension to morality that people can basically be motivated towards. This introspective discovery is that humans are motivated to take part in the ongoing universal creation despite not knowing the full eternal dimension of human and universal orientation. As you say in another lecture that despite that in the perspective of billion of years nothing we do means / matters, but we motivationally only live the here and now perspective including it's projections. It is like landing in a very active construction site and wanting to be involved in it's activity's harmonious flow despite not knowing how long the project will last. With games we play, it goes even further; we are motivated to play even though we know how short it will last. Morality is the peak of harmony of a whole life play we take part in. Being moral in the sense of a selfless decentralized spread which adapts humans to the greatest harmonious continuum flow possible, is motivationally present in human nature. However, since humans lack strength, heroic moral harmony is resisted by a counter 'duality' motivation that looks for fun-monkey quick fixes. Religion and awe of God serve/d as initial potential tools to help do away with such counter motivation and bring out the moral drive to live in a non-duality harmonious continuum. The God personification is however of a temporary nature, like scaffolds that are to be removed once the building stands strong on its own. (The Biblical prophecy of Jeremiah 30: 31-33 on which Christian ideology is predicated on, makes this point.) Once humans intensively recognize and are driven by their motivationally original moral drive, theism will have played its role. However, it seems quite obvious that humans are not all ready for and already at such a stage. For them, this un-readiness makes your argument that 'you can't just take that (God) idea away and expect the thing (morality) to remain intact mid-air without any foundational support', still valid. Furthermore, even for humans who intellectually (almost) fully grasp the heroic dimension of morality as being dedicated to harmonize within infinite Being, intellectual grasp isn't sufficient. Extensive intellectuality is a great asset, but intensive feelings and emotions are necessary for the highest motivational level and application. For one's heart fervor to be 'plugged in to infinity', intellectual decentralization doesn't yet do the job. Romantic personification of Being instantiated in a God figure does it, despite it's being paradoxical. Hence Nietzsche's lamenting decrial of the premature killing of God that you like to mention. Another point is the need for the motivational power of individuals to join into a common effort of people dedicated to heroism. It is said in the name of Darwin (by Jonathan Sacks) that despite of individual motivation exclusively leading to one's own survival, it is not that there is no motivation for moral heroism, but it is due to the lack of strength that diverts to the above mentioned fun-monkey quick fixes. However, members of a society who come together with the higher ideal of heroism as its common purpose, can reach it through the force of their collectively dedicated effort! It seems nowadays still easier to find a whole society dedicated to moral heroism rather among religions than among auto-didactic non theists. This is why at La Source (a Research and Creation center for the study of love in Brittany, France), the term 'Post-theism' is preferred to 'Atheism'. Atheism suggests a denigration of the need for theism altogether, while post-theism recognizes its value. Post-theism is careful not to pour the baby (morality) out with the dirty water (ideological mythic gullibility) so long as it has not yet been learned how to carefully pour the water out in a way that saves the baby from both; being drowned and being poured out with it.
1
0
Does love delegitimize any thought, attitude, feeling, emotion?
In Omni-Connective Love-Studies
Aron Mueller
Feb 09, 2021
Here are some points elaborated throughout this forum about the ultimate post-love stage, which very much clarify the answer to this post's question. A. Post-love is defined as: Harmony adhesiveness within the infinite spread. B. Post-love is based on the recognition that no part of reality requires the denial of existence of any other part. C. Post-love attitude [is towards] the whole of all, in such a way, that the extensive and the intensive are non-dual and thus don't outdo each other. D. A post-love attitude [is] an encompassing non dual vision from the heart and from the deepest points of experience and consciousness is developed. E. A general attitude recommended by Elise de La Source is to ask oneself when facing any event especially a discomforting one - 'If everything is perfect, what does this teach?' The meaning of such attitude is the cultivation of love and the maximization of understanding towards and in the context of the whole of all (Being). F. Post-love is about inclusion not exclusion, in the sense of each part being included in it's proportionate order in the infinite spread. In post-love, the greatest beloveds, will not love each other as an expansion from i to you (regular love) or from i to we (meta-love common purpose), but from finding each other in strong adhesive proximity in the spread of Being. G. 'Unconditional' in the full sense of the word, belongs to the realm of post-love (vs. regular and meta love). H. The affectionate will is a benevolent attitude towards all parts of infinite Being, which is motivated to increase harmony among all of them. At the love level, this will is post-love that is based on the recognition that no part of reality requires the denial of existence of any other part. Even suffering, sadness and sorrow can be experienced as parts of the harmonious fabric of Being. Many operas bring out just such kind of emotional feelings.
1
0
Post-Love unites Thinking & Doing
In Inner-Connective Love-Studies
Aron Mueller
Feb 09, 2021
The psyche deterioration into a mind-heart battle that needs post-love to resolve and heal it, mentioned in the opening post of this discussion, requires further elaboration as to its process. A few points have been clarified throughout the forum about post-love. Here are some of them: A. Post-love is defined as: Harmony adhesiveness within the infinite spread. B. Post-love is based on the recognition that no part of reality requires the denial of existence of any other part. C. Post-love is about inclusion not exclusion, in the sense of each part being included in it's proportionate order in the infinite spread. In post-love, the greatest beloveds, will not love each other as an expansion from i to you (regular love) or from i to we (meta-love common purpose), but from finding each other in strong adhesive proximity in the spread of Being. D. 'Unconditional' in the full sense of the word, belongs to the realm of post-love (vs. regular and meta love). E. Post-love attitude [is towards] the whole of all, in such a way, that the extensive and the intensive are non-dual and thus don't outdo each other. Understanding these points, we can divide will in general and specifically love, into two categories; positive and negative. The positive is affectionate and the negative is defection-ate. The affectionate will is a benevolent attitude towards all parts of infinite Being, which is motivated to increase harmony among all of them. At the love level, this will is post-love that is based on the recognition that no part of reality requires the denial of existence of any other part. Even suffering, sadness and sorrow can be experienced as parts of the harmonious fabric of Being. Many operas bring out just such kind of emotional feelings. The defection-ate will is a malevolent attitude that attempts to hold on to one's attachments by denying other parts of Being that stand in the way of the attachments, on various degrees of denial. At the love level, this will is either within regular or meta-love, not recognizing that no part of reality requires the denial of existence of any other part. Another division can be made between the extensive and the intensive within consciousness. The intensive is all that touches feelings, emotions and motivation. The extensive varies in levels. The farthest away are factors of reality which have no intensity and are thus irrelevant. the closest are factors that nag at feelings, emotions and motivation. Depending on circumstances and distances, they occasionally become more intensive than immediate gratifications. Broadening of consciousness intensity is what makes people more intelligent and more moral, since the future and the others are taken into more intensive motivating consideration. The nagging extensive factors that occasionally oscillate in dominating motivation for a while, motivate us to try live in more stability by either having them recede to a non intensity zone from where nagging stops or having them become so present that they become the permanent dominating motivational factors. Ideally we could adopt an attitude of flowing with intensity, going along with the extensive when it is intensive enough to motivate and leave it when it is not, just like we don't exert ourselves at sports when we feel physically weak. However, lack of clarity puts the extensive in a position of nagging which means that the intensity of the extensive is too obscure and thus too difficult to adopt an according attitude. Here is where ideologies step in. We try to solve the nagging in our intellectual laboratory and get to some ideological conclusions. However, when these conclusions are still not enough to budge motivation and action in our processing factory, the mind-heart (extensive-intensive) dichotomy emerges. We hold on to the ideological attachment which doesn't withstand the intensity of the practical attachment that runs against it. Thus, we are attached to opposing poles; the one telling us for example 'don't do' and the other pushing us to 'do'. Whatever practical outcome will feel defection-ate. This is where post-love comes in. By recognizing that no part of reality requires the denial of existence of any other part, one takes all parts we are aware of into consideration. As a result, we harmonize between all which makes us let go of resulting weaker attachments whatever their value for other circumstances. Understanding love and especially post-love as expansion and spread inclusions, discipline and responsibility cease to be defection-ate. Their acts are indeed ones of expansion, but not from hate and fighting the existence of an enemy, but from love that takes into consideration the expanded to and the wide spread.
0
1
Attempt at defining Love
In Omni-Connective Love-Studies
Aron Mueller
Feb 03, 2021
@Lazarus Katz 1. I indeed see it this way; that in post-love all is accepted and therefore appreciated - proportionately to it's value - while in love and meta-love, acceptance is a price to pay for the appreciated-loved. 2. Fully answering this question requires more elaboration about the love stages. I'd first put to rest its' main concern premise, by indicating that even schools of thought that held such premise like Stoicism and Apatheia did not necessarily advocate indifference but rather equanimity (see linked Wikipedia). Love: Regular love starts with 'I', as Ayn Rand has said: “To say ‘I love you’ one must first know how to say the ‘I’...". The moment that such love does not serve the ‘I’, the love is gone. At this level the 'expansion of self to include' is conditioned by the needs of the self who includes. Meta-love: This stage is like the creation of a limited liability company (Ltd.) or a society anonymous (SA). Such company is limited to its' designed purpose which is a purpose of each associated self. In meta-love, participants' selves remain central to their association. However, meta-love co-passion for common goals and cooperation for the sake of mutual purposes is not hindered by each individual's other selfish needs. At a strong level of mutuality, it creates a sense of experience-intensifying togetherness between two living beings, which is the essence of meta-love However, once it happens that an important part of one self is somehow threatened by another self involved in meta-love, it is like when a dentist hits a nerve; the meta-love just implodes. They may technically continue their association for the sake of such gains to which their love or plain motivation is directed, but the meta-love 'expansion of selves into reciprocal relationships' is gone. There still is appreciation for the initial reason of the relationship, but there is no more acceptance of the whole self personality that comes with it. Post-love: ‘I’ - a condition to regular love - becomes an impediment to post-love. It's premise is based upon the recognition that selves are secondary to prime experience in which the highest value is to harmoniously integrate selves within the ongoing creation. Post-love is a state of adaptation that takes the non-finite into consideration, not ignoring away any relevant-to-will reality part. Such ignorance breaks harmony (consonance) into cognitive dissonance. This needs the recognition that no part of reality requires the denial of existence of any other part. The motivation to harmonize with all is like being in a construction site, not knowing exactly what the end purpose of the site's activity is, but nevertheless motivated to harmoniously participate in it. Post-love means not beyond love, but beyond the levels of pronouns whether starting with ‘I’ or with 'we'. It is post-pronouns, which actually means post-regular-and meta-love. Its' attitude therefore comprises love to any part of creation relevant to will. It is neither a love that expands from ‘I’ to another self as in regular love nor one that expands from 'we' to a common purpose like in meta-love. It is a decentralized love stemming in motivation and directed to no specific boundary end, but to the infinite varieties of existence. Hence its' definition: 'harmony adhesiveness within the infinite spread'. Love in post-love does not ex-pand from a central starting point outward, but functions as an adhesive of parts within infinite experience proportioned to appreciation. Such love is unbound to any starting or ending, anchoring or centralizing point and even not to reciprocity. Post-love by loving all, necessarily loves selves (confluences of aspects), but not as finite targets. Post-love sees selves in their proportions within beyond-self experience. Post-love by loving all, does necessarily not deny neither any passion and feeling nor any discriminative levels of appreciation. It appreciates wisdom over absurdity, diligence over lethargy etc... in harmonious proportion, thus non-dual. Post-love is about inclusion not exclusion, in the sense of each part being included in it's proportionate order in the infinite spread. In post-love, the greatest beloveds, will not love each other as an expansion from i to you (regular love) or from i to we (meta-love common purpose), but from finding each other in strong adhesive proximity in the spread of Being.
0
Aron Mueller
More actions