AfterInfinity
Unconditional love strikes me as a suicidal trait. You will lose everything if you love everyone without limit or exception, because this world is
full of people willing to take advantage until you are a dry shriveled husk incapable of helping yourself.
You have to be capable of, and willing to, draw the line at some point if you wish to survive at all.
edit on 13-12-2013 by AfterInfinity
because: (no reason given)
Of course it is a suicidal trait, but that's the beauty of it, surely? A human, through his own choice, willing to override every survival instinct
and trick of his body, literally shut off years and years and years of DNA lineage and overlook the individual acts of all his ancestors whose
survival allowed this person to even live in the first place - to lay down their life for someone else?
Think about that. Just the fact that is possible, and has been done and always will be as long as humans exist, is very powerful knowledge. It shows
there IS more to this than us just being DNA preserving survival machines. Suicide, altruism, 'unconditional love' - these concepts convey the ability
of the consciousness to truly act out of its own accord and not based on the physical body/ego. That's beautiful, man.
Like I said, if this didn't exist, it would be a cold world. We'd be warriors forever, doing as we please as long as we maintained conditional love
with those with mutual interests. But I think the semantics of conditional vs unconditional overshadows the true essence of what this is.
It is simply a higher level of compassion - when the consciousness/the soul/the observer/the decision maker inside of you shows its love despite if it
goes against your ego or survival instinct. That to me is 'unconditional love'.
But you're right, you need to know where to draw the line. Your ego, and it's knowledge of people's characters and real world interaction is still
important to utilise and act on. But if you have higher compassion, you will attempt to save that drowning human, regardless who it is, as long as you
realise you have some chance of surviving long enough to save at least one of yourselves in the worst case. That last part is the ego or mind acting,
the drawing of line so to say. If you know you will both die, then you must live for others depend on you. But as long as there's a chance you'll act.
The problem with the semantics is that it can be conditional within higher unconditional compassion - it becomes contradictory and the original point
of distinction gets lost. For example, in that drowning scenario with 0% survival, if it was my little sister I think I'd jump in just to ensure she
doesn't spend her last Earth moments alone and in complete fear.
But she's young, and when she's a lot older that may change and she may not want me to jump in. I will have children, and I wouldn't want her to
sacrifice herself for me if she had children and I didn't out of love for her children. It gets all complex but the original essence is there.
Or you could argue its 'conditional' on your chance of survival, but the fact is you'd still take a higher chance of dying to save someone you could
have no connection to. So, what's that? 25% conditional, 75% unconditional? Lol. You can't say until you're in that situation though. People have
jumped off cliffs to save their dogs and died. It happened to a young couple the other week, here in England.
Like you said, our language doesn't or can't express this the best way. Some feelings and states of being are truly not done justice by human words.
edit on 14-12-2013 by DazDaKing because: (no reason given)
edit on 14-12-2013 by DazDaKing because: (no reason
given)
edit on 14-12-2013 by DazDaKing because: (no reason given)