GameBanshee Forums

fable wrote:This is a holdover myth from the 19th century Age of Romanticism. Dumas, Poe, and countless writers inferior to both used it on a regular basis. And it's a subset of that whole Destiny myth, which still clogs our cultural arteries--as witness the endless games, fiction, and movies (as that Star Wars mess demonstrates) that emphasize how *your* life should be filled with color, drama, and defeats that always turn into victories. Is it any wonder so many attempted relationships end in failure, when both parties are intent on realizing their own dreams of 24/7 fun with themselves as the destined center of the universe?

It's quite funny, I know a guy who is a religion psychologist, and he has conducted many studies of New age beliefs. One of his many findings, it that there are several groups of "New agers" who believe their beliefs are based on very old Eastern mysticism and wisdom, whereas in fact the ideas largely come from modern Western society.

But I want to emphasize that people who follow newer religions--or religions that attempt to revive old beliefs--don't necessarily believe in these myths. Transcendence in itself implies that part of each human survives death, but this doesn't mean that we're not fully integrated people, here and now.

I know little of any modern religion except European New age, but that itself is quite hetereogenous. There are some core features which are similar, but those core features are actually the same as in a majority of religions or spiritual "schools". Factor analysis of what New Agers themselves report that they believe, show that they vary on very fundamental issues, such as what you discuss above regarding full integration or not. Despite this, there are strong commercial interests that present the view that "New Age" is one big group who share views, and are distincly different from all other religious views.

Science can describe love and measure the physical processes linked to it, but I doubt science will ever figure out what love is.

It depends whether you define love as I and Chanak did above; ie as a mulitfaceted behaviour who also includes both evolutionarly and genetic level, biochemical level, a personal, private experience level and sociocultural evel, or if you define it operationally, like for instance "attachment" or other observable phenomena.

Consciousness research is a field of science where speculations is about as fruitful as speculation regarding how the universe came to be, ie at this stage of human knowledge, it is poetry and fantasy with only pieces of controlled, empiric knowledge. I don't know what will happen in the future, but the "mind" part of human behaviour, ie the level of subjective, private experience loaded with all the indivuals unique learning history and experinces, is simply not possible or even meaningful to study scientifically.

Rob-hin wrote:Arguement is that mind and soul are one.
Also, it is said that a feeling like love is caused by chemicals in our body, like adrenaline.

I don't know what you mean with soul, and I don't know where you read that somebody said love is caused by chemicals in our body, but just to make sure it was not my posts you misunderstood, I would like to point out that the causality is not one way. Chemical events elicit certain emotions that are interpreted by the human mind as for instance "love". However, chemical events are in turn elicited by a trigger, for instance hearing the voice of your loved one or seeing a face. A million of chemical events are triggered in your brain when you feel the smell of your loved one. Biochemical elicits an emotion we interpret as love, and experiencing the emotion we call love, elicits biological events.

Did you know that experience and learning can actually turn off and on gene expression? Interaction is the name of the game in everything biology.

If in years time man could build a man, like Frankenstine's monster, it have every reason to be alive, phisically. Still it would not, because it has no soul. The soul fills the gap that enables it to live. I won't go to deep into this as it's a bit off topic.

The classical mind/brain problem. It sounds as if you believe in an immaterial, ie transcendent part of the human being. It could also be a reductionism-holism (parts v whole) issue. To be sure that I understand you correctly, I would like to ask:
What if we cloned a human being? Will it have a soul or not? If I take your brain, atom by atom, and rebuild it in my lab, would you keep my soul or not then?

So you know where I'm coming from on this: I am not a regigious person and I don't believe in unexplainable things. This is one point I do believe in however. Main cause is that I believe in the power that lies in the soul. A man can do so much more then he phisically can when he put's his heart into it. Dramatic example: to lift a car when a friend is stuck under it after an accident.

Your example could actually be explained in a very scientific way also. The man spots his friend lying under the car. This frightful sight triggers an extreme alarm state in the body; norephinedrine and adrenaline are released to increase vigilance and concentration, blood is recruited to the big muscles in the body in order to make them stronger. The pain threshold is lowered. The state of consciousness is altered to include extreme vigilance, perhaps tunnel vision and changes in how time is experienced. Intronless gene may suddenly be expressed, even in the brain. For instance, new receptors for increased activity of chemical transmission in the brain are recruited in a few hundrereds of a second. The man lifts the car because he is in this special state. He may tear his muscles and suffer from back problems for the rest of his life, but in this particular moment, all his resources were recruited for survival of his friend.

What you call soul in this example, is what I would view as a perfect example of the interaction between genes, biology, environment and experience I described above.

[QUOTE=C Elegans]It's quite funny, I know a guy who is a religion psychologist, and he has conducted many studies of New age beliefs. One of his many findings, it that there are several groups of "New agers" who believe their beliefs are based on very old Eastern mysticism and wisdom, whereas in fact the ideas largely come from modern Western society.[/quote]

Surely he didn't need to do studies to find that pearl of wisdom, which has been observable in humanity throughout recorded history? It goes something like this:

1) Our culture is in decline.
2) That which is furthest from us in time and space is therefore best.
3) My religious views are the wisest; therefore
4) My religion derives from the oldest and most distant untouched source.

(That also explains, by the way, a series of frauds committed in early Renaissance literature that attempted to push the age of the papacy back to the original St Peter, and prognostications of Christianity back to the Middle Dynasties of Ancient Egypt. Make it look older, and it will therefore automatically look wiser.)

It's nonsense, whether stated by New Agers, Protestant Evangelicals, or what have you. Everybody reinterprets whatever religious documents they have in their own essentially modern terms: you can't go back. So it isn't the age of the document that matters, whether it's a Bible, the Sutras, the Qa'ran, or my own Book of Shadows: it's always you that make it modern. And what makes it wise is what you yourself bring to the picture, not what you've read. Or at least, that's my take on it.

Despite this, there are strong commercial interests that present the view that "New Age" is one big group who share views, and are distincly different from all other religious views.

That's the way New Agers would like to present themselves, because without exception we feel hemmed in by some very powerful and sometimes quite hostile conventional religious forces. But many of us are very, very different. For example, ZBudapest's Dianic witches are monotheistic and sexist: they rail about the Christian god, and replace that with a goddess. On the other hand, I'm Garnderian/trad, and my tradition(s) derive from a dual worship, polytheistic approach. Some New Agers believe the soul is "trapped" in flesh. Others believe there's no distinction in life between the two, and we should within ethical limits enjoy and celebrate both. These two matters--monotheistic vs polytheistic, the nature of physical reality--indicate serious divisions within the "modern Western" religious community.

It depends whether you define love as I and Chanak did above; ie as a mulitfaceted behaviour who also includes both evolutionarly and genetic level, biochemical level, a personal, private experience level and sociocultural evel, or if you define it operationally, like for instance "attachment" or other observable phenomena.

But that again measures observable phenomena, not what love is, the "Ding an sich" or "thing in itself" as the German philosophers put it (and pretty damn well, too). Now, this may be all that love truly is; but I'm suggesting that we'll never know, since we, the species that does the measurements, is also the species that experiences love. We have no objectivity from the outside, no control to look at, no alternative viewpoint to consider.

Consciousness research is a field of science where speculations is about as fruitful as speculation regarding how the universe came to be, ie at this stage of human knowledge, it is poetry and fantasy with only pieces of controlled, empiric knowledge. I don't know what will happen in the future, but the "mind" part of human behaviour, ie the level of subjective, private experience loaded with all the indivuals unique learning history and experinces, is simply not possible or even meaningful to study scientifically.

That's very well put.

fable wrote:Surely he didn't need to do studies to find that pearl of wisdom, which has been observable in humanity throughout recorded history?

Of course he must, if he is to make a statement with scientific validity. Logic induction or generalisation from other times or cultures, are not valid in a scientific sense, although they are valid arguments. It must be demonstated empirically that this certain group (Europeans who identify themselves as "New Agers") hold these certain beliefs (defined by their own reports) which has those specific features (analysed).

That's the way New Agers would like to present themselves, because without exception we feel hemmed in by some very powerful and sometimes quite hostile conventional religious forces.
<snip>

This paragraph which I cut short now, certainly demonstrates my comment above that New Age is a very heterogenous belief system. In Sweden, New Agers are not very organised so the believers themselves don't focus so much at issues of heterogentity v homogenity, instead their main focus is to identify themselves as distincly different from the monotheistic religions. Instead, it is is commercial interests such as "Spiritual centers" where you can take very expensive courses in How To Become Spiritual.

But that again measures observable phenomena, not what love is, the "Ding an sich" or "thing in itself" as the German philosophers put it (and pretty damn well, too). Now, this may be all that love truly is; but I'm suggesting that we'll never know, since we, the species that does the measurements, is also the species that experiences love. We have no objectivity from the outside, no control to look at, no alternative viewpoint to consider.

No, regardless of whether we believe love consist of only observable phenomena or not, I actually included a non observable part in my description above: the "personal experience". Subjective personal experince include and is dependent of thee individuals unique interpretation and experience, which in turn is dependent of the individuals unique learning history. Observing personal experience would be equivalent with observing somebody else's dream: ie it seems bloody unlikely that this can be studied in any foreseable future.

I will not however say never. Maybe in the future, quantum physics will make this possible

Found this table, which I found inheteresting. It shows the different aspects of different kinds of love.


Intimacy (Liking, Friendship) intimacy
Passion (Infatuation, Lust) passion
Commitment (Empty love) commitment
Romantic love intimacy passion
Companionate love intimacy commitment
Fatuous love (Whirlwind romance) passion commitment
Consummate love intimacy passion commitment

Any comments?

[QUOTE=giles337]Found this table, which I found inheteresting. It shows the different aspects of different kinds of love.


Intimacy (Liking, Friendship) intimacy
Passion (Infatuation, Lust) passion
Commitment (Empty love) commitment
Romantic love intimacy passion
Companionate love intimacy commitment
Fatuous love (Whirlwind romance) passion commitment
Consummate love intimacy passion commitment

Any comments?[/QUOTE]
Yeah, how to read it?

It's read like this:

Intimacy = Liking or Friendship
Passion = Infatuation or Lust
Commitment = Empty love
Romantic love = intimacy + passion
Companionate love = intimacy + commitment
Fatuous love or Whirlwind romance= passion + commitment
Consummate love = intimacy + passion + commitment

Sorry for the late responce, I had a busy weekend and a headache

C Elegans wrote:I don't know what you mean with soul, and I don't know where you read that somebody said love is caused by chemicals in our body, but just to make sure it was not my posts you misunderstood, I would like to point out that the causality is not one way. Chemical events elicit certain emotions that are interpreted by the human mind as for instance "love". However, chemical events are in turn elicited by a trigger, for instance hearing the voice of your loved one or seeing a face. A million of chemical events are triggered in your brain when you feel the smell of your loved one. Biochemical elicits an emotion we interpret as love, and experiencing the emotion we call love, elicits biological events.

I'm not even sure what I ment by soul... it's a incorporeal essence of some kind. That's as close as I get describing it. It's something we can 'see' 'yet' so it's hard to define it, but I'm sure its there. That's what I believe anyway.

You say that the chemical proces is the result of external infuences. In my opinion the externa infuences mean nothing, its what it means that causes those concequences. So basically we are saying the same thing.
Where we differ is that I think that the soul transforms the external infuences into an emotion and that the emotion then stimulates the chemical proces. It's hard for me to explain but I hope you understand.

Did you know that experience and learning can actually turn off and on gene expression? Interaction is the name of the game in everything biology.

I'm not sure what you mean by this.

The classical mind/brain problem. It sounds as if you believe in an immaterial, ie transcendent part of the human being. It could also be a reductionism-holism (parts v whole) issue. To be sure that I understand you correctly, I would like to ask:
What if we cloned a human being? Will it have a soul or not? If I take your brain, atom by atom, and rebuild it in my lab, would you keep my soul or not then?

It depends.
Since we cloned a sheep by growing one inside a living creature, and thus only altering the pre-creation proces, this is a fact. I lelieve that it's growing created the soul, so to speek.

However, if you copy and paste me, so to speak , I don't believe it will be alive. It's just tissue, blood and bones. The soul is not copied. At least that's what I hope... if mankind ever gets that done, the consequences would be dramatic.

Your example could actually be explained in a very scientific way also. The man spots his friend lying under the car. This frightful sight triggers an extreme alarm state in the body; norephinedrine and adrenaline are released to increase vigilance and concentration, blood is recruited to the big muscles in the body in order to make them stronger. The pain threshold is lowered. The state of consciousness is altered to include extreme vigilance, perhaps tunnel vision and changes in how time is experienced. Intronless gene may suddenly be expressed, even in the brain. For instance, new receptors for increased activity of chemical transmission in the brain are recruited in a few hundrereds of a second. The man lifts the car because he is in this special state. He may tear his muscles and suffer from back problems for the rest of his life, but in this particular moment, all his resources were recruited for survival of his friend.

What you call soul in this example, is what I would view as a perfect example of the interaction between genes, biology, environment and experience I described above.

I agree with you there. But as I explained above in this post, I think the step from external to chemical misses a link. And that link is soul, not simply your brain interpreting what it all means. Naturally it does this, but the true interpretation from external to body responce is done by the soul.

Am I in love?

Been with Sarah for 1 year, 4 months, have a lovely house with her and fully intend to stay with her till I die, (hopefully before I'm 50), I miss her when I'm not around, am extremely comfortable in her presence and have a lot in common with her and 'sweet bob the destroyer' don't even mind going shopping with her as she always lets me go into the computer game/gadget/book/cool stuff shops to balance out her clothes shopping. She's very beautiful, is AMAZING in bed and is brilliant (1st class degree in Cognitive Science and Artificial Intelligence, I'm so proud).

I say I love her but couldn't describe how that feels, at one point in our relationship I decided that it was time to start saying it, not because i thought I did but because I knew it would make her happy.
So is it just because i'm an emotionally retarded bloke or do I love her really?

[QUOTE=Macleod1701]Am I in love?

Been with Sarah for 1 year, 4 months, have a lovely house with her and fully intend to stay with her till I die, (hopefully before I'm 50), I miss her when I'm not around, am extremely comfortable in her presence and have a lot in common with her and 'sweet bob the destroyer' don't even mind going shopping with her as she always lets me go into the computer game/gadget/book/cool stuff shops to balance out her clothes shopping. She's very beautiful, is AMAZING in bed and is brilliant (1st class degree in Cognitive Science and Artificial Intelligence, I'm so proud).

I say I love her but couldn't describe how that feels, at one point in our relationship I decided that it was time to start saying it, not because i thought I did but because I knew it would make her happy.
So is it just because i'm an emotionally retarded bloke or do I love her really?[/QUOTE]

You'd know if you loved her, it sort of hits you. Almost like a car would.

Personally, I refrain from saying so unless I KNOW I feel that way, as it ends up causing problems otherwise from what I've seen and dealt with personally. If you really care about her, I wouldn't be spouting "I love you's" unless you know you mean it and not just to make her happy. She wouldn't be very happy if she knew you were just saying that for that reason I don't think. My last girlfriend did so to get something she wanted and now she's hiding from me from when I found out.

Sorry, I should have commented on this previously, but I'm in the middle of changing flats as well as fairly busy with my job, as usual.

giles337 wrote:Intimacy (Liking, Friendship) intimacy
Passion (Infatuation, Lust) passion
Commitment (Empty love) commitment
Romantic love intimacy passion
Companionate love intimacy commitment
Fatuous love (Whirlwind romance) passion commitment
Consummate love intimacy passion commitment

This seems to be one way to categorise the concept "love" in a descriptive way, according to different "compounds" it may consist of. I do however think this taxonomy missed out many aspects of love, and also it's not precise enough in its' definitions.

@Rob-hin: I think I understand your viewpoint now.

Rob-hin] Where we differ is that I think that the soul transforms the external infuences into an emotion and that the emotion then stimulates the chemical proces. It's hard for me to explain but I hope you understand. :) [/quote] If I understand you correctly wrote:

C Elegans] Did you know that experience and learning can actually turn off and on gene expression? Interaction is the name of the game in everything biology.[/quote] I'm not sure what you mean by this. [/quote] A gene expression is the end product of what a gene is coding for. Many people believe that if something is genetic (ie genetically coded for) wrote: It depends.
Since we cloned a sheep by growing one inside a living creature, and thus only altering the pre-creation proces, this is a fact. I lelieve that it's growing created the soul, so to speek.

However, if you copy and paste me, so to speak , I don't believe it will be alive. It's just tissue, blood and bones. The soul is not copied. At least that's what I hope... if mankind ever gets that done, the consequences would be dramatic.

Ok, so from this, I can conclude that you believe the soul is something that needs to be developed early in life. Maybe we can draw a parallell to what is called "critical periods" in developmental biology. Take language development in humans: children needs to learn a human language when they are small, if they learn no language at all, they will be forever impaired in language skills. This is called a critical period, and it means that the organism is optimised for developing a certain feature during a certain time frame during ontogenesis (individual development), after that time frame it is too late. So if I copy and paste you as an adult, your soul will not automatically be copied since it is not 100% connected to your body.

Do I understand you correctly, you little mysticist ?

Macleod1701 wrote: I say I love her but couldn't describe how that feels, at one point in our relationship I decided that it was time to start saying it, not because i thought I did but because I knew it would make her happy.
So is it just because i'm an emotionally retarded bloke or do I love her really?

Have you been in love before? It's common that you can't describe nor identify love if you haven't felt it before. Even emotionally retarded people usually learn to identify love and other emotions with training

love

well i dont know what all that stuff about our brains but i know that in order to love there must be a strong bond between two peoples souls,one that can not never be broken and a strong friendship,love is just a strong feeling of friendship and emotion bind together between two people so you can never love without a powerful friendship binded by trust honesty and devotion,even though you say you love someone you you have to uderstand these princapals of love or else it is just hollow and untrue,and love can never be broken just as friendship,therefore if you think you love someone and say it but then it fails you will know that it was never truly love .......



thats funny cause im only 13 lol

I know this is an old thread, but CE pointed it out to me. I think that love is better explained by ancient thinkers than by modern thinkers. Love, like Justice and Good, don't really have chemical explanations. They are more ideals than anything, and you can explain love in many ways. I think that in today's world, "Love" is too often confused with "the desire to get busy", and people don't really mind confuing the two. But to me, love is distinct.

Plato's Symposium has a whole bunch of different explanations. Has anyone ever seen the movie Hedwig and the Angry Inch? The movie actually covered one of the explained in the Symposium (Aristophanes' circle man myth).

@Cuchlain: What the old thinkers called love is not the same as what modern thinkers call love. I also think one can get the impression that older philosophy explains the world better because philosophy aimed to fathom a large number of subjects that today are specialist areas.

If you define love as a behaviour, it can be scientifically explained. If you define love as an abstract ideal concept equivalent of justice or good, it cannot be scientifically explained. I view love as an evolutionary determined behaviour, and as such it can be scientifically explained in terms of attachment.

[QUOTE=C Elegans]If you define love as a behaviour, it can be scientifically explained. If you define love as an abstract ideal concept equivalent of justice or good, it cannot be scientifically explained. I view love as an evolutionary determined behaviour, and as such it can be scientifically explained in terms of attachment.[/QUOTE]
Really?! (I'm totally serious) How do you explain love as a behaviorial trait? Just to keep us breeding?

I don't like abstract ideals, so I was kind of hesitant to use that language (I don't really believe in that way of looking at things- it is divisive and necessitates too much duality). But I do think that there is a certain rational element to Love, along with a biochemical. People feel an existential need for companionship/love- do you think this is societal?

The reason I said that ancient thinkers do a better job with love is because they are focused on the ends, not the means (here we go with Aristotle's 4 causes again ). But I think that what you are saying CE totally flies in the face of that- exciting

I think there are some interesting questions here, and it is a fascinating topic. For the most part, I tend to share Magrus' view.

Love, to me, is something intangible... It is a profoundly spiritual connection between two people. It is a union wherein justification or explanation of self is never needed because the individuals involved.. understand one another completely at a depth that goes far beyond mere words or mutual desire.

It doesn't necessarily have to take on a sexual connotation, though sexual attraction is often present. IMO... this kind of deep bond is extremely rare... I think that most people are unlikely to encounter it more than once.... if at all. But, when it does happen... you recognise it. It is totally unlike anything else..... the best analogy I can think of is to say that it is, very literally, like having the wind knocked out of you... except in this case you never quite regain your breath.... and you never fully recover..

The whole experience is extremely difficult to articulate.... My apologies if I sound so inexact.

I also agree with Cuchulain in that love, at least the way I'm describing it above, is distinct. Maybe the fact that it is so very rare makes it an ideal? If I even make sense?

Although, it is also true that are many different forms of love. Some are largely based on lust, which is distinct from love, IMO. Others arise from companionship and compatability or shared interests. Still another form tends to be derived from friendship.

What causes it? I think this is something we could all debate endlessly. I do have my own thoughts and they are quite closely aligned with some of my spiritual beliefs.
But... truthfully.. I'm not really sure I ever want to know.

[QUOTE=dragon wench]But... truthfully.. I'm not really sure I ever want to know. [/QUOTE]
There is a quote from William Goldman (author of The Princess Bride and Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid, among other works) that I thought of after your last post DW. Since he is a writer he is talking about "the Creative Process," but if you substitue "Love" in, it works very well:

"I don't understand Love(the creative process). Actually, I make a concerted effort not to understand it. I don't know what it is or how it works but I am terrified that one green morning it will decide not to work anymore, so I have always given it as wide a bypass as possible."

As wide a bypass as possible indeed...

[QUOTE=Cuchulain82]"I don't understand Love(the creative process). Actually, I make a concerted effort not to understand it. I don't know what it is or how it works but I am terrified that one green morning it will decide not to work anymore, so I have always given it as wide a bypass as possible."
[/QUOTE]

I am familiar with that line, and I remember being very struck by it the first time I read it. IMO there is a very strong correlation between love and the creative process in this sense. I have a small book containing quotes on love from various artists and writers, there is often a lot of merging within those quotes between love and the creative act. One of my favourites is in my sig.

[QUOTE=dragon wench]I am familiar with that line, and I remember being very struck by it the first time I read it. IMO there is a very strong correlation between love and the creative process in this sense. I have a small book containing quotes on love from various artists and writers, there is often a lot of merging within those quotes between love and the creative act. One of my favourites is in my sig.[/QUOTE]

It's funny, but you wouldn't expect a screenwriter to be as insightful as he is, but then again, The Princess Bride is the Wizard of Oz our generation, and it says more about love than most other books I've read. I think that Goldman nailed the topic completely with that one quote. It is one of the rare soundbites I actually like.

btw- 9,900 posts DW- Congrats! Wow! That is a lot of excellent typing

I agree very much with Chanak, and possibly with the way Giles is going...

'Love' is a linguistic construction.

It covers many many types of feelings and behaviour. Hence the confusion over whether 'erotic love' is actually the same kind of love as 'Platonic love' or 'familial love' or 'patriotic love'.

Each individual human feeling is unique, due to the indescribable complexity of the brain.

The feeling of love that Magrus, DW (and other romantics ) talk about is a quite precise or small set of feelings. They will not allow many feelings to be defined as 'love', only a few, which perhaps are those which seem more mysterious because they are less easily recognisable as physical processes?

However, the word 'love' itself is often used in many other circumstances, so it is easy to believe that it's definition is stretched to the point of meaninglessness...hence 'There is no such thing as love'.

I think therefore that 'love' is an unweildy word. Whether 'true love' exists or is bollocks depends on your own definition of the word.

To claim though that one specific definition of the word (i.e. that romantic feeling) has a spiritual or transcendental element where others do not seems somewhat arbitrary. The fact that one perceives some kind of 'higher' aspect within the feeling, to me is more satisfactorily explained by the argument that the physical processes involved produce an illusion of a higher aspect, than by recourse to a transcendental plane of emotional activity.