What is love?

[plumjam]

Dodger, would you prefer to spend the rest of your life out of your head on crack rather than live out your life as you currently do?

 

[blobru]

Blobru, my sides are aching; life must really be a riot chez vous.

Il pleut toujours chez moi. Mais pas aujourd'hui.

Got nothing better than attempts at humour to offer?

Got nothing better than Baba to offer?

The law of gravitation, to which all the planets and the stars are subject, is in its own way a dim reflection of the love which pervades every part of the universe. Even the forces of repulsion are in truth expressions of love, since things are repelled from each other because they are more powerfully attracted to some other things. Repulsion is a negative consequence of positive attraction. The forces of cohesion and affinity which prevail in the very constitution of matter are positive expressions of love. A striking example of love at this level is found in the attraction which the magnet exercises for iron. - [my bold]

His 'knowledge' of magnetism -- there is no magnetic repulsion between like poles then: magnets just get more and more attracted to other things as they get closer -- is telling.

Experiment: say magnets A and B have the same polarity. Put A on a table. Slide it about. Clearly it is being neither repelled nor attracted by anything else. Now put B on the table close to A. Move A about just as you did before. The closer it gets to B, the harder it is to move. Everything else is in the same relation to A except B. If the only thing that has changed is the position of B, and it is now difficult to move A towards B, then A is being repelled by B. A is not suddenly being more powerfully attracted to some other things. Their position hasn't changed relative to A, only B's has. (And yes things outside the "lab" are always changing position relative to A but this is negligible; A moves about freely inside the lab as things outside change position, except when A approaches B. Therefore, A is being repelled by B, and not "more powerfully attracted to some other things". Score= Faraday: 15 - Baba: love).

That Baba was either too dense or too lazy to think this simple fact through doesn't give me too much confidence in anything else he said, especially about something as complex as love.

There, that was fairly humorless, eh? How about some more Baba -- "Baba! Baba!" -- we could all use another good laugh.

 

[plumjam]

That isn't an answer as to why you object to such a society. I am looking for a non-arbitrary why.

Because anyone with half a brain can discern that life is not about maximising pleasure inducing chemicals within your noggin. Life is more about learning, growing, developing... and yeah, that sometimes involves putting some chemicals into the brain that won't feel too good. You know, as in remorse, conscience, feeling like you should make an effort to improve..etc..

 

[rocketdodger]

Dodger, would you prefer to spend the rest of your life out of your head on crack rather than live out your life as you currently do?

Absolutely not. But if someone else freely chooses to do so, what is wrong with that?

 

[Irony]

Because anyone with half a brain can discern that life is not about maximising pleasure inducing chemicals within your noggin. Life is more about learning, growing, developing... and yeah, that sometimes involves putting some chemicals into the brain that won't feel too good. You know, as in remorse, conscience, feeling like you should make an effort to improve..etc..

Right. Now tell me how in any way, shape, or form that rather obvious statement would be rendered false by materialism. (-10 points if your answer is nothing but a display of bigotry)

 

[plumjam]

Got nothing better than Baba to offer?

Actually, on spiritual/religious/philosophical/moral matters no. I look forward to you actually reading all of his discourses which are freely available online, and coming back to me with your criticisms.

His 'knowledge' of magnetism -- there is no magnetic repulsion between like poles then: magnets just get more and more attracted to other things as they get closer -- is telling.

Pedantry. He was delivering teachings (in that discourse) on love, and was saying that gravity and magnetism are themselves forms of love which exist on a lower level to that of animal, human or divine love.
If you have a quibble about exactly how things were stated in that respect, well, you're just a quibbler, and you willfully are ignoring the bigger picture.

Experiment: say magnets A and B have the same polarity. Put A on a table. Slide it about. Clearly it is being neither repelled nor attracted by anything else. Now put B on the table close to A. Move A about just as did before. The closer it gets to B, the harder it is to move. Everything else is in the same relation to A except B. If the only thing that has changed is the position of B, and it is now difficult to move A towards B, then A is being repelled by B. A is not suddenly being more powerfully attracted to some other things. Their position hasn't changed relative to A, only B's has. (And yes things outside the "lab" are always changing position relative to A but this is negligible; A moves about freely inside the lab as things outside change position, except when A approaches B. Therefore, A is being repelled B, and not "more powerfully attracted to some other things". Faraday: 15 - Baba: love).

Lots of A's and B's in that paragraph. Not much sense.
Faraday and Baba both believed in God very strongly. Faraday gave sermons within his own branch of religion.

That Baba was either too dense or too lazy to think this simple fact through doesn't give me much confidence in anything else he said, especially about something as complex as love.

There, that was fairly humorless, eh? How about some more Baba -- "Baba! Baba!" -- we could use another good laugh.

I can see that you like the word "Baba". Perhaps in the future this predilection of yours will stand you in good stead.
I previously had pegged you as an intelligent contributor to the forum. These last few posts of yours are pushing you in the direction of silliness.

 

[Foster Zygote]

Some pretty poor replies , which is not surprising, as materialism struggles to accommodate the myriad forms of love.

Food for thought here, offered to my fellow forumites in a spirit of ....well, y,know :
http://discoursesbymeherbaba.org/v1-156.php

I find it amusing that you both try to teach us what love is using someone else's words and show yourself to be arrogant and insulting in the same post.

 

[rocketdodger]

Because anyone with half a brain can discern that life is not about maximising pleasure inducing chemicals within your noggin. Life is more about learning, growing, developing... and yeah, that sometimes involves putting some chemicals into the brain that won't feel too good. You know, as in remorse, conscience, feeling like you should make an effort to improve..etc..

I agree -- and I am a materialist.

I also feel, however, that respecting the autonomy of conscious, sentient, intelligent beings like other humans trumps all of that -- precisely because I am a materialist.

In the event such a society existed somewhere, I would probably make an effort to give them the rest of their brains, so they could make a better choice for themselves. I would in no way force a different choice upon them, even if I thought it was for their own good.

I am not implying you would do any differently, I am just giving my view on the matter.

 

[plumjam]

I agree -- and I am a materialist.

I also feel, however, that respecting the autonomy of conscious, sentient, intelligent beings like other humans trumps all of that -- precisely because I am a materialist.

How so? what is it about materialism that makes you feel that respecting other conscious, sentient, intelligent beings is of any importance? I mean, as materialists we're all individuals, we're all going to die pretty soon, never to return. So what would be 'wrong' with maximising the pleasurable chemicals within your brain to the maximum viable extent for the rest of your life?
It's not even as though you have any obligation to following generations. I mean, you'll be gone, and forever in oblivion, so what does it matter to you what happens to any descendants of yours? Really?

 

[Fnord]

Why where you born?

I was conceived during the evening of July 4, 1956, in the back seat of a '53 Chevy, and my parents were married 6 weeks later. Does that give you a clue?

Now what do you do in this world, do you do the best you can, lets say at work, does it affect others in a positive way or negative way, are you kind?

What I do: Technical drafting and writing, training, and special projects for an international transportation company. I always strive to do the best I can, so my work affects other in a positive way, if they want to do their jobs well.

Do you love your mother and would you take care of her if she was immobile and bed ridden?

Yes and yes.

Would you do it for money or out of love? Or would you do it at all?

Out of filial duty. Some say this is the "Stoic" form of love, but that may not follow the classical definition.

This is one type of situation is where you learn altruistic love.

Altruism is an ideal, neither learned nor taught. It is something you simply do. Although I have yet to meet anyone who is completely altruistic; all have expected something in return, if only a good feeling.

Unselfish love is not something that pleases you chemically.

Not always. Sometimes the rewards are financial. Other times, the rewards are social. Still other times, the satisfaction is in knowing that you've fulfilled an obligation, filial or otherwise.

Nobody does anything for free.

 

[Piscivore]

Hang on.
So, is your argument that via the 5 senses people perceive the objects of their experience the same way?

No, exactly the opposite. Pay attention.

How about the colour blind, the hard of hearing, those with 20/20 vision, those with perfect pitch, those with pitch-deafness, the visually impaired, the short-sighted, everyone who has to wear glasses, wine experts, perfumiers...etc etc.. etc..
So, being able to perceive these objects of experience only in some impaired manner does not usually translate into any rational argument for the non-existence of said objects.

We all percieve in an impaired manner, we are just often unaware of our impairments. We cannot see infrared or ultroviolet, or see an electron. That's why "materialists" do not rely on the five senses.

Let's say we are in a room together, and you see a chair, and I don't. There are two possibilites, the chair is there, or it isn't. One of us is wrong, from any of a dozen reasons. If it is there, something wil indicate it- If you smash a vase with it, or sit in it with your feet off the floor, or stack a pile of books on it I'm going to have to admit the chair exists, despite my inability to perceive it. If it is just in your head, though, you are not going to be able to do any of those things with it, no matter what you percieve.

Wrong again. Just as some people have impaired vision, some people have an impaired aesthetic sense. Think Britney Spears fans.

That's a subjective judgement on your part, proving my point. Not everyone agrees with your assesment of her work. But, you have already decided that there is something flawed with her music, so therefore anyone who likes it is "impaired". Preconcived conclusions again.

The logical consequence of your position is that there is no real objective difference, in terms of musical aesthetic beauty, between an organg utan playing the bagpipes and a Mozart piano concerto.

To a truly objective reciever- a tape recorder, a turtle, a rock, or a computer, there isn't an objective difference. it's all just sound waves. If you percieved the information any other way besides sound- looking at the digital code, for instance, you wouldn't know the difference either.

And there is probably soneone out there who hates Mozart and loves the bagpipes no matter who is playing. There are also those that enjoy random, discordant noises as art.

Which would be absolutely absurd, and yeah, irrational.

It is neither. It is conceivable, possible, and given the baffling variety of taste I've observed, probably pretty likely. If there is just one person out there that prefers the former to the latter, your claim of objectivity is destroyed, and that is all kinds of rational.

So would your argument be that the average person is equally likely to react emotionally positively to being beaten by their father as they would to kissing their first love?

No. That different people can have different emotional reactions to the same stimulus- in this case, the chair.

You've never seen an abused child flinch from a simple touch? Or heard of a stalker "love" a woman he's never met?

After all, if emotions are not referring to any objective emotional reality, then you'd reasonably expect people not in any significant way to react better to a beating than a loving kiss.

There is no reasonable way to come to that conclusion. Contrarywise, if there were an objective emotional reality, we would expect everbody to have the same emotional reaction to the same stimulii. Which we do not see. We see a great variety. Some people, when given flowers, are charmed, some are insulted (a cheap apology for an egregious misdeed), some are horrified (severe allergies, complete lack of attraction), some are crushed (prize-winning blooms plucked before their time). An objective emotional reality is patetly hogwash.

The visual experience of the chair is in your head too. Maybe you have good eyesight and see it clearly.

Yes, but it's objective existance can be verified by others and by how it affects the environment around it. "Beauty" cannot break a vase, or hold up a stack of books.

The aesthetic experience of the chair is in your head too. Maybe you have a well-developed aesthetic sense and can gauge its level of beauty better than the average person can.

But the very fact that there are several standards of beauty mean that no matter how "well-developed" one's aesthetic sense may be in on frame of reference, it will be meaningless to another standard. The only way to even pretend this is objectivity is to premptively conclude that one's own standard is superior to all others, and there's no way to do that except by stipulation. One million Elvis fans can be wrong, to the man who does not like rock and roll.

That doesn't mean either the chair or the chair's beauty are unreal.

Whoah, sparky, I never said beauty wan't "real", I said it wasn't objective and it wasn't external to someone's brain.

Perhaps we should be discussing mirrors instead of chairs.

Heh. Nice.

 

[Piscivore]

This might seem facetious, but bear with me.
If all you are after in life is complex neurological reactions that presumably engender an experience of pleasure, then you would have no objection to the perfect society being one in which everyone was constantly out of their heads on crack cocaine, so long as this did not reduce their lifespans.
Am I right?

No, because the neurological reactions induced by crack are anything but complex. There are also signifigant detrimental physiological effects to consider. Your first error is presuming what I said had anything to do with "pleasure". "Pleasure" is a single note, and even blown hard and long a single note does not please me. I'm not interested in maximising pleasure.
Obviously, there are those that disagree, because they do spend their lives constantly out of their heads on crack cocaine. That's their decision.

And there is your second error, the notion that I must think that what might bring me peasure must bring everyone pleasure. I know plenty of people that do not like fish, so that's false.

Then there your third error, assuming I am interested in forming a "perfect" society. I do not hold with utopias, of any kind. I do not think any of them are possible, any of them desirable, or the entire concept worth pondering. I don't even think the word "perfect" has any meaning with regard to humans their societies or behaviours.

Your fourth error is assuming that I give a damn about reducing other people's lifespans.

So no, Plummie, you are wrong on about as many levels as it was possible to be.

 

[Robin]

Because anyone with half a brain can discern that life is not about maximising pleasure inducing chemicals within your noggin. Life is more about learning, growing, developing... and yeah, that sometimes involves putting some chemicals into the brain that won't feel too good. You know, as in remorse, conscience, feeling like you should make an effort to improve..etc..

I quite agree, it is certainly not about trying to carry out the mysterious purpose of a silent God.

But think about it, the computer program we are using is not about moving high and low charges across junctions in silicon wafers, it is about allowing us to communicate ideas across the world. The high/low charges on the silicon wafers are nevertheless what it does.

How could we learn, grow, develop etc without the underlying machinery? So the real question is why do we have this machinery and why do we derive pleasure from learning, growing and developing?

We might have it because of a silent superintelligence gifted it to us for reasons unknown.

Or we could have it because high intelligence was a great survival tool for our evolutionary ancestors, as was the urge to collect as much information as possible about our surroundings – fact this is probably the whole reasons animals have brains.

Of course natural selection did not have a brain and did not intend us to use the intelligence and the pleasure we derive from satisfying our curiosity in the way we are now using them.

But really, what difference do the reasons we are they way we are have on the way we live our lives?

 

[rocketdodger]

How so? what is it about materialism that makes you feel that respecting other conscious, sentient, intelligent beings is of any importance?

I have been disrespected, and I remember the emotions produced in me. When I see others being treated the same way, part of the same neurological pathways are activated and some part of those original emotions are elicited. Hence, in a selfish manner, I act to prevent feeling part of those negative emotions again, and in turn, end up with empathy, a very positive trait.

I mean, as materialists we're all individuals, we're all going to die pretty soon, never to return.

Materialism does not imply this at all. Materialism only posits that if there is an existence after death, or before life, or whatever, it can be observed scientifically by us (or, that it has an underlying order, which is equivalent). If you go to heaven, I would hope you (or your soul, or whatever "you" is after death) observe it (otherwise there is no point to it), and if you do, then it is material.

What implies lack of an afterlife is simple empirical evidence -- but don't confuse that with materialism, because they are different things.

So what would be 'wrong' with maximising the pleasurable chemicals within your brain to the maximum viable extent for the rest of your life?

It would be "wrong" because it would not be according to my current value system (or "morality"). I derive more overall pleasure from intellectual pleasure than chemical pleasure.

It's not even as though you have any obligation to following generations. I mean, you'll be gone, and forever in oblivion, so what does it matter to you what happens to any descendants of yours? Really?

Same thing -- empathy.

 

[Robin]

How so? what is it about materialism that makes you feel that respecting other conscious, sentient, intelligent beings is of any importance? I mean, as materialists we're all individuals, we're all going to die pretty soon, never to return. So what would be 'wrong' with maximising the pleasurable chemicals within your brain to the maximum viable extent for the rest of your life?
It's not even as though you have any obligation to following generations. I mean, you'll be gone, and forever in oblivion, so what does it matter to you what happens to any descendants of yours? Really?

Materialists try to maximise pleasure and minimise pain across an average 70 year life span. Theists try to maximise pleasure and minimise pain across all of eternity.

We all have the same motivations, but Materialists are a little more modest and practical in our demands.

The question is, do we maximise pleasure by mindlessly pursuing hedonism? No, that would give us quick bursts of pleasure accompanied by long sloughs of pain and despond.

So we pace and organise ourselves. We come to an agreement with the rest of the members of society on which we depend and who have their own aims and ambitions. We see that long term pleasure often depends on good health, learning, friendship, bringing up children.

That is the way of maximising the pleasurable chemicals within your brain over the span of your entire life.

 

[Robin]

It's not even as though you have any obligation to following generations. I mean, you'll be gone, and forever in oblivion, so what does it matter to you what happens to any descendants of yours? Really?

Same thing -- empathy.

Exactly.

And it make sense from an evolutionary standpoint that we should derive pain from the idea that our offspring and their offspring should come to harm. Or that we should derive pleasure from knowing that we have ensured their safety. Our selfish genes ensuring their survival.

Of course the same motivations do not apply to Theism. The major Theism of our culture demands that we hate our families and our temporal lives.

 

[rocketdodger]

How so? what is it about materialism

Sorry, I didn't answer this part.

If materialism is true, then the emergent beings that we are would be extremely rare in the grand scheme of things. Furthermore, the fact that we are who we are points to extremely complex stuff going on under the hood. Complex in an emergent way, mind you.

That rarity, coupled with that complexity, means humans, not to mention life on earth in general, are very special and should be treasured whenever/wherever possible.

 

[rocketdodger]

And it make sense from an evolutionary standpoint that we should derive pain from the idea that our offspring and their offspring should come to harm. Or that we should derive pleasure from knowing that we have ensured their safety. Our selfish genes ensuring their survival.

I don't like to think of mental behaviors as the product of evolution. I prefer to think of our brains as the product of evolution, and our minds as an emergent phenomena that we are now in control of(for the most part).

 

[Robin]

Why do humans love animals which are of no practical use to them whatsoever, and in fact are often a material burden?

Oh and by the way, exactly what planet do you live on that you think animals are of no practical use to humans?

 

[Robin]

I don't like to think of mental behaviors as the product of evolution. I prefer to think of our brains as the product of evolution, and our minds as an emergent phenomena that we are now in control of(for the most part).

Well yes - the machinery is the way it is because of evolution but we can use it the way we want now.

The question that will inevitably rise is why do we have empathy if it has no survival purpose, I was merely showing how it has a survival purpose.