Fundamental Differences of Understanding..

[sound]

Originally Posted by sound

Simple, and very poignant andrew ... yes we do!

After re-reading my response, i used the word we ... that was a bit careless and i have questioned others for doing that ... i will amend that and say Yes i do!...

Originally Posted by Moonglow

Hello,

What I see is sometimes in the understanding of how one labels something "to be". Yes I can get tied up in this as well. This to my understanding is in order to communicate or express an idea/experience/description. This I feel is understood.

Perhaps though it is when someone persists in presenting these things and that the terms used are the only ones that apply or do not apply. Then there seems to be a debate as to whether or not this is so. By persisting that one point of view is the "best", I feel can give a feeling of invalidating other points of view, IMO.

Perhaps being open to understand where the other is coming from and this has been established, then can just allow the use of terms choose by each to be used. Carry on the subject at hand and the sides being presented.

I notice that at times (and this is not to criticize) that threads can get weighed down by debating over how a term should be used. Even after it has been explained by those involved how he/she is using it.

Just presenting some thoughts on communicating. Sorry if this interrupts the flow here, a little.

Peace

When someone says 'The universe is XXXX', I understand that to mean XXXX is the way they see the universe.

When someone comes back and says person YYYY is wrong, they are in fact the one that is imposing their reality over another. They are not only saying the universe is ZZZZ, which is not a crime IMO,but going further and intentionally trying to invalidate another's view.

In short, I have no problem with self-validation, but it takes a definite negative turn when that self-validation necessitates invalidating another.

An entire thread devoted to that under the guise of 'discussion' is just another aspect of this.

[andrew g]

Originally Posted by LIFE

If I may interject- this is not the same thing and I'll explain why.

The conviction that "life-ing" (your term, andrew) is ultimately "all love" is indeed a belief. You have chosen what is known by a particular value and have contended that all the variations of beingness are ultimately that.

To attach to one value, meaning, and/or purpose of "life-ing" as fundamental is radically different from positing that "life-ing" is fundamentally devoid of any particular value, meaning, or purpose.

If one has directly experienced this lack of inherent meaning, purpose, or value of "life-ing", then there is, by definition, no meaning, purpose, or value to which one can attach.

Value-less is not value. To say that it is and that one is attached to it, is just a rather unproductive circular word game. So is the nature of language that it can be made to flip back on itself.

"Attached to non-attachment" is self-negating contradiction in terms. Hence, another word game.

There is nothing about "life-ing" to which "life-ing" can attach.

Value-less is attributing value. Its a value of no value. It is exactly the same game, and as I have said, as a strategy for dealing with the pains of life, I can relate to it. However, it is logically incorrect. In order for it to be correct, there has to be either absolute opposites, or a source point out of which Life emerges. Neither model is correct (though the latter model might be a useful 'teaching' model at times).

I wouldnt deny that 'all love' is a belief. But 'empty' is equally a belief, and it doesnt stand up. As humans we are believers. Its what we do. And the reason we do that is because of the way the human mind works. We attribute meaning! Ultimately, if there was no negative emotion, there would be no thinking or saying 'all love' (or 'empty'). But for as long as there is negative emotion, it makes much more logical sense to say 'all love' than it does 'empty'.

In this sense, for us humans, there is only attachment (though to be fair, some experience deeper, more intese attachment than others). Non-attachment is just a pointer to less intense, less deep attachment! I have no idea if you are more attached to ''empty'' than I am to ''all love''. It really doesnt make a difference to the debate, but to say that those who say ''all love'' are attached and those who say ''empty'' are not, again, does not stand up. In my opinion though, those who say ''all love'' demonstrate a lot of courage and faith because the surface appearances often suggest ''not all love''

[Moonglow]

Originally Posted by Humm

When someone says 'The universe is XXXX', I understand that to mean XXXX is the way they see the universe.

When someone comes back and says person YYYY is wrong, they are in fact the one that is imposing their reality over another. They are not only saying the universe is ZZZZ, which is not a crime IMO,but going further and intentionally trying to invalidate another's view.

In short, I have no problem with self-validation, but it takes a definite negative turn when that self-validation necessitates invalidating another.

An entire thread devoted to that under the guise of 'discussion' is just another aspect of this.

Hi Humm,

Thank you for the insight. I have noticed this type of exchange going on over the years as well.

So what do you think is a good solution to this?

Greetings..

Originally Posted by andrew g

I can see that you really do think that I am attached to the concept of 'love' but equally I could say that you are attached to setting aside concepts! There really is no point in suggesting the attachment thing Bob, because you are demonstrating exactly the same behaviour. I havent been witness to many of the conversations between you and Humm, but Humm is correct when he suggests that you accuse people of stuff that you are demonstrating yourself.

Yes, I can be still and observe, but that neither negates or adds to the logic of the argument Im presenting. Im not suggesting a 'concept' is fundamental, that would be kind of a crazy thing to argue wouldnt it? Im saying that what we all recognize to be love is fundamental. When we say the word, we all have a sense of understanding of what is being spoken of. Yes we could talk about many types and capacities of 'love', but the moment the word is said we dont say 'Huh? Whats that?' There is a reference for it.

I am attached to clarity, Andrew.. and, i have discovered the most clarity when concepts and beliefs are set aside..

"Love", in the new-age 'everything' kind way, is not consistent with the understandings the majority of people.. it is not defined that way by common references< see the Wikipedia reference below:

Originally Posted by Wikipedia

Love is an emotion of a strong affection and personal attachment.[1] Love is also a virtue representing all of human kindness, compassion, and affection; and "the unselfish loyal and benevolent concern for the good of another".[2] Love may also be described as actions towards others or oneself based on compassion, or as actions towards others based on affection.[3]
In English, love refers to a variety of different feelings, states, and attitudes, ranging from pleasure ("I loved that meal") to interpersonal attraction ("I love my partner"). "Love" may refer specifically to the passionate desire and intimacy of romantic love, to the sexual love of eros, to the emotional closeness of familial love, to the platonic love that defines friendship,[4] or to the profound oneness or devotion of religious love.[5] This diversity of uses and meanings, combined with the complexity of the feelings involved, makes love unusually difficult to consistently define, compared to other emotional states.
Love in its various forms acts as a major facilitator of interpersonal relationships and, owing to its central psychological importance, is one of the most common themes in the creative arts.[6]
Love may be understood as part of the survival instinct, a function to keep human beings together against menaces and to facilitate the continuation of the species.[7]

This is the thing, redefining language to suit a particular belief.. yes, there is indeed a fundamental energetic resonance, and 'love', as a description, is far too limited to be a valid reference.. 'love' is poor shorthand for an authentic personal description, and.. 'love' is imposed, almost militantly, by a self-appointed group of 'enlightened' beings.. most of whom refuse to try to actually describe their authentic experience, insisting that the word 'love' is sufficient for all causes.. is there no courage to really dig into this amazing condition? to bare it's personal "Truth" that those unfamiliar see more than a 'trite' prancing about of a single 'word'? I've all but begged for 6 years to actually explore this subject beyond the 'easy way out' of, "it's indescribable", or it's "everything"... share the actual experiences of sensing and experiencing this condition called 'love'.. or, is it simply too convenient to take the fall-back position, "if you haven't experienced it, you won't understand"?

Be well..

Originally Posted by Moonglow

Hi Humm,

Thank you for the insight. I have noticed this type of exchange going on over the years as well.

So what do you think is a good solution to this?

The short answer is there is no 'good' solution.

To insist no one try to impose their view is itself an imposition.

It is simply up to the individual to grow to the point of recognizing the inherent worth and value of all individuals and their viewpoints (within certain caveats), and that will happen in it's own good time.

[Silver]

Originally Posted by Humm

'Love' has a special place though. Nothing else on this forum seems to ignite the strong sentiments that the word 'love' does.

My first sig was simply the words 'I love you'. I specifically chose it with the thinking 'Who would find that offensive?' (thinking no one could) Much to my surprise, I was immediately besieged by a number of angry posters who reacted as though I had inflicted a very grave offense, calling me a liar and other things.

As an experiment, I adopted my present sig just to see how much guff I would get for it. I signed it capital 'T' Truth specifically on purpose, to see what kind of a reaction I would get. Much to my surprise, it has been almost 2 months and I haven't heard a peep, not a sound or a reference of any kind to my bold proclamation!

So I have seen where claiming Truth is apparently far less offensive than claiming Love. Clearly, there is a very deep current at work here.

The word "Truth" is just as iconic as the word "Love" but perhaps because many people are jaded, truth is known to be tricky. Love is a slippery fish, too - and much more loaded - people can be lured into giving what they would not for the promise of 'love'. The word Love is a willow-the-wisp - a puff of smoke - illusion surrounds the word - love is sheer illusion, perhaps. The proof of 'love' is in the pudding, when it comes to human interactions.

Originally Posted by Silvergirl

The word "Truth" is just as iconic as the word "Love" but perhaps because many people are jaded, truth is known to be tricky. Love is a slippery fish, too - and much more loaded - people can be lured into giving what they would not for the promise of 'love'. The word Love is a willow-the-wisp - a puff of smoke - illusion surrounds the word - love is sheer illusion, perhaps. The proof of 'love' is in the pudding, when it comes to human interactions.

Too true SG - for all too many.

[Moonglow]

Originally Posted by Humm

The short answer is there is no 'good' solution.

To insist no one try to impose their view is itself an imposition.

It is simply up to the individual to grow to the point of recognizing the inherent worth and value of all individuals and their viewpoints (within certain caveats), and that will happen in it's own good time.

Thank you for the response.

Also would add that the validation of each side comes with a willingness of each side to cooperate.

I feel at times the personal jabs tend to draw the discussion off course and excludes others who may which to share in the discussion.

I know it happens, but it is the manner in which it happens and how long each side draws out these personal disagreements. At times it seems to me these get carried over into other threads.

Agree it is up to the individual as to how he/she chooses to resolve this.

For myself, I feel all I can do is keep showing what is going on, such as here:

http://www.spiritualforums.com/vb/sh...&postcount=434

...and many, many, many others...

I feel I have variable success at conveying my point. All I can do is listen, and hope eventually he will listen too.