Love and Value Judgements

Page 3 of 5 [ 66 posts ] Go to page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 Next

Previous topic | Next topic

Sand
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 15 Sep 2007
Age: 99
Gender: Male
Posts: 11,484
Location: Finland

17 May 2009, 2:16 am

ouinon wrote:

Sand wrote:

Words are a different layer of symbology superimposed upon the various integrations we make of our more elemental physiological symbolism.

They are not superimposed. That is the common misconception/belief. As I said above. Language is not a layer of symbols pasted over our sense impressions etc of the world. Language is not in simple one-to-one relationship with the elements, ( "elemental physiological symbolism" ), of our experiences.

Quote:

"Love" covers such a wide range of different experiences that to try to pin it down precisely is a hopeless task.

Yes, and I am not trying to do so, ( it is very odd that you think so ). My point is that it is a label, one that can be, and is, applied to as many different things as people choose/learn to apply it to.

.

I have to disagree with you absolutely here. Our sense impressions are direct confrontations with the universe and obviously language is learned and must be imposed upon our sense compilations. Each human language has an array of words that do not transpose absolutely from one language to another. These words are second degree abstractions absolutely imposed by each individual upon the sense complex that is retained as primary memory and can be manipulated as such as I do regularly in all my activities outside the realm of language.

To return to basics, the visual stimulus of producing the color red can be somewhat transferred to other people by using the word to people who can then refer back to the original visual stimulus and understand the meaning but from someone born blind no language can transfer that sense of color. Language is totally helpless to tell blind people what "red" is just as the taste of vanilla or chocolate is nontransferable to those who have never tasted them by merely mentioning the word. The word is an overlay to sense experience just as "love" is nontransferable to someone who has never experienced it. "Red" may have meaning to an English speaker but to a Frenchman it must be "rouge", to a German it must be "rote", to a Finn it must be "punainen". The language is mere overlay.

Sand
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 15 Sep 2007
Age: 99
Gender: Male
Posts: 11,484
Location: Finland

17 May 2009, 3:26 am

One area that has been almost totally ignored in this discussion is the negative effects of love. The sense of "joining with the universe" may be fine in an ideal circumstance but when one person falls in love with another and the object of love has no feeling about it or perhaps is repelled by the infatuated person horrible things can occur. Love, like hunger or a full bladder, is not a situation that can be rationalized and it obviously has some deep connection to basic sexual drives. I know for myself, having had some very uncomfortable times being extremely attracted to someone when any action taken to augment those feelings would have caused major social tragedies. Luckily those emotions may take a while to control but they can be managed and after a while fade away. Love is not always a positive thing. It can be a form of temporary insanity.

ouinon
Supporting Member

Joined: 10 Jul 2007
Age: 61
Gender: Female
Posts: 5,939
Location: Europe

17 May 2009, 4:54 am

Sand wrote:

ouinon wrote:

[ Words ] are not superimposed. Language is not [ just ] a layer of symbols pasted over our sense impressions etc of the world. Language is not in simple one-to-one relationship with the elements, ( "elemental physiological symbolism" ), of our experiences.

I disagree. Language is learned and [ then ] imposed upon our sense compilations. Words are second degree abstractions absolutely imposed by each individual and can be manipulated as such.

Words certainly are manipulated, aswell as having the power to manipulate.

But they are independent entities, which may refer to things which have no objective or even generally agreed-on subjective "reality". Some words have enormous power over people's behaviour, and actions, while not referring to anything which anyone could point to and say "That is what it symbolises".

Words do not have to symbolise solid "things", or even common subjective experiences/elements, they just require that a certain number of people use them, ( like a currency of money ), believing that they mean something.

They can lose or gain power, as money does, ( depending on usage/"market forces" etc ), and the "value" they bestow can change, beyond all recognition in some cases, becoming so confused for instance that they are no longer useful currency.

However even widespread confusion/disagreement over the exact "value" that a word indicates, as in the case of love, may not remove it from circulation, if that "confusion" performs an important function in society; reinforcing the value of the individual, for example, or concentrating people's minds, and energy, on certain values/activities/social structures rather than others.

.

Sand
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 15 Sep 2007
Age: 99
Gender: Male
Posts: 11,484
Location: Finland

17 May 2009, 5:04 am

ouinon wrote:

Sand wrote:

ouinon wrote:

I disagree. Language is learned and [ then ] imposed upon our sense compilations. Words are second degree abstractions absolutely imposed by each individual and can be manipulated as such.

There are all sorts of words that have different functions within the context of language. Take the word "the". It doesn't exist in Finnish and nobody feels the lack. The word for both borrow and loan are the same in Finnish and must be interpreted by context. The word "cleave" in English means to hold tight to and also to cut off. "Loosen" and "unloosen" mean the same thing. There is no separate word for "he" and "she" in Finnish. There is only "hän". I'm afraid this discussion is slumping into meaninglessness.

ouinon
Supporting Member

Joined: 10 Jul 2007
Age: 61
Gender: Female
Posts: 5,939
Location: Europe

17 May 2009, 5:15 am

Double post!
.

Last edited by ouinon on 17 May 2009, 5:22 am, edited 1 time in total.

ouinon
Supporting Member

Joined: 10 Jul 2007
Age: 61
Gender: Female
Posts: 5,939
Location: Europe

17 May 2009, 5:21 am

Sand wrote:

One area that has been almost totally ignored in this discussion is the negative effects of love.

Almost, but not quite. Apart from my earlier speculations about people applying the word love to the feelings they experience when meet someone with very similar value judgements, I also said, above:

ouinon wrote:

It's not surprising that so many people experience "love" as an addiction, because labelling any feelings with the word "love" indicates that the feeling is highly desirable ... If attach the label "love" to painful/conflicting feelings one will be both drawn to situations which provoke/stimulate those feelings and resistant/reluctant, like the drug addict who knows the thing is bad for them but wants it anyway. The word "love" itself will keep telling them "This is good/wonderful stuff".

The word has immense power over people. Applied to any feeling it tends to indicate very high value/goodness. People may become wary of "love" after a while, and think of "it" as inherently dangerous as a result of applying it to painful feelings, but it is difficult for most people to realise that they do not have to label anything as "love", that their feelings will exist anyway, and will probably be more decipherable, identifiable as undesirable/desirable, without the symbol "love" getting in the way.

Quote:

Love is not a situation that can be rationalized.

That as I said to alba, is just one, very common, definition of love.

Quote:

It obviously has some deep connection to basic sexual drives.

It does if you choose to apply the word/label love to feelings connected with sexual drives.

Quote:

Love is not always a positive thing. It can be a form of temporary insanity.

Again, this is another way you can choose to apply the word, to feelings and thoughts which you experience as threats to your way of life. You can choose to apply the word/value judgement "insanity" to the very same feelings if you wish. On the other hand you could refuse to use either label, and simply see what you are feeling.

.

ouinon
Supporting Member

Joined: 10 Jul 2007
Age: 61
Gender: Female
Posts: 5,939
Location: Europe

17 May 2009, 6:23 am

Sand wrote:

I'm afraid this discussion is slumping into meaninglessness.

Many people believe or disbelieve in "love" as passionately as some believe and disbelieve in "god".

Both words are symbols, ( like truth, beauty, justice, science, sex, right and wrong, etc etc etc ... ), which have power over people depending on whether, or how much, they believe in them.

In my opinion the only reason to believe in a symbol is if you find it useful to do so. I find it useful to use/believe in the symbol god, but pretty unhelpful to use/believe in the label love.

.

Sand
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 15 Sep 2007
Age: 99
Gender: Male
Posts: 11,484
Location: Finland

17 May 2009, 6:38 am

ouinon wrote:

Sand wrote:

I'm afraid this discussion is slumping into meaninglessness.

A word is a symbol. Nothing more or less. Without symbolizing something a word is a mere sound or some meaningless marks on a surface. I find meaning in love because it is something I have experienced in several forms. I have never experienced God in any form.

ouinon
Supporting Member

Joined: 10 Jul 2007
Age: 61
Gender: Female
Posts: 5,939
Location: Europe

17 May 2009, 6:53 am

Sand wrote:

ouinon wrote:

Many people believe or disbelieve in "love" as passionately as some believe and disbelieve in "god". Both words are symbols, ( like truth, beauty, justice, science, sex, right and wrong, etc etc etc ... ), which have power over people depending on whether, or how much, they believe in them. In my opinion the only reason to believe in a symbol is if you find it useful to do so. I find it useful to use/believe in the symbol god, but pretty unhelpful to use/believe in the label love.

I find meaning in love because it is something I have experienced in several forms. I have never experienced God in any form.

You would have as much difficulty providing proof for the existence of "love" as people have in providing proof for the "existence" of god.

You have to believe in the symbol to experience it as "existing". The reason why you have no experience of "god" is because you do not believe in it.

Actually I suspect you do, to some degree, however small, and you experience it as something vengeful, punitive, cruel, and unreasonable, because that is what you believe god is. You reject/dismiss "god" in the same embittered way as some people do "love".

People experience love as "blind", overwhelming, exciting, joyful, pleasant, dangerous, or whatever, because that is what they believe it is, having "chosen"/learned to apply the label/symbol to those sort of feelings/experiences at a young age.

.

Sand
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 15 Sep 2007
Age: 99
Gender: Male
Posts: 11,484
Location: Finland

17 May 2009, 7:25 am

ouinon wrote:

Sand wrote:

ouinon wrote:

Many people believe or disbelieve in "love" as passionately as some believe and disbelieve in "god". Both words are symbols, ( like truth, beauty, justice, science, sex, right and wrong, etc etc etc ... ), which have power over people depending on whether, or how much, they believe in them. In my opinion the only reason to believe in a symbol is if you find it useful to do so. I find it useful to use/believe in the symbol god, but pretty unhelpful to use/believe in the label love.

I find meaning in love because it is something I have experienced in several forms. I have never experienced God in any form.

Aside from and beyond my own experiences with love there are observable reactions in social relationships among humans which are attributable to the emotion of love. To accept the existence of a God requires far more than merely registering the interactions of people in social relationship. All the phenomena attributed to God have been discovered to be either the interactions of natural processes or remain still in an unattributable state. None of the God advocates are convincing to me.

ouinon
Supporting Member

Joined: 10 Jul 2007
Age: 61
Gender: Female
Posts: 5,939
Location: Europe

17 May 2009, 7:42 am

Sand wrote:

Aside from and beyond my own experiences with love there are observable reactions in social relationships among humans which are attributable to the emotion of love.

Many people are convinced that there are "observable reactions in social relationships attributable to god". "Science" has not found proof of the existence of love anywhere yet.

Why should/would your "own" experiences of love" count more than those of god by people who believe in god? Both experiences are based on belief in a symbol.

Quote:

All of the phenomena attributed to God have been ...

And how is science getting on with the study of things attributed to love? :wink:

Last edited by ouinon on 17 May 2009, 8:55 am, edited 1 time in total.

ouinon
Supporting Member

Joined: 10 Jul 2007
Age: 61
Gender: Female
Posts: 5,939
Location: Europe

17 May 2009, 8:17 am

Sand wrote:

There are observable reactions in social relationships among humans which are attributable to the emotion of love.

Anything can be attributed to love, including killing someone; eg. the "crime de passion" recognised in french law. Simply attributing something to "love" does not prove its existence. But it shows the power of the symbol.

.

Sand
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 15 Sep 2007
Age: 99
Gender: Male
Posts: 11,484
Location: Finland

17 May 2009, 9:28 am

ouinon wrote:

Sand wrote:

There are observable reactions in social relationships among humans which are attributable to the emotion of love.

It does not demonstrate any symbolic power, it merely indicated the symbol is so diffuse in its definition that almost anything can occur within its compass.

ouinon
Supporting Member

Joined: 10 Jul 2007
Age: 61
Gender: Female
Posts: 5,939
Location: Europe

20 May 2009, 4:30 am

Sand wrote:

It merely indicates the symbol is so diffuse in its definition that almost anything can occur within its compass.

In other words "love" is the word/label for a spectrum, like the Autism Spectrum. So when the greeks were using all those different words for subgroups of love it was as if love were a relatively new term/word, ( as it was in fact ), and they were establishing what the categories were, like people on WP debate where on the spectrum, if at all, Aspergers, HFA, LFA, PDD/NOS, NLD, etc are, and what each of them mean.

"Love" was, ( and still is ), seen as a category/group of feelings, ( as the Autism Spectrum is seen as a category of people grouped by behaviour ), and it was perceived as being as objective, and unbiased, a description of a range of feelings as Autism is seen as a purely objective/impartial label for certain behaviours/people by the health profession and a sadly large number of people on WP.

The greeks appear to have bought the label/symbol, with all the sub-categories attached. But since then the spectrum of feelings that it refers to has grown and grown until virtually the only thing it always means is that the feeling referred to ( as "love" ) is being perceived as "good", very "good", ( even when it's not, in any useful sense of that word; eg. murderous rage in the case of the "crime de passion" ).

.

Sand
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 15 Sep 2007
Age: 99
Gender: Male
Posts: 11,484
Location: Finland

20 May 2009, 4:59 am

ouinon wrote:

Sand wrote:

It merely indicates the symbol is so diffuse in its definition that almost anything can occur within its compass.

As I clearly pointed out an inappropriate tumble into love can be a perfect pain in the nether areas and can be very dangerous to a stable life. "Good" is not a term I would apply.

ouinon
Supporting Member

Joined: 10 Jul 2007
Age: 61
Gender: Female
Posts: 5,939
Location: Europe

20 May 2009, 6:47 am

ouinon wrote:

So when the greeks were using all those different words for subgroups of love it was as if love were a relatively new term/word, ( as it was in fact ), and they were establishing what the categories were, like people on WP debate where on the spectrum, if at all, Aspergers, HFA, LFA, PDD/NOS, NLD, etc are, and what each of them mean. The greeks appear to have bought the label/symbol, with all the sub-categories attached.

Interestingly, until the greeks invented the spectrum in the sixth century BC, there were apparently only two words for any kind of love; the one for sexual love/desire, ( and/or romantic love; though this barely existed in the sense we think of it today ), and the one in religion/religious texts, specifically the judaic one, for love of/for one's god. And they were seen as almost diametrically opposed to each other.

It was the greeks who had the idea of putting both these kinds of "love" in the same "super-category", on a spectrum with other sorts of "love" that they labelled/"identified" at the same time. This must have been quite revolutionary, and caused a lot of debate, in the same way as the purported link between Aspergers/AS, ( perhaps nothing other than introversion under pressure in modern society ) and Autism does.

I wonder what quality it was about the two kinds of "love", the sexual and the religious, which led greek philosophers to connect the two, and build a spectrum around them. Perhaps the new categorisation was partly driven by the increasing need to achieve the valorisation/legitimisation of love between privileged educated free men, which was otherwise invisible/almost literally unnameable, being neither "sexual love", ( in the sense which existed then ), nor religious. :?:

Last edited by ouinon on 21 May 2009, 4:20 pm, edited 3 times in total.

Page 3 of 5 [ 66 posts ] Go to page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 Next

Jump to:

*Love and Value Judgements* Post Reply New Topic

Love and Value Judgements