“…simply make things better for someone else, as if I were to be born again, and that someone else, and it doesn't have to be me, but it could be someone like me, that they would have a better life than I had, that everyone was better. There is something seriously wrong with everyone, and that is something I observed when I was very young. We are the problem, and we need to become better, because we are fucking everything up.”
“So this is who I am. There is something seriously wrong with everyone and we need to fix it, if not for us, then for the future generations."
"Everything I have done in this life, and everything I will do, is for this purpose.”

Monday, February 24, 2014

2 Incompatible definitons for love. Which one do you choose? -day 140

2 Incompatible definitions for love. Which one do you choose?

I looked up the definition for love in my dictionary. In the Merriam-webster's Collegiate dictionary, there are several definitions for love. When I look at the definitions for love, I see two definitions that I know of very well. They are 1) Strong affection for another, and 2) unselfish loyal and benevolent concern for the good of another. Many definitions in the dictionary or in used in daily life by average people reflect some version of these two definitions. However I notice how in the dictionary there are several versions that speak to option 1, and little to nothing for option 2, which is very similar to daily life. How many people use definition 2? Few or many? And how many use definition 1? Few or Many? So you see perhaps why I am writing this. I am writing this because for me, in my experience, these two definitions are incompatible, because the starting points are different, not the same, for the two definitions of love. One starting point is in how a person feels, the affection or affect. The other starting point is with the good or well-being of another or someone, which may not necessarily be feeling. So as you can see, the 1st definition is more limited, while the second definition is more expansive and can include many more points, including how a person feels. So let's say if you were to love yourself, the difference between the two definitions, would be just that, that you care only how you feel, or you care about your entire well-being, not just how you feel, but what it is in the end, what is good for you. Because you may have notice that there are plenty of things within life, that may not feel so great now, but are really in fact good for you, it just takes time. And we may not realize these things because maybe our parents did not serve as the best examples for us. So this is a principle that you would agree with, no? Doing what is good for an individual, for yourself, and for others. Its just good, and to be unselfishly loyal, with the starting point of the actual being/person. Do you agree? Its common sense, no? I mean that's what I would want a parent to do for me, if I were to be a child, to take me as their starting point in seeing what is good for me, and actually providing that, or assisting and supporting me to achieve/attain that point that is good for me. And Im sure every parents wants that for their children, am I right? I think that perhaps the greatest gift a child can give to the parent is to love him/herself because that would mean that the child would be unselfishly loyal to the good of him/her-self. Because when that happens the child takes the position that the parent was providing example for with another being, the child, and now it has been incorporated for real now with the actual being him/her-self in the relationship towards him/her-self. Again, its unfortunate that many a child do not receive such an example from the parent. The reason I say this is because when I look at fear within me as an emotional experience, I do not like it, and it does not serve me within achieving what is good for me. When I feel fear and I perform an activity, I perform this activity worse. When I feel fear and I hear a word that triggers fear, I feel even more fear, and so I also perform even more worse in whatever activity I participate in. So whenever I am in fear, whatever I do, is simply much worse. And its a common practice to use fear when teaching children as parents, because that is what the parents were taught, fear, and because of the parents position, because of their perspective and experience that they were able to get this far, they were able to survive for this long and achieve this much with fear that fear is required to survive in this world. What is missed however, is that when asked whether you would like to survive or thrive? People would rather thrive. And to thrive, one must let go of fear, because fear holds you back, and is like a layer inside yourself which you place a part of your awareness in, so that your full awareness, and thus full participation is not here, and thus your performance will be less than what you are capable of currently, and this in addition will hinder your ability to learn and thus expand on what you are capable of to be even more. And if you are not totally convinced yet that fear hinders one's performance, just look and see how often one has done poorly on a examination where one had in fact studied the material and knew it well, yet you still felt fear. Isn't that strange? That we have a habit that limits our true potential? Is this the purpose of fear, and is this your purpose, to remain limited and never reach your true potential?

Is love fear? Are fear and love compatible, after what you have just learned? If fear hinders your performance, then fear is obviously not part of what is good for you. So to love oneself would be to let go of fear. So fear then is not best for you. What happens if you let go/stop fear in every moment? You do better at everything you do! you will do more, you will do things quicker, and do things of better quality, all at the same time! This is the road to perfection and your true potential. By placing your starting point to you, unselfish loyalty to the good of you, is how you start your process of correction. And removing the fear in each moment would be the walking of the process of correction in real time. You need both because, your starting point is who you are, it is your why. And then what you do in each moment is like the how, which you do because of your why, who you decided to be, which you saw was good for you, because its just that. So you see, there is no choice because it is simply who you are, and Im sure everyone would want what is good for them. Its like a greek tragedy where we are all the actors/characters the guilty, judge, jury and executioner. By our hands we reep our rewards or destory ourselves.

So which do you choose, to reward yourself or destroy yourself? Love yourself or not? Fear or no fear?
I choose Reward, Love, and no fear, because I want what's best for me, and so what's best for everyone, which I start with me first and share what I learned with everyone like I am doing here.

No comments:

Post a Comment