DeletedUser8396
Guest
This one's a bit...strange. It's aim is to disassociate love with humans:
First, choose one thing you love. Any one thing. Whatever it is, you now have no perceptions of it – past present or future. The thing you love no longer exists. Now, tell me – does that love still exist? Certainly not. If a mother loves her daughter, but we then remove the mother’s perceptions of her daughter, she cannot love her daughter as the daughter’s existence is a necessary component of that love.
This then means that objects and sentient beings must precede love. Without objects, love does not exist.
But is that true?
Think of your favorite song. A song you truly love. All that song is a string of notes combined with a set of words. Remove any perception of that song from your mind? Do you still love it? The prior logic would say no, but one moment. Consider:
Why did you love that song beforehand? Other experiences you had led to that love of that song. Now, assuming those experiences were still in place, would you not still have the same love for that song, but it simply not be activated? A “sleeper cell” of love, if you will. And a mother, if removing all perceptions of her daughter, would she not still love a daughter bearing the same qualities and title, but that love simply remain unknown yet as it has not achieved a focus?
But isn’t that much like a bacteria residing outside the body? The result would be sickness, but the bacteria does not have something to make ill. The bacteria still exists, but the result of sickness awaits someone to make sick. The bacteria relating experiences, sickness to love, and the body as the object being loved. Just as the bacteria does not equate to a cough, experiences do not equate to being love.
________________________________________________
We are our experiences.
So, if experiences do not equate to love without an object, then love is tied to objects. Whether it is tied to experiences is to be seen.
The bacteria did not cause sickness – the combination of bacteria and body made sickness. Simple equation, really.
The subject, if having no senses whatsoever, is essentially secluded within himself. He is only aware of himself. The question – can the subject love himself?
“Himself”, by the very nature of the word, implies an identity and a being. However, in order to have an adequate identity, one much first experience various things in order to establish preferences, impressions, and concepts about one’s person. The individual cannot love his appearance as he has neither seen his body nor seen another body to compare itself against. He cannot love or admire his accomplishments as he neither knows what he has done (as he has not sensed or perceived it) nor knows whether the actions he is aware of are worthy of praise and thus loveable.
The point is that objects require experiences before they exist. For if there is a cube before you but you cannot see, taste, smell, touch or hear it, the object essentially does not exist in the paradigm one lives. And since the object cannot effectively exist without experiences and love cannot exist without an object, then love therefore cannot exist without experiences.
Also, if one were to return all senses, yet remove all objects, the senses would be nonexistent. For if there is no box, one cannot sense any being of a box. Apply this to all objects and there are no senses (effectively). So, experiences and objects are co-requisites for love to exist.
Thus far, love seems to be linked to the individual – within himself. Since experiences are required for the love to exist, we can adequately assume that love is directly within the mind and within oneself. However, let us return to the CD example.
Experiences are essentially a list of interpretations of events. Objects are universal. Lists are essentially universal. The song that elicits one’s love appeals to a certain number of items of that list. Were those same experiences placed in any other being capable of love, the same love would come about as our identities are based in our experiences.
Therefore, since only certain criteria must be met to elicit love, and criteria in and of themselves do not require an individual to exist, then we may reduce love to a view of criteria in conjunction with objects.
Although objects do not effectively exist to an individual without senses, the objects still physically exist in and of themselves- especially in relation to a universal criteria. And since neither objects nor criteria demand an individual to exist, and both elicit love, we can adequately claim that love exists outside the body.
First, choose one thing you love. Any one thing. Whatever it is, you now have no perceptions of it – past present or future. The thing you love no longer exists. Now, tell me – does that love still exist? Certainly not. If a mother loves her daughter, but we then remove the mother’s perceptions of her daughter, she cannot love her daughter as the daughter’s existence is a necessary component of that love.
This then means that objects and sentient beings must precede love. Without objects, love does not exist.
But is that true?
Think of your favorite song. A song you truly love. All that song is a string of notes combined with a set of words. Remove any perception of that song from your mind? Do you still love it? The prior logic would say no, but one moment. Consider:
Why did you love that song beforehand? Other experiences you had led to that love of that song. Now, assuming those experiences were still in place, would you not still have the same love for that song, but it simply not be activated? A “sleeper cell” of love, if you will. And a mother, if removing all perceptions of her daughter, would she not still love a daughter bearing the same qualities and title, but that love simply remain unknown yet as it has not achieved a focus?
But isn’t that much like a bacteria residing outside the body? The result would be sickness, but the bacteria does not have something to make ill. The bacteria still exists, but the result of sickness awaits someone to make sick. The bacteria relating experiences, sickness to love, and the body as the object being loved. Just as the bacteria does not equate to a cough, experiences do not equate to being love.
________________________________________________
We are our experiences.
So, if experiences do not equate to love without an object, then love is tied to objects. Whether it is tied to experiences is to be seen.
The bacteria did not cause sickness – the combination of bacteria and body made sickness. Simple equation, really.
The subject, if having no senses whatsoever, is essentially secluded within himself. He is only aware of himself. The question – can the subject love himself?
“Himself”, by the very nature of the word, implies an identity and a being. However, in order to have an adequate identity, one much first experience various things in order to establish preferences, impressions, and concepts about one’s person. The individual cannot love his appearance as he has neither seen his body nor seen another body to compare itself against. He cannot love or admire his accomplishments as he neither knows what he has done (as he has not sensed or perceived it) nor knows whether the actions he is aware of are worthy of praise and thus loveable.
The point is that objects require experiences before they exist. For if there is a cube before you but you cannot see, taste, smell, touch or hear it, the object essentially does not exist in the paradigm one lives. And since the object cannot effectively exist without experiences and love cannot exist without an object, then love therefore cannot exist without experiences.
Also, if one were to return all senses, yet remove all objects, the senses would be nonexistent. For if there is no box, one cannot sense any being of a box. Apply this to all objects and there are no senses (effectively). So, experiences and objects are co-requisites for love to exist.
Thus far, love seems to be linked to the individual – within himself. Since experiences are required for the love to exist, we can adequately assume that love is directly within the mind and within oneself. However, let us return to the CD example.
Experiences are essentially a list of interpretations of events. Objects are universal. Lists are essentially universal. The song that elicits one’s love appeals to a certain number of items of that list. Were those same experiences placed in any other being capable of love, the same love would come about as our identities are based in our experiences.
Therefore, since only certain criteria must be met to elicit love, and criteria in and of themselves do not require an individual to exist, then we may reduce love to a view of criteria in conjunction with objects.
Although objects do not effectively exist to an individual without senses, the objects still physically exist in and of themselves- especially in relation to a universal criteria. And since neither objects nor criteria demand an individual to exist, and both elicit love, we can adequately claim that love exists outside the body.
