Brain Physiology, Cognition and Consciousness group: topic
This is a public discussion board
Love beyond the cliché
Robert Stonjek
Saturday, 11 July 2009 14:58 UTC
Hate is the opposite of Love, right? So if you feel love for someone and that Love is not returned, they hate you. Or do you hate them?
Obviously not. Hate can not be trivially declared to be the opposite of Love even though that is our default intellectual position, but intellect isn’t emotion.
For some mysterious reason we have never accurately picked apart emotion and have even avoided much of the entire topic. Books I have read on emotion appear to be almost afraid of facing the concept head on. We read about emotions that can be observed behaviourally or as facial expressions. Although that is a good first step the obvious next step, classification, appears never to be lucidly addressed. And Love…perhaps researchers don’t want to say to much about that for fear of revealing something about their own relationships, perhaps their relationship with their spouse?
So why don’t we take the kid gloves off and jump in. In this first evaluation I will consider fairly trivial and uncontroversial classifications that everyone can test at home.
I am going to start with the hard one, Love. Here is an incomplete list of the forms of passionate love (the love that you feel for other people, not your love of golf etc).
1) For any given individual there must be some perceptual field that evokes a feeling generally described as Love.
2) For any given individual there must be some set of behaviours resulting from or inspired by Loving feelings.
These first two describe (1) perception and (2) expression of Love. And they are different. The most commonly evoking perceptual field evoking loving feelings is one translating to acceptance, that you are accepted (not rejected, the opposite). If you are accepted then the people around you most probably tend toward loving you. If you are strongly rejected then the people around you most probably tend toward hating you.
Note that the opposite of perceptual Love is Rejection.
In expressive Love, you accept those around you and behave accordingly. Rejection is again the opposite behaviourally, but the opposite subjective feeling is hate (the opposite pole).
The problem is not so much that Love has three poles but that we have given the perceptual and expressive forms of Love the same name.
3) Feelings relating to Love spontaneously occur even in the absence of external stimulation.
In this form, Love is a drive ~ we seek Love, a relationship and a marriage even without any external stimulation to do so. The stimulation comes from the innate predisposition which is genetically inherited. In other words, our behaviour is partially guided by innate predispositions and these innate predispositions are expressed consciously as drives.
Thus one may feel Love in a carrot and stick form, we feel a little of what we want to feel and so we go out into the world and try to find it.
The opposite of this form of Love is Guilt (if one attempts to reject the drive) or low self esteem (if one is unable to satisfy the drive).
Is it any wonder that when we are in love it ‘feels so right’ (opposite of feeling guilty) and we feel 100 feet tall (opposite of low self esteem).
One can see how emotion forms a web of emotion stemming from the innate predisposition, embracing perception (think also of qualia) and expression (behaviour) so that people are brought together to breed (think of basic Darwinism), form tribes, societies and so on.
When we unpack Love further we find an interesting quirk which appears to have been missed by every researcher before now (or I could be off with the fairies and totally wrong, hence the decision to follow on below this intro). We find that the components of Love associated with perception are not the same as the components that make up expression or the innate drive. No wonder that no-one ever agrees on what Love is ~ there are at least three different versions, resolved, of course, by the specific divisions I have made above.
4) Love can be communicated to others.
All emotions have some form of expression, especially facial expressions) which is used for communication. Love can modulate bodily movement, voice, choice of verbal expression, and facial expression. The general picture is one of a person appearing to be healthy, happy, light on their feet, motivated and inspired. We can see that the opposite expression is one of poor health, weakness and so on. People experiencing being hated and rejected look down, appear lethargic and depressed.
There are other dimensions than ones I have given eg Love has a temporal dimension in that when one ‘goal’ is achieved a new set become revealed, though in practice these overlap.
Let me know what YOU think.
Robert
-
Replies
-
RKS wrote: “Hate is the opposite of Love, right? So if you feel love for someone and that Love is not returned, they hate you. Or do you hate them?”
If you followed the IDM focus on weeding out the properties and methods of emotions you would have come across the SAMENESS of anger/joy, namely the roots in a focus on context replacement either through eradication (locally competitive behaviour) or replication (locally cooperative behaviour) where both being grounded in context replacement cover a non-local emphasis on competitive behaviour. (the ‘secret agenda’ of replication being in replacing others with copies of oneself and so drowning out the opposition)
The dynamics of anger/joy extend into the association of sexuality and aggression and the ease in which one can turn into the other (or more so the mixing of one and the other into hybrid forms)
Since we use the ONE set of classes of meanings so that set becomes applicable (a) in mapping out the spectrum of emotions and (b) mapping out the particular relationships of elements of that spectrum, here in the anger/joy dichotomy that, when applied recursively gives us the dimension of meaning possible for that dichotomy.
Note that the basic dichotomy of fight/flight, when recursed, shows the opposite of anger as fear and the opposite of joy as grief. Thus the opposite of having love is a loss of love. These opposites join up to give us the generic concept of PASSION and if you have been in love or lost love I am sure you have experienced the suffering involved!
The opposites can thus be mapped as:
anger/fear (fight/flight)
joy/grief
acceptance/rejection
surprise/anticipation(of wrong doing)The complements form into:
anger/joy
acceptance/surprise
anticipation/rejection
grief/fearThe variations on a theme form into:
anger/anticipation
joy/rejection
acceptance/grief
surprise/fearThe anger/joy dichotomy sorts the classes of meanings into a particular order that best-fits the qualities expressing anger/joy – IOW the classes serve as source of analogy in describing the relationships and full forms of that dichotomy expressed at a level of detail that allow for a ‘language of anger/joy’ to be formed.
At the generic levels we can quickly map out 16 classes of meanings (eight for joy, eight for anger) that form a dimension of qualities and include the mixing of anger/joy and joy/anger (the different ordering of the elements reflect different contexts in analysis). Extension then allows us to move into 64/4096/16+million classes of meanings specific to the anger/joy dichotomy!
In this focus anger/joy present AS IF opposites but the ordering of the classes of meanings is not the same as in the natural ordering of emotions – customisation takes place to bring out the local differences.
What is of interest is the development path that covers movement from a highly cooperative position to an increasingly competitive position where such indicates the concentration of relational ties into the individual as cooperation is withdrawn and joy gives way to anger (in that passage we pass narcissism that covers joy-of-self etc)
Chris.
-
Lofting: ‘anger/fear (fight/flight)’
RKS:
This does not appear to be accurate even within your own paradigm. Anger rises in response to obstruction ~ an increased level assertiveness is needed to overcome some obstacle and move forward (in whatever domain in which the obstacle is encountered eg obstacle on the road, person obstructing progress, mathematical or programming problem encountering difficulties etc).The opposite of fear is confidence. In evaluating fight or flight one must measure confidence: low, run; high, defend. Anger would predict attack whereas fight-flight relates to a threat: you either stand and defend (fight) or run away (flight).
In nature, conspecifics are liable to attack if another individual stands in the way of a mating opportunity. It is, of course, possible that both individuals are mutually in the other’s way, such as when there is one mating opportunity and two suitors.
With predator/prey there is an attacker that must overcome the life of the prey (the obstacle) to get at the food. The prey can stand and defend or try to escape. But the defender almost always attempts to drive off the attacker, not to attack it as an angry individual would.
The final problem with your dichotomy is that fear does not extinguish anger nor does anger extinguish fear. But fight and flight are mutually exclusive as is high and low confidence. An animal can stand and fight even if fear is high if fighting offers the best outcome ie an animal could stand and fight due to a high level of fear.
Joy and grief are not symmetrically opposite. They are both responses to ambient conditions, true, but not like happiness vs sadness, for instance.
The only way that specific emotions can be handled in any theoretical framework or model worthy of scientific consideration is by the descriptions of emotions that may or may not map onto one or more words used to name emotions.
I have made a start by pointing out that emotions are found in several domains eg as a direct response to stimuli (eg surprise), as a precursor to behaviour (consider the ethologist’s definition of emotion: “a specific internal readiness to act”). We tend to name these domains separately eg ‘emotion’ is mainly used for perceptual response, ‘mood’ for effector predisposition and ‘drive’ for innate predisposition. The notable exception is ‘Love’, which is used to label the perceptual, effector and innate forms hence the use of ‘Love’ in my essay.
Love is also a feeling, which is, in fact, distinct from the other categories I named in the essay. All emotions can occur with or without feeling and some feelings can occur independently of any apparent stimulation, at least in the forms laid out above.
Emotion also plays a role in the laying down and retrieving of memory. Recency and urgency can occur without any input from other domains mentioned above (perception, expression, drive etc) but are associated with memory storage and retrieval and do eventually impact on behaviour.
Robert
-
RKS: Lofting: ‘anger/fear (fight/flight)’
>
> RKS:
> This does not appear to be accurate even within your own paradigm.
> Anger rises in response to obstruction ~ an increased level
> assertiveness is needed to overcome some obstacle and move forward (in
> whatever domain in which the obstacle is encountered eg obstacle on
> the road, person obstructing progress, mathematical or programming
> problem encountering difficulties etc).
>
Your comments validate my perspective re anger(fight) covering replacement of existing context with something considered ‘better’ – the expanding nature of differentiating covers positive feedback, discretisation and amplification, the competitive takes over the cooperative and the ‘push away’ nature covers pushing one’s own context ‘outwards’, to make room for ‘self’ etc
Fear on the other hand covers integrating with the existing context, to blend-in (disappear) rather than blend-out (stick out, be noticed). It covers a protection focus on using the existing to hide.
In the order of primary emotions anger and joy (to become sexual love, one part of passion etc) share the same foundation in the form of context replacement.
RKS “ The opposite of fear is confidence.”
The generic category of ‘anger’ gets refined to include self-confidence, single-mindedness etc etc so I see no issue with what i have categorised – confidence falls into self-respect, single-mindedness, persevering etc etc etc
The generic categories of emotions cover CLASSES of such where the class of ‘anger’ is refined as the core dichotomy of fight/flight undergoes recursion (the resulting interdigitation indicating recursion at work is ‘across’ the amygdala and brought out with invasive studies)
The movement from general to particular, from vague to crisp, covers the development of classes of meanings where the initial, XOR nature of fight/flight gets refined over time – white light breaks down into a spectrum (and emotions are tied to spectra).
RKS
> In evaluating fight or
> flight one must measure confidence: low, run; high, defend.
No – not at the generic level. fight/flight is very XOR. Recursion introduces refinements, makes finer distinctions and so adds colour to the black/white of fight/flight. Reptilian emotion is VERY XOR – a snake will strike with the same intensity and makes no distinction of ‘for real’ or ‘for play’. The emergence of mammals introduces context sensitivities and so a range of emotional expressions of a primary emotion. (for the chaos/complexity theory application see the work in the late 70s covering catastrophe theory application to studying fight/flight)
For the spectrum of emotions that are derived from fight/flight see the details in the first section of Categories of Mediation – practice or see the discussion on the nature list covering the Taxonomy of Emotions
The single context realm covering emotions development ‘starts’ with context issues (fit-in or replace) and develop into communication of intent and from there finer levels of distinctions, thus generic ‘anger’ gets fleshed out both horizontally (classes of anger) and vertically (intensities, magnitudes, scalars associated with expression of each class)
The set of all POSSIBLE representations of emotions is open to local context customisations through interaction of the ‘regular network’ of possibles with the ‘random’ network of local context to give us a ‘small world network’ of actualisations. This leads into nurture influencing emotional intensities as well as nature).
AS covered in the IDM focus on the dimension of precision in our brains, each point on that horizontal dimension allows for vertical development manifest as magnitudinal differences – scales of intensities of expression etc.
Chris.
-
Lofting:
“The generic category of ‘anger’ gets refined to include self-confidence, single-mindedness etc etc so I see no issue with what i have categorised – confidence falls into self-respect, single-mindedness, persevering etc etc etc”RKS:
So, hitting your finger with a hammer instils confidence? This could be a new therapeutic approach for those who lack confidence (I don’t think).Lofting:
“Fear on the other hand covers integrating with the existing context, to blend-in (disappear) rather than blend-out (stick out, be noticed). It covers a protection focus on using the existing to hide.”RKS:
So, those people who fear loneliness disappear, those who fear obscurity hide…funny old world, isn’t it…Robert
-
Otmar: “There are books that do not fear emotion. From previous experience, I suspect you are not interested in THOSE books.”
RKS:
Please list some of the books you have in mind ~ I may have one or two to hand. I don’t avoid reading particular texts. Indeed, I like to see all sides regardless of whether I am likely to agree or disagree. On the other hand, I am not going to read every text of a particular type just because someone recommends them, but I am also not going to read none of them.Robert
-
Thanks, Tom,
but I think I can live without any discussion with God or other mythical beasts…Robert
-
RKS:
“RKS:
So, hitting your finger with a hammer instils confidence? This could be a new therapeutic approach for those who lack confidence (I don’t think).”LOL! your not thinking too well – you seem to be in ‘lite’, knee-jerk, symmetric-thinking realm; being too flippant. Come on RKS, snap out of it and focus.
As I have covered, the FOUNDATIONS of meaning are in the generic, vague, classes defined by the dynamics of the neurology. From the generic class of ‘anger’ stems finer distinctions covering reactive and proactive natures such as expressions of profanity in response to hammer-finger issues and the development of singlemindedness/self-respect etc. These all focus on context replacement dynamics and ‘betterment’ – be it in the profanity etc easing the tension of the moment of hammer-on-finger (which includes anger at self for doing it in the first place) or in the singlemindedness required to express one’s own context over the existing; to refine competitive skills as a warrior does through perpetual engagement/re-engagement with the context.
From basic, vague, dynamics emerges depth and rich qualitative patterns covering a lot of ground.
“Lofting:
“Fear on the other hand covers integrating with the existing context, to blend-in (disappear) rather than blend-out (stick out, be noticed). It covers a protection focus on using the existing to hide.”RKS:
So, those people who fear loneliness disappear, those who fear obscurity hide…funny old world, isn’t it…"Often those who fear loneliness get swallowed up by it in the end and those who fear obscurity try to establish identity THROUGH the existing context rather than create their own. Both states cover blending IN with the current context. Thus identity is through football club or church group or achievements of one’s family etc where these social realms serve to protect (snd we exploit the protection).
As such, AGAIN, we touch on the reactive and proactive natures of generic emotions such as ‘fear’ where the focus is more on DUAL-mindedness not single-mindedness. Thus we see emotions as DRIVING influences on behaviours and we can in fact map these drives to personality development in that the same set of classes of meanings used in deriving emotions is the same set used in deriving typologies – different labels, different contexts, SAME classes.
The whole realm of PASSION is covered in the simple dichotomy of joy/grief(sadness) where through recursion we quickly reach a set of 16 classes then open to finer development as sub-classes etc – THEN comes instantiation in the form of some unique experience in a local context by a unique being. This includes the transition of self-restraint into discernment, any blocking experienced, any suffering, can be made proactive into developing quality control.
We can learn quality control through experiences associated with a LOSS of love as we can the passion of expressions that come with a FOUND love (joy into sexual love into self-love etc).
We see here in the realm of PASSION the foundational drives of many religions where the suffering elicits spirituality through following some charismatic faith/person etc – this whole realm of self-restraint covers refinements and issues of loyalties, skills in enticement, modesty, maturing etc etc and so shifts into quality control but determined by one’s experiences, not necessarily by rote obedience to some external source (that form of religion is more about fear than grief but both fear and grief seed a generic state of identity seeking, there is an inner ‘emptiness’ etc and that also gets us into depression issues, more sadness/grief etc).
Chris.
-
