Baron Munch wrote:So I ask, who's at fault here: psychologists who gerrymander a scientific theory of true love, a culture that feeds us unhealthy definitions of true love, or are such institutions just obsolete now that we live off of the savanna and on the grid?
James S Saint wrote:All such emotions are "directions of effort". Love, hate, anger, depression,... they are all names for the direction of the spirit/effort of someone. Scientism is attempting to relate all things to material substance so they directly advertise that love is "merely a chemical". Such proclamations expose both extreme naivety and political agenda.
So naturally, one would expect politics, psychological, and sociological manipulating to get involved. Christianity being very largely centered around the concept of love brings the entirety of anti-Christian persuasion against the idea of love being a good thing. Devotion is a major concern throughout all religions and governments. So in public, all gets distorted with misinformation.
Although perhaps difficult to find in the masses, it is pretty evident in the wiser organizations and stronger families. Love is the adversary to chaos and entropy.
Silhouette wrote:I don't think much necessity remains in long-developed societies. We revisit the primitive inability to act differently, because now we are able we no longer have the need to be.
We don't need huge families to benefit us or our tribe, we don't need children towards any new causes. Whether we do or don't, it really doesn't matter - hence the recent birth of existentialism. This philosophical movement would not have happened if it weren't for widespread settled comfortableness and optional boredom.
Life becomes directed away from the stasis and tameness of comfort, towards distractions and excitments. Love becomes a hobby and an activity: passionate love is on the rise, along with divorce. We have retained the institutions of former times, but they fail because they have not adapted. And we wonder why?
Its role changes over time. This historical sense: the luxury of putting things in a historical context is also a symptom of a declining already-successful society. Science has foolishly taken an old idea of love, taken it out of context and evaluated it under new conditions - expecting it to still be valid, and emerging with a vague sense of surprise when the conclusion is unclear.
Love is a feeling, but it is quantifiable with chemicals. Scientists just love order, they are very limited right from the start. This is the same instinct that brought about privatisation, the desire to dominate by giving things arbitrary borders. Property, money, chemicals, concepts...
James S Saint wrote:Love is felt. It is NOT the feeling. Like an ulcer is felt, but an ulcer is not the feeling.
You feel emotions arise. The feeling of them is not what they are, only your awareness that they are. They are "emoters", movers of you, the directors of your intention, and clues/signals to your purpose in cognitive existence.
If given the chemical, the mind will cross associate and stimulate the drive. The mind doesn't know that someone is playing with its wetware so it attempts error correction and makes assumptions.
Baron Munch wrote:James S Saint wrote:Love is felt. It is NOT the feeling. Like an ulcer is felt, but an ulcer is not the feeling.
Apparently someone else reads Gilbert Ryle too.
Baron Munch wrote:You feel emotions arise. The feeling of them is not what they are, only your awareness that they are. They are "emoters", movers of you, the directors of your intention, and clues/signals to your purpose in cognitive existence.
But I've got feelings going in the opposite direction. They're a little more cerebral, but objectifying sexual drives and packaging love in a less romantic box seems pretty enticing.
Baron Munch wrote:If given the chemical, the mind will cross associate and stimulate the drive. The mind doesn't know that someone is playing with its wetware so it attempts error correction and makes assumptions.
Meaning a handful of broken hearts will lead someone to find ways of reject the notion of love? What if there's a large group of people feeling this very same drive?
James S Saint wrote:Your mind functions almost exactly like the intended functioning of the American government. Your emotions are the advocate groups that lobby congress (your subconscious) which then passes "motions of appeal" (bills to enact) to the Senate (your conscious). The President is your final summed choice (your decision) to enact an effort and do something.
You have cross emoters for the exact same reason congress has cross debating and voting. Different parts of your brain and mind, each have their own issues and suggestions that they attempt to get attended to. A "demon" is formed when one of the emoter incentives (activists) learn how to force greater attention and cheat the natural electoral system. The demon gains control of your congress. That is what was meant by being "possessed by a demon".
I meant that just because you can use chemicals to cause both the feeling of love and the aberrant result of loving, does NOT mean that love is a chemical reaction. It isn't. It merely involves chemical reaction as does every other thought and movement you make.
Baron Munch wrote:Hm. How does one know that he/she has been "possessed" by such an outlaw emoter?
Baron Munch wrote:I meant that just because you can use chemicals to cause both the feeling of love and the aberrant result of loving, does NOT mean that love is a chemical reaction. It isn't. It merely involves chemical reaction as does every other thought and movement you make.
I agree, but is the ideal of love and the resultant manifestation of it (chemical reactions and all) the same? Are our conceptions of it skewed from reality? Is it an honest notion?
Love is specifically the effort in the direction of "devoted support".
So I ask, who's at fault here
Does love really exist?
Silhouette wrote:For those agreeing that love is felt, and is not the feeling:
you are creating a subject/object divide that separates 'you'/from the love and the feeling.
James S Saint wrote:Love is the thrill of someone else being thrilled. And yeah.. uncommon these days, but it exists.
Users browsing this forum: Yahoo [Bot]