|
BenevolentM -> RE: Is Love Inconvenient? (2/10/2011 1:38:15 PM)
|
If anyone messes with this post, it will be censorship.
quote:
ORIGINAL: Whiplashsmile4
BenevolentM,
If you are not getting something of value back out of relationship for what you are putting into it, then something is a little off.
It might take years for water to wear down and reshape stone. Personally, I've come to a point with something being "Just good enough", does not have to be perfect but it has to be good enough.
Think of it like this, if you gotta put 10 years worth of work into to make things work.. why do it?
Not when there is somebody else out there, who would be better for you to begin with?
just my thoughts.
I feel that this was the most thoughtful of the recent posts even though it takes a position contrary to mine. It's called respect. There has been an intellectual revolution, but not all is well. The chief casualty of this revolution is love. When you thinking about what you are going to be getting out of something, love is not in the forefront of your imagination because love is fundamentally irrational. Because it is fundamentally irrational, it is inherently inconvenient.
Love has become genuinely inconvenient. Why? Because in a sense we got off the gold standard. In a letter to Termyn8or I wrote:
quote:
I suspect the suppression of pride is by design. It would help atomize people. Why atomize people? Since the models are inaccurate instead of bringing the model into conformance with reality, you cause people to conform to the model. Game theory has nothing to do with logic since it has nothing to do with truth.
What I'm saying is that Termyn8or is not in step with the times. There is a relationship between love and truth as outrageous as that might seem to some. This relationship was known in ancient times. On 20 January 2011 I wrote:
quote:
For further background see the following threads:
A rant about deliberately fuzzy math.
http://www.collarchat.com/m_3525695/mpage_1/tm.htm
Raising the debt ceiling
http://www.collarchat.com/m_3523034/mpage_1/tm.htm
The ancient Greeks were looking for this one God when they encountered Christianity. Their reply was, Eureka! As odd as it may seem faith and reason are not as incompatible as it may seem to some. The ancient Greeks came to similar conclusions independently via an earnest search for the truth. They knew that the one God would have certain properties. For example, they knew he would be peace loving. Just think Socrates. They also knew that there would be a Christ with a capital C. I spoke earlier about the christ of statistics.
Here is something that I wrote on 27 January 2011. The post now appears missing. Some moron apparently thought it was redundant:
The following is a copy of several consecutive posts from another thread that has bearing on the topic being discussed here, namely God and Atheism. See
Raising the debt ceiling
http://www.collarchat.com/m_3523034/mpage_1/tm.htm
quote:
ORIGINAL: tazzygirl
quote:
ORIGINAL: BenevolentM
I never said that I was only interested in pussy. What I seek is a select few who possess what is known as a pussy. Admittedly, dick is a disqualifying factor. One must view a pussy holistically. A pussy has a mind. A pussy has a body whose sole use isn't sex by the way. Pussy even has a soul. Pussy also has needs. Pussy needs love and pussy needs praise. If she is willing to be more than a mere sex organ, more specifically a thing worthy of love, I am prepared to refer to her as a female. Typically, females do have a pussy.
Yeah, and how is that working out for you?
Honestly, I think women should cross dress online more so they can see what they are like. Since women are not men the picture they would get would not be entirely accurate, but it might clue them in on something. A great many women feel they are so wonderful and such victims that they could not possibly be monsters.
quote:
ORIGINAL: tazzygirl
Didnt think it was working too well. And you proved me right.
Are you not admitting that you may be one of these monsters?
quote:
ORIGINAL: tazzygirl
Not at all.. But I prefer a man who has the ability to stomp on my leash... not one who will beg me to walk him.
I noticed that I've been misspelling debt as debit as in deb-it! You must be willing to at least admit that I need a secretary, that is a little subbie to take care of these submissive details for me? It is a shame for a man such as myself to be subject to such petty mockery. It is a crime against all that is holy. I see it offends you as well.
quote:
ORIGINAL: BenevolentM
I want her goodness to amaze me and express itself as a well with no bottom. Love is mysterious because it is such a well. Her wetness continues to flow in the absence of any truly rational explanation for it to do so.
What I require is love that is real. I am not a lesser man to desire or accept anything less. She must be truly beautiful. Is such a request unreasonable? What you wrote is not truly beautiful. It is a shameless declaration that you have a selfish desire.
Does your wetness flow in the absence of any truly rational explanation for it to do so?
quote:
ORIGINAL: tazzygirl
Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. And the one who holds my leash is the only set of eyes i have to worry about.
I am familiar with the logical underpinnings of what you wrote. Notice my use of the term "rational explanation". The problem is you are all a product of rational design and is the reason why many of you cannot grasp the idea that a God exists. In rational design there is no such a thing as love. Why does the sky not fall or the economy collapse? There is no rational explanation for it. God loves us. Do not seek a rational explanation for it, because there is none.
quote:
ORIGINAL: mnottertail
Uh, there is a hell of a lot more rational explanation of why the sky doesn't fall than a god, angular momentum, space-time and gravity, celestial mechanics, and the fact that it sort of does fall, but theres so damn much of it, there isn't any more room for it, only 5 pounds of shit to a 5 pound sack. the weight of the atmosphere at sea level is greater than that of the weight at 1 mile high, you don't need a god to understand simple shit like that.
And well--- define collapse, I mean even junk has a value, so collapsing is in the eye of the beholder, not in the eye of a god.
Since I am an oracle of sorts I suppose it is incumbent upon me to answer your question. I notice that you got the spelling of damn right when I didn't. You must, damn things more often than I do.
It appears that I need to develop a list of English homophones for me to consult and become more familiar with. It would be nice to have a little subbie to help me with secretarial chores, but one must do with what one has, namely a humble spell checker demon that only gets it right half the time.
Making myself comfortable on a satin pillow. I thought the conversation was headed toward, What is the virtue of love? There are those who would challenge me on that one as well. Its more familiar form is religion verses the welfare state. To discuss love briefly, many are bewildered by the apparent obsessive interest religion has to encourage a thing that almost does not exist in this world, namely love; "Its intrusion interferes with our models. It is best done away with altogether." The atheists will argue why not concern yourself with things that matter? Things that will make this place a better world. When the illusion that love in this world exists in abundance is removed, either love becomes a thing that has betrayed you and you want to stomp it out or you realize that it is precious. Religion usually takes the later path. Those who rebel usually take the former.
I mentioned earlier that many important fields that humanity depends on are not structurally sound, which includes economics. The proponents of rational design realize this, however. Most everyone else does not. It is actually a profound intellectual achievement to recognize this simple fact. Ancient man realized this and is the reason he made offerings to, for example, a sun god. It is curious that the sky does not fall, but this also continues to be true in our day and age of rational design.
The problem with rational design is that there is a missing ingredient when you do away with what appear to be irrational superstitions. You manage to get much of it right, but a crucial ingredient is missing and so what you end up with is malnutrition despite having gotten most of it right. When you do away with love or meaning and so-called subjective things such as these.
Love is a ghost that belongs to the realm of the subtle and almost non-existent worlds.
|
|
|
|
