Open Theism Discussion Board
  HomeLog InRegisterSearch the ForumHelp
   
Open Theism Discussion Board > Public Forums > General Chat > (No Subject)
 
Forum Quick Jump
 
New Topic Post Reply Printable Version
[ << Previous Thread | Next Thread >> | Show Newest Post First ]

One Love
Registered Member




Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
 
   Posted 3/20/2008 7:00 AM (GMT -6)    Quote This PostAlert An Admin About This Post.
http://www.innerfrontier.org/InnerWork/Archive/2007/20070903_Stages_of_Love.htm
 

The Stages of Love

When we think of will, we think of will power, of making decisions and following through, of standing up for our principles, of determination, responsibility, and focused attention. When we think of love, we think of an emotional relationship. Will and love seem so different and unrelated. Yet these two, will and love, could not be closer. The highest form of will is love. And the truest form of love is the union of wills in the Divine Will. But from our starting point to that highest form, we may encounter the nine stages of love.

Love is not just as state of being, as in “being in love.” In fact to reach the state of “being in love,” we engage in a process of loving actions. We open ourselves from within. Opening to love is a series of acts of will. Each stage of love requires a particular act of will, a particular willingness. The acts of will leading toward love involve progressively moving beyond our egoism, beyond our utter self-centeredness.

Though assuredly interrelated, the stages of love need not be sequential: in one day we may live several of them, depending on who we are with, our inner state, and our intention. The following description does not represent the process of falling in love, e.g., meeting, fascination, infatuation, encountering difficulties, and so on. Rather, it describes the qualities and levels of willingness to love, the stages of the will to love.

1. Noticing: The first, preliminary, and rudimentary stage of love is simply to notice the other person. Often we are so preoccupied with our own issues that we do not even notice the people around us. Without noticing the person, no relationship can exist. This first step of noticing, however, is a shallow one: noticing the surface, noticing their body, noticing the person as a body. But at least we notice them.

2. Seeing the Humanity: When we walk along a crowded sidewalk, we may notice all the many people but regard them as mere obstacles to our path. We can notice people in the same way we might notice a life-size cardboard cutout of a person: two-dimensional and devoid of life or value. But to see someone as a person, to see their living, breathing humanity brings us to the threshold of real relationship. This moves our perception of the person from outside toward inside, from surface toward depth. The person is no longer just a body.

3. Tolerance: We may notice someone and see them as a person, but not like what we see. The reasons for not liking him or her can span a wide gamut from ethnic, racial and religious prejudice to fear, jealousy, disgust, contempt, boredom, squeamishness or a simple difference in type. Whatever the reason may be, disliking someone puts up a barrier to love. We may not be able to drop our dislike, but we may be able to drop the barrier nevertheless. We do this by actively working within our heart-mind to tolerate the person despite our reaction to him or her. We focus on their humanity, rather than on the qualities or manifestations that we dislike. We allow ourselves to live with our dislike and rejection as a background, while letting the other’s personhood rise to the foreground of our awareness.

4. Equality: After we can tolerate people, the next step toward love involves respecting them as our equal, in terms of innate value. If you consider yourself to be above or below, more important or less important than another person, you create an insurmountable barrier. Dropping that barrier brings us closer. But to even recognize the barrier of subjective inequality requires a fair degree of self-awareness, a quality developed through spiritual practice, through meditation and presence. When we realize that we do not respect another person as our equal, the practice of equality calls us to be willing to drop that attitude and regard the other as our equal, in the eyes of the Sacred. This brings the possibility of friendship.

5. Sameness: The practice of stillness, wherein our thoughts, emotions, and intentions become relatively quiescent, ushers us into the great hall of silence, our vast and pristine consciousness itself, without boundaries. From that state we recognize that this cognizing stillness pervades all and, in particular, other people as well our self. So we come to see the stillness within the other person and perceive that their inner stillness is the same as ours, their consciousness is the very same substance as ours. Living in the stillness, we directly feel and see the sameness that we share with all people.

6. Acceptance: Seeing the sameness that we share with others, brings us to the point of accepting other people as they are, without reservation. We drop our inner objections and let the person be. We may still, when appropriate, try to help them grow, but we do so from a state of complete acceptance of who they are, as they are.

7. Empathy and Compassion: Standing in our shared sameness and accepting people as they are, carries us to the threshold of empathy and compassion, whereby we allow others’ joys and sufferings to touch us directly. We willingly enter the experience of other people, celebrating their successes and suffering their setbacks. This is the place of heartfelt prayer and charitable acts for others’ welfare. The walls of separation grow thin and ready to evaporate.

8. Local Unity: In unity we dissolve the bonds of self-centeredness to merge with another. We wish for the other what they wish for themselves. The other’s joys and suffering become our own. We become the other: separate bodies, separate experience, but one, unified, shared will. The paradigms of local unity include true marriage and the parent-child relationship. If we can love one person unselfishly, then we can learn to love others as well.

9. Global Unity in God: The ultimate level of love opens us to the deepest truth of unity, wherein the realization dawns that all of us human beings are children of our Common Father. The Divine Will is one, but differentiates like white light through a prism into the unique rays that form the core of our personal individuality. Trace our will back to its Source and you find the One Will from which we all arise. In that Source we have our global unity. Our individual uniqueness achieves full-flower in our participation in the Great Uniqueness, in the Great Heart of Love.

All these stages apply not only to our relationship with others, but also to our relationship with our self. To notice someone else, we also need to notice our self. To tolerate or accept another, we need to tolerate and accept our self. To enter unity with another, we need to unify our self.

Our spiritual path is a path in love, toward love. Love suffuses each stage of love. Whichever of these stages we enter with a particular relationship, it is love. Whether the first or the ninth, it is love. While we aspire to deepen our love, that aspiration is itself love.


Whoever knows and recognizes how near God’s Kingdom is to him may say with Jacob, “God is in this place, and I knew it not.”
Meister Eckhart, "The Nearness of the Kingdom"

Once, having been asked by the Pharisees when the kingdom of God would come, Jesus replied, "The coming of the kingdom of God is not something that can be observed, nor will people say, 'Here it is,' or 'There it is,' because the Kingdom of God is within you.

 

Back to Top
 

One Love
Registered Member




Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
 
   Posted 3/20/2008 7:16 AM (GMT -6)    Quote This PostAlert An Admin About This Post.
If I speak in human or angelic tongues, but do not have love, I am only a resounding gong or a clanging cymbal. If I have the gift of prophecy and can fathom all mysteries and all knowledge, and if I have a faith that can move mountains, but do not have love, I am nothing. If I give all I possess to the poor and give over my body [to hardship] that I may boast, but do not have love, I gain nothing.

Love is patient, love is kind. It does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud. It does not dishonor others, it is not self-seeking, it is not easily angered, it keeps no record of wrongs. Love does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth. It always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres.

Love never fails. But where there are prophecies, they will cease; where there are tongues, they will be stilled; where there is knowledge, it will pass away. For we know in part and we prophesy in part, but when completeness comes, what is in part disappears. When I was a child, I talked like a child, I thought like a child, I reasoned like a child. When I became a man, I put the ways of childhood behind me. For now we see only a reflection as in a mirror; then we shall see face to face. Now I know in part; then I shall know fully, even as I am fully known.

And now these three remain: faith, hope and love. But the greatest of these is love.


Whoever knows and recognizes how near God’s Kingdom is to him may say with Jacob, “God is in this place, and I knew it not.”
Meister Eckhart, "The Nearness of the Kingdom"

Once, having been asked by the Pharisees when the kingdom of God would come, Jesus replied, "The coming of the kingdom of God is not something that can be observed, nor will people say, 'Here it is,' or 'There it is,' because the Kingdom of God is within you.

 

Back to Top
 

One Love
Registered Member




Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
 
   Posted 3/20/2008 7:27 AM (GMT -6)    Quote This PostAlert An Admin About This Post.
On one occasion an expert in the law stood up to test Jesus. "Teacher," he asked, "what must I do to inherit eternal life?"

"What is written in the Law?" he replied. "How do you read it?"

He answered, " 'Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your strength and with all your mind' ; and, 'Love your neighbor as yourself.'"

"You have answered correctly," Jesus replied. "Do this and you will live."

But he wanted to justify himself (I am's Note: The self-justifying EGO!), so he asked Jesus, "And who is my neighbor?"

In reply Jesus said: "A man was going down from Jerusalem to Jericho, when he fell into the hands of robbers. They stripped him of his clothes, beat him and went away, leaving him half dead. A priest happened to be going down the same road, and when he saw the man, he passed by on the other side. So too, a Levite, when he came to the place and saw him, passed by on the other side. But a Samaritan, as he traveled, came where the man was; and when he saw him, he took pity on him. He went to him and bandaged his wounds, pouring on oil and wine. Then he put the man on his own donkey, brought him to an inn and took care of him. The next day he took out two denarii and gave them to the innkeeper. 'Look after him,' he said, 'and when I return, I will reimburse you for any extra expense you may have.'

"Which of these three do you think was a neighbor to the man who fell into the hands of robbers?"

The expert in the law replied, "The one who had mercy on him." *

Jesus told him, "Go and do likewise."

--------------------------

* Micah 6:6-8

With what shall I come before the LORD
       and bow down before the exalted God?
       Shall I come before him with burnt offerings,
       with calves a year old?

    Will the LORD be pleased with thousands of rams,
       with ten thousand rivers of oil?
       Shall I offer my firstborn for my transgression,
       the fruit of my body for the sin of my soul?

    He has shown all you people what is good.
       And what does the LORD require of you?
      
To act justly and to love mercy (chesed)
       and to walk humbly with your God.

Post Edited ("I am-in-I Am") : 3/20/2008 7:36:26 AM (GMT-5)

Back to Top
 

One Love
Registered Member




Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
 
   Posted 3/20/2008 7:45 AM (GMT -6)    Quote This PostAlert An Admin About This Post.

One more...a repost...

I'm taking this from an article on Meister Eckhart I've posted before from Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. The particular idea is about Univocal Causality. (Please check out the ORIGINAL full article again.) It seems to me like Eckhart’s talking about a type of perichoretic indwelling of sorts. According to the article...Eckhart believed that...

“[The principle and the principiate] … are opposed to one another relatively: Insofar as they are opposed, they are distinguished, but insofar as they are relative, they reciprocally posit themselves …”

This sounds a whole lot like a relationship of COMPLEMENTARITY...or even bi-polar assymetrical unity between a reality and it's expression that necessarily participates in the grounding reality...giving the expression it's own reality as that reality.  At any rate, it seems that Eckhart used “just” and “justice” to make his points. I had this kind of quirky idea. I decided to, by and large, replace the word “just” with “loving”…and the word “justice” with “love”. I wanted to see if this kind of simple (oversimplistic!) substitution would work. Just for kicks. Take a look…

****************************************************

Another example of univocal causality as conceived by Eckhart is found in the relation between love and the loving person. In the same vein as that sketched out with regard to the dynamics of thinking, love is in the loving person, and the loving person is in love. The loving person is her loving action, and this loving action is likewise love. Between the loving person and love, there is difference on account of the opposition between them, but because of their relationality they reciprocally include each other. Loving as thought is the thought of thinking and therewith itself thinking, so, too, is what is loving for Eckhart what is loving of love and therewith love itself. From this we can draw, following Eckhart, a number of important conclusions.

A. For the loving person, there is no why to her loving action, no purpose or goal of this action. For the action of the loving person has love as its goal, and this goal is identical with the loving person. Therefore, the loving person has no goal external to herself. Instead, as love, she is her own goal.

B. With the loving person and with love, there is no multiplicity. Love is one, and the loving person is one; thus, love and the loving person are one. Even if there are many loving people: As loving people, the many loving people are one, indeed, they are even love itself.

C. Love, which is the loving person, knows neither where nor when, that is, it knows neither space nor time, neither size nor quality, neither inside nor outside, neither over nor under, neither this side nor that side, neither above nor below, neither the activity of effecting nor the passivity of being effected. Hence, love is indeterminate and does not accrue to anything else as an accident. Love is something whose purpose lies in itself.

D. Consequently, the loving person is in love, which means: The loving person is love. This implies a reversal of the usual way of looking at things. Normally, a quality (qualitas) is what is found in an underlying subject (subiectum). With the spiritual perfections (perfectiones spirituales), however, the situation is different: The subjects are in the perfections, the loving person is in love. But in the realm of the spirit, being-in is nothing other than being-one. Hence, the loving person, who is in love, is love itself. The loving person does not possess love, but rather is love. Similarly, she who is free is freedom itself (Echardus, Predigt 28; DW II, 62, 3–5; cf. Predigt 10; DW I, 165, 2: “… und ich diu wîsheit selber bin, sô bin ich ein wîser mensche”; what applies in the cases of freedom and love also applies in the case of wisdom). If she who is free merely possessed freedom, then this freedom would be something external to her, and she would never be freedom itself.


Whoever knows and recognizes how near God’s Kingdom is to him may say with Jacob, “God is in this place, and I knew it not.”
Meister Eckhart, "The Nearness of the Kingdom"

Once, having been asked by the Pharisees when the kingdom of God would come, Jesus replied, "The coming of the kingdom of God is not something that can be observed, nor will people say, 'Here it is,' or 'There it is,' because the Kingdom of God is within you.

 

Back to Top
 

One Love
Registered Member




Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
 
   Posted 3/20/2008 7:46 AM (GMT -6)    Quote This PostAlert An Admin About This Post.
All this stuff makes TOTAL sense to me.

Does all this cohere to anyone else?


Whoever knows and recognizes how near God’s Kingdom is to him may say with Jacob, “God is in this place, and I knew it not.”
Meister Eckhart, "The Nearness of the Kingdom"

Once, having been asked by the Pharisees when the kingdom of God would come, Jesus replied, "The coming of the kingdom of God is not something that can be observed, nor will people say, 'Here it is,' or 'There it is,' because the Kingdom of God is within you.

 

Back to Top
 

feelinahole
Registered Member


Date Joined Jan 2004
Total Posts : 754
 
   Posted 3/20/2008 3:27 PM (GMT -6)    Quote This PostAlert An Admin About This Post.
Love is undefinable...


Back to Top
 

Similitude
Registered Member


Date Joined Apr 2004
Total Posts : 4968
 
   Posted 3/21/2008 9:36 PM (GMT -6)    Quote This PostAlert An Admin About This Post.
just saw this post. hopefully this weekend I'll find time to read it and respond..


 

Back to Top
 

Similitude
Registered Member


Date Joined Apr 2004
Total Posts : 4968
 
   Posted 3/22/2008 9:05 AM (GMT -6)    Quote This PostAlert An Admin About This Post.
D: All this stuff makes TOTAL sense to me.

Does all this cohere to anyone else?
 
J: Some of it makes total sense to me. But I'm still not sure I totally understand how to conceive of God's LFW in terms of the debate between you and Tom. And it seems that some of the language in the quotes above can be taken in one of those two ways.
 
When I try to conceive of what it means for God to be free, I find it difficult to do that except something like this:
 
God chooses and thereby rejects other desirable, but mutually exclusive, options, resulting in a bona-fide loss of the rejected sentient satisfaction or even short-term discomfort, but also knowing full well that His choice will produce some more-worthwhile sentient satisfaction. This "more-worthwhile" sentient satisfaction may be thus simply because of novelty or something analogous to novelty. Or it may be a choice that will entail short-term dissatisfaction of some degree or another, but greater long-term satisfaction. Or it may be a combination of both of these.
 
But I have no idea how to think of LFW, divine or otherwise, except in terms of sentient satisfaction (including the diminishment of sentient dissatisfaction) as the grounds of the choice. And when I do this, it seems difficult for me to see a way to prove whether God desires exactly one choice at a time, or whether there are, under certain circumstances, multiple options that are equally harmonious and unifying. Obviously, under certain certain circumstances (maybe most, even), there is exactly one proper choice to make.
 
What da you think? How do we conceive of divine LFW in terms of the grounding of the preference? Or is there another ground for divine LFW?


 

Post Edited (Similtude) : 3/22/2008 9:19:53 AM (GMT-5)

Back to Top
 

Tom
Registered Member




Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353
 
   Posted 3/22/2008 1:26 PM (GMT -6)    Quote This PostAlert An Admin About This Post.

Jeff: When I try to conceive of what it means for God to be free, I find it difficult to do that except something like this: God chooses and thereby rejects other desirable, but mutually exclusive, options, resulting in a bona-fide loss of the rejected sentient satisfaction or even short-term discomfort, but also knowing full well that His choice will produce some more-worthwhile sentient satisfaction. This "more-worthwhile" sentient satisfaction may be thus simply because of novelty or something analogous to novelty. Or it may be a choice that will entail short-term dissatisfaction of some degree or another, but greater long-term satisfaction. Or it may be a combination of both of these. But I have no idea how to think of LFW, divine or otherwise, except in terms of sentient satisfaction (including the diminishment of sentient dissatisfaction) as the grounds of the choice.

 

Tom: I thinking through some issues regarding LFW and divine choice. I agree such choice has to be between real options, one of which is chosen and the others left behind. I don’t see why the abandoning of other options has to entail any kind of sentient dissatisfaction or discomfort. I really can imagine a perfectly happy being faced with LFW options, both of which would be consistent with his happiness, and his choosing one. I don’t think such a being would have to experience any loss of satisfaction. If I face a real choice between getting my wife roses or irises (one or the other, let’s say), I can’t lose. Both are going to affect the same response in my wife. Having chosen roses, why should I have to experience any sentient dissatisfaction over not having chosen irises? But it sounds to me, Jeff, like you’re saying LFW choices necessarily entail the idea that the chooser has to lose something in the choice.

 

This leads to the whole question of positing a reason ‘as an explanation’ for God’s choice to create at all (assuming the choice to create was what we call libertarian). Some feel there’s a danger in saying God creates us ‘because of’  x, y, or z. The fear is that in having ‘accounted for’ or ‘explained’ God’s choice to create, we’ve also ‘explained it away’, and in so doing it becomes difficult to call it grace. The philosophical question is, Can there really be an explanation of grace? Several sources I’ve been reading argue that we really can’t explain the ‘why’ of the choice itself, except to say it’s free and gracious. There is no further explanation of love, no other ‘why’ that accounts for love’s actions. Love is its own reason, and that’s that.

 

Not sure how satisfying that is, but I can appreciate the motivation behind it.

 

So in saying God chooses freely/libertarianly to create, I’m more concerned to deny than to affirm certain things about the choice. I want to deny that God’s choice to create follows necessarily from God’s nature or that it’s entailed in some necessary feature of God’s life, etc. But to say positively what that choice is, that’s more difficult and mysterious, except that from my own experience of choosing I can imagine free choices that don’t necessarily involve sentient dissatisfaction over options not taken.

 

Have I misunderstood you Jeff? You may want to argue that my choice of roses over irises isn’t really a choice at all. It’s just a random reach into the hat to pick one over the other. I don’t think that best explains what goes through my mind in such situations, but maybe we’ll never be able to dissect it deeply enough to know for sure.

 

Tom


 

Back to Top
 

Similitude
Registered Member


Date Joined Apr 2004
Total Posts : 4968
 
   Posted 3/23/2008 7:31 PM (GMT -6)    Quote This PostAlert An Admin About This Post.
Tom: You may want to argue that my choice of roses over irises isn’t really a choice at all. It’s just a random reach into the hat to pick one over the other. I don’t think that best explains what goes through my mind in such situations, but maybe we’ll never be able to dissect it deeply enough to know for sure.

Jeff: Well, I'm not sure it is a bona-fide LFW choice. But it certainly is not random. When I did math proofs in my sleep, it was not random. There is really a good reason why we speak of LAWS of thought. The laws of deduction, etc. really do just happen naturally, to some extent. What is not natural is when we volitionally attend to some subject matter or object to think about. But what I can't convince myself of is that all thinking is the result of volitionally attending to something. Maybe it's just a natural habit of thought that flows from a spontaneous association.

The only real LFW choices I understand are those where some effort is necessary to keep the mind's attention on something. Outside of that, I have a hard time distinguishing between bona-fide volition and non-random habits of mind/action.

So perhaps the creation was not an act of divine volition. Maybe divine volition BECAME necessary because of the necessity for post-creational FOREBEARANCE.


 

Back to Top
 

Tom
Registered Member




Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353
 
   Posted 3/24/2008 2:20 AM (GMT -6)    Quote This PostAlert An Admin About This Post.

Jeff: So perhaps the creation was not an act of divine volition. Maybe divine volition BECAME necessary because of the necessity for post-creational FOREBEARANCE.

 

Tom: We have a problem then. If the choice to create is not libertarian. It’s then either random or habit. If habit, then a habit of what? What is it that’s ‘habituated’ in God’s case? It would have to be his character/will, right? But it would then follow that creation is a necessary choice. We can’t say the choice is a habitual expression of God’s nature and then say creation exists contingently, unless we posit an eternally maturing, changing, growing, habituating divine NATURE. The other option is to say God’s choice to create was just random. I think D went for the ‘random’ option several years ago. Not sure about now.

 

T


 

Back to Top
 

One Love
Registered Member




Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
 
   Posted 3/24/2008 7:59 AM (GMT -6)    Quote This PostAlert An Admin About This Post.
This is off the top my head...but I think this is good...

Tom:
Jeff: So perhaps the creation was not an act of divine volition. Maybe divine volition BECAME necessary because of the necessity for post-creational FOREBEARANCE.

Tom: We have a problem then. If the choice to create is not libertarian. It’s then either random or habit. If habit, then a habit of what? What is it that’s ‘habituated’ in God’s case? It would have to be his character/will, right? But it would then follow that creation is a necessary choice. We can’t say the choice is a habitual expression of God’s nature and then say creation exists contingently, unless we posit an eternally maturing, changing, growing, habituating divine NATURE. The other option is to say God’s choice to create was just random. I think D went for the ‘random’ option several years ago. Not sure about now.


This is the issue that Jonathon Edwards faced...which is why he had the problems that he had...effectively saying that Creation was a natural "overflow" of God's uncontainable joy in God's loving self-relationality. To Greg, this annihilated 1) the idea a crucial distinction between God and humanity (creation ex nihilo) and 2) the idea of GRACE (which is what Greg was criticizing with Hartshorne's ideas) Hence, Greg posited his dispositional idea...which unlike Edwards, didn't necessitate a contingent expression of divine reality in order for God to be the ultimate Uncontainable Beauty. Creation COULD be a free choice (not random) to actualize a contingent expression of God's own self-sharing reality (disposition, NOT necessarily "habit" )that God would see Godself "reflected in".

Make sense?
 
(Greg's a friggin genius, dawg... reading )


Whoever knows and recognizes how near God’s Kingdom is to him may say with Jacob, “God is in this place, and I knew it not.”
Meister Eckhart, "The Nearness of the Kingdom"

Once, having been asked by the Pharisees when the kingdom of God would come, Jesus replied, "The coming of the kingdom of God is not something that can be observed, nor will people say, 'Here it is,' or 'There it is,' because the Kingdom of God is within you.

 

Back to Top
 

Tom
Registered Member




Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353
 
   Posted 3/24/2008 11:35 AM (GMT -6)    Quote This PostAlert An Admin About This Post.
Right. So are you saying God's choice to create was free in the libertarian sense? Do you see Jeff's problem with that?

T


 

Back to Top
 

One Love
Registered Member




Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
 
   Posted 3/24/2008 1:05 PM (GMT -6)    Quote This PostAlert An Admin About This Post.
Tom:
Right. So are you saying God's choice to create was free in the libertarian sense? Do you see Jeff's problem with that?

Not really. Help?


Whoever knows and recognizes how near God’s Kingdom is to him may say with Jacob, “God is in this place, and I knew it not.”
Meister Eckhart, "The Nearness of the Kingdom"

Once, having been asked by the Pharisees when the kingdom of God would come, Jesus replied, "The coming of the kingdom of God is not something that can be observed, nor will people say, 'Here it is,' or 'There it is,' because the Kingdom of God is within you.

 

Back to Top
 
New Topic Post Reply Printable Version
   
Forum Information
Currently it is Monday, November 09, 2026 3:08 PM (GMT -6)
There are a total of 97,718 posts in 6,040 threads.
In the last 3 days there were 0 new threads and 0 reply posts. View Active Threads