Comments on Profile Post by Fox

Or does he just love the possibilities that lay ahead? And therefore loves chaos and uncertainty.

Why not both?

^ that is a part of the person, and not a part of the universe. In other words, what you said is exactly what I said just with the specific outcomes of the future.

Keep in mind that loving the past, same thing, you love yourself, but the outcomes are things such as idealism and mnemonic.

Both memories just as uncertainty are both abstract concepts.

So, yeah, it happens to be both, but it's symbiotic as it is the exact same thing said differently, a metonymy.

Hmm I sort of lost you Fox, could you elaborate on your thought process?

Loving yourself = the past and future ---> abstract concepts = idealism.

I said loving yourself, and you said chaos and unpredictability, me complementing that chaos and unpredictability are abstract concepts.

Since loving yourself is an abstract concept and chaos and unpredictability are abstract concepts too, that just means we're saying the same thing.

What I said = what you said.

However, what I had said was the predicament while what you had said where the results of the predicament.

And so you could understand the results origin, that's when I explained what the past and future means and where these outcomes are positioned.

If you don't get it still, I'm sure you can think it up on your own.

No no no I get it.
Although I think it is a little bit of a jump. Just because two ideas are abstract, doesn't put them as idealistic or the same thing.
That's almost like saying a red car and a red ball are the same thing because they are both red.

Although I can sorta see how you might be talking about the "cause" and I about the "effect", but I think that's sort of obscure.
More of two ways of interpreting things and hidden meanings you can find.

The problem with your red ball and red car example is that love and chaos are abstract concepts, but chaos is part of Love itself. So, yes, chaos is one of the outcomes, but it's from the same reason, aka love, aka an abstract concept, aka past and future. What love is, it is selfishness and selflessness towards something.

And selfishness and selflessness are one of the true outcomes of the past and future, but it's the same definition as love. But, since you seem to be understanding I thought I'd say instead of mincing it even if it's a metonymy.

So yeah, it's all a chain of the chain of the chain.

These "causes" meaning the same as the "effect" are what we call metonymys btw

I see what you are saying, but again I must point to how you are simply using abstractness to link love and time. I like your point on love and chaos being hopelessly intertwined though

I mean, senses are the ones that connect us with the universe. Abstract concepts are tbe ones that connect us with the outside world by using senses and through analysis connect us with ourselves.The universe being the present and ourselves being the past and future.

So, yeah, your point is right again: it's just that simple.

Though, I think you like love and chaos together because a lot of people think happiness is ultimate, that selfishness is ultimate. And that is not true. What we want is not ultimate, and being emotionally controlled is not ultimate.

So, they're helplessly intertwined because there just isn't this stigma that happiness is positive and that its ultimate, when chaos and love aren't negative, but they can become very negative if you know what tbe definition of selfishness and selflessness are.

And since happiness is a stigma, that most people never really get to love someone else because they love their thoughts towards that person, not actually love the person.

But anyway. Imma let you think the rest on your own.

Omfg this has to be the deepest a profile chain has got.

@Fox
The reason I liked love and chaos together is because love is a very chaotic thing. Many factors go into it and it's impossible to pin down a set of definite rules that cause love. (Unless you want to BS it with neuroscience).
Also everyone loves chaos to at least some degree. In a perfectly ordered universe

There would be no change, there would be no excitement, there would only be predictable events. Also if you look at a perfectly ordered universe, stars would never be able to condense out of the primordial gas as gravitational attraction in all directions would be equal.

I hold no illusion whatsoever that happiness is ultimate or selfishness is ultimate. In fact, I'd say it's impossible to pin any emotion as ultimate. Emotions and mental states are a blend of factors. They aren't exact opposites, and they aren't exclusive either.

And to your point on loving the thoughts surrounding a person, is it possible to truly know and love only the person, not your thoughts about them?

We can never know exactly how someone else is or how they might behave. In fact, few people know that much about themselves!
We can only know the reputation and our impressions on other people.

In essence, we live in a forest where we can only see the shadows.

@modern :P

I can tell you do not understand what the future present and past mean.

Your doubts about no feeling being ultimate, that's proven by the present. Since, if you remember, the present is the Universe.

As far as knowing yourself, it's not only for reputation and actions, since in the most literal sense of the word ethics wouldn't exist, only moral. That would also mean there is only present and that we can't analyze that present. That would also mean we can't understand the present, so, not quite. And, if we can't analyze the present, past and future do not exist.

As far as love being forever and always selfish and selfless, that is not true either. That is the love of tbe past and future.

The love of the present is not derived by feelings, like the love of the past and future is. and in short terms true love is communication.

For your star example, the predictability of that example is that gas will go in all directions. The predictability isn't on we're will it go.

You have to understand that not everything can be judged tbe same, since not everything has the same quality.

About knowing others, you can know others, but due to their lack of limits and infinite change, the person you know today may not be the person you know tomorrow.

Though, through communication and filling the blank of their faults and the most logical step for them to take from their faults, that it's not hard to catch up to them, as communication itself is logic, so one sentence already says a lot, and through predictability you can see how they've changed and how they haven't: No assumptions is tbe key.