Jack wrote: ↑Wed Jan 27, 2021 2:54 am
Except, its not 'logic'. Logic is bound by the material limitations of human beings.
As a mathematician, I disagree. To me, logic is boundless and infinite.
In mathematics, there are axioms: things that are true simply because they are. (For example, the way addition works: if you have one apple and you obtain two more without losing the first, you'll have three in total. There's simply no other way about it.)
From these axioms, everything follows. This follows through logic, and that is what logic truly is. From that which follows, follows more. It is endless; everything that follows from the axioms can be deduced, and as such, everything that follows can be understood with clarity and without a doubt, so long as the axioms as well as the logic are sound.
Throughout history, mathematics have been used to simplify trades, simplify carpentry, predict the ways planets will move in the sky, and even get spaceships to their intended destination. The axioms in mathematics are chosen to mirror the way the real world functions, and help us interact with the real world efficiently and effectively.
I believe it is no coincidence that mathematics work so well. The axioms we've discovered, are no mere inventions; they are mirrors of something that truly exists: the axioms of reality itself. To understand the axioms, one can formulate hyoptheses and attempt to confirm them through experiments. The more consistent the results, the more likely you got it right or at least mostly right.
As you already mentioned in other words, meditation can sometimes allow us to see the axioms directly. But it's not just the axioms that we can see; without any words to slow it down anymore, logic becomes lightning-fast, and in moments we can see not just the axioms, but also everything that follows and how it applies to us and our surroundings. This is the true identity of "intuition".
Logic does not speak, it has no words; it simply is, and words only serve to communicate it. Having sound internal logic and being able to put it into words are two entirely different skills. And to perfect one's logic without relying on words, is to perfect one's intuition; so long as we understand the axioms, that is, which we can verify through experiments.
Why would a person's emotions and personality be any different? If I get to know a person, I can figure out the things that'll make them happy and the things that'll make them upset. Even a person's love is borne from the axioms within an individual's Soul. Even love follows rules; whether it takes a minute or 1000 years to understand those rules, and whether that's the time it takes to understand one person's love or the love of many people, doesn't matter. No matter how nonsensical anything in this world may seem, and no matter if no one understands it, it makes sense. Whether or not to try and understand it is up to the people.
As for the actual content of your opinion, I disagree. You say love is different for every person, but that is not true. Depending on who you compare, there can be so much overlap. No two people are completely the same, but they can be the same in many regards, including aspects of how they think and how they feel. If you aggregate many people's love into a collection of all the aspects, I believe something will become apparent: in different cases, different combinations of aspects will light up; and certain combinations will be very common. So many kinds of love exist for not just an individual, but for millions, if not billions of people. There may be an odd one here and there, but almost all of it falls into categories where a specific combination of conditions is met. (Regarding this, I believe that rather than specific aspects being strictly required, they all work towards a threshold for one or more subtypes of love; if this threshold is met, there is love. By sorting and arranging the aspects in a specific way, the more a certain section lights up, the more that type of love is present.)
This is how I see it: not one, but many kinds of love exist; and these different kinds of love can mix to create combinations that may not be so easily understood as their components.
All the aspects that make up a person's love exist in the real world: within that person, their surroundings, and those they love; and the combinations of those aspects determines which categories they fall into. Just because the details and rules are not easily understood does not make it any less objective. For example, a person doesn't even have to realise they're in love to be in love; it may still be obvious to other people regardless. That means love is real, and something that objectively exists. That there exist forms of love that have hardly anything in common with each other, and that some forms of love can only be experienced by certain types of people, doesn't change that.
While I think to try and fully understand every aspect of your own emotions and those of others is pointless and an exercise in futility when you can just act on them most of the time and still end up with an acceptable result, in this case I had to recognise love as more than just the arbitrary subjective matter people usually make it out for, so that I could adequately explain why I disagree with you. And just in case, I should probably clarify that just because I believe love exists and makes sense, doesn't mean I necessarily have a deeper understanding of it than anyone else. All I'm saying is that it can be understood, whether partially or fully; and while understanding it fully might be too challenging for us still, if we had a thousand years to discover different people's love and think about it in depth, then I think we would be able to reach an adequate understanding even of love in its entirety. To say otherwise is to overly mystify the concept.
emoticon (or an equivalent, e.g. the MSN one) should be! Of course, I'm called a "Grammar Nazi" for telling people jewsus doesn't exist and Satan is the actual creator of Humankind!
)
