Man, u seem really stuck with definitions lah. I m talking about
the expereicne of the ’’heart’’, u are prattling on about the
experince of the ’’mind’’. there is a big difference.
Please lah, u seem to have already concluded what should be without
even tasting it yourself.
A finished product eg a can of coke, labelled is no more
’’alive’’ it can be considered as truth. It is a thing. Can a human
being who is either (assuming) evolving or regressing be considered
a finished product – he/she is alive and a process. If I were to
say that u are arrogant, I have labelled u, it may be true but not
truth; cos u may change or u may know something new and how can it
be truth. Unless a human being is reduced to a thing.
U seem more concerned about debating, about wanting to win as
opposed to wanting to know, wanting to find out.
Can one objectify love – when it is a subjective phenomena.
One grows psychologically (mind, actully one is simply growin
old/regresses) or grows spiritually (heart, one grows UP, one
evolves) – many avoid the latter cos it is uncertain and entail
inner exploration and what—not. One has to be open to knowing. The
former is easy, just parrot and repeat or gather knowledge.
The former is good and useful for transactions, debate, market
place, but utterly useless in the matters of the heart, religion or
love.
Definitions are often the starting place for arguments. Anyway I am
pointing out the fallacies in your posts. You seem to be
chronically stuck in an either/or mindset instead of seeing that it
can also be both/and.