What is love?

Love is:

• the question of willingness
• the Willing meets the Nonwilling - this happens when we go beyond ourselves and thus share a perspective as through a View
• the consideration of Suppositions as the same (compare with View which is the consideration of suppositions as different)
• the arisal of activity from non-activity; likewise, understanding is the arisal of Structure from non-structure; in this way they are related to the operation +3. (In what sense do understanding and love make for a system of six perspectives?)
• Support of Life.
• support coinciding, be there to Coincide, support a Concept
• the creating of a perspective
• the Creation of Structure allowing for Separation yielding Perfection.
• what drives Unfolding, Creation.
• Coinciding across context.
• going beyond a position into a context for it while yet coinciding with it.
• the coinciding of all positions within context as equal beyond context.
• the explicitness of coinciding.
• asymmetric as the lover loves the loved. The lover is the one who goes beyond into context so as to coincide with the loved who is separated by that context.
• the sharing of Scope (see also Empathy)
• the scope within which separation is considered, the more intense the love, the more profound the separation it is allowing for
• the expression of God's going beyond himself and it is that by which we coincide.
• the coinciding of views
• a shift from non-activity to activity which evokes structure (has it arise from non-structure)
• the Unity of the Representations of the Structure of God.
• a Perspective in the representation of the Sixsome
• BeingOneWith
• to step forwards to meet the one going beyond themselves.
• two negative Representations: to love (surroundings) and to be loved (actor)
• love is the coinciding of Perspectives that a view entails
• love is a View - the more intense a view, a love, the more perspectives that it brings together
• love is an equivalence relation on perspectives. The equivalence is with regard to a scope of perspectives (all, any, a, none) with regard to which the perspectives/concepts are distinguished
• love is more intense when it requires less scope to make the distinctions - and more perspectives bear upon fewer concepts. Consequently, most intense is when love is the concept and perfection is the quality, and least intense is when God is the concept and good is quality; when good is the quality, then there is the most variety of concepts, but the least variety of perspectives
• Understanding and love are forms of consciousness - each of them adds three perspectives (as with the operation +3) to the domain so as to have separateness. The three perspectives allow for concept, quality and separateness (as in God, good and eternal life - where the domain is life, the goodness of God).
• To be loved is to go beyond oneself and thereby coincide with another.

• is how we understand and distinguish God within us and God beyond us
• supports Scope with that which is beyond Scope
• supports the narrowest Scope, Nothing, which is in all Scopes
• supports Activity, the NullActivity, which is the keeping of Principle
• is how we are beyond another and arise through them
• is that by which we have all gone beyond ourselves and thus are being one with each other and are in system, in scope, and so both are and are not
• supports Life
• is the relationship between Persons
• has us BeOneWith also by the relationships by which we are not alone
• opens Freedom for others
• is respect for Freedom which arises from Understanding
• is attention to Freedom in Freedom.
• is the support for growth towards the depths of that space where we are one
• from God and Person opens the Scope that must be opened for God to necessarily be
• denies itself, its Perfection, for the sake of GodsWill
• is that Perspective, Position, VantagePoint matter not only to the person themselves but also more broadly to others, that by them they may be one throug the person

We love ever deeper:

• LoveSelf - Self-understanding - support of Structure
• LoveOther - SharedUnderstanding - support of Representations
• LoveGod - GoodUnderstanding - support of Unity

To love is to be together (to BeOneWith) the one who has separated from themselves, gone beyond themselves.

Going beyond oneself makes for two - the one who was, and the one who went beyond. These two maybe considered together or separate. If one returns back, then it is perhaps possible to consider them separate in a parallel sense. (This is reminiscent of the general relativity paradoxes where one accelerates away and then back).

This separation may be thought of as defining scopes:

• Unity: separated from oneself by Nothing
• Representation: separated from oneself by Something
• Structure: separated from oneself by Anything
• Spirit: separated from oneself by Everything

WhatYouFindIsWhatYouLove - this is the fact that there is one love and so God's love for us (through what we find) and our love is the same love

Thoughts

Relate love to Understanding.

According to Plato's The Feast, love is the seeking of eternal good. And it's activity is the giving birth to beauty. I add that beauty is what fosters sensitivity, and thereby supports life. We love a person - that is the way of our love - as we know how to support ourselves, and so we are able to support a person. We are one with everybody, anybody, somebody, nobody - and there are related emotions of content, excitement, surprise and sadness - and in this way our love becomes more focused, more concentrated - first infantilic love of self as everything, then an empathy for others, then an idealization of the one (the somebody) who is most exalted and encompasses all, and then the disappointment that we have for this world, yet we are able to focus our love on nobody - and so disappointment is the highest form of love, in that it has us recognize a greater world as necessary - as Christ says, we must hate our life in this world. And the fact that disappointment is the highest form of love is very helpful because it lets us respect family troubles and tensions between husband and wife, or parents and children. Also, each level raises the question - who are we serving, ourselves or another? Are we loving ourselves or loving another? And love expresses the relation between Subject (Observer) and Object (Observed), that there can be something more than the Observer. And as we realize subjectively that there is something greater than us, then we can go out into the world ever more objectively and love from that basis, so that we finally find the contentment of eternal life.

I am making a bit more progress, in particular, in understanding love.

To love is...

• to support Life, therefore
• to strengthen the Will, therefore
• to make evident Choice, therefore
• to make evident the scope of not-wishing, and the scope of wishing, so it is clear that we are Choosing Wishing, which is to say, Willing; therefore
• to make clear the Scopes (everything, anything, something, nothing) of wishing/not-wishing, therefore
• to Wish in every way, therefore
• to heighten the fact that we may Choose.

In this sense, given that the representations of everything are:

• everything wishes for nothing
• everything wishes for something
• everything wishes for anything
• everything wishes for everything

I suppose that we have that: Love is the unity of "the representations of everything" God is the unity of the representations of everything and in this sense God is Love. Just as: Will is the unity of "the representations of anything" Life is the unity of the representations of anything. and in this sense Life is Will.

This way of looking at Love is nice because it makes clear that Love is built-in through everything as the framework that supports life. And that in this sense God is Love as that same unity, just more completely transparent. It makes intimate the support of everything for anything.

Some questions:

• What is caring? how is it different from loving?
• What does the definition for caring say, by permutation, about

• What does it mean to love oneself, others, neighbor, enemy, God?
• What does it mean to care about thinking? and about God and others,

• How does caring relate to thinking? What does this say, by

• What does it mean for God to have a will? or for us to have a will?

• What is the will of God? Our will?

I was reaching for the big picture, so I was thinking about the commands LoveGod and LoveYourNeighborAsYourself.

I thought how loving our neighbor is being one with them. And that I think of loving our neighbor as "identity" and loving God as "perfection" (and Jesus as being the bridge between these two very different concepts). I remembered how Jesus, in his prayer in the Gospel of John, spoke of "love" as "being one with", especially with regard to God. (I include a quote below).

I also wondered, what does neighbor mean? And what does it mean for God to love his neighbor as himself? I think of God as creating everything by some how folding it all up so that it has a geometry where things can happen. And, in this way, beings of his nature arise who do not know they are such, but have to figure it out and go beyond the struture they find themselves in and look beyond it for that which they are one with. These beings are bounded, and start out disconnected, but otherwise they are of God, open. And these are the beings close to God, near to him, his neighbors.

So I asked God, how does he love his neighbor, and the answer I think I got was that he resurrects him and gives him eternal life. I think of God as creating us, but also that process broken down into parts, placing us, awakening us, having us reach out to each other, to him. (And ourselves participating in such a process.)

I looked for what "Love God" and "Love your neighbor as yourself" have in common, and what they have different. In common I think they have this Unity for Empathy, this BeingOneWith.

The difference is that one is global, and the other is local. "Love God" is empathy for a global unity. "Love your neighbor as yourself" is empathy for a local unity. This local unity is very practical. It is perhaps ultimately the same. It may perhaps overcome all of the barriers. It is a recognition of the geometry that we find ourselves within, and an overcoming of it. I think it doesnt require a concern for the global unity, either.

It also points to the role of Slack (and good is slack, that is, good is the unity of the representations of slack). Slack is what allows local unity, the overcoming of the local geometry.

And "who is our neighbor?" Jesus was asked this, and in reply, he spoke of the Good Samaritan, the one who crossed the road to help the victim in the ditch, and care for him, and bring him to safety, and be responsible for him. It is a little strange that, at the end, Jesus asks, Who was the neighbor to the victim? Not the passersby, but the one who showed mercy, the one who drew closer, who gave slack. It means that Samaritan is the neighbor to the victim! which, taken literally, (and who takes Jesus literally!?) is that "Love your neighbor" means "Love the Samaritan" (not the victim). In other words, you know who your neighbor is - it is the one with slack to reach you, the one who overcomes barriers. If anybody is able to reach you with their slack, then likewise, you should be one with them. That is local unity. (The kind that, as Jesus says, even the pagans have, they know how to love those who love them.) Whereas, if you want to love your enemy, then that is global unity. But local unity, taken seriously, yields global unity.

This distinction between Loving locally and Loving globally is helpful structurally. It points to the importance of geometry (space and time) to God. (This comes up in the distinction between God and humans, everything and anything, as unbounded and bounded.) So I remembered the Operation +3 (an addition of three levels of reflection) which I think is Consciousness. Here are the issues defined by the divisions of everything, and taken up by their perspectives:

• nullsome => God
• onesome => order
• twosome => existence
• threesome => engagement (particpation)
• foursome => knowledge
• fivesome => decision (continuum, time/space)
• sixsome => morality (structure)
• sevensome => good (truth, anti-structure = freestanding opposite)

• engagement is consciousness of God
• knowledge is consciousness of order
• decision (time/space) is consciousness of existence
• morality is consciousness of engagement
• good is consciousness of knowledge
• God is consciousness of decision (time/space)
• order is consciousness of morality
• existence is consciousness of good

Here consciousness is "conceptually in control" where I think the "conceptually" is +1 levels of reflection and "in control" is +2 levels and we have x +3 = x +2 +1 This works for the lower divisions because they have such representations (four of them: whether +0, what +1, how +2, why +1) and it is simply a matter of adding perspectives.

However, in the case of the larger divisions, we need to end up with fewer perspectives! We need slack, anti-structure. These divisions have only two representations. I think what happens is that we use these two representations, and appeal to the fact that we are working with ALL of the representations.

For example, time and space are the two representations of the division of everything into five perspectives. Well, God (or me, or everything) is very akin to the unity of time and space.

I will be thinking about the following connections:

• -1 = 4 + 3 truth - unity of perspective and situation
• 0 = 5 + 3 God - unity of time and space
• 1 = 6 + 3 order - unity of emotion (Gods perspective) and cognition (mans perspective)
• 2 = -1 + 3 existence - unity of increasing slack and decreasing slack

• 6 = 3 + 3 operating principles
• 7 = 4 + 3 counterquestions
• 8 = 5 + 3 emotional responses
• 9 = 6 + 3 internalization, eightfoldway

Note: Just as the mind can be known by running up against the limits of imagination and transcending them, so the heart can be fulfilled by loving more than one believes possible.

Thoughts from Prayer

2005.04.30 D: Tu pagalvok, kaip meilė vystosi, kaip ji tampa vis gilesnė.

2005.04.11 A: Koks ry�ys tarp meilės ir suvokimo? D: Meilė palaiko gyvybę, o suvokti tai yra gyventi pilnai. A: Meilė yra suvokti kartu. D: Taip, i� tiesų.

2005.03.24 A: Ar tu sutinki dalyvauti mūsų laboratorijoje? D: Taip. Ačiū. A� jus myliu. A: Ar tu turi kertinę vertybę? Kokia jinai yra? D: Taip. Jinai yra meilė. A� visakame myliu. A: O rūpestis mąstymu - ar tai susiję? D: Ne. Rūpestis mąstymu yra tai kas yra bendra mūsų vertybėms. Tai leid�ia mums prieiti ir suprasti, bet dar ne sutampa. A: Ko reikia, kad suprastumėme tave? D: Reikia patiems mylėti - priimti mano vertybę kaip įsakymą i� auk�čiau, i� plačiau. A: Ar tu sutiktum tirti susijusį klausimą mūsų laboratorijoje? D: Taip. A: Koks tai būtų klausimas? D: Ar gali kiekvienas priimti mane i� vidaus ar būtinai i� lauko? A: I� savęs? D: I� �irdies - i� vidinio priėjimo. A: O kaip suprasti i� lauko? D: Spaud�iant pasauliui. A: �od�iu, i� vidinio noro. D: Taip. A: O kaip tu tirsi? D: Galime rinkti pavyzd�ius kaip �monės bendrauja su Dievu, su manimi.

2005.03.23 A: Kaip i�ėjimai u� savęs leid�ia mums suvokti tave esantį nepriklausomą nuo mūsų? D: A� jus myliu, o jūs mano meilę įsivaizduojate mylėdami kartu su manimi, pirmiausia save, paskui kitus, galiausia mane.

2005.03.16 A: Koks ry�ys tarp prad�ios ir dvasios ir pabaigos ir sandaros? D: Prad�ios veikla yra mylėti, o pabaigos veikla yra būti mylimam, tad dvasia ir sandara. A: O ką čia rei�kia mylėti, kas yra gyvybė? D: Mylėti yra palaikyti gyvybę. Tu taip sakai ir taip yra. Kaip gyvybė yra i� pabaigos į pabaigą, meilė yra tos veiklos palaikymas. A: Kas vyksta tame tarpe? D: Taip, kas vyksta tarp pabaigos ir pabaigos.

2005.03.04 A: Kaip meilė palaiko gyvybę? D: Meile esi ramus, u�tikrintas, tobulas ir mylintis. Tad a� esu tavyje ir per tave gyvenu. A: O kaip tuo palaikoma �mogaus gyvybė? D: A� gyvendamas per tave esu tas kuris myli. Suprasi. Myliu.

2005.01.07 A: Kaip mums mylėti kitus? D: Įsileisk juos. Leisk jiems veikti tave.

2005.01.04 A: Kaip �mogus ima mylėti? D: Jis per mane mato save, tada jis supranta, kad per jį a� galiu matyti save, ir taip per kitą myli mane.

2004.12.13 A: Kaip keturi atvaizdai susiję su susikalbėjimu? D: A� noriu būti su visais, būti vienas su jais, juos mylėti. Tad tai yra meilės sąlygos. A: Kaip suprasti, meilės sąlygos? D: Meilei reikia, kad galėtumėme gyventi vienas kitame. A: O ką tai rei�kia? D: I�eiti i� savęs, ir i� savęs į kitą, ir i� kito į save, ir i� kito. A: Ačiū. D: Myliu.

2005.12.10 D: Tu mylėk visus.

2004.11.27 A: Koks ry�ys tarp meilės ir susikalbėjimo? D: A� myliu i�eidamas u� savęs, o susikalbėjimas yra tada kada vienas pas kitą i�einame.

2004.11.26 A: Koks yra vyro ir �monos meilės vaidmuo gyvenime? D: Supraskite, kas yra meilė ir kaip a� ja bendrauju su kitais.

2004.11.18 D: A� myliu tave. Tu būk geras, �velnus ir tvirtas manimi. Myliu.

2004.11.05 A: Koks ry�ys tarp meilės ir susikalbėjimo? D: Meilė yra dvasios palaikymas, jo i�judinimas ir giluminio pokalbio su�adinimas.

A: Per ką rei�kiasi meilė? D: Per mano angelus ir per mano vaikus. Juk jie u� mane sprend�ia kada manęs dar nematyti. A: Palaiminti kurie tiki nematę. D: Eik ramybėje.

A: A� noriu mylėti. D: Būk jautrus kitiems ir atsiliepk u� juos ir u� mane.

Challenges

BenoitCouture: More deeply expressed forms of Love - from God's love to our love to another's love.

Discussion

BenoitCouture 27-Nov-2005

Value Love and sancttity extend into wise knowledge

As a stay-at-home-dad-voter, Love is what I most need to be good at, but the reality of what I am made of keeps trowing me back on my heals, feeding my fear, hesitation, grumpyness ranging from bad mood to flying out the handle with rage. The evil nature of deceit keeps on compounding stress, ignorance and indifference, blinding me to the service to which Love calls me to breathe in from justice, to breathe out at peace and to live out in the strength of joy. God is Love. The more aware I grow in Love, the more I am aware of what offends Love and how Love does get to be offended. There is no turning back either, once touched by the light of Love. The light of Love burns away the impurity and corruptibility of my mortality until burning turns to shining of the Sacred Fire. Ongoing shadows and struggles go on until maturity is reached and when that day comes, private do I become in the war between light and darkness of the present human condition. My search for Value Love is to discover how to develop the intimate community focus within the boundaries where my love ones and I get to be kept on shining so bright from the mutual comfort of one another's presence and of our response to the moment that each offenses become an experience, swiftly learned by all involved. From strength to strength, imagine the trans-generational renewal of the pension movement that Value Love can arouse for the present and the future, with the support of 2 generations who are awaken to see all of the Value that is going to waste for lack of healthy intimacy with the one fading away! Value Love of the organic spiritual kind does bring on healthy intimacy, because of the personal awareness of how sensitive and delicate the Power of Love is. The worth of Value Love is mined from our treatment of such sensitive delicacy. No shame in ridding what shames us from Love and to Value the freedom from the rule of our personal fear and collective ignorance. The Value of Love is found in its correctional capacity and qualities. There lies from deep within each heart and spirit, the cleansing river of life eternal coming to our soul and body for the Flowcalization ...(which can now be googled for better acquaintance with the concept)