Humility: Good or Bad?

[Non Nobis]

This appears to be a false distinction.  If you love a woman, it is because there is is something of value you see in this woman, you are seeing her virtues.  To pursue a relationship with her is to make a statement that she has value, that she is worth your time.  There is a cost-benefit analysis to be done.  Every time you spend time doing one thing, you forego many other things you could have done with that time.  This is why I like to say that I spend time, because time is really spent.  Now, people obviously don't think in these terms, but this is what's going on.  When a man goes on a date with a woman or goes to a ballgame with a friend, he is enjoying the other's company.  This doesn't mean that he is trying to 'get over' on the other.  A man goes on a date with a woman, they have a great time, he takes her to bed, then he steals her purse and never calls her again.  This is how most people view a 'selfish' man.  But, this man does not act in his own self interest.  He cuts himself off from this woman, he will never have a relationship with her.  He makes himself into a man he cannot be proud of.  He has to hide who he really is, lest his friends will leave him, or worse, they won't.  To truly seek out a relationship means that he will benefit from the relationship, and the woman does the same.  The man and the woman both seek to benefit, to be made better, from the relationship.  I know when a man has found the woman he will marry, because this woman makes him better.  I have seen a few of my friends made into better men because they found the right woman.  In a proper relationship, both the man and the woman are made better, they both benefit.  When I speak of benefiting, I mean being made better, and not just obtaining cheap pleasure.

I'm watching 'Good Will Hunting' right now, I love this movie.  Will is the main character, and he develops a friendship with two professors.  The first really wants a friendship with Will and the two are made better.  The second doesn't really care about Will, but only what Will can so for him.  The second man is living vicariously through Will, because Will can do things in math that the professor never could.  The first professor seeks a true friendship with Will, which is two sided.  The second seeks a one way friendship, which is not a real friendship.  In order for a relationship to be real, it must be two sided, both must benefit in some way.  Both must be made better off because of the relationship.

Recovering NOer & lauremar, if you don't like this thread, ignore it.  I have benefited from this conversation, and have learned much.

I  think your advice is good in many respects.  It is called prudence.  You don't seek to harm yourself when you love; you look for happiness in it.

But you make it too mechanical.  Love can grow out of little things, not just a full cost-benefit analysis.  It finds true value in the thing loved that is not seen by others.  It learns to see more over time.  The love for an adopted baby (even if first adopted out of a sense of duty) may start with the innate "cuteness" of the child (as seen in other animals too) and the sense of responsibility and grow as the child grows, because the child is a unique person of worth no matter what "benefit analysis" says.

Love does not stop cold because it is started because of a sense of duty.  Love does not only include deep romantic love, or motherly love, or friendship or the like intimate love.  It also includes the things we do out of duty, including "love your neighbor as yourself". This is focused on the neighbor, but of great benefit to yourself, because EACH man has a relation with ALL other man.  You break yourself if you sever this relationship.

[Greg]

The second professor actually lines Will up with all kinds of job opportunities and introductions.  So it is incorrect to say he does nothing for him.

Will turns those opportunities down and, in fact, embarasses the professor by sending his friend along to act the clown in the job interview.

[Probius]

This appears to be a false distinction.  If you love a woman, it is because there is is something of value you see in this woman, you are seeing her virtues.  To pursue a relationship with her is to make a statement that she has value, that she is worth your time.  There is a cost-benefit analysis to be done.  Every time you spend time doing one thing, you forego many other things you could have done with that time.  This is why I like to say that I spend time, because time is really spent.  Now, people obviously don't think in these terms, but this is what's going on.  When a man goes on a date with a woman or goes to a ballgame with a friend, he is enjoying the other's company.  This doesn't mean that he is trying to 'get over' on the other.  A man goes on a date with a woman, they have a great time, he takes her to bed, then he steals her purse and never calls her again.  This is how most people view a 'selfish' man.  But, this man does not act in his own self interest.  He cuts himself off from this woman, he will never have a relationship with her.  He makes himself into a man he cannot be proud of.  He has to hide who he really is, lest his friends will leave him, or worse, they won't.  To truly seek out a relationship means that he will benefit from the relationship, and the woman does the same.  The man and the woman both seek to benefit, to be made better, from the relationship.  I know when a man has found the woman he will marry, because this woman makes him better.  I have seen a few of my friends made into better men because they found the right woman.  In a proper relationship, both the man and the woman are made better, they both benefit.  When I speak of benefiting, I mean being made better, and not just obtaining cheap pleasure.

I'm watching 'Good Will Hunting' right now, I love this movie.  Will is the main character, and he develops a friendship with two professors.  The first really wants a friendship with Will and the two are made better.  The second doesn't really care about Will, but only what Will can so for him.  The second man is living vicariously through Will, because Will can do things in math that the professor never could.  The first professor seeks a true friendship with Will, which is two sided.  The second seeks a one way friendship, which is not a real friendship.  In order for a relationship to be real, it must be two sided, both must benefit in some way.  Both must be made better off because of the relationship.

Recovering NOer & lauremar, if you don't like this thread, ignore it.  I have benefited from this conversation, and have learned much.

I  think your advice is good in many respects.  It is called prudence.  You don't seek to harm yourself when you love; you look for happiness in it.

But you make it too mechanical.  Love can grow out of little things, not just a full cost-benefit analysis.  It finds true value in the thing loved that is not seen by others.  It learns to see more over time.  The love for an adopted baby (even if first adopted out of a sense of duty) may start with the innate "cuteness" of the child (as seen in other animals too) and the sense of responsibility and grow as the child grows, because the child is a unique person of worth no matter what "benefit analysis" says.

Love does not stop cold because it is started because of a sense of duty.  Love does not only include deep romantic love, or motherly love, or friendship or the like intimate love.  It also includes the things we do out of duty, including "love your neighbor as yourself". This is focused on the neighbor, but of great benefit to yourself, because EACH man has a relation with ALL other man.  You break yourself if you sever this relationship.

A relationship can move from a sense of duty into that of love, but at that time it is no longer a duty.  It may seem to mechanical, but I am just showing what is underneath the act.  I am revealing what is behind the curtain.  There is no need to revel in mystery, a thing is not destroyed because it is explained.  The great works of art are very scientific, the artists who created these works spent tremendous time studying nature in order to get the proportions just right.  Artists like Michelangelo and Leonardo DaVinci put a great deal of geometry behind their works, yet most people look at their master pieces and just see the beauty.  A thing which is undefinable has no identity, which means it does not exist.  If you love someone, there is some reason why.  It is impossible to love someone for no reason.  Just because it is something which no one else sees, does not mean that it is nothing.

Yes, there are different types of love.  A love of duty is not love.  If you are doing something out of a duty, it is because it is something you don't want to do.  If you want to do the thing, it is not a duty.  How would you feel if someone in your family told you that he/she loved you only out of a sense of duty?

[Probius]

The second professor actually lines Will up with all kinds of job opportunities and introductions.  So it is incorrect to say he does nothing for him.

Will turns those opportunities down and, in fact, embarasses the professor by sending his friend along to act the clown in the job interview.

He does, but he doesn't really care what Will wants.  The first professor sees Will as a person and not as a mathematician.  He helps Will get through some difficult emotions, and wants him to follow his own path.  This is the character played by Robin Williams.  Damon (Will) and Williams both learn from each other, a true friendship.

[james03]

There is a cost-benefit analysis to be done.

You don't understand.  What is the BENEFIT?  The deep spiritual benefit, which causes us "to love", when we can't even define what it is?

Take a look at this picture.

I sank in the mud.  One phone call and a member of my team says, "I'm on it".  Finds 15 chokers and shackles, puts together this 150' tow string, drives 40 miles, and gets me out, while walking through mud.  Why did he do it?  Love.  Brotherly love.  What is his BENEFIT?  There was nothing material.

The benefit is God.

[Probius]

Love can be defined.  This is from the Ayn Rand lexicon: "To love is to value. Only a rationally selfish man, a man of self-esteem, is capable of love—because he is the only man capable of holding firm, consistent, uncompromising, unbetrayed values. The man who does not value himself, cannot value anything or anyone."  Would your friend have done that for a stranger?  He helped you because he values your friendship, he was pursuing a value.  The value need not necessarily be material.

[voxxpopulisuxx]

Love can be defined.  This is from the Ayn Rand lexicon: "To love is to value. Only a rationally selfish man, a man of self-esteem, is capable of love—because he is the only man capable of holding firm, consistent, uncompromising, unbetrayed values. The man who does not value himself, cannot value anything or anyone."  Would your friend have done that for a stranger?  He helped you because he values your friendship, he was pursuing a value.  The value need not necessarily be material.

Rand is wrong...prove she is right. All her twaddle is un observed and no better than scientology or jim jones.

[Non Nobis]

...

A relationship can move from a sense of duty into that of love, but at that time it is no longer a duty. 
...
The great works of art are very scientific, the artists who created these works spent tremendous time studying nature in order to get the proportions just right.  Artists like Michelangelo and Leonardo DaVinci put a great deal of geometry behind their works, yet most people look at their master pieces and just see the beauty.  A thing which is undefinable has no identity, which means it does not exist. 
...
Yes, there are different types of love.  A love of duty is not love.  If you are doing something out of a duty, it is because it is something you don't want to do.  If you want to do the thing, it is not a duty.  How would you feel if someone in your family told you that he/she loved you only out of a sense of duty?

Duty and love can co-exist.  You don't love your children because it is a duty, but it is in fact a duty to care for them.  .

Only God (dare I say God?) knows all the mathematical details behind great art, and understands the depth of the artist (dare I say his soul?).  We don't know the definition of a particular piece of art or music.  We can understand it better (with experience and study); but some people will not appreciate its beauty, or not as well as others.  The beauty of some particular piece of art (or the goodness of a man) can be described, but who is vain enough to say he completely understands it?

What is a mystery to us, is understood by God.  Mystery on earth is NOT unreality.
Do you think beauty does not exist?

[Probius]

The works on Vivaldi are beautiful, I love his Four Seasons, especially the Spring concerto.  Beauty definitely exists.  There is science to the works of Vivaldi, and Vivaldi understood that.  Vivaldi understood all the details behind his works, he had to in order to create them.  Our job is to use our reason to come to an understanding of mysteries, not to wallow in them.  Mystery on Earth isn't unreality, but a mystery which is impossible to understand is.

Between love and duty, and one can be the motivating force.  If love is involved, duty is not motivating your action.  If duty is motivating your action, then love is not involved.

[voxxpopulisuxx]

It is contradictory to say we understand mysterys. And we do not wallow in the Mystery of God we meditate upon it...are infused with it..amazed by it...and embrace and Love it. God is a Mystery most profound. But in Satanic pride some are unwilling to accept God as mystery...some are drunk from the fermented fruit of the tree of knowledge.

[Probius]

It is contradictory to say we understand mysterys. And we do not wallow in the Mystery of God we meditate upon it...are infused with it..amazed by it...and embrace and Love it. God is a Mystery most profound. But in Satanic pride some are unwilling to accept God as mystery...some are drunk from the fermented fruit of the tree of knowledge.

Yes, once a mystery is solved it is no longer a mystery.  Things like gravity and magnetic fields used to be mysteries, but then scientists figured out those mysteries.  Mysteries are meant to be solved, they are not meant to remain mysteries.  The reason society dug its way out of the dark ages is that intelligent men sought to discover the solutions to the mysteries, they did not sit back and revel in the mysteries.

[voxxpopulisuxx]

It is contradictory to say we understand mysterys. And we do not wallow in the Mystery of God we meditate upon it...are infused with it..amazed by it...and embrace and Love it. God is a Mystery most profound. But in Satanic pride some are unwilling to accept God as mystery...some are drunk from the fermented fruit of the tree of knowledge.

Yes, once a mystery is solved it is no longer a mystery.  Things like gravity and magnetic fields used to be mysteries, but then scientists figured out those mysteries.  Mysteries are meant to be solved, they are not meant to remain mysteries.  The reason society dug its way out of the dark ages is that intelligent men sought to discover the solutions to the mysteries, they did not sit back and revel in the mysteries.

Those were not mysteries in the sense of the faith...those were scientific questions. The two have no relation. And God is an eternal mystery to us until we die for no man has seen God and lived. You will never experience the mystery of God until you reject your satanic demand to be His equal (or better?)

[Probius]

It is contradictory to say we understand mysterys. And we do not wallow in the Mystery of God we meditate upon it...are infused with it..amazed by it...and embrace and Love it. God is a Mystery most profound. But in Satanic pride some are unwilling to accept God as mystery...some are drunk from the fermented fruit of the tree of knowledge.

Yes, once a mystery is solved it is no longer a mystery.  Things like gravity and magnetic fields used to be mysteries, but then scientists figured out those mysteries.  Mysteries are meant to be solved, they are not meant to remain mysteries.  The reason society dug its way out of the dark ages is that intelligent men sought to discover the solutions to the mysteries, they did not sit back and revel in the mysteries.

Those were not mysteries in the sense of the faith...those were scientific questions. The two have no relation. And God is an eternal mystery to us until we die for no man has seen God and lived. You will never experience the mystery of God until you reject your satanic demand to be His equal (or better?)

What about Moses and Enoch?  The Bible says they both saw God and lived.

When I was in The Church I wanted to know God, it wasn't good enough to just leave it a mystery.

I don't respect Satanists, and I don't understand them either.  Satan was a rebel, if a Satanist really wanted to be like Satan, he wouldn't bow down to Satan, he wouldn't bow to anyone.  I don't think in these sort of terms.  I consider myself to be my own god, and living a good life is my religion.  Ayn Rand's third novel was called 'The Fountainhead', but you might find it interesting that the first title she considered was 'The Prime Mover.'  She decided against it because she said that most people wouldn't understand the Aristotelian reference.  Rand said that every creator is a prime mover.

[james03]

Things like gravity and magnetic fields used to be mysteries, but then scientists figured out those mysteries.

No, science has not figured these out.  At best they can predict things about them.  They haven't figured them out.

As far as love being equivalent to valuing something, completely wrong. I value my truck.  I don't love it.  That's absurd.  You can not define love.

[voxxpopulisuxx]

It is contradictory to say we understand mysterys. And we do not wallow in the Mystery of God we meditate upon it...are infused with it..amazed by it...and embrace and Love it. God is a Mystery most profound. But in Satanic pride some are unwilling to accept God as mystery...some are drunk from the fermented fruit of the tree of knowledge.

Yes, once a mystery is solved it is no longer a mystery.  Things like gravity and magnetic fields used to be mysteries, but then scientists figured out those mysteries.  Mysteries are meant to be solved, they are not meant to remain mysteries.  The reason society dug its way out of the dark ages is that intelligent men sought to discover the solutions to the mysteries, they did not sit back and revel in the mysteries.

Those were not mysteries in the sense of the faith...those were scientific questions. The two have no relation. And God is an eternal mystery to us until we die for no man has seen God and lived. You will never experience the mystery of God until you reject your satanic demand to be His equal (or better?)

What about Moses and Enoch?  The Bible says they both saw God and lived.

When I was in The Church I wanted to know God, it wasn't good enough to just leave it a mystery.

I don't respect Satanists, and I don't understand them either.  Satan was a rebel, if a Satanist really wanted to be like Satan, he wouldn't bow down to Satan, he wouldn't bow to anyone.  I don't think in these sort of terms.  I consider myself to be my own god, and living a good life is my religion.  Ayn Rand's third novel was called 'The Fountainhead', but you might find it interesting that the first title she considered was 'The Prime Mover.'  She decided against it because she said that most people wouldn't understand the Aristotelian reference.  Rand said that every creator is a prime mover.

Enoch was translated (assumed) directly into heaven there is no mention of him seeing God face to face (so to speak)
Moses had to hide in the cleft of the rocks as God passed by in order to survive the encounter,
And you understand satanism very well as you hold satans direct and core faith... which is in essence I WILL NOT SERVE! And to consider yourself your own god is insanity...as I said your mind is screwed.