The Law of Context

Originally posted by TheSubversiveOne
reply to post by ImaFungi

 

I think you are wrong... I think if you erased the word 'love' from all vocabularies and dictionaries.. and the concet of love, the word and meaning from the minds of all humans.... love would still be a thing that exists in the universe

Except there is a difference between you thinking I'm wrong, and me actually being wrong.

So far, to prove love you've pointed at a couple chemical reactions and called them feelings. All I ask is for you to show me one drop of love, one ounce of it, but you never could. Luckily, it's common for people to believe in things that aren't there.

edit on 13-1-2013 by TheSubversiveOne because: (no reason given)

if the feeling of love can only be experienced under specific organizations of chemical reactions... and a human can define, describe, and claim to feel the affects of these chemical reactions...and the chemical reactions do exist in the human. Why do you say they dont exist?

If the concept and word love, correlates to specific chemical reactions, why do you deny the existence of those chemical reactions?

this is the same problem you run into when denying the existence of God..... you deny the truth from your knowledge of understanding of the concepts, and words, and definitions... while ignoring the fact that the words and concepts are not primary,, the symbols and labels are our fingers pointing at the moon, not the moon..

I understand the difference between concepts and ideas.. and truth/physical reality ..... I just felt that you were careless with the example of love, because I think our concept of love can be related ( however complex, wishy washy, grey area'd) to something which physically exists in the universe... in other words... the concept of love is not in vain and did not come about unwarranted or unjustified.. it is a finger pointing at a (complex) moon....




Now,, this relates to your OP... context.... In a meaningless universe, how is there any meaning.. or value. This is what I think you are getting at. If this universe is one big accidental eternal lego party,,and the only rational, logical thing a living tower of legos could want to do, is keep its tower intact and safe and living, how can something so romantic and ewwwy, and gooey, and weak as love, be a real thing.. be of consequence, be of value, have meaning?... In a way, what are feelings and why do they exist at all.. why are we not all a mix between spock and conon the barbarian... its kinda paradoxical... if there is no meaning,, why do you want to build something bigger and better, to be for longer..because taking any action, as something, endows meaning, or purpose or intent.. i lost my self a little, just going with the flow of my thoughts... i think i was at one point on the right track so maybe you can pick at anything i said to discuss... picking up though, i wanted to say,, it could be love is an evolutionary trick so we dont kill a woman and kid,, maybe everything nice and romantic is a lie to ourselves to deal with existing as such crude creatures.... but if we change our nature, and the way we see things.. does our nature objectively change... if we choose to fulfill our concepts of love, and make them actual, between all people... will the concept of love, being put into action, make the concept of love, more then just a concept?

reply to post by ImaFungi

if the feeling of love can only be experienced under specific organizations of chemical reactions... and a human can define, describe, and claim to feel the affects of these chemical reactions...and the chemical reactions do exist in the human. Why do you say they dont exist?

If the concept and word love, correlates to specific chemical reactions, why do you deny the existence of those chemical reactions?

Because it isn't just one feeling. It isn't just one chemical reaction. There's many feelings, many reactions, many situations, causes, etc. There's nothing specific about it. Love isn't a feeling, it is an idea encompassing many feelings and combos of feelings in relation to certain contexts, situations and people. It is only an idea.

Love as an idea exists. I cannot deny that. But it isn't a force, a thing or something external.

this is the same problem you run into when denying the existence of God..... you deny the truth from your knowledge of understanding of the concepts, and words, and definitions... while ignoring the fact that the words and concepts are not primary,, the symbols and labels are our fingers pointing at the moon, not the moon..

I understand the difference between concepts and ideas.. and truth/physical reality ..... I just felt that you were careless with the example of love, because I think our concept of love can be related ( however complex, wishy washy, grey area'd) to something which physically exists in the universe... in other words... the concept of love is not in vain and did not come about unwarranted or unjustified.. it is a finger pointing at a (complex) moon....

To point at love, the closest you could get is if you pointed to your head, because that is where the idea of love lies.

Now,, this relates to your OP... context.... In a meaningless universe, how is there any meaning.. or value. This is what I think you are getting at. If this universe is one big accidental eternal lego party,,and the only rational, logical thing a living tower of legos could want to do, is keep its tower intact and safe and living, how can something so romantic and ewwwy, and gooey, and weak as love, be a real thing.. be of consequence, be of value, have meaning?... In a way, what are feelings and why do they exist at all.. why are we not all a mix between spock and conon the barbarian... its kinda paradoxical... if there is no meaning,, why do you want to build something bigger and better, to be for longer..because taking any action, as something, endows meaning, or purpose or intent.. i lost my self a little, just going with the flow of my thoughts... i think i was at one point on the right track so maybe you can pick at anything i said to discuss... picking up though, i wanted to say,, it could be love is an evolutionary trick so we dont kill a woman and kid,, maybe everything nice and romantic is a lie to ourselves to deal with existing as such crude creatures.... but if we change our nature, and the way we see things.. does our nature objectively change... if we choose to fulfill our concepts of love, and make them actual, between all people... will the concept of love, being put into action, make the concept of love, more then just a concept?

I don't think we live in a meaningless universe. On the contrary, everything real and tangible, every single person, object and experience is meaningful, because these are the things where we derive our meaning. I hear all too often that a world of materials and measurable things is not worth living for, that the only value is in the things we call love, the spirit, god, freedom, country etc. This is nihilism to the highest degree. This is an injustice to the real things we interact with, to ourselves.

We are only crude insofar as we are unable to find value in the real thing, the body, the experience and the memory of real things. Instead we must invent value by inventing valuable things: love, God, freedom. These are ideas people will kill and die for. They will destroy a real thing for an unreal idea. The travesty in this is depressing.

Whenever someone mentions materialism, physical existence, matter, sensuality etc. we can't help but try to distance ourselves from them, as if they were somehow evil. They are not evil, they are valuable, and the only things we can relative to in the context of existence.

I completely get what you're saying fungi. Love is a beautiful idea, and we should value it as that. But love shouldn't take precedence over the things and people we love, because they are real. This is my point.

Originally posted by TheSubversiveOne


Love as an idea exists. I cannot deny that. But it isn't a force, a thing or something external.

so only things external from the human body exist?

To point at love, the closest you could get is if you pointed to your head, because that is where the idea of love lies.

No, I could point to the way humans behave physically, emotionally, and intellectually "in the name of love".
and to the different chemical relationships which cause and react under such circumstances..

Neurons dont exist because you would have to point at your head because that is where the idea of neurons exist...

I completely get what you're saying fungi. Love is a beautiful idea, and we should value it as that. But love shouldn't take precedence over the things and people we love, because they are real. This is my point.

hmm... "but love shouldnt take precedence over the things and people we love"
I thought you didnt believe love exists? in any form? now you are saying we do love people and things? so love does exist!! I dont care about yours or a dictionaries ideal definition of the word love.... this whole time I was only arguing that a human can potentially understand some abstract aspect of anyones understanding of the word 'love', in physical reality, as a feeling or more... more or less, that love is a result of the exact physical circumstances of existing as an animal, more importantly a human.. and yes it does have to do with context. It is a scale of better or for worse, the common form of love being of something best... its opposite hate can be seen as a negative, worst.

if ideas arent real in any way, what validity do they have and where do they come from? How do they have such power and force if they are non existent? If all ideas and concepts were eliminated im guessing we wouldnt be human, but monkeys. So its kind of like our capturing and establishing of ideas and concepts, is trying to create (however momentary) the concept/ideal of absoluteness.. We create law, and political and social and cultural absolutes... which are only ideas and concepts.. realms of information.. which govern our real physical behavior..our views of ourselves, each other, and the nature we reside in and of... A problem comes about when you wonder if there is already absolutes... absolute rights, absolute meaning, or potential, or purpose... then our longings to create and establish ideas and ideals are only trying to reach potentials that are able to potentially be reached, by nature of reality...

Originally posted by TheSubversiveOne
reply to post by Serdgiam

 

I do not think so. Love is nothing like magnetism. There is no love field or any force to which we can apply the word. It can only be applied to ideas and memories. Love doesn't have the tangibility to bring anything together nor change anything whatsoever. It's just not true. Love, as a thing, is incorporeal, intangible, non-existent.

Thank you for reading.

Well, love itself, in the way we are speaking of it, is solely a human experience. However, the overall behavioral principles on how it affects material objects are very similar to magnetism and gravity.

The chemicals that are induced and interpreted as love most certainly are tangible as well as quantifiable. These chemicals can have both internal and external stimuli. They also have changed the course of history time and time again. In fact, the chemicals interpreted as love, adoration, attraction, etc are the very reason the human race even continues to exist. Like magnetism and gravity, what we see from an outside standpoint are two objects being brought together, only relevant to the movement in space-time, to create something new. The variables will determine exactly what that "new" thing is, even if its the destruction of both objects or the creation of a new life.

My point was that love, while being a human experience itself, may be based on an innate law of the universe. It is just the human, subjective perspective of something that may exist beyond us. A drive and experience/emotion which is not created by humans ourselves. We are just subject to the same laws the rest of the universe is. Humans are limited to the human perspective though, so invariably, anything we experience as human will be limited and interpreted by a subjective system.