How is Love Intelligence??

[Stick]

Leo implies that the more loving you are the more intelligent you become.
But dogs are very loving but not that intelligent.
How does that work??

[vibv]

Because you understand Love wrong.

Love is that which knows no opposite and is incredibly mysterious. You can only know it by being it, not by understanding it. But by understanding it it comes to know itself. This is the relationship between Love & Truth—they perfect each other completely while seeming utterly irreconcilable.

In the case of that dog I'd rather call it loyalty.

[Leo Gura]

Dogs aren't doing conscious loving, they're bred for millennia to be loyal and eager to please.

Love is something Consciousness can do, but that doesn't mean it's always doing it.

You need to distinguish love as an activity vs Love as BEING. These are different things.

Reality = Love, does not mean that it is always doing loving.

Edited 1 hour ago by Leo Gura

[AION]

There is a reason why humans have a civilization and dogs don’t. Contemplate on that. And it is not because of brain power because there are people with huge brains and still live like animals. 

Edited 1 hour ago by AION

[Xonas Pitfall]

A slave who had their identity and ego beaten out of them can also appear extremely loving from the perspective of the ego, because they have been deprived of their sense of self. They become willing to do whatever is demanded of them because most of their aspirations for their own identity, life, and autonomy have been removed. At that point, they may care only about survival, or sometimes not even that. This is part of how you get slavery, brainwashed cultists, suicide bombers, victims of abusive relationships, etc. Note that if you were a king and these slaves were brought to you after the programming, they would appear quite loving to you. "Aww, look at my cute little puppy slave! They're always so happy to see me. They bring me my food, clean, cook, work for me, and never ask for anything in return. What an adorable, loving, obedient little creature. So sweet. So devoted. How admirable that they're always so eager to please me!"

There are versions (or perhaps different definitions) of "love."

1. One is love from the perspective of the ego. This is a childish conception of love, similar to a child whose parents give them everything they want: "Mama will protect me and care only about me." or "If only I had a partner who was perfectly aligned with me, did everything I wanted, let me do whatever I wanted, gave me whatever I wanted whenever I wanted it, and always cared about me, while I only had to care when I felt like it." It's essentially the aggrandizement of the ego and its importance. Whoever can appeal to the ego in this way will seem extremely "loving," but the underlying structure is immature because it denies the sovereignty of the other person. The other person becomes an extension of the ego rather than a sovereign individual with their own desires, boundaries, values, and existence.
2. Then there is conscious love. You take yourself and the other person as sovereign individuals, while also realizing that you're creating a union through the relationship. Because of that, you might willingly give up certain things that your ego wants in order to care for the other person or for the relationship as a whole. You don't have to destroy yourself or your identity. You consciously integrate your own needs with the needs of another sovereign being. From there, you can expand this type of love beyond the individual relationship: to other humans, communities, societies, animals, ecosystems, the Earth, and eventually larger systems of life and existence. It becomes increasingly integrative and requires a much higher degree of consciousness, care, empathy, and ability to hold multiple perspectives simultaneously.
3. There is another level where you become more directly "one with everything." where you become more directly "one with everything." This state is much less practical for human beings and their egos. It is more characteristic of certain yogic or monastic states, deep meditation, psychedelic or mystical experiences, or perhaps death, where the ego can become radically diminished or dissolve entirely. In this state, there is no longer a fundamental distinction between "me" and "them," "owner" and "slave," or "self" and "other." Everything is experienced as part of one unified whole. There is no specific entity that needs to defend itself or survive as an isolated ego.

In that sense, it can superficially resemble the state of a completely submissive slave or someone whose ego has been destroyed. But the difference is enormous. This is why, from the perspective of an ego, these states can look deceptively similar. Any entity that lacks a strong sense of self, doesn't resist, doesn't assert its own survival, desires, or boundaries, and appears completely accepting and accommodating can look "loving." But the underlying structures can be completely different.

It's basically analogous to the Spiral Dynamics model:

1. You start with Beige, where consciousness is almost entirely centered around immediate survival and the self. In a sense, there isn't much conceptual "other" yet because consciousness is primarily organized around its own immediate existence.
2. Then, as the spiral develops, consciousness increasingly integrates otherness: empathy, social awareness, perspective-taking, morality, cooperation, respect for sovereignty, systems thinking, and eventually increasingly holistic forms of identification.
3. At the higher end of the spiral, however, you can reach a state where the distinction between "self" and "other" itself becomes transcended. You realize that all of these apparently separate entities are ultimately parts of one.

So, if you looked only at the structure from outside the Spiral Dynamics model, you might say:

"Beige and Turquoise/Coral are both kind of solipsistic. Both ultimately collapse everything back into one."

But that would completely miss the enormous difference in intelligence, integration, consciousness, and complexity between them.

It's almost like saying that a newborn and a mystic are the same because neither has the same kind of fully developed adult ego.

Edited 46 minutes ago by Xonas Pitfall