What is the opposite of Love?

[CuriousSnowflake]

I thought this was an appropriate question, considering tomorrow is Valentine's Day.

What do you think is the opposite of Love? Fear? Anger? Hatred? Indifference? Something else? Does Love have an opposite? I'd love (pun intended) to hear what you think.

CS

[Sammy]

Simple, hate. Love is to pull toward. Hate it to push away. Fear is avoidance. Indifference is just that and nothing realy, atleast pertaining to the subject.

[Sammy]

Oppisate of fear I think would be, idolize (putting yourself in their path instead of avoiding it).

[autumn]

I think the opposite of love is apathy.

[Shabda]

emptiness...

[Racer X]

Love has no opposite......
All which opposes Love is insane.....

Love is not a dualistic expression.....
Love IS....
The rest is NOT.....

Love which is "wanting" or "needing" is not Love.....
This is weakness!
A feeling of incompleteness....

LOVE IS.....
Look at all the mentally ill around and notice they do not Love!
They have forgotten.....

LOVE IS.....
It does not "TRY".......
It does not need too!

LOVE IS......
All else is illusion.....
Cast by a clever trickster!

LOVE IS.....
When you REALIZE this.....
When LOVE is re-born inside....
LOVE IS.......Home.

No matter where one IS.

[Kaere]

I voted for indifference.

[Kapitan_Prien]

I'd have to say fear simply based upon my experiences with healing this body. I think that hatred has its roots in fear. As for indifference, I think that can wind up being an offshoot of extreme detachment.

[Chrysaetos]

Fear is a natural part of this world, without any sense of fear we wouldn't learn nor survive.

Hatred.. you know there's a saying that hatred and love are not far apart.
As long as you hate something it still remains a part of you. It serves as a touchstone for you and you need it to conceive yourself in a way.

I tend to go with indifference, but maybe 'love' might not have an opposite at all..

[Kapitan_Prien]

I understand what you mean Chrysaetos, but I'm talking about 'superstitious fears' like Hell, etc. that are preached by religions. Not 'survival fears' which are healthy...perhaps the poll should be more clear about the two.

[Spiritlite]

For me Fear.
Spiritlite.

[CuriousSnowflake]

Nice to see a good number of responses. Me, I agree with Racer X; I don't think that Love has a true opposite. Anger, fear, indifference, what each of these are is varying degrees of detachment, of non-Unity. Unity and Love, in a way, are synonymous. That which is Love is connection, affinity, Oneness. When you Love someone or something, you feel connected to it, whether this is Love of a person or Love of chocolate. You want the experience of this person/place/thing/concept over and over again.

All of the things which we could call not-Love are ideas of disconnection, of denying, of separateness. Fear is the energy of pushing away, anger is the energy of destruction, indifference is the energy of denial. To distance, to destroy, to deny, these are the three ways we separate ourselves.

So if I were try to put the opposite of Love into a single word, I would call it separation.

CS

[Zeliar791]

Nice to see a good number of responses. Me, I agree with Racer X; I don't think that Love has a true opposite. Anger, fear, indifference, what each of these are is varying degrees of detachment, of non-Unity. Unity and Love, in a way, are synonymous. That which is Love is connection, affinity, Oneness. When you Love someone or something, you feel connected to it, whether this is Love of a person or Love of chocolate. You want the experience of this person/place/thing/concept over and over again.

All of the things which we could call not-Love are ideas of disconnection, of denying, of separateness. Fear is the energy of pushing away, anger is the energy of destruction, indifference is the energy of denial. To distance, to destroy, to deny, these are the three ways we separate ourselves.

So if I were try to put the opposite of Love into a single word, I would call it separation.

CS

Then the opposite of love would be disharmony.

[Shabda]

Nice to see a good number of responses. Me, I agree with Racer X; I don't think that Love has a true opposite. Anger, fear, indifference, what each of these are is varying degrees of detachment, of non-Unity. Unity and Love, in a way, are synonymous. That which is Love is connection, affinity, Oneness. When you Love someone or something, you feel connected to it, whether this is Love of a person or Love of chocolate. You want the experience of this person/place/thing/concept over and over again.

All of the things which we could call not-Love are ideas of disconnection, of denying, of separateness. Fear is the energy of pushing away, anger is the energy of destruction, indifference is the energy of denial. To distance, to destroy, to deny, these are the three ways we separate ourselves.

So if I were try to put the opposite of Love into a single word, I would call it separation.

CS
i disagree with this...anger is most often caused by an attachment, as is fear...and detachment does not at all mean non unity, not by far, one cant reach true unity without detachment...

[Zeliar791]

i disagree with this...anger is most often caused by an attachment, as is fear...and detachment does not at all mean non unity, not by far, one cant reach true unity without detachment...

That would be the process of reaching harmony. The idea is that harmony has always existed, and then it fell apart all a sudden. Some might argue that harmony can only be created, but this is simply a matter of perspective. In the end everything is a single whole, but of course this would be focusing on the ends of everything. The natural state of existence.

[Flora]

I'm not sure, maybe all of the given potions...?
When there is not enough love for yourself you may feel hartred towards yourself and others. You may be afraid of everything. You may also be indifferent to everything and everyone.
Maybe the absence of love is darkness, like being in a room with closed windows. You just have to open up to see the light = to feel love(d).

[Kapitan_Prien]

My understanding regarding 'superstitious fear' can be understood in many ways - one of the prime examples is a fundamentalist Christian 'fearing' for the souls of others and tries to convert them (either in a passive-aggressive way or simply by being outright rude...which leads to the hate and anger).

I feel that separation can arise out of fear too. We see it with xenophobia, homophobia, etc. How about 'fear of God' (being punished in some afterlife or punishment with the so-called Karmic Law).

There's many ways to take this type of fear and understand it.

[CuriousSnowflake]

Then the opposite of love would be disharmony.

Depends on how you define harmony. There's nothing wrong with individualness; that's how harmony is created. In music, you only have harmony if you have different tones and different instruments, and that which we call harmony is defined as much by context as by the interaction of the tones. Harmony only makes sense in contrast with dissonance, and vice versa.

As in art, so in life.

CS

[CuriousSnowflake]

i disagree with this...anger is most often caused by an attachment, as is fear...and detachment does not at all mean non unity, not by far, one cant reach true unity without detachment...

Poor choice of words on my part. "Separation" works better, since "detachment" is often used in the context you bring up, as an opposite to clinging and needing. The amusing part is that attachment is really based on an idea of separation. One believes there is this other thing that they need to be complete, when in fact they are always and forever complete and this "other thing" is not something separate from them.

There is a pattern, a rhythm, to spiritual growth, one of movement away and then movement towards. We move from attachment to detachment to Unity, from needing things to not needing things to realizing that there are no other things. Rather like a heartbeat, in a way, or the structure of music from consonance to dissonance to consonance again.

Fear and anger are caused by attachment, true, but they manifest as an attempt to separate, to flee from or destroy. They spring from attachment but both come from a denial of Unity.

CS

[Shabda]

Poor choice of words on my part. "Separation" works better, since "detachment" is often used in the context you bring up, as an opposite to clinging and needing. The amusing part is that attachment is really based on an idea of separation. One believes there is this other thing that they need to be complete, when in fact they are always and forever complete and this "other thing" is not something separate from them.

There is a pattern, a rhythm, to spiritual growth, one of movement away and then movement towards. We move from attachment to detachment to Unity, from needing things to not needing things to realizing that there are no other things. Rather like a heartbeat, in a way, or the structure of music from consonance to dissonance to consonance again.

Fear and anger are caused by attachment, true, but they manifest as an attempt to separate, to flee from or destroy. They spring from attachment but both come from a denial of Unity.

CS
ah-HA~! this time i agree with you~!

[athribiristan]

Judgement. Love accepts everything as perfect. The opposite is to sit in Judgement.

[aKuna]

The Opposite of LOVE is FEAR
FEAR creates the hate judgment indifference, all emotion which oppose Love
This is a polarity universe all things Must have an Opposite to exist in this reality.

[sound]

Nothing is opposite to love ...

[God-Like]

Nothing is opposite to love ...
Like that a lot sound.

If we look at my God Is Love pic then what Is the opposite of God.?

If what we are Is Love then what Is the opposite of what we are.

There Isn't an opposite. In that respect.

Is that kinda what you mean Sound.?

x daz x

[7luminaries]

I agree...Love is All...All is Love...there is no opposite to that which is All.

Agree with what many have said...as we experience love, then hate, fear, apathy etc are blocks to being in a state of love....but they are not exactly the opposite of love either. Since love is beyond (or before) all of these, it doesn't have an opposite...though, in practical terms, the blocks are often identified as opposites.

It's more that we have to deal with these blocks so that we can get back to our centre, to a place of love.

[Mountain-Goat]

I thought this was an appropriate question, considering tomorrow is Valentine's Day.

What do you think is the opposite of Love? Fear? Anger? Hatred? Indifference? Something else? Does Love have an opposite? I'd love (pun intended) to hear what you think.

CS

Everyone can formulate their own perception of what is love's opposite.
I think a more productive and beneficial thing to do for self and the planet
is for each individual to discover and remove what is opposing their recieving and giving of love.
Get that sorted and I assume one won't bother with wondering what's the opposite.

And just for some fun...
The opposite of love....
anti love
evol


And more seriously...what is it's opposite.
In the context of energy in action.
How about, not loving.
Which brings it back to discovering what's blocking one's giving and recieving.

[sound]

Like that a lot sound.

If we look at my God Is Love pic then what Is the opposite of God.?

If what we are Is Love then what Is the opposite of what we are.

There Isn't an opposite. In that respect.

Is that kinda what you mean Sound.?

x daz x
yes that is precisely what i mean daz ... and also what 7L has expressed above there ...

[CuriousSnowflake]

Everyone can formulate their own perception of what is love's opposite.
I think a more productive and beneficial thing to do for self and the planet
is for each individual to discover and remove what is opposing their recieving and giving of love.
Get that sorted and I assume one won't bother with wondering what's the opposite.

And just for some fun...
The opposite of love....
anti love
evol


And more seriously...what is it's opposite.
In the context of energy in action.
How about, not loving.
Which brings it back to discovering what's blocking one's giving and recieving.

Nicely said, and very much the point of this thread. If we each decide what our idea of Love's opposite is, that will naturally lead us towards drawing more and giving out more Love in our lives. Awareness breeds action.

CS

[Zeliar791]

Nicely said, and very much the point of this thread. If we each decide what our idea of Love's opposite is, that will naturally lead us towards drawing more and giving out more Love in our lives. Awareness breeds action.

CS

I prefer getting others to act for me.

[CuriousSnowflake]

I prefer getting others to act for me.

If we do not give love, we will not get love. All things you send forth return to you sevenfold. As you sow, so shall ye reap. For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. So in truth, the surest way to have something in our lives is to give that something to another. This then gives us the experience of having it, since how could we give it away if we did not have it to give?

CS

[Blaze]

"The opposite of love is not hate, the opposite of love is ignorance." ~Brian Hwang~

[Mountain-Goat]

Nicely said, and very much the point of this thread. If we each decide what our idea of Love's opposite is, that will naturally lead us towards drawing more and giving out more Love in our lives. Awareness breeds action.

CS
Tnxs CS. I don't know if it will naturally lead anyone anywhere.
Determining Love's opposite is far easier than sorting out one's self created hinderances.
Also, if a person concludes hate is the opposite, and they don't hate others, it doesn't automatically mean they are free from hinderances from recieving and giving love.

I mean, yes, exploring was done to conclude it's "hate", but that doesn't mean the person will continue exploring.

Maybe they will and maybe they won't.
I guess what I'm saying is, go for it, find the opposite, but don't stop there.
Look for what else is hindering.

I shutup now. ~smiles~

[Silver]

I read the first page of the thread, but I voted right away for indifference because they didn't have apathy.

I think it's ok to play along, even if there is no exact opposite to love.

I think love is a complete positive engagement of all one's emotions, and the senses and all parts of one's being is engaged in this positive thing going on, so the opposite is to not engage or to be indifferent or apathetic. my 2 cents.

[CuriousSnowflake]

Tnxs CS. I don't know if it will naturally lead anyone anywhere.
Determining Love's opposite is far easier than sorting out one's self created hinderances.
Also, if a person concludes hate is the opposite, and they don't hate others, it doesn't automatically mean they are free from hinderances from recieving and giving love.

I mean, yes, exploring was done to conclude it's "hate", but that doesn't mean the person will continue exploring.

Maybe they will and maybe they won't.
I guess what I'm saying is, go for it, find the opposite, but don't stop there.
Look for what else is hindering.

I shutup now. ~smiles~

Determining one's idea of the opposite of love can be a great way of discovering your self-created hindrances. Obviously this is not an end-all, be-all trick, but it is one of many that can help. Anything to bring a bit of extra clarity.

CS

[Mountain-Goat]

Determining one's idea of the opposite of love can be a great way of discovering your self-created hindrances. Obviously this is not an end-all, be-all trick, but it is one of many that can help. Anything to bring a bit of extra clarity.

CS
I agree. I'm just looking at the word usage.
Opposite is vastly different to apposing.

Opposite is a defined and specific thing.
Each person will have their unique take on that.
Just seems a bit of a potential dead end evaluating what's this specific opposite.
It can be taken as an academic exercise and not a self discovery exercise.
A person can look for the opposite of love and not even look within to discover what is hindering their love.

But what apposes - hinders/restricts the bi-directional flow of love can be many things within a person.
And it has potential to become a personal soul searching exercise. What is hindering my love?
These things - fear, anger, hatred, indifference, apathy, emptiness, disharmony, darkness, judgement...
when classified as the specific opposite, are not universal, not agreed upon, irrelivant to those that don't agree with each specific element.

But when these thing - fear, anger, hatred, indifference, apathy, emptiness, disharmony, darkness, judgement...
are universally accepted as things that oppose the bi-directional flow of love,
then each person can evaluate themselves to determine if they have these things hindering their love.
In this latter scenario, the knowing or formulating the exact opposite is irrelivant.

Again, I agree. You started the thread with the question of what is the opposite and it has lead to a deeper exploration.
All journeys are like this.

[Roselove]

Fear came to mind

[CuriousSnowflake]

I agree. I'm just looking at the word usage.
Opposite is vastly different to apposing.

Opposite is a defined and specific thing.
Each person will have their unique take on that.
Just seems a bit of a potential dead end evaluating what's this specific opposite.
It can be taken as an academic exercise and not a self discovery exercise.
A person can look for the opposite of love and not even look within to discover what is hindering their love.

But what apposes - hinders/restricts the bi-directional flow of love can be many things within a person.
And it has potential to become a personal soul searching exercise. What is hindering my love?
These things - fear, anger, hatred, indifference, apathy, emptiness, disharmony, darkness, judgement...
when classified as the specific opposite, are not universal, not agreed upon, irrelivant to those that don't agree with each specific element.

But when these thing - fear, anger, hatred, indifference, apathy, emptiness, disharmony, darkness, judgement...
are universally accepted as things that oppose the bi-directional flow of love,
then each person can evaluate themselves to determine if they have these things hindering their love.
In this latter scenario, the knowing or formulating the exact opposite is irrelivant.

Again, I agree. You started the thread with the question of what is the opposite and it has lead to a deeper exploration.
All journeys are like this.

Ahh, AC, it's been too long. I've missed your devil's-advocate clarity! My grandfather was the same way; argue not because you disagree, but just for the sake of the discussion.

I don't think it's the opposing vs. opposite delineation that keeps people from self-evaluation, I think that it's a certain person's propensity for self-evaluation that colors whether or not they see love as having a black-and-white opposite or a shades of grey set of opposing ideas. In my experience, people who don't like to examine themselves tend to see the world in stark dichotomies, and people who are more self-aware see shades of grey.

Not to say that nuances are better than dichotomies, or even that self-evaluation is better than not. It's all relative to what you want to do with your life. As in all things, the only "sin" in this world is telling another that your way is better than theirs.

CS

[7luminaries]

If we do not give love, we will not get love. All things you send forth return to you sevenfold. As you sow, so shall ye reap. For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. So in truth, the surest way to have something in our lives is to give that something to another. This then gives us the experience of having it, since how could we give it away if we did not have it to give?

CS


Very nice. The truth sets us free (to love).

[Shabda]

Love simply is, It is the ONLY true power, It can overcome any and all "negative" aspects or situations...there is nothing like It, nor has It any opposite, It is beyond any concept of duality...but what do i know??

[Swami Chihuahuananda]

Love simply is, It is the ONLY true power, It can overcome any and all "negative" aspects or situations...there is nothing like It, nor has It any opposite, It is beyond any concept of duality...but what do i know??


I would nitpick and say that nothing/everything is the ultimate, and from that comes beingness , and that love is an inherent quality of beingness . as soon beingness exists , it needs to be like something , so to speak , so it needs to be like love, and light , and grace , and wholeness, and infinite energy, to name a few, but what do I know, either ? :D I think it's probably good I didn't study philosophy , or I'd have tied myself in knots long ago
and stayed that way :cool:

D

[Shabda]

I would nitpick and say that nothing/everything is the ultimate, and from that comes beingness , and that love is an inherent quality of beingness . as soon beingness exists , it needs to be like something , so to speak , so it needs to be like love, and light , and grace , and wholeness, and infinite energy, to name a few, but what do I know, either ? :D I think it's probably good I didn't study philosophy , or I'd have tied myself in knots long ago
and stayed that way :cool:

D
then i would knitpick again and point out that the very terms "nothing/everything" denotes dualism and is therefore illusory, and so, both love and beingness have to come from beyond those concepts...but again, i know nothing....maybe we should start a "know nothing" club or something :D

[CuriousSnowflake]

then i would knitpick again and point out that the very terms "nothing/everything" denotes dualism and is therefore illusory, and so, both love and beingness have to come from beyond those concepts...but again, i know nothing....maybe we should start a "know nothing" club or something :D

I don't think Dar was trying to describe a dualistic idea. I think he was trying to use what Neale Donald Walsch calls "divine dichotomy" meaning an idea that holds both sides of a dichotomy within it without contradiction, and thus transcends the dual nature of human experience. In this case, he was trying to describe the Is/Not Is, that which contains both Beingness and Nothingness, and thus transcends both.

Another good way of describing Reality (and another NDW idea, can't help it, I'm a fan) is through the use of triune ideas, rather than diads. Diads, or dualities, are always illusory, while triads are usually three aspects of a single ideal, and thus are more "real". Love could well be one of these triads, made up of Eros (romantic love) Agape (friendship) and familial love, all of which are outgrowths of and cannot exist without love of self.

CS

[Gem]

then i would knitpick again and point out that the very terms "nothing/everything" denotes dualism and is therefore illusory, and so, both love and beingness have to come from beyond those concepts...but again, i know nothing....maybe we should start a "know nothing" club or something :D

It is only called 'illusory' because duality reaches beyond the limit of formal mental definition.

[Swami Chihuahuananda]

then i would knitpick again and point out that the very terms "nothing/everything" denotes dualism and is therefore illusory, and so, both love and beingness have to come from beyond those concepts...but again, i know nothing....maybe we should start a "know nothing" club or something :D

nothing/everything is to me that which is beyond both . from 'nothing' comes everything, and everything is nothing at all. I won't even get going with
the shenannigans of 'no thing' being 'every thing' , etc. I know nothing :D
(and I love it )

Captain Schultz :wink:

[Swami Chihuahuananda]

I don't think Dar was trying to describe a dualistic idea. I think he was trying to use what Neale Donald Walsch calls "divine dichotomy" meaning an idea that holds both sides of a dichotomy within it without contradiction, and thus transcends the dual nature of human experience. In this case, he was trying to describe the Is/Not Is, that which contains both Beingness and Nothingness, and thus transcends both.

Another good way of describing Reality (and another NDW idea, can't help it, I'm a fan) is through the use of triune ideas, rather than diads. CS

yes, the first part, exactly, thanks.

other examples of triads (besides the Christian trinity) ?

D

[Shabda]

It is only called 'illusory' because duality reaches beyond the limit of formal mental definition.
i disagree, illusion doesnt require mental definition to be an illusion...

[capricorn]

I voted for hatred.

[CuriousSnowflake]

yes, the first part, exactly, thanks.

other examples of triads (besides the Christian trinity) ?

D

Sure, here's a few examples.

-Time, which is Past, Present, and Future.
-Space, which is Here, There, and Inbetween
-Consciousness, which is Id, Ego, and Superego
-Action, which is Thought, Word, and Deed
-Self, which is Body, Mind, and Spirit

These are just what I can think of off the top of my head.

CS

[Gem]

i disagree, illusion doesnt require mental definition to be an illusion...

Sure it does... it needs to be described as 'illusion'.

[WhiteDevil]

I don't think hatred is it, there's a saying "there's a fine line between love and hate" I think this is true.

I think the closest thing to the opposite of love is total apathy/not caring at all.

[Mountain-Goat]

~smiles~ Thanks for the clarity observation CS, and I miss hanging with everyone as much as I used to when I was in QLD.

But I joyfully point out that I am neither taking on the role of devil's advocado or
arguing for the sake of the discussion. I'm simply exploring what is presented and offering my observations.

Of course, it depends on what you mean by arguing too, and what I think arguing means.
But then if this is done then along comes the winey faces complaining I am obsessing over semantics. ~laughs~
To which I would enquire of the wining and dining types, and offer this question,
one of my dawta's fav quotes, "Why the face?" ~more laughter~

I do not know how others see or evaluate though I find your observations of the two types quite interesting.
And I concur it's definately one reason why they do so.
However, a "grey" can also come to a definitive answer regarding the exact opposite.
~laughs~ Apparently, my fav food is a can of worms.
I can't help it. When a topic is explored, the tangents and paths just go on forever.

It just there is potential that exploring the exact opposite is non personal. No looking within.
Like asking another, "What's 1+1?"
But if one asks another, "What's stopping you from loving?", then it can only be taken as personal.
The focus is pointed instantly and directly at oneself.

It's all relative to what you want to do with your life."
Yes. And I will add to that, that each person has the potential to do the impossible.
The impossible being what each person believes is impossible.
This then expands one's life from a small finite state to one of infinite possibilities.

The infinite possibilities lie beyond the path of finding the exact opposite of love.
Just like the kid shaman from The Mighty Boosh says, "Let's have it large !"

I've just reread what I have written. ~laughs ~ I am ranting, but I'm enjoying myself.

The "black and whites", the dichotomites, and the "greys", the self awarians.
Is not the whole theory of these two types of people also a dichotomy?
How about each person has black and white areas, greys,
places where their beliefs are rigid, and others where there is a free flow of change and adaptability.

Which brings me back to the 'life is relative to what a person wants to do with it' thing.
Wanting to do things with your life ,it seems logical that the first port of call is to know self.
Once you know what you are capable of, then you know what you can do with your life.

And the best thing is that when you self explore, the more you find out about yourself, thus you realise you are capable of much more than before you started self exploring.
And where does it end? It look infinite from where I stand.


Ahh, AC, it's been too long. I've missed your devil's-advocate clarity! My grandfather was the same way; argue not because you disagree, but just for the sake of the discussion.

I don't think it's the opposing vs. opposite delineation that keeps people from self-evaluation, I think that it's a certain person's propensity for self-evaluation that colors whether or not they see love as having a black-and-white opposite or a shades of grey set of opposing ideas. In my experience, people who don't like to examine themselves tend to see the world in stark dichotomies, and people who are more self-aware see shades of grey.

Not to say that nuances are better than dichotomies, or even that self-evaluation is better than not. It's all relative to what you want to do with your life. As in all things, the only "sin" in this world is telling another that your way is better than theirs.

CS

[Swami Chihuahuananda]

Sure, here's a few examples.

-Time, which is Past, Present, and Future.
-Space, which is Here, There, and Inbetween
-Consciousness, which is Id, Ego, and Superego
-Action, which is Thought, Word, and Deed
-Self, which is Body, Mind, and Spirit

These are just what I can think of off the top of my head.

CS

ok, thanks. that works.

I found Hermetic Principles very interesting. One is Polarity , which is about things that appear dualistic are actually just at different ends of the spectrim of the same phenomenon, hot and cold being a prime example, but it carries over to "all things", actually . With that perspective, duality in many things is seen as an illusion , and things that appear as opposite are really two sides of the same coin .

DS

[CuriousSnowflake]

~smiles~ Thanks for the clarity observation CS, and I miss hanging with everyone as much as I used to when I was in QLD.

But I joyfully point out that I am neither taking on the role of devil's advocado or
arguing for the sake of the discussion. I'm simply exploring what is presented and offering my observations.

Of course, it depends on what you mean by arguing too, and what I think arguing means.
But then if this is done then along comes the winey faces complaining I am obsessing over semantics. ~laughs~
To which I would enquire of the wining and dining types, and offer this question,
one of my dawta's fav quotes, "Why the face?" ~more laughter~

I rather enjoy your "obsessing over semantics"; it allows me no room for sloppy logic. And I agree, what does "arguing" mean? Perhaps I should replace it with "spirited discussion", pun most definitely intended. :D

I do not know how others see or evaluate though I find your observations of the two types quite interesting.
And I concur it's definately one reason why they do so.
However, a "grey" can also come to a definitive answer regarding the exact opposite.
~laughs~ Apparently, my fav food is a can of worms.
I can't help it. When a topic is explored, the tangents and paths just go on forever.

It just there is potential that exploring the exact opposite is non personal. No looking within.
Like asking another, "What's 1+1?"
But if one asks another, "What's stopping you from loving?", then it can only be taken as personal.
The focus is pointed instantly and directly at oneself.

You're right, and I don't think it's a coincidence that, when you make the question personal, the black and white dichotomies disappear. Dichotomies only really exist as value judgements about external circumstances. They are labels we create to define our preferences relative to a finite system, not innate aspects of our reality. For example, temperature. Temperature is the measure of mean kinetic energy within a system, which we then label, based upon past experiences, location, time of year, preferences, and our own bodies' temperature, as "hot" or "cold". Hot and cold do not exist, they are merely our ideas about temperature.

Once we start talking about inner experience, however, it all becomes relativistic. Rarely does anyone with a healthy mindset cast their thoughts, words, or actions in black and white terms. Far more often we judge ourselves in relatively. This tension between inner relativism and external dichotomies is how we self-define. We observe our world, decide our preferences, and internalize them into a relative framework from which we choose our thoughts, words, and deeds. As we progress spiritually, we learn to see the external world less in terms of our black and white judgements and more in terms similar to our own relative ideas.

This, IMHO, describes the arc of human evolution, a movement from judging the world to identifying with it, of "walking in someone else's shoes".

Yes. And I will add to that, that each person has the potential to do the impossible.
The impossible being what each person believes is impossible.
This then expands one's life from a small finite state to one of infinite possibilities.

The infinite possibilities lie beyond the path of finding the exact opposite of love.
Just like the kid shaman from The Mighty Boosh says, "Let's have it large !"

Absolutely! All limitations are self-created and self-sustained. Don't remember who said it, but "life begins at the end of your comfort zone".

The "black and whites", the dichotomites, and the "greys", the self awarians.
Is not the whole theory of these two types of people also a dichotomy?
How about each person has black and white areas, greys,
places where their beliefs are rigid, and others where there is a free flow of change and adaptability.

"Dichotomites and Self-Awarians", oh that's perfect! Brings "The Time Machine" to mind, with the Morlocks and the Eloi. But I digress. The terms may well be a dichotomy, but what they describe is a spectrum of consciousness, a whole rainbow of shades of gray, so to speak. Everyone has Dichotomite and Awarian in them, to varying degrees and under varying circumstances. (I am so copywriting those terms!) But I think it could be safely said that, as one evolves, one becomes less Dichotomite in general.

Which brings me back to the 'life is relative to what a person wants to do with it' thing.
Wanting to do things with your life ,it seems logical that the first port of call is to know self.
Once you know what you are capable of, then you know what you can do with your life.

And the best thing is that when you self explore, the more you find out about yourself, thus you realise you are capable of much more than before you started self exploring.
And where does it end? It look infinite from where I stand.

You cannot truly know what you want until you define "you". So in many ways, the question is not what do you want, but what limitations do you choose to allow. "All goes upwards and outwards, nothing collapses", and you're right, it looks infinite from over here, too. :smile:

CS

[CuriousSnowflake]

ok, thanks. that works.

I found Hermetic Principles very interesting. One is Polarity , which is about things that appear dualistic are actually just at different ends of the spectrim of the same phenomenon, hot and cold being a prime example, but it carries over to "all things", actually . With that perspective, duality in many things is seen as an illusion , and things that appear as opposite are really two sides of the same coin .

DS

Gee, this is the same thing AC and I were talking about! You're right, but triunes still hold a special place outside of typical dichotomies, IMHO.

CS

[Mountain-Goat]

I so enjoyed reading your reply CS.
Big smile on me dial while reading.
I reply next time I'm on.

[sunny shine]

i learnt in school that the opposite of love is hate :-)

[Time]

Theres no all of the above in the poll....

[Ciqala]

I voted for Fear, as without having a concept of love, humans are fear based creatures, and the only thing that diminishes fear, is love. Fear cannot exist where love is.

Hatred is caused by fear.

Mentally... psychologically, the only thing that ever creates anger, resentment, hatred or any negative feeling... is always fear. The only thing that creates ego is fear. The only thing that ever creates anything negative is fear. Fear is the complete polar opposite of love, and is the dominating factor of every other negative sentiment and action in this world. The reason jerks are jerks, is because of fear. The crawling sickness that creates a sociopath is fear. Fear is the ultimate thing this world and every human needs to combat. And love is the cure.

[Time]

We are also forgetting, that we have both. Both balance out eachother. Each plays its part in our psyche. Every action has an equil an dopposite reaction. Therefore, to love, creates hate, and to hate creates love.

IF fear/hate wasnt supposed to be here, we wouldnt experience it. Its the fact that we allow ourselves to have an outlet for it. This is why art was so importiant in ancient civs. And also why so much ancient art is so angry, and demonic, its how they excersised their demons. Same with ritulistic dancing and singing.

The only thing wrong with fate/fear is that its so prevalent in our society. Hate and fear pop up when we are ususaly in danger, or a need to be on guard. They body pumps addrenaline into our system, our seneces highten, we becore more alert,a nd erady to run at a moments notice. Thats exactly what is going on in society today. From tv adds, to war, to the fact we can barly walk down the street without being paranoid about someone wanting to rob us. In our news papers, internet, entertainment and everything. Sure I totaly belive fear and hate is a natural responce and natural emotions, but there is no reason why we need to literaly paint society with it.

We need to learn that fear/hate is a part of us, and learn to exsersise these feelings, and not let them build up so much that we lash out at eachother, due to our own insecurities, and inability to release our emotions .

[Perspective]

I don't think hatred is it, there's a saying "there's a fine line between love and hate" I think this is true.

I think the closest thing to the opposite of love is total apathy/not caring at all.I agree WhiteDevil.
It gives more meaning to the term, Ignor-ance.

[Mountain-Goat]

I rather enjoy your "obsessing over semantics"; it allows me no room for sloppy logic. And I agree, what does "arguing" mean? Perhaps I should replace it with "spirited discussion", pun most definitely intended.
Hey, same here. I would not be here today if I did not explore.

And sloppy logic can be from, laziness, impatience, short sightedness(one's level of awareness), and most likely a few more.
I'm not looking at you as I wrote those. I'm seeing that I had these when I first embarked on the inner journey.
Convinced I had reached the end of a journey, when in fact I had just taken my first step on the path.

Or...simply define your usage of 'arguing.'

But, here's another example of why English can be quite silly at times, and maybe all languages suffer the same silliness.
I do not know as I only know English.
Argument:
1: A fact or assertion offered as evidence that something is true.
2: A contentious speech act; a dispute where there is strong disagreement.

Ah, upon reflection, the silliness is not in language, it's within the person using it.
Yes, using one word to define two states is silly, but...
Definition 1, reflects people who state facts, then discuss it rationally and logically.
Definition 2, reflects people who state facts except, emotions come into play and then there's the yelling and screaming, name calling and some reference to someone's mother.

Why do people get all worked up about disagreements, even unimportant ones? Big canaworms that one !

Case in point: I'm tone blind, especially under fluro lighting.
Dawta used to get worked up because, eg, I say that car is black.
She says I'm wrong, it's dark green.
I look carefully...no, it's black.
Oh you stoopid old man, it's dark green, look !
Who stoopid?, look, I'm tone blind, when I look at that car I see black, I am not wrong or right, I simply see black.
You are also neither right or wrong, you simply see dark green.
You have one perception, I have another.
No, it's dark green and you're blind.
Ah no, tone blind, not blind. Tone blind means I see colors, but I have trouble clarifying shades.
No, you're an old man who can't see properly.
In the grand scheme of things, is it important what color this car is?
Yes, you old blind crazy man.
~laughs~

Anyways...arguing is not the problem, it's when emotions get in the way.
Which I have been re exploring, as shared by my last post in my apple/ego thread.
Three levels of living: emotionally, rationally and spiritually. Body, soul and spirit.
There aren't really three levels, three parts to a person.
There's only one person, that chooses to either live from the surface, the emotionally reactive zone,
or from the deep, where calm compassionate understanding is the norm.
(1)You're right, and I don't think it's a coincidence that, when you make the question personal, the black and white dichotomies disappear.
(2)Dichotomies only really exist as value judgements about external circumstances.
They are labels we create to define our preferences relative to a finite system, not innate aspects of our reality.
For example, temperature. Temperature is the measure of mean kinetic energy within a system, which we then label, based upon past experiences, location, time of year, preferences,
and our own bodies' temperature, as "hot" or "cold". Hot and cold do not exist, they are merely our ideas about temperature.
I agree with you, and add to your insights...

1: I do not know if it's right. It logically fits, the math adds up, it makes sense and it works. That's as far as I will label it.
Haar, sometimes, when the question is made personal, the person disappears, not the dichotomies.
The ideal outcome of making questions personal is for the person to look within and remove that which hinders - the self healing journey.
But, and I again use myself as an example, many times when I was confronted by others or self, I ran back to my safe house, my comfortable zone.
The questions pointed directly to an issue that produced buckets of pain that I was at that time, unwilling or unable to accept and explore.
My current ability to powerfully self heal has been achieved by taking many small steps into the painful areas over many years.
Self healing is like great hair, "It won't happen overnight, but it will happen." <--- from a Wella ad from a few years ago.

The dichotomies disappear when a person is willing and courageous enough to go in and have a look, realise, and thus remove them.
Willing to live beyond them, inspired by the thought that all things are possible, fascinated by what lies beyond one's current beliefs/conclusions/dichotomies.

Re: healing, self healing and confronting.

My mum is a mess. I say this respectfully because I know what a mess is. I was a mess. Hey, I tried to kill myself mid 2007.
My mum is a bigger mess than I was, but her mess is different, suicide is not a deep contemplation for her.
I cannot heal her. That it her responsibility and power, but I daily create an environment that will aid her healing.
I don't criticise, I accept her, I allow her to vent, I am not offended or drained of energy by her behavior, but I also confront.
I do so with compassion and understanding. I take the initiative to bring these wounds to her attention.
She's lost, I am found. She's groping around in her self created darkness, I offer my light.

In order for healing to take place, the wounds must be addressed, brought to her attention.
I poke and I prod her soul. If I push too much, she will recoil from too much pain.
If I push too little, the problem is not addressed.
Within our growing relationship, I am finding her optimal level at which she will look within herself, and her trust of me grows to allow me to continue to poke and prod.
Yeah, her surface self lashes out in various forms as I touch the wounds, but I see within and her inner self appreciates my efforts.

My initial diagnosis was 10 years for her complete inner healing. I've been taking care of her for 4 months now,
and with the small specks of change I have seen in her, she could self heal much sooner.
I don't even bother with time frames now, I simply continue to love her.
I shed my light on her and she will come out of her darkness according to her own time schedule.

If a person is in darkness and has been for many years...light, although the thing they have been looking for all their life, hurts their eyes.
Being exposed is painful. Getting a jolly good eyeful of the mess inside you is not a pleasurable experience.
It must be done gradually so as not to overwhelm. Allow time to adjust, change to each new realisation, then move onto the next wound.

2: I like your analogy CS. So, dichotomies, like beliefs, assumptions, conclusions, theories, etc...appear to me as starting points or points of reference.
They are the first port of call on the journey. They become hinderances when they are regarded as the final destination, truths.
There is more to the subject than those things if one is willing to go beyond them.
These are surface things and there is much more to what these are pointing to if one goes deeper into them.
Exactly as we are doing with the subject of this thread.
Once we start talking about inner experience, however, it all becomes relativistic. Rarely does anyone with a healthy mindset cast their thoughts, words, or actions in black and white terms. Far more often we judge ourselves in relatively. This tension between inner relativism and external dichotomies is how we self-define. We observe our world, decide our preferences, and internalize them into a relative framework from which we choose our thoughts, words, and deeds. As we progress spiritually, we learn to see the external world less in terms of our black and white judgements and more in terms similar to our own relative ideas.
I do not fully understand this CS, please give some examples of a relativistic view, a healthy mindset view, inner relativism and outer dichotomies.
I ask because I see Jesus and Buddha both had strong black and white views as well as grey, at the same time.
This, IMHO, describes the arc of human evolution, a movement from judging the world to identifying with it, of "walking in someone else's shoes".
Ah, but Judging - the cognitive process of reaching a decision or drawing conclusions, is required to identify with it.
I assume you were using 'judging' in place of 'criticising', yes? But they are not synonymous.
I take it you are speaking of the separateness V oneness mindsets? The former is adversarial to all things and the latter is unified.
Absolutely! All limitations are self-created and self-sustained. Don't remember who said it, but "life begins at the end of your comfort zone".
Haa! A damn fine quote!

Hey, speaking of limitations, I percieve that last week I have self healed of another incurable disease.
I say percieve because my inner self says to my outer self that the healing has taken place but my outer self is not convinced.
I await confirmation. Being confident of what my inner self says is new to me hence the confirmation requirement.
It's a strange grey area of being 100% sure, but I require confirmation.
There's no self condemnation of doubting, I simply ask for confirmation which I will compassionately give.

I went through the same process when I healed of depression. Within 3 days I knew I was healed, but I tested myself for 12 months to confirm it.
The scientifically minded part of me, which I deeply appreciate as much as my intuitive part...
I want to test and confirm because I have been mistaken before, by allowing information and feelings to form into beliefs.
I have developed a systematic approach, incorporating all elements of my being that has worked well, so I will continue to use it till it is no longer required.
"Dichotomites and Self-Awarians", oh that's perfect! Brings "The Time Machine" to mind, with the Morlocks and the Eloi. But I digress. The terms may well be a dichotomy, but what they describe is a spectrum of consciousness, a whole rainbow of shades of gray, so to speak. Everyone has Dichotomite and Awarian in them, to varying degrees and under varying circumstances. (I am so copywriting those terms!) But I think it could be safely said that, as one evolves, one becomes less Dichotomite in general.
You are speaking of the original Time Machine, yes? Not a fan of the new version. They massacred it, just like Tim Burton massacring, Planet of the Apes and Willy Wonka.
Notice how you say, "less Dichotomite in general". How come not, total removal?
You cannot truly know what you want until you define "you". So in many ways, the question is not what do you want, but what limitations do you choose to allow. "All goes upwards and outwards, nothing collapses", and you're right, it looks infinite from over here, too.
What about downward? As reflected in the physical, one cannot build a permanent structure up if one does not build down.
Depth, foundation. Buildings needs strong footing that go deep into the earth. Huge trees have roots that go deep and wide.
The greater the depth, the more one is able to withstand the storms of life, and the higher one can go.

Infinite is all directions.

To me, the depth I speak of is by going inside oneself.
If one is secure in oneself, no outside forces can hurt you. You may bend, but you won't break.
Actually, being secure in oneself, it's a joy to bend.
My brother and his friend bet that I would last 2 weeks with mum before she drove me crazy and I would move out and live with him.
It's been 4 months now and every day is a joy.
Everytime these people comment, jokingly or serious about how hard it must be for me to live with her, I always reply with how every moment with my mother is a joy.
The looks on their faces is priceless !
Maybe one day they will ask how I can do this.
But maybe they don't because they know their lives will be confronted.-

[CuriousSnowflake]

I do not fully understand this CS, please give some examples of a relativistic view, a healthy mindset view, inner relativism and outer dichotomies.

I ask because I see Jesus and Buddha both had strong black and white views as well as grey, at the same time.

And who said they were perfect? C'mon, Yeshua was the guy who got ticked because a fig tree had no figs on it and withered it on the spot. Don't sound too "perfect" to me! :D

Okay, let's use an extreme example; the Nazis. Imagine a young concentration camp Kommandant. How does he see the world? Perhaps he fully believes the propaganda, that the Jews are a plague. Perhaps he is ambitious and sees falling in with the Final Solution his only option to move up in the ranks. Perhaps he sees himself as having no choice, that it's either this or freeze to death on the front lines of Russia. Whatever the case may be, he sees his actions in shades of gray, as foul but necessary or as his only option.

But now let's see our Kommandant through the eyes of the Jews. To them, he is an inhuman monster, a vile purveyor of death. How can anyone who thoughtlessly puts so many to death be anything else? They judge their external experiences in black and white, good and bad, and cast those in their lives appropriately.

To continue with this analogy, let's use the character Amon Goetz from the movie "Schindler's List" as an example of an "unhealthy" mindset. Goetz was a complete sociopath, a monster who gave no more thought to the humanness of the Jews under his thumb than he would to a hillfull of ants. For him, the black and white-ness of the external world has bled over into his internal perspective; his desires are "white", anything in the way of them is "black". The ultimate example of this in the movie is when he beats his maid Helen Hirsch for "tempting" him; he is "white", yet to desire a Jew is "black", so therefore it must be her fouling him.

Oskar Schindler, OTOH, is a perfect example of a "growing" soul, one who begins to see the external world with empathy and relativism. In the beginning, he is a little Goetz, a gladhanding, womanizing, selfish man taking advantage of the suffering of a people to line his pockets. By the end he has changed completely, almost despising the trappings of the world and only seeing them in terms of how he could use them to help others. He cannot look upon another soul in the world without feeling a connection, a realness to and with them.

Ah, but Judging - the cognitive process of reaching a decision or drawing conclusions, is required to identify with it.

I assume you were using 'judging' in place of 'criticising', yes? But they are not synonymous.

I take it you are speaking of the separateness V oneness mindsets? The former is adversarial to all things and the latter is unified.

For me judging = labeling, i.e. the slapping of internally-created dichotomies onto external circumstances. There's nothing wrong with doing so (in fact calling something "wrong" is one of the most common examples of this very process), but believing that these labels are external truths and not internal points of view is not conducive to growth or happiness.

In fact, this ties in nicely to my earlier comments. People may see themselves in relative terms, but they create (within themselves) these dichotomous ideas about the outside world. As one gains a degree of wisdom, one begins to realize that the external world is just as relative as our internal world.

You are speaking of the original Time Machine, yes? Not a fan of the new version. They massacred it, just like Tim Burton massacring, Planet of the Apes and Willy Wonka.

Notice how you say, "less Dichotomite in general". How come not, total removal?

I was speaking of the original H. G. Wells book, actually, but the old movie was quite good. With all the remakes lately (not a one as good as their source material), I'm starting to think Hollywood is running out of ideas.

I don't think total removal is possible, because to be truly total, we would have to blink out of existence as a distinct individual. As long as a distinct physical self exists, so does some degree of perception of separation and dichotomies. The very first dichotomy, after all, is "I" and "You/That".

What about downward? As reflected in the physical, one cannot build a permanent structure up if one does not build down. Depth, foundation. Buildings needs strong footing that go deep into the earth. Huge trees have roots that go deep and wide. The greater the depth, the more one is able to withstand the storms of life, and the higher one can go.

Infinite is all directions.

Oh, I agree, I just can't pass up a chance to quote "Leaves of Grass". I love me some Whitman. :D

CS

[Mountain-Goat]

~smiles~ Haven't forgotten our convo CS. Will reply soon.

[Mountain-Goat]

And who said they were perfect?
~smiles~ Not me...and not you. And if neither of us, why have you bring it up, CS?
C'mon, Yeshua was the guy who got ticked because a fig tree had no figs on it and withered it on the spot. Don't sound too "perfect" to me!
You said this, in your previous post...
Once we start talking about inner experience, however, it all becomes relativistic. Rarely does anyone with a healthy mindset cast their thoughts, words, or actions in black and white terms. Far more often we judge ourselves in relatively. This tension between inner relativism and external dichotomies is how we self-define. We observe our world, decide our preferences, and internalize them into a relative framework from which we choose our thoughts, words, and deeds. As we progress spiritually, we learn to see the external world less in terms of our black and white judgements and more in terms similar to our own relative ideas.
Here you are saying a person with a healthy mindset rarely has dichotomian thoughts.
Further down you say, as we progress spiritually, again, we reduce these dichotomian thoughts.
I then said, but Jesus and Buddha, two deeply spiritual and healthy minded individuals displayed much dichotomia,
and you replied with, "C'mon, they ain't perfect!"
~smiles~ Huh?
I always perceived Jesus was offering a teaching.
If your branch of thoughts do not produce nourishing fruit, remove the tree.
Okay, let's use an extreme example; the Nazis. Imagine a young concentration camp Kommandant. How does he see the world? Perhaps he fully believes the propaganda, that the Jews are a plague. Perhaps he is ambitious and sees falling in with the Final Solution his only option to move up in the ranks. Perhaps he sees himself as having no choice, that it's either this or freeze to death on the front lines of Russia. Whatever the case may be, he sees his actions in shades of gray, as foul but necessary or as his only option.
But now let's see our Kommandant through the eyes of the Jews. To them, he is an inhuman monster, a vile purveyor of death. How can anyone who thoughtlessly puts so many to death be anything else? They judge their external experiences in black and white, good and bad, and cast those in their lives appropriately.
To continue with this analogy, let's use the character Amon Goetz from the movie "Schindler's List" as an example of an "unhealthy" mindset. Goetz was a complete sociopath, a monster who gave no more thought to the humanness of the Jews under his thumb than he would to a hillfull of ants. For him, the black and white-ness of the external world has bled over into his internal perspective; his desires are "white", anything in the way of them is "black". The ultimate example of this in the movie is when he beats his maid Helen Hirsch for "tempting" him; he is "white", yet to desire a Jew is "black", so therefore it must be her fouling him.
Oskar Schindler, OTOH, is a perfect example of a "growing" soul, one who begins to see the external world with empathy and relativism. In the beginning, he is a little Goetz, a gladhanding, womanizing, selfish man taking advantage of the suffering of a people to line his pockets. By the end he has changed completely, almost despising the trappings of the world and only seeing them in terms of how he could use them to help others. He cannot look upon another soul in the world without feeling a connection, a realness to and with them.
Very descriptive CS, thankyou. And a good choice because I have seen the movie and I see exactly what you have described.
But alas, I find myself still confused regarding the dichotomy thing.
This is what I still don't understand...
From your previous post...
Dichotomies only really exist as value judgements about external circumstances.
They are labels we create to define our preferences relative to a finite system, not innate aspects of our reality.
As seen in the Jews' perception of the Kommandant, and of Goetz' perception of Jews.
But with Goetz, you say the external world is a dichotomy and that this external world bled into his internal perspective....
that the dichotomy is external and not an internal value judgement of the individual.
You don't specifically call the external world a dichotomy, you call it a dichotominess "black and white-ness",
but "ness" means state or condition anyways.
You also appear to be saying than an unhealthy mindset(Goetz) is created when the dichotomy/dichotominess of the external world influences the perception of a person.
For me judging = labeling, i.e. the slapping of internally-created dichotomies onto external circumstances. There's nothing wrong with doing so (in fact calling something "wrong" is one of the most common examples of this very process), but believing that these labels are external truths and not internal points of view is not conducive to growth or happiness.
~still smiling~ and still having trouble following this dichotomy thing.
How is me calling a tree, a tree, a dichotomy and that in doing so is not conductive of my growth or happiness?
That is my circumstance. I am walking along, I come to a thing, a tall brown thing with green all over the top, I call it a tree.
If there's nothing wrong with labeling things, having a dichotomian mindset, why state a healthy mind must have less of those types of thoughts, and to progress spiritually one must have less of them?
Please define dichotomy and or your useage of it. I've looked at the dictionary definition, but that has not dispelled my confusion.
In fact, this ties in nicely to my earlier comments. People may see themselves in relative terms, but they create (within themselves) these dichotomous ideas about the outside world. As one gains a degree of wisdom, one begins to realize that the external world is just as relative as our internal world.
This passage is unclear to me because of this, "people may see themselves in relative terms". Relative to what, CS?
I was speaking of the original H. G. Wells book, actually, but the old movie was quite good. With all the remakes lately (not a one as good as their source material), I'm starting to think Hollywood is running out of ideas.
The world is awash with ideas. Maybe Hollywood have also fallen into the seductive trap of remaining in their comfort zone.
I don't think total removal is possible, because to be truly total, we would have to blink out of existence as a distinct individual. As long as a distinct physical self exists, so does some degree of perception of separation and dichotomies. The very first dichotomy, after all, is "I" and "You/That".
But isn't this individualistic existence part of the totality?
Isn't the physical realm a defined amount of the sum of the whole?
Oh, I agree, I just can't pass up a chance to quote "Leaves of Grass". I love me some Whitman.
Ahh..what?