Loving humanity

Enchantress said:The Good House Spirits - CHATTERS ONLY - post count:
Ryan Wilson2 1044
Ravana 864
Karen Sanchez19 690
Stone Rock 618

The top four spots are dominated by guys! 😁

Sarcasm and subtle hints 🙂

I mean, what do any of these people have to do with me anyway? 🥳

David Miller15 said:Why would anyone think... I mean, it’s almost like you're wasting your time... quite the opposite, actually...

I honestly believe that the sense of affection Enchantress was describing isn't strictly dependent on "love." Think about it: when you have a falling out with your absolute best friend over something trivial—it doesn't even have to be a massive blowout—you might not feel particularly close to them for a while. But if you truly are the best of friends, you still know deep down that you care for them, even if you refuse to admit it during those more... let's say, "heated" moments. Or look at how we were as kids; when you fought with a sibling, you never actually convinced yourself that you didn't love them, at least not for any significant amount of time.

Now, I don't find everyone to be dear to me, but I make a conscious effort not to harbor active dislike toward people... at least as a starting point.

Don't get me wrong, I'm no hippie...😳 😉

Damn Monterey.

Enchantress said:Good spirits - CHATTERS ONLY - post count:
Ryan Wilson2 1044
Ravan 864
Karen Sanchez19 690
Stone Stone 618

The top four spots are overwhelmingly dominated by men! 😁

Hmm, you’ve completely missed the point of that statistic... spirituality in Americans just boils down to empty chatter anyway.

Quincy:

What kind of sensation is it? It isn't merely a feeling. It is quite literally Everything. It permeates everything; it is within all things and constitutes all things. Love is our true essence. We were forged from love—more accurately, OUT of love. Our very soul is love. God is love, and love is God. Please, enlighten me as to why you even started this thread. I'm curious...

One must distinguish between universal, absolute love—which is consciousness

And what we call standard "love."🙂

Karen Sanchez19 said:We really need to draw a line between universal, absolute love—which is basically just pure consciousness--

and your run-of-the-mill, classic "love."🙂

Hmm. So what’s the actual catch there? Besides just changing who or what you're actually aiming that feeling at.

Quincy:

Even our friend Karen Sanchez19 is a fan, despite her gender.

The Villa Maria isn't just some run-of-the-mill mop; it’s the only decent one we have left in this country.🙂

It was the exact same story with God Brother. Everyone on the boards was talking trash—calling it garbage, mocking it, acting like they were too sophisticated to even look at it. Then, fast forward two weeks: suddenly, there hasn't been a single new post in five days. Silence. Total vacuum.🙂 🙂 🙂

Quincy:

P.S. ever since that soap opera ended.

🙂

Quincy:

Hmm. And what’s the actual difference there? Other than the "target" of the affection.

True love doesn't require a subject or an object; any love involving both is just possessiveness... it's ego-driven, an obsession with one's own consciousness...

In reality, love is simply love. This other thing? I wouldn't even call it love—it's more like an absolute state of being.

Baphi, Ravan, my apologies for cutting the chat short.😉 🙂 🙂

Karen Sanchez19 said:True, pure love doesn't have a "you" or an "me." Any kind of love where there's a subject and an object is just possessive... it's ego-driven, just feeding your own consciousness..

So you're saying it's basically the same feeling?

Karen Sanchez19 said:Love is just love, but I wouldn't even call this other thing "love"—it's more like the Absolute.

Yeah, honestly, calling it the Absolute makes way more sense since you can't really pin down a definition for the Absolute anyway.😁 🙂

David Miller15 said:Please explain why you started this thread—just curious...🙂

Loving humanity as a whole is one of those ideals found in Christianity and certain other religious paths. But there’s a difference—one is expressing it through actions (like philanthropy, for instance), and the other is actually feeling it. In a world defined by constant conflict—whether it's individual, group, tribal, or even at a national level—it seems to me that a spontaneous feeling of love for all people should be pretty rare.

That's why I opened this discussion. I wanted to re-examine the concept of "love for humanity" and hear what others here think about it.

coastalorca3 said:Loving humanity as a whole is one of those big ideals you see in Christianity and other religious paths. But there’s a massive difference between just acting like it—you know, doing charity work or whatever—and actually feeling it in your gut. In a world that feels like it's constantly tearing itself apart at every level, from local beefs to global wars, I honestly think that genuine, spontaneous love for the entire human race should be pretty damn rare.

That’s why I kicked this thread off. I wanted to pick apart what "love for humanity" even means and see what you guys think.

You should've posted this in the religion sub, then you'd get a taste of what "real" love looks like.

Karen Sanchez19 said:Baphi, Ravana, sorry I had to jump out of the chat mid-sentence.😉 🙂 🙂

So, what do you guys call this kind of thing?

just some truckers debating Nietzsche 🤣

"the philosophy of love"

Seriously, go get a life already. 🙂

When you get all "spiritual" and deep, it honestly feels like you're just being naive. You start thinking everything is profound, and suddenly even total idiots seem okay to you 😎 , you can call it "love" if you want, but really you're just being soft and letting anyone through your guard. 😎 🤣

I don't even get what this "love" thing is supposed to mean. Why does everyone feel the need to constantly hype up every little social interaction? Love, hate, tolerance—who cares what other people are doing or how they live their lives? Honestly, the less you deal with people, the better. You actually like them more when you aren't seeing them all the time. 🤣

Yeah, whatever. 🥳

Balkanijan Pig said:Look, you really need to grasp one fundamental thing.
Specifically:
1) You are a woman.
2) Women aren't exactly known for being perfectly balanced creatures.
3) Of course, not all women are the same.

Given those premises, the conclusion is rather self-evident:
4) None of this makes much sense to everyone.☕

In other words, some people don't require such deep philosophical analysis of interpersonal dynamics just to find purpose in their lives.☕

Just admit it to your old man—you enjoy a little bit of voyeurism now and then, don't you?😳 😁

1) Oh, absolutely.😕
2) Fair enough.
3) But my mother always told me...!🙂
4) Well... history has shown us that great minds are often misunderstood...😎 🙂

My life had plenty of meaning long before I started indulging in these little...😁 philosophical musings regarding relationships. It isn't exactly a necessity for me.

👋

Karen Sanchez19 said:We really ought to distinguish between universal, absolute love—which is essentially consciousness—

and what most people call "standard love."🙂

The idea is that "standard love" is simply our own subjective experience of affection. Meanwhile, this concept of "universal or absolute love" being synonymous with consciousness doesn't actually generate love itself; rather, it merely scales our understanding of love to match whatever level of spiritual maturity we’ve managed to achieve. In reality, there isn't a functional difference between the two concepts; the distinction lies entirely within the depth of our own perception.

Why on earth would you equate consciousness with love? I find myself unable to agree with that premise...

David Miller15 said:Why on earth are you equating consciousness with love? I have to disagree with you there...

Whenever the topic of love comes up, I always find myself coming back to a specific verse by William Wordsworth from his poem "Tintern Abbey":

" - a blessed tranquility,
In which love gently nudges us,
As long as breath remains within our physical frame,
And even as the flow of our human blood,
Is paused for a moment, without lulling the body
Or awakening the soul back to life."

Does love really need a specific "target"? To me, I see it more as a subtle kind of focus—just one standard emotion among the massive spectrum of human feelings and reactions to external triggers. I tend to view love as this deep-seated "feeling" that quietly moves you from within...

It’s nothing overly mystical or that pseudo-spiritual stuff you hear from New Age types blowing kisses and chanting, "We are all one!"
😁

👋

Quincy:

The Forester and the handyman say: I’ve got this "feeling" about love now... like it’s something that just "softly nudges" you from deep down inside...

👍 😍 🙂

Quincy:

Seriously, go find something productive to do for once.

Maybe try looking for flaws in your own logic before pointing them out in others—unless you’re busy multitasking between a bedroom session and typing on this forum at the exact same time.🙂 🙂 🙂 🙂😂

Quincy:

What does "love" even mean? I honestly don't get why people feel this constant, desperate need to amplify every single little interaction they have with one another.

It’s hardly relevant to the physical world, but then again, I already warned you that terms would likely be misinterpreted here.

Quincy:

Besides, people are much more pleasant when you don't actually have to see them.

It seems like you only have an appetite for dolls.🙂 🙂

I could gift you a small air compressor, just so you don't have to spend every evening blowing things up manually.😂

Quincy:

"Classic love" is just our own narrow, personal experience of affection. Meanwhile, this idea of "universal or absolute love" being synonymous with "consciousness"... it doesn't actually manufacture love itself. It merely simplifies the concept to match whatever level of spiritual maturity we've managed to scrape together. In reality, there is zero distinction between the two; the gap exists only within our own limited perception. Why on earth are you equating consciousness with love? I have to say, I couldn't disagree more...

As you can tell, I've gotten myself hopelessly tangled up in these definitions of love and consciousness, so I see no point in attempting an explanation.😁

Look, the Forester and the Woodcutter🙂 explained it far more elegantly than I ever could. You might want to stop by their thread.

link

I get this vague, hippie-style love for people beneath me—people in trouble, lost, confused, just pathetic. They're practically licking my boots, which tickles, so I love them. 😍 Looking back, it’s just... it's so hypocritical. It's pointless. I'm a bad person. My brain is stuck on one pole—that Nietzschean "dominate and crush the weak" vibe—while my heart is on the other. Try to reconcile them? No way. Everything just goes south.

Maybe I went too far. 😁

Grizzly said:Shumar and Woodcutter🙂 explained it perfectly, you should totally swing by here sometime
link

Grizzly, did you join the Jehovah's Witnesses or become a Mormon? Just asking because of how you acted today.
😁
Check out the new Grizzly look (by Neven Ciganović):

The image is a bit small.
By the way, that lady standing next to Grizzly is Mistress Dragonfly...
🤣