behavior without the occurence of love between the two lovers. and this light that D refers to can certainly be seen as the phenomenon of love. It wrings the conscious and imposes a veil of poor judgement along the lines of sound reason. Rather, love and the decisions made whilst in this state, are the product of a person whose logic is as absurd as the phenomenon of love itself.
it almost seems that there is a polemic established along similar lines of the question of the true presence of a deity. Here Rey postulates that no act can truly be selfless, because the actions of selflessness followed by the state of selflessness, demonstrated to your lover is an act of selfISHness because it affirms the health of the relationship. However, it is equallty true what D postulates - that the impetus for the state of selflessness is indeed love. One cannot justify this
behavior without the occurence of love between the two lovers. and this light that D refers to can certainly be seen as the phenomenon of love. It wrings the conscious and imposes a veil of poor judgement along the lines of sound reason. Rather, love and the decisions made whilst in this state, are the product of a person whose logic is as absurd as the phenomenon of love itself.
raycarre 4 years ago
it almost seems that there is a polemic established along similar lines of the question of the true presence of a deity. Here Rey postulates that no act can truly be selfless, because the actions of selflessness followed by the state of selflessness, demonstrated to your lover is an act of selfISHness because it affirms the health of the relationship. However, it is equallty true what D postulates - that the impetus for the state of selflessness is indeed love. One cannot justify this
raycarre 4 years ago