(06-01-2018, 05:38 PM)loostudent Wrote: Once I was cleaning a room. There were grasshoppers on the floor. I was trying to catch them in a glass and carry them outside. A friendly old man saw me and said it's useless because outside the birds will eat them, it should be better to vacuum them. I asked myself if there is a difference? It is. I have responsibility for treating beings with mercy. The bird only serves his drives but we (humans) have a more evolved conciousness and inner voice (counscious). "If you were blind, you wouldn't be guilty but you remain guilty because you claim you can see." (Jesus)
Another resolution to this paradox is to recognize that the metaphysical is not the physical.
Love and Polarity aren't physical. There is no one-to-one correspondence between physical and metaphysical. They are different realms.
There are loose patterns we see: generally loving someone means you don't stab them in the neck with a knife. But, if you're a surgeon and a peanut reaction has closed your friend's throat, maybe you stab him in the neck to save his life.
It's not the physical action that makes something polarizing. It's the internal metaphysical situation of the person taking the action.
Do you put your grasshopper outside knowing that it may just get eaten by a bird? Yes... because it is metaphysically correct.
Furthermore, in some small way, those little creatures do feel it. It's not hard to imagine that one act of kindness to a grasshopper before his short life is ended could resonate with his soul down the eons, setting off a chain reaction, blessing him with faith in the goodness of the universe despite hardships that come his way. Giving him an example, no matter how small, of compassion that he would want to emulate himself.
You can have a thousand people who are cruel but then one act of selflessness ignites a pilot light of faith, and an example of love, in the heart of the suffering.
Loving is metaphysical, and so, inherently worthwhile regardless of physical consequences.