If our being was just love, then there would be no hatred in the world. — Metaphysician Undercover

I think it's fair to say that hatred and even indifference are modes of love, or care. We hate or are indifferent to some thing(s) only on account of our love for some other thing(s). With such negative emotions, our love is merely misplaced: we just care about the wrong things due to narrow understandings.

Immanence is the reason his "in God" is not literal. — TheWillowOfDarkness

Unlike how we value only what we find meaningful, the lack of any ontological value in the transcendental does not suddenly nullify immanence. Being enabled with a determined movement of conatus as an intuitive essence integral to human nature is not a finite status neither is it proof of the divisibility of God. God is the cause of ALL, including a state which causes another following state, a unified naturalism despite the dissonance, that is, our assumptive finiteness when modes of thought and extension are actually one and the same. There is no closing or cutting.

Spinoza outright says he's not being literal in the passage you quoted. — TheWillowOfDarkness

Where?

I think it's fair to say that hatred and even indifference are modes of love, or care. We hate or are indifferent to some thing(s) only on account of our love for some other thing(s). With such negative emotions, our love is merely misplaced: we just care about the wrong things due to narrow understandings. — John

The entrenched condition that emotions are an independent mental experience that we are subject to fails to appreciate the quality of reason. There is no real direct relationship between emotions and love but rather our emotions themselves play a determinative role that compels feelings that express our inability and ability to act, a passive language so to speak. So, for instance, when we become aware of why we feel angry, the anger itself dissipates because reason is superior to emotions. When we passively experience emotions, our body, our instinctual drives, our irrational pathology becomes consumed by the power of this activity that will and reason lay dormant.

Love itself is moral consciousness, the latter of which is an autonomous and authentic condition of reason that willingly gives love or goodness to all things (love of God) without bias to particular objects or people, a capacity basically and consciousness is an awareness. Love itself cannot be displaced. If there are emotions like anger or hate or even indifference, it is not love (moral consciousness) but merely the emotional condition I referred to earlier. It is not to say that emotions themselves are irrelevant, but love produces feelings of happiness and sadness (lack thereof) when constrained within reason.

The ideal of erotic love, for instance, between two people involves both sexual and economic unity in an external world, but they must subjectively admire what they seek to mirror. Since love of God, that is, the love of all things or moral consciousness is what we attempt to reach, they would admire one another for their capacity or desire to moral consciousness, for who they are as they are independently or autonomously. The emotions of hatred or indifference to a partner are caused by a lack of admiration and the passive language of emotions are merely expressing the inability to act, so you become subject to irrational behaviour.

I think it's fair to say that hatred and even indifference are modes of love, or care. We hate or are indifferent to some thing(s) only on account of our love for some other thing(s). With such negative emotions, our love is merely misplaced: we just care about the wrong things due to narrow understandings. — John

Even if we assume that all emotions are modes of love, it doesn't follow that we have our being in love. Our being consists of activities in the physical world, activities which are willed. And will is distinct from emotion because it is by means of will that we control our emotions. I think that if we wanted to say that we have our being in love, we must associate love with will. But love is associated with emotions, and good is associated with will. That is why theologians generally associate being, or existence, with good.

The point I argued earlier though, is that generally we associate good with will. Actions which we apprehend as good are what is willed, and those we apprehend as bad we avoid with will power. Love, we associate with emotions, and we recognize it as a good emotion. It may be allied with will, because of its nature as good, assisting us in avoiding bad emotions, but love is still not itself the good which is willed. Emotions must remain passive in relation to will, in order that they do not cause actions, allowing that we may choose the good. No emotion, not even love, ought to be the cause of an act, because only reason distinguishes bad from good. If an emotion such as love, were to cause an act, without the interference of reason and will power, there is a higher probability that the act could be bad. Your claim that "hatred and even indifference are modes of love", casts light on this situation.

I think that if we wanted to say that we have our being in love, we must associate love with will. But love is associated with emotions, and good is associated with will. That is why theologians generally associate being, or existence, with good. — Metaphysician Undercover

I agree with this; I think love in its positive form is associated with will in its positive form; so, love is good will.

Timeline, it seems as though you want to disagree with the idea(s) in the passage you quoted, but your point of disagreement is not clear to me as yet.

Timeline, it seems as though you want to disagree with the idea(s) in the passage you quoted, but your point of disagreement is not clear to me as yet — John

Sorry John, my conflict was with your association of emotions to the concept of love, the latter of which I was attempting to elucidate as being moral consciousness stemming from an autonomous agent of reason and thus can only be reasonable and good. We tend to assume that we are subject to emotions that play a determinative role in our behaviour and decisions and indeed this is true for those lacking reason, which is why when we become conscious of why we experience an emotion, it no longer has the same power over us. Hatred and indifference are irrational expressions and therefore must be something other than love, even if it is towards someone you supposedly care about, as it lacks the very reason that exemplifies moral consciousness.

This then typifies towards the rational decisions we make in our expressions of love, such as erotic love where our choices prove reason and consciousness. If you feel hatred or indifference to someone you care about, such as a partner, you quite simply don't love them.

There is no real direct relationship between emotions and love but rather our emotions themselves play a determinative role that compels feelings that express our inability and ability to act, a passive language so to speak. — TimeLine

I don't see how you can separate love from emotion. Love is an emotion. If you impose such a separation, what you refer to with "love" is not love at all, because love as we experience it, and what we always refer to with the word "love", is an emotion.

Love itself is moral consciousness, the latter of which is an autonomous and authentic condition of reason that willingly gives love or goodness to all things (love of God) without bias to particular objects or people, a capacity basically and consciousness is an awareness. — TimeLine

Love is not moral consciousness. You even say, "the latter", referring to moral consciousness, "gives love", indicating that love is something other than moral consciousness, it is what is given by moral consciousness.

It is very easy to demonstrate that love is separate from moral consciousness. A person can love another person, and commit immoral acts, for the sake of the beloved, so clearly love is other than moral consciousness. An individual can love everyone in one's own community or state, and commit immoral acts against members of another community for the sake of those loved.

Sorry John, my conflict was with your association of emotions to the concept of love, the latter of which I was attempting to elucidate as being moral consciousness stemming from an autonomous agent of reason and thus can only be reasonable and good. — TimeLine

Love, when guided by reason will be good, but this does not exclude the possibility of misguided love. Therefore we cannot say that love can only be reasonable and good. This claim produces an unreasonable definition of "love", saying, "love can only be good". We still have to deal with the misguided love, as in my examples above, one who commits an immoral act out of love. Under your definition of love, we would have to say that this is not really love. But clearly it is love, because if we deny all these instances when one might commit an immoral act for the sake of the beloved, we would have nothing left as love. That's why we must allow that love is an emotion and it is not necessarily reasonable. It does not stem from reason, but it may be guided by reason.

so, love is good will — John

I'm not quite sure about that, it would depend on what love is. But it is clear that in order to love, you have to be a person, and in possession of both intellect (choosing the means) and will (desire).

If you feel hatred or indifference to someone you care about, such as a partner, you quite simply don't love them. — TimeLine

I don't think that's true... I mean have you never felt hatred for someone you love? There are moments when such feelings appear - anger, hatred, etc. - but they are not lasting, love overcomes them. That's what is meant in the Bible by "Love never fails".

But two distinct meanings of "love" does not allow for reconciliation between "God is Love" and "God is loving" because "love" refers to something different in each of these cases. So these two must remain contradictory. — Metaphysician Undercover

I don't follow this.

I don't see how you can separate love from emotion. Love is an emotion. If you impose such a separation, what you refer to with "love" is not love at all, because love as we experience it, and what we always refer to with the word "love", is an emotion. — Metaphysician Undercover

No, an emotion is a response to an action or inaction and love is an action. We incorrectly assume love itself as an emotion subject to determinative behavioural and physiological responses, but these responses are separate, a passive language. So, for instance, the components that initiate an experience of intense anxiety often derive from a combination of factors unknown to the person - as though the body is physically trying to tell you that something is wrong but you just don't know what - and thus unconscious manifestations that we physically experience. When we raise the reasons for why we feel such anxiety and thus through reason become conscious of the components that initiated the response, we no longer experience anxiety, and the latter exists as a negative, physiological warning to a particular action or inaction. Love, as an action, produces feelings of euphoria and happiness.

It is not to undermine emotions neither is it to enfeeble the concept of love, but to separate the two and therefore to see love as a decision that we need to make - consciously and with reason - rather than being subject to some determinative factor that lacks reason and choice entirely. People who are subject to this determinative approach are emotionally unable to love correctly, which leads to the point of moral consciousness. Since love is an action that requires reason, consciousness is an authenticity of the reasoning behind the decision to act; our conscience - morality - is the will behind our understanding of what is right and good. In order to be authentic - that is to not be self-deceptive - one needs to understand the motives behind their decisions, to be aware or conscious of the conduct in which they apply themselves. So it is only when we are morally conscious do we become capable of the action of loving correctly.

I think erotic love best exemplifies the mistake we make when it comes to the idea that love has a determinative and highly emotional power over our reasoning. We can get swept off our feet by being self-deceptive enough to believe in the poetry of another's affections, but the self-deception itself could quite simply be loneliness and the feelings of passion formed by desperation. We label it "love" but it is not love and thus your so-called demonstration of "A person can love another person, and commit immoral acts, for the sake of the beloved" is no demonstration at all. It is immature and unreasonable action. A rapist that helps put the clothes back on a woman afterwards is not expressing kindness.

A mature love, one contained within reason and approached consciously, is to admire your partner for the person that they are as an independent individual, what you would appreciate to mirror in character and intelligence. This type of love being authentic produces genuine happiness rather than false passions. Without moral consciousness, we will not be able to approach love - in all its forms - correctly.

I don't think that's true... I mean have you never felt hatred for someone you love? There are moments when such feelings appear - anger, hatred, etc. - but they are not lasting, love overcomes them. That's what is meant in the Bible by "Love never fails". — Agustino

No, I have never felt hatred, but certainly anger and indeed sadness but these emotions are derived from actions or inactions; my inaction due to my inability to directly communicate to him and the action of his behaviour towards me led to my feeling frustrated and sad. Love - as moral consciousness - is to know how to give love and though we often express this directly to one person or persons, morality as being the form of good in the platonic sense is really exemplified in our love of God, that is, to love all things. No one reasonable would invite a sociopath over for dinner, it will inevitably produce negative emotions and it is unreasonable to experience these emotions because they are negative. We want happiness.

Thus who we love must be someone we admire - within reason - a person that presents themselves independently and consciously as someone that you would desire to mirror, someone who seeks the same platonic good hence Solomon' "A virtuous woman is a crown to her husband: but she that maketh ashamed is as rottenness in his bones." I have never felt hatred at all because I always believe that all people are capable of becoming self-aware and I would celebrate that even if they were my worst enemies. There is this hope in the suggestions that love never fails both for others and within ourselves, being conscious of the fact that we are all flawed.

I don't follow this. — Agustino

If you define "love" in one way, then define "love" in another way, then the two definitions contradict each other.

No, an emotion is a response to an action or inaction and love is an action. — TimeLine

Love is not an action. If it were, you could produce a description of that action which you call love, the thing acting, and the exact motions which the thing was carrying out. But there is no particular action called love, so it is impossible to describe that act. Love is a feeling, an emotion which inspires one to act. It is not an action itself, and that is why many different actions can be described as loving acts.

There is no action called "love", because love is what we attribute to the action, as a property of the person acting. The various different actions which are described as loving actions have their own descriptions, they are not love itself.

No, I have never felt hatred, but certainly anger and indeed sadness but these emotions are derived from actions or inactions; — TimeLine

Hmmm, okay, I have felt all three.

Thus who we love must be someone we admire — TimeLine

I disagree. I don't necessarily want my wife to be someone I admire. I'm looking for a few key character traits (religiosity, loyalty, compassion/kindness, humility, family-oriented), but those alone aren't sufficient to entail admiration. I generally admire people whose achievements put me in a state of awe - people like Aristotle, King Solomon, Alexander the Great, and so forth.

Whereas in my wife, I don't want someone whom I admire, but someone who complements me (and with whom I can build a strong and lasting family - someone who is not a leech or a traitor). That means she has some values that I have - religiosity, loyalty, family-oriented - and also some values where I'm not a shining star, but which are nevertheless needed to build a family - kindness, and humility. I wouldn't care very much if she's very timid, anxious, physically weak, not the prettiest around etc. I don't admire those characteristics, but neither will I hold it against her - that's simply not part of the essentials that I'm looking for.

For ex. I may admire Mother Theresa, but that doesn't mean I'd marry her.

as someone that you would desire to mirror — TimeLine

No, I wouldn't desire to mirror my wife. Marrying someone like you is often a disaster. I'm too ambitious for example (in terms of everything I do pretty much) - if I married a woman who was equally ambitious, it would end in disaster. What did Alexander say - "there can only be one sun in the sky, and one Alexander on Earth".

The people whom I want to mirror will be some of my very good friends, whose aptitudes, knowledge or abilities I look up to (or alternatively historical figures). Admiration entails this sense of being in awe at someone or something. It's like jealousy in many regards, except that in this case it is the positive version of jealousy - it pushes you to try to become like those people. The "competition" between you makes both of you better.

If you define "love" in one way, then define "love" in another way, then the two definitions contradict each other. — Metaphysician Undercover

Okay - obvious. So what? I don't really get your point. It seems to me to be some abstruse theoretical reasoning that doesn't do much to help us gain any insights into the subject matter...

Okay - obvious. So what? I don't really get your point. It seems to me to be some abstruse theoretical reasoning that doesn't do much to help us gain any insights into the subject matter... — Agustino

I was pointing out the contradiction between your claim "God is Love", and "God is loving". I'm still trying to get you to realize that "God is equivalent to Love" is a mistaken interpretation.

So why I say this leads to fundamentalism, which, as you say, got started in the the early 20th century US, is because the depth provided by Platonic realism had been completely lost and forgotten. — Wayfarer

I suppose I could grant this, but what I don't agree with is that the line from nominalism to fundamentalism is a straight one or that there are no other explanations for the latter that are better and more proximate to its development than the latter.

Thanks for the links.

I'm still trying to get you to realize that "God is equivalent to Love" is a mistaken interpretation. — Metaphysician Undercover

And obviously failing. Love isn't restricted to only one definition that will cover all its aspects. It seems to me that you are stuck with a theoretic rationalism which cannot see beyond itself.

Theorising about what God is, is futile in the extreme. All we come up with is what is already in our minds.

Secondly dogmas about religion are only like guidelines or markers. The point of any spiritual teaching is practical. 'Theoria', in traditional philosophy, was contemplation of the ideas, it wasn't simply discursive argument or exercises in verbal logic but actually getting them into your soul. (It's counterpart was 'praxis' which is where the rubber meets the road.) The point about spiritual contemplation is to explore the depths of the mind which can only take place in silence. Nothing happens during this time, from the point of view of the ego it is utterly boring and completely pointless. That is 'the desert' that the church fathers talk about. That's what makes it difficult - it is the complete absence of the permanent stimulation that us 21st c denizens have come to expect. Nevertheless if one persists with it, signs and guidance comes. That is what Christians call the 'consolations of the spirit'.

There are many different traditions that understand this, in their own unique way. That doesn't make them 'all the same' or interchangeable. Ultimately you have to pick one, or, more likely, one picks you.

On that note, I'm taking a bit of a spell from posting here for a while, there have been a few discussions that took a turn I didn't like much, and besides, I talk too much. Time to practice what I'm preaching for a while.

Thanks for your explanation, Timeline. I think there is a bit of a misunderstanding at work here, because I haven't been treating love as one emotion among others, but rather as the disposition of care, concern or interest which I think is really the human form of life.

Love can be thought of as one emotion among others, certainly, and when you say

If you feel hatred or indifference to someone you care about, such as a partner, you quite simply don't love them. — TimeLine

it seems obvious that you are thinking of it this way

Even in this connection, though I would say it is commonplace for people to feel conflicting emotions about others, So, to say that, if one has any feelings of hatred or even indifference towards a loved one, then one doesn't really love them, could only be right if you were defining love as an absolutely pure emotion, an 'all or nothing' affair; but human love is never that I would say.

I'm not quite sure about that, it would depend on what love is. But it is clear that in order to love, you have to be a person, and in possession of both intellect (choosing the means) and will (desire). — Agustino

I find it impossible to think that if I love someone or something, that to the extent and at the times that I do love him, her or it, I do not, to the same extent, and at the same time, bear good will towards him, her or it. I certainly agree with you about the necessity of intellect and will for the capacity to love, so long as you allow that some of the higher animals must possess such an intellect and will, at least to some degree.

Love is not an action. If it were, you could produce a description of that action which you call love, the thing acting, and the exact motions which the thing was carrying out. — Metaphysician Undercover

This activity is described through actions like brotherly love, erotic love, familial love, love of a child, unconditional love etc &c. This action is a decisive judgement and our will to act on this must stem from reason, autonomy and a strong sense of moral duty or moral consciousness, otherwise there would be no basis for this action to be authentic. Emotions are our responses to actions and inactions and a natural, instinctual part of our physiological make-up existing in a schism of positive and negative feelings. Our cognitive make-up contains both conscious, subconscious (experiences that are not articulated linguistically) and unconscious (instinctual/passions) with the latter two acting as a misguided will that diminishes our cognitive reasoning power. It is why people can delude themselves or believe their own lies. When we love, we produce positive feelings of happiness but it is through reason that one enables it to manifest in all areas of life, maintain a longevity of this happiness by decisively choosing and acting on these decisions with reason.

Misery, hatred, anger (certainly with our actions, but sometimes also when we are passive in the experience) are all manifestations of our ignorance, of being unreasonable and no amount of conforming, deluding, deceiving will change that. The intellectual love of God is the highest of these activities because God encompasses all things and it is, quite simply, to become one with the activity itself; the pursuit of God is the pursuit of Good and an immature or selfish love can present itself in people that may love one person or thing but not another. We pursue joy and pleasure - since the pursuit of happiness is in our nature - by better understanding both ourselves (through autonomy we become empowered and this brings us joy) and the external world (though ethics as other' happiness becomes instrumental to our own) that together moral consciousness is what enables us to act on love correctly. When we become empowered within, the authenticity behind the experience of happiness is enhanced by being honest to ourselves.

...I haven't been treating love as one emotion among others, but rather as the disposition of care, concern or interest which I think is really the human form of life. — John

I agree, as l stated earlier that love is moral consciousness and certainly a disposition, this disposition being a rational, autonomous agent. The emotive experiences of moral consciousness such as care, concern, compassion are natural to our physiology and the authenticity of these experiences are derived by self-empowerment, the latter established when we cease to be controlled and subject to an instinctual and unreasonable will and transcend to a state of autonomy.

Even in this connection, though I would say it is commonplace for people to feel conflicting emotions about others, So, to say that, if one has any feelings of hatred or even indifference towards a loved one, then one doesn't really love them, could only be right if you were defining love as an absolutely pure emotion, an 'all or nothing' affair; but human love is never that I would say. — John

It would be false to assume perfection; the intellectual love of God will never be to know God neither is the description of a rational, autonomous agent imply an attainment of this "perfect", on the contrary it is seeking a perfection that we will never attain. But, it is the seeking itself that becomes the very product of our happiness. We have both positive and negative emotions and any negative emotions stem from negative actions or inactions. Love is not negative such as hatred or indifference so it cannot produce such negative emotions, but if it does then it is either a product of something unreasonable or irrational (hatred is always irrational), or it is a product of a passive experience out of your control (when a loved one suddenly dies) in which case one would eventually rationalise and accept.

I disagree. I don't necessarily want my wife to be someone I admire. I'm looking for a few key character traits (religiosity, loyalty, compassion/kindness, humility, family-oriented), but those alone aren't sufficient to entail admiration. — Agustino

I think the confusion lies in the semantics, the ambiguity of the word 'admire' because it is certainly not a state of awe but rather a motivation that facilitates our desire to improve ourselves. Thus, when I say who we love must be someone we admire - within reason - a person that presents themselves independently and consciously it is to admire their very independence, who they are as they are and not what they present themselves as being neither the utility they may qualify, but the authenticity of their character, their genuine moral worthiness. It is not competition but rather a state of positive growth when two loving people mature together and the improvement is to improve our minds, reason and our morality.

Marrying someone like you is often a disaster. I'm too ambitious for example (in terms of everything I do pretty much) - if I married a woman who was equally ambitious, it would end in disaster. — Agustino

Again, the word 'mirror' is confused; as I said earlier, your partner should be one who is independent and morally conscious and the mirror itself is you as one who is also independent and morally conscious where together - in your own independence - you share your life and continuously improve. It would be impossible to do this with a conformist, or someone mindless who completely relies on you and does what you tell him/her, or someone who is evil or deceptive.

To mirror is to imply that our happiness becomes mutually dependent on both our desire to see our partner happy as much as our desire to continuously improve ourselves. You will find those in relationships that lack this admiration often never improve, years and years pass and nothing really changes for the better. I can form a relationship with anyone and try to make it work, but I would be delaying the inevitable and it would be self-deceptive if I did not admire them. Your lover is your best friend, the one that appreciates you for who you are not what they want you to be and vice versa.

It is not competition but rather a state of positive growth when two loving people mature together and the improvement is to improve our minds, reason and our morality. — TimeLine

Yes maybe for two lovers, but building a family takes more than just love. It takes discipline and commitment as well, combined with singularity of purpose. Hence the two people who form a family cannot be two "independent" people. No they must be dependent - and whatever forms that dependency is valuable, whether it is love, need, religion, purpose. Having a leader amongst the two, and a follower, also helps. One flesh cannot have two heads.

who is independent — TimeLine

Not necessarily. It may be possible, but it depends on the circumstances and the people what's right.

morally conscious — TimeLine

Okay, agreed.

you share your life and continuously improve. — TimeLine

Yes, but having a family is much more than sharing your life and continuously improving - that's sufficient for lovers, not for husband and wife.

or someone who is evil or deceptive. — TimeLine

Agreed, deception is a no-no.

It would be impossible to do this with a conformist, or someone mindless who completely relies on you and does what you tell him/her — TimeLine

With a social conformist you are right. But with "someone mindless who completely relies on you and does what you tell him/her" you are dead wrong. Unity of purpose is extremely important to success. That "mindless" person has saving virtues - humility and devotion - and is to be preferred over the independent mindful person who always wants to go their own way.

I find it impossible to think that if I love someone or something, that to the extent and at the times that I do love him, her or it, I do not, to the same extent, and at the same time, bear good will towards him — John

That may be so, but I'm not sure it follows that "love is good will". Sure, without good will, love may be impossible, but does that mean that love is good will and nothing more?

This activity is described through actions like brotherly love, erotic love, familial love, love of a child, unconditional love etc &c. — TimeLine

I don't see how any one of these is an activity. We can look at actions, and infer that there is brotherly love there, or whatever kind of love is there, but the inference is of something different than the action. We describe specific actions, but the described actions are not the same as the inferred love. We can only infer love with another premise, that such and such actions are indicators of love. But still the actions are not the love itself.

The intellectual love of God is the highest of these activities because God encompasses all things and it is, quite simply, to become one with the activity itself; the pursuit of God is the pursuit of Good and an immature or selfish love can present itself in people that may love one person or thing but not another. — TimeLine

Are you saying that this claimed activity, which you call "love", is a type of pursuit? Are all activities of pursuit activities of love then? How is this any different from desire?

It's an interesting question, and I don't have a ready answer to it. To reverse the question; what more could love be than good will? Desire, perhaps? If I desire something, do I necessarily have good will towards it?

But, it is the seeking itself that becomes the very product of our happiness. We have both positive and negative emotions and any negative emotions stem from negative actions or inactions. Love is not negative such as hatred or indifference so it cannot produce such negative emotions, — TimeLine

Do you mean the seeking is the product of the happiness or the happiness is the product of the seeking?

I agree we do have both positive and negative emotions; that does seem obvious; but my contention has been that we have negative emotion towards something only insofar as we have positive emotion towards something else. And I don't think the reverse necessarily holds; that's why I think it is more correct to say that hatred is a mode of love, than it would be to say that love is a mode of hatred. A similar idea seems to hold with good and bad: the bad can be seen as a privation of the good; but the good doesn't seem to be (merely) a privation of the bad.

Yes maybe for two lovers, but building a family takes more than just love. It takes discipline and commitment as well, combined with singularity of purpose. — Agustino

I agree, but why would anyone want to build a family with someone they do not love, even if this person embodies the character traits that they want? There will be an emptiness in this purpose and love itself personifies the joy and the peace needed for this, which returns back to my reference to reason and autonomy in the consciousness of this decision. For the longevity of happiness, love and respect for your partner takes away the effort discipline requires, as together in unity two people improve and develop one another through one another (hence the admiration) that therefore would mean the admiration will never cease and only strengthen since both continuously improve, hence the longevity. So, when you say but having a family is much more than sharing your life and continuously improving it is also inclusive of those in marriage and a very part of this discipline that two people share in unison.

With a social conformist you are right. But with "someone mindless who completely relies on you and does what you tell him/her" you are dead wrong. Unity of purpose is extremely important to success. — Agustino

One can portray humility and devotion without being mindless so I think that it may just be semantics considering you accept conformism as a flaw. It is the reason why autonomy is fixed to moral consciousness, which naturally enables the agent to adhere with humility and devotion to the principles of virtue. A person who is a raging independent does not necessarily mean they are autonomous neither morally conscious; in the US, there is a culture of 'individualism' when many blindly move in masses. Hence, the authenticity behind the commitment to virtue.

I think that perhaps you are speaking of the equilibrium between feminine and masculine attributes and indeed I would have to agree. This 'Yin and Yang' between male and female becomes a beautiful combination that should be respected but to attain this 'natural state' is to really find who you are as you are. The idea of being in a relationship with a man who conforms to his social environment and though an adult continues to do what his mother tells him implies a lack of 'masculinity' that would make it impossible to form a relationship with, particularly since he lacks consciousness and the autonomy needed to form a true bond with someone and to take control of his life.

However, to have a man tell me to stay silent and do what he wants lacks the respect and admiration for me as an individual and that too is a problem, hence humility and devotion from a man to a woman and vice versa. When I began to sense my own autonomy and began to develop moral consciousness - not to long ago actually and I am still learning - I genuinely started to appreciate my femininity and have since been developing my adherence to my natural, humble state. Such humility is impossible if the person has not yet achieved this moral consciousness and autonomy as their minds remain too chaotic.

When I say mindless, someone who has no critical thinking skills, who is not willing to try and talk about subjects other than something bullshit like what such and such did on instagram, who has no appreciation for learning new things. Again, if they are morally conscious and autonomous, they can and should respond but within the context of this uniformity, this loyalty that what he wants is just as much as what she wants but within reason where sacrifices must sometimes be made. Communication is essential for a thriving relationship, the lack thereof is just soul suicide.

I'm really busy at work at the moment (on my lunch break) and your posts require more attention, so I will get back to you tomorrow.

It's an interesting question, and I don't have a ready answer to it. To reverse the question; what more could love be than good will? Desire, perhaps? If I desire something, do I necessarily have good will towards it? — John

I think the various forms of love have different compositions, but if we're speaking of charity/compassion then I'd say the fundamental characteristics are (1) a feeling of deep connection with others, (2) empathy, (3) good will, (4) openness. Obviously Eros or Love of God would also include desire, etc.

Do you mean the seeking is the product of the happiness or the happiness is the product of the seeking? — John

They're not mutually exclusive. It is in our nature to desire happiness; by seeking to improve through self-awareness one experiences happiness (since reason enables authenticity of experience) and through this happiness one continues to seek improvement (by becoming conscious of our flaws). It is returning to our natural unity following the corruption by our subjective limitations and our relationship to an external world that we have yet to understand.

...but my contention has been that we have negative emotion towards something only insofar as we have positive emotion towards something else. — John

I think our confusion lies between the positive and negative responses to action or inaction, that when we passively experience evil external to ourselves we form negative emotions. What I am trying to say is that when we actively experience hate, subjectively and as a response through our ego or ignorance, that does not and cannot come from love or moral consciousness but rather the Kantian 'radical evil'. If you look at the story of the satan, for instance, the devil or evil was and remains subservient to God or Good and his attributes like ego and jealously that compelled him to try and prove errors in perfection ameliorates that not only is Good always superior and through Adam and Eve (humanity) before the fall our natural state, but that evil influences humanity that we soon experience the unnatural, evil and ultimately misery.

If, for instance, we attempt to pursue the intellectual love of God, which is to thus attempt to attain the virtues as forms that exemplifies the most accurate in reality - justice, charity, patience or what is Good - that in the pursuit of these virtues one becomes conscious of the vile and inaccurate that stains this reality - injustice, violence or what is evil - it does not substantiate evil emotions, such as hate. Sadness, yes, as that is a passive experience to this evil that renders a disillusionment but greater than that is a hope and a desire to make an effort to change evil for the better and return back to our natural inclinations of Good. To hate is to become the very thing that opposes Good, however it can also be used as a signal that proves this subjective stain in our own disposition.