|
Post by leonardo on Feb 7, 2007 13:04:46 GMT
So is it possible to chose who you love.
|
|
|
Post by kizzy on Feb 9, 2007 22:09:20 GMT
Well I do, and equally whom you hate.
|
|
|
Post by kizzy on Feb 10, 2007 8:19:32 GMT
I am very selective indeed in whom I like and whom I don't. Such discrimination in Life is an essential protection mechanism.
This is not a question of distrusting the "Stranger at our Gate" but being cautious as to whom we lower our defences, and we were "Taught to be cautious".
|
|
|
Post by leonardo on Feb 10, 2007 9:23:55 GMT
The ability to be discerning about with whom we chose to associate is indeed an essential protection mechanism and something I can immediately identify with however I don't believe it's always possible to be able to chose whom we wish to love. I say this because for me absolute love is something which transcends far beyond our normal senses, in other words it (Love) does not see differences: Race, Religion, Creed, etc.
Sometimes we are drawn towards someone or something by that which is out of our control.
|
|
|
Post by maat on Feb 12, 2007 0:05:28 GMT
So you believe it is possible to chose who you love. You can choose to apply the Love principle when dealing with any one person, group, event, etc. Basically, there is a Universal Law that states something along the lines of 'that which you dwell upon you attract to yourself'. It is a law of Harmonics/Attraction. Similar to like minded people, they tend to form groups. This Law's power is tied up with the emotional energy which is attached to the thought. Thus like and dislike have little impact upon our lives, they are just a tendency in either direction towards the two pillars of polarity. They travel little distance from the middle path called 'normal'. On the other hand hate indicates an emotional energy that will attract other people, groups, etc that hate. Hate feeds upon itself. Same theory applies to Love. Fear has an intense energy which is a cousin of hate. If you fear a disease long enough and dwell upon the fear, you will attract that disease to yourself. End of story. Your thought has formed the pattern or plan, and Force and Form will see to it that your plan is bought to fruition. (This is 'the secret' of all those 'how to get rich' best selling books. If you are told often enough that smoking will kill you, your subconscious can bring the prophecy to fruition. I believe there are statistics to show that the death rate from lung cancer has gone up since that sort of advertising came into being. If hate is directed toward yourself, you can very swiftly, safely and effectively disarm the aggressor. By standing aside, the aggressor will sooner or later find his dagger stuck somewhere he didn't intend. If you take Time and Space out of the equation, the dagger will end up in the thrower's own back. Hence the admonition to 'workers of spells' - get it right or it will come back to you, and, be careful what you pray for. By applying the Love Principle, you not only stand aside so that no harm becomes you, you also try to slow the aggressor down just a little so that s/he has more time to consider where the lunge is taking them. For love wants no-one to suffer unnecessarily. Yes - you can choose whom to Love. Maat
|
|
|
Post by leonardo on Feb 12, 2007 11:23:38 GMT
Thanks maat for sharing those views. It always interesting to learn how others look at things.
|
|
|
Post by kizzy on Feb 12, 2007 12:58:45 GMT
As self-preservation is one of the strongest urges in the Human Psyche it is no surprise that we will react adversely to anything which poses a threat and likewise will be attracted to anything which is helpful to or supportive of our selves, our values, our family and friends and in in the larger aspect our Religion, Race or Country.
I can think of quite a few people I would be delighted to see dead and I know there are a few who feel the same about me. There are a far, far smaller group for whom I would be prepared to put my own wellbeing in jeopardy. The vast majority of people lie between those two extremes as far as I am concerned. Of one thing I am sure. Hypocrisy is just about the worst sin in my book and if I dislike someone I may have to work with them for a common purpose but I do not pretend to like them.
|
|
|
Post by middlepillar on Feb 12, 2007 20:57:30 GMT
As self-preservation is one of the strongest urges in the Human Psyche it is no surprise that we will react adversely to anything which poses a threat and likewise will be attracted to anything which is helpful to or supportive of our selves, our values, our family and friends and in in the larger aspect our Religion, Race or Country. I can think of quite a few people I would be delighted to see dead and I know there are a few who feel the same about me. There are a far, far smaller group for whom I would be prepared to put my own wellbeing in jeopardy. The vast majority of people lie between those two extremes as far as I am concerned. Of one thing I am sure. Hypocrisy is just about the worst sin in my book and if I dislike someone I may have to work with them for a common purpose but I do not pretend to like them. Steve I am really sorry to see so much anger in your writing, as a Freemason and what you have been taught during your near on 20 year membership of the Craft I find it incredible to see what you have written. It is basic common courtesy to live and work with all members of our Human Race and obviously we do not have to like them this should be an unwritten act of decency do not offend unessessarily. But to state that there are quite a few people you would be delighted to see dead, is actually deeply offensive to me as a Christian not only as a Christian but also as a Mason. You have admonished me for saying you were writing crap on another thread. Well I think you need to take a break and get your head around your anger which I can only presume must be some type of persecution complex? Because I have spent 25 years building 2 businesses and I can state that in all that time of stress and being kicked in the proverbials I have and would never wish another person dead. Honesty only goes so far, this is not honesty it is stupidity. Everyone can choose who they love they cannot however choose who are going to love them. You cannot force anyone to love you! The day I met my wife (who was with a friend of mine in a pub) I went home and told my father I had met the woman I was going to marry. A 3 hour meeting and I knew, I had no choice in the matter I was in love. There are people on the Forums I know hate me, and believe it or not I do not like the fact that someone who I do not know personally could hate me, you have to accept it but you do not have to like it. Hate and anger are wasted emotions unless fighting for your life, Hate is an emotion we as Freemasons must learn to control. You can choose who you love and hate by interaction, you cannot control who you love and hate by chance.
|
|
|
Post by billmcelligott on Feb 12, 2007 21:15:31 GMT
No that cant be right, I love Steve but he has no affection for me at all. We have a love hate relationship, I love him and he hates me. Mind you I think he is coming round a bit since he made the change. I cant help it its just out of my control. But your right I cant force him.
|
|
|
Post by wayseer on Feb 12, 2007 22:11:04 GMT
I think Steve is being honest with his feelings - which is more than what some others are doing.
|
|
|
Post by hollandr on Feb 12, 2007 22:28:21 GMT
I recall an AMORC friend who told me that one day at a party she saw a man across the room and immediately thought: Thats the man I am going to marry - I hope I like him
And she did marry him
And she didn't like him all that much and divorced him
So can we love without liking?
Cheers
Russell
|
|
|
Post by billmcelligott on Feb 12, 2007 22:50:04 GMT
Its difficult to hate someone who makes you laugh, but then some will always attempt the impossible.
A sharp wit is quite often a dealy weapon. Oscar Wilde wished he had said that.
I would agree with Russell however, you most certainly can love someone and not like them.
I fail to understand how anyone can write "I can think of quite a few people I would be delighted to see dead" and not have to think really hard on what they have just written. I pray that this was a slip of the keyboard. It is the first step of hatred and hatred feeds on itself and destroys all it touches. It is the darkness that Stewart loves to talk about, it is the cauldron of evil. The end of sanity and the begining of depravity.
Please think again. No man should wish another dead.
|
|
|
Post by middlepillar on Feb 12, 2007 22:53:36 GMT
I think Steve is being honest with his feelings - which is more than what some others are doing. Wayseer, Its a shame you didnt add to the discussion. I reiterate sometimes in being too honest you leave yourself open to accusations of stupidity. I cannot think of a more ill informed comment as 'I can think of quite a few people I would be delighted to see dead' Or maybe I'm being stupid?
|
|
|
Post by wayseer on Feb 13, 2007 0:23:55 GMT
Wayseer, Its a shame you didnt add to the discussion. I reiterate sometimes in being too honest you leave yourself open to accusations of stupidity. I cannot think of a more ill informed comment as 'I can think of quite a few people I would be delighted to see dead' Or maybe I'm being stupid? I'm sorry - I not sure if I'm understanding you correctly. Perhaps you missed the President and Prime Minister gloating over Sadam's hanging. When I was a councellor with a Men's Group it was necessary to deflect some men's fear that in thinking about suicide correlated with the fact that they would therefore commit suicide. In fact I would suggest the opposite - those who thought about suicide, seriously thought, would not in fact commit suicide. I can think of the odd person who I think should be dead - that does not mean anything - we have lots of thoughts, many of them we would not like to expose. As I indicated - there are those who claim the high moral ground and tell others how and what to think - all the time denying, pretenting to deny really, the murkiness of their own. You might not like what Steve writes - that's OK - but at least he is honest and I'll help any, as is their right, to do so.
|
|
|
Post by hollandr on Feb 13, 2007 1:19:38 GMT
>I can think of the odd person who I think should be dead
Death has been used as the ultimate solution in dealing with difficult humans but there is some doubt as to how successful it is.
For example, one might have thought that execution of nasty criminals might eventually reduce the number practicing upon society. But that does not seem to be the case.
And the extermination of the gnostics did not seem to stop gnosticism from re-emerging in the following centuries.
Could it be that people get re-born and then we have to track them down again?
Or even worse, the evil intent may be caused by possession and having lost its the home (either by execution by society or careless misuse by the entity) the entity needs to find another immediately (copy cat killings?) and society has to track down the new body it possess?
So I am not sure that death solves too many social issues
I recall as saying: Hold your friends close and your enemies closer
Cheers
Russell
|
|
|
Post by maat on Feb 13, 2007 1:40:53 GMT
I, for one, was not happy to see Sadam Hussein 'released'. Containment is better IMO. I'm with Russell on this one.
Maat
|
|
|
Post by maat on Feb 13, 2007 2:31:36 GMT
As I indicated - there are those who claim the high moral ground and tell others how and what to think - all the time denying, pretenting to deny really, the murkiness of their own Taking the high moral ground is to be applauded I would think - better than the alternative. Those that take the high moral ground and fail to travel upon it are immediately open themselves to their reward, which is usually ridicule. Those that take the high moral ground as a goal to be achieved, should be aided if they faulter along the way - you usually find that the helpers will have empathetic qualities. But to fail to take the high moral ground at all shows a lack of direction if nothing else. Wayseer, just reading your post again - are you assuming that anybody who takes a high moral ground is murky? Maat
|
|
imakegarb
Member
One wee, sleeket, cowran, tim'rous beastie
Posts: 3,573
|
Post by imakegarb on Feb 13, 2007 4:19:41 GMT
Hmmmmmm. I do not, as a rule, speak for the feelings of others. For I cannot, really, know how they actually feel.
Not so very long ago a rather well-known online Freemason announced to the entire Internet that he knew I hated him. Which utterly startled me. For I hate *no one*. I don't have it in me to do so (something those who know me comment upon as something of a failing). And so that he should have keyed this with such certainty . . . that he genuinely believed it to be true . . . and yet it wasn't . . .
Makes me wonder how accurate it is when any of us says that someone else hates us. How can we really and truly be sure?
For the principle of vibration would suggest that it would be very difficult for this to be true. When applied to love and hate, what we really feel are variations between the two poles. Which means hate can be way too strong a discriptive. And so can love.
And when we recognize, also, that when we look at others, we more often than not see ourselves. Mindful of my sig . . . ;D
As to the original question: anyone who has held their child in theirs arms, for the first time, can tell you that we do not always have a choice in whom we love.
|
|
|
Post by taylorsman on Feb 13, 2007 5:52:12 GMT
So far the only reply worthy of comment that I have read on this thread since it went on the Open Forum, is that of Wayseer.
He is, as is often the case, totally correct. I DO express my feelings freely, and I do not mince my words. For example I am a staunch believer in both Capital and Corporal Punishment where these are merited, and before someone asks, yes I would be willing to be the Hangman.
I repeat. There ARE those I would be happy to see Dead Some are in the big picture , for example I shed no tears for Saddam Hussain nor his accomplicies when they were hanged recently , I did not mourn Pol Pot when he was shown dead and naked in hut in Cambodia.I hold no Requiems for Hitler or Stalin, and am delighted when terrorists are taken out by the security forces before they can detonate their bombs. There are also a few who have caused me a lot of grief in my personal life who's Obit in the newspaper would certainly not sadden me one iota. I have never bought into the John Donne cliche that the "Death of any one man diminishes me" there are some, such as those mentioned , I was glad to see the back of and I am sure that many others felt the same, in particular the Kurds and Shia Muslims in Iraq about the late Saddam.
I am still the essential me, the good points and the bad, if you wish WYSIWYG. I do not and cannot pretend to love people who offend me. I do not mouth platitudes nor indulge in sanctimonious humbug, and hypocrisy is the biggest sin as far as I am concerned.
That's as much explanation as you will get from me, take it or leave it.
***************************************************** Trying now to answer the actual question originally posed and not resorting to another shooting war as we recently had over "Tyled Fora".
I personally believe that we have Free Will to Love or Hate whomsoever we choose. Of course there is instinctive behaviour. The case of a mother with her newborn baby being cited. This is again the preservation instinct , she will put the baby to her breast, it will suck. It needs to be fed, she has the inbuilt means to feed it. There are however cases where a mother will reject her child and this causes problems for the medical staff .
Likewise when threatened such as in a war, people will react with hostility towards their enemy, but when the threat is removed this hatred for the most part will abate .
Even as regards those figures that the majority of people profess to "love" there are variances. I am a great admirer of the late Mother Teresa of Calcutta but I have heard her lambasted on the TV during a programme about her life. Lady Diana is generally a "loved" figure by many but there are those who are savage critics of her memory as well.
On the personal plane I do wonder just how much of what is called love is really motivated by"Carnal Lust", or is only "Cupboard Love" for favours already received and in the hope of the continuation of such advantage, in a word Sycophancy?
|
|
|
Post by billmcelligott on Feb 13, 2007 7:01:41 GMT
Then we must assume you are happy for others to do the same.
What I feel you are missing is that the words placed here are for your benefit.
The heading was 'can we choose who we love' and somehow its got round to hatred and being glad someone is dead. How the hell Saddam got in here heaven only knows. No one else took the conversaion there.
Seeing Justice done has nothing to do with being happy. I am not happy Saddam is dead, I am satisfied on behalf of the thousands that suffered, that he has been dealt with for the crimes he commited, but not happy.
|
|