lake
30th April 2014, 21:08
Love, Empathy, Morals and Technology.
The whole concept of language is control.
The idea behind written symbolic forms or spoken words is control.
Unless you have the true unique vibration of either form....you know not what you create.
English language is the worst or most degrading.......it casts shadows upon all.
Those who cannot spell nor utter in correct form....create none the less, but by their own word shall they suffer.......
As it is a refection of the current need (which is a self need, as I see it) for 'love' to be the meme in use let us define the meaning of the word 'love'.
Love:
1. A deep, tender, ineffable feeling of affection and solicitude toward a person, such as that arising from kinship, recognition of attractive qualities, or a sense of underlying oneness.
2. A feeling of intense desire and attraction toward a person with whom one is disposed to make a pair; the emotion of sex and romance.
3.
a. Sexual passion.
b. Sexual intercourse.
c. A love affair.
4. An intense emotional attachment, as for a pet or treasured object.
5. A person who is the object of deep or intense affection or attraction; beloved. Often used as a term of endearment.
6. An expression of one's affection: Send him my love.
7.
a. A strong predilection or enthusiasm: a love of language.
b. The object of such an enthusiasm: The outdoors is her greatest love.
8. Love Mythology Eros or Cupid.
9. often Love Christianity Charity.
10. Sports A zero score in tennis.
All of the above is an internal expression of self need, as far as I can see it, while you have your awareness in this place.
'Love' allows for all and any actions that one could ever desire.
The heinous acts which have been committed for 'love' defies logic, for many centuries.
The concept of 'love' as being the solution to this worlds woes are, in my view, misguided as 'love' is by its own root definitions ways to satisfy internal needs and wants.
The word love goes back to the very roots of the English language. Old English lufu is related to Old Frisian luve, Old High German luba, Gothic lubo. There is a cognate lof in early forms of the Scandinavian languages. The Indo-European root is also behind Latin lubet meaning it is pleasing and lubido meaning desire. The word is recorded from the earliest English writings in the 8th century.
So we have a word which allows any form of action which pleases the self.
You can do as you wish as long as you love it, because love is 'good'!
Love is totally allowed and acting within love means you, personally, have a 'guilt free' consciousness.
Now what Im trying to lead to is empathy, which I 'feel' directs morals within a human 'life'.
Love does not serve as a good indicator of 'a life well spent'....it only serves as an personal (once again selfish) measure of actions denoting wants, needs and fears.
Lets use a themed event.......Christmas
Did Ebeneezer Scrooge have love within him before having visitations?
The way I see it....well Scrooge did have love within as:
he loved money
he loved the security that money gave him
he loved the power that money gave over others
he loved the control that money gave
he loved possessions (had a nice house and fine clothing)
he loved being able to his mind despise those he considered lesser
he loved having servants
he loved his own nature which he considered correct
Now did Scrooge have empathy before the visitations?
Also before his 'enlightenment' did he have 'morals'?
Lets deal with 'morals' first....yes Scrooge had morals
His morals being his own 'love' defined by his own selfish wants, needs and fears.
If they would rather die,'' said Scrooge, ``they had better do it, and decrease the surplus population.
This quote defines Scrooge's needs, wants and fears....which have his personal 'love' in mind.
Empathy he only had AFTER the visitations.
Now he could 'see' others and truly 'feel' their being.
With this empathy he created within his being....new to him.......morals which he would now live by.
Love within the 'old' Scrooge had nothing to do with Scrooges 'enlightenment'!
Empathy is in a different 'ball game'.
The concept of 'love' is an element of external control which holds one within the mind set of self!
As I search within my own being, here, I can conceive of the control through symbols and the accompanying sounds....and I can find 'love' is the current indoctrination of choice.
Love is of self.
Empathy is FOR others.
Love creates self endorsed 'morals'.
Empathy becomes 'morally' entwined with the self by others awareness.
Dont get me wrong I am not 'knocking' love....its just so limiting and selfish.......to my understanding.
To give love limits my knowledge of else....to become the 'feelings' which another has, empathy, releases understanding and 'true love' for else, so directing me to act for them rather than myself.
Why is 'love' so definite within most minds?
To look back it is not 'love' that saves, but empathy.
You can 'love' money
You cannot have empathy for money
You can 'love' war
You cannot have empathy for war
You can 'love' power
You cannot have empathy for power
this list goes on and on....
If we can talk about indoctrination....then the meme of 'love' as it is currently spoken of, is up there with any religion.
My EMPATHY of you reflects in my external actions FOR YOU.
My love for you is a refection of MY needs, wants and fears.
Lets look at another definition of love:
An ego tensile manifestation of the magnified singular physical want regarding the self which incorporates both shared and hidden emotions along with a self singular glaring determination which invokes a dissemination of the self for another, for no other sane reason except fear.
Therefore the need for love from another is the clarifying of fear to the self.
Yes this is my definition and one you will never read nor be told via main stream.
Is it morally wrong?
To have understanding of the morality within it you need to know why it is based within fear. As this is a concept totally against the LOVE LOVE now being impregnated to the alternative un as yet indoctrinated percentage....it is difficult to 'see'.
The fear is injected from the mass indoctrination of the emotion of 'loneliness'.
Re read it with this explanation in mind.......fear of being no thing alone dictated by external schooling creates a need for love within a self, so as to conform to defined societal acceptances.
In other words FEAR.
How deep would you like to go....as morals define the all.
To 'see' this and understand the effect and idea of morals, you need to consider your relationship to defined word structures of which you have been always submerged within.
Consider the emotion of 'love'....but without words?
Consider the emotion of 'fear'....but without words?
Within images. the way your being is meant to create, neither 'love' nor 'fear' exist.
Empathy for all else external of your physical form.......creates within your self knowledge....your understanding of 'love'.
Lack of empathy creates a distortion of your own required 'love'.
Empathy creates the moral code within your self understanding of 'reality'.
Would it be an exaggeration to say that much blood has been shed to establish a desired moral standard?
Is or can it be 'right' to remove life from another being?
Morally to deny another beings life cannot be defined by ones own emotions. There is within any being a 'balance' between their own death and the death of another being.
The self defines its 'life'.......by it's 'living' self justification within it's current knowledge.
So the self may be correct in taking another beings 'life' to protect its own. One could say that this action is morally justified.
Is it then 'correct' to take another's 'life' by any other judgement of interpretation?
Is it 'correct' to kill for monetary or material gain?
I would hope 'most' would agree....no.
So then we can say.......To kill for self gain is Evil.
evil being define as an action which the 'mass' would not do....unaffected by a subjective interpretation of 'self' emotions?
With that stated, to kill for 'love' is considered romantic and to die for 'love' considered heroic!!!
But if both parties had empathy for each other, then I believe that no removal of 'life' would be even contemplated.
Self actuated morality, I believe is formed from internal levels of empathy.
Empathy not to be confused with compassion.
If it were possible to measure a beings level of empathy then I feel you would find a matching balance of moral self guidance.
We all understand and have self knowledge of indoctrinated 'right and wrong'....but to act in a 'moral' way is dependent on a deep emotional understanding of another's feelings or problems.
If an individuals empathy is 'low', then I think that their 'moral' standards would also be at a minimum.
So each individual should decide what is moral (or not) for themselves, with out religious influence? Isn't this what we have now leading the world into chaos?
Without self determined morals one can only suffer under the yoke of external guidance....such as religion.
Any devote 'man' honouring their chosen or indoctrinated 'God of choice' seems to be unable to allow others their own path.
The most religious of all 'men' decide that the only morals are within the pages of symbolic forms which must be adhered to by all, in order to be accepted by creation.
They then 'preach the word' to others through fear. If fear will not compel.......then as has been seen for many hundreds of years, war is the tool of salvation to the 'correct moral path'.
Strange thing is that, which 'book' of moral virtues....is the correct one?
I would like to bet that the 1st thought that entered your mind, upon reading the above line was.......MINE (or some spoken form of the same meaning)
Expand this and you eventually 'go to war'....killing others in the name of externally determined morals.
I 'feel' that the increasing loss of morality, especially within the current youth, can be understood by researching our field of vibration and the frequency we have allowed to be formed upon our reality.
What I mean by this....is that our empathy has been and is ever increasingly being limited.
If you consider that even main stream science confirms that 'humans' emit external vibrations, continually, then consider that this is how we are meant to 'feel' others.
If this is correct....then consider the 'sea' of interference (telecommunications) we now swim in.......day in night out.
I feel that we are being 'turned' off from all else external from the singular physical form each of us are and are losing empathy for EVERYTHING ELSE, by which then we also lose our moral compass.
So this could be defined as the greatest and most hideous....divide and conquer.......ever known.
Remove a child from the womb and erase any memory of a mother or any family.... .......
Sorry should also add that the reason we are descending into chaos, is through the fact that many, between 4-10% , are birthed upon this world with NO (or very limited) empathy BUT they still have love, especially for the self!!!
These beings, as I will not call them 'man'....of course rise to the supposed top of corporations.
The biggest being, finance, military, government, drugs and religion.
So we can see 'fear having been induced through organized corporate drama' which perpetuates the 'divide and conquer' concepts required for domination through loss of individual moral determinations regarding thought of physical existence....thus rendering resistance to new external fear based morality inept including 'love'.
For myself....I can now understand, better, the percentage who exist here without empathy.
Is it better to live through fear ,love or empathy?
Those without empathy for others are forced to live within fear created by 'love' and by this nature, which is all they have, believe others must also live dominated by this emotion.
There is not a single form of 'human'.
As there is not a single form of any flower.
Morality within a physical self defines its singular nature through the depth of emotional consideration and connection with the reality which it has been granted by creation.
All else is a by product of material delinquency.
On the morality of the emotion of 'love', this is a self confining but also controlling form of morality.
The morals of 'man', either created by love (internal need to limit self harm) or empathy (internal need to limit external harm) underpin all of the reality within this physical concept of material time.
Why do men kill and die for others?
Why do men consume other beings?
Why do men 'love'....but then lay with another?
Why do men require power over creation?
Why are the Gods of men immoral?
Why is nature a reflection of 'mans' morals?
Why is darkness thought of as morally deficient?
Why are the youth lacking morals
the questions can go on and on and on........but do you actually wish to have this responsibility?
Morally for you, and others, it may be a step to far!
So what am I trying to understand....
Love shouts.......”I love you, you should thank me”
Empathy asks....”I can see that, how can I help you”
Love creates morals within the self.......for the self
Empathy creates morals within the self....for another
Love is the current 'catch phrase'
Empathy is being restricted
If we consider the condition of life on this 'world' with all the use of love now being demanded, we can see the love is for the self and the material.
If we consider the lack of empathy, then we can see exactly the cause of everything’s woes?
Just some thoughts on man's morals.... …....lol
The whole concept of language is control.
The idea behind written symbolic forms or spoken words is control.
Unless you have the true unique vibration of either form....you know not what you create.
English language is the worst or most degrading.......it casts shadows upon all.
Those who cannot spell nor utter in correct form....create none the less, but by their own word shall they suffer.......
As it is a refection of the current need (which is a self need, as I see it) for 'love' to be the meme in use let us define the meaning of the word 'love'.
Love:
1. A deep, tender, ineffable feeling of affection and solicitude toward a person, such as that arising from kinship, recognition of attractive qualities, or a sense of underlying oneness.
2. A feeling of intense desire and attraction toward a person with whom one is disposed to make a pair; the emotion of sex and romance.
3.
a. Sexual passion.
b. Sexual intercourse.
c. A love affair.
4. An intense emotional attachment, as for a pet or treasured object.
5. A person who is the object of deep or intense affection or attraction; beloved. Often used as a term of endearment.
6. An expression of one's affection: Send him my love.
7.
a. A strong predilection or enthusiasm: a love of language.
b. The object of such an enthusiasm: The outdoors is her greatest love.
8. Love Mythology Eros or Cupid.
9. often Love Christianity Charity.
10. Sports A zero score in tennis.
All of the above is an internal expression of self need, as far as I can see it, while you have your awareness in this place.
'Love' allows for all and any actions that one could ever desire.
The heinous acts which have been committed for 'love' defies logic, for many centuries.
The concept of 'love' as being the solution to this worlds woes are, in my view, misguided as 'love' is by its own root definitions ways to satisfy internal needs and wants.
The word love goes back to the very roots of the English language. Old English lufu is related to Old Frisian luve, Old High German luba, Gothic lubo. There is a cognate lof in early forms of the Scandinavian languages. The Indo-European root is also behind Latin lubet meaning it is pleasing and lubido meaning desire. The word is recorded from the earliest English writings in the 8th century.
So we have a word which allows any form of action which pleases the self.
You can do as you wish as long as you love it, because love is 'good'!
Love is totally allowed and acting within love means you, personally, have a 'guilt free' consciousness.
Now what Im trying to lead to is empathy, which I 'feel' directs morals within a human 'life'.
Love does not serve as a good indicator of 'a life well spent'....it only serves as an personal (once again selfish) measure of actions denoting wants, needs and fears.
Lets use a themed event.......Christmas
Did Ebeneezer Scrooge have love within him before having visitations?
The way I see it....well Scrooge did have love within as:
he loved money
he loved the security that money gave him
he loved the power that money gave over others
he loved the control that money gave
he loved possessions (had a nice house and fine clothing)
he loved being able to his mind despise those he considered lesser
he loved having servants
he loved his own nature which he considered correct
Now did Scrooge have empathy before the visitations?
Also before his 'enlightenment' did he have 'morals'?
Lets deal with 'morals' first....yes Scrooge had morals
His morals being his own 'love' defined by his own selfish wants, needs and fears.
If they would rather die,'' said Scrooge, ``they had better do it, and decrease the surplus population.
This quote defines Scrooge's needs, wants and fears....which have his personal 'love' in mind.
Empathy he only had AFTER the visitations.
Now he could 'see' others and truly 'feel' their being.
With this empathy he created within his being....new to him.......morals which he would now live by.
Love within the 'old' Scrooge had nothing to do with Scrooges 'enlightenment'!
Empathy is in a different 'ball game'.
The concept of 'love' is an element of external control which holds one within the mind set of self!
As I search within my own being, here, I can conceive of the control through symbols and the accompanying sounds....and I can find 'love' is the current indoctrination of choice.
Love is of self.
Empathy is FOR others.
Love creates self endorsed 'morals'.
Empathy becomes 'morally' entwined with the self by others awareness.
Dont get me wrong I am not 'knocking' love....its just so limiting and selfish.......to my understanding.
To give love limits my knowledge of else....to become the 'feelings' which another has, empathy, releases understanding and 'true love' for else, so directing me to act for them rather than myself.
Why is 'love' so definite within most minds?
To look back it is not 'love' that saves, but empathy.
You can 'love' money
You cannot have empathy for money
You can 'love' war
You cannot have empathy for war
You can 'love' power
You cannot have empathy for power
this list goes on and on....
If we can talk about indoctrination....then the meme of 'love' as it is currently spoken of, is up there with any religion.
My EMPATHY of you reflects in my external actions FOR YOU.
My love for you is a refection of MY needs, wants and fears.
Lets look at another definition of love:
An ego tensile manifestation of the magnified singular physical want regarding the self which incorporates both shared and hidden emotions along with a self singular glaring determination which invokes a dissemination of the self for another, for no other sane reason except fear.
Therefore the need for love from another is the clarifying of fear to the self.
Yes this is my definition and one you will never read nor be told via main stream.
Is it morally wrong?
To have understanding of the morality within it you need to know why it is based within fear. As this is a concept totally against the LOVE LOVE now being impregnated to the alternative un as yet indoctrinated percentage....it is difficult to 'see'.
The fear is injected from the mass indoctrination of the emotion of 'loneliness'.
Re read it with this explanation in mind.......fear of being no thing alone dictated by external schooling creates a need for love within a self, so as to conform to defined societal acceptances.
In other words FEAR.
How deep would you like to go....as morals define the all.
To 'see' this and understand the effect and idea of morals, you need to consider your relationship to defined word structures of which you have been always submerged within.
Consider the emotion of 'love'....but without words?
Consider the emotion of 'fear'....but without words?
Within images. the way your being is meant to create, neither 'love' nor 'fear' exist.
Empathy for all else external of your physical form.......creates within your self knowledge....your understanding of 'love'.
Lack of empathy creates a distortion of your own required 'love'.
Empathy creates the moral code within your self understanding of 'reality'.
Would it be an exaggeration to say that much blood has been shed to establish a desired moral standard?
Is or can it be 'right' to remove life from another being?
Morally to deny another beings life cannot be defined by ones own emotions. There is within any being a 'balance' between their own death and the death of another being.
The self defines its 'life'.......by it's 'living' self justification within it's current knowledge.
So the self may be correct in taking another beings 'life' to protect its own. One could say that this action is morally justified.
Is it then 'correct' to take another's 'life' by any other judgement of interpretation?
Is it 'correct' to kill for monetary or material gain?
I would hope 'most' would agree....no.
So then we can say.......To kill for self gain is Evil.
evil being define as an action which the 'mass' would not do....unaffected by a subjective interpretation of 'self' emotions?
With that stated, to kill for 'love' is considered romantic and to die for 'love' considered heroic!!!
But if both parties had empathy for each other, then I believe that no removal of 'life' would be even contemplated.
Self actuated morality, I believe is formed from internal levels of empathy.
Empathy not to be confused with compassion.
If it were possible to measure a beings level of empathy then I feel you would find a matching balance of moral self guidance.
We all understand and have self knowledge of indoctrinated 'right and wrong'....but to act in a 'moral' way is dependent on a deep emotional understanding of another's feelings or problems.
If an individuals empathy is 'low', then I think that their 'moral' standards would also be at a minimum.
So each individual should decide what is moral (or not) for themselves, with out religious influence? Isn't this what we have now leading the world into chaos?
Without self determined morals one can only suffer under the yoke of external guidance....such as religion.
Any devote 'man' honouring their chosen or indoctrinated 'God of choice' seems to be unable to allow others their own path.
The most religious of all 'men' decide that the only morals are within the pages of symbolic forms which must be adhered to by all, in order to be accepted by creation.
They then 'preach the word' to others through fear. If fear will not compel.......then as has been seen for many hundreds of years, war is the tool of salvation to the 'correct moral path'.
Strange thing is that, which 'book' of moral virtues....is the correct one?
I would like to bet that the 1st thought that entered your mind, upon reading the above line was.......MINE (or some spoken form of the same meaning)
Expand this and you eventually 'go to war'....killing others in the name of externally determined morals.
I 'feel' that the increasing loss of morality, especially within the current youth, can be understood by researching our field of vibration and the frequency we have allowed to be formed upon our reality.
What I mean by this....is that our empathy has been and is ever increasingly being limited.
If you consider that even main stream science confirms that 'humans' emit external vibrations, continually, then consider that this is how we are meant to 'feel' others.
If this is correct....then consider the 'sea' of interference (telecommunications) we now swim in.......day in night out.
I feel that we are being 'turned' off from all else external from the singular physical form each of us are and are losing empathy for EVERYTHING ELSE, by which then we also lose our moral compass.
So this could be defined as the greatest and most hideous....divide and conquer.......ever known.
Remove a child from the womb and erase any memory of a mother or any family.... .......
Sorry should also add that the reason we are descending into chaos, is through the fact that many, between 4-10% , are birthed upon this world with NO (or very limited) empathy BUT they still have love, especially for the self!!!
These beings, as I will not call them 'man'....of course rise to the supposed top of corporations.
The biggest being, finance, military, government, drugs and religion.
So we can see 'fear having been induced through organized corporate drama' which perpetuates the 'divide and conquer' concepts required for domination through loss of individual moral determinations regarding thought of physical existence....thus rendering resistance to new external fear based morality inept including 'love'.
For myself....I can now understand, better, the percentage who exist here without empathy.
Is it better to live through fear ,love or empathy?
Those without empathy for others are forced to live within fear created by 'love' and by this nature, which is all they have, believe others must also live dominated by this emotion.
There is not a single form of 'human'.
As there is not a single form of any flower.
Morality within a physical self defines its singular nature through the depth of emotional consideration and connection with the reality which it has been granted by creation.
All else is a by product of material delinquency.
On the morality of the emotion of 'love', this is a self confining but also controlling form of morality.
The morals of 'man', either created by love (internal need to limit self harm) or empathy (internal need to limit external harm) underpin all of the reality within this physical concept of material time.
Why do men kill and die for others?
Why do men consume other beings?
Why do men 'love'....but then lay with another?
Why do men require power over creation?
Why are the Gods of men immoral?
Why is nature a reflection of 'mans' morals?
Why is darkness thought of as morally deficient?
Why are the youth lacking morals
the questions can go on and on and on........but do you actually wish to have this responsibility?
Morally for you, and others, it may be a step to far!
So what am I trying to understand....
Love shouts.......”I love you, you should thank me”
Empathy asks....”I can see that, how can I help you”
Love creates morals within the self.......for the self
Empathy creates morals within the self....for another
Love is the current 'catch phrase'
Empathy is being restricted
If we consider the condition of life on this 'world' with all the use of love now being demanded, we can see the love is for the self and the material.
If we consider the lack of empathy, then we can see exactly the cause of everything’s woes?
Just some thoughts on man's morals.... …....lol