Why do people have the desire to talk?

Emotional detachment is more vital in this digital age where everyone has an opinion about everything all of the time
I observe it and keep my participation to a minimum and refuse to be offended at anything that anyone says anymore

Part 2

We seek to define for ourselves an identity - we separate ourselves whether in isolation or in connection. We confine ourselves to our own ideals and feel threatened or enlightened when these ideals come into question - we then desire to talk, argue and agree.

What I like about this kind of question is that the answers provide insight to answers from similar questions and by that for example; Why do people have the desire to think/learn/like/hate? Indeed why do people seek connection over isolation or vice versa?

Most of the talking you’ll hear is due to ignorance. Generally people are more so ignorant as they were when they were a teenager - going through that period where they thought they knew everything. Talking is just one of the ways in which people seek to quench desire, or satisfy longing and lack. It also serves as a form of ego propagation. Unfortunately we were not handed a manual for informing us of our true nature. So we make an exploration to discover our true nature. A part of this exploration is communication.

If desire or aspiration was not present to bring you here to post that which is correct according to you, then what brought you here?

Desiring to say what you are is not necessarily related to the ego - it is the experience of bringing forth, in words, the entirety of the causality of the moment (the truth) of your life or existence in this moment - having an approximate estimation on how it will affect the reader or hearer of your words - being aware of this estimation helps us to determine our next statement whether it be a question or not.

Too strong an attachment to our desires can bring us much pain and suffering; “To deny the human condition of desire is foolish, but to consider it a permanent state is equally as foolish” and it is beneficial to address the experience of desire as it governs every aspect of our feeling (of attachment) to our world and social situation or lack there of.

:-k

Part Three

If we are to contemplate the worldly life then it is here that our desires lead us to much pain and suffering - usually it is because we feel we need something when in fact we can live without it. Not rocket science but then neither is living happily.

“Sometimes our experiences of enlightenment seem to come at unexpected moments, often when walking or reading.”

Gloominary speaks of Essentialism:

To deny life’s essentials is also foolish as they are truly the most valuable things.

I speak of Confinism:

Confinism is: “the philosophy of dealing with our limits”. It is a measure of our maturity . . .

Our limits are the very reason why we feel like asking questions that begin with the words:

Why . . . ? . . . How . . . ? . . . When . . . ? . . . What . . . ? . . . et cetera . . . ?

Confinism is the very reason why we ask questions at all.
The reason we ask questions is because we do not know the answers.
If we knew the answers then there would be no reason to ask the questions that we ask.

In many cases it comes down to knowing when to let go . . . when and how to let go of answers that we may never receive . . . or in fact never need . . .

Why? Because sometimes we do not really need the answers - all we really need is the essentials . . . however the brain is able to help us eat and drink and breath . . .

The brain also helps us determine what is poisonous and what is not - so from the essentials then there is some soft psychological needs . . .

We can read from a book what is poisonous - the same information used to be given to us by tribal elders - and now we have the internet - yipee.

A small leap of imagination tells us that we need others to survive - to be born - to learn and to live - through communication to hopefully be happy . . .

:-k

The desire to talk or communicate then most certainly comes from our tribal/pack/social nature of looking out for each other - to flourish - our desire to talk was built into us a long long time ago - when you think about it many flock/pack creatures communicate essentials to each other like - DANGER/FOOD respectively - some sheep make a noise to find out where other sheep are.

Note the use of the word “vital”. If we attach ourselves too strongly to our desires then our vitality is diminished. Emotions are tricky little beasts . . .

The same Wikipedia article that I quoted also contains the following text: “While desires are often classified as emotions by laypersons, psychologists often describe desires as different from emotions; psychologists tend to argue that desires arise from bodily structures, such as the stomach’s need for food, whereas emotions arise from a person’s mental state.”

The same Wikipedia article that I quoted also asserts that: “Desire is a sense of longing or hoping for a person, object, or outcome. The same sense is expressed by emotions such as “craving”.”

The question is whether “desire” and “craving” are fundamentally the same thing.

The paradoxical features of reality are what makes existence interesting.

[-o<

I contend that first there was emotion that our emotions serve as the foundation of our thoughts, then our thoughts spring up out of these baseline emotions and meld together these emotions and thoughts to become refined into actions, pursuits, such as our will, our desire or craving. Is this all a closed circuit loop though that becomes almost indiscernible for scientists to see that our will is intricately forged by our emotions? Are we beings anything beyond, separate, from our emotions? Or do our emotions define our essences which we project via this human form?

Aaron,
Am I veering off topic? As for the OP question, no being can survive solitary confinement. As a being I need other beings to measure the worth of existence and without other beings, existence would be worthless.

WendyDarling

Even though moderately detailed, I feel my response does not do your post the justice it deserves.

I genuinely respect your feedback and find synergy with it . . .

What we are, is at the very least partially defined by the concept of essence, that you have brought into this discussion. The emotions certainly help to define this essence. I have often wondered whether we can feel our true essence like that of our spirit - it is like we have a sense of it being there.

That is a whole new direction for me to think in, thank you. Until now I have been treating things in a logic first way with a theory that logic and emotions are somehow equal. This makes sense to me given that instinct and intuition are coming into play here.

I will pursue this line of thought more thoroughly. My thoughts in the last 17 years is that science has been unintentionally trying to strip us of our essence/spirit. I am going to make a more thoughtful response in the not too distant future.

I don’t think we are separate from our emotions but I do wonder if there is more to us than we are willing to admit.

I like the use of the term essence - I would have to exercise at least two lines of thought here. The emotions are proving harder to grapple with than logic. While I contemplate this I am going to consider very thoughtfully the idea of essence; one of the clearer things here is that emotions help shape our personality which I believe is one of the facets that leads to our personal identity(or our self-concept).

No you are not veering off topic. I would say you are right on topic - we are covering some uncharted territory here.

I believe this to be correct. Being is something more than just survival. A machine can survive until it is worn out and/or unable to be powered but for us there is more. Of course we wear out too but we are socially self sustaining; I mean that without each other we would not be able to be born and navigate the treacherous waters of life - here we are talking beyond the physical essentials too.

Exactly . . . Do you like how a lot of people try to dodge this? I am being sarcastically rhetorical. Being alone is terrifying - for me more terrifying than the threat of physical harm from a dangerous wild creature. At least having a dangerous wild creature to evade would give me the purpose of evasion.

Let me be off topic for a small but significant moment:
[b]
Existence is cut like a gemstone . . .

. . . in that it is multifaceted . . .

. . . Love is the most important facet of our existence . . .[/b]

Humanity’s true face should be one of love.

:-k

I know me and my essence has not changed since I can remember. I have tempered my essence and my behaviors inspired by it to be fair to others, to not shortchange anyone who comes into my sphere of being, but that is a whole lot of work, sharing warmth is harder than sharing the cold.

At the top of my hierarchy is peace…

peace = love & joy blended in equal amounts…

however, all facets of emotion are necessary for discernment of one from another

One of the old moderators here, named Abstract, wrote: “Love is the gravity of the soul.” Beautiful, isn’t it?

WendyDarling

I wish I could pinpoint my own essence like you have. I agree that we should be fair to others. Sharing warmth is especially difficult these days.

I sense that your hierarchy is superior to my own.

Precisely.

Metaphorically speaking: Absolutely!

:smiley:

Ah Aaron, still looking forward to the rest of your more in-depth thoughts…no rush though…newness takes time to cover.

Part 4

We can get so wrapped up in different conversations and communications that we forget why we started half of them in the first place. At this point our self-concept becomes diluted amidst the pool of social activity. We feel connected but we feel without self. It would seem that a person who understands the desire to communicate is more able to understand the self and the self’s need for connection thus maintaining self-concept and being able to avoid the corresponding emotional suffering associated with fear and anger of being rejected and in turn becoming despondent.

Desire can be likened to bondage or being a slave - this bondage takes place when our self becomes diluted among the social matrix of our own semi distinct reality. Just as maintaining a connection feels important so does knowing our place in the thick of the network and thus understanding our very own true nature. Do we only live for ourselves or are we selfless - I suggest there is health to be found in between - being connected and being self. To not become ruined by our personal or social desires but rather enhanced.

If our desire to communicate is in line with the true essence of our being instead of some illusion that only swings one way or the other as has become evident in many philosophies of the past then true happiness is evidently in requirement of some ongoing maintenance - when you seek the easy way out, whatever that may be then it could be a sign that your mind is in fact just at disease or in a state of disease.

A part of the reason we desire to talk/communicate is because it helps to bring us purpose and it helps us to maintain that purpose - we are able to become ourselves and a member of the larger group of selves. We are neither truly distinct nor fully connected - quite likely the real mission is: how to work out why this needs to be the case.

:-k

One thing that you can know in every case is that whatever the desire, it is the result of a perception of hope and/or threat. And since every individual perceives at least a little differently, his incentive will be at least slightly different than others.

In the case of the desire to commune with others (by whichever means), there would be a perception of hope instigating the desire. That perception could be any number of things and a little different for every person:
[list]* companionship
[*]useful information

  • ego support
  • yearning for a life
  • social influence
  • sense of social acceptance
    .
    .
    .
    [/*:m][/list:u]

James

I want to expand on what you posted a little . . .

I agree and let me tell you why I agree. The desire or craving or whatever you want to call it is more or less rudimentary to the perception of hope and/or threat. When not at ease in the social group then it is very likely a degree of hope and/or threat - I know when I sometimes have a hope in mind I enter a state of anticipation which is generally not settled until the event either takes places or I know for sure it wont.

His/her desire is going to be at least slightly different because of the incentive/stimulus again pointing to more or less elementary aspects of desire or craving. In this case I present a more negative illustration in contrast to my last - that when one is perceiving a threat, his or her stimulus is reactive to the ultimatum.

Settlement then or resolution is a neutral state that is void of hope or threat - leading us to do or not to do something with the previous threat or hope in mind.

That would be my suggestive order.

I will approach each item in your bullet list with a separate post: Companionship is much the same as society. The affirmation of the want to belong is related back to what Thomas Hobbes said asserting that human desire is the fundamental motivation of all human action. Companionship then I think is for the reason that WendyD gave: As a being I need other beings to measure the worth of existence and without other beings, existence would be worthless.

I will change that to fit the word desire: As a being I desire other beings to measure the worth of existence and without other beings, existence would be worthless.

This presents a higher construct than mere survival . . .

Useful Information

Small Talk
Useful information to me would be information that has some value, this would become a complex issue from what I can determine. I get useful information from people when I engage in small talk, it can show that they are comfortable to be around me - I dare say the converse is possible by my giving small talk to show that I am comfortable around them.

By Analogy
Then there is information via analogy - just by interacting with others on their points of view I have been able to apply the received information by analogy to something else of value to me - I mean something technically unrelated. You don’t even have to be aware of the analogous connection as long as you are absorbing the information given. The neural networks themselves are able to make the analogies fit - it is only the mind that gets annoyed with UN-fitting information. It does beg the question whether annoyance is more elemental - but I do think the neurons are quite happy to keep processing(figuratively speaking) as long as they have the energy to do so.

Directly Applicable
Lastly for this post there is what we perceive as directly applicable information. On first glance this information can bring a smile to our face. When someone is helping us to fill in the gaps of our own information it is mostly positive. When we enter into a state with them of confusion it is then that our mind must work harder to make the connections. Directly applicable information can become boring to some people - as peculiar as it sounds, I think it boils down to resolution leveling out the mind/body so therefore we seek more stimulus.

All three of the examples I have provided here come with their own pros and cons but I will leave that up to the reader to discern. Useful information is by no means limited to these three examples for example, information that comforts outside of small talk can be by analogy or directly applicable and no doubt something not tied up in these three examples.

“As a being, I desire other beings to measure the worth of existence and without other beings, existence would be worthless.”

Logical Independence
To know yourself, you’ll find that almost all of the knowing was invention, you have a silent mind, a ghost town of the present wherein no world exists at all. Something inside tells us to seek independence. Logic dictates you ought to reason with complete independence, not relying on communication you’ve ever heard or read, meditating and contemplating, becoming familiar with the silent mind.

The following might seem recognizable to some:

With other people we can see the light;
by myself I can only see the dark.

With other people we can add purpose;
by my self I have none.

With other people I can find answers;
I alone can find none.

Society is an ocean;
I am but a wave.

To get answers we must ask questions - the reason why we ask questions is because we do not know the answers. When we need the right answers we must ask the right questions - but if no one is around then whom do we address the question to? I would say our-self.

[b]
When being enters the wild with no language - universe provides for being patterns - the silent language is at work . . .

. . . answers can still come from from within by virtue of being’s submersion . . .[/b]
Now would you say this(getting answers from our-self) only works when we have already experienced interaction with something or someone else?

Ego Support

Semi jokingly . . .

I have something against the word ego, however I will make a serious attempt at this. I am not a big proponent of consciously feeding ones own ego for many different reasons I will not go into here . . . I am also someone who likes to point out that when it comes to the ego we should proceed with caution.

Synonyms for ego: self-esteem, self-importance, self-worth, self-respect, self-conceit, self-image, self-confidence; amour propre

I find some affinity with the the conscious mind, based on perception of the environment from birth onward: responsible for modifying the antisocial instincts of the id and itself modified by the conscience (superego) - but again I think there are possibly many better ways to understand what we are than the rotting corpse of Sigmund Freud’s primitive model.

Psychoanalysis: the part of the mind that mediates between the conscious and the unconscious and is responsible for reality testing and a sense of personal identity.

Philosophy: (in metaphysics) a conscious thinking subject.

I have found that from more sophisticated models more elegance can be found - funny that - it turns out that the convoluted nature we have produced can be simplified drastically. Patterns “biatches” are proving far superior to many if not all other models prior to the year 2000.

:laughing:

Seriously though . . .

This is an important topic . . . B U T . . . how we go about talking and thinking about it . . .

. . . has led to all sorts of flame-wars and the flamers are too numerous to count.

The desire to talk . . .

“Beyond theorizing, there are certainly various social passions and desires at play in most of our communications. My own idea on this would be: through talk or writ people are able to produce or maintain their self. And within a society obsessed with the notion – and upkeep – of a personal self and the freedoms related to that self, one needs to keep propagating it: self survival! If needed, indeed even through silly, void conversations. Including the act of tuning into those of others (like with radio or television). Even writing on a forum using philosophical topics will have that element of identity. At least I’m quite aware of producing not only words or ideas but also a self-concept by doing so.”

Just don’t ask me what the moral of the story is . . . ego(I) am lost . . .

:laughing:

Yearning For a Life

I do believe in this context we are talking about feeling rather wholesome. This desire to feel wholesome is built into us and is a part of our survival. We take take wholesome to mean two things here:

  1. characterized by moral well-being
  2. suggestive of good health and physical well-being

Moral well-being is a part of who we are and it seems adjustable to the situation we are involved in - id est morals differ from place to place. Social acceptance through our morals reinforces the self-concept and leads to good mental health overall. Whether this version of good mental health is actually morally sound is dependent on what the reader deems to be morally sound but I would suggest a threshold for morally sound which is built into us at some point - for instance not wanting to kill a member of the tribe.

We are also talking about fitting in and feeling like a part of our social group. To reiterate:

“As a being, I desire other beings to measure the worth of existence and without other beings, existence would be worthless.”

We are constantly measuring our moral well-being against that of others and seek approval for it. When one receives approval for her/his moral well-being then it is suggestive of good mental health for the individual in question and likely leads to a level of physical well-being for the said individual.

The individual feels like he/she fits nice and neatly into this life that he/she yearns for or of course when things go wrong then not.

Obviously I only present a facet of what it means to yearn for a life - I also am only presenting a POV here but hopefully in some way it brings us closer to understanding why we have the desire to communicate/talk/interact.

Social Influence

Social Influence cuts both ways for we all seek to influence each other - I you and you me.

When the heart is good then we seek to influence each other in good ways and when the heart is bad then we seek to influence each other in bad ways. Social Influence is more about the health of the group as a whole. Social Influence is variable and can become corrupt. The motivations of each individual in the group either enhance or diminish the value of the overall Social Influence inside the group.

The desire to talk then is partly based on our motivations to influence each other - to either add value or detract it.

:-k

Sense of Social Acceptance

For some people it might seem strange that we have a sense for social acceptance - we have at least two actually - one to sense whether we feel accepted and another to know whether others are accepted. This sense is to monitor the perceived health of the group.

I think Wikipedia says it pretty well: “Acceptance in human psychology is a person’s assent to the reality of a situation, recognizing a process or condition (often a negative or uncomfortable situation) without attempting to change it or protest it. The concept is close in meaning to acquiescence, derived from the Latin acquiēscere (to find rest in).”

Further: “Social acceptance affects people of all sorts and includes children, teenagers, and adults. Social acceptance could be defined as the fact that most people, in order to fit in with others, attempt to look and act like them. Or sometimes it is the ability to accept or to tolerate differences and diversity in other people or groups of people.”

And lastly: “Self-acceptance is being happy with one’s current self. It is an agreement with oneself to appreciate, validate, accept, and support the self as it is at this moment. People have trouble accepting themselves because of a lack of motivation. Some have the misconception that if someone is happy with themselves, they would not change anything about themselves. This is not true; individuals don’t have to be unhappy with themselves to know and actively change things they don’t like.”

I would suggest that self-acceptance is partially determined through social acceptance. When removing the social noise to “find ourselves” we are comparing ourselves to others in an attempt to validate our self-concept - we desire to talk to others and we often perform self-talk.

As a pathway to Enlightenment - Cogito ergo sum

We talk, read, write and listen as as means to achieve enlightenment - because we desire to be enlightened. Is this true?

I have no intention of pushing any particular agenda here and first I would like to look at ways enlightenment is viewed.

Enlightenment simply put is the action of enlightening or the state of being enlightened.

Another way to view enlightenment is as the action or state of attaining or having attained spiritual knowledge or insight, in particular (in Buddhism) that awareness which frees a person from the cycle of rebirth.

The Enlightenment was a European intellectual movement of the late 17th and 18th centuries emphasizing reason and individualism rather than tradition. It was heavily influenced by 17th-century philosophers such as Descartes, Locke, and Newton, and its prominent figures included Kant, Goethe, Voltaire, Rousseau, and Adam Smith.

Thank you google for your definitions.

:smiley:

So what exactly are we talking about here? I believe we are talking about a few things that have become confused over time and suffers from overproduced interpretations. I say this because of my experience arguing with people on such things as the real meaning of the yin and yang, Buddhist concepts as well as WE Westerners who value our individualism so highly as to become condescending to our fellow man - but I have seen this having of or showing an attitude of patronizing superiority evident in modern day interpretations of Eastern thought too.

However I do believe we desire to talk partially because we desire to be enlightened.

I personally have lost interest in any form of enlightenment - it has become somewhat boring to argue for me - I am certain that enlightenment is not supposed to be so bothersome and tiresome but rather free us of our bondage - yet so many people spend the better part of their lives arguing, fighting and acting like imbeciles in the name of enlightenment - so certain that their own view is the only view.

My suggestion is that most have trapped themselves rather than freed themselves of any burden . . .

. . . disparaging opinions abound . . .

“Douglas Adams jokingly theorized that if human beings don’t keep exercising their lips, their brains would start working. There’s some truth in that since talking could very well, just by the overproduction of signifiers, be able to drown out the actual meaning or thought connected to the words. This would take one into the broader social theory that our society is overproducing reality and as such, is losing reality at the same pace. Signifier production (production of pure connection) here seen as part of the broader reality construction.”

To reiterate:

With other people we can see the light;
by myself I can only see the dark.

With other people we can add purpose;
by my self I have none.

With other people I can find answers;
I alone can find none.

Society is an ocean;
I am but a wave.

As I stated previously it is quite likely that the real mission is: how to work out why this needs to be the case. We seek to define for ourselves an identity - we separate ourselves whether in isolation or in connection. We confine ourselves to our own ideals and feel threatened or enlightened when these ideals come into question - we then desire to talk, argue and agree.

I in turn look forward to more interaction - I am never in a rush - agreed newness takes time to cover.

To understand ultimate truth one need only sit in reality undisturbed by delusion, and there the nature of reality is present. Concept-clinging works mostly as a hindrance to insight. Take it away for even a few moments, a silent mind, and you’ll immediately realize that there’s existence. Seriously, take a look around you, check the room, where is non-existence besides as shallow concept? What you know, the only thing anyone knows, is existence.

WendyDarling; Thank you for your insight and I hope you don’t mind the slight change:

“As a being, I desire other beings to measure the worth of existence and without other beings, existence would be worthless.”

:romance-grouphug:

I Speak, Therefore I Am - maybe?

:laughing:

And then there is that looming question;
[list]Why do you desire to talk about why people desire to talk?[/list:u]
:sunglasses:

James

It seemed like a good topic at the time - I did not really have any desire to talk.

I was curious as to why others did.

:laughing: