A Sense of Life is an emotional evaluation of the world. It is subconsciously formed through a process of emotional integration. It integrates one's emotions and value-judgments. Since it is an automatic process, it begins with one's first emotional judgments about the world long before the capacity to rationally judge the world has been achieved. It is because of this that one's Sense of Life can differ radically from one's explicit metaphysical view. Although the two relate, and affect one another, there is no causal connection.
A Sense of Life differs from simple emotions. It is not an emotional evaluation of one's metaphysical views, whether implicit or explicit. A Sense of Life is not programmed by a single evaluation. It is an integration of countless evaluations. Over the course of one's life, it integrates emotions and value-judgments related to all aspects of living. A Sense of Life is the sum of these emotions and value-judgments. This is the method by which it acts as an emotional evaluation of the world. Not directly through a concept of the world and an appropriate judgment, but a complex summation of judgments about every aspect of the world one has made.
BnaturAl: We're not so differrent in the philisophical sense
We know when we're angry, we know when we're happy, and we know when we fall in ove, I don't think a dictionary is required to describe it. We know it and however persoanlly coloured, it is generally universal. So much so that we can recognize in other when THEY have fallin in anger and love etc.
What is personal is the "reasons" for us falling in anger, falling in love, falling in anything. The thing that angers me may not anger you and the things that anger you may not anger me, but "anger" is the constant that we recognize.
Again I accept the "possibility" but I wouldn't give an inch on "probability". The brain knows mimickery, it will recognize it as such and disillusion you in no time flat.
I think you can willfully change the criteria one sets for atractions, not easily either , but you cannot change the falling in love part, because any change to the natural affect of falling in love will show up as a mimicked love and your core mental functions will keep reminding you its not love at all that you'd be falling in, its you trying to fool yourself and deny any natural influences and still trying to mimick falling in love
.
A personal view of love is what it all boils down too, we all take different roads to get there but eventually we reach our destination, no matter real or delusional
StressFree: I liked that perspective Ambrose Even universes have fixed identities...so I think.
I'm not really that different than I was when I was 18, but surely not the same person. True, I agree with Ginger that we do have an essential core, but I don't think that our root core is able to be ripped out by life's experiences. We either draw closer to our true core, or shift away from it. And some go back and forth all the time.
I hope I am making cognitive sense
But I think Ginger was saying that we *don't* have an essential *individual* core, SF.
This leads to the paradox about exactly *who* is the one making these free choices...
Ambrose2007: But I think Ginger was saying that we *don't* have an essential *individual* core, SF.
This leads to the paradox about exactly *who* is the one making these free choices...
Hmmm....I see your point and hers as well. I'm going to have to continue this later. I'm a little busy right now and don't have the focus right now to discuss this very interesting and convoluted topic. I have a lot I want to add. So hold on in the next two days....
Ambrose2007: I'm currently debating this subject with a friend. He believes that through a combination of therapy, hypnosis, self-suggestion, and sheer willpower one make oneself fall out of love (he's claims to have done this with a long-time girlfriend). He also contends that one can will oneself to fall in love with someone. We might not *want* to fall in love with someone because of personal incompatibilities, but if one wanted to do so it would be possible - even if the person were poorly compatible.
He also applies this across the board to our desires: we could, for example, will ourselves to have different tastes in women (for example, change from liking skinny women to overweight women) if we so chose.
I believe there are quite a number of problematic elements in his position, but I'm wondering what thoughts my fellow CSers might have on this subject...
Therapy, hypnosis, self-suggestion, and sheer willpower ?
Gosh, sounds like too much work to me
Seriously, I do think love initially is a form of temporary insanity, caused by lust, projection and illusions that can quickly fade as reality and the light of day arrives.
Falling in love is easy; staying in love should just happen.
arabella: Seriously, I do think love initially is a form of temporary insanity, caused by lust, projection and illusions that can quickly fade as reality and the light of day arrives.
arabella: Therapy, hypnosis, self-suggestion, and sheer willpower ? Gosh, sounds like too much work to me
Seriously, I do think love initially is a form of temporary insanity, caused by lust, projection and illusions that can quickly fade as reality and the light of day arrives.
Falling in love is easy; staying in love should just happen.
good point - that's why I couldn't comment on willing oneself to fall out of love.
Never tried, never wanted to - the feeling is too great to go into all this trouble to free oneself from it.
lktolbert: I never stated that whatever exists outside one's head is irrelevant to the contents of one's own mind. I never claimed that holding a false view does not affect one's life. How many warm tequillas did you enjoy? I suggested a single shot - not the bottle
I said that whatever truth exists outside one's mind is irrelevant IN RELATION TO self altering one's mind. Example: When willing onself to fall in or out of love, that individual's definition of love is the only one relevant, regardless of how distorted the rest of the world views it to be.
Happy Hallowee, Dr. Jeff!!!!
me = you =
I hope you had a happy one, too, Linda. We didn't get a lot of tricky treaters, so unfortunately we're stuck with a truckload of delicious candy bars. But sometimes life is like that.
Okay, it seems that we're talking past each other a bit. I'm not sure that's because you're not getting my basic point or I'm not getting yours.
I think I understand what you're saying - that what's relevant for mind-control is how the person experiences what's going on in his own mind. That is, if someone wills something to happen in their own mind and it happens (from their point of view), then it doesn't matter what anyone else thinks or what other external truths are - the essential control of will is what's exercised by the individual. Is this what you're saying?
My point is that the only way to determine if this self-willing has actually achieved success is through an objective reference of some kind. For example, let's say I believe I've willed myself to fall out of love. You - I think - are saying that's the only relevant thing: my *belief* that I've successfully willed myself to fall out of love...my experience that this has happened. I would say that this does not account for self-delusion - that is, that it's quite possible that the person in question has *not in fact* succeeded in willing him or herself out of love, but simply believes that he or she has. This person, in other words, has failed to achieve what he or she believes was achieved.
An example in real life was my ex-wife. For years she swore she didn't love me. She often claimed that she'd made herself stop loving me through sheer will (over a period of years). Her experience was that she had succeeded in that endeavor. However, she was wrong. She had in fact failed to stop loving me - rather she had *suppressed* her feelings of love. That was what she had succeeded at. This all came out after we were separated for a couple of years.
When you say the "individual's definition of love is the only one relevant," I am unable to see an interpretation of that which doesn't deny objective reality - that doesn't amount to saying that the individual's view of love is necessarily correct for him or her. But this cannot be true, since it doesn't allow, again, for mistaken and/or delusional views. There is no reason to think that people cannot hold mistaken or delusional views of love just as they can hold such views for everything else. If a person has a wrong view of love - or simply isn't capable of love (another possibility) - then it's his or her views which are distorted and misleading.
In other words, when I raised the question of whether or not one can will oneself in or out of love, I was speaking of the *actual* achievement of this, not the belief (delusional/incorrect) that one has achieved that. It's like I asked: Can a guy five foot tall dunk? I wouldn't be asking if he believed he could dunk - I would be asking if he actually could dunk.
BnaturAl: I think naturally falling in love may, I repeat may have some pitfalls, not nearly as many as willing oneself to fall in love.
Good point, Al the more repetitions of what you think may and/or may not happen - the stronger and more valid the argument becomes.
BnaturAl: I'd like to see someone do this in practice..
My point is that even if you think you can (and you can surely think you can) will love, if you cannot stay in love despite all the external interventions ...
Another very questionable point. You might think that all the external interventions have stronger effect on 'willed falling-in-love' vs 'conventional falling-in-love', but the fact is: there is nothing to support this opinion.
You also might want to review CS archives if you want to see how fast delusions of 'conventional falling-in-love' shatter... (in case you didn't see enough of it in RL)
Whenever we fall in love (no matter how it happens, which way), we inevitably fall for a delusion - what we want the other to be ... and if it is left at this and doesn't grow into something meaningful, it will disintegrate... the euphoria of 'fallen-in-love' phase won't last.
laura225: Good point, Al the more repetitions of what you think may and/or may not happen - the stronger and more valid the argument becomes.Another very questionable point. You might think that all the external interventions have stronger effect on 'willed falling-in-love' vs 'conventional falling-in-love', but the fact is: there is nothing to support this opinion.
You also might want to review CS archives if you want to see how fast delusions of 'conventional falling-in-love' shatter... (in case you didn't see enough of it in RL)
Whenever we fall in love (no matter how it happens , which way), we inevitably fall for a delusion - what we want the other to be ... and if it is left at this and doesn't grow into something meaningful, it will disintegrate... the euphoria of 'fallen-in-love' phase won't last.
ya, well, it took Tarzan a long time to get over monkey love before he accepted Jane as an alternative
Report threads that break rules, are offensive, or contain fighting. Staff may not be aware of the forum abuse, and cannot do anything about it unless you tell us about it. click to report forum abuse »
If one of the comments is offensive, please report the comment instead (there is a link in each comment to report it).
A Sense of Life is an emotional evaluation of the world. It is subconsciously formed through a process of emotional integration. It integrates one's emotions and value-judgments. Since it is an automatic process, it begins with one's first emotional judgments about the world long before the capacity to rationally judge the world has been achieved. It is because of this that one's Sense of Life can differ radically from one's explicit metaphysical view. Although the two relate, and affect one another, there is no causal connection.
A Sense of Life differs from simple emotions. It is not an emotional evaluation of one's metaphysical views, whether implicit or explicit. A Sense of Life is not programmed by a single evaluation. It is an integration of countless evaluations. Over the course of one's life, it integrates emotions and value-judgments related to all aspects of living. A Sense of Life is the sum of these emotions and value-judgments. This is the method by which it acts as an emotional evaluation of the world. Not directly through a concept of the world and an appropriate judgment, but a complex summation of judgments about every aspect of the world one has made.
Copyright © 2001 by Jeff Landauer and Joseph Rowlands
Has a lot to do with the way one chooses.
ingrained stuff? geeez, we can just will that away