Timy vs. Gur

Dear Timi! Regarding the cessation of meditation: there is always a choice. Now let's analyze the rest of the message. You say: "Wars can be listed endlessly, and only in the Trojan War did love serve as the reason." "Is war an expression (pursuit) of love?" In this case, love is not taken in the same volume that we defined in messages 13-14 of this topic. We are considering love in the broadest sense of the word. Again, I will allow myself an example with football. When someone says "I love football," their words do not necessarily have to be accompanied by acts of mercy, care, etc., but this person can still love football. That is, the presence of acts of mercy, care, etc., is not a mandatory sign of an attitude towards something as valuable. And now let's talk about war. About the causes of war. Again, I will allow myself a small digression. According to the definition of money that we have derived, money is a means to achieve something. In other words: money is a means to achieve benefits. It is one of the means. Some benefit can be won, received as a gift, inherited, etc. But, one way or another, we choose the benefit that we consider valuable to us. Let's imagine a situation: we don't have enough money to get "Benefit A." We have used all other ways to get "Benefit A," i.e., the only way to get "Benefit A" is to pay someone who has this benefit a certain amount of money equivalent to the value of "Benefit A." However, as I said earlier, we do not have this amount of money. The question arises: where to get this money? There are various ways to get money. Let's list some of them: you can earn money, you can get it by robbing a bank, or by military actions (which you yourself confirmed by saying: "And so I fought with someone, and there were fewer people, and more money."). That is, based on the above, we have that war is just one of the ways to get money that we lacked to get "Benefit A." If "Benefit A" were not valuable to us, then there would be no need for money to acquire it, and, consequently, war as a way to get money to acquire "Benefit A." Now imagine that war is "saving the world from overpopulation." I agree with this. However, even in this case, we are driven by love, i.e., an attitude towards something as valuable. Let me explain. War, fulfilling its function of "saving the world from overpopulation," appears before us as the killing of some people by others, and not as suicide. That is, people, having learned (or felt) that the world is overpopulated (which means that there will not be enough, for example, food for everyone), in the vast majority of cases kill not themselves, but other people. In this situation, we can say that people LOVE THEIR LIVES. Sincerely, Gur P.S. When I say that love spins the Earth, I am not idealizing this world