Mastering Things

[Caraccioli]

So what are your thoughts on truth?

I don't think we can completely and accurately perceive truth. Truth exists outside of the world we create for ourselves. We can sort of sense it and can even paint it in broad strokes. ("Killing things is generally bad.") After that, however, we get into specifics and the whole thing sort of breaks down because of the influences of the mental landscape we have created. It actually reminds me of that quote from the book I cited several pages ago...

"Even if a system can 'think about itself', it is still not outside itself. You, outside the system, perceive it differently from the way it perceives itself. So there is a meta-theory - a view from outside - even for a theory which can 'think about itself' inside itself."

Truth is a factor that is outside of the system so we are always trapped by our own perceptions. At least that's my understanding at this point.

[PyratePhil]

So what are your thoughts on truth?

Truth?

Truth is like morality - different interpretations for every player in the game. No two people can hold the exact same truth - each is colored by their, yep, perceptions. And conditionings. And experiences.

Is there a Universal truth? Personally, I believe there is. Perhaps just one, or many. Again, each of us will perceive that truth differently, if we're ever so lucky to glimpse it. But that may well be the intuited truth that we feel on occasion.

But don't let societal mores influence your perception of truth. "Killing is bad" - that isn't necessarily a truth - only an opinion formed by certain societies and their moral/legal hangups. That involves what I see in MY system as one of the Universal truths - there are two sides to everything, one side gaining weight (importance) at a given time as its complementary wanes, only to reverse roles as time goes on.

Think Yin/Yang Theory.

Whether truth is outside of us or inside, I don't know. Certainly our ideas of truth, our interpretations, are inside of us. The actual truth of a situation is what lies outside of us, so the conflict seems to be the adjusting of our ideas since we cannot change the actual truth. We can rant and rave, tell everyone it isn't fair, that there has to be another way to sneak around that damn truth - but there isn't. Our job then becomes aligning ourselves with the universal truth(s) in order to grease the skids of life.

This might seem to be in opposition to the Yin/Yang theory, but it actually isn't. For each and every second of life, there is a truth. It might change from second to second, but there's still an ultimate "right" and "wrong".

What usually blows us out of the water is knowing that this moment's truth is the next minute's falsehood. We are raised to believe that truth is eternal and will always triumph, and falsehoods are evil and will be vanquished. I don't see such oppositions - I see balances between them. One is necessary for the other to exist.

I know this isn't the standard way of thinking of truth, but it's how I sense the system truly is.

[Sir Beachem Quick]

aye for one am trying to cut back on truth.

[Jacky Tar]

Mayhaps philosophical truths are subject t' interpetation, many scientific truths are not. Start wit' wot we know t' be facts (truth) an work from there.

Accept that we don't hav all the answers, an be prepared t' work wit' imperfect information.

Most importantly, remember no one has the market cornered on truth.

[Sir Beachem Quick]

I for one am quite happy Thomas Edison did not quit after his first week of trying to invent the light bulb.

Thomas Edison, while his inventions have proved useful, was not the giant genius and world-saving inventor that people make him out to be.

He was an anti-Semite; he was a real ba$tard to work for; he regularly stole ideas from other scientists and inventors; he demanded that any ideas that originated from his workers be credited to him; he was conceited and arrogant; he was obsessed with money, and he had an excellent PR team behind him. There were scores of scientists and inventors working simultaneously on the same inventions, and it's mainly through luck, coupled with some ingenious industrial espionage, that he "stumbled" upon the great majority of them.

In short: the typical persevering businessman.

So what your saying then is because he was a human who exibited human flaws his accomplishments are thereby less significant.

Sorry laddy I am having a really hard time understanding what one has to do with the other. Character - which is what your alluding too . . .I believe. Has very little to do with with the ability to see a obsticle through to resolution or conclusion.

This is actually typical of the modern geo political media machine. God forbid we acknowledge and respect someone for their accomplishments without first pointing out all the awe sh*ts it took to achieve those accomplishments.

No ofense intended to you BTW.

[Sir Beachem Quick]

Mayhaps philosophical truths are subject t' interpetation, many scientific truths are not. Start wit' wot we know t' be facts (truth) an work from there.

Accept that we don't hav all the answers, an be prepared t' work wit' imperfect information.

Most importantly, remember no one has the market cornered on truth.

No wiser words was ever spoken.

[PyratePhil]

Mayhaps philosophical truths are subject t' interpetation, many scientific truths are not. Start wit' wot we know t' be facts (truth) an work from there.

Most importantly, remember no one has the market cornered on truth.

Science is just philosophy in a test tube.

Actually, on a macrocosmic scale scientific "truths" ARE open to interpretation. How many times have the scientific truths of the past been superseded by new knowledge? They represent only the truth as it is known AT THE PRESENT TIME; thus, I stand by my previous statements.

And aye, no one, scientist nor philosopher, has the market cornered.

[PyratePhil]

So what your saying then is because he was a human who exibited human flaws his accomplishments are thereby less significant.

Sorry laddy I am having a really hard time understanding what one has to do with the other.  Character - which is what your alluding too  . . .I believe.  Has very little to do with with the ability to see a obsticle through to resolution or conclusion.

This is actually typical of the modern geo political media machine. God forbid we acknowledge and respect someone for their accomplishments without first pointing out all the awe sh*ts it took to achieve those accomplishments.

No ofense intended to you  BTW.

Nope, not what I said at all. Sorry.

The way I look at it, character has EVERYTHING to do with WHATEVER we do in life, no matter the accomplishment. Sure, we could be scientific geniuses that leave behind wonderful insights into nature - but if we beat our wives while discovering those insights, what does that make us?

Something less than giants.

I guess it all depends upon whether we live for the moment's glory and acclaim or want to develop OURSELVES, instead of just some new-fangled gizmo. It's relatively easy to be a hero outside of ourselves - finding a novel way of slipping Tab A into Slot B is child's play compared to honing our spirit.

I fully acknowledge Edison for his accomplishments. I just haven't forgotten or ignored what, in large part, produced them. If that makes me part of the new geo-political machine, so be it. But since I don't recognize geographical boundaries in regards to human behavior and I am totally apolitical, I don't really understand how it could.

And no - no offense taken - we're jes' jawin', is all.

[Jacky Tar]

Mayhaps philosophical truths are subject t' interpetation, many scientific truths are not. Start wit' wot we know t' be facts (truth) an work from there.

Most importantly, remember no one has the market cornered on truth.

Science is just philosophy in a test tube.

Actually, on a macrocosmic scale scientific "truths" ARE open to interpretation. How many times have the scientific truths of the past been superseded by new knowledge? They represent only the truth as it is known AT THE PRESENT TIME; thus, I stand by my previous statements.

And aye, no one, scientist nor philosopher, has the market cornered.

Interestin' that PyratePhil quoted me an left out the second paragraph...

Sire, I give ye mathematics, science wit' out test tubes.

From mathematics I give ye Pi, true since the dawn o' time.

As fer Edison, true many of our heroes hav feet o' clay. Wot would the world be like wit out 'em? I fer one welcome their contributions.

[PyratePhil]

Interestin' that PyratePhil quoted me an left out the second paragraph...

OK - here ye be...

Accept that we don't hav all the answers, an be prepared t' work wit' imperfect information.

Not only do I accept that we don't have all the answers, but I also accept that once we spend a lifetime trying to acquire them, we suddenly find them useless. Therefore I accept what is, without expectations and without seeking answers to questions that have no relevancy to my journey.

Since I seek perfection in my own life, I'm sorry but I won't be accepting imperfection in it. Acceptance leads to "settling", which I am not prepared to indulge in.

If mathematics is indeed a science, then it also is constantly changing. Not necessarily the basics, granted (although there IS research on reinterpretations of the foundations)- but chaos theory, superpolynomials, heuristics and matrix theory, among others, are evolving on a daily basis.

Thus, they are still in a test tube - just not one made of Pyrex.

As to my friend Tom E. - you ask what the world would be like without him? I think not very different, since any invention that was patented by him would have been discovered and quickly brought to application by another scientist/inventor/businessman.

[Caraccioli]

Mayhaps philosophical truths are subject t' interpetation, many scientific truths are not. Start wit' wot we know t' be facts (truth) an work from there.

You couldn't be further from the, er, "truth". Look deeply into science sometime. Nothing is decided wholly and finally. Take the anthropological global warming we've been fussing over...there are seemingly valid studies on both sides of it. Which are actually true? Who knows? (No one except those who have already made up their minds and decided not to learn what they don't know.) That's why I think it's dangerous to sacrifice our freedom for one potential scenario - we know enough to make some dangerously limiting decisions.

But that's a pretty contentious issue...take any scientific "truth." Did you know some scientists are still researching gravitation (gravity)? They can give you an equation that describes the majority of forces for what we call gravity, but there is still concern that other forces exist that we haven't accounted for. The first, most apparent equation for gravity was the Newtonian equation. If you learned the equation for gravity in school, that's most likely what you were taught. Then came Einstein's theory of general relativity which presented another wrinkle to the concept. Then quantum mechanics added yet another aspect to the equation. And I read there are still people looking at yet other factors (Take string theory...).

Science is not truth. The scientific method offers us a way to approach what we call scientific truths. Used properly, it's a rigorous procedure that is supposed to eliminate bias (aka. "our individual human perception"). But then you come back to the notion that we all live in worlds of our own making and, if you really think about that, you may begin to realize that it is all but impossible to eliminate individual human perception. In science, scientists are always seeking to prove something in which they believe or want to believe and their results can be and probably are, influenced (often, I suspect, subconsciously) by this.

This is where peer review is supposed to come in and save the day, but then we get into another realm that is often called groupthink or "collective individual human perception". This is probably less prevalent in the study of gravitation than it is in something like global warming, but...who knows? It could still be a factor even there.

Scientific "facts" are very open to interpretation. In fact, the scientific theory is not built around proving something, but around not being able to disprove it. The minute you can disprove a scientific theory with a repeatable, verifiable experiment, that theory is considered to be wrong, or at least seriously compromised. So every "proven" scientific fact sits nervously waiting in the wings, hoping not to be disproved. (Forgive me my dramatic anthropomorphism.)

It's a good method for approximating "truths," (it's the best one we know about) but it isn't truth. I personally suspect something will one day come along that will be even more powerful than the scientific method for estimating "truth" and there will a paradigm shift in this area. This is not to say the scientific method is bad or wrong, because it isn't, or even that it will be replaced, because it probably will not. However, it's just a tool in our toolbox for trying to get us a bit closer to external truth. (If, indeed, we can truly comprehend external truth.)

[Caraccioli]

Is there a Universal truth? Personally, I believe there is. Perhaps just one, or many. Again, each of us will perceive that truth differently, if we're ever so lucky to glimpse it. But that may well be the intuited truth that we feel on occasion.

Hm. Yes, I am confining my thinking too much.

But don't let societal mores influence your perception of truth. "Killing is bad" - that isn't necessarily a truth - only an opinion formed by certain societies and their moral/legal hangups. That involves what I see in MY system as one of the Universal truths - there are two sides to everything, one side gaining weight (importance) at a given time as its complementary wanes, only to reverse roles as time goes on.

You know...I knew that. Killing (something) is just choice. I learned that a long time ago... Although I believe you must bear responsibility for your actions. Your operation upon society will impact the whole of which you have chosen to be a part. Every action and choice produces an outcome.

[PyratePhil]

... Although I believe you must bear responsibility for your actions. Your operation upon society will impact the whole of which you have chosen to be a part. Every action and choice produces an outcome.

So what happens when you no longer consider yourself a part of that society?

Are all bets off? Can you blithely skip around killing people then? Or does the early conditioning stay with you? What if you experience a trauma that permanently removes that conditioning? What if you never had that conditioning to begin with?

I wish I still had my Magic 8-Ball.

Personally, I understand the concept of carrying the burden of taking a life. But no matter what, I agree that every action has a reaction. Not always equal and opposite, like those scientists claim LOL, but A reaction.

[Caraccioli]

0So what happens when you no longer consider yourself a part of that society?

Could you explain to me how that could be completely accomplished?

I can't see how it would be done, myself. You may attempt to absolve yourself from the requirements of a given society (although I think that even this would be impossible in a complete sense - it's more of a mental exercise than anything.) Even so, society would still consider you a part of it and thus you would be beholden to it and you actions would be so judged (ew, that word...). You might grab for the insanity clause, but then you really get to live under the dictates of society.

So how could it be done? Live in a place completely ungoverened by any vestige of human society? Will you eschew all human amenities? Is there a way to get there without standing on the shoulders of your forebears and thus owning some responsibility to the society of humanity? (Even traveling to an unnamed asteriod or some such requires a rocketship and the tools to create food, water and O2.)

Other than retreating into your mind (which, while in this existance, cannot be seperated from your body) I'm not sure how it could be done.

(BTW, when I say "chosen to be a part," I believe that in some way, we choose to assume form before we become it. I wish I could explain it better than that, but - well, I can't. Sorry about that. It's one of the ookier metaphysical things in which I believe. It may just be a manifestation of my need for control of my life. (Yes, I understand that need for control is a weakness. I chose to live with it.))

[Caraccioli]

As for early conditioning...my best understanding at this point in my life is that each person's perceptive world is made almost entirely of actions, connections, associations and learnings (among other things) from their past. You can unlearn things you have learned, but this is (especially at first) a time-consuming process and would probably be very difficult to execute for all past events. But that's just my understanding at this point.

[PyratePhil]

0So what happens when you no longer consider yourself a part of that society?

Could you explain to me how that could be completely accomplished?

I can't see how it would be done, myself. You may attempt to absolve yourself from the requirements of a given society (although I think that even this would be impossible in a complete sense - it's more of a mental exercise than anything.) Even so, society would still consider you a part of it and thus you would be beholden to it and you actions would be so judged (ew, that word...). You might grab for the insanity clause, but then you really get to live under the dictates of society.

So how could it be done? Live in a place completely ungoverened by any vestige of human society? Will you eschew all human amenities? Is there a way to get there without standing on the shoulders of your forebears and thus owning some responsibility to the society of humanity? (Even traveling to an unnamed asteriod or some such requires a rocketship and the tools to create food, water and O2.)

Other than retreating into your mind (which, while in this existance, cannot be seperated from your body) I'm not sure how it could be done.

(BTW, when I say "chosen to be a part," I believe that in some way, we choose to assume form before we become it. I wish I could explain it better than that, but - well, I can't. Sorry about that. It's one of the ookier metaphysical things in which I believe. It may just be a manifestation of my need for control of my life. (Yes, I understand that need for control is a weakness. I chose to live with it.))

Completely accomplished? I'll let you know when I get there.

Almost accomplished? I'm working on it, and it's going pretty well.

Just because society considers ME to be part of IT doesn't necessarily mean I have to ACCEPT that idea. And yes, I know they levy stiff penalties for those living outside of society - but ya know, sometimes, the rewards are worth the punishments.

The mind does play a very large part in it - at least in the beginning phases of societal separation. You need to prepare yourself for the shock of being apart from the mainstream and, as I believe we mentioned either here or in another thread, being born into a society is a heavy load upon us - we're instantly forced to assume responsibilities and expectations, although we're barely old enough to crawl. Getting over the guilt trips and the need to live your life for others is just the beginning - but it's a beginning that is undertaken with the mind.

Insanity clause? Naw, you can't fool'a me, Boss - there ain't no such thing as Insanity Clause!

As in everything else, there are levels of separation from society that we can choose to rise (or descend) to. Giving up the weekly beer with the boys on Friday night is one "degree of separation"...giving up the house, the wife, the kids and the car and then moving into a cardboard box under the bridge is a slightly different degree.

I don't think my idea of separation is so much a physical one (although I AM taking steps in that direction) as much as a mental and interactive one. The Taoists say that you can know the world without leaving your front door - I maintain that I can ignore society and be apart from it the very same way.

But then the clinker drops - "If you're so into being alone, why write on this Forum?" Good question...one I'm not sure I have an intelligent answer for, besides the possibility that I'm indulging in my last "hurrahs" before I move on...or maybe because I'm a teacher, I haven't discharged my "on" or obligations to teach yet...I never claimed it was EASY to separate - just, in my case anyway, whether I like it or not, apparently my Path.

Standing on the shoulders, etc. - eh...everything has an origin. That's one of those Universal Truths, I think, and if it is, then we owe nothing to society. We may incur some debts along the way with random humans - in which case, we should strive to pay them off as quickly and fully as possible so that we can continue on our journey burden-free. In a perfectly-balanced system (which I realize this world is not), any debt incurred would be discharged by our actions immediately preceding or following that debt. Therefore, no debt to "society" - only to individuals on a one-to-one basis.

Sort of like mountain men trading furs for liquor with a fellow mountain man, instead of going into town and trying to haggle with the merchants. The one-on-one trade is immediate, effective and final. The merchant route is filled with complications, delays, and uncertainties.

Not only can you not separate your mind from your body in this life - it would be folly to even attempt, or wish, to do so. They're an integral team, along with the spirit - the Holy Trinity of Taoism, if you will - Mind, Body and Spirit. The goal is to unite them, not separate them.

On the "choosing forms" - that sounds like another thread altogether.

And we all have weaknesses - what we choose to do with them is what, to a large part, determines our Path. It's only that pesky Fatal Flaw that hangs around for such a long time and finally bites us on the backside that causes such real problems...

[PyratePhil]

As for early conditioning...my best understanding at this point in my life is that each person's perceptive world is made almost entirely of actions, connections, associations and learnings (among other things) from their past. You can unlearn things you have learned, but this is (especially at first) a time-consuming process and would probably be very difficult to execute for all past events. But that's just my understanding at this point.

One of the goals of Taoism is to unlearn that which you already know, at least insofar as the non-essential "filler" or outright incorrect knowledge. I've found this principle to be most easily understood in the practice of taijiquan (t'ai Chi) - you have to UNlearn most everything you think you know and have been taught about posture, balance, movement and weight transfers.

When that knowledge is discarded, you fill the void with USEFUL and EFFECTIVE knowledge - proper body mechanics - and you soon find that your health improves immensely, along with your energy levels and your mental clarity.

But you ARE correct that it takes a long time - a lifetime, to be precise - so one of our first goals is to learn to stay healthy long enough to unlearn everything we NEED to unlearn, so that we can learn what we WANT to learn.

Plus, we get to catch some neat reruns on TV if we miss them in original run!

[Jacky Tar]

I do not seek perfection, and consider it illusory. I do not seek absolute truth, and am quite willing to work with approximates. I know most things in life are subject to change.

I do seek love, friendship and a good cappuccino.

I Meditate on these things...

The earth is spinning much slower, then when it started spinning. The earth's tilt gives us seasons. The magnetic fields shield us from harmful radiation. You and I are here!

[PyratePhil]

I do not seek perfection, and consider it illusory.  I do not seek absolute truth, and am quite willing to work with approximates. I know most things in life are subject to change.

I do seek love, friendship and a good cappuccino.

I Meditate on these things...

The earth is spinning much slower, then when it started spinning. The earth's tilt gives us seasons. The magnetic fields shield us from harmful radiation. You and I are here!

Then you also know that EVERYthing is an illusion. Besides, if you don't seek perfection, wouldn't that imply that you're willing to settle for second-best? And if that's true, and you don't get second, hell - third or fourth is good enough...

"Those who are first are last"...

Love: an overrated, over-hyped, underachieved and expectation-filled endeavor. Telling someone you love them not only puts you at risk; it also surely takes away from your power.

Friendship: a temporary thing like everything else; only your closest friends can truly hurt you, and of, say, 100 friends, perhaps only 1 or 2 will be TRUE ones.

Cappuccino: NOW yer talkin'!

You and I are here? Sorry - I'M here. YOU'RE there. We aren't BOTH here. But now you'll probably reply that you're HERE and I'm THERE. See how it's all an illusion?

[LongTom]

Love: an overrated, over-hyped, underachieved and expectation-filled endeavor. Telling someone you love them not only puts you at risk; ...

At risk? Of what? Of not being loved in return? Where is the risk in that, compared to keeping silence? Doesn't keeping silence result in not being loved, too?

It is not important that we are loved. It is vitally important that we love. It is the difference between asking another being to fill what is basically a drain, versus being a wellspring. Approached from that angle, there is nothing to be lost in loving, and everything to be lost in withholding love.

it also surely takes away from your power.

"There is no good or evil; there is only power, and those too weak to seek it." -- Voldemort

[Ransom]

I do not seek perfection, and consider it illusory.  I do not seek absolute truth, and am quite willing to work with approximates. I know most things in life are subject to change.

I do seek love, friendship and a good cappuccino.

I Meditate on these things...

The earth is spinning much slower, then when it started spinning. The earth's tilt gives us seasons. The magnetic fields shield us from harmful radiation. You and I are here!

Then you also know that EVERYthing is an illusion. Besides, if you don't seek perfection, wouldn't that imply that you're willing to settle for second-best? And if that's true, and you don't get second, hell - third or fourth is good enough...

"Those who are first are last"...

Love: an overrated, over-hyped, underachieved and expectation-filled endeavor. Telling someone you love them not only puts you at risk; it also surely takes away from your power.

Friendship: a temporary thing like everything else; only your closest friends can truly hurt you, and of, say, 100 friends, perhaps only 1 or 2 will be TRUE ones.

Cappuccino: NOW yer talkin'!

You and I are here? Sorry - I'M here. YOU'RE there. We aren't BOTH here. But now you'll probably reply that you're HERE and I'm THERE. See how it's all an illusion?

Hummm...You apparently want no friends (none can be trusted), no loves (too risky), no dealings with society (too programed), and feel everything else is an illusion. Yet strive for perfection. I can only assume you'd rather be dead. Solves all of the above problems.

[PyratePhil]

At risk?  Of what?  Of not being loved in return?  Where is the risk in that, compared to keeping silence?  Doesn't keeping silence result in not being loved, too?

It is not important that we are loved.  It is vitally important that we love. It is the difference between asking another being to fill what is basically a drain, versus being a wellspring.  Approached from that angle, there is nothing to be lost in loving, and everything to be lost in withholding love.

At risk of being used; of being abused; of being mislead; of being taken advantage of; of gaining false hope; of having expectations.

Re: being a wellspring - every wellspring has its limits, though, right? Is it possible that the wellspring can run dry, thus offering no more love to others?

And if your statement of "nothing to be lost..." holds true, then ANY time that ANYONE has EVER fallen in love they have NEVER lost ANYTHING.

I'm sorry - I just can't buy that. It sounds too much like a personal-development mantra. I'm not referring to theoretical situations here - I'm thinking real-life ones. I've seen love spiked like a cheap football too many times to think that love conquers all and never hurts anyone.

And the opposite view - withholding love loses everything - why? What do you lose, beside experiencing a transient surge of hormones / testosterone? You actually GAIN, I think - you gain self-sufficiency, self-reliance and self-fulfillment. As you mentioned in the drain analogy, you no longer have to look outside yourself for love, nor do you feel the desire to fill the world with it, thus exhausting your own wellspring in the process.

"There is no good or evil; there is only power, and those too weak to seek it."  -- Voldemort

Eh - nice quote, granted; but it generalizes a wee bit too much for my tastes.

[PyratePhil]

Hummm...You apparently want no friends (none can be trusted), no loves (too risky), no dealings with society (too programed), and feel everything else is an illusion. Yet strive for perfection. I can only assume you'd rather be dead. Solves all of the above problems.

M'lady - you're a writer and live on 20 acres, yet call ME anti-social?

That's OK - I'm a writer and live on 5 acres.

Seriously - I'm not sure I've explained my POV well enough. There's a lot more that goes into the making of it than can be put down in words, especially on this forum.

It isn't that I don't WANT friends, love or social intercourse...well, actually, in a way it IS - I'm actively trying to eliminate my wants and cut WAY down on my needs. Couple that lifestyle choice (some might call it minimalism) with some "bad" (read: unpleasant) life experiences and my passion for Taoist philosophy, and you'll see the tip of the iceberg.

Most people seek to ADD to their life to achieve their goals - I seek rather to SUBTRACT. Same destination, different paths.

You see, I don't actively SEEK any of the above - if they happen to fall upon my path, I'll certainly give them a look-see and maybe even try them out. But always without hopes, without expectations and without false effort at making them work. It's the old concept of wu wei again...

How do you know that my quest for perfection doesn't target the achievement of no friends, etc.? Each person's idea of perfection is different - so if that is indeed mine, then wouldn't I be heading in the right direction?

And if THAT is true, then death has nothing to do with it. Death is an ever-present guest in my house - I treat him with respect, yet I do not fear him; I've seen him up-close and personal too many times for that to happen. I'll leave with him soon enough, but in the meantime I choose to develop myself along self-defined lines - not those put forth by media moguls or the easily-influenced societal drone whose idea of perfection is a cold beer in the right hand, a Burger King Whopper in the left and a large-screen HDTV smack-dab in the middle.

...not that that's a BAD idea of perfection, of course - it just isn't mine...

[LongTom]

At risk of being used; of being abused; of being mislead; of being taken advantage of; of gaining false hope; of having expectations.

True, but they can pull all that crap on you even if you don't let on about your feelings. Loving doesn't mean consenting to ill-treatment.

Re: being a wellspring - every wellspring has its limits, though, right? Is it possible that the wellspring can run dry, thus offering no more love to others?

Here's the funny part: loving freely makes it easier for others to love you, which makes it even easier to love freely. It is possible to find the wrong person into which to pour your love, like a drain, but that doesn't mean you should correct the situation by turning off the tap.

And if your statement of "nothing to be lost..." holds true, then ANY time that ANYONE has EVER fallen in love they have NEVER lost ANYTHING.

Well, that might be an overstatement. It's just that you run a fair chance of losing some of that stuff anyway by dealing with this person at all, if they are the sort to treat people badly. And you know exactly what you are virtually guaranteed to lose by keeping mum.

I'm sorry - I just can't buy that. It sounds too much like a personal-development mantra. I'm not referring to theoretical situations here - I'm thinking real-life ones. I've seen love spiked like a cheap football too many times to think that love conquers all and never hurts anyone.

You are right, loving does make you vulnerable. Problem is, not loving doesn't make one quite as invulnerable as you let on. (I have spent rather too much of my own life hiding within myself, and still being miserable.) Also, there are the rewards to be foregone. It's a little bit like defending against being hit by a bus by refusing to come outdoors.

And the opposite view - withholding love loses everything - why? What do you lose, beside experiencing a transient surge of hormones / testosterone?

Only the world. It has to do with how you view the world while loving. And then there is what unfolds in the world as a result. You know, I'm not sure I have the words to explain myself, about what I would have lost by not loving. Ask my children, maybe.

You actually GAIN, I think - you gain self-sufficiency, self-reliance and self-fulfillment. As you mentioned in the drain analogy, you no longer have to look outside yourself for love, nor do you feel the desire to fill the world with it, thus exhausting your own wellspring in the process.

Now, that reminds me of another quote: "It was the very thing he liked. To edge his way along the crowded paths of life, warning all human sympathy to keep its distance, was what the knowing ones call "nuts" to Scrooge."

[Jacky Tar]

Then you also know that EVERYthing is an illusion. Besides, if you don't seek perfection, wouldn't that imply that you're willing to settle for second-best? And if that's true, and you don't get second, hell - third or fourth is good enough...

Yes, often our perceptions of things help sustain certain illusions.

You say settle as if making a selection precludes other selections, or prevents changing one's mind (True in certain social contracts). But life is about choices.

Love: an overrated, over-hyped, underachieved and expectation-filled endeavor.

Romantic love maybe, but unconditional love never.

Telling someone you love them not only puts you at risk; it also surely takes away from your power.

Every aspect of the human condition has inherent risks. I do not seek love that gives me power over anyone, that is not love.

Friendship: a temporary thing like everything else; only your closest friends can truly hurt you, and of, say, 100 friends, perhaps only 1 or 2 will be TRUE ones.

Life is temporary, I still want to live a happy one and friends make me happy.

Cappuccino: NOW yer talkin'!  

Cappuccino, common grounds for friendship; careful Phil your slipping!

You and I are here? Sorry - I'M here. YOU'RE there. We aren't BOTH here. But now you'll probably reply that you're HERE and I'm THERE. See how it's all an illusion?

I think you knew I meant, were both here on Earth.