Terry:
"Altruism is mostly neurosis".
Sweeping generalization that you can't prove or even argue successfully.
i'm an evolutionist.
one cannot argue that evolution isn't a fact.
however, i'd be interested in the better informed amongst us here explaining in simple terms how the feeling of love evolved.
Terry:
"Altruism is mostly neurosis".
Sweeping generalization that you can't prove or even argue successfully.
alright, i admit it.
i have been this close to posting a number of times.
i saw uuus2b1 post and the welcome he received and figured i'd post too.
One of the most decent threads I've seen here.
Come on lurkers. We need fresh blood so some of us addicted can finally go into recovery.
many people don't know why they "feel" what they feel.
they fall in love with the wrong person.
they cry unexpectedly.
Terry:
The tone you set for this discussion was one of sharing insights not strict argumentation. The reason I say that is your use of ambiguous concepts and undefined terms. You are making prescriptions and generalizations that are impossible for you to prove. It is sticky & dripping with emotional content contrary to what you would expect of someone advocating a rational approach.
Do you want me to take your post apart? (like a car engine) I looked it over and its Terry-bull.
Look at your generalizations. Look at your prescriptions. Look at your unneccesary tirade against Jehovahs Witnesses. Oh pardon me it IS neccessary on this discussion board to work JW's into it somehow.
When you said my premise "sucks" without even asking me what my premise IS I realized this wasn't a serious discussion but another one of your pontifications.
uk versioninternational version</form>|about the versionslow graphics|accessibility helpthe news in 2 minutes.
news services.
your news when you want it .
Heraldo Rivera must be on location right now.
many people don't know why they "feel" what they feel.
they fall in love with the wrong person.
they cry unexpectedly.
Terry:
You are mixing the systems. And that's why people have trouble IDENTIFYING emotions. There is a biological basis for emotions and that is what I have described.
Visceral activities have their expression in LOVE. To the extent that people "love" art they are abstracting the desirability of food to "preference" to be visually stimulated. If a person doesn't get over this muddle they might end up a starving artist.
I don't see why you feel you need to attack what I said. It doesn't conflict with your basic ideas. Your thread asks: Can you identify your emotions accurately??? I am simply telling you that I can - and here is the basic system for understanding emotion.
It is clear that you enjoy creating mazes for people to walk through. Rather narccisstic. .... and just plain ordinary mind fucking. Get over yourself.
many people don't know why they "feel" what they feel.
they fall in love with the wrong person.
they cry unexpectedly.
This thread is almost dead but I just wanted to add a little more about actually identifying emotions. This is something I wrote about 10 years ago as part of a brief paper.
There are thousands of emotive words suggesting that humans have a complex view of emotion. But don't let the complexity fool you. It is the context in which emotion is expressed that is manifold not the basic source of the emotion. So let's consider the connection these four systems have with our basic emotions.
(1.) Visceral System. (Gut) An organism needs various things from its environment. These needs are experienced as cravings, appetite, hunger and longing. Basically we're talking about "love." We love the things our body needs. We want to narrow the distance between our bodies and the things we crave. This craving is the "motive" force for most of what we eventually do. The movement of the viscera is minimal. Peristalsis is usually a slow wave like motion that keeps the slurry of food flowing past the absorbing surface of villi.
(2.) Muscular System. When an organism is agitated enough by its needs, the shift is made to the muscular system. The muscular system is specialized to move the organism closer to what it needs. The muscular system moves toward the food and is equipped to de-structure an object so that it can facilitate contact with the viscera. Chasing down prey, clawing, tearing, biting, chewing, sucking & swallowing are all aggressive acts aimed at fulfilling the need for contact. It is with the Muscular system that we can associate the emotion of "rage." The strong association "rage" has with devouring prey in preparation for ingestion is seen by the fact that blood rushes to the stomach when you get angry.
(3.) Nervous System. The ability to coordinate a timely response to danger or a food source is advantageous for survival. Unexpected dangers lurk everywhere. It is this sort of coordination of movement that defines what a nervous system does. What emotion would most likely be associated with the nervous system? The simplest cell has a membrane that protects the inner organism from the outside environment. The membrane "separates" or "demarcates" the organism and its environment. This membrane defines the organism and is usually more sensitive than the rest of the protoplasm contained within the cell. It decides what it will allow to enter and what it will expel. As an inanimate object maintains its integrity by moving in one direction an organism is self-directing/selecting to avoid dis-integration. The dominant emotion associated with the act of retraction or flight is "fear." When someone says they are "nervous" they may be referring to the discomfort associated with fear.
4. Sensory system. For an organism to become familiar with its environment it needs to have a certain degree of freedom. Change is essential for growth. When an environment loses its stimulation, complex organisms will experience boredom. Change can only come about by acquiring new information. This random searching is the playful and joyous feeling associated with wonder and curiosity.
many jws believe they are the only religion that doesn't go to war and hence the only true religion.
i am working on an article at http://jwfacts.com/index_files/war.htm to show that this is not valid reasoning, and would love any comments.
despite being neutral in war, jehovah's witnesses are not pacifists.
Auld Soul:
So I am judgemental - now how about justifying Christians Killing in wars.
many jws believe they are the only religion that doesn't go to war and hence the only true religion.
i am working on an article at http://jwfacts.com/index_files/war.htm to show that this is not valid reasoning, and would love any comments.
despite being neutral in war, jehovah's witnesses are not pacifists.
Blondie:
Jesus was trying to throw off the Pharisees. He was taking their self-righteous reasoning to the level of absudity. Who hasn't committed adultery, murder and other sins in their heart?
If Jesus didn't represent a break from the nationalistic struggles on the Earth then he wasted his time. But most people get it. They know that Jesus is synonymous with love. A love that allowed him to be scourged, beaten and crucified (yeah, I'm learning) rather than retaliate against his enemies.
Christian martyrs weren't supposed to kill as many of their enemies as possible in some sort of physical religious battle.
That thinking is what makes the Moslem religion so superfluous in the evolution of mankind. The Jews killed over their land. Jesus came to show a better way. Mohammed brought back the killing. If you believe its ok for a Christian to kill others in warfare you might as well be a Moslem.
many jws believe they are the only religion that doesn't go to war and hence the only true religion.
i am working on an article at http://jwfacts.com/index_files/war.htm to show that this is not valid reasoning, and would love any comments.
despite being neutral in war, jehovah's witnesses are not pacifists.
Auld Soul & Blondie & Honesty and any others that want to engage in equivocation.
Do you really believe that Jesus was saying that "hating" your brother is the same as "killing" him. Or perhaps was he raising the bar for Christians. Wasn't he saying that the course of hatred could lead to killing? Do you really believe that you can't hate people but at the same time you can "kill" them in a war.
Hatred and killing are not the same. We are not talking about Hate. We are talking about killing your enemies when Jesus said you must love your enemies.
You are shifting the meaning so you can poison the well and discredit JW's and preclude your need to consider the merit of their stand.
Do you understand that this doesn't free you from the guilt of killing? And it is actual "killing" that is involved in war.
Or maybe you feel as the inquistionists that you can kill a heretic to save his soul.
Give credit where credit is due. JW's have beaten their "Swords" into ploughshares and the vast majority of Christian Religions have NOT.
The argument that they believe in Armageddon and are really inclined to violence is a stupid claim. If you want to blame anyone blame the Bible that advocates all sorts of schemes for killing off the infidels. Kill em all off at one time - or throw them individually into a fiery hell where they burn forever. At least JW's believe that people aren't tortured forever.
Furthermore the fact that you are employing such a tactic shows that in actuality you Hate JW's which seems to be the focus of this forum .
many people don't know why they "feel" what they feel.
they fall in love with the wrong person.
they cry unexpectedly.
Terry:
You said laughter is a natural reaction to unexpected information. True, but there are four types of laughter
1. Benevolent loving --- Ho Ho Ho
2. Derisive - -- Ha Ha Ha
3. Laughter guilt or embarassment Hee Hee
4. Laughter of discovery Ah Hah