01-22-2018, 11:45 AM
The confounding thing about this question is that it might be better formulated as "what isn't love?"
That Latwii 74 quote was hugely important to me beginning to grapple with the sheer immensity of what union with the Creator means. Everybody has their own exploration because everybody, I believe, has a unique insight into, or channel of, the love that pervades all.
In order to truly reckon with what the Confederation is pointing at, it is incumbent on us to expand our willingness to accept everything we see, feel, experience, and encounter. A little self-awareness of our anthropocentric understanding of love goes a long way, if you ask me, towards loosening up towards our personal need for love coloring the way we define it philosophically. What is required in order to begin to understand love in its totality, I believe, is to let the yellow ray personality drop away.
Now to be clear: this is not required from a polarization perspective, because polarization seems to work by using the illusion as a background against which to realize love's totality -- in other words, you don't need to understand love in order to polarize, but you do need to have some kind of foundation akin to understanding to begin to define it. I'm simply saying that in terms of arriving at a philosophically robust articulation of love, I really believe we have to do significant work in not anthropomorphizing it. If love is beautiful and terrible and peaceful and violent and everything in between and more, it's not going to be very useful to your personal drama.
There's a Confederation quote from somewhere that says we can't love and serve if we have anything at stake, and I think this is part of what that means: as long as we're invested in the third density social game of material goods, personality connections, etc., we need love to manifest in a way that enables those experiences. There's nothing wrong with that game at all; it is a tool to learn with. It's just that it's going to be hard to speak and write about on its own terms. I mean, the Confederation has a decent vocabulary at their disposal and even they struggle with this.
That Latwii 74 quote was hugely important to me beginning to grapple with the sheer immensity of what union with the Creator means. Everybody has their own exploration because everybody, I believe, has a unique insight into, or channel of, the love that pervades all.
In order to truly reckon with what the Confederation is pointing at, it is incumbent on us to expand our willingness to accept everything we see, feel, experience, and encounter. A little self-awareness of our anthropocentric understanding of love goes a long way, if you ask me, towards loosening up towards our personal need for love coloring the way we define it philosophically. What is required in order to begin to understand love in its totality, I believe, is to let the yellow ray personality drop away.
Now to be clear: this is not required from a polarization perspective, because polarization seems to work by using the illusion as a background against which to realize love's totality -- in other words, you don't need to understand love in order to polarize, but you do need to have some kind of foundation akin to understanding to begin to define it. I'm simply saying that in terms of arriving at a philosophically robust articulation of love, I really believe we have to do significant work in not anthropomorphizing it. If love is beautiful and terrible and peaceful and violent and everything in between and more, it's not going to be very useful to your personal drama.
There's a Confederation quote from somewhere that says we can't love and serve if we have anything at stake, and I think this is part of what that means: as long as we're invested in the third density social game of material goods, personality connections, etc., we need love to manifest in a way that enables those experiences. There's nothing wrong with that game at all; it is a tool to learn with. It's just that it's going to be hard to speak and write about on its own terms. I mean, the Confederation has a decent vocabulary at their disposal and even they struggle with this.
![[+]](https://www.bring4th.org/forums/images/collapse_collapsed.png)