| Re: we're machines of "_love_" (sorry) |
|
 |
|
 |
|
 |
|
 |
Group: alt.philosophy · Group Profile
Author: turtoniturtoni Date: May 19, 2008 23:20
>
> "turtoni" fastmail.net> wrote in message
> news:1so2r1.ev2.17.1@news.alt.net...
A very quick response i'm about to hit the sack.
> But if one could 'learn' to drive it...would that be a calculating love?
> an evil?
no. we are "driving it" we are love. machines of love. all our calculating
is naught since we realize that "so fucking what?" as an example. another
example is what it the meaning of life, etc. you're pecking away at
something that you need. but to others, that is nothing. meaninglessness.
sir Frederick, immortalist, etc already understand that. good luck with
sowing your seed. we realize that there is only another mans invented
stories.
> Sir says to work backwards, from neuron chemistry upwards to evoke state.
> I say it can be done...'has' been done for centuries, from the top down,
> working back upon the neuron chemistry via thought. What I think is
> important is our relationship with 'objects'. Perhaps a clue exists there
> as a starting point. If one can study the objects that 'evoke' love
> through thought, then abstract how the mind works to evoke this
> state...well, I think what one might find are the cornerstone principles
> of biblic proportion: essentially 'Belief' and 'faith'...and the seed upon
> which love grows, 'virtue'.
>
> Now, wouldn't it be more 'human' to talk about people doing 'virtuous'
> things to evoke the 'love' of others toward them, than little pink pills
> the doctor might prescribe? No virtue in that...and life gets short
> changed IMO
i have to like people via my own person machine and every thing we do is
some kind of conditioning towards that unless we don't and then you go to
jail and/or get killed.
i'm thinking about philosophy and not sociology...
personally i think you're barking up the wrong tree.
you need love. i have love. mountains of love. i'm just digging around in
the dirt for kicks i guess.
HTH.
| 
