Official: Post a Picture of Yourself


Your playing hard to get with the camera was adorable. Too cute!

What do you mean exactly?

You don’t see your 'lil self staring down the camera with the, “I’m not playing along with this staged photo because I’d rather be reading an advanced chemistry book, so hurry up and take the picture, I have research to get back to?” :evilfun: Do you smile for pictures now?

I can’t!
Or, wait.
Is there a little smile?

_.jpg

Well, at least you still have wishful thinking. :wink:

The following photo I posted once shows my daughter:

L_.jpg
Smile?

They’re actually 2 1/2 years apart. My daughter’s short for her age.

She’s adorable!

I had no idea you had a daughter, Arminius.

Yes, she is. Thanks, Gib.

I have a son and a daughter. In addition, I have a stepson.

I am very happy.

Aw, I agree with gib. She does take after her Daddy it seems.

Yes, she does, Wendy Darling. Thanks.

Maybe that there are other reasons too why love evolved (if it did at all [because: perhaps love was, is and will always be there]), but this one belongs to them - in any case.

[tab]By the way:

My children are adults now. If they were not, I would not publish any photo of them.

My first child was born when I was 21½ years old.[/tab]

I think that love evolved (if we can use that word) as a way to not only perpetuate the human species but to save it.
There are different forms of love. I think that love is like the ocean, it ebbs and it flows

Your daughter was beautiful. It also says something about you that you would not insert your children online when they are young. I can never understand the human’s need to show off their children rather than to protect them.

You are also loyal to your friends I have found.

Thank you very much.

You are right.

The evolution (if we can use that word) of love is not only a way to perpetuate the human species but also to save it. We can observe this process in those families where parents protect their children as much as it is necessary for the children’s development.

Love is needed for both phylogenesis and ontogenesis. Without love there is no evolution, at least not for "higher“ living beings. The "higher“ the living beings are, the more love they need.

Here on ILP are many (too many?) members who are saying that the will to power is the only aspect when it comes to evolution; but that is only one side of the evolutionary "coin“, the other one is the will to love.

We should have both a realistic and an idealistic interpretation of evolution. Power is always present, but love is not. So, it is more necessary to support, to demand, to premote love. How should we do this? - [1] By practising love; [2] by enlighten others and clarifying what love means; (3) by fighting all enemies of love (how? => [1] and [2]).

You can find the most lack of love in materialistic/hedonistic times where the individual coolness is a fashion and mostly nothing else than hidden weakness because of the lack of love.

Why do you consider power and love to be antagonistic?

You were a handsome little boy.
Was that really a smile? More like an “I dare you” kind of look.
Intense and precocious though I may be wrong.

Thanks.

A little smile only. :slight_smile:

Perhaps, perhaps not. I abstain from such a judgement. May others judge whether I was precocious or not. :slight_smile:

I have never considered power and love to be antagonistic.

This is what I have said:

No consideration of antagonism between power and love!

Loveable people can be powerful, powerful people can be loveable.

But there are many (too many?) people who have diceded upon only one of the two .

Yes, you did say that we should have both.

But consider this. Consider a father who loves his son. What does that mean? It means that the father cares for the wellbeing of his son. It means that he wants his son to be powerful. And not only that, it means that he is motivated to do whatever has to be done in order to make his son as powerful as possible. So love, at least in this isolated case, has to do with power. But not necessarily your own power.

Also, in order to be able to love, you must have some sort of power. You cannot love if you have no power.

Power can be used for the purpose of destruction. You show no love to that which you destroy. You kill an animal or a man. That’s power but that’s no love. So power isn’t necessarily love but love is necessarily power.

Maybe you are saying that power should be used to create and not merely to destroy.
I can agree with that.

Love can be destruction if it is a mercy killing, putting someone or an animal you love out of its misery.

I am not very fond of putting people or animals out of their misery by killing them. But I guess you can say that is love.