Love? What?!

[Thread Killer]

Ladies and gents,
                         Tom Campbell and his work seem to be showing up on these boards frequently, as of late. This brings me to something about some of his conclusions and the conclusions of some other highly intelligent commentators regarding love. I've never been to where Campbell et al have been so I only have a bit of intellect to fall back on at this point. In a utube video from some time ago, in response to a womans' question, he kept referring to his experience as coming up against the force of love or something similar. He didn't or couldn't seem to elaborate.
 He and others often speak of anthropomorphizing phenomena that is outside our current understandings. Could not love fall into the category? Using the BT ideas of us being a subset of many possible supersets, couldn't what we call love be the recognition or experience of some specific energy form that permeates multiple realities? Have we "romanticized" this energy as some cute and cuddly, uniquely human experience?
 What do y'all think?
                                                                                                                                 -Jim-

[Summerlander]

Hi Jim, for me love is a state of mind. One that can dissipate, be altered, and may quickly take the form of its opposite...hate. Both have their roots in ego if you ask me. It is hard to let go of something you love. Likewise, it is hard to let go of something you hate because you hate it, it is decided in your mind, and, if you come across the very thing that you hate, you are bound to behave accordingly and are being dictated by this delusion.

Compassion and understanding are a different story though. They come from knowledge, wisdom and giving a sh1t!
And if there is nothing to play with, you still give a sh1t about the nothingness because you equally accept it. Here's some interesting lyrics:

"Kill me! - I cried and love said: No
- Lyrics by HIM

[Xanth]

There's some confusion... when people like Tom talk about love, they're talking about Big-L Love... not Little-L love.
It's not an emotion, or a feeling.  It's in your being, it's part of who you are and how you treat other people.

It's not even a concept that you can accurately describe using our pathetic language skills... it goes far beyond that.  You can't describe something non-physical using physical descriptions, it's just not possible.  All we can do is describe it the best we can using the tools available to us to do it with.  And the best way to describe what they talk about is calling it "Love" (not to be confused with "love").

Could not love fall into the category? Using the BT ideas of us being a subset of many possible supersets, couldn't what we call love be the recognition or experience of some specific energy form that permeates multiple realities?

That could very well be the case.   

Have we "romanticized" this energy as some cute and cuddly, uniquely human experience?

And here you lost it.  You had it with the sentence before it, but then you connected it to "love", the emotion.

I like to say that you could go through life being an absolute ass to people... treating them like dirt and assuming you're superior and cheating people left and right.
OR... you could treat everyone you meet with respect and dignity regardless of what or how they treat you in return.

Also, the point here isn't to "ACT" loving, because that completely defeats the purpose.  If you ACT loving, you're doing it from an intellectual standpoint, meaning there's ego behind your motivations.  The POINT is to "BE" love... don't act, just BE.

It's a much harder lesson to learn... and EVEN HARDER to live it. 

Love. 

[Thread Killer]

And here you lost it.  You had it with the sentence before it, but then you connected it to "love", the emotion.

I wasn't speaking personally, but from a sense of someone not being able to conceptualize beyond their own experience. Similarly, Campbells Big Love may still be the outer limits of his experience. Not being able to penetrate further, his ideas stop with his experience.
                                                                            Again, Thanks For The Good Vibes. Wrist Better,
                                                                                                                                              -Jim-

[Xanth]

Gotcha. 

There's two issues with it... first, a lot of people don't actually KNOW the emotion/feeling "love".
And secondly... they confuse that when someone talks about becoming or acting "Love".

Honestly, I think everyone needs to learn and come to terms with this stuff on their own time for it to be assimilated into their "being" level.

[Summerlander]

Be Love, eh? What if I don't want to be anything? What if I don't mind the nothingness that could await me at death? Thomas Campbell does indeed offer some interesting views but...I don't think one needs to work towards a proposed consciousness entelechy by reducing its entropy in order to contribute consciousness evolution on a larger scale. It is not a requirement in my eyes. Also, I think entropy is very much needed for the potentiality of differing ideals (ideals in the minds of sentient beings with their attached concepts which are nothing but illusions). It broadens the circus and allows more room for the entertainment of cyclical existence. I'm still more in favour of Buddha...I know!

I may choose not to take part in this if I find that ultimately, in my mind, consciousness is nothing but a thrill ride where the creators are constantly working towards improving its efficiency in order to get a better experience out of it. If, one day, the chance of being made redundant from this 'rollercoaster' presents itself...I'll take it. It'll be my nirvana. Just end it all! What is the point? I once took Salvia and it made me realise that there is no real point to existent things apart from being there for the sake of play.

We are attaching ourselves to physical realities - as we call them - because it is something to do, it keeps us distracted, it gives us pleasure, it allows us to explore opposites of pleasure, and many many other concepts. They are versions of metaphysical ideas which persist in the energetic field of consciousness. They are designed to provided a full impact of experience to reassure us of our existence. Well, now that I got a clear picture of it by exploring the many ways I can look at it - be it meditation, the Phase state, under the influence of psychedelics, sober etc. etc. - I am now more interested in opting out. It is absolute freedom. No self. No experience. No tasks in order to reach delusional targets. No nothing.

To me, the cessation of being is still the ultimate goal. And perhaps there is no ultimate goal. Perhaps this too is an illusory concept originating from the anthropological perspective. Perhaps the way things really are is really something that the human mind can't conceive and Campbell can bang his head against the wall as much as he likes. I have no interest in taking part in it. I'm finding Campbell a little repetitive too. He also makes many assumptions with his theory. It isn't perfect. The idea of a consciousness that is constantly looking for ways to improve itself conveys the notion of unhappy sentience. Nothing is ever good enough. It's like a competitive child looking for ways to come across as being better and impress.

Perhaps this apparently limited reality is the product of one system of consciousness (amongst many) which got tired/bored of the all-knowing perspective. Perhaps we are creations of an aware universe who is trying to understand why the hell it is. We could be its voice as human beings are the very expression of its thoughts. It may partially be looking for improvement on this level (very gradual with the evolution thing in order to get a gradual taste of all the states of being that it goes through), it may be looking for answers, it may seek pleasure in destroying things, it may take pride in preservation, it may wonder about unmanifest ideas etc. etc.

It could just be us...the awareness...and imagination. Perhaps we are aspects of a larger mind in conflict. I just don't understand why Campbell preaches consciousness evolution as our real purpose when in someone else's mind, the letting go of all concepts may make more sense as the ultimate goal.

Perhaps the consciousness system will eventually deem me as a useless fragment for its own purposes and discard me. When I die, I may be fired!

To be or not to be? Not to be.

[Thread Killer]

Never a dull moment with you SL. I am intrigued by the whole non-being concept. The Jewish folks, I think, have the idea that when you die, if you  were a sh?theel, you would just cease to exist. You would go to hell or the earth, as I believe is the archaic definition. But I digress...