|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
posted January 28, 2009 10:43 AM |
|
|
That's not so.
We all agree that we can observe very different "kinds" of love, that's how it presents itself.
Death says now, they all have the same "foundation" or result from the same base emotion. THAT is an assumption. What's more, it's an UNREASONABLE assumption, since he has no proof or at the very least a reasonable idea or suggestion WHAT this foundation may be and how the differences could be explained (note that you'll have to explain as well every "ingredient" that alters that supposed basic love feeling as well).
There are lots of explanations POSSIBLE, of course, for example two or even more basic feelings or even a completely learned behaviour (by parental example), supported by 2 different instincts (mothership, reproduction), plus any number of combinations or different models, including that, that some of those things CALLED love are actually not love at all, but something very different, while the remaining ones do HAVE a common foundation.
What we HAVE, however, are different kinds, and as long as we don't have anything that would strongly hint on a different explanation, it makes sense to just take them at face value: as different feelings.
Moreover you miss the point of what you call my assumption. The model with the waves is just a simple model that fits with what we observe (and might of course be simply and completely wrong). It has the advantage of being applicable to ALL emotions, and it is, in my opinion, a more consistent explanation of the phenomenon than Death's: it's for example simpler and has LESS variables all in all (Death claims just one, love, but introduces ANY number of additional and undefined parameters like lust and so on to explain the ACTUAL feelings which makes no sense) And that's it. It's not meant as a theory to believe in. It's just made to show that it is easily possible to explain things WITHOUT having a common foundation for all these feelings, and explain it more elegantly as well.
Which means that there is simply neither reason nor necessity to assume a common foundation - unless, of course, you just WANT such a basic, pure, undiluted, innocent kind of basic love emotion to exist for your own special reasons. And unless you may have good POINTS to support the opinion.
And let me make one thing abundantly clear: I cannot take serious a guy who claims that when you get older the feelings you have for your wife will become similar to those you have for your father. That is not only unsubstantial nonsense, it's in fact even offensive, and it speaks of a fundamental ignorance or at least inexperience in these things.
|
|
veco
Legendary Hero
who am I?
|
|
posted January 28, 2009 11:11 AM |
|
|
So you are taking it as you see it, which is fine. However there might be something more on the inside.
As a far fetched example (sorry I can't think of anything else atm) you can take the organ of skin - basis is the same but depending on the creature or just place where it is it produces different components.
On the other hand, components that look the same may have completely different genesis (flippers etc). So you can never be sure and that's why I see your 'good points' invalid.
To clear it up - I don't negate your point of view, I'm pointing out that your arguments are not as reliable as you would want them to be.
PS: please do not capslock me, it's not that cute if you do
____________
none of my business.
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted January 28, 2009 11:48 AM |
|
|
I capslock because I'm to lazy to underline or boldprint for emphasis. 
It doesn't matter what is possible. Imagination has no limits, after all. We can speculate all as much as we want.
Things can be any which way, but you need reasonable points or evidence to make a FOUNDED claim that things might be different than they look on the surface. Not only that, you'll have to come up with a sound explanation as well, not just a claim. If you don't, it's just another pink unicorn: sure, they MAY exist, and you can never be sure they don't, but as long as there is no evidence for them there is no reason to assume that they do exist elsewhere than in the imagination of some.
For example, I can claim that we are all just living in a reasonably compley game simulation and that death will see us awaken from a very deep and immersive game session on a very difficult plane of existance. Possible, certainly. But is there any evidence that would suggest this, instead of taking things at face value? Of course it might be cool if it was so, and that might be a good reason or reason enough to look for evidence or simply propose it, but that doesn't change the facts.
So, where is the evidence that would suggest something along the lines of what Death claims?
|
|
veco
Legendary Hero
who am I?
|
|
posted January 28, 2009 12:03 PM |
|
Edited by veco at 12:04, 28 Jan 2009.
|
Who's talking about Death and his views? I certainly am not. I'm talking about you and yours  And my message was - both of your arguments (yours and Deaths) are equally invalid, I hoped that that example would show you why do I think so. Mind you, it wasn't drawn out from a magic hat, but from the theory of evolution (which I take as reliable enough).
Anyway, this discussion is too silly imo for me to continue since I deem describing emotions in an encyclopedic way innefective, misleading and simply wrong. You can say how you feel yourself but not about them in general. Period.
PS: yes, I still have a romantic mind
____________
none of my business.
|
|
Doomforge
Admirable
Undefeatable Hero
Retired Hero
|
|
posted January 28, 2009 01:01 PM |
|
|
Well, shoving that abstract concept talk away...
Love.
How fast would you admit you love someone?
I think no matter how excellent time I'd have with a girl, I wouldn't do it for at least a couple years.
I think love can eventually emerge, but calling fascination love is.. wrong? 
And all those people "loving" one person, than another, then another, then next 23 people in the row. It devalues the meaning of the word "love" >__>
It's kinda hard to explain it to a girl that asks "do you love me" though, can't really say "not yet, darling" 
____________
We reached to the stars and everything is now ours
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted January 28, 2009 01:17 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Anyway, this discussion is too silly imo for me to continue since I deem describing emotions in an encyclopedic way innefective, misleading and simply wrong. You can say how you feel yourself but not about them in general. Period.
Yeah? Then why start one in the first place? Not to mention that it's not too coherent:
{quote]
So you can never be sure and that's why I see your 'good points' invalid...
I hoped that that example would show you why do I think so. Mind you, it wasn't drawn out from a magic hat, but from the theory of evolution (which I take as reliable enough).
So you can never be sure, except when you conclude from the theory of evolution (which you cannot be sure of, but seemingly sure enough) to how feelings may work or be organized, a conclusion and a supposed connection that presents itself for mystical reasons, especially since Quote:
I deem describing emotions in an encyclopedic way innefective, misleading and simply wrong. You can say how you feel yourself but not about them in general.
|
|
veco
Legendary Hero
who am I?
|
|
posted January 28, 2009 02:18 PM |
|
Edited by veco at 14:20, 28 Jan 2009.
|
Yes JJ, your breaking down the post and commenting each part on it's own wthout the context of the entire message is very nice
If there's a way to speak about feelings then it's only when one is speaking how one feels. - sorry for confusing you. Also sorry for adding relativism in it, too much of is not good for any kind of discussion.
It may not be too coherent because I draw conclussions while wirting, sorry once more.
Lastly, I do not find it entertaining to be involved in 'sirious' debates, so sorry, my mistake trying to share my opinions, apparently one cannot do that without a 'detailed' explanation why he's wrong and has no point at all. Still, I'd love to see people posting here try to understand other points of view and then make statements about them.
edit: I'm done with this topic unless MM or emil posts
____________
none of my business.
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted January 28, 2009 03:08 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Lastly, I do not find it entertaining to be involved in 'sirious' debates, so sorry, my mistake trying to share my opinions, apparently one cannot do that without a 'detailed' explanation why he's wrong and has no point at all. Still, I'd love to see people posting here try to understand other points of view and then make statements about them.
edit: I'm done with this topic unless MM or emil posts
If your opinions and statements look like this:
Quote:
And my message was - both of your arguments (yours and Deaths) are equally invalid
then one can expect a solid explanation why they are so. Just because you say it, is not enough. If you have no explanation - or you don't want it to get too serious or go into detail or whatever - no one is stopping you from expressing a different view. However, in that case, may I suggest maybe just claiming a differing opinion without making definite statements about validity, wrong and right?
That said, yes, I agree, comparison of emotions is difficult, to say the least, and it starts with language. Looking a Doomforge's last post, what does saying "I love you" actually convey or express? And if "you" answers, "I love you, too", is there any guarantee - provided both are not deliberately speaking untrue - that both are meaning the same?
Take Doom. He obviously thinks that time will tell, whether you really love someone or not, since love - for him - would be something very special unlike and more than fascination (that may come with novelty).
It might be interesting to note - and maybe to switch a bit to the lighter side - that mathematics offer a solution for the problem:
Have a look here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secretary_problem You just have to exchange secretray with Beloved Wife. It's an optimal stopping problem, and mathematician Thomas Bruss developed a solution that's even usable when you don't know the total number of people you may fall in love with. All you need is something like a timely distribution of your meetings with eligible partners. The optimal stopping point is at roughly one third, 36.7 % of all the eligible persons you may fall in love with in your life.
|
|
Doomforge
Admirable
Undefeatable Hero
Retired Hero
|
|
posted January 29, 2009 02:28 PM |
|
|
Wow, insane stuff there, JJ So we have only 33% chance not to pick the wrong person? aww. Pity.
You know, even tho today we had a great session of french kissing and other stuff with my GF, I kept thinking.. why do I still feel some weird kind of emptiness in me?
It's not the girl's fault, she's great.. but maybe the 4 years of me being single messed up with my mind too much?
Any ideas? It feels.. weird.
____________
We reached to the stars and everything is now ours
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted January 29, 2009 03:21 PM |
|
|
Well, no, let me make the problem a bit clearer.
Imagine your past and future life. You've met some girls already, obviously, girls who you will learn to know better, and you WILL meet girls in the future. Assuming that with all of them (and picking only the cases where the problem presents itself) sooner or later a point will come when to decide whether to try a longer-lasting relationship or not, as soon as you will DO decide you will stop meeting new girls. Can you, mathematically, optimize the strategy, which is of course finding the best suited partner.
Let's make it clear with an example. Let's assume you'll meet 12 girls in your whole life who'd be eligible and prepared for a longer-lasting relationship. Let's assume further, that upon being together with a girl for a limited time you can decide whether the actual girl is the best of all you already met (or someone you already met was better). Of course, as soon as you decide to keep with a girl, you won't meet the rest. So if you number the girls 1 to 12, with 1 being the "worst" girl and 12 the best, you'll meet them in a random order.
What is now your best strategy to get your dream girl?
Mathematically - probabilitywise - your best chance is a) declining the first 4 and starting with number 5 keeping the next girl that's "better" than all the others before.
Now, the exact figure is 36.7% for an unlimited number of girls, the only catch is that you must make an educated guess about how many girls you'd meet all in all.
But the basic strategy is to decline a good first third.
Now imagine what this means for people who marry early or stay together with their first or second friend.
Someone who marries his or her FIRST serious friend does the right thing ONLY - probabilitywise - if that friend is one of at most two he or she will meet their whole life. As soon as you'll meet 3, it's already right to pass up the first chance, then take the second if better than the first or wait for the last if not.
If, for a woman and to make a point, you'd estimate a rather conservative TWO serious acquaintances per year, starting at a rather conservative age of 16 and lasting only 25 years, since you are motivated by finding the right father for the kids you want to have (nothing to fancy, mind you), with 40 being the age to bury all hope and become a nun, you'd meet 50 persons. Mathematically, you'd have to pass up the first 17, then start looking for real with the 18th, or at the earliest with the age of 24; finding the right one - the one better than all those met before - might take a while.
Now, if you imagine, that people wouldn't stop looking with 40, this would mean, that mathematically spoken you shouldn't even CONSIDER marrying before the age of 25 or something.
Divorce rates seem to support this.
|
|
Doomforge
Admirable
Undefeatable Hero
Retired Hero
|
|
posted January 29, 2009 03:47 PM |
|
|
well, thanks for that explanation.. makes sense
Any ideas on the "void" feeling? 
____________
We reached to the stars and everything is now ours
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted January 29, 2009 04:01 PM |
|
|
Maybe.
First thing that comes to mind: you may have expected too much. Reality is the enemy of expectation, and after 4 years of being single something in you may have been waiting for violins playing or some incredibly fine feeling that just isn't coming; memory seems to glorify things of the past, so you may find now that things were better in the past.
However, if it's really an emptiness or void or a hollow feeling, than chances are that something isn't right. Specificially, that something is MISSING, something that, from your point of view, should be there.
You'd know best what that something is, if you are honest with yourself.
A good question to ask for starters would be: why have you been single for 4 years? And if for a special reason or two what made you change your mind.
|
|
Doomforge
Admirable
Undefeatable Hero
Retired Hero
|
|
posted January 29, 2009 04:28 PM |
|
|
long story, tbh. I had normal GFs when I was younger, but it ended and I simply couldn't find a new one.
I don't drink and I don't like parties, so it was rather difficult for me. Also, my requirements (both visual and intellectual) are quite high. I can't date an ugly girl, or boring, or dumb. I just can't
So I had a lot of problems to find what would satisfy me throughout those 4 years.
The girl I'm with now has pretty much everything I require. She's smart, fun, cute, pretty, sexy, with a great @ss, doesn't smoke or drink, not a tiny bit prudish and is very womanly, well, for her age, anyway. Still, even though I am happy dating her, I still feel.. well.. some sort of emptiness when I go home. No, it's not that I miss her or smth like that, I'm already beyond adolescent fascinations. It's just the weird feeling.
I am not sure what could be possibly wrong. It's not HER fault, anyway: I bet I won't find anything more perfect in the next couple years.
____________
We reached to the stars and everything is now ours
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted January 29, 2009 04:44 PM |
|
|
@JJ: just had to comment on this:Quote:
We all agree that we can observe very different "kinds" of love, that's how it presents itself.
No, we can observe BEHAVIORS or ATTITUDES or stuff like that. You can't know that it is "love". That's your assumption. You say "Look at what that couple does, they love each other" and "That boy loves his father", simply by observation right? But observation doesn't tell you that both are LOVE itself. It only tells you how they behave/feel. Your assumption is that it is love in both cases, but different kinds. Mine is that it is a combination of a LOT of feelings, of which love is shared/common for both.
And besides, at least it's more robust since it's easier identifiable than to have a bunch of definitions that are also subjective and differ from person to person (and thus kinda pointless).
It's basic psychology. For example, when the average joe sees people laughing, he says "they are happy". When you see some guy very optimistic you say he is "happy" but in a different way of happiness? That's not how you approach psychology. In truth, both share the same thing/feeling called 'happiness', but in combination with a lot of other feelings (and the end result, is their different behavior/feelings per total, not their 'happiness'). The former may be happy + feeling funny at the situation (that's why he laughs), the latter may be happy + optimistic + 'feeling good' (having good expectancy).
That is, to examine behavior you break it up into basic building blocks, not just state "let's call both behaviors happy/love, but of different kinds" because that leads to NOTHING.
____________
The above post is subject to SIRIOUSness.
No jokes were harmed during the making of this signature.
|
|
Doomforge
Admirable
Undefeatable Hero
Retired Hero
|
|
posted January 29, 2009 04:48 PM |
|
|
Aww, Death. Instead of arguing with JJ, you'd better give me some sort of analysis on my little "problem"
____________
We reached to the stars and everything is now ours
|
|
Doomforge
Admirable
Undefeatable Hero
Retired Hero
|
|
posted January 29, 2009 04:53 PM |
|
|
Yeah, she is rather great. But the problem is.. that I don't feel as happy as I expected to feel, or smth like that 
____________
We reached to the stars and everything is now ours
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted January 29, 2009 04:59 PM |
|
|
@Doom: Maybe you still have a bit of teen stuff in you?
That's why probably you were so optimistic first time when you met her. In truth, I think the reason you feel 'empty' is because of your requirements or expectancy.
I can agree half-way with 'ugliness' and 'not dumb', but 'boring' and those are just too much requirements that don't have much impact. It's not like there couldn't be girls who have it (this gf is one example) but TO YOURSELF those things do not matter much (in reality), even though you thought otherwise (expectancy). You know, it's like a guy REALLY hoping for X saying that it will be the best thing ever to happen to him, then once he has X he feels empty and not 'full' (apart from probably the first day he gets it) because this X doesn't exactly appeal that much in reality but only in expectancy. It's the problem with expectancy.
I find the 'boring' characteristic simply trivial or insignificant. So it's probably why you realize it now, that it doesn't give you that much good compared to other girls, since it's not a significant characteristic to search for.
There are other lots of people (well nerdy, that's true, but nonetheless) who say that getting a gf would be the best thing to happen to him. Once he gets it though, he feels empty or sometimes even worse (i.e more responsibilities).
The problem is that your requirements aren't really going to fulfill your 'fullness' (i.e not empty) -- most aren't that significant.
____________
The above post is subject to SIRIOUSness.
No jokes were harmed during the making of this signature.
|
|
Doomforge
Admirable
Undefeatable Hero
Retired Hero
|
|
posted January 29, 2009 05:05 PM |
|
|
hey, we just started, so the physical excitement is still high. And we have a lot to do together.
Still.. it's not when I'm WITH her. It's AFTER.. I just feel not happy enough.
I think Death may be right, too high expectations for too long = distorted vision of a relationship.
Maybe it will improve as time goes.
____________
We reached to the stars and everything is now ours
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted January 29, 2009 05:15 PM |
|
|
Well the thing is, it's not that the relationship is bad, it's that you probably thought "it's going to fix all my problems" -- or alternatively, let's say you dated a girl similar, but 'boring' and you found it very unappealing. Then you said to yourself "Hey, I bet if I find one with the same characteristics (cute, beautiful, smart) BUT being 'interesting' and not boring, it will be the end of all my problems!!!" (well not really but let's exaggerate )
The problem is that this 'difference' between these 2 girls isn't really that high, while your expectations for it skyrocket in your mind.
That said, it's not like this relationship is WORSE than the other one, you FEEL worse because you had much HIGHER expectations.
Example: Guy A expects his gf to be boring, but at least solve 0.5% of his problems. And so she does, and he feels 'normally' -- not really more happy (0.5% is a small amount) but at least doesn't feel empty either, or if he does, it means he felt empty before as well (could be for other reasons of his).
Guy B expects his ideal gf to be so great that he thinks it would solve 60%+ of his problems. In reality, while his relationship with her is 'better' than Guy A's relationship (let's say 10%, much better than 0.5%), he feels empty MORE than Guy A because he expected 60%+, so the extra 50% was left in the dark and he feels not as what he thought he would (and realizes probably, that his problems are solved by only 10%).
This is of course hypothetical, just my 2 cents on the matter
____________
The above post is subject to SIRIOUSness.
No jokes were harmed during the making of this signature.
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted January 29, 2009 05:26 PM |
|
|
Quote:
@JJ: just had to comment on this:Quote:
We all agree that we can observe very different "kinds" of love, that's how it presents itself.
No, we can observe BEHAVIORS or ATTITUDES or stuff like that. You can't know that it is "love". That's your assumption. You say "Look at what that couple does, they love each other" and "That boy loves his father", simply by observation right? But observation doesn't tell you that both are LOVE itself. It only tells you how they behave/feel. Your assumption is that it is love in both cases, but different kinds. Mine is that it is a combination of a LOT of feelings, of which love is shared/common for both.
Well, that's actually not what I think or assume, but e can clear that up rather easy.
If I understand you right, you think that LOVE is something like a basic emotion, some basic ingredient, with different "kinds" of love consisting of that basic ingredient called LOVE plus a mix of other - not necessarily "basic" - emotional ingredients.
This would be your hypothesis, right?
I think, we agree that this assumes a lot - the existance of "basic" feelings, for one thing - and it would result in something like a periodic system of the human emotions.
The problem with this is, that I don't see any evidence for those "basic" feelings - they don't suggest themselves, at least not for me. But if you are so keen on tossing your ideas about love and emotions around, maybe you can come up with what exactly makes you think what you think. What evidence or circumstances seem to suggest for you that there is this basic feeling of LOVE?
|
| |
|
|
This Popular Thread is pages long: 
