The absolute and the variable simultaneously encompassing all.
I dunno. Maybe. I’ve never talked to an asteroid. lol. I’d also ask if perhaps the asteroid is MADE out of love. Not sure about that either… I’ve taken physics, so I’m pretty sure it’s not. But I think we limit ourselves by thinking in straight lines about these kinds of things sometimes.
:) I like that, Jared.
I think I’m at a point in my life where words don’t mean anything anymore, so asteroids, sure, they can love, they can be made of love, what the hell! I don’t know anything anyway. Make poetry for all I care. Isn’t that all the universe is? haha :)
We are capable of loving the universe, for what it’s worth to us. I relate this to my subjectivity and tendency to acknowledge certain aspects in my daily experiences, perhaps I was given the consciousness. That is the mystery of it all that I feel can’t be explained. I can also live vicariously through the emotions of others, and love for them—sympathize, this ability to understand is something that entices me to explore and have faith in the Universe. I suppose what I am truly curious about is time—is it truly linear?
We are able to perceive what we’ve decided is time, but in the objectivity of the Universe, there are just shifts in energy; movement in the Universe, changes in energy. The asteroid cannot love per se, but can be loved and can be derived from what when subjectively defined is love—the atoms; electrons, neutrons, protons, we can call the Universe. Now, this Universe itself can be called love. It is seemingly permanent, yet is varying—like time.
Not sure if this concept makes sense how I am saying it.
Perhaps real time would be better. If anyone wants to chat in real time add me on facebook!
Do we love ants? Flies? Spiders? Or do we squash them and not care if we do. If there is a god of some sort or an advanced alien species that know we exist, neither would have any care for us, just like how we don’t care for insects.
A sad truth for some, and yet a reality we all must face. It’s colder out here, but the stars are just glorious.
A metaphor is a metaphor. An ant is not a human. Can you criticize a poetic statement like “God loves you” with yet another literary device that could be just as misleading? I spent much of today being bitten by gnats while skating, and I would stub them out with my finger. And your right, I had no regret in doing so because they were really annoying. We have probably been annoying our cosmic neighbors is they’ve even noticed our anthill. I tend to think they have noticed us because of the increase in ufo sightings near nuclear facilities. We would probably notice if ants started blasting things apart… I also tend to think that a highly evolved species would exhibit empathy towards us unevolved bugs. They would probably keep the caterpillar safe that it may become a butterfly (just like an empathetic human would if they were to happen upon a cocoon).
God’s a contradiction. If I’m gonna love a piece of rock, I’ll read about rocks. God never teaches me about rocks or how to read. But then again, why would I care about rocks anyway if I’m not slightly interested? That’s it. Love is for those who are interested in love and the way you interpret it may be the way you just kill an ant with a rock, because you have a heart of stone and rocking and rolling with ants is not your thing, but God and having sexual fantasies is.
“Narrator: So on he walked… and sometimes, drove… and occasionally, partied all night with the desert creatures.”
Clocks exist if you look at them all the time.
I find it fascinating that intellectuals assume love is an emotion.
which is a better definition of love: Not scalping a cat because you’ve outgrown adolescent sadism, or intentionally hurting your mother so that she can learn and grow from pain?
I don’t associate emotion with either scenario, but I associate love with the second.
It was in relation to the question about bugs. Which is more loving, not hurting something even though you can, or hurting something with compassionate intent.
I was going to jump onto the anthropomorphic bandwagon in relation to the scientific explanations debunking love, but I decided scalping cats was more apt.
LOL! That’s a hilarious way to say that. Out of context it would be very confusing.
I don’t believe scientific explanations debunk love. I think a lot of people see it that way, as if the fact that it is chemical reactions makes the experience less meaningful. I just think love is a human and possibly animal thing. But then again, if everything is made of the same stuff, why wouldn’t everything be able to love in some way? If separation is an illusion then love should pervade all but can something without a pulse have those kinds of feelings? Now I’m losing myself.
Love is chemical reactions and it’s as meaningful as you want it to be. Use them wisely, as you grow older – they fade away. And read some books. And I don’t know. Maybe freak out.
“I don’t believe scientific explanations debunk love”
It can’t. The scientific method is like looking at a painting and trying to explain things like inspiration and imagination using pastel physics and brush sizes.
“@Mime; So love then derives from compassionate intent?”
That was my question. Get your own.