conditional love

[Age]

Weak on love experience? Sure, but this post is about general things. It doesn't require emotional experience. It's true no matter how anyone feels about it. Understanding relative Worth and Value of things does not require love experience.

Value & worth are subjective, idiosyncratic.

Love (loving) is subjective, idiosyncratic.

You declare You should love someone for their potential as though this is a universal standard: it's not (and it's not even a very good personal standard).

You want neat boxes in a sloppy universe.

You should love someone for their potential because anything else is short-changing them and is inaccurate - being contingent upon momentary circumstance, which may or may not be in their control but is at least to some major relevant extent, not.

Also, if they're not trying to live up to their potential you should stop loving them. It's the very definition of a lost cause.

What is "your potential"?

How does 'it' differ from "others"?

And, what does 'love' actually mean, to you?

How do you 'love' someone, and, how do you 'stop loving' someone?

How do you KNOW some one and EVERY one's potential, AND, when do KNOW when someone is not trying to live up to 'their' potential?

IF people have different 'potentials', then what if someone's 'potential' is to be a "child killer", then you 'should' you stop loving them if they are not trying to live up to their potential? Or, should you 'love' them for not trying to live up to 'their potential'?

Your clarification on ALL questions would be much appreciated.

[Advocate]

>What is "your potential"?

Our actual potential is whatever actually occurs, since everything is causal, but in the vernacular sense, our potential is our best selves that we can recognize the actual capacity to pursue.. something like that. Oh, judging from the next question you meant me specifically. My potential is infinite (that being a direction - keep going, not a destination), in that i've solved philosophy and have at least the basic characteristics of the hypothetical best possible world leader. My potential in the practical sense - what will circumstantially actually happen, is nil, like 99.99% of everyone who has ever lived.

>How does 'it' differ from "others"?

There is a critical distinction that can be used here between do-ers and be-ers. Be-ers just want to exist. They don't care how things work or who's running the show if their shower turns on and they can get groceries. The Be-ers are those who attain to something greater both for themselves individually and for the species/race/planet/what-have-you. Most people are do-ers. I prefer the term Morlock, but not everyone gets the reference.

>And, what does 'love' actually mean, to you?

I'm emotionally stunted and unqualified to answer that question in a manner that would be meaningful in a larger discussion. I accept a generic version of the word as i understand other people to understand it, then try to elevate it by making it more comprehensible and useful.

>How do you 'love' someone, and, how do you 'stop loving' someone?

Emotions are beyond our control (the salience part of the three contingencies of "spiritual" matters), but we can learn to control our reactions to them or hypothetically train our subconscious to tamp them down in advance.

>How do you KNOW some one and EVERY one's potential, AND, when do KNOW when someone is not trying to live up to 'their' potential?

I don't know. This is just the starting point for the discussion. Love is one of humanity's most important and meaningful concepts and we should treat it with deference and improve it just as we should improve everything else with potential. It would produce a better society to treat the world love as something that should be earned as much as felt. We're far too feels-based today. Even the most important and ineffable emotion can still be subject to rational consideration and can be improved or denigrated according to how it's practiced.

>IF people have different 'potentials', then what if someone's 'potential' is to be a "child killer", then you 'should' you stop loving them if they are not trying to live up to their potential? Or, should you 'love' them for not trying to live up to 'their potential'?

If you want to use potential in a general way, that's not the obviously positive definition i've been using here so far.

Now how about you provide some clarification about my clarifications? I'm sure i misinterpreted something you were asking somewhere along the line. <caveat c - assuming we're speaking the same language>

[Age]

You must be living in one of those alternate universes i've been hearing so much about.

I could have worded that better - There is (a) potential within EVER one, which is the EXACT SAME.

This, however, still does not retract from the fact that this potential is 'the way they are'. Therefore, according to your "logic", you "should" love EVERY one 'for their potential', or for the EXACT SAME reason of 'the way they are'.

The reason you do not is because of your 'conditional' love.

Also, HOW could there even be alternate Universes?

Their potential is not equal so your love for them should not be equal.

I wait, patiently, for your ACTUAL PROOF that human beings' 'potential' is NOT equal.

Also, when you use the word 'should', what is it in relation 'to', EXACTLY?

More than that, their attempting to live up to their potential is not equal and that says a great deal more about their "true" character.

Does it?

I do NOT YET even know what you are saying, and meaning, in relation to 'their potential is not equal', nor what you are saying, and meaning, in relation to "their" "true" 'character.

Who, or what, is 'their'?

What is that things 'character'?

And how is that things 'true character' different from just 'their character'?

Also, if 'their potential' is different, and, 'their attempting to live up to 'their potential' is not equal, (and this supposedly says a great deal more about 'their "true" character', then HOW?

If EVERY persons 'potential' is different, and, EVERY persons 'attempt to live up to 'their potential' is not equal', then 'what' EXACTLY are you basing 'character', and more so 'true character', on exactly?

However, it's an impossible calculus. ShHOULDs are IF/THEN statements.

To me, 'shoulds' are shoulds, and, 'if/then statements' are if/then statements. And, they are NOT the same. But each to their own.

IF you want to value people according to that which is best in them, THEN you should love them according to their potential as elucidated here, or some more refined version of it.

What you claim here MIGHT BE TRUE. BUT, until you can CLARIFY how we are to KNOW what EVERY person's DIFFERENT 'potential' supposedly is, then what you claim here some might say, "is just horse shit".

Also, you WILL have to elaborate on what 'love' is, EXACTLY? And, elaborate on 'what' the SHOULD is relative to, EXACTLY, as well?

It's obviously not actionable as-is because the problems remain of recognizing people's potential, understanding whatever reasons they have for not pursuing their best self, and more than that, whether they can even recognize their own potential, without which there is no possible way to judge it, since potential can be a self-fulfilling prophecy that way.

Maybe you can help us understand this better by YOU explaining to US what you allege YOUR 'potential' is, FIRST?

Also, if what you are claiming is OBVIOUSLY NOT ACTIONABLE as-is, then WHY bring it up here?

[Advocate]

I could have worded that better - There is (a) potential within EVER one, which is the EXACT SAME.

This, however, still does not retract from the fact that this potential is 'the way they are'. Therefore, according to your "logic", you "should" love EVERY one 'for their potential', or for the EXACT SAME reason of 'the way they are'.

The reason you do not is because of your 'conditional' love.

Also, HOW could there even be alternate Universes?

Their potential is not equal so your love for them should not be equal.

I wait, patiently, for your ACTUAL PROOF that human beings' 'potential' is NOT equal.

Also, when you use the word 'should', what is it in relation 'to', EXACTLY?

More than that, their attempting to live up to their potential is not equal and that says a great deal more about their "true" character.

Does it?

I do NOT YET even know what you are saying, and meaning, in relation to 'their potential is not equal', nor what you are saying, and meaning, in relation to "their" "true" 'character.

Who, or what, is 'their'?

What is that things 'character'?

And how is that things 'true character' different from just 'their character'?

Also, if 'their potential' is different, and, 'their attempting to live up to 'their potential' is not equal, (and this supposedly says a great deal more about 'their "true" character', then HOW?

If EVERY persons 'potential' is different, and, EVERY persons 'attempt to live up to 'their potential' is not equal', then 'what' EXACTLY are you basing 'character', and more so 'true character', on exactly?

However, it's an impossible calculus. ShHOULDs are IF/THEN statements.

To me, 'shoulds' are shoulds, and, 'if/then statements' are if/then statements. And, they are NOT the same. But each to their own.

IF you want to value people according to that which is best in them, THEN you should love them according to their potential as elucidated here, or some more refined version of it.

What you claim here MIGHT BE TRUE. BUT, until you can CLARIFY how we are to KNOW what EVERY person's DIFFERENT 'potential' supposedly is, then what you claim here some might say, "is just horse shit".

Also, you WILL have to elaborate on what 'love' is, EXACTLY? And, elaborate on 'what' the SHOULD is relative to, EXACTLY, as well?

It's obviously not actionable as-is because the problems remain of recognizing people's potential, understanding whatever reasons they have for not pursuing their best self, and more than that, whether they can even recognize their own potential, without which there is no possible way to judge it, since potential can be a self-fulfilling prophecy that way.

Maybe you can help us understand this better by YOU explaining to US what you allege YOUR 'potential' is, FIRST?

Also, if what you are claiming is OBVIOUSLY NOT ACTIONABLE as-is, then WHY bring it up here?

Humans are obviously not equal in abilities or circumstances so the contention that they are not equal in potential is the prima facie case. The burden of proof is on you. Can their potential be unrelated to their abilities? I think you're making up your own language.

As i said, quite clearly, it's not actionable Yet. You could help with the process or you could blather on about irrelevancies, all trees and no forest, as in other posts.

[Age]

>What is "your potential"?

Our actual potential is whatever actually occurs, since everything is causal, but in the vernacular sense, our potential is our best selves that we can recognize the actual capacity to pursue.. something like that.

So, I ask 'you' for 'your' potential, (since it was 'you' claiming that if one says that the potential within EVERY one is the EXACT SAME 'must be' living in some "alternate universe"), BUT your response is in relation to 'our potential', and even STARTS with the words "our actual potential". The obvious contradiction and absurdity of this is STRIKINGLY BRILLIANT.

Saying, "is whatever actually occurs" REVEALS that you actually have absolutely NO idea at all. If 'everything is causal', then 'potential' is causal, and thus always changing. So, you could NEVER know what someone's potential is from minute to minute. Therefore, your claim here is just absurd.

Also, in what particular country or region is your, supposed, "vernacular sense" in relation to EXACTLY?

And, if 'our potential' is [to be] 'our best selves that we can recognize the actual capacity to pursue, then this INFERS or at least IMPLIES that 'the potential within EVERY one is the EXACT SAME'. Which, quite humorously, when I said that you said that I must be living in one of those alternate universes that you have been hearing so much about.

Oh, judging from the next question you meant me specifically.

Yes.

The word 'your', in a question posed to 'you', is usually in relation to 'you', specifically.

My potential is infinite (that being a direction - keep going, not a destination), in that i've solved philosophy and have at least the basic characteristics of the hypothetical best possible world leader.

Being just a "world leader", or just having the characteristics of being the best possible world leader, seems like a very SHORTENED potential if ones potential is supposedly INFINITE.

Also, if we were to take a look at the majority of the, so called, "world leaders" in these days when this is being written, then being a 'best possible' "world leader" would be relatively NOTHING AT ALL.

In fact if I were to take a bet EVERY human being under the age of seven could be and would be a BETTER "world leader" than the current ones, (in the days of when this is written).

Those children could, at least, teach what love, life, and living is truly about. And, the younger the child the BETTER teacher/leader they actually ARE.

Also, how have you, supposedly, "solved philosophy"?

And, to you, what are the "basic characteristics of the hypothetical 'best possible world leader', EXACTLY?

My potential in the practical sense - what will circumstantially actually happen, is nil, like 99.99% of everyone who has ever lived.

If 'your potential' of happening is NIL, then you OBVIOUSLY have given up and are NOT 'trying to' live up to 'your potential'.

>How does 'it' differ from "others"?

There is a critical distinction that can be used here between do-ers and be-ers. Be-ers just want to exist. They don't care how things work or who's running the show if their shower turns on and they can get groceries. The Be-ers are those who attain to something greater both for themselves individually and for the species/race/planet/what-have-you. Most people are do-ers. I prefer the term Morlock, but not everyone gets the reference.

Are you aware that you wrote "be-ers" just want to exist and do not care how things work or who is running the show, and that "be-ers" are also those who attain to something greater both for themselves individually and for the species/race/planet/what-have-you?

Will you clear up this contradiction?

Also, as you explained you are OBVIOUSLY just being one of those who do NOT care how things work or who is running the show.

>And, what does 'love' actually mean, to you?

I'm emotionally stunted and unqualified to answer that question in a manner that would be meaningful in a larger discussion.

Sounds like you actually have some MORE to "solve" in relation to 'philosophy'.

I accept a generic version of the word as i understand other people to understand it, then try to elevate it by making it more comprehensible and useful.

But you have NOT done any such thing at all.

You have NOT even CLARIFIED what the, so called, "generic version of the word 'love' is", "as you understand other people to understand it", (whatever that actually means), let alone ever trying to elvate that 'understanding' by making it more comprehensible and useful. You may do this within that head, but if you can NOT or will NOT do this in written words here, in this forum, then what you 'accept' is completely and utterly UNKNOWN to me, and "others".

From what I am observing is a human being who NOT actually KNOW what they are talking about, but is 'trying' their very hardest to appear as though they do.

>How do you 'love' someone, and, how do you 'stop loving' someone?

Emotions are beyond our control (the salience part of the three contingencies of "spiritual" matters), but we can learn to control our reactions to them or hypothetically train our subconscious to tamp them down in advance.

What has this, another, attempt at distraction actually have to do with the actual clarifying question I posed to you?

Also, because of the actual amount of absurdity, contradiction, and confusion being expressed in your sentence here I will not even attempt to ask you to clarify this.

>How do you KNOW some one and EVERY one's potential, AND, when do KNOW when someone is not trying to live up to 'their' potential?

I don't know.

So, WHY make the claim from the outset?

Also, and by the way, I thank you profusely for being OPEN and Honest, and for answering EVERY question I pose to you. This is a sign of a True human being, and their True potential.

This is just the starting point for the discussion.

Okay. But going by your first response to me in this thread it appears that you already have a conclusion, which you already BELIEVE is true.

Love is one of humanity's most important and meaningful concepts and we should treat it with deference and improve it just as we should improve everything else with potential.

Sounds GREAT, to me.

But when I asked you what 'love' actually means, to you, you did NOT provide us with ANY concept at all, let alone the most important and meaningful concept, which we could at least START to treat with deference and START to improve.

I suggest that if you want to make the STARTING point for a discussion, then do NOT start it by making a claim, which you OBVIOUSLY do not have absolutely ANY thing at all to back up and support your claim. What you are doing to provide a starting point for a discussion is just expressing your own ALREADY HELD BELIEFS, and expressing them as only they are true, right, and correct.

Discussions that start that way continue in debate and in 'arguments', which end up with illogical disagreements, bickering, and fighting. However,

Discussions that start from a Truly OPEN perspective continue in learning and in 'arguments', which end up with logically reasoned agreements, discoveries, and conclusions.

It would produce a better society to treat the world love as something that should be earned as much as felt.

What do you propose that a new born baby actually does to "earn love"?

We're far too feels-based today.

If 'you' are, then WHY are 'you'?

Even the most important and ineffable emotion can still be subject to rational consideration and can be improved or denigrated according to how it's practiced.

To me, there is absolutely NO thing that is "ineffable", including ALL emotions.

>IF people have different 'potentials', then what if someone's 'potential' is to be a "child killer", then you 'should' you stop loving them if they are not trying to live up to their potential? Or, should you 'love' them for not trying to live up to 'their potential'?

If you want to use potential in a general way, that's not the obviously positive definition i've been using here so far.

What does "if you 'want to' use potential in a 'general way', actually mean?

How many ways are there to use the word 'potential', and how is the way I used a, supposed, 'general way' to the way you are using that word?

How about from now on explaining how EXACTLY you are using the word 'potential' here?

What is the, so called, "positive" definition for the word 'potential' verses the so called, "negative" definition for the word 'potential'?

To me, words have a definition or definitions. Definitions, in and of themselves, are NOT negative NOR positive. Definitions are JUST, definitions.

So, until you actually CLARIFY how you are exactly using the word 'potential' here, then I will have NO way of KNOWING how you have been using that word, so far.

Now how about you provide some clarification about my clarifications?

SURE. When you ask some clarifying questions.

I'm sure i misinterpreted something you were asking somewhere along the line. <caveat c - assuming we're speaking the same language>

If you are so SURE that you misinterpreted something I was asking somewhere along the line, then why did you NOT clarify FIRST, BEFORE you replied?

Also, to me, something can be very easily or very simply 'misinterpreted' in a statement or proposition, (which by the way can be very simply and very easily clear up just through clarification), but, when I ask a question, then they are asked in a Truly OPEN perspective, and therefore with absolutely NO preconceived ideas. Therefore, my clarifying questions are usually EXTREMELY straightforward, and very simple and easy, and are just asking for what the words are actually asking for.


Also, what do you mean by 'same language'? Do you see what you might call "the english language"? If you do, then that is a great sign that we are using, and thus speaking, the same language.

[Age]

Their potential is not equal so your love for them should not be equal.

I wait, patiently, for your ACTUAL PROOF that human beings' 'potential' is NOT equal.

Also, when you use the word 'should', what is it in relation 'to', EXACTLY?

More than that, their attempting to live up to their potential is not equal and that says a great deal more about their "true" character.

Does it?

I do NOT YET even know what you are saying, and meaning, in relation to 'their potential is not equal', nor what you are saying, and meaning, in relation to "their" "true" 'character.

Who, or what, is 'their'?

What is that things 'character'?

And how is that things 'true character' different from just 'their character'?

Also, if 'their potential' is different, and, 'their attempting to live up to 'their potential' is not equal, (and this supposedly says a great deal more about 'their "true" character', then HOW?

If EVERY persons 'potential' is different, and, EVERY persons 'attempt to live up to 'their potential' is not equal', then 'what' EXACTLY are you basing 'character', and more so 'true character', on exactly?

However, it's an impossible calculus. ShHOULDs are IF/THEN statements.

To me, 'shoulds' are shoulds, and, 'if/then statements' are if/then statements. And, they are NOT the same. But each to their own.

IF you want to value people according to that which is best in them, THEN you should love them according to their potential as elucidated here, or some more refined version of it.

What you claim here MIGHT BE TRUE. BUT, until you can CLARIFY how we are to KNOW what EVERY person's DIFFERENT 'potential' supposedly is, then what you claim here some might say, "is just horse shit".

Also, you WILL have to elaborate on what 'love' is, EXACTLY? And, elaborate on 'what' the SHOULD is relative to, EXACTLY, as well?

It's obviously not actionable as-is because the problems remain of recognizing people's potential, understanding whatever reasons they have for not pursuing their best self, and more than that, whether they can even recognize their own potential, without which there is no possible way to judge it, since potential can be a self-fulfilling prophecy that way.

Maybe you can help us understand this better by YOU explaining to US what you allege YOUR 'potential' is, FIRST?

Also, if what you are claiming is OBVIOUSLY NOT ACTIONABLE as-is, then WHY bring it up here?

Humans are obviously not equal in abilities or circumstances so the contention that they are not equal in potential is the prima facie case.

Okay. So, now that you have made it VERY CLEAR that the 'abilities' or 'circumstances' are OBVIOUSLY 'not equal' in human beings, to you, will you now provide examples of 'this', what is OBVIOUS, to you.

Until you do I am NOT seeing what you OBVIOUSLY see.

The burden of proof is on you.

WHY?

And the burden of proof of 'what' EXACTLY, is supposedly on 'me'?

Can their potential be unrelated to their abilities?

Who, and/or what is 'their'?

And, how and why have you jumped to 'potential' and 'ability' being unrelated?

I have CERTAINLY NOT thought that anywhere, let alone wrote and said that anywhere.

I think you're making up your own language.

The EVIDENCE and PROOF is above. So, who is actually doing this can be CLEARLY SEEN.

As i said, quite clearly, it's not actionable Yet.

When will it be?

And, as I asked earlier, then WHY bring it up Now?

You could help with the process or you could blather on about irrelevancies, all trees and no forest, as in other posts.

I was HELPING, by giving you the opportunities to CLARIFY what 'it' is that you are actually talking about and suggesting.

Also, from my first reply I alerted you to the fact that the 'potential' is within EVERY one, and that that is how 'they are', and therefore 'what they ARE' also, which you were claiming that 'to love' was, in your words, "horse shit".

If you SERIOUSLY want to make actionable what you say is NOT YET actionable, then you first have to humble your own 'self' and recognize that you still have quite some actual LEARNING to do, "your" 'self'.

By the way, 'it' is ALREADY 'actionable'. We are just waiting, patiently, for those who Truly WANT TO learn 'it' and action 'it'.

[Age]

When 'you' learn what thee EXACT SAME potential IS, within EVERY human being, and HOW and WHERE that 'potential' comes from in relation the EXACT SAME ability within EVERY human being, and HOW that is WHAT 'human beings' actually are, and WHICH separates them from EVERY other known species, then you will BEGIN to START learning and understanding MORE about what 'love' actually IS, and HOW it is through True Love that human beings FULL 'potential' will activated, and thus actionable.

BUT, while you remain in your CLOSED and NARROWED perspective of things, then you will NOT even realize that FULL potential and NOT reacquire that FULL ability within 'you' to LEARN and ACTION what is actually POSSIBLE.