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 Thursday at 10:52 AM 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 Thursday at 11:50 AM 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 Thursday at 12:05 PM by Xonas Pitfall

[Stick]

On 8/20/2026 at 5:48 PM, Xonas Pitfall said:

 

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.

yeaa nice point

[Stick]

On 8/20/2026 at 4:34 PM, Leo Gura said:

 

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

wait, isnt reality always doing love??

[Sugarcoat]

On 2026-08-20 at 0:49 PM, Leo Gura said:

Reality = Love

Why is word love used and not just everything/nothing/infinity. All those three latter ones are not used for no reason at all, they entail something we can grasp intellectually, even if they point to ungraspable. So why “love”, what it entails in this context? Seems few people can answer this they just say it as if it’s a given 

 

Edited yesterday at 05:13 PM by Sugarcoat

[Leo Gura]

3 hours ago, Sugarcoat said:

So why “love”

When you have a Love Awakening, you will understand.

[Sugarcoat]

31 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

When you have a Love Awakening, you will understand.

Ok 

[Yimpa]

2 hours ago, Sugarcoat said:

Ok 

“OK Human 👽” -Weezer

[Xonas Pitfall]

13 hours ago, Sugarcoat said:

Why is word love used and not just everything/nothing/infinity. All those three latter ones are not used for no reason at all, they entail something we can grasp intellectually, even if they point to ungraspable. So why “love”, what it entails in this context? Seems few people can answer this they just say it as if it’s a given

You can definitely derive Love from scratch. A = A, or correspondence. That is all you need for truth; in a sense, that is truth itself. From there, you can derive other aspects of truth. A = A implies Solipsism. A = A also implies Love (Union / Love / Being One / No Bias / No Separation). A = A implies Love, Is-ness, Truth, Unity, All, and God. It also implies Identity, the Self, and the “I am.”

To be "One" is to unite everything, to connect everything. And to truly connect is to love.

To hold something in your consciousness with the full intent to experience and understand it is, in essence, to love it. The deeper your desire to understand something, to take it in as part of yourself, the less judgmental you become. You grow more accepting, more compassionate, more loving.

Think about the people closest to you. Why are they called “close”? Because they probably see and understand you more than others, because you have more experience with them than with others, because they probably care for and love you more than others. The more "connected" you are, the closer you are. The closer you are, the closer to One you are - merging together. We usually call this process "love."

Oneness requires ultimate connection and a lack of separation.
The process God uses to fully "merge" or bring parts "closer to each other" until they unite is Oneness, Love, Union, or even Sex.
Even the physical act of sex is a symbol of this: getting as close as possible - literally under someone’s skin, inside their body - to create pleasure. To Love them properly and fully.

Think about what we mean when we say someone is “close-minded” or refuses to empathize. We often say, “He can’t see the other person’s point of view,” or “He can’t put himself in their shoes.” In other words, he can’t imagine being close to that person, can’t imagine being them, can’t merge his perspective with theirs. He’s stuck in his own experience, focused on his Self, not the Other. He’s failed to connect the two into one shared understanding. And because of that, he is less empathetic, less compassionate, less loving. He lacks the Love to merge, to connect, to understand. However, God has an infinite supply of that! Hence the label "All-Loving" or "God is Love."

[Yimpa]

19 hours ago, Sugarcoat said:

Seems few people can answer this they just say it as if it’s a given 

That’s the rub. People are finite, but Infinity isn’t. Understanding what God is as a  is HUMAN different than understanding what God is as GOD.

(all caps is not me shouting as the clouds btw, it’s emphasis. but it can be that for comedic effect if you imagine it too)

[Yimpa]

https://www.actualized.org/insights/selfless-is-love

[Stick]

19 hours ago, Leo Gura said:

When you have a Love Awakening, you will understand.

How am I supposed to have a Love Awakening? I am only 18 and meditation can only do so much. I have been to one meditation retreat and plan on going again in the coming month but still unsure if I will experience something like an Awakening. Breathwork does help and for a few seconds takes me into a trance but it still doesn't crack the wall ykwim.

[Sugarcoat]

13 hours ago, Xonas Pitfall said:

You can definitely derive Love from scratch. A = A, or correspondence. That is all you need for truth; in a sense, that is truth itself. From there, you can derive other aspects of truth. A = A implies Solipsism. A = A also implies Love (Union / Love / Being One / No Bias / No Separation). A = A implies Love, Is-ness, Truth, Unity, All, and God. It also implies Identity, the Self, and the “I am.”

To be "One" is to unite everything, to connect everything. And to truly connect is to love.

To hold something in your consciousness with the full intent to experience and understand it is, in essence, to love it. The deeper your desire to understand something, to take it in as part of yourself, the less judgmental you become. You grow more accepting, more compassionate, more loving.

Think about the people closest to you. Why are they called “close”? Because they probably see and understand you more than others, because you have more experience with them than with others, because they probably care for and love you more than others. The more "connected" you are, the closer you are. The closer you are, the closer to One you are - merging together. We usually call this process "love."

Oneness requires ultimate connection and a lack of separation.
The process God uses to fully "merge" or bring parts "closer to each other" until they unite is Oneness, Love, Union, or even Sex.
Even the physical act of sex is a symbol of this: getting as close as possible - literally under someone’s skin, inside their body - to create pleasure. To Love them properly and fully.

Think about what we mean when we say someone is “close-minded” or refuses to empathize. We often say, “He can’t see the other person’s point of view,” or “He can’t put himself in their shoes.” In other words, he can’t imagine being close to that person, can’t imagine being them, can’t merge his perspective with theirs. He’s stuck in his own experience, focused on his Self, not the Other. He’s failed to connect the two into one shared understanding. And because of that, he is less empathetic, less compassionate, less loving. He lacks the Love to merge, to connect, to understand. However, God has an infinite supply of that! Hence the label "All-Loving" or "God is Love."

i get that perspective, and am familiar with that one. My question still  stands tho. I don’t find myself able to put words to it now but i can say, merging is not the same as merged, just because merged is the end of merging🫨

Edited 50 minutes ago by Sugarcoat