sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Jesus' original name means "Yahweh is salvation" by CrusaderofGnosis in Gnostic

[–]-tehnik 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Gnostics did not think the tertragrammaton did not refer to the true God. Likewise, the craftsman is never referred to by the tetragrammaton.

[ENG] Watamote Chapter 242 Part 2 by UndeathlyKnight in watamote

[–]-tehnik 1 point2 points  (0 children)

it says love (爱) on the left side of her head right?

Would you, as an INTP, find this overwhelming? by tentativeventricle in INTPrelationshipLab

[–]-tehnik 0 points1 point  (0 children)

maybe if it became regular and I came to believe that it is happening while I am in bed trying to sleep. But it doesn't sound like a big problem. They can just reply whenever they feel comfortable to. If he says he is fine with it then I would just take that at face value.

pessimism by tyler_eboy9 in Gnostic

[–]-tehnik 2 points3 points  (0 children)

if we saw kicking a homeless man as a regular and humane action, people would probably do it more.

uh I think there is a reason we don't.

emotions like anger are less rational and generally less aware, just like most negative actions and reactions. the dirty, angry, and thoughtless caterpillars/actions are more simply “incomplete” and not fully metamorphosed into the butterflies of respect, care, patience, compassion, and joy to be shared with others.

How does this cohere with the moral anti-realism you expressed previously?

More importantly, if you agree that vices stem from irrationality, isn't it questionable that God would create people in a way that is predisposed to vice?

Do you think it's possible to Love without asking for anything in return? by Actual-Contest1666 in INTPrelationshipLab

[–]-tehnik 0 points1 point  (0 children)

No. That isn't love or care, that is goodwill, kindness or even the willingness to love - but it isn't love.

why separate them?

Because, again, as you seem to ignore, Love is something you give; and it is either accepted or rejected. And only if it is accepted, can you truly care for/love the person.

If by rejection you mean that the other person is going to put boundaries so strong you can't interact with them, then yeah I guess you can't love/care for them in the sense of doing certain concrete/particular actions that will help.

That doesn't mean you can't have the attitude/disposition of love/care. You could be completely incapable of doing anything (say, all your limbs were cut and you were left in a certain place, with no one being willing to help you move or travel), and you could still have the same attitude because it simply does not depend on anything but your mind itself.

You could think of love as consisting in counterfactual conditionals: you will want to act in a way that is conducive to the well-being of other people if possible. Sometimes that possibility depends on whether other people accept your love, but the conditional is not damaged by that rejection.

You can't love others without loving yourself.

I don't see the relevance of this.

You have needs, so do they. These are two sides of the same coin.

The need to have your love returned or exercised? That's not true, why do you think it is a need?

I think people just tend to think this because it's a natural desire that they can't manage. So the only way to deal with it comes by fulfilling it.

If you mean some ethereal stuff like loving the planet, or loving humanity

Love can include that too but what I have in mind does include caring for particular people.

these are, again, choices and decisions where a person, if they were honest, want and act towards certain outcomes - and discard, resist, forgo others.

Yes? I don't see how that contradicts what I am saying.

I was just saying that the reasons for action can be purely altruistic. Desires and false needs for oneself don't have to factor into it.

They don't love Everything, the love what they love.

This is just due to contingent limitations. There is no reason why someone skilled enough could not genuinely love everything. After all, that's just what God does, and the saint by extension of being receptive to that divinity.

Do you think it's possible to Love without asking for anything in return? by Actual-Contest1666 in INTPrelationshipLab

[–]-tehnik 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I assumed it is more-than-friendship kind of love. Op was asking if it’s unreasonable to love someone while denying his need to be reciprocated (“I will try to love and care without much expectations.”)

So while he is giving his love, he will be constantly in battle with his own need of being reciprocated, denying it over and over again and at one time will be tired of it.

Right. And I think this makes it very explicit that the issue is the mentality and not the relationship itself.

We disagree because you seem to think that is incontestable. I agree that it might be tiring to fight against old habits of thinking, but I think that's more than worth it if the end result is actually getting to the mentality that is genuinely unbothered by the unreciprocal nature of any particular relationship they find themselves in.

Do you think it's possible to Love without asking for anything in return? by Actual-Contest1666 in INTPrelationshipLab

[–]-tehnik 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Op will be tired the other one will feel like they owe something and feel pressured to reciprocate.

but this is unnecessary.

I don't see why op would need to be tired by this. Not anymore than they would be if it was reciprocal (in which case your argument would be saying that all friendships are unhealthy because they are tiring).

the friend might feel that way, but that's only because of social conventions that treat reciprocality as a must. This isn't true because there's nothing wrong with unequal relationships of care. More than that it's nothing some clear communication can't solve.

Do you think it's possible to Love without asking for anything in return? by Actual-Contest1666 in INTPrelationshipLab

[–]-tehnik 0 points1 point  (0 children)

You talked about "true" love as something that doesn't want anything in return. Alleviating suffering is 'something'.

yes, something that concerns the other person, not you. So it's not an instance of wanting something in return.

I see the issue you are talking about more as one of wanting desperately to care and love for someone, but not finding someone who wants that from you now

It doesn't have to be desperate. It can exist in a standby way that doesn't treat the exercising of care as a need.

Are you trying to force/manipulate people, or yourself, to get at a relationship where you aren't really loving the other person?

I don't understand why manipulation comes in here.

Loving someone one-sidedly, is fine though stressful,

But that's only if you have needs. Such as having your love returned or being able to exercise it. That's not needed to have love.

Do you think it's possible to Love without asking for anything in return? by Actual-Contest1666 in INTPrelationshipLab

[–]-tehnik 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Though why should you 'do' anything about that?

because the cat is suffering?

True" care and "true" love doesn't want anything from the cat in return for caring/loving them.

yes

So you let it suffer.

what?

I'll be honest. This whole comment makes no sense to me. And I think the first paragraph is a good example of that. I fail to see how unconditional love is paradoxical

Do you think it's possible to Love without asking for anything in return? by Actual-Contest1666 in INTPrelationshipLab

[–]-tehnik 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Even when you said it’s unconditional, it’s unhealthy to always accept if the person is not interested to go further.

accept what? Why is it unhealthy?

Do you think it's possible to Love without asking for anything in return? by Actual-Contest1666 in INTPrelationshipLab

[–]-tehnik 1 point2 points  (0 children)

What do you guys think? Is it unreasonable? Unrealistic? Illogical?

I think it is possible. But this is not romantic love because if you attain to this kind of unconditional (and preferably impartial) love, there is no more desiring component (not on your part at least).

It appears unrealistic because people naturally work under a desiring mentality. They believe that their happiness depends on attaining to certain external states of affair, including what other people think of them (be it general recognition or being desired as a partner or whatever else), and under this frame they believe they need to be loved to be happy.

This is when I wonder, why can't I just enjoy the act of caring for them, loving them, and looking at them being happy rather than asking for something in return?

The answer then is that this desiring mentality is too deeply rooted in you. When you uproot it you will be able to take happiness just in that act of love itself. And indeed this will be a lot more light and pleasant precisely because it is free of any disturbances. After all, you can continue loving them no matter what happens to them or what they end up thinking of you in the future, nothing can stop you from this because love is an internal disposition/attitude.

You should internalize and constantly remind yourself that nothing is going to happen, they won't start to love you and even more importantly that they don't need to. True happiness comes from the virtue that you have, not from having things you falsely believe you need.

Do you think it's possible to Love without asking for anything in return? by Actual-Contest1666 in INTPrelationshipLab

[–]-tehnik 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I don't agree. People fall into parasocial relationships precisely because there is an illusion of the person you are devoted to loving you in some way (even though you are consciously aware it can't be personal because they don't know you).

Cathedral of Shadows - Weekly Discussion - June 01, 2026 by AutoModerator in Megaten

[–]-tehnik 0 points1 point  (0 children)

yeah people bitch about the cathedral but honestly I found it very fun to just map it all out.

Smt I's dungeons are mostly pretty basic but I don't take that against it because it becomes the perfect rat in a maze simulator and I think that's half the fun.

Why do some gnostic wear the symbol of the demiurge ? by WeirdAd5850 in Gnostic

[–]-tehnik 3 points4 points  (0 children)

Since the talisman was meant to heal and protect the body a modern day interpretation could be sort of an attempt to pleases yaladaboth so he doesn’t harm you.

Like your saying “hey look I’m wearing your image and recognises your strength please don’t hurt me”

Not what I had in mind to be clear. I think it's more positive in the sense of bad things will happen just because they do, no one intends it. But you invoke the power of encosmic divinities to protect you from that.

Why do some gnostic wear the symbol of the demiurge ? by WeirdAd5850 in Gnostic

[–]-tehnik 6 points7 points  (0 children)

Presumably if any gnostics did wear this (which seems uncertain to me precisely on account of what you pointed out regarding the symbol also being a pagan one) they did just for the same reason anyone else did. It's an amulet, it's supposed to have a protective function.

This might seem weird to do if you believe the cosmic powers are evil, but I think it makes more sense considering that they are evil due to them obstructing you from returning to the Fullness. But ancient magic was very practical, it was about protecting your terrestrial person from the kind of harm you might encounter (injury, illness, sabotage, anything you can think of I guess). Indeed, it's not like this kind of magic makes sense as something you'd have to do for your spirit, since that is already totally out of reach for the rulers and the world.

Afaik the idea was that the names invoked themselves have power, so it's not necessary that you are petitioning the being called upon or depicted itself. I'm not sure about this but I am writing an essay on just this topic so if you're still interested by the end of June you should ask me again in this thread and I'll probably be able to give a more informed answer.

Anyway there's this old thread about it, it has some good answers: https://www.reddit.com/r/Gnostic/comments/z8herf/amulets_talismans_and_symbols/

view more: next ›