But Lib, love is something you feel, not something you do. The decision not to be mean or to turn the other cheek doesn’t indicate love, any more then giving money to a beggar to get him to go away does.
—I promise you that I am being as frank as I am capable.—
I believe that, and maybe that isn’t what I meant: maybe I mean that I’m not sure you are as frank about ME as you could be. We’re both talking meat-bags seeking to be more than just that.
—But it was not until I let my intellect go that the spiritual interpretation of the statement overwhelmed me.—
But what you call a spiritual interpretation seems to me to be as intelectual as anything: it contains a particular factual idea about why things feel as they do, about the existence of particular beings and facts that then inform the nature of what you call the spiritual understanding.
—It’s both, Apos. As I’ve been saying, these things have both an intellectual and a spiritual interpretation.—
But admitting that seems to open the intellectual interpretation to more questions than you allow: such that there is not necessarily any being behind it: not simply that a god allows that some love without the intellectual understanding that there is a god that loves, but even that a god is not necessary at all for love.
—Even now, you could persist with the dichotomy and say that I am implying that your heart is closed whereas mine is open. It is like you want me to say that there is no difference between us when there clearly is: I believe in God and you do not. If I were to say that I am deluded, but you see clearly, would you then be satisfied? What is it that you will allow as a demarcation between how we view the world?—
Well, to being with, I’m not asking for a conclusion about the ownership of delusion, just an acknowledgement that we can’t simply correct each other without admitting what our corrections are premised on, premises on which we may not agree in the first place.
But what I think I would allow is the statement that there IS no demarcation at all: that both have an experience of love, and that you wish to see an intelectual interpretation that there is a being that embodies it and speaks intelligibly through it, while others have no such interpretation. I think there is probably a sense to be found in there, somewhere, whereby neither have any factual disagreement.
You believe in a particular being, I don’t believe in it. That’s a difference to be sure. But is it inevitably a factual difference? Must it necessarily involve making claims about the world external to us? Is there a way around it?
—If I bother to correct or tweak what you say, it is with the intention of helping to clarify so that you might get a broader view that will lead you to open your heart.—
As you must know already, you cannot presume that my heart is closed and yours is anymore open. In all likeihood, you have as much to learn from others as they have from you about what needs clarification as far as factual matters external to all. You have an experience of love as a being that speaks in intelligible and intelligent words. Others don’t, in terms of a being or such intelligibile speech. But there needn’t necessarily be a conflict there, or call for correction. Does there?
You seem to feel the need to look to the Bible, and particularly to a character (whether real or fictional) called Jesus, who you extrapolate out of the Bible (refusing the truth of some passages, accepting others, given what you are looking for). There’s nothing, from my perspective, that needs to be wrong with that. But it isn’t necessarily of relevance to everyone. Who needs a Jesus, when there is an attitude called Love that is invincible and irrefutable NO MATTER WHAT the actual facts of ontological reality might turn out to be? (being an attitude, a value, that is as functional and defensible no matter what may or may not be true) If your god loves goodness so much that it would disappear in the face of a greater goodness, then what matters if it appears or disappears? A being, no being: if there is a Gospel of Love, wouldn’t it preach itself, without any the need for any being at all? Couldn’t what is a being to you, your god, exist to speak to some (because it is realized as a speaking being in some) but not as a being to others? If it is, simply (and not so simply), Love, a value, couldn’t it appear to different people in non-mutually exclusive forms? Validly a being to some, but not to all: and saying nothing definative about which view is right, or needs correcting?
CJ wrote:
Empathy means feeling the pain the other person feels, identifying yourself with their feelings. If you truly empathize, you too will rationalize the suicide the same way they do. Thus, empathizing with someone who wishes to commit suicide will result in there being two of you.
Vorlon wrote:
I don’t doubt that my understanding of everything could use some improvement. 
Robert wrote:
My dictionary gives thirteen definitions for love. There are many such words in the language that carry mutliple definitions.
Often, a word that has one or more meanings in ordinary speech might be appropriated for some specific purpose and meaning, especially in the philosophical disciplines like logic, ethics, theology, science, etc.
“Force”, for example, means legal validity in law, but in physics is a vector quantity. Even baseball uses the term in its own way.
Defining love here as the conduit of goodness is merely an attempt to define it in the manner that Jesus used the term. So here, we’re not talking about a feeling. We’re talking about the Living Love that comes from God Himself.
As used here, it is neither a feeling nor an action. It is the spiritual phenomenon that provides a means for goodness to be shared. A similar term, to help you contextualize, might be “charity”. And in fact, that is the word that was most often used to translate the noun form of [symbol]agape[/symbol] for many years.
Here, the decision is itself love because the decision is what facilitates the expression of goodness. The decision opens the gate that allows goodness to flow.
Apos wrote:
That reminded me of the Star Trek episode about the silicon life-forms that called humans “ugly bags of mostly water”. 
But I’m not even sharing the spiritual interpretation with you, so it can hardly sound like anything at all. I’m not because, as I explained, I can’t. We have no common frame of reference within which an explanation would make sense. I can only use metaphors.
No matter how many more times and how many more ways I explain this to you, what you will perceive will be an intellectual interpretation. You have to. It is our only shared frame of reference.
What is necessary for love (as defined in the OP) is goodness, since love is the means by which goodness is expressed. Since the universe is amoral, goodness is metaphysical. And as I said before, goodness is God’s very nature. He is the source of goodness.
Well, you’ll get no argument from me there. That’s exactly what I’ve been trying to explain.
That’s why I carefully lay out my premises: God is Love; Love is the conduit of goodness; Goodness is God’s nature; and so forth.
If you do not agree with those premises then it is perfectly natural that we will not understand one another. And in every case, our corrections will be intended to reorient one another to our premises.
Whatever exists is a being. There is no reason to qualify a metaphysical being with physical attributes like corporeality except for the purpose of speaking metaphorically. If we both agree that love exists, then we can both agree that love is a being so long as we both can orient ourselves to a definition that will accomodate love as a being (i.e., something that exists).
It is one thing if someone wants to argue that love is not what Jesus says it is. But it is quite another thing if someone wants to argue that, given love as Jesus defines it, love is not a being.
A man of your considerable intelligence (and I mean that with all sincerity and admiration) is fully capable of accepting a premise or definition for argument’s sake in order to test an argument’s validity. But that is quite different from refusing to accept the premise or definition altogether. That speaks not to validity, but soundness.
There is no reason why you cannot say, if you believe it, that in your opinion, an argument is valid but unsound.
I’m not sure — because what you’re refusing to accept is that the world we are speaking about is not external to me. It is as much a part of me as my intellect, and in fact more so since it is my essential being as opposed to the trivial being of my brain. And I am refusing to accept that the world we are speaking about is external to you. I believe that the kingdom of God is within you.
How do we get around that?
Even now I must correct you. God does not speak to me in intelligible words. He places an understanding in my heart that I then express as words. God’s Word is not a sound or a noise; rather, it is His express Will.
I do indeed admit, and have admitted often, that I have much more to learn. But whatever I learn with my brain is trivial. It is spiritual understanding, and not intellectual understanding, that is critical to my well-being. Bread is not necessary for life. What is necessary for life is Love.
Jesus spoke in metaphors about being the Bread of Life, the Living Water, the Word of God — food, water, and edification for the spirit, not the body. Flesh counts for nothing, He taught. Life is in the Spirit.
You’re right that I cannot presume that your heart is closed. For all I know, you are playing devil’s advocate. Perhaps you do eat the Bread of Life, drink the Living Water, and hear the Word of God. It’s not for me to say. I’m just trying to join with you in your search for why (and whether) I stand on one side of a chasm and you stand on the other.
Forgive me, but “feel the need” might not best characterize my circumstance. I understand your annoyance with being corrected, but what am I to do? Leave a misperception intact? Agree with you and misrepresent my own understanding?
Jesus is inside me. When I open my heart, He is what pours out. I don’t find Him in the Bible; I just find references to Him there. In fact, I find references to Him in the strangest of places.
I did not ever extrapolate Jesus from the Bible. Even though there was the coincidence that I was translating John when my worldview changed, it is a non causa pro causa fallacy to assume that I found Jesus in those words. After all, I had already translated nearly eight full chapters and didn’t see Jesus in any of the verses.
Were it not for the Holy Spirit that dwells within me, they would still be just dry words to me. But as it is, I see Jesus almost everywhere I look — in the poetry of Marshall Stewart Ball, in the life of Matthew Shepard, in the kindness of Esprix. Even in tragedies like the “death” of my grandson, I see Him.
Even in the most horribly evil places, like Westboro Baptist Church, I see Jesus. I see helpless spirits, lured and trapped by a demonic hate, and I see Jesus as their Liberator and Redeemer.
If I understand what you’re saying correctly, then I agree with you completely. And in fact, I have often told others that if the word “Jesus” offends you, toss it out.
Just as in logic there is a fundamental difference between “A” (a statement) and A (a truth-value), so there is a fundamental difference between a word and God’s Word.
It is a humorous irony that fundamentalists insist that nothing will save you other than calling upon the name of “Jesus” when in fact, that was not His name at all! His name was Yeshua!
Depending on the semantical leniency, I suppose so. But it is confusing for me to speak of an existence that does not be. But if, on the other hand, you perceive existence in some other way, then by all means, you have your own private moral journey as I’ve said many times.
Our perceptions are not God, so it doesn’t bother me if you think of God in some metaphysical sense that is outside my intellectual grasp.
But please remember that, when I correct you, I am doing nothing more than what you are doing — correcting a perception of what I believe.
You see these matters a particular way yourself, specifically in the way that you are explaining them here. So you are correcting what I say to attenuate what I say to what you say. But that doesn’t bother me either. I think it is the normal course of philosophical discussion that people always seek the greatest possible clarification.
Lib, I haven’t seen you offer any operational definition of either ‘love’ or ‘good’ that wasn’t self-referrential.
Saying that “God is Love” does nothing but create a synonym unless both of the terms in the statement are pre-defined, in which case, an assertion of relationship is made.
Please define/explain the words you use before you relate them to one another.
Goodness is moral excellence, and is the nature of God. Love is the conduit of goodness.
Paging Lib to the white courtesy phone
Thanks, Mars.
Now define what ‘moral excellence’ is, and explain what it means to be a conduit for a property, as opposed to a substance.
I’d define ‘moral excellence’ as a person’s actions being in harmony with their beliefs.
As for being a conduit for a property … well, it’s been my experience that, generally, the better I treat a person, the better that person tends to treat me. And vice versa. It has also been my experience that when someone treats me with kindness and respect, and forgives me for whatever fault of mine I may have imposed upon them, I generally pass that kind of behaviour on to other people.
The same observations apply to things we consider negative, as well. So, I’d say it’s quite easy to be a conduit for a property. Too easy, in fact, for the properties I’d rather not be passing on.
If we continue the game, I will define the words in all the definitions that I give. And never will they satisfy. Our discussion will be like gnats flying in circles around our heads as we swat at them.
If I toss the ball back to you, asking you to define “property” and “substance”, and then asking you to define the words you use to define them, we will be like two blind men standing in a museum arguing over a painting.
If you want to know what goodness is, think of how you might encourage me, edify me, reassure me that you value me, give me peace, and make me feel good about myself and you. And then if you want to know what love is, make that happen.
Or, we could reduce language to its most basic logical elements, permitting true discussion and understanding of the subject at hand.
Since I doubt you’re actually interested in understanding the subject at hand, this is unlikely.
Mystics are philosophers that have gone beyond the capacity of their language to express. A truth- and understanding-loving mystic’s responsibility is to expand his language until it can encompass the concepts he perceives. I encourage you to attempt this.
I agree with your assessment: neither of us perceives anything.
The difference between us is that I remain silent about that which I do not understand.
[sigh]
You’ve just offered a definition of “goodness” and “love” by suggesting courses of action that will induce certain experiences or emotional reactions in me.
Hate is not the opposite of love; love is not the opposite of hate. Non-hate and non-love are their opposites, and one cannot be done without the other.
Vorlon wrote:
You’re probably right. Tell me more.
Obviously, it’s difficult to communicate something that by its nature requires subjective activity on the part of the listener to understand. I think Lib, rather than attempting a semantically rigorous examination, is trying to evoke a subjective understanding which he thinks is accessible to everyone. I tend to agree with that supposition, and I believe his method is no more problematic than any of the ways of indirect communication which could be attempted. And I can personally attest that such entreatments as Lib commonly assays are worthy.
Purely as an attempt to give an interpretation which I suspect is from a similar perspective to Lib’s, I’d like to offer an account of my own recent change in understanding here. I started writing a post out several days ago to give a brief account of my own story, but as I detailed things the words just kept coming. I tried to trim it down without losing relevance, but it’s still quite wordy. In the interest of brevity, I’m just going to outline what my subjective experiences have recently caused me to believe about this subject. If anyone decides they can handle another loooong testament on subjective experiences with deity, I’m willing to post mine. But be warned. It’s verbose and not at all inspiring (except to me).
(I should repeat Lib’s earlier admonition before I begin… I am an authority only on myself; these remarks are not offered as anything more than an attempt to elucidate a particular subjective understanding, and indeed I ask no one to try and assign a truth-value to them. I believe them the same way I believe the air I breathe, because I can experience this understanding the same way I experience breath.)
It’s my understanding based on my own subjective experiences that the specific form of love I am caused to show toward others is to accept the following things:[ul][li]that there is no spiritual value system by which we can gauge another’s intrinsic worth[]that all persons have an absolute right to exist[]that I am to give as much attention, in my actions, to others’ right to exist as I do to my ownand that whatever I do in regards to any one, I do in regards to all[/ul]If I accept these things, not just on an intellectual level but at the deepest core of myself, and base my actions on that acceptance, I am experiencing agape. I am not called to love the actions of others, or the way they appeal to my senses. I need not agree with them or avoid conflicting with them when our actions are in opposition. It is not asked of me that I bow to their will.[/li]
But I must hold their well-being as important to me as my own. Since a shared reality inevitably leads to conflict, acting on that principle is not an easy task. But, as Lib reminds us, the principle itself is a light yoke, freeing me from the necessity to despise anyone for sharing my reality.
A sublime and beautiful testimony, Xeno. Thanks for sharing it.
Would you be offended if I said that it brings to mind, at least for me, the principle of noncoercion? It calls upon the same notions of not presuming a moral authority over others, of respecting the rights of others, and of recognizing the intrinsic worth of every human being.
This thread is full of great eloquence and a variety of ideas, some of which I can accept as stated, some of which I can not.
But it strikes me that even from the start, it seems primarily about words–the “real” meaning of agape and eros (I assume that’s what those clusters of Greek letters represent), and how those terms relate to the colloquial notion of “love.”
Battles of definition are crucial, but equally crucial is labelling them clearly as such.
I read the OP as declaring, “Here is what I have in mind when I use the word ‘love’.” I appreciate the insight. But I don’t ken that any question is being asked, nor is any topic for debate being definitely set forth.
Obviously, we can’t really debate whether that is indeed how Lib defines Love. Is the debate about whether it’s a useful definition? Whether it conforms to modern American speech (or British)? Or whether lib’s general world-view is one we can endorse?
Not wishing to stifle anything…Just making a plea for clarity of purpose.
It is a witness, Scott, rather than a debate. But feel free to participate in any way you desire that is within the forum guidelines.
I expected that it would, my friend. (I haven’t changed my politics, btw, but I am much clearer in my appreciation of your philosophy than when I was first exposed to it.)