DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
True Left
HTML https://trueleft.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: Questions & Debates
*****************************************************
#Post#: 2823--------------------------------------------------
Fidelity
DIR By: guest27
Date: December 13, 2020, 6:51 am
---------------------------------------------------------
'Monogamy' even in its most abiding form isn't the ultimate
romantic love, because you're loyal to their persona but not
necessarily their spirit. Love which transcends forms strikes me
as more romantic than loving a 'human'. What if I reincarnate as
someone else upon death? My partner, though he recognizes the
selfsame spirit, rejects me because I no longer look or behave
like "Emily"? Who the hell was this "Emily" in the first place?
#Post#: 2824--------------------------------------------------
Re: Re: Social decolonization
DIR By: 90sRetroFan
Date: December 13, 2020, 11:01 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
"What if I reincarnate as someone else upon death?"
The point is to not reincarnate. If during this life you find
your destined partner but you die first, your love should enable
you to resist reincarnation long enough for either:
a) your partner to faithfully die also (including by suicide if
he wants to shorten your wait), whereupon both of you can
transcend together;
or:
b) your partner to start a relationship with someone else,
thereby proving he never loved you.
"My partner, though he recognizes the selfsame spirit, rejects
me because I know longer look or behave like "Emily"?"
Yes, because you let yourself reincarnate rather than wait for
him, thereby proving you never loved him. If you did love him,
you would never allow yourself to be anyone other than the Emily
whom he first fell in love with.
"Who the hell was this "Emily" in the first place?"
The person whom you were at the moment he first fell for you.
#Post#: 2834--------------------------------------------------
Re: Re: Social decolonization
DIR By: guest27
Date: December 14, 2020, 4:05 am
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote ---
> If you did love him, you would never allow yourself to be
anyone other than the Emily whom he first fell in love with.
--- End Quote ---
But I'm a spirit, not "Emily". What if I suffer brain injury and
bodily disfigurement? I may no longer be "Emily", but I'm still
me.
I'm devoted to my partner, his true self. Whatever form he
takes, I will always love him. He is literally my world. We are
literally one. He's not just an ego, nor am I. Wouldn't it be
degrading to only regard him as such?
And I thought the only reason we're here is to free the world?
Not get invested in one particular human to the neglect of
everyone else. That's just ego-tribalism, isn't it? I wouldn't
feel "loved" by that notion, because I care about every innocent
soul trapped here, and when I empathize, I am that being. Surely
compassion i.e. devoted empathetic caring is true love, and I
thought we were against natural boundaries.
#Post#: 2846--------------------------------------------------
Re: Re: Social decolonization
DIR By: 90sRetroFan
Date: December 14, 2020, 11:14 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
"Whatever form he takes"
This could potentially justify various kinds of infidelity by
contriving any number of different people to be (allegedly)
merely different forms of the same person.
"Not get invested in one particular human to the neglect of
everyone else."
I would not sacrifice an innocent ant to save my partner. That
is universalism.
When both the ant and my partner are safe, the ant will not be
on my mind whereas my partner will be. That is romanticism.
Thus universal compassion and romantic fidelity are not mutually
exclusive.
#Post#: 2855--------------------------------------------------
Re: Re: Social decolonization
DIR By: guest27
Date: December 15, 2020, 5:05 am
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote ---
> This could potentially justify various kinds of infidelity by
contriving any number of different people to be (allegedly)
merely different forms of the same person.
--- End Quote ---
The only way to accurately gauge another's fidelity is through
empathetic knowledge. You forget, abiding monogamy can be a
farce too.
--- Quote ---
> I would not sacrifice an innocent ant to save my partner. That
is universalism.
--- End Quote ---
Then aren't you duty-bound to reincarnate, provided you fail to
rescue everyone within this lifetime?
--- Quote ---
> When both the ant and my partner are safe, the ant will not be
on my mind whereas my partner will be. That is romanticism.
--- End Quote ---
What if your partner wants to be an ant?
#Post#: 2881--------------------------------------------------
Re: Fidelity
DIR By: 90sRetroFan
Date: December 17, 2020, 2:12 am
---------------------------------------------------------
"The only way to accurately gauge another's fidelity is through
empathetic knowledge."
Absence of observed unfaithful action does not suffice to prove
fidelity, but observed unfaithful action suffices to prove
infidelity.
"Then aren't you duty-bound to reincarnate, provided you fail to
rescue everyone within this lifetime?"
You are not reading what I wrote. What I was saying is that if
my partner were in danger, and I had an option to switch my
partner out and put the innocent ant into the danger instead, I
would refuse.
But to answer your question independently, not if I manage to
find a worthy successor. (As a matter of fact I have been
looking for one for years.)
"What if your partner wants to be an ant?"
See above.
#Post#: 2884--------------------------------------------------
Re: Fidelity
DIR By: guest27
Date: December 17, 2020, 3:06 am
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote ---
> Absence of observed unfaithful action does not suffice to
prove fidelity, but observed unfaithful action suffices to prove
infidelity.
--- End Quote ---
Faithfulness has nothing to do with monogamy or non-monogamy.
--- Quote ---
> not if I manage to find a worthy successor.
--- End Quote ---
So you could be duty-bound to reincarnate, in which case your
partner should fight alongside you.
And, reincarnated form, successor... wouldn't they all have to
share your perfect spirit?
#Post#: 2887--------------------------------------------------
Re: Fidelity
DIR By: 90sRetroFan
Date: December 17, 2020, 3:23 am
---------------------------------------------------------
"in which case your partner should fight alongside you."
It is just as acceptable for my partner to wait for me outside.
#Post#: 2891--------------------------------------------------
Re: Fidelity
DIR By: guest27
Date: December 17, 2020, 4:01 am
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote ---
> It is just as acceptable for my partner to wait for me
outside.
--- End Quote ---
How romantic.
#Post#: 2901--------------------------------------------------
Re: Fidelity
DIR By: 90sRetroFan
Date: December 17, 2020, 3:04 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
HTML https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Crow:_Stairway_to_Heaven
*****************************************************
Page 1 of 1