HUMINT: Unconditional Love

human intelligence ^ | 08 December 2007 | anonymous neural network

[humint]

Unconditional love can be expressed in many ways. I think of unconditional love as the emotional expression of a part for its whole. A mother and her newborn are emotionally inseparable. That’s an expression of unconditional love. Brothers may share it, if they’re close confidants. Soldiers may feel a version of unconditional love for those they risk everything for. A priest may feel unconditional love for his parishioners and vice-versa. Unconditional love is usually detached from materialism but it can indeed exist over purely material relations. A zealous store owner may feel a version of unconditional love for their most loyal customers.

The interconnectedness between part and whole is a transcendent bond that engenders unconditional love. Only through exercising those bonds can love be replenished. Without a sensation of unity; a part yearning to be whole, unconditional love is impossible. To understand unconditional love we need to consider what is conceivably whole and all the parts that contribute to its wholeness. Alternatively, we might assert, when parts are missing from the whole, there is an observable incompleteness.

At first glance, it’s apparent that none of the relationships that tie a part to its whole is ambivalent. In other words, the cohesion that binds a part to its whole is biased. It makes sense in the context of righteousness. There’s no such thing as righteous ambivalence. Pragmatism is often masqueraded as righteous ambivalence but instead, it’s self delusion; a form of escape; a part abandoning the whole.

Examples abound. Tribalism is often an elaborate expression of the bond between a member and their extended family. Nationalism is an elaborate expression of the bond between a citizen and their state. Consumerism is a bond between a consumer and their market choices. Environmentalism is a bond between a person and the earth. Spiritualism is an elaborate bond between the individual and their universe. None of these bonds is mutually exclusive. Each tug and push on the other, vying for equilibrium.

When these cohesive forces contradict each other too quickly or for too long, the inevitable result is a crash. In terms of tribes and nations, these crashes are called revolutions. They’re called recessions in terms of markets. When discussing the environment, they’re called extinctions. Only religion asserts its permanence yet we know that religions are as equally capable of extinction as are all of a faith’s adherents.

That said; how do we know these things? Inversely, how could we thrive if we did not know these things? Even if you’ve never heard of the scientific method, or never conducted a single laboratory experiment; we’re all aware of the past. Our unique interpretations of the past may deviate wildly; nevertheless we all know our present condition is a product of events that occurred in the past.

Humanity, in the here and now, represents all people --- a seemingly comprehensive whole to consider. Unconditional love exists between individuals and humanity, although it is very rare. It’s rare because it’s impractical. It only works for individuals loosely bound to their own past, and the history of all the wholes they belong. It might work for revolutionary idealists, but not their children or their children’s children. That’s because unconditional love for humanity is not the same as the whole represented by all of human history.

Human history is a truly comprehensive whole. Like religion, history, so long as there is a person capable of learning and remembering it, is impervious to crashing. Unlike religion though, humanity’s history includes all of the religions any one of us or our ancestors have ever believed in. Indeed, unlike these other sub-wholes [Tribe Nation Market] are each included in human history. Unfortunately, unconditional love does not exist between historical events (the parts) and history (the whole). History’s many parts are incapable of emotion; therefore past events have no cohesion to the whole of human history. It’s only through iterative interpretation of historical events that cohesive parts begin gravitating toward a unified whole.

That’s what all of us do with the history we think we know. The truth is, only historians operate with the legitimate qualifications, AKA, academic license, to organize historical events into a cohesive unified whole. Every other interpretation of history is just a convoluted opinion cobbled together by the emotional mix that guides each of us through our lives.

Maybe, one day, when historians are allowed to abandon their own [Tribes Nations Markets Environments Religions] and begin articulating human history as the whole that it truly is, the rest of us highly emotional laymen will understand the deeper meaning of our life, love and work in the context of all the life, love and work that was accomplished before us. From that awakening, we will see ourselves anew; we will find a new respect for history and an unconditional love for the future.

Among the competing forces that define who we are now, there is a force generated by the image of who we intend to be in the future. Constantly baptized by the fires of history making events, for better or worse, we are all changing. The questions we should be asking ourselves and each other are “how?” and “why?” Arguably, the force compelling us to succeed in harmony with each other is the most potent of all forces. Its power is an enduring theme throughout human history because it is a complementary force. Given freedom, and an accurate history, there is no reason to believe we couldn’t all be born again, in sustainable peace. That’s my definition of victory.

In short, our history deserves unconditional respect and our future deserves unconditional love.

[humint]

Love has many different meanings in English, from something that gives a little pleasure ("I loved that meal") to something one would die for (patriotism, pair bonding). It can describe an intense feeling of affection, an emotion or an emotional state. In ordinary use, it usually refers to interpersonal love. Probably due to its psychological relevance, love is one of the most common themes in art and music.

Just as there are many types of lovers, there are many kinds of love. Love is inherent in all human cultures. It is precisely these cultural differences that make any universal definition of love difficult to establish. See the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis. One definition attempting to be universally applicable is Thomas Jay Oord's: to love is to act intentionally, in sympathetic response to others (including God), to promote overall well-being. This definition applies to the positive connotations of love.

Expressions of love may include the love for a "soul" or mind, the love of laws and organizations, love for a body, love for nature, love of food, love of money, love for learning, love of power, love of fame, love for the respect of others, etcetera. Different people place varying degrees of importance on the kinds of love they receive. According to philosophers, the only goal of life is to be happy. And there is only one happiness in life: to love and be loved. Love is essentially an abstract concept, much easier to experience than to explain.

[humint]

Better no doctrine than bad doctrine. Better no history than bad history. The saving grace of our military — historically — has been pragmatism. Unlike European generals, we never sent our soldiers to die for a theory (at least, not until Operation Iraqi Freedom). If our own history has a lesson for those responsible for military doctrine, it’s that the only admissible criterion is that the doctrine has to work.

[humint]

George Washington was gravely disturbed over the situation, and he wrote many letters in his efforts to induce the authorities to provide him with adequate means to protect the border settlers. One of these shows how deeply he was stirred by the conditions:

"I see their situation, know their danger, and participate in their sufferings, without having it in my powere to give them further relief, than uncertain promises. In short, I see inevitable destruction in so clear a light, that, unless vigorous measures are taken by the Assembly, and speedy assistance sent from below, the poor inhabitants that are now in forts, must unavoidably fall while the remainder of the country are flying before the barbarous foe . . . The supplicating tears of women, and moving petitions from the men, melt me into such deadly sorrow, that I solemnly declare, if I know my own mind, I could offer myself a willing sacrifice to the butchering enemy, provided that would contribute to the people's ease."

[humint]

The point is, GWOT threats are ambiguous and often amorphous threats. They arise directly from the ambiguities of ME society. This is why Western categories are likely to cost more innocent lives than they save. One cannot resolve an ambiguous problem simply by organizing arbitrary categories. In any case, the answer to this problem is clear. The west needs an ideological army. The West needs to take the asymmetric war to the enemy’s doorstep. An ideological army can defeat asymmetric threats where superior technology alone cannot. After reading G. Washington, Admiral Lord Nelson, Machiavelli, Clausewitz, Mao, Peter the Great, Sun Tzu, Imam Ali, Che Guerra I believe Mao’s guerrilla tactics could work splendidly for the committed Jeffersonian – in the ME. The question is, can the West train and deploy Jeffersonians to the battle space? If the West started today, my pessimism would immediately change to optimism. The West could flip the ideological advantage overnight! Make no mistake, without the will to win our ideological fight – a cruel destiny awaits us all.

[Kevmo]

When the bible says “God is Love” it is using that special Greek word Agape, which is unselfish love.

.

.

.

Why the smart money is on Duncan Hunter
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1926032/posts