false self-love

[roger]

The Bible says, "There is a way that seems right unto a man, but the end thereof are the ways of death."

 

That way is to attack others in the guise of self-love, strength, and power.

 

The truth is it's weakness, and only an illusion of power.

 

You see, people think they're really doing what they need to do for themselves, really being strong.

 

It's a lie.

 

To attack another is to attack yourself. What you give, you receive.

 

Love is strength.

 

Only the loving are truly powerful.

 

Every choice matters.

 

Take special care.

[Karl]

Attack others ? As in the initiation of physical force against another person ?

[roger]

Attack others ? As in the initiation of physical force against another person ?

 

By "attack", I just mean any unkind or unloving word or behavior. To mistreat someone.

[Karl]

By "attack", I just mean any unkind or unloving word or behavior. To mistreat someone.

This use of anti-concepts is interesting because it gives no clue as to what is meant, it's just a package deal as I have discovered with anti- Semite. These things un-kind, un-loving or mis-treat are weasel words devoid of definition.

 

Define: love, kind and treat.

 

Love is the love of values, it does not exist seperately. To love implies an 'I' that can love. Unloved just means that someone does not see a value in someone else that would compliment their lives and make them happier. One can't 'unlove' someone.

 

Kind means essentially being merciful. In other words giving a value which another person has not earned. Here it can be seen that un-kind also means nothing, it isn't an action at all, it is simply no action at all. To pass a beggar in the street and not to flip him a coin is not being un-kind, it is no different to passing a parked car in this respect. It is only when charity is given (mercy) of an unearned value that we can refer to it as any kind of kind action.

 

Treat-ment is a judgement. To treat someone good or bad implies a standard. That standard is ones life and those things required to sustain it without regard to other men - life, liberty, property and the pursuit of happiness. To aggress against these rights is to treat someone badly, aggress means the physical initiation of force.

 

Attacking someone is to use physical force against them either directly, or indirectly. In no way does this mean verbal attacks, which are simply words relating to concepts. One may judge them harsh or kind, but they have no physical attribute and so these descriptors are poetic illusions.

Edited October 15, 2016 by Karl

[roger]

Karl,

 

Your words contain much profound truth.

 

ACIM echoes your idea that "attacking" is physical in nature: "Only bodies, not minds, can attack."

 

And your statement that, "One can't 'unlove' someone," has great validity imo. It's the same as the idea that "lack of love" and "attack" aren't "personal". To say that they're personal is saying that the individual being unloved is the REASON for the lack of love on the part of the one that's not being loving. But the truth that it's always the CONDITIONS the one being unloved is failing to meet that's the reason for the lack of love. In other words, it's never BECAUSE IT'S THEM.

 

An example is that I don't like my brother-in-law (true story), not because it's HIM, but because he's a been a complete jerk to my mom, and my sister (his wife), my other siblings, and to his children (my nephews and niece).

 

You see, the reason I don't like him isn't at all because it's HIM- it's because of his behavior. If another man engaged in the same behavior, I wouldn't like him either.

 

So lack of love isn't personal because it's CONDITIONAL.

 

Conditional love isn't personal because it's conditional; unconditional love isn't personal because it's unconditional.

 

You see, both conditionality and unconditionality are IMPERSONAL.

 

When it comes to love, it's really the Universal you're loving, it's the person's "divine nature". Therefore love is suprapersonal.

Edited October 17, 2016 by roger

[Marblehead]

Nice seeing you guys trying to talk around dualities but rather to the specific.

[Karl]

Karl,

 

Your words contain much profound truth.

 

ACIM echoes your idea that "attacking" is physical in nature: "Only bodies, not minds, can attack."

 

And your statement that, "One can't 'unlove' someone," has great validity imo. It's the same as the idea that "lack of love" and "attack" aren't "personal". To say that they're personal is saying that the individual being unloved is the REASON for the lack of love on the part of the one that's not being loving. But the truth that it's always the CONDITIONS the one being unloved is failing to meet that's the reason for the lack of love. In other words, it's never BECAUSE IT'S THEM.

 

An example is that I don't like my brother-in-law (true story), not because it's HIM, but because he's a been a complete jerk to my mom, and my sister (his wife), my other siblings, and to his children (my nephews and niece).

 

You see, the reason I don't like him isn't at all because it's HIM- it's because of his behavior. If another man engaged in the same behavior, I wouldn't like him either.

 

So lack of love isn't personal because it's CONDITIONAL.

 

Conditional love isn't personal because it's conditional; unconditional love isn't personal because it's unconditional.

 

You see, both conditionality and unconditionality are IMPERSONAL.

 

When it comes to love, it's really the Universal you're loving, it's the person's "divine nature". Therefore love is suprapersonal.

There is no such thing as unconditional love, it would be the most wholly, irrational, vilest thing imaginable. We love the values that relate to our own survival and personal happiness. When we observe that these values are not apparent then they are effectively a threat to us.

 

To say there is unconditional love for the divine in someone else regardless of their values is simply negation. It is a fantasy of zero to zero. It is to say there is a part of me which is not me, which loves a part of you that is not you. This is just another version of Plato's forms by which the extension of each person is to some unreachable, unknowable mystery dimension in which everything is magically resolved, we can't know it so we imply that some 'feeling' or 'intuition' some inner knowing is present in the lesser form which pertains to greater truth.

 

I find it both astounding and amusing to see that this philosophy persists despite thousands of years of reason to the contrary. Not one proof exists of this 'divine' nor of those 'perfect forms' and yet people still cling to this notion that there is such a thing, not because they can prove it, but because some 'feeling' tells them it must be so.

 

I can't argue with faith Roger. I can argue only fact. If it is your belief that there is a 'divine' and that intrinsic revelation or intuition reveals it, then no amount of anything I can say will change your mind, nor mine. We will just hit a beach and the discussion is over. You go your way carrying whatever symbol represents faith and I take reason, fact and reality to go in the opposite direction.

 

I enjoyed your reply, it was well constructed, but the conclusion was one of faith not fact and here we must part company.

[roger]

Thanks Karl.

 

Always a pleasure exchanging ideas with you.

[Karl]

Thanks Karl.

 

Always a pleasure exchanging ideas with you.

Likewise.

[Apech]

If you were me - self-love could not be false.

[roger]

If you were me - self-love could not be false.

 

Exactly. That's why it's not really "self-love," but a poor substitute for it.

 

I don't mean YOU, but the many people who attack and do unloving things in guise of "self-love."