Mark V. "Why is it wrong to judge exactly? Don't we have to judge our own selves in order to treat others well? Wouldn't God be especially sensitive if he's especially loving and thus especially and accutely judgmental? I've seen this same sort of thing of out ..."
Unconditional Love is non-judgment or no discrimination to separate the acceptable from the unacceptable. Judging is conditional love or non-divine creature-ly love that only has a finite ability to accept and those accepted are ones that match the finite perspective of the conditional lover.
Mark V. "I don't quite understand how that ("finite" and all) is consistent with your post about why we shouldn't "dream big" but I view conditional love as good and selfless. I wouldn't want unconditional love out of love for the other person, like... "I want you to stand up for yourself if I'm ever mistreating you. Be sure to snap me out of it."You view conditional love as greater than unconditional love. That's what I'm hearing from you.
Mark V. "Well I think the reason why people side with unconditional love (like I used to) is because it is perceived as selfless, but now I think conditional love is more so the selfless one. I think it has to do with whether we're focused on the individual or ..."
No, you can't do that. You can't decide it works inversely in a different set of circumstances. That's called self-deception.
Mark V. "I don't quite understand but that still is focused on one person. If you mean favoring the one who's perceived as better, the person whose value is 2 over the person whose value is 1, then yeah, I think I'm against that but I mean you can't allow the person goes into -1 to drag down the rest."
Are you flipping the order of value or not? One is of greater value and has no bearing on circumstances.
Mark V. "I mean if you have one kid who's crippled (representing 0) and another who's a track star I think you should love them the same, but you have to punish and maybe eventually disown the one who constantly trips people (-1)"
You're still thinking like you might be wrong.
Mark V. "How so? "Those who poke holes in the boat and risk sinking the whole crew deserve to be thrown overboard" is my view. And I think that's selfless and serves the many. If we also threw the weak rowers overboard that's a purity spiral principle that would harm the many. I think it has to do with ..."
We have no capacity to have unconditional love. It's not human.
Mark V. "But don't you support unconditional love? I'm confused now... I agree, I think it's not human and not natural, for good, tribe-serving reason."
Only the Divine Source can have that nature and the reason I point it out is because karma is the curse of living on this 666 Ring. If you kill, you'll be killed, and so on. But you don't need to be forgiven for anything. You just have to take your lumps like a courageous person who supports perfect justice.
Mark V. "Do you support lump-taking though? It seemed like you called the lump-taking system good and bad at once..."
It doesn't matter what I support. If I refuse, i lose (I don't get off this ring). This is a KARMA ring, an unforgiving god that has no mercy is in charge in a matter of speaking (a program).
Mark V. "But do you think that's how it should be or not?"
Does he look like a kindly old man to you?
It is what it is. You have to fall here by choosing choices that open the floor hatch on the happy ring.
Mark V. "Well that seems good to me. I want to get hit every time I hit someone."
If you like injustice, don't complain when you get screwed over.
Mark V. "Isn't getting hit back when you hit first justice though?"
Eye for an eye, tooth for a tooth.
Mark V. "Is there something wrong with that though?"
No, but, when you are in a world that teaches everything assbackwards and values the unvaluable and sneers at the valuable, you're going to be conditioned to sow a lot of deeds that aren't bringing you a whole lot of good fortune.
Mark V. "Any big/key example?"
Sure. Getting married causes a lot of harm to both parties involved. Why? You both become chained to the will/desires of the other which stops you from experiencing freedom and non-guilt, non-manipulated, non-anxiety divine autonomy where you aren't to answer to anyone and have the sole rights to determine what is and what isn't a permitable choice. Marriage obliterates all of that.
Mark V. "I'd say... not necessarily and the root problem would be that the parties either hit or tolerate being hit. Any more flat example?"
You have no idea what you get yourself into because you are hiding your flaws and weaknesses before the ball and chain. Once the deal is sealed, you don't have to stifle all those traits you know would disgust or annoy your partner. Then it's "what the hell??"". We should be bodily fit by naturally produced exercise one gets when travelling by foot. When I had a car, my only exercise was to the car from the house: to the workplace from the workplace parking lot.
Mark Vendy: "I think all that stems from not truly meeting in the middle, which I think is a lack of honesty, lack of communication and lack of consciousness. Just like the Boy George lyrics "do you really wanna hurt me? Do you really want make me cry?'' I don't th..."
We should have jobs that have no motive for profit or wealth hoarding but instead, ones that contribute to the health and wealth of the community you belong to.
Mark V. "Ironically I used that same car example on someone else today. The jobs things is basically my view on marriage/relationships as well."
It's much much more thrilling and fulfilling to have a sexually adventurous life with your partner. No possessiveness or jealousy and full respect and even wishing that your partner gets a more varied sexual life experience instead of: "you get me again..yay."
Mark V. "Well my first reaction would be... How can you not think that view stems from a fundamental selfishness?... And then also... Who says? I like being in the groove with something tried and true and view promiscuity as like using a public toilet or somebody else's toothbrush. I don't want to mix it up. And if you really love someone wouldn't it be a sincere "yay!" ???
My life as a single guy is amazing. If I get caught up in a relationship that puts me under a close watchful eye, I make friends with misery again. You are here for YOU to have a life. Not for anyone else. Whoever told you otherwise has pulled the wool over your eyes. Love is an illusion. If you're close to someone, you'll act in ways that will consider their well-being like your own. There is no coercion, sense of duty, drudgery or bitterness from that dynamic.
Mark V. "Keanu Reeves' character: "I will search for you through a thousand worlds and ten thousand lifetimes until I find you" The Girl: "...and I will wait for you in all of them" Why don't you desire to be loyal to one person because you love them so especia..."
Why? Because you don't have one life on this planet. Fuck it up if you want to be born in shit. It's not a soul transfer: Mark soul traveling around as Mark soul. It's just a new life because the old one is kaput."
Mark V. "Ok, but still how does monogamy necessarily harm? Do you even believe that there's such a thing as just wanting to be loyal to one person? I don't think it's any different than wanting clothes that fit you just right. ...and who would choose clothes that don't fit right if they had the option?"
It doesn't. If you do monogamy as a free will choice, no contracts or expectations and have the absolute right to change your mind about a monogamous life style, you're good to go.
Mark V. "But still, not sincerely/voluntarily holding that ideal and goal seems fundamentally selfish and gluttonous, and is very predictable, that a person would be that way when it comes to the issue of sex especially. This is what I meant earlier... every fo...And since the core of sex is for the sake of fusing with them, could you just have kids with tons of random women? Is it right for the kids to not know who their dad is or not have him present?"
If you want to pig out, you deal with the fall-out: obesity, for example. You should have as much right to choose a bone-head move as you do with wiser choices. Embrace the ideal: a life you were meant to be in charge of, not one tied to a will that isn't yours.
Mark V. "Ok, I fundamentally agree, but then don't you believe in pigging out with women/relationships? Do you think it ultimately is harming you or that it isn't pigging out?"
Their DNA donors are not their parents, just a method to enter an independent life journey. Your parent is your Divine Source (or should be). If negative consequences follow a sexually abundant life, we'll know the answer to that.
Mark V. "You still need your parents. Obviously your mother for milk, but I'd say even your father to round out your psyche with masculine essence. And where do you get this from? Isn't it still just belief like a theist?"
I still need my DNA donors for the pre-independent stage.
Mark V. "Meaning childhood?"
Sure.
Mark V. "So then aren't you doing Your Sex Life incorrectly if you have sex with women you don't want kids with? Kinda like the thing about how the core of human mobility is walking... you're straying from the core and likely gonna get fat, but even if you don't how could you think straying from the core is a good idea?"
I have two daughters. They're doing great.
Mark V. "So then wouldn't you consider it ideal to be able to say to them that you want only their mother? Isn't it inherently comforting to have parents who are solidly united?"
No. I don't want to teach them lies.
Mark V. "That may not be true for whatever reason, marrying the wrong person or whatever, but wouldn't it be preferable if it were the truth?"
It's lying to say something you couldn't possibly know. How do i know I wouldn't be turned off in 5 years?
Mark V. "I think Nature nudges us towards monogamy and the powerful feelings of "you and only you'' are innate. People say "romantic love is new" but ironically it's as old as Genesis... where Jacob had an extra wife forced on him. (was typing that before your ..."
If you think it, then you haven't found a solid enough reason to make you certain. I don't believe you any more. You're acting shocked that I suggest people can get uninterested with their partner in 5 years or less time? Shall I look up some divorce statistics?
Mark V. "Lol, ok then, I'll say Nature absolutely does just in how we rank things as better or worse. That alone is a nudge towards Best... and your less desired wives will feel slighted and the kids from the wife you prefer less will feel slighted and you'll h..."
You recognize the nudges so you probably also know that if we're nudged we don't need someone to tell us the nudge is there.
Mark V. "Well you might not realize "my kids with Leah will be jealous of my kids with Rachel" until it's too late, so hastening the nudge can be good."
You don't have to own your kids.
Mark V. "Well I just mean if someone attempted polygamy for any given reason and planned on raising their kids until they were independent."
They're kids with a lot of your genes and they should be seen as the same as kids without your genes.
Mark V. "I don't think so even if only because of the reversed view. Like... they see you as different than the other adults of the village because you're their parent, so you have a duty to tend to them especially."
Mark V. "And I think your soul and genes are largely if not entirely intertwined anyway."
I think a community can all be a part of bringing up the children born in that community. Your race, I would speculate, starts with an original parent set so all members of your race would be your family.
Mark V. "I think you have special traits, at least peripherally, and it's best to set an example for your specific kids on how to wield them, though I do think we have a uniform core soul, like how there's one core structure to the body, so communal child rearing can make due, but I'd say it is less than ideal."
How do I know I'm not setting the wrong example by mistake?
Mark V. "You could, of course, but still I'd say proper expression of the unique traits is the goal... unless you think all unique traits are deviancy from source, then that'd make sense."
Most of what I said on this thread has never been said or thought by myself before.
Mark V. "That's great! I'm honored! That's the point of facebook. ...or did you mean you were half trolling me? Either way it was a good talk!"
You were awesome. Probably my best conversation in three years.
No comments:
Post a Comment