|
Will there be world peace if everyone gets to have sex? (pg. 4)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| Moral Hazard |
Good post. We're not as far apart in position as you seem to think.
| quote: | Originally posted by Halcyon+On+On
But is the scope of human emotions qualifiable to the point of mere binary reduction? Positive/negative - light side/dark side, et cetera. |
Of course it isn't; however, in order to have any sort of meaningful discussion about the pantheon of emotions we need to simplify them down and speak in sweeping generalities. If we were to try and discuss the totality of human emotion nothing could come of that as ever person has a differing experience of any emotion that anyone else may attempt to label or characterize in any fashion. If we did not apply a binary reduction then the discussion would never progress past the defining parameters stage... and what ing fun would that be?
| quote: | | In our physical and natural world, I don't see there being anything outside of the savagery and the crudeness that comes from every animal striving to survive in Mother Nature's sick playground. But metaphysically, I still do not see hate or love as competitive emotions, as they all too often serve the exact same purpose - to consume. |
I wouldn't be so quick to dismiss what you see play out in the physical world as being just the struggle for survival; however, I think that's a separate discussion all together.
I also would not see love and hate as competitive emotions, which is why I place them on parallel spectrums. They can co-exist and/or exist in the absence of the other. In truth I would argue that love and hate are more alike then love and more moderate levels of affinity.
| quote: | | When I exhibit the very human sensibilities of western magnanimity, I am serving a purpose. When I exhibit socially abhorrible acts of malice and hatred, I am still serving a purpose. This purpose is always with myself in mind. |
Agreed.
| quote: | | Now I know that as a Christian, you would argue that not all emotional attachments are selfish, and that it is possible for people to give without any hope of receiving whatsoever, but I simply do not see this. |
Actually, I would never argue such a thing. I would even take it one further and argue that all actions are selfish... it doesn't matter what one feels or does they are always doing so for some sort of return, even if they do not consciously recognize it.
| quote: | | If you love without hope of reciprocation [reward], you are still geaning your so-called 'positive' emotions from said act, or you are doing it to win the favour of some imagined[!] deity - or, most seemingly common of all, you are serving a social purpose, some 'greater good' by means of acts out of love and positivity. I see hatred as merely a more pure and honest form of this selfish dynamic - is that justification for cruelty? No, but it's certainly more individualistic to serve oneself and hope [love?] to incite this within others. |
I'm not sure I would say hatred is a more pure form of the selfish dynamic (as you term it); rather, it is simply less complex or more direct. Whether one is acting out of love or hate or any other motivation, they are ultimately serving themselves.
| quote: | | Whilst I do agree that our notions of love and hate are not polar opposites of one, linear spectrum, I reject the notion of actual indifference as a factor, as everyone has their motivations for feeling and acting the way that they do; few of these emotions being truly quantifiable as part of any measure, and merely just memetic programming made to serve a purpose that is, for all intents and purposes, natural. |
I fear you don't understand the nature of indifference... indifference is the lack of any feeling on a given matter whatsoever... if one is truly indifferent about a thing they have no feeling... therefore would have no motivation with regard to same. |
|
|
| PETRAN |
"love" and "hate" are not considered as "basic emotions" by the vast majority of scientists (e.g. Ekman, Plutchik etc.). Emotions which are usually considered as "basic", "unlearned", "fixed action tendencies" or "hardwired" are usually joy and/or happiness, sadness, fear, anger, disgust and maybe surprise and anticipation. Some researchers like Mowrer are even more extreme saying that the true hard-wired and unlearned emotions are just...two. Pain and Pleasure, or Fear and Terror or i would personally say a "pleasant" versus an "unpleasant" emotional state. Everything else derives from the cognitive interpretation of the situation (which is then related to culture/memes/social factors etc.)and the level of "arousal" (the "intensity" of the emotion).
So "hate" probably contains the basic feeling/emotion of "unpleasantness" towards another person due to the cognitive interpretation of the situation that the other person has/had a negative impact with his/her actions towards one self (and "the negative impact of one's actions" are always perceived and formed in relation to the rules of the society etc.) Furthermore, dislike and hate are basically the same emotion with the only difference being that hate is the same emotion on a higher level of arousal |
|
|
| SYSTEM-J |
| quote: | Originally posted by Moral Hazard
The latter is true... if love and hate reside on opposite ends of a spectrum then indifference is the lack of said spectrum. That said, I would contend that love and hate are not opposite ends of the same spectrum, rather the same end of parallel spectrums. |
To continue my structuralist position, they are just words. PETRAN points out that "love" and "hate" are not recognised emotions in a primal sense. They are just words (although that is not to say they cannot influence and dictate how we think about the world), and are subject to all the forces of interpetation and subjective comparison that any word is. Any definition of "love" must imply positivity, where as any definition of "hate" must imply negativity.
It seems to me your argument against them being on the same spectrum is based on the assumption that the spectrum has to be travelled in a linear fashion, which isn't really true at all. It isn't a road. It's a spectrum of intensity on a positive/negative scale, not a model of emotional progression. |
|
|
| Halcyon+On+On |
Goddamnit, Moral, would you let me pigeonhole you for just one minute? :p
| quote: | Originally posted by Moral Hazard
Of course it isn't; however, in order to have any sort of meaningful discussion about the pantheon of emotions we need to simplify them down and speak in sweeping generalities. If we were to try and discuss the totality of human emotion nothing could come of that as ever person has a differing experience of any emotion that anyone else may attempt to label or characterize in any fashion. If we did not apply a binary reduction then the discussion would never progress past the defining parameters stage... and what ing fun would that be? |
That's true enough, my only gripe was that we seemed to be gravitating towards some sort of diagram of emotions and, as you said, experience differs for everyone, despite observable patterns and generalisations, and I just thought that making a sort of "mental chart" of things seemed a gross discredit towards the complexity of what we are attemting to discuss.
| quote: | | I wouldn't be so quick to dismiss what you see play out in the physical world as being just the struggle for survival; however, I think that's a separate discussion all together. |
Perhaps it is an entirely other subject, but the topic of this thread entirely lends itself to reproductive activity as an immensely potent driving force for both our emotions and our actions on both the smallest and the largest cosms we know of. The freedom of animals seperate from us to act upon sexual inclinations by means of either instinct or violent force and the implications of our derivation from them are not a dismissal at all - I don't see it as mere survival, but the simplest and purest goal that exists, despite our sensitivites and our taboos fabricated in an attempt to - here's that word again - dismiss it from our nature. An interesting paradox, no doubt.
| quote: | | I also would not see love and hate as competitive emotions, which is why I place them on parallel spectrums. They can co-exist and/or exist in the absence of the other. In truth I would argue that love and hate are more alike then love and more moderate levels of affinity. |
I completely agree. If we can reduce our emotions in a general sense to mere concepts, then each person is indeed a storm of contradictions, both social and natural; the crux of which being that acts of violence or of passion can result from either love or hate - there is no set path on a metaphysical level, despite culturual programming to counter as such.
| quote: | | Actually, I would never argue such a thing. I would even take it one further and argue that all actions are selfish... it doesn't matter what one feels or does they are always doing so for some sort of return, even if they do not consciously recognize it. |
I, uh, agree. Jerk. :p
| quote: | | I'm not sure I would say hatred is a more pure form of the selfish dynamic (as you term it); rather, it is simply less complex or more direct. Whether one is acting out of love or hate or any other motivation, they are ultimately serving themselves. |
Then perhaps it is merely an argument of semantics in this case. I use 'purity' as a term to imply the simplicity of something on a conceptual level, indeed despite its connotations as brilliance, generosity, benevolence and whatever imagery people seem to associate with it. the 'pureness' of something seems a subjection, as one either assumes that we are perfect in a simple sense or can become perfect through conditioning... but maybe that is yet another discussion.
| quote: | | I fear you don't understand the nature of indifference... indifference is the lack of any feeling on a given matter whatsoever... if one is truly indifferent about a thing they have no feeling... therefore would have no motivation with regard to same. |
It seems to me that lack of feeling in a matter is apathy - not necessarily indifference, as it is termed. Apathy would be the numbness you are describing as part of the paradigm of emotions, as indifference is, ironically, an indifferent word - it can go either way, but it, by its nature, must choose a way, unlike apathy which, by the definition thereof, is emptiness and directionless. But for the sake of semantics, I suppose it doesn't really matter - they are just words and the idea is what's most important.
But to address the argument, I don't truly believe that anyone can be indifferent - not truly. People claim to not care, to be apathetic, or to be indifferent in their individualism, but when faced with violence, with force of emotion or physical repercussion, or even the devouring of ideas - their ideas - people react, they are different in the fact that they are seeking to either preserve themselves or in some apoptotic fit, succumb to the will of any given superorganism vying for hegemonic dominance. |
|
|
| PETRAN |
But as in everything with the "nature vs. nurture" debate, neither of them holds completly true. Both "genetically hard-wired" and "social structuralist" contribute to the final result. The million-dollar question is how much ofcourse. The majority of modern research tends to accept the view that the five-six emotions i descrived before are biologicaly hardwired and universal (and this derives from a number of evidence from universal facial expressions, unique autonomic and CNS activity, fast-uncounscious processing, early learning and universal antecedents and causes). So it seems that not all emotions are simply derived from "pleasant-unpleasant" and "high-low arousal" (and maybe a "passive-active") scales only (and everything else is language/memes). Still love-hate are not considered hard-wired by many scientists. Hmm...("lost in thought" lol)
P.s. This post is mostly aimed at SYSTEM-J |
|
|
| Halcyon+On+On |
| quote: | Originally posted by PETRAN
"love" and "hate" are not considered as "basic emotions" by the vast majority of scientists (e.g. Ekman, Plutchik etc.). Emotions which are usually considered as "basic", "unlearned", "fixed action tendencies" or "hardwired" are usually joy and/or happiness, sadness, fear, anger, disgust and maybe surprise and anticipation. Some researchers like Mowrer are even more extreme saying that the true hard-wired and unlearned emotions are just...two. Pain and Pleasure, or Fear and Terror or i would personally say a "pleasant" versus an "unpleasant" emotional state. Everything else derives from the cognitive interpretation of the situation (which is then related to culture/memes/social factors etc.)and the level of "arousal" (the "intensity" of the emotion).
So "hate" probably contains the basic feeling/emotion of "unpleasantness" towards another person due to the cognitive interpretation of the situation that the other person has/had a negative impact with his/her actions towards one self (and "the negative impact of one's actions" are always perceived and formed in relation to the rules of the society etc.) Furthermore, dislike and hate are basically the same emotion with the only difference being that hate is the same emotion on a higher level of arousal |
Very interesting.
To take it what I think to be a step further, all reactions - actions based upon either emotional or intellectual programming - are just that: programming. A social factor which installs prejudice in people, indicating either love or hate, pleasure or pain, etc. I know this is just a further reduction of immensely complex faculties, to say that everything stems from prejudice, but if you consider the meaning of the word other than the racist, violent, or otherwise "negative" attachments we assign to diction, it seems to literally mean the way we judge things based upon previous experience. I can think of numerous things I have learned to love or learned to hate through through either exposure or conditioning - my prejudice is malleable, as it is a primarily social derivative. In this sense, love and hate are still emotions, but ones felt only through the experience of what a given cultural filter allows. that is to say, cultures, should we consider them entities - organisms of sorts - are competing against one another, and we are their audience, benefactors, agents, and servants. They, like amoebas, drift along the ether of our minds, consuming whatever is smaller than them, banding together to absorb greater organisms when it conveniences them - but in the end, selfish consumers.
The caveat to this being that society is, so far as we can tell, a completely natural function in itself.
How does this relate to the topic though? Sex, as both a product of culture and instinct - inexorable from either, is an exercise in our discontinuation, yet similtaneously a movement of memes - of this same absorbative behaviour of ideas, of ego. In the simplest insemination, there are millions of organisms vying for survival - for the achievement of continuing their existence in another form. At the same time, there are 200 million deaths just the same, competitive from the very beginning to their eventual end, yet all in the struggle - perhaps unbeknownst to them - to perpetuate life. This where the symbiosis of sex, as a social function, and war, as another social function, must coexist. Love and hate are not necessarily these things, and may perhaps be emotions attached to the actions or reactions as such, but seperate nevertheless. As such, no, I don't think that a world in which sex were as free and as open as possible would be one devoid of war because it would also be one devoid of sex [as we know it] just the same. |
|
|
| PETRAN |
| quote: | Originally posted by Halcyon+On+On
Very interesting.
To take it what I think to be a step further, all reactions - actions based upon either emotional or intellectual programming - are just that: programming. A social factor which installs prejudice in people, indicating either love or hate, pleasure or pain, etc. I know this is just a further reduction of immensely complex faculties, to say that everything stems from prejudice, but if you consider the meaning of the word other than the racist, violent, or otherwise "negative" attachments we assign to diction, it seems to literally mean the way we judge things based upon previous experience. I can think of numerous things I have learned to love or learned to hate through through either exposure or conditioning - my prejudice is malleable, as it is a primarily social derivative. In this sense, love and hate are still emotions, but ones felt only through the experience of what a given cultural filter allows. that is to say, cultures, should we consider them entities - organisms of sorts - are competing against one another, and we are their audience, benefactors, agents, and servants. They, like amoebas, drift along the ether of our minds, consuming whatever is smaller than them, banding together to absorb greater organisms when it conveniences them - but in the end, selfish consumers.
The caveat to this being that society is, so far as we can tell, a completely natural function in itself.
How does this relate to the topic though? Sex, as both a product of culture and instinct - inexorable from either, is an exercise in our discontinuation, yet similtaneously a movement of memes - of this same absorbative behaviour of ideas, of ego. In the simplest insemination, there are millions of organisms vying for survival - for the achievement of continuing their existence in another form. At the same time, there are 200 million deaths just the same, competitive from the very beginning to their eventual end, yet all in the struggle - perhaps unbeknownst to them - to perpetuate life. This where the symbiosis of sex, as a social function, and war, as another social function, must coexist. Love and hate are not necessarily these things, and may perhaps be emotions attached to the actions or reactions as such, but seperate nevertheless. As such, no, I don't think that a world in which sex were as free and as open as possible would be one devoid of war because it would also be one devoid of sex [as we know it] just the same. |
What you probably describe as "prejudice", psychologists call it "appraisal" (of a situation) if i get what you say. So, you actually say that previous experiences set "states of appraisal" for every situation we encoutner and depending on the "pre-set (type of)appraisal", e different emotion is experienced. This is true. BUT unfortunately this is not the whole case. The problem comes with a mechanism that famous scientists (of that field) like Zajonc and LeDoux call "fast appraisal".
It basically states that some emotional states occur fast in an automatic pre-cognitive manner, before even consciousness (and hence thought) has time to catch-up! This has proven to be true for fear and sadness. You can argue here that previous extensive conditioning could make things to be fast and automatic. This is actually not true, because extremely rare events can also cause a "fast emotional reaction". It seems that a looming or expanding stimulus covers the retina, then a fear-response of collision occurs, then you push the break-pedal, then your car stops and then you become conscious of what you have just done! Plus some emotions tend to occur easier than others (famous experiment in which Lazarus induced fear of snakes in monkeys and human babies in just a few trials, whereas other stimuli such as cars where much slower to be acquired).
Some emotions (we are alsways talking about these 5-6 ones of my first post) seem to have a unique autonomic-activity pattern. This makes sense if one views emotions as evolutionary "action-tendencies" capable of preparing an organism to act in a "fast" manner. So in fear, blood goes to large muscle groups, in anger, blood goes to the hands etc. (some of the many unique autonomic responses). Most of these basic emotions also show unique EEG patterns. It also seems that some causes are very consistent in producing specific emotional states despite the culture. Cultural information may influence "When" and "How Much" these emotions occur but not "What" emotions occur.
As for the second paragraph i don't exactly think i get you. Would you say that a world free of war would also be free of sex? If yes i certainly can't see that. Sex and war could certainly co-occur though, as evidenced in ancient Greece and Rome :p (the last sentence was a joke)
But certainly more pleasure=lower chances of participating in violent acts. |
|
|
| Moral Hazard |
| quote: | Originally posted by Halcyon+On+On
Goddamnit, Moral, would you let me pigeonhole you for just one minute? :p |
Sorry.
| quote: | | Perhaps it is an entirely other subject, but the topic of this thread entirely lends itself to reproductive activity as an immensely potent driving force for both our emotions and our actions on both the smallest and the largest cosms we know of. The freedom of animals seperate from us to act upon sexual inclinations by means of either instinct or violent force and the implications of our derivation from them are not a dismissal at all - I don't see it as mere survival, but the simplest and purest goal that exists, despite our sensitivites and our taboos fabricated in an attempt to - here's that word again - dismiss it from our nature. An interesting paradox, no doubt. |
I think you oversimplify the goal of life. I agree, passing genetic material on to future generations is the goal of all life; however, your argument above suggests that the only viable strategy for that is to have as many offspring as possible, which necessitates having as many partners as possible and that the prevailing social constructs that act as a barrier to that in human society is contrary to nature... an attempt to make us feel superior to other animals perhaps (that is what you're driving at, right?). I would submit to you that having many children is only one of a number of viable strategies for ensuring one's genetic material goes on into the next generation. One other viable strategy is to limit the number of children but ensure that all are kept healthy and secure so that they may live to reach breading age. This is the case of the mountain gorilla which, while having many children, have been known to sacrifice their own lives to safeguard their children. If the only viable strategy were to have as many children as possible then putting oneself at great risk of death in order to protect already living children would be contrary to that strategy. Humans have adopted a similar strategy to the mountain gorilla... we limit the number of children we have and take great effort to safeguard them, even their children into adulthood... this makes sense... if I nail 300 women and that results in 75 children (25% is pretty good) but do not ensure their security I cannot be assured any of them will survive to produce offspring of their own. On the other hand, if I choose one woman as my mate and that results in 2-3 children and I remain to ensure their survival to adulthood I have greater control over the probability that my genetic code will proceed to future generations. You see the social construct of marriage and monogamy as contrary to the primary goal of life; whereas, it is really just another strategy.
I was going to reply to more of your post but I've grown tired of typing for now. |
|
|
| Halcyon+On+On |
| quote: | Originally posted by PETRAN
What you probably describe as "prejudice", psychologists call it "appraisal" (of a situation) if i get what you say. So, you actually say that previous experiences set "states of appraisal" for every situation we encoutner and depending on the "pre-set (type of)appraisal", e different emotion is experienced. This is true. BUT unfortunately this is not the whole case. The problem comes with a mechanism that famous scientists (of that field) like Zajonc and LeDoux call "fast appraisal".
It basically states that some emotional states occur fast in an automatic pre-cognitive manner, before even consciousness (and hence thought) has time to catch-up! This has proven to be true for fear and sadness. You can argue here that previous extensive conditioning could make things to be fast and automatic. This is actually not true, because extremely rare events can also cause a "fast emotional reaction". It seems that a looming or expanding stimulus covers the retina, then a fear-response of collision occurs, then you push the break-pedal, then your car stops and then you become conscious of what you have just done! Plus some emotions tend to occur easier than others (famous experiment in which Lazarus induced fear of snakes in monkeys and human babies in just a few trials, whereas other stimuli such as cars where much slower to be acquired).
Some emotions (we are alsways talking about these 5-6 ones of my first post) seem to have a unique autonomic-activity pattern. This makes sense if one views emotions as evolutionary "action-tendencies" capable of preparing an organism to act in a "fast" manner. So in fear, blood goes to large muscle groups, in anger, blood goes to the hands etc. (some of the many unique autonomic responses). Most of these basic emotions also show unique EEG patterns. It also seems that some causes are very consistent in producing specific emotional states despite the culture. Cultural information may influence "When" and "How Much" these emotions occur but not "What" emotions occur. |
Very interesting, yet again.
And I did not seek to encapsulate all response as prejudice, but only reduce social intereactions as such, differentiating from what you described as hard, physical responses - instincual ones. Anger, fear - "fast" reactions being different than programmed ones, as fast as a reflex could be, and without necessary appeal to the cultural "programming" I spoke of. but don't you think it's possible for these instincual reflexes to be programmed or honed by the very same social prejudice which incites cognitive reactions in people? I don't see the notions as entirely seperate, nor are they strictly the same, but nobody can deny they manifest themselves in conflict far more directly than floaty ideas such as "love" or "hate", as we so casually know them.
| quote: | | As for the second paragraph i don't exactly think i get you. Would you say that a world free of war would also be free of sex? If yes i certainly can't see that. Sex and war could certainly co-occur though, as evidenced in ancient Greece and Rome :p (the last sentence was a joke) |
I am, of course, being philosophical in what I say, but my point was that sex is a major component of humanity as we know it. Certain basic motives for war and violence have been observed in animals, just as pleasurable reproductive frequency has been as well, but they are nowhere as consistent in other species as they are in human beings. Can this be a coincidence? It may very well be, but I tend to think that it is our proclivity towards stressing our mortality and our demise in both culture and action that makes sex a pleasurable act in the first place - but I am not strictly speaking physical pleasure, but a spiritual ascension as well. the french, for example, have an extensive referral to the orgasm as le petit mort - common enough knowledge that this means "the little death", because ssentially, that is what it means for the millions upon millions of seed that shall compete for their continuation. Their death is violence at the hands of nature, as they topple over one another in their hazardous and scarcely familiar world, doomed to discontinue and proceed for an immeasurable infinity just as we humans, who think so highly of ourselves, shall some day succumb to as well. It is the danger in their race that defines their existence - the hazard of their not being able to propagate that must confirm their hard-wired prejudice for pleasure, as evident by their vigorous drive to dominate one another.
Of course people aren't sperm, but I think you can wrap your head around the analogy I am attempting to establish.
| quote: | | But certainly more pleasure=lower chances of participating in violent acts. |
When speaking of pleasure however, it is important to consider what is and is not pleasure is scarcely consistent among people on a natural basis. People often derive pleasure out of violence, as it confirms a likewise natural inclination in a different yet equal way that intercourse does.
I would argue that people never get what they want, as their desire often changes with their given situation, often-times indicating that there is no end to the pleasures of sensation. Even if people got all of the sex they "wanted", they would merely want more, and if the whole of human history is any indication, they will cease at no horrible act to attain their right to the prospect of "progress". |
|
|
| Halcyon+On+On |
| quote: | Originally posted by Moral Hazard
I think you oversimplify the goal of life. I agree, passing genetic material on to future generations is the goal of all life; however, your argument above suggests that the only viable strategy for that is to have as many offspring as possible, which necessitates having as many partners as possible and that the prevailing social constructs that act as a barrier to that in human society is contrary to nature... an attempt to make us feel superior to other animals perhaps (that is what you're driving at, right?). I would submit to you that having many children is only one of a number of viable strategies for ensuring one's genetic material goes on into the next generation. One other viable strategy is to limit the number of children but ensure that all are kept healthy and secure so that they may live to reach breading age. This is the case of the mountain gorilla which, while having many children, have been known to sacrifice their own lives to safeguard their children. If the only viable strategy were to have as many children as possible then putting oneself at great risk of death in order to protect already living children would be contrary to that strategy. Humans have adopted a similar strategy to the mountain gorilla... we limit the number of children we have and take great effort to safeguard them, even their children into adulthood... this makes sense... if I nail 300 women and that results in 75 children (25% is pretty good) but do not ensure their security I cannot be assured any of them will survive to produce offspring of their own. On the other hand, if I choose one woman as my mate and that results in 2-3 children and I remain to ensure their survival to adulthood I have greater control over the probability that my genetic code will proceed to future generations. You see the social construct of marriage and monogamy as contrary to the primary goal of life; whereas, it is really just another strategy. |
I wasn't saying that at all and I most certainly agree that reproductive frequency is a various thing with many facets to consider. I also agree that marriage, family, structure and social support is of course a significant part of life, as it supports the reproductive process and causes less destructive tendencies within the cohesive family unit vying for survival amongst other families - those of which can become allies or enemies depending upon collective or individual ideologies that we can examine at almost any varying scale we like.
Humans aren't insects, and I do not believe it would serve us better to be like them, despite our tendencies as such. |
|
|
| PETRAN |
| quote: | Originally posted by Halcyon+On+On
Very interesting, yet again.
And I did not seek to encapsulate all response as prejudice, but only reduce social intereactions as such, differentiating from what you described as hard, physical responses - instincual ones. Anger, fear - "fast" reactions being different than programmed ones, as fast as a reflex could be, and without necessary appeal to the cultural "programming" I spoke of. but don't you think it's possible for these instincual reflexes to be programmed or honed by the very same social prejudice which incites cognitive reactions in people? I don't see the notions as entirely seperate, nor are they strictly the same, but nobody can deny they manifest themselves in conflict far more directly than floaty ideas such as "love" or "hate", as we so casually know them. |
No they don't necessarily conflict. The "fast" and "slow" responses could be consistent with each other. Although they could be incosistent as well. Do not think that those "faster" responses only come with reflexes.
In a famous experiment by Zajonc,the researcher asked some subjects to rate the "pleasantness" of some Chinese letters ( people didn't have a clue about what those letters meant). The twist was that one group was presented with an angry or happy face for such a short period of time before the presentation of the letter, that people of this group couldn't perceive anything at all (and hence they couldn't consciously report anything). The real catch was that the nature of the presented face, clearly influenced the way those Chinese letters were rated! When they were asked, people reported feeling "not good" or "good" about a specific letter (with "good" and "not good" being consistent with the nature of the fastly presented face-agry and happy respectively)and attributed it to random reasons. E.g. many individuals attributed it to the shape of the letter and made various hypotheses about how it projects something "bad" or "good".
In contrast, when the presentation of the faces occured for longer periods-thus making conscious perception possible-people understood the "twist" and were carefull enough not to get influenced by it! The ratings were now random. This is a clear case that the "fast" and "slow" appraisal systems could dissociate from each other and that thinking and language are not necessary nor sufficient for some (at least those basic) emotions to occur. Similar versions of the experiment have been replicated by various researchers. Some have also used indirect physiological indexes of emotion (such as the Electro-Dermal Activity of Skin Conductance) together with the cognitive output. The results were always the same. Some basic emotional processing is fast and independent (and even comes in conflict!) from/with cognition. People always end-up attributing the reasons of their emotional state to random events! Now this data have great implications but one should not underestimate the power of the normal "long-term appraisal" (what you call "prejudice") system. All the more complex emotional states seem to derive from it.
| quote: |
I am, of course, being philosophical in what I say, but my point was that sex is a major component of humanity as we know it. Certain basic motives for war and violence have been observed in animals, just as pleasurable reproductive frequency has been as well, but they are nowhere as consistent in other species as they are in human beings. Can this be a coincidence? It may very well be, but I tend to think that it is our proclivity towards stressing our mortality and our demise in both culture and action that makes sex a pleasurable act in the first place - but I am not strictly speaking physical pleasure, but a spiritual ascension as well. the french, for example, have an extensive referral to the orgasm as le petit mort - common enough knowledge that this means "the little death", because ssentially, that is what it means for the millions upon millions of seed that shall compete for their continuation. Their death is violence at the hands of nature, as they topple over one another in their hazardous and scarcely familiar world, doomed to discontinue and proceed for an immeasurable infinity just as we humans, who think so highly of ourselves, shall some day succumb to as well. It is the danger in their race that defines their existence - the hazard of their not being able to propagate that must confirm their hard-wired prejudice for pleasure, as evident by their vigorous drive to dominate one another.
Of course people aren't sperm, but I think you can wrap your head around the analogy I am attempting to establish. |
The French actually say that, because of the phenomenal loss of cosnciousness that occurs during and immediately after the orgasm. The physiological functions also resemble death during that time, e.g. the heart completely stops for a while. This is why they say it, not because of sperm, but i guess that you used it in order to support your analogy. As for what you say i agree. Evolution drives many of our instincts, if this is what you say.
| quote: |
When speaking of pleasure however, it is important to consider what is and is not pleasure is scarcely consistent among people on a natural basis. People often derive pleasure out of violence, as it confirms a likewise natural inclination in a different yet equal way that intercourse does.
|
No, pleasure is not derived by violence. One can derive rewards from violence but for different reasons than pleasure. According to the classic Skinnerian theory, there is "positive" and "negative" reinforcement (as well as "positive" and "negative" punishment but we don't care about those two here). "Positive Reinforcement" refers to the condition in which a behaviour followed by the presentation of a pleasant stimulus increases the probability of that behaviour to (re-)occur. "Negative Reinforcement" ALSO increases the probability of a behaviour to occur again, not through the presentation of a pleasant stimulus but through the removal of an unpleasant one. When some rats are placed under constant (unpleasant) electric shocks and those rats accidentally press a button that stops these electric shocks, chances are that they they would learn the association and press the button again. By doing this, the rats stop the "unpleasantness" of the situation ("negative reinforcement" is associated with "escape behaviours")
Now going back to emotions...
According to Stein & Trabasso (1992),in happiness a goal is attained or maintained, in sadness there is a failure to attain or maintain a goal,in anger an agent causes a loss of a goal, and in fear there is an expectation of failure to achieve a goal
This is actually the Power-Dalgeish cognitive model of emotions. As you see, in anger, an agent "causes a loss of a goal". So this induces a negative emotional state to the individual, a state which the individual wants to "escape", by (ofcourse) "punishing/fighting/alleviating" the external agent that induced this state
So when one uses violence, he literally does that in order to "escape" the negative emotional state he is found in. (and violence is not equal to pain ofcourse) ;)
| quote: |
I would argue that people never get what they want, as their desire often changes with their given situation, often-times indicating that there is no end to the pleasures of sensation. Even if people got all of the sex they "wanted", they would merely want more, and if the whole of human history is any indication, they will cease at no horrible act to attain their right to the prospect of "progress".
|
This is actually an over-simplification. Its like saying even if people eat, they would want to eat more!There are satiation points ofcourse, there are limits to the amount of sex one wants! (well, yes they would surely differ from person to person and they surely are extremes...!). Pleasure/joy and all the emotions that those feelings are associated with are "antagonistic" to anger. Sex would surely have a good impact and it would also leave some "pleasure shield"/elevated mood for some time. But truth is that sex alone could not save the world lol. There is a need for a more constant change towards a continuus state of joy and happiness, and sex alone would simply not be sufficient :) |
|
|
| diesel_tron3000 |
that is crazyyy |
|
|
|
|
