OccultForum.org

It's way more than few, and it's in the wrong place. There is "The Pen and The Poet" way down under. You're welcome [shh]

Shawn Blackwolf wrote:

Cerber wrote: I ain't judging people who chose to lead their life that way, but it's not my way and prefer not to be around that kind of self harming behaviour.

Check your statement...you just committed a judgement...pay attention to words , my friend , they are powerful...

[grin] I was wondering if anybody will notice. (Even if there isn't great many somebodies around, and my best friend here "the Archive" don't get my jokes at all [sadface] )
It was a sarcasm. I have weird and annoying sense of humour. Gets me in trouble all the time [confused]

Cerber wrote:

inMalkuth wrote:Reading where this post wound up, i have to wonder if i have anything in common with most of you

I'm sure you have, just seems others don't have so much in common with you. A paradox of sort

It's true. He's a much more advanced soul than most of us. When he posts it's like a man speaking to ants.

Okay....quite a few then...

"It's way more than few"

https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/few

But would you rather me have written a six page dissertation on love ,
the nature of love , how I feel about love , and it's promise and pitfalls ?

Was not the poetic , proven to be so much more palatable , than some dry
verbage of verbosity ?

( and yes I know where poetry goes , but this was specific to the subject
matter pertinent in the moment...so it was the poetry , or a dissertation
decision , and I do believe I made the right choice , given the situation )... [tongue2]

I suppose that the way i lived and loved was s noble method, good for learning and non-judgemental. I still give strangers my love, but its not the depth of trust and respect that it once possesed. This may need to be adjusted a nit in the future, because i am seeing that it is still a good wat to be except this time i am more aware.
I learned an important lesson in my initiation, however, and i think ot applies here. There is th Law of exchange. The only thing that defies this Law is pure acts of Chessed, which should be employed with discretion and knowing what it is you give, lest you stay forever on the path of the fool. Otherwise, it is necessary to observe the need of the Law of exchange, because both parties benefit from it.

In Malkuth , I believe you mean Chesed...

http://www.chabad.org/kabbalah/article_ ... iferet.htm

A pure act of Chessed , is similar to this :

Shawn Blackwolf wrote:
But would you rather me have written a six page dissertation on love ,
the nature of love , how I feel about love , and it's promise and pitfalls ?

I'd rather you play a part with the rest of us in turn, instead of trying to force everyone out of the sandbox and just to sit and watch you build sand castles because somebody told you before you are an expert sand castle builder.. I'm exaggerating of course. I like exaggerating (I have dramatic side that must be expressed to avoid massive distortions in pace-time continuum leading to rapidly propagating tear in quantum fabric of this universe). But..

inMalkuth wrote: I learned an important lesson in my initiation, however, and i think ot applies here. There is th Law of exchange. The only thing that defies this Law is pure acts of Chessed, which should be employed with discretion and knowing what it is you give, lest you stay forever on the path of the fool. Otherwise, it is necessary to observe the need of the Law of exchange, because both parties benefit from it.

I don't know what law of exchange is. But I know (have half-decent clue) what is law of Fair Trade. You trade Something that you NEED for Something that other party NEEDS. I'm not entirely sure how to apply that for love, but giving away (or forcefully shoving up their ass) something other party had no NEED for and expecting in return something you NEED, doesn't produce fruitful results. Not aiming for you, I'm sharing my personal experience [cry]

Ah , yes , the art of criticism , and exaggeration...

Then , just for you , the law of reprocricity :

Shawn Blackwolf wrote:Ah , yes , the art of criticism , and exaggeration...

Then , just for you , the law of reprocricity :

Did you mean: reprocrocity ?
Google was asking

It's repository, actually.

"Did you mean: reprocrocity ?
Google was asking"

Normally , I would...however , when the person I am directing my comment
affectionately toward was acting as a reprobate the spelling changes accordingly... [wink]

Shawn Blackwolf wrote:"
Normally , I would...however , when the person I am directing my comment
affectionately toward was acting as a reprobate the spelling changes accordingly... [wink]

Wow man, where all this aggression coming from? [zomg] want some catnip? [crazy]

But you are right, I'm giving you way too much attention to you and many other not overly important things while starving of it other more important areas of my life.
This my hiding place from the world out there.. [shh]

No aggression , Cerber...

Just pulling your leg , like you pull others... [wink]

If you google reprobate , the first thing it says is used in an
affectionate way , a rascalian...

And perhaps you misinterpreted the Three Stooges image , as
they were long before your time at their peak...

Just see me having as much fun playing , as you...

Perhaps others view your posts the same way you seem to be taking mine...

When they are actually meant in a non aggressive way , just with a weird
sense of humor...best to you !

Shawn Blackwolf wrote: No aggression , Cerber...

I was just kidding [wink]

Shawn Blackwolf wrote: best to you !

I ain't going anywhere, don't start the celebrations just yet. I just have to force my self to make few calls to few demons I've been avoiding so desperately.

Shawn Blackwolf wrote: Perhaps others view your posts the same way you seem to be taking mine...

I think they just see me intimidating [grump] Like an elephant in the room, full precious porcelain vases and tea cups [rolleyes] Or maybe more like some overgrown immature kid with an attitude [confused] what do you see?

Coyote...

As in Native American story tradition... [wink]

But wolves and coyotes have a long history together... [thumbup]

Before I read any deeper into this love post I'm gonna go ahead and guess that someone's playing more than one side on their profiles and I think love has only one core, thinking about something too deep could cost you your happiness

Thetruth27 wrote:Before I read any deeper into this love post I'm gonna go ahead and guess that someone's playing more than one side on their profiles and I think love has only one core, thinking about something too deep could cost you your happiness

I have to confess, I could not crack this encryption [cry]

I think Love is mis-defined and has always had fairy-tale package.

It's not that Love isn't a beautiful thing, but It and how life works has always been explained in childhood and portrayed in media as a fairy tale... so people grow up expecting fairy tales.

When things don't go as expected they think they (or someone else) did something wrong.

I don't have an answer for Love, but neither do I have a definition

I believe that the truest definition of love is a supernatural one. I think it defies all sorts of natural reactions and observations and that would lead us into unwarranted expectations in a fairy tale setting. The key is to defy nature knowingly, and to never forget what actually is.

I believe we define a wide range of emotions, feelings, sensations, states of mind and soul, with that one word "love". Which is convenient but might create misunderstandings. For example, externally induced sensation of "deep spiritual unconditional love" can be mistaken as some "divine revelation" or similarly overemphasized.

Love is when your wiring impulsively feels the need to have something. It objectifies whatever it is after. Not that humans aren't objects already!!! [grin]
Apparently lots of people find comments like that insensitive. However, if people are something other than objects, I fail to see what else they could be. Sure, they have needs, but so does my car.

Naturally, when you want something, this makes the person with said something have a tendency to up its price (their body, for example). It's economics.
Therefore, instead of falling in love, and being dependent on someone else, invest the majority of your resources into yourself, in order to upgrade your own demand.
Love is about wanting. If someone has what they want secured, they will quickly lose interest in it because it is no longer in demand (it has lost value).

So, the key to love is basically to make a non abusive dominance bond. It's like empire building. Even though you have control (interest) of your populace, you don't want to destroy your populace because it is their demand for you that makes you valuable to begin with. Empires also don't fall in love with their populace, or else they are destroyed by their populace; a reasonable level of control is necessary. If someone becomes a terrorist, they are ejected from the kingdom. Likewise, lovers will inevitably become unfavorable, and need to be improved.

Therefore, the key to falling in love is to not do so with any single person, and have a queue of people to fall in love with. Better yet, don't fall in love at all [thumbup] . Specific people are there in a person's life to meet specific needs: mate, talker, confidant, etc. Just replace the positions as needed. You can't expect one person to be perfect enough to fulfill everything. I've never understood why people feel the need to have this super special "soul mate". Heck, if one isn't cutting it, have multiple. I won't judge (unless someone gets an STD, in which case I care, because that is messing up my own mating pool).

tldr; I feel like throwing up every time someone says the word "love". Just don't use abstract terms that don't mean anything specific. The whole freaking point of language is to have a standard interface for the transference of ideas. Besides, relationships are transactional in nature, and valuing giving over taking, all the time, is bound to make someone get burned.

Defining love would be enormously problematic.
I'd argue that the term really describes about a dozen or more wildly different emotions.
Most of which are delusional or ill advised.

I'm a fan of "compassion", and of unconditional positive regard (like a familial or parental love, or the love of friendship or loyalty), and perhaps just maybe, if you meet the right sort of being, possibly 'adoration', but only if its mutual.

Then again I'm also a fan of some frames of mind which are rather unlike love. I just loathe to paint my nature into a corner for fear of dichotomies.