Love, Forgiveness, Acceptance & Appreciation

[Age]

Another narcissistic, attention-seeking, mentally ill forum member who makes threads that he doesn't want anyone to comment on except himself.

Here 'we' have another prime example of one misinterpreting, absolutely, another's words, based on A.P.E. thinking, again.

There are a few of those on here. All men of course

'This one' could not keep presenting a more prime example of a 'confirmation biased' human being.

Carry on with your completely insane 'poetic' writing dear. I will tip-toe out and leave you to it. Don't lock the door though--nursie will be coming with your meds soon......

So, some just speaks about 'their views' on 'love', 'forgiveness', 'acceptance', and 'appreciation', and because it is a 'male' who does this, then "accelafine" whines, whinges, and complains, and wants to class and call 'that one' a 'loony'.

What "accelafine" is showing and proving, here, is, exactly, why the adult human being caused 'world' was in the exact mess that it was in, in the days when this was being written.

[Ben JS]

Thanks for the supportive feedback to my posts, Age.

I hope the contents expressed don't rely on reputation or trust for credibility.
I hereby declare myself a hideous being, but I can still make valid points.
There is no further reason to speak to my hideous character.

It is preferred that we focus on the concepts.

-

Why not just quote 'the words', alone, for 'the words' themselves, alone, "ben js"?

Yeah, maybe I thought the words would be more receptive to the reader if they had reputation behind them.
It gives them more weight in the eyes of certain minds.
In that way, perhaps it's deceptive - or an unspoken influence.
And as demonstrated, it introduces an unnecessary variable that can easily backfire.

Perhaps also, when quoting the words of a known other - it feels disrespectful to not attribute authorship.

But, 'who' says some thing is of no importance at all compared to 'the words', themselves.

That is true.
Anything said may have two interpretations:
That which one believes the author meant,
and that which represents the reader's reaction to the words.

And also, in the context of understanding one's character -
assessing their actions, including their words, is informative.

From the perspective of evaluating the merit of an idea on it's own worth,
then considering these other objectives, are distractions.
They have their merit and their place, but I hope this isn't the space for that.

And, focusing/judging 'people' in either 'good' or 'bad' can be as destructive or unproductive as each other. 'Idealizing/idolizing' one or some over others, and/or 'hating/loathing' one or some over others, can cause as just as much damage and/or harm as the 'other one'.

Good points.
Looking through the lens of good/bad, 'Idealizing/idolizing' and/or 'hating/loathing' all affect our vision.
And in the pursuit of defining more general truths, that does specifically relate to these types of evaluations/reactions,
then may prove counterproductive.

=

My hope for this thread,
was to detail support and defense of the title concepts -
their value, relevance and credibility.

I'd prefer not to dive too deep into character assessments,
at least not here - as it feels like a distraction.

Maybe this feeling is misplaced or unfounded - perhaps so.

[Pistolero]

What a Christian thread...

Does love, forgiveness, acceptance, appreciation extent to all equally and indiscriminately?

What value does a whore's love have, if it is available to all, for the right price?

[Age]

Thanks for the supportive feedback to my posts, Age.

I hope the contents expressed don't rely on reputation or trust for credibility.
I hereby declare myself a hideous being, but I can still make valid points.
There is no further reason to speak to my hideous character.

Just so it becomes clearer, the only one, here, who is focusing on 'character' is 'you'.

It is preferred that we focus on the concepts.

In a philosophy forum or we really have, here, are 'words', and/or 'concepts', to 'look at', and thus to only really 'focus' on.

Absolutely any ideas or views on, or about, 'character/s' is really secondary, and of no real importance at all, here.

-

Why not just quote 'the words', alone, for 'the words' themselves, alone, "ben js"?

Yeah, maybe I thought the words would be more receptive to the reader if they had reputation behind them.

'This' 'looking at', and 'judging' words, based upon 'who' was 'behind the words', was a very common occurrence, back in the days when this was being written. However, it was this kind of 'mis/behavior' why the actual Truth of things took so much longer to come-to-light.

Words, themselves, do not have 'more nor less power', nor carry 'more nor less weight', just because of 'who' said or wrote them.

Words, sentences, statements, claims, and/or arguments 'stand on their own', no matter who or what 'it' is that is expressing them.

It gives them more weight in the eyes of certain minds.

If you replaced the word 'minds' with the word 'people', then this goes to show and proof just how much 'confirmation biases' exists within those 'certain people'. Which, once more, is based upon 'those people's' already pre-existing beliefs, presumptions, and/or prejudices. Which, again, leads back to why it takes some people so much longer to arrive at and see the actual Truth of things.

In that way, perhaps it's deceptive - or an unspoken influence.
And as demonstrated, it introduces an unnecessary variable that can easily backfire.

The words, 'Examine what is spoken, not he who speaks', said 'it' perfectly.

Perhaps also, when quoting the words of a known other - it feels disrespectful to not attribute authorship.

Did you feel disrespected when I did not attribute authorship to you for the above words, here?

If any human being wants to be 'recognized' or 'acknowledge' for just 'the words' that were expressed from 'that body', and which just came from 'thoughts' that arose within 'that body', then 'that one' lacks any real security. After all there is no thought, idea, nor view 'arises' because some 'one' is better than any other 'one'. There is no one who is more nor less intelligent than another one, and because each and every thought, view, idea, or concept only arise because of what 'that body' has previously experienced, wanting to be recognized, accepted, idolized, and/or idealized, for just views or thoughts, alone, shows and reveals that there is more that 'that one' could learn, grow, and/or mature from.

But, 'who' says some thing is of no importance at all compared to 'the words', themselves.

That is true.
Anything said may have two interpretations:
That which one believes the author meant,
and that which represents the reader's reaction to the words.

And also, in the context of understanding one's character -
assessing their actions, including their words, is informative.

Why so?

What one has done in 'the past' may not provide any indication at all of what that one's 'current' intentions are, exactly.

From the perspective of evaluating the merit of an idea on it's own worth,
then considering these other objectives, are distractions.
They have their merit and their place, but I hope this isn't the space for that.

Why do you use the words, 'these other objectives', when what 'these' are, exactly, are just 'subjective views or subjective perspectives', only?

And, focusing/judging 'people' in either 'good' or 'bad' can be as destructive or unproductive as each other. 'Idealizing/idolizing' one or some over others, and/or 'hating/loathing' one or some over others, can cause as just as much damage and/or harm as the 'other one'.

Good points.
Looking through the lens of good/bad, 'Idealizing/idolizing' and/or 'hating/loathing' all affect our vision.
And in the pursuit of defining more general truths, that does specifically relate to these types of evaluations/reactions,
then may prove counterproductive.

=

My hope for this thread,
was to detail support and defense of the title concepts -
their value, relevance and credibility.

I'd prefer not to dive too deep into character assessments,
at least not here - as it feels like a distraction.

Maybe this feeling is misplaced or unfounded - perhaps so.

If and when people are 'looking for' or wanting to delve into what the words, 'love', 'forgiveness', 'acceptance', and/or 'appreciation', mean, and/or are referring to, only, and exactly, then the very last thing people should be doing is guessing or assessing 'the character' of people.

[Age]

What a Christian thread...

Does love, forgiveness, acceptance, appreciation extent to all equally and indiscriminately?

Yes. Why would any human being presume or think otherwise?

What value does a whore's love have, if it is available to all, for the right price?

Obviously 'this one' has not yet learned the actual Truth about you human beings.

There is no so-called "whore" just like there is no so-called "teacher", "doctor", nor "taxi driver". There are only you human beings, here, who think and do different things. Once this is learned and fully understood, then, and only then will you human beings move along, and progress, here.

[Ben JS]

What a Christian thread...

One does not need to be Christian to pursue understandings in these areas -
nor are any of these concepts reliant on Christianity,
nor are their origins, imo, Christian.

Maybe you're lost in your own presumptions?
Wouldn't be the first time.

Does love, forgiveness, acceptance, appreciation extent to all equally and indiscriminately?

These are all subjective reactions to one's environment -
so it would depend on the subject,
as they do not exist outside of subjective experience.

People are less inclined to blame a stone than a person.
So, less reason for forgiveness to even be applicable to stones -
if no one ever cast blame on them.

Typically, people have more appreciation for that which aligns with their values -
and less so for that which threatens it.
Yet, if the universe has an aspect which one appreciates less -
ought one take issue with the entirety of the universe?
Or perhaps, they can focus in more precisely on the area of contention.

Same can be said for people.
People are very complex beings,
and need not be condemned or discarded,
due to specific areas of contention.

One can take issue with the area of contention,
and have less appreciation for that area,
yet still accept and have compassion for the whole of the person.

Both the existence, and people, are package deals.
I believe it is healthier to accept,
yet still seek refinement and wisdom -
within and among all.

What value does a whore's love have, if it is available to all, for the right price?

Value depends on the individual.

In the context of this thread's concepts,
love is a mechanism for healing.
To act with compassion,
expands one's capacity to be compassionate -
and empowers the spirit to be able to give more.

Love is not about possession.
It is not conditional.
Anything with the capacity to love,
has demonstrated their value -
to my eye.

[Ben JS]

Just so it becomes clearer, the only one, here, who is focusing on 'character' is 'you'.

To your credit, Age -
the only one not, might be you.
But potentially you spoke to ( ) accelafine's character.

If any human being wants to be 'recognized' or 'acknowledge' for just 'the words' that were expressed from 'that body', and which just came from 'thoughts' that arose within 'that body', then 'that one' lacks any real security. After all there is no thought, idea, nor view 'arises' because some 'one' is better than any other 'one'.

True.

I think my concern is people taking credit for the insights/work of others, in the pursuit to manipulate.
For example, if a person claimed to originate the works of a bunch of different philosophers, to build esteem & credibility -
only to use that to disempower others.

But one can just focus on the harmful / unhealthy acts or words, and not put much emphasis on attribution / idolization. That may be a fair approach.

If and when people are 'looking for' or wanting to delve into what the words, 'love', 'forgiveness', 'acceptance', and/or 'appreciation', mean, and/or are referring to, only, and exactly, then the very last thing people should be doing is guessing or assessing 'the character' of people.

Every moment is an opportunity to become more complete.
I suppose it can be counterproductive to expect the present to be identical to the past.
If anything, I may better suited in creating a more appealing path to healthy growth -
than laying spikes on the unhealthy path one is tumbling down.

Fool am I.

[Pistolero]

One does not need to be Christian to pursue understandings in these areas -
nor are any of these concepts reliant on Christianity,
nor are their origins, imo, Christian.

Maybe you're lost in your own presumptions?
Wouldn't be the first time.

If this is true, then define 'love' for me.

What is it, and why did it evolve?

People are less inclined to blame a stone than a person.
So, less reason for forgiveness to even be applicable to stones -
if no one ever cast blame on them.

But if forgiveness is not a choice, then what value does it have?

Value depends on the individual.

Yes...value depends on the individuals objectives, which may be idealized.

If inclusivity is the objective then love and forgiveness acquire a different value.
The objective determines how individuals "evaluate, appreciate" everything.

So, the ideology/dogma determines how individuals define and appreciate the concepts of love, forgiveness and acceptance.
Every ideology/dogma has a goal....a motive....which it often idealizes.

If a man wants to understand what these concepts are, and why they evolved, then his objective alters his approach.

For instance, what advatage does love offer to life?
Why is forgiveness essential for a social organism, like man? why is acceptance so vital?
Why do species and ethnicities, sharing a culture, share standards for appreciating, i.e., judging?

[Age]

Just so it becomes clearer, the only one, here, who is focusing on 'character' is 'you'.

To your credit, Age -
the only one not, might be you.
But potentially you spoke to ( ) accelafine's character.

Just so it is absolutely clear, I am not saying I did not, but when and where, exactly, would you say and claim I, potentially, spoke to "accelafine's" character?

If any human being wants to be 'recognized' or 'acknowledge' for just 'the words' that were expressed from 'that body', and which just came from 'thoughts' that arose within 'that body', then 'that one' lacks any real security. After all there is no thought, idea, nor view 'arises' because some 'one' is better than any other 'one'.

True.

I think my concern is people taking credit for the insights/work of others, in the pursuit to manipulate.

It would depend on what the 'manipulation' was for, exactly, right?

As, 'manipulating', itself, is not a good nor bad thing. But, what 'manipulating' is intended for makes 'manipulating' a good or bad thing.

Also, and again, where 'words', themselves, come from is of no importance at all.

For example, if a person claimed to originate the works of a bunch of different philosophers, to build esteem & credibility -
only to use that to disempower others.

But one can just focus on the harmful / unhealthy acts or words, and not put much emphasis on attribution / idolization. That may be a fair approach.

If and when people are 'looking for' or wanting to delve into what the words, 'love', 'forgiveness', 'acceptance', and/or 'appreciation', mean, and/or are referring to, only, and exactly, then the very last thing people should be doing is guessing or assessing 'the character' of people.

Every moment is an opportunity to become more complete.
I suppose it can be counterproductive to expect the present to be identical to the past.
If anything, I may better suited in creating a more appealing path to healthy growth -
than laying spikes on the unhealthy path one is tumbling down.

Fool am I.

Okay.

[Ben JS]

It would depend on what the 'manipulation' was for, exactly, right?

As, 'manipulating', itself, is not a good nor bad thing. But, what 'manipulating' is intended for makes 'manipulating' a good or bad thing.

Also, and again, where 'words', themselves, come from is of no importance at all.

https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/t/respo ... s/38923/19

Manipulate - To tamper with or falsify for personal gain + To influence or manage shrewdly or deviously

Influence - To affect the nature, development, or condition of; modify. + A power affecting a person, thing, or course of events

=

Manipulation has negative connotations. It’s associated with falseness, hidden agendas, and abuse.

I think someone can influence another person without manipulating them.

If someone presents their agenda openly and offers evidence / reason for others to be interested in it - I wouldn’t call that manipulation.

If they are respectful, honest and fair to the interests of the other - I wouldn’t call this manipulation.

One could seek to influence others to be able to act in their own self interest. To empower them. To give them the capacity to think critically and understand their environment.

This isn’t manipulation.

And if one has the capacity to protect themselves, then they won’t be susceptible to manipulation and can make their own decisions.

All without the need to resort to using the methods that one is seeking to get away from - manipulation.

But in fairness, I did not give you the definitions when I spoke.

[Pistolero]

• Christian love is a radical passive-aggression of the spirit. Whereas genetic insemination requires penetration of biological borders, memetic insemination requires penetration of mental or spiritual borders. Because Jesus’ mind-spirit was the penetration of the mental-spiritual borders that separated Jew and Roman, his spiritual ideas could penetrate and inseminate hitherto “natural” borders. Whereas sexual love leads toward genetic insemination, Christian love leads to memetic insemination. Love is an evolutionary expression of a desire for reproduction and, in this case, the reproduction of the selfish memes of Christian altruism. Jesus overcame the natural determination of being a natural rapist by becoming a supernatural rapist. Christian love is Jesus’ gargantuan spiritual penis raping the boundaries of class and race, Jew and gentile, insider and outsider, and master and slave. Jesus’ penis of the spirit penetrated deep inside until the spiritually violated Roman-ruled world had been loved to death.

• The English word “virtue” is derived from the Roman word virtus, meaning manliness or strength. Virtus derived from vir, meaning “man.” Virilis, an ancestor of the English word “virile,” is also derived from the Roman word for man. From this Roman conception of virtue, was Jesus less than a man or more than a man? Did the spectacle of Jesus dying on a Roman cross exemplify virtus; manliness; strength; masterliness; forcefulness?
Consistent with his valuation of turning the cheek, it would seem that Jesus exemplified utterly shamelessness and a total lack of the manly honor of the Romans. Yet the fame of his humiliation on the cross did, in a sense, exemplify a perverse variety of virtus, for Jesus’ feminine, compassionate ethics have mastered and conquered the old pagan virtues of the gentiles. Jesus’ spiritual penis has penetrated, disseminated, and impregnated the West with his “virtuous” seed. And it is from that seed that “modernity” has sprouted. Jesus combined the highest Roman virtue of dying honorably in battle with highest Jewish virtue of martyrdom and strength in persecution. This combination formed a psychic bridge between pagan and Jew, i.e. between ideal cruelty in war and ideal compassion in peace. This is one way in which Christianity became the evolutionary missing link between the more masculine ethos of the ancient pagan West and the more feminine ethos of the modern West. The original Enlightenment notion of revolution reflects a quasi-creationist view of change that makes the sudden rupture between the moral assumptions of the ancient and modern world almost inexplicable. However, if we take a more gradualistic view of social change wherein modern egalitarianism evolved from what preceded it, then the origins of modern political assumptions become more explicable. The final moral-political rupture from the ancients became possible, in part, because Christianity acted as an incubator of modern values.

[Age]

It would depend on what the 'manipulation' was for, exactly, right?

As, 'manipulating', itself, is not a good nor bad thing. But, what 'manipulating' is intended for makes 'manipulating' a good or bad thing.

Also, and again, where 'words', themselves, come from is of no importance at all.

https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/t/respo ... s/38923/19

Manipulate - To tamper with or falsify for personal gain + To influence or manage shrewdly or deviously

Influence - To affect the nature, development, or condition of; modify. + A power affecting a person, thing, or course of events

=

'Manipulate',
1. handle handle or control in a skilful manner..

2. control or influence cleverly, OR, unscrupulously.

Manipulation has negative connotations.

Of course the word 'manipulation' can have 'negative connotations'. But, as I just showed and proved the word 'manipulation' does not 'have to' have 'negative connotation', however, if you want to only 'see' 'negative connotations', then you are obviously absolutely free to choose to do so.

It’s associated with falseness, hidden agendas, and abuse.

And, 'it' is also associated with 'skillfully and/or cleverly handled' as well.

I think someone can influence another person without manipulating them.

I know someone can influence another through handing them skillfully and/or cleverly. For example 'I' am controlling and/or influencing you people through ....

Now, some might class 'this' as 'manipulation' in either a 'negative' or a 'positive' connotation. Once again, 'we' will just have to wait, to see.

If someone presents their agenda openly and offers evidence / reason for others to be interested in it - I wouldn’t call that manipulation.

Okay. For example if I presented my agenda, here, openly and honestly, that my agenda is to create a much better world for every one, then what could I offer as 'evidence / reason', which would be interest to you, exactly?

If they are respectful, honest and fair to the interests of the other - I wouldn’t call this manipulation.

Okay.

One could seek to influence others to be able to act in their own self interest. To empower them. To give them the capacity to think critically and understand their environment.

And, this can be done through 'skillful handing', right?

This isn’t manipulation.

Okay.

And if one has the capacity to protect themselves, then they won’t be susceptible to manipulation and can make their own decisions.

So, are you saying that you people can make up your own decisions without being influenced by any one and/or any thing?

All without the need to resort to using the methods that one is seeking to get away from - manipulation.

Okay.

But in fairness, I did not give you the definitions when I spoke.

I also did not give you the definitions either.

But, I do this purposely in order to find out who still has some curiosity and/or interest left.

[Ben JS]

(2023)

Just as the other is worthy of love,
so too is the self worthy of one’s love.

To neglect one’s needs,
and to put one’s self in a position of needless harm -
is not self love.

Yes, there are situations where one can make sacrifices,
but there is something indeed being lost.
One may potentially be doing an injustice by the self,
for what one deems the greater good.

Intentionally looking for reason to martyr the self,
is likely a form of self hatred, I think.
Self punishment with silver linings.

Love is when your well being is tied or at least “bottlenecked” by the well being of the person or people you love.
That is to say you cannot be any more happy, joyful or content, than what you believe the person you love is at any given moment.
Also, quite often, the person you love being made happy or joyful is in itself what brings you joy and happiness.
Love is when you are linked to another, in that way.

Why we begin to love someone is probably best answered evolutionarily…
That is to say the most predictive and accurate answer is probably as a genetic utility function, rather than some spiritual or poetic force of nature.

That bonded feeling is what facilitates and motivates cooperative and altruistic actions that ultimately is the human survival strategy. To function as a tribal group, rather than solitary creatures.
As this bond is made stronger and more potent, this then permits our young to be made more vulnerable at birth by being minimally functional and requiring near constant care for a great deal of time before any degree of independence is achieved. Meaning it debilitates one or more of the adults who in place of their normal duties now have to divert attention to this small useless lump of crying flesh… and yet this child is not perceived (normally) as a detriment or liability or even a burdon, as it brings us much joy and fulfillment to render it aid and watch it grow… not just for the biological parents, but the entire tribe.

I think some of the benefits to the arrival of love,
was the ability to overwrite the shortfalls of other urges.

For example, if you had an overabundance of hate,
how would that play out in a tribal setting?
Could you forgive the mistakes of others?
Would you seek revenge against imperfections which all are susceptible to?
Or perhaps, would you engage in behavior which undermines the tribe as a unit?
You need something to keep this urge in check.
Even if you don’t have love for the transgressor,
perhaps if someone you love cares for them,
then to hurt the other is to indirectly hurt the self - through the mutual link.
In tribes, all are connected.
The odds are, someone’s going to advocate the interests of any party.

Furthermore, love can provide meaning.
Intelligence introduces the question of ‘Why?’.
In the face of dire circumstances,
love is a source of meaning.
Where other reasons pale,
love is powerful enough to justify perseverance.

When we talk of survival -
intelligent beings with meaning
will endure and overcome far more,
than intelligent beings without meaning.

“The best relationship is one in which your love for each other exceeds your need for each other.”

I can understand in certain relationships,
people can become stronger as a unit,
by sacrificing aspects of their own competence,
to devote energy to specializing in certain areas -
with all members repeating this in differing aspects,
thereby producing a unit stronger than what any part alone could be.

This unit renders individuals vulnerable,
as their stability is reliant on others.
This position demands trust.

This is one strategy.

Alternatively, people could be self sufficient units.
Where one’s presence isn’t to address the deficits of another.
Rather, where members find value in the company of others.
If there’s trust, members can still delegate tasks,
and support each other in moments of self vulnerability / adversity.

[Ben JS]

To forgive is not to condone.
It is to let go of animosity and ill-will.
To wish the best, and well being of the other.
The compassionate path to reconciliation.

If one requires forgiveness,
one requires healing too.
To forgive is to not cause further harm,
to one in need of healing.

To forgive allows another's healing,
and so too of one's own -
to neutralize the poison,
of hatred radiating from heart.

If an injustice has been done,
then one may have a wound.
Hatred: an infection that festers,
and inhibits the healing of injustice.

[ThinkOfOne]

To forgive is not to condone.
It is to let go of animosity and ill-will.
To wish the best, and well being of the other.
The compassionate path to reconciliation.

If one requires forgiveness,
one requires healing too.
To forgive is to not cause further harm,
to one in need of healing.

To forgive allows another's healing,
and so too of one's own -
to neutralize the poison,
of hatred radiating from heart.

If an injustice has been done,
then one may have a wound.
Hatred: an infection that festers,
and inhibits the healing of injustice.

The word "forgiveness" has been and continues to be used with more than a few very different meanings. This makes discussing it problematic.

Take the meaning that you seem to be trying to convey here. Even that meaning is problematic in and of itself. As but one example, take the Christian who speaks of forgiveness in that way, yet supports capital punishment. While they may genuinely feel like they have bear no "animosity and ill-will" toward the perpetrator, they also believe taking that individual's life is just.

"Forgiveness" is a very complex topic. What you've presented in this post grossly oversimplifies it. While it seems that many take solace in such sentiments, it is self-serving to do so.

Similarly for "love".