Matus1976 - Philosophy, Science, Politics,Art

Philosophy, Science, EmotionsFebruary 28, 2008 9:55 pm

Here is an interesting news bit on “non intrinsic stimuli”. 

Scientific American 60 second - January 15th, 2008.

From - http://www.sciam.com/podcast/episode.cfm?id=7A81E74F-E554-39DF-62E0C6F540A3CDF8

“ You’d think we enjoy something because of it’s intrinsic qualities, food should taste good because it molecules tickles our tongue. But it’s much more complicated than that.  For example, one study shows that drinkers knowing the name brand and ingredients increase the drinkers pleasure.  Researches at the California Institute of Technology investigated our neural response to non intrinsic stimuli, 20 subjects tasted what they thought were 5 different wines and they were give the price for each of these.  In reality only 3 wines were used, and 2 were offered twice, once at a low price and once at a high price.  Subjects consistently said that the wines they thought cost more tasted better.  Functional MRI showed no difference in taste centers in brain, but revealed increased activities in brains pleasure centers.  Somehow our brains combine both actual taste and what we expect about the taste. “

One can surmise the thought process inside these researchers heads “Hmm, why in the world would our perceptions or thoughts about something alter how that something effects us?  I thought we were just robots and responded directly in pre-programmed ways to pre-programmed stimuli”  Clearly we are not merely mechanical automatons who respond in exact ways to the same thing.  Our emotions are, in fact, automatic estimations of stimuli based on our values and our understanding.  The subjects of this study attached some value to the cost of wine, which is reasonable considering cost does roughly equate to quality in most areas.   These researchers act surprised (this is news, after all) but this is in fact the only obvious way emotions would work.  Do we all respond, emotionally to the same things in the same way?  Obviously not.  What makes me sad, might be irrelevant to you.  And what makes you happy, might cause apprehension in me.  Why is that? 

Yet we do all share the same kinds of emotions, we all feel joy, sadness, apprehension, etc.  These emotional reactions are obvious in everything from infants to tribes untouched by western conventions.  The facial expressions and body reactions to emotional responses are almost identical.  It is clear then that emotional responses are in fact automatic and nearly instinctual.  In infants, the emotional reaction exists, but the values have yet to be formed or identified, so often reactions are disjointed from what we think they should be attached to, like crying for apparently no reason. As they grow, babies learn to value certain things and soon their emotional reactions come to align with their values.  In distant tribes untouched by western conventions, the smile is still universally something of happiness and joy, the tear is still the response to sadness.  Why is this not opposite in some cultures? 

So if we have the same emotional capacities in response, why are our responses different?  Do emotional responses come from our genetic code then?  No, since identical twins can have diametrically opposed emotional reactions.  So the answer is again clear, our emotional responses come from our values. What brings joy and sadness to those distant people will depend on their needs and their values within their social and environmental context.  What brings joy or sadness to us similarly will be based on what we value.  If there is something we value and we see that value furthered, our mind and body automatically respond to recognizing our values furthered within our understanding as something good, and so invoke a feeling of happiness.  A new product at a lower cost which we find a lot of value in would invoke happiness in us, but to the workers who will be put out of business it may invoke apprehension or sadness.  An elderly person in severe pain may find happiness at the prospect of their own death, while young healthy full of life person would feel deep sadness and apprehension at the prospect of their own death.  Emotions are responses to what we value, if we value our life, then that which furthers it will bring us joy and things that harm our life will bring us sadness. If we value a quality of life for our friends and loved ones, than things which raise their quality of life will bring us joy.  If we value our own accomplishments over those of others, than success by our friends would cause jealousy and anger.  Emotions then are completely proper responses, but that does not mean they are automatically correct, because they are still based on our own values, which we choose and integrate into our lives, and also our assessment of a situation, which may very well be wrong.  This is why it is always good practice to introspect and examine our emotional reactions. 

The nature and purpose of emotions have been expanded by philosophers from Aristotle to Ayn Rand, and ought to be obvious with consideration and reflection to anyone.  Yet mainstream science is still very confused about emotions, swinging them from being absolutely pre-programmed and determined (as is demonstrated by Richard Dawkins equating immoral people with broken machines) or purely random, since the things which bring about emotional responses appear so different from person to person.  Studies like this demonstrate unquestionably that these “non intrinsic stimuli” exist, and that they in fact have a much more common name: Values

 

Richard Dawkins “Let’s all stop beating Basil’s car”
http://www.edge.org/q2006/q06_9.html
“But doesn’t a truly scientific, mechanistic view of the nervous system make nonsense of the very idea of responsibility, whether diminished or not? Any crime, however heinous, is in principle to be blamed on antecedent conditions acting through the accused’s physiology, heredity and environment.”

My post - The Abdication of Volition
http://matus1976.com/philosophy/abdication_volition.html
“When a person who is in love exhibits elevated levels of these opium like drugs, the scientists then interpret that to mean that they are in love because the brain has produced that drug! Which is ridiculous, of course, you do not fall in love because your brain produces a chemical, your brain produces a chemical *because* you fall in love. The difference is superficially subtle, yet vitally important to all of our conceptions of humanity and emotions. It is the difference between being a slave to your emotional whims originated in the mindless mechanistics of your biological chemistry and having your emotions be the logical consequences of the deepest values you choose. It is the difference between being a robotic slave and a thinking, feeling person.”

Emotions, LoveDecember 11, 2007 7:06 pm

A friend of mine posted this. 

"Have you ever been in love? Horrible isn’t it? It makes you so vulnerable. It opens your chest and it opens up your heart and it means someone can get inside you and mess you up. You build up all these defenses. You build up a whole armor, for years, so nothing can hurt you, then one stupid person, no different from any other stupid person, wanders into your stupid life… You give them a piece of you. They didn’t ask for it. They did something dumb one day, like kiss you or smile at you, and then your life isn’t your own anymore. Love takes hostages. It gets inside you. It eats you out and leaves you crying in the darkness, so simple a phrase like ‘maybe we should be just friends’ or ‘how very perceptive’ turns into a glass splinter working its way into your heart. It hurts. Not just in the imagination. Not just in the mind. It’s a soul-hurt, a body-hurt, a real gets-inside-you-and-rips-you-apart pain. Nothing should be able to do that. Especially not love. I hate love."

~Neil Gaiman

My comments -

I think that’s a sad and very nihilistic sentiment, and not a surprising one from someone like Gaiman who makes his living focusing on angst and suffering.  Love (good love), even when unrequited, is a beautiful and amazing thing.  It is the embodiment of all the greatest essences of humanity: the recognition of values, a cherishing of ones own existence and of happiness, striving for a life of flourishing, and the use of reason in the recognition of values.  ‘True love’ or, the best kind of love, is not dependant on reciprocation but is instead based on an intrinsic recognition, appreciation, and deep admiration of a persons qualities.  Lives may lead people on different paths, but their essence, that which we love, remains the same.  If you love someone, you love ‘them’ as a person, as an identity.  Part of them may choose a different course in life, but this is no reason to not love.  Being hurt by someone choosing a different course in life is a testament that Gaiman thinks reality and everyone else’s dreams, passions, and desires ought to change entirely to satisfy each of our own whims.  To scorn love so as to never be hurt by it is nihilistic Buddhism to its core - advocating never valuing anything because it’s loss might cause you to suffer.  Why stop at love?  Why not eradicate joy and happiness as well, but the only way to do this is to never care about anything.  Is this the life Gaiman advocates?  Would this be a good life to live?  To love a person includes wanting what is best for them for their own sake, not for yours.  A flourishing fulfilling healthy relationship exists where two people who love each other and admire each other for their intrinsic qualities travel and grow together on the same course in life. 

Philosophy, Science, Emotions, LoveJanuary 9, 2007 1:02 am

My aunt, Delores, died a few days ago.  She was 78 years old, had been married for 62 ½ years, had 8 children, 24 grandchildren, and 15 great grandchildren, with 2 more on the way.  I haven’t seen her since thanksgiving and she died on January 6.  I am glad she got to live the life she did, she had a wonderful and fulfilling life.  But couldn’t it have been for a much longer time? 

I remember playing in her yard, the stories she would tell of her children, and getting accosted by a bat in her barn.  All the times we came to visit and she and Hub were always so warm and welcoming.  Ready to give you some freshly cooked food, or some cookies.  Or some Tea.  I sit and write this as I sip on some tea, I remember that she would make me a cup of tea every time I went over there, even when I was very young, it is how I started drinking tea.  The many days spent there just sitting at her table talking.  I love her, she was a good person and I will miss her terribly.

We are only able to express our emotions, our love and affection for our family, through words, and words will always be but a pale shadow of the ideas and feelings they are meant to represent.  Just saying “I love you” as I often did to DeeDee, does not ever do the core feeling enough justice.  I wish that I could have conveyed to DeeDee what I felt for her, how much I admired her and value her, but whenever I try to extrapolate on such things I always seem at a loss for words, and I can never seem to get as close to someone as I want to be.  A person’s mind is such a rich and complex place that you could explore it for their whole life and still never truly know them.  We have difficulty in even getting to know ourselves, after all.  Maybe some day we will have the technology to transfer a feeling directly to another mind, we may be able to capture the very feelings and emotional power and convey it to another person, imprinting the pattern of your feelings in your mind on theirs, in the way a physical embrace imprints the warmth and presence of another person.  But until then we must struggle to truly convey our feelings through only words and embraces.

No one tells you, that as you grow old, your heart and mind remain that of a person in their 20’s.  They never tell you that you dream just as much, want to do just as much, want to live as strong and as vibrantly as you ever did at the prime of your life.  That while you desire all of that, your body fails and crumbles, withers, weakens, creaks and aches.  That your spirit is young and alive and wants to jump up and race and run and fly at any age.  But your body protests every step of the way, and even now as I enter my 30’s I feel the small hints of it, and I know enough to see it when I look into the eyes of the people older than I and see that spark flicker at the life they *ought* to be living right then, railing against the reality of their bodies.  I know that my aunt was young and full of life even to her very last moments. 

I didn’t get to see her as much as I would like but I have spent so much time working on things.  I kept wanting to go and visit her and my uncle, I love them both very much, and of course love them as relatives, but as individuals I love them.  I didn’t see them because I always chose to work on things instead, to work on my projects and my long term goals, because ultimately I wanted to help them when I got successful.  I wanted to get a membership to Alcor so I could go see them and tell them about it.  So I could show them my bracelet and necklace and possibly have more of an impact than if I didn’t have a membership, if I wasn’t signed up for what to them would be a strange procedure that I was asking them to sign up for they would have a much harder time giving it a fair hearing.  I didn’t see them.  I chose to work.  When challenged with the question ‘What would you do if your loved one only had a few days to live?”  I always answer that I would do everything I could in those few days to try to save them.  But that means you would not be spending quality time with them.  Which is more important?  I guess it’s best to weigh the chances of success.  But to not try and to see them die, is unbearable to me.  I must act in accordance with my values.  I could struggle and struggle to try to save them and no one would ever know, it would just seem like, to them, that I was distant.  That I didn’t care.  So it seems with DeeDee perhaps, that I was distant, and didn’t care.  The truth couldn’t be more wrong, I love her and wanted to try to save her, I knew she was sick and dying, the only chance I would have would be for them to try cryogenic preservation.  I doubt they would have, but I could have at least tried.  But I didn’t, I never got the chance to.  I couldn’t afford my own Alcor membership and so was trying to get one of my businesses successful enough to afford it, so I could go to them and try to get them to sign up.  The night of her death was a message on my answering machine from Alcor, asking if they could assist me in signing up. 

Now she is gone.  Forever, Delores is dead now.  Her last breath has slipped out and her cells stopped working.  Her mind immediately starting to deteriote.  Gone forever, a beautiful, wonderful, fascinating mind, person, gone for all of eternity.  There is no afterlife, no heaven, no resting in peace, she is just gone.  She ceases to exist.  We can not begin to wrap our minds around such a thing.  We can not imagine not existing.  But one day I will not exist, and you will not exist, and everyone you know and love will not exist.  Why?  Why do we let happen?  It is not right, it never has been, and never will be.

A single person is more unique than a whole galaxy devoid of sentient life.  Then even a whole universe.  Life.  Conscious life, is the most precious thing in the universe, yet we waste it foolishly.  We risk it so we think we might value it more.  Our lives are so short that we’ll do crazier things since we have so little life to protect.  We all have known for months she would die soon, and I know my parents and brother will, and I will someday.  There is no escaping it, no evading it, no delusions that comfort me.  Just the real and tangible lack of existence.   There is no real way to console someone on the death of a loved one.  Consolation is not possible when there is absolutely nothing that can ever make you ok with something like that.  The closest we have is distance.  Our memories fade, the pain becomes constant, and then dulled, and then in the background.  Our minds adapt and get used to the world without them.  We learn to live with it, but we never get over it.  I did not mourn outwardly much tonight, I was sad, and I cried, but there was not anger, no rage at the world.   I know what kind of world we live in, I know what preciousness is lost every second, every day.  I am used to it, I think about it constantly. 

90 Billion lives since the dawn of human existence, gone forever. It is not right.  It was never right, it never will be right.  Death does not give life value, the end of something does not make it’s beginning worthwhile, death is the destruction of values, all values, the end of something is the destruction of that something.  We tolerate it because we can do nothing about it.  We make up stories and delude ourselves so we don’t have to deal with the real horror of it.  Life is the source of all values, it should always hurt, immeasurable, when a fundamental value is lost to us, forever.  They did what they could, people will say.  But we didn’t.  We didn’t do all we could.  We sat around, watching TV, playing video games, chatting it up online, going out to eat, partying, hanging out with friends.  All the while it looms over our every actions.  You will all die.  Everyone you know and love will die, will cease to exist.  What are you doing about it?  Nothing.  We aren’t doing anything.  Well tell ourselves that we can not become experts at things because we are not born that way, that we can not learn and do the things required to fight aging and death, to give us all indefinite life spans.  That no matter how hard we try we can’t do anything anyway.  But is that true?  Are we really being honest with ourselves. To do so means coming to the full and conscious recognition of how horrific death is, something we are not eager as a people to do.  So instead we all fade, deteriorate, suffer, cry, and die.  Persons slipping away into eternity forever.  You, your loved ones, everyone you know and love will die and disappear forever.  What are you doing about it?

Death is terrible and tragic, with every single death, the sun should dim, a cold wind blow across the world, the seas should calm, all sounds and lights should fade, and everyone stop in their tracks and bow their heads, knowing that one of their own is gone.  That a magnificent human being now ceases to exist, lost to the ravages of entropy for all of eternity.  But today it would happen so frequently that we would all become numb to it, and the sun would flash like a strobe light.  We lower our flags to half staff when a member of the government passes, or there is a great tragedy.  But every death is a tragedy, and our flags would never raise if we captured them all.   

Each of us, every human in all of history, values deeply their own life.  And faced with it’s inevitable demise, cursed as the only animal on the planet consciously aware of it’s own mortality and imminent cessation of existence, we have been forced to psychological compensate for such an unfathomable horror. 

Buddhism, recognizing the immense suffering caused by the loss of a life one deeply values, sought to eradicate values so one would not suffer at their loss.  That is, in order to not be upset at the loss of a loved one’s life, one needs to absolve themselves of values, and in doing so will absolve themselves of suffering.  Such a state devoid of values is what “Nirvana” literally is.  But this is wrong.  When a loved one dies, it should be upsetting, the loss of a value is the nature of sadness.  It should wreck you to the core of your soul.  When a loved one survives, we should be happy, because happiness is the getting or keeping of a value.  Values are the basis of suffering, but are also the basis of joy and happiness. 

The Judeo Christian religions and offshoots, in an attempt to stave off the immense psychological horror that comes from death, simply made up an afterlife where everyone is miraculously resurrected to live for all of eternity in the presence of their loved ones.  Death is not so bad to them, because it means literally that we are in a better place, free from pain and suffering. 

Death is horrible and unconscionable, and there are very few psychological mechanisms we have to deal with.  They are, essentially, to be indifferent to life, and thus indifferent to death, to devalue life, as Buddhists do, to convince ourselves death is not real, as the Judeao Christian and related religions do, to convince ourselves there is value in death, or last to be honest with reality and recognize the grievous and horrible nature of death, thus suffering psychological consequences for the whole of one’s life. 

It is difficult and burdensome to choose the last, but I will not fool myself into believing something just because it makes me feel better.  I will not fool myself into believing someone loves me, that I love, when they do not.  I will let her go and live her life.  I will not fool myself into believing that there is a bag of money buried in my yard, when there is no such thing, just because it would make me feel better and more financially secure.  I will not fool myself into believing we survive bodily death when absolutely no evidence exists that even remotely suggests such a thing, just to feel better about it. 

As I stood at my aunts graveside service and listened to my strongly religious cousin, one of her children, re-iterating some of these thoughts on the afterlife, I thought about the root of this desire, and I empathize with what drives people to think these things.  Do they really truly believe that she is in heaven looking down on us and smiling?  Probably.  As he begin to admonish non believers while at her grave side, my mind begin to wonder ignoring his insulting and disrespectful tangent.  I asked god, standing there, lets see it.  Bring her back, right now.  Lets see a blinding white light and her rise from her grave, healthy and restored.  Reunite her with her husband.  Show me, I said.  Where are you?  Do you ever do anything?  She is dead, in front of you.  Bring her back and I will believe.  Of course nothing happened, and my eyes rose to the forest above as I cried. 

In the modern secularly enlightened west, it is popular to try to find some value in death.  Since these secularly enlightened people won’t be so egregious as to convince themselves into thinking there is an afterlife, and will not renounce values as a Buddhist would, they seek to convince themselves that there is value to be had in death.  We see this effort manifested in some of the popular euphemisms of our day.  Things like “Death gives meaning to life” (it does not, it takes away life) “Death makes you recognize and truly value things (It does not, it is the destruction of all values) “Death makes you appreciate life more” (it does not, since you will not be conscious to compare non-death to death, you can not value non-death more because of it, you will simply cease to be)  “Things that have beginnings must have ends”  (I prefer never ending stories) “We must die to make way for later generations” (I would prefer to know and love my great great grandparents then to have them ‘get out of the way’)  “Death is a part of life (or natural)” (so were small pox and the plague, and today so is cancer, heart disease, and diabetes, ‘natural’ is for unthinking animals and plants)  “The impermanence of life is what makes it special”  (all things have intrinsic value to you whether permanent or not)  The corollary to this last point is responsible for some of the depression atheists allegedly feel, that the transitory nature of things make them less valuable (as opposed to more) but to me, having something for sometime is better than having nothing ever.  But having something you value forever is better still. 

The problem with all of these evasions and psychological obfuscations, which no doubt had a lot of value when humanity had no option in the matter, is that it takes away the psychological motivation to do anything about death, and it also demotes life to nothing but the means to an end; death.  But life is an end of its own, it doesn’t need to be there in order to accomplish something else, it has its own intrinsic value to each and every one of us. 

I love my life, and want to live it forever.  I think that most people, if raised outside of the dominate cultural philosophically narratives that devalue life, demote values, or outright fool oneself, will eventually come to the rational understanding about the intrinsic value of life that I have, and not be so ready and willing to give it up.  They would also choose, if able to make an informed choice, to live their lives for as long as possible, coming to explore the world, solar system, and galaxy, and coming to know and truly love people important to them in the deepest sense possible, living with ancestors and descendants many many generations removed. 

We can keep a car running for generations, and as good as new, by fixing and replacing worn out parts as they fail.  But our body, that which is most precious to us, withers and fails.  Why can we not repair our bodies like we do our vehicles and homes?  For 100,000 years humanity had no choice in death.  For some 99,750 of those years, people would mysteriously get ill and drop dead for no apparent reason, until we discovered and understood viruses and bacteria.  Today we live much longer lives on average then we ever have in the history of humanity, and an average persons life in a post industrial western nation is like that of a king’s from a thousand years ago.  Our household gadgets and electricity do the work of an army of slaves.  We live in ornate palaces with running water, heated, able to communicate nearly instantly with anyone, anywhere, and demand and receive entertainment at a moments notice through tiny wires strung across the nation.  A king of 1,000 BC could only dream of such things.  Yet today more of us have these, and more and more people continue to get better standards of living.  Still much of the world lives in brutal poverty and oppression, but the world is getting better.  Too slowly, but it is getting better for people.  But even in all of this wondrous technological achievement, we still grow old, sick, and die.  But we might be the first human generation living on the cusp of a technological breakthrough, that of real, tangible mechanisms to slow and defeat aging and all disease entirely.  We may one day soon be able to perpetually repair our bodies as parts fail, and even make some parts better than before.  We may all have the ability to live as strong young healthy adults for as long as we’d like.  And if our children and parents embrace the same path, we would live forever with people we love dearly.  Combined with the rapid technological progress of humanity and the tremendous growth in global standards of living, it could be that one day, mankind, with his reason and passion for life, creates a literal heaven spread among the stars.  If there ever is a heaven or a god, it will be made by humans and in their own image.

 

Philosophy, Science, EmotionsOctober 20, 2006 9:59 pm

What is Love

Love, and emotion for that matter (in a healthy brain) is our response to our highest values. Love is the emotional price you pay for *valuing* something and seeing it expressed in another human being. All of our emotions are responses to the things we value most being expressed. When we value the health and well being of ourselves and our loved ones, we are happy to see things perpetuate those values. If you value honesty, sincerity, kindness, integrity, productiveness, etc, deeply, and you see that expressed in another person, your emotions respond properly.

Our mind, logic and reason, do not operate in conflict with our emotions, our emotions are the logical extensions of our deepest convictions. Proper relationships of love are based on admiration and respect for a person, an individual. Not a robot or a social automaton. If you value fashion and trendyness the most, you will love someone that embodies those things. If you value money and prestige the most, you will love someone that embodies those things, but in both of those cases it is very easy to find another person with more money, fame, wealth, prestige, or as is the most common case, hotter. So your emotions become fickle and easily swayed.  It is any wonder than that people go from an initial high in a relationship to feeling like they are going through the mundane routines?  If you are truly inspired by someone, and you admire and cherish them, and they feel the same about you, will you ever really become bored of them?

A proper loving relationship, when one values proper things and integrates them into their own self fully (e.g. valuing honesty, one must become honest, valuing rational independence, one must not be co-dependant) will blossom into an amazing and easily life long relationship full of complete admiration and respect. A proper loving relationship, since to say "I love you" one must have a clear concept of "I" and a clear concept of "you" can not come from two people who fear being alone, who don’t like spending time with themselves, who perpetually seek to be distracted from dealing with their own innate boringness, it must come from two independent intelligent people sure of themselves both doing what they most want to do. A proper loving relationship comes from where the individual rational self interest of two people meet, no one giving up any part of themselves for the sake of a ‘relationship’ but both of them forming a profound and amazing relationship based on the thing most important to each of them.

Such relationships are rare, I have since I came to this opinion only had one of this nature in my life, and it was the most amazing by far of all the relationships I have ever had. I fully believe that the vast majority of people are in extremely unhealthy relationships, they do not hold their partners to any standards and they don’t base their affection on any solid ground, while they cheat on each other, lie steal and manipulate, they chant to themselves ‘but I love him! (or her)’ After obfuscating the source of their original emotion, they demote love to something they are just supposed to feel and elevate feeling it for someone who does not deserve it to a status of a moral virtue!

In many cases, a significant other will spend most of their time berating their partner, in order to psychological demoralize them.  It amazes me how prevalent this can be, the  ‘you are not pretty, no one would want you, you are a loser, you are pathetic’ etc.  Things like that stem from basing one’s self esteem on other people’s assessments of you.  A person who does this knows what kind of control it gives them over some one, even if they don’t explicitly know it, they are aware of it at some level because it is how control is established over them.  So if you don’t like them, it is in fact insulting to him, so they have to insult you to compensate.  They must beat you to the psychological punch before they lose their self esteem to you. 

When people have a healthy basis for their own self esteem they don’t need affection from other people to sustain it, since in essence needing someone else’s appraise is enslaving one’s self them, just as lying to them and manipulating them is.  When you know who you are and have a healthy basis for your own assessment of yourself, then when someone likes you (for the right reasons of course) then it is more a reflection of them and their qualities than it is of you and yours.  You know who you are.  You know what quality of a person you are if you have integrity.  It becomes a scenario that when people like you, they will rise in your estimate of them.  You’ll think more highly of them because they value what you value, and recognize it in you.  But it’s only when they like you for the things that you most like about yourself and when those things are proper.  You must like about yourself your integrity, honesty, commitment to what is right and just, love of your life, your fundamental outlook on life, and they must like the same in you.  If someone likes you just because you are hot or rich, well that doesn’t say too many good things about them.  It’s good to be someone who can financially support themselves and to be attractive of course, but to base a relationship and affection solely on those is terrible.  If someone likes you because they’d be bored otherwise, or because they’d feel lonely, well again that doesn’t say much of them.  You become two parasites sucking each others life force working toward a common confusing cloudy mess. 

So set yourself some standards.  Look for a decent, stable person who has their own hopes and dreams and desires.  Look for dreams and goals that do not create conflict with yours.  Have ones of your own.  Look for integrity (that is, being internally consistent)  Look for honesty and sincerity.  (Integrity is also being honest to ones values)  Then you learn the problem with having standards, and why so many people end up compromising them.  You realize quickly how few people stand up to even rudimentary ones.  Why is that?  Well, that’s the topic of another post, but I would blame a terrible influence of the preomdinat cultural – philosophical attitudes.  Once I started really thinking about these things and really being ‘picky’ about these standards, it started to look like I will be alone for some time.  Alone is not how I would prefer to be, but I would certainly dislike to a much greater extent being dishonest to myself and my highest values, and subsequently being with some psycho manipulative narcissistic nihilist.

It never ceases to surprise me that being honest and sincere and rational are things so alien to most people.  Usually people think it’s ok to be dishonest as long as you can ‘get away with it’ or that no one is physically injured in the process.  When I last ate at my friends restaurant, I pointed out to the waitress she missed one of my items I ordered on my bill.  She acted surprised, “Wow,  you’re so honest!”  It’s surprising, or at least it ought to be, that she was surprised by honesty.  Well, first of all I wouldn’t consciously steel from my near life long friend, but additionally there is little reason not to be honest.  Not only is honesty is far more spiritually rewarding (in appropriate contexts) but it is far more pragmatically rewarding.  Honesty cultivates sincere, deep, long lasting friendships and relationships that are mutually beneficial and enlightening, including business and working relationships.

So don’t sell out, too many people do.  We have only one life and it is ours to enjoy, not to bow down and apologize and cave in to every jerk who wants to force us to live for them.

Compared to many modern ‘enlightened’ people who yap about how we are ‘not meant to be monogamous’ and such things the old fashioned ways are far more rational in many ways.  They came about for good reasons and helped humanity survive for a long time.  That’s not to say it’s all good and it couldn’t be when it’s philosophical basis was corrupt (that is, it was based on duty and obligation, not reverence to ones self and one’s deepest values)  But the secular materialistic nihilistic interpretation of love, that of corrupting social trickery to keep people in check and monogamy as obligations handed down by pious tyrants is far more destructive, and both that and the old ways are much more unhealthy than the truth of the matter; that love is our response to our highest values and monogamy is not an obligation or duty that flies in the face of our ‘genetic tendencies’ toward polygamy, but instead is the highest and most profound tribute we can pay to one another.  Religious indoctrinations of monogamy sought to acquire the cause of monogamy (the overwhelming desire to dedicate oneself to one person) by going through the motions of the effect, yet every wedding I have been to included both men and women present bemoaning and whining about being with the same person for the rest of their life and acting as though a wedding was a sorrowful moment of the final loss of freedom in a person’s life.  Such is the only logical consequence possible when one removes the cause of an action, and goes only through the motions of it.  If one feels disheartened at the prospect of perpetual monogamy and intimacy with only one person for the rest of their life, than they ought not be getting married in the first place.  Pre wedding parties ought to be magnificent celebrations, not a spiritual funerals mourning the loss of single hood.

A lot of people wish for their prince charming or (what is the female equivalent, princess submissive?) to be loaded.  Money, in it’s purest form, is a means to acquire values.  In absence of values money has no worth.  When people forget the purpose of their money, they often end up actually hurting the things they value in pursuit of more money, as they eventually associate money with a source of value and not a means to further values.  The father who works long hours to buy a 4500 sq ft house and 3 SUV’s and white picket fence and Jacuzzi on the porch, if lucky, one day realizes why he never sees his wife or children.  If unlucky, he just continues to live miserably perpetually wondering why the more he gets the less he feels.  His pursuit of money got in the way of his pursuit of values.

When on the market for a relationship, you should always pick someone that embodies your deepest values.  But look at the conceptual basis, not the particulars.  Maybe they dress differently, or like a different kind of music, or have a different political viewpoint, but it is why they like those things that is important.  It is the motivating principles behind their actions.  Their overall outlook on the world.  Someone may not have read as much or studied as much or went to school as long as you or have as much in the bank as you’d like.  But they may have well been raising a family, or taking care of a sick relative, or just enjoying living, which is perfectly fine as we have no ‘debt’ to pay to the world for being alive (the last major secular remnant of original sin)  Even if their political ideologies are a polar opposite, that is better than someone having no political opinions, at least the former actually cares about the world they live in the way you do, and tries to form an opinion on what makes it best; very stable solid ground for you to work from.  The latter you can have no connection with.  If a person of the former persuasion is intelligent, passionate, and rational, and you are as well, you will work out your differences of opinions and you will have no conflicts of interest. 

Oddly, people almost always use the word love properly in every context but it’s most important one.  Every time someone says “I love this car” or “I love this movie” or “I love this city”  they recognize that those things are manifestations of their highest values, even if they don’t understand it explicitly.  But when it comes to a person they love, forget it, most couldn’t name any of those qualities they admire or cherish.  Go ahead and ask the person who loves you why they do, and ask yourself that of the person you love as well.  People will spend hours complaining about their significant other, but when someone objects “well why don’t you break up with her” and they always quip, as if reflexively, “because I love her!”  Yeah, but what do you mean by that?  Why do you love her?  Do you really love her (or him), or is it just that you don’t want to be alone and end up saying ‘eh, you’ll do’ at some point.

It is often fashionable to extol the virtues of unconditional love.  Proper love, enlightening love, spiritually enlivening love, is inherently *very* conditional.  Consider that if someone goes around and sleeps with everyone in sight (and what is sex after all but in it’s best the physical expression of your deepest admiration and respect for someone) people denigrate them to no end, calling them whores and gigolos and what not, yet we elevate to a moral virtue the idea of giving out love to everyone and everything, not matter what they do. Such an attitude takes any and all value it had away.  To give love to anyone, to love all of humanity, means love has no meaning.  Replace love with the brilliant or Olympic athlete and it becomes clear how equalizing diminishes value.  If it is so wrong to give sex out unconditionally that why is it good to give love out unconditionally?

And in that theme, replace the word love with hate, which is always used in proper context, and the point is further demonstrated.  If one insisted that they hated everyone for no reason we might lock them up in a mental institution.  Usually people hate someone for a particular reason, that they hurt them or someone they cared about, or are just intrinsically terrible people.  But we think loving anyone and everyone for no reason is morally healthy?  In reality, the only people that benefit from this altruistic love are those who are least deserving of respect and admiration, and everyone else is hurt by it.

Consider then, conversely, the person who seeks sexual only relationships.  Sex is inherently an intimate act.  Trying to remove Sex of it’s intimacy is an absurdity.  When having sex you are going through all the physical motions of deeply caring about someone, you are touching and caressing them in ways not appropriate in all other social contexts.  If you find yourself sleeping with someone, and then wake up with them asking yourself “hmm, is it ok to spoon with them or is that weird?”  “Hmm, can I hold hands?”  Well, you just engaged in the ultimate extension of physical intimacy!  And now you are skittish about holding hands and lying with your bodies close to each others!  If such thoughts surface in your mind, then you know intrinsically that you weren’t at the point of sharing the deepest of all physically intimate acts with them. 

So why did you sleep with them?  Why do men (more often) and women seek sexual conquest?  They want to feel better about themselves, returning back to the concept of basing your self value on other people’s reaction to you.  The people that seek this tell themselves they just like the physical pleasure of the act, yet if that was the case masturbation would suffice.  They tell themselves they just like sex, but if that was the case than prostitutes would suffice, and would willing women really have any troubles finding any random man to sleep with them?  Hardly. 

So clearly it is something more than the physical feeling of it and the company of a member of the opposite sex (or same, given your orientation)  It is, in fact, the elevated sense of self worth that one hopes to acquire by engaging in the ultimate expression of physical intimacy.  After all, the proper reason for doing such a thing is literally from mutual admiration and deep and profound respect.  Seeking that from the physical expression of admiration is the ultimate form of the philosophical self deception of going through the motions of the effect to try to acquire the cause.  Men seek woman who they think are morally pure and demanding, who portray an elevated sense of self respect, and who they fool themselves into thinking have made a great exception for their case.  Women seek the same, spiritually, a man who will give them an elevated sense of self respect because of the status or the position of the man, what else could be the primary compulsion of women who flock to celebrities like cats in heat?  The women the men seek to conquer have value because they allegedly reserve sex only for those specially unique and deserving people, thus allowing the man to convince himself that he actually is of a higher deserving stature.  Both are no different than savages building runways out of bamboo poles and making radio sounds through their mouths, or society forcing monogamy on a relationships desiring of it, or someone buying a sports car that is way outside his means in order to impress his friends.  They are all examples of, in Ayn Rand’s words, “going through the motions of the effect to try to acquire that which should have been the cause.”

In reality, in a healthy proper loving sexual relationship, both should be confined to only the rare instances and people that truly deserve it.  To the people that express your deepest values.  Love is the emotional price we pay for having values.  The great thing about that kind of love, the kind of love that is based on respect and admiration, is that it is not required that it be requited.  And if you think about it, should any ideal form of love require that to sustain it?  If sex is the physical expression of love, then love can be sustained without it, even when your respective values drive you apart, the love is not diminished because that respect and admiration for the person remains.  It does not require physical expression as sustenance, although that is an incredibly great addition.  Jealousy, suspicion, paranoia, it all goes out the window.  After all, would you ever want someone to be with you who didn’t actually want to be with you?  Would you want someone to pretend to be your friend who didn’t really want to be?  Would you really want someone you respect and admire and even cherish to sacrifice themselves, their identity, their sense of self, just so you wouldn’t be lonely?  You would condemn someone you allegedly care about to self imprisonment.  I don’t want friendship and especially love to be based on charity, that is insulting beyond measure.

I feel so many people are in unhealthy relationships that I hope I might get them to think a little longer and deeper about who they are and what they are doing.  Remember, think about your values and integrate them fully into your life.  Hold yourself up to your highest standards, and hold your significant other up to those standards as well.  Do not put up with insults, manipulation, and deceit of any form or degree.  Saying “no one is perfect” does not excuse people from even bothering to try.  Love is our response to our highest values, love is the physiological response our bodies have toward the perception of that which we value most manifested in another person.  Think about the values you base your relationships on.  Convenience?  Scared of being alone?  Basing your self esteem on what your significant other thinks of you?  Do you ever find yourself saying “you’ll do” or “well, sure he’s psycho but at least I am not alone” or “at least she hasn’t cheated on me”  then you are very probably suffering from unhealthy relationship. 

Consider last in all these cases who benefits from these twisted conceptions of love.  Who benefits from insisting that one ought to love all fellow men?  The people least deserving of it.  Who suffers?  Those most deserving of admiration and respect.  Who benefits from insisting that love is something we have no control over?  Those who don’t deserve it, those we would not love if we had any standards.  We do have control over it because we have control over ourselves, our values and our integrity.  The emotional response of love is a reflection of those.  Who benefits from insisting that love is mysterious and magical?  Again, those who don’t deserve it.  Who benefits from the idea that love needs to be worked out?  That relationships are hard and difficult?  That marriage is work, that love is tough?  The people who cause the conflicts that need to be worked out.  The people who make relationships difficult by not respecting you and your individuality.  Proper love is full of admiration and a deep and profound respect and cherishing, it is based on proper self esteem, self respect, and most importantly rational selfishness.  I say the last because love can not be based on the absence of self, as is intrinsic behind the principles of self-less-ness.  Without a self, without being able to say “I” you can not love someone.  You can not have deep values and convictions and can not respond to them with emotions.  To the extent that you abandon your ‘self’ is the extent at which you confuse and muddle love.  Love is intrinsically and properly selfish.  The proper relationship, the greatest kind of relationship, the most fulfilling, desirable and long lasting, comes from the meeting of the mutual desires of two intelligent, passionate, rational individuals with deep convictions and standards for themselves and others, not from people who abandon their passions and convictions.

The most important aspect about these comments on love and the nature of emotions, however, is that they are *right*  Physical experiments prove the nature of emotions, that they are logical extensions of our deepest convictions (in healthy minds, severe physiological differences or chemical imbalances can very obviously alter the proper functioning of a system of perception, recognition and reaction that is based on physical bodies, minds, and molecules)  They are not disconnected from our rational faculties, but are instead the ultimate logical extension of them.  They are lighting quick calculators that assess the situation you are in and compare it to your values, thus invoking feelings of pleasure or pain.  Brian scans and psychological experiments have proved as such over and over again, yet the idea remains completely outside the predominate cultural and philosophical interpretations of love.  Why is that?  Well that is a topic worthy of an even longer essay. 

If you have found any value in these ideas on love and emotions, they come mostly from philosopher and novelist Ayn Rand and the great Aristotle, with minor contributions and extrapolations from myself and the many people I have discussed this topic with on different forums devoted to the ideas of both of these amazing people.  Rand’s contributions on the nature and purpose of emotions are no doubt one of the most important contributions she made and some of the most important ideas for spiritual health of humanity.

- Michael

Science, EmotionsJuly 19, 2006 7:59 pm

As I was driving home from my parents late last night I saw numerous lightning flashes off in the distant. It was one of the hottest and most humid days we have had this summer, so I couldn not help but think a great lightning storm was on the way. I live near a large hill with gives a decent (but still lacking, looking for a better place still) view of almost the entire horizon, so I drove up the hill and found a nice parking spot in a large empty lot. The storm was probably the most intense I have seen in my life, for some 45 minutes I saw an average of one or two sky crossing bolts every couple of seconds, with numerous strikes occurring simultaneously at some points. As the storm grew closer some of the bolts arced over my entire vertical field of view.

Concurrently, I have been listening to Bill Brysons "A Short History of Nearly Everything" One of the most enjoyable books I have yet read, and parked my car with the intention of relaxing, watching a great thunderstorm, and listening to an excellent science book on tape. The fates smiled on me and the section I happened to get to tonight was on lighting! What a treat, one of the most eloquent scientific descriptions of the phenomena of lightning feeding my brain while being treated visually to the most intense storm I have ever witnessed, while sitting securely in the faraday cage of my car. I watched three or four strikes in the period of just a few seconds as Brysons book spoke to the number of storms in the world, the frequency of strikes, the amount of energy involved in each burst, etc. Wonderful! … It was like a moment of Nirvana for a natural philosopher

Philosophy, Science, Emotions, LoveJuly 6, 2006 3:20 am

On the Autodidactic list I am a member of I came across this article:

‘Thirst for knowledge’ may be opium craving  
http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2006-06/uosc-fk062006.php

This conception is a blatant reversal of cause and effect.  Your brain does not give you an opium dose so that you will learn things, if that were true than all people everywhere would immediately become compulsive autodidactics, everyone compelled irrevocably to achieve, attain, and understand, and we would all be living indefinite life spans all ready and spreading among the starts because of the collective achievements of all these great, but right now idle, minds.  The billions of man hours spent watching reality TV shows and bimbo heiresses clearly suggests otherwise. 

The obvious flaw to me in this article is that the gestalts that produce this effect can only occur with things that have a significant meaning to the person who learns them.  I could spend my whole life studying a great puzzle of nature, finally and ecstatically answer it, and get that neural opium shot, and then run through the streets shouting the answer.  But even if I took the time to coalesce all the complexities of my discovery into a short conceptual statement, and people ‘got it’ when I said it to them, they are not rewarded by a neural opium shot as well, even though they have learned a new concept, because they don’t care about that concept in the first place, nor place any importance to it.  I should think this would be obvious to anyone who spends some time reflecting on it.  It’s not the grasping of a concept that we are rewarded for, it’s for answering a question that we have made important to ourselves.

This chemical mind \ body emotion causal reversal is something I find very common, especially in areas pertaining to love, where the tendency that seems at the forefront of academia today is for scientists to act on knowledge only as blocks of perception.  Lacking conceptual descriptions of bodies of knowledge, scientists are led to make perceptions, that is observations, into causal proclamations!  This is quite simply an abdication of our volition to the forces that guide blind automatons.  They do so by making the measurements, and descriptions of affects they discern, into the actual causes of the variables they are measuring. 

Consider in addition to this article, Dr. Helen Fisher’s book “Why We Love: The Nature and Chemistry of Romantic Love” where in this review http://www.firstscience.com/site/articles/love.asp they specifically sum up Fisher’s thesis as "…this fire in the mind is caused by elevated levels of either dopamine or norepinephrine or both, as well as decreased levels of serotonin." Note the book is called “Why We Love” followed by the answer of course, which is “The Nature And Chemistry of Romantic Love” clearly implying that nature and chemistry are the reasons why we love.  It would be more apt to call such a book, if it did not confuse cause and effect, “How We Love” (That is, how a physical body manifests the emotions of love).  Why is the ‘fire in the mind’ caused by the elevated levels of either dopamine or norepinephrine instead of the elevated levels of dopamine and norepinephrine being caused by the “fire in the mind”!

When a person who is in love exhibits elevated levels of these opium like drugs, the scientists then interpret that to mean that they are in love because the brain has produced that drug!  Which is ridiculous, of course, you do not fall in love because your brain produces a chemical, your brain produces a chemical *because* you fall in love.  The difference is superficially subtle, yet vitally important to all of our conceptions of humanity and emotions.  It is the difference between being a slave to your emotional whims originated in the mindless mechanistics of your biological chemistry and having your emotions be the logical consequences of the deepest values you choose.  It is the difference between being a robotic slave and a thinking, feeling person.

Similarly you do not seek to answer questions because your brain will give you a fix, your brain gives you a fix because you have sought so hard to answer something that’s important to you.  The pre programmed emotional response is to reward the discovery of hard sought information, but what you seek and whether you seek it at all (since the question must first become important to you) is decided by you, and valued by you.
Your body is a physical entity which exists in the real world and your mind is an intangible pattern that can not be weighed or touched.  The latter must then have a physical mechanism by which it can interact with the former, and these mechanisms are primarily hormones and drugs.  When you identify values important to you, and integrate them fundamentally into your person through habitualization and repetition, your emotions respond in kind.  That is what emotions are in a healthy brain.  They are automatic responses to stimuli based on your deeply ingrained fundamental values.  The response of your emotions is automatic and instinctual, but what they respond to and why is up to you.  Your emotions are a complex neurological and biochemical program, but you decide what variables that program focuses on. 

If you value honesty and integrity, and you integrate those values wholly (which necessarily includes becoming an honest person of integrity yourself, since you can’t honestly value something you flagrantly violate) and you recognize those virtues in person, your mind responds by rewarding that recognition with a biochemical response that affects both your mind and body.  You respect them.  And to the extent at which you recognize and value other attributes, and to the extent that they are manifested in another person, you come to respect, admire, cherish, and even love them. 

How much of a leap will it be for a society which frequently says “no one ever invents anything because they were inclined by society to do so” to take these kind of causal reversals and move to “all the great inventors and scientist of the world were only ever drug addicts and were addicted to the opium their brain released when they figured something out, the greater the inventor, the worse the addict who lost all control over his own functions and normal humanity”  The same can and will be said of any great scientist, artist, musician, or poet.  Can I help but think that an obvious implication of this is that they are saying the greats of humanity are weird and crazy drug addicts, while the average persons are really healthy and sane.  The greats failed and gave in to their cravings, the mediocre and average, were strong and resolute.  Of course there is nothing wrong with not wanting to achieve great things, it is after all your own life and you get to live it as you please.  But to attack and belittle those who do, who have made all the great things that have made our lives so easy, pleasurable, and enjoyable, and to attribute their accomplishments to anything besides their hard work, dedication, and massive effort is not only beyond outrageous and insulting, it is entirely factually incorrect.  Only the post modern scientific nihilist would assert that values are unimportant, that human emotions are deterministic and materialistic, that the great achievers of the world were slaves to cravings, that knowledge has no intrinsic value, and that rational intelligent beings don’t seek it because they live on earth and desire to survive and prosper on it, but only to get high