Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Rate this topic

Recommended Posts

having read through the posts, permit me two clarifications:

 

1) Emotive response is not automatic. Rather, it's tied to the cerebral cortex into the mid-brain, or thalmic region.

In brief, we learn what we should have emotive responses to as society teaches us. This, btw, is Aristotle 101 : 'ethos pathein. Ethics is what we've learned to show passion for.

 

2) Money might be said to have an emotive value in so far tthat it's utility is based upon faith. Throughout far most of monetary history, money was not baed upon something else of real value. Moreover, the experience of the 19th century revealed that far from stabilizing the economy, both gold and silver served to de-dtabilize, and  for obvious reason: The speculation against the metals reverbirated to the price of goods.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

having read through the posts, permit me two clarifications:

 

1) Emotive response is not automatic. Rather, it's tied to the cerebral cortex into the mid-brain, or thalmic region.

In brief, we learn what we should have emotive responses to as society teaches us. This, btw, is Aristotle 101 : 'ethos pathein. Ethics is what we've learned to show passion for.

 

2) Money might be said to have an emotive value in so far tthat it's utility is based upon faith. Throughout far most of monetary history, money was not baed upon something else of real value. Moreover, the experience of the 19th century revealed that far from stabilizing the economy, both gold and silver served to de-dtabilize, and  for obvious reason: The speculation against the metals reverbirated to the price of goods.

1) Emotion is an act of volition. This act may be grounded in logic (like in Objectivism) or not. That's "internally" speaking. "Externally," emotional responses are given to trade for goods, services, or some value from another person. In other words, volition is first, and then the response. For example, you are not forced to buy things in a store, but you should pay for them, not steal them. You select an item by volition, and pay for it by emotion. The difference is that the payment itself will not be considered invalid if it is not based on purely mental disposition.

2) I consider money an explicit currency that thus involves explicit payments. As far as its usage is explicit (not merely thinking about money, but actually using it), it is rational. On the other hand, emotions are inherently implicit payments that are objectified in signals. It's like paying by faith. Faith, in this instance, is merely an emotional state of a person.

Edited by Ilya Startsev

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1) Emotion is an act of volition. This act may be grounded in logic (like in Objectivism) or not. That's "internally" speaking. "Externally," emotional responses are given to trade for goods, services, or some value from another person. In other words, volition is first, and then the response. For example, you are not forced to buy things in a store, but you should pay for them, not steal them. You select an item by volition, and pay for it by emotion. The difference is that the payment itself will not be considered invalid if it is not based on purely mental disposition.

2) I consider money an explicit currency that thus involves explicit payments. As far as its usage is explicit (not merely thinking about money, but actually using it), it is rational. On the other hand, emotions are inherently implicit payments that are objectified in signals. It's like paying by faith. Faith, in this instance, is merely an emotional state of a person.

I would say that emotion contains volitional elements.that form the content of what's being expressed. Oth, the expression of emotion is not;  we all know how importantly difficult it is to keep emotions under control.

 

Aristotle wrote that we choose our children's emonal responses for them thru education (paideia). For example, if I were to say 'Dogaloo akbar- the dog is great', it would not definately not be in a mosque  in Cairo among a bunch of teenage theology students.

 

Money is nothing but purchasing power. That said, yes, there's a willfull, emotive desire on the part of a few to have more than others. Likewise, the act of purchasing contains an emotive element. That's why it's so easily linked to sex on teevee commercials.

 

Yes, there's a semantics to emotions: 'I'm angry, I'm sad, I'm in love', etc....The problem here is that the expression of language precludes further discussion, which is to say that the signing is direct, unidimensional, and rebukes the courtesey of a response.

 

To express an emotion is to leave the linguistic field, which is what kant called 'delirium'. A sane person does this on occasion, while the insane person, by definition lives by his/her emotions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would say that emotion contains volitional elements.that form the content of what's being expressed. Oth, the expression of emotion is not;  we all know how importantly difficult it is to keep emotions under control.

 

Aristotle wrote that we choose our children's emonal responses for them thru education (paideia). For example, if I were to say 'Dogaloo akbar- the dog is great', it would not definately not be in a mosque  in Cairo among a bunch of teenage theology students.

 

Money is nothing but purchasing power. That said, yes, there's a willfull, emotive desire on the part of a few to have more than others. Likewise, the act of purchasing contains an emotive element. That's why it's so easily linked to sex on teevee commercials.

 

Yes, there's a semantics to emotions: 'I'm angry, I'm sad, I'm in love', etc....The problem here is that the expression of language precludes further discussion, which is to say that the signing is direct, unidimensional, and rebukes the courtesey of a response.

 

To express an emotion is to leave the linguistic field, which is what kant called 'delirium'. A sane person does this on occasion, while the insane person, by definition lives by his/her emotions.

I should have said that emotion is ought to be an act of volition and that we would need to learn how to regulate our emotions. Emotional economy (E) is a such motivational base.

 

The act of purchasing can be with a different currency, viz., with emotions, as I explained. Sex is just another side of explicit trade. If you want to compare it with money, sex is rational-emotional when money is rational-rational. Both are explicit when noncontradictory by having rational as their dominant elements. Implicit relationships are much different from them. So, for example, (true, social) friendship will be emotional-emotional, when E currency is emotional-rational. These are crude dichotomies, I know, but hopefully you get the gist of variability.

 

Emotions have been found to be physical and quantifiable. Check the Institute of HeartMath research. Semantics will only be applied when gradations of emotions will be differentiated by the technological means.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I should have said that emotion is ought to be an act of volition and that we would need to learn how to regulate our emotions. Emotional economy (E) is a such motivational base.

 

The act of purchasing can be with a different currency, viz., with emotions, as I explained. Sex is just another side of explicit trade. If you want to compare it with money, sex is rational-emotional when money is rational-rational. Both are explicit when noncontradictory by having rational as their dominant elements. Implicit relationships are much different from them. So, for example, (true, social) friendship will be emotional-emotional, when E currency is emotional-rational. These are crude dichotomies, I know, but hopefully you get the gist of variability.

 

Emotions have been found to be physical and quantifiable. Check the Institute of HeartMath research. Semantics will only be applied when gradations of emotions will be differentiated by the technological means.

The quantification of emotional response began in the 1930's with Schracter. it's a measurement of response from the optic thalmus.

 

Things are far more sophisticated now; perhaps  this is what the 'heart/math is all about(?), which I'll check out & respond accordingly.

 

My particular pov is that economic transactions are far too emotional-- which is nothing more than to say that we're victimized by advertising into making the wrong purchasing decisions.

 

 

<<sex is rational-emotional when money is rational-rational>>

 

Perhaps you meant 'while' for 'when'? No on both, imho. There are rational elements in sex and emotional in money...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The quantification of emotional response began in the 1930's with Schracter. it's a measurement of response from the optic thalmus.

 

Things are far more sophisticated now; perhaps  this is what the 'heart/math is all about(?), which I'll check out & respond accordingly.

 

My particular pov is that economic transactions are far too emotional-- which is nothing more than to say that we're victimized by advertising into making the wrong purchasing decisions.

 

 

<<sex is rational-emotional when money is rational-rational>>

 

Perhaps you meant 'while' for 'when'? No on both, imho. There are rational elements in sex and emotional in money...

Post scriptum:

 

heart/math is utter nonsense. for one, they're talking of ;'their' reserch, 'their' laboratories, ad nauseum...

 

'Unseen energetic level' ??? Please. Earth's energetic system interaction????

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The quantification of emotional response began in the 1930's with Schracter. it's a measurement of response from the optic thalmus.

 

Things are far more sophisticated now; perhaps  this is what the 'heart/math is all about(?), which I'll check out & respond accordingly.

 

My particular pov is that economic transactions are far too emotional-- which is nothing more than to say that we're victimized by advertising into making the wrong purchasing decisions.

 

 

<<sex is rational-emotional when money is rational-rational>>

 

Perhaps you meant 'while' for 'when'? No on both, imho. There are rational elements in sex and emotional in money...

Check this out for a research overview: http://www.heartmath.org/research/science-of-the-heart/introduction.html

 

Yes, I meant while. By rational sex I mean sex as Objectivists perceive it. And there is no emotional side inherent to money, since money's power is conceptual (i.e., rational).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Post scriptum:

 

heart/math is utter nonsense. for one, they're talking of ;'their' reserch, 'their' laboratories, ad nauseum...

 

'Unseen energetic level' ??? Please. Earth's energetic system interaction????

I don't know where you got that info, but it's inaccurate. What you see on my avatar picture is the bioelectromagnetic field of the heart that they study. They can measure it; it is physical.

 

P.S. Only because they are the only ones doing this research does not mean that they are wrong.

Edited by Ilya Startsev

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't know where you got that info, but it's inaccurate. What you see on my avatar picture is the bioelectromagnetic field of the heart that they study. They can measure it; it is physical.

 

P.S. Only because they are the only ones doing this research does not mean that they are wrong.

Electromagnetic fields are just that, regardless of their source. There would be a measurable EM field due to the rather large nerve that creates an elecrochemical charge. that's because all nerves run on...electrochemical, auto-created impulses.

 

When you get excited, or run a lot, or have sex, the nerve activity increases, telling the heart to pump more blood, faster, to supply tthe brain with more oxygen (among other things!). But this is high-school biology, not serious research.

 

Moreover,  a good high school biology teacher would never say, "bio-electromagnetic'.

 

The info i obtained was by listening to your peeple talk on youtube while i was typing.

 

And as for 'only ones doing the research' this doesn't pass the laugh test. research that's not shared is assumed to be prima facie fraudulent, or non-existent.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Electromagnetic fields are just that, regardless of their source. There would be a measurable EM field due to the rather large nerve that creates an elecrochemical charge. that's because all nerves run on...electrochemical, auto-created impulses.

False about regardless of the source. You forget that you are also made up of organic matter with properties totally different from inorganic. Hence electromagnetic fields of atoms/molecules are much more simplistic than the bioelectromagnetic fields of cells/tissues/organs. This is common sense that is ignored by you brainiacs. Notice how you said nerves, not molecules. Is there a difference? Or do you only consist of mindless particles? Then you won't have a mind, Frank. Because your mind is a bioelectromagnetic field as well. Why don't you study it? Are you afraid of finding the scary truth you ignored all these years?

 

When you get excited, or run a lot, or have sex, the nerve activity increases, telling the heart to pump more blood, faster, to supply tthe brain with more oxygen (among other things!). But this is high-school biology, not serious research.

Indeed, physiologically speaking. Except you did not say that you actually feel emotions and not just think about them. That should be human basics. Yet humans ignore it.

 

Moreover,  a good high school biology teacher would never say, "bio-electromagnetic'.

That's why they teach what they were taught and do not find out anything new and to reconnect with natural reality, which is constantly growing and changing by the way.

 

The info i obtained was by listening to your peeple talk on youtube while i was typing.

I hope that you mean Rollin McCraty. Otherwise, I don't know whom you got.

 

And as for 'only ones doing the research' this doesn't pass the laugh test. research that's not shared is assumed to be prima facie fraudulent, or non-existent.

That's how ignoramuses think. I mean those who ignore reality. It is proven by thousands of people who used the technologies and techniques of HeartMath since the 90s. Just because you did not know of this before does not invalidate their factual research. Also, don't even attempt to make a logical fallacy "appeal to motive."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In case you were disappointed with Atlas Shrugged Part II and while waiting for Atlas Shrugged Part III, I think that you could see this science fiction dystopia called Thrive. I must warn you, though, that it has aliens, primitive models, and Deepak Chopra in a supporting role, but I hope that these evils won't stop you from enjoying this film. It made me rethink the Federal Reserve System.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Uhh, that's not science fiction dystopia... it's one of those weird documentaries that try to be factual but are made for people with tin foil hats.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Uhh, that's not science fiction dystopia... it's one of those weird documentaries that try to be factual but are made for people with tin foil hats.

Is that a presupposition or have you actually seen it?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In case you were disappointed with Atlas Shrugged Part II and while waiting for Atlas Shrugged Part III, I think that you could see this science fiction dystopia called Thrive. I must warn you, though, that it has aliens, primitive models, and Deepak Chopra in a supporting role, but I hope that these evils won't stop you from enjoying this film. It made me rethink the Federal Reserve System.

 

I'd rather watch Twilight again.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Complete and utter nonsense! Starts with a hallucination of "universal energy" as a child and then builds on quantum mysticism. Energy is not a substance. "Patterns" are not entities but relationships amongst entities, and "wholeness" is a description of systems of entities not a metaphysical primary. llya this forum is not for the promotion of pseudo scientific garbage or you attempts to "subvert Objectivism". (Which used to be against the forum rules and would get u kicked out) Your wasting your time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Complete and utter nonsense! Starts with a hallucination of "universal energy" as a child and then builds on quantum mysticism. Energy is not a substance. "Patterns" are not entities but relationships amongst entities, and "wholeness" is a description of systems of entities not a metaphysical primary. llya this forum is not for the promotion of pseudo scientific garbage or you attempts to "subvert Objectivism". (Which used to be against the forum rules and would get u kicked out) Your wasting your time.

That's not what I got out of the movie. It was about economics, power structures, independence, nonviolence, and positive thinking, to name a few. I don't even remember the term "patterns" in it, but the way you are analyzing it seems like you ignore that relationships cannot be separated from entities. Besides, the new generation engines were a lot more realistic than the concept in Atlas Shrugged. And subverting Objectivism is not something that I am trying to do anymore.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm perplexed that you called it science fiction. It's a documentary. Science fiction has story, plot, and various scientific speculations. This is a theory, albeit a bad one. If you're going for suggesting art works that capture rhetorical or literary depth in philosophy like Objectivism does, this isn't a good example. Mostly, it's a conglomerate monstrosity of facts without anything much to say. UFO sightings are weird. The Federal Reserve sucks. Yup, heard that in Zeitgeist - Thrive is nothing new. It's the documentary equivalent of campy. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm getting a hankering for a jelly filled donut.

 

Conspiracy theories are easier to come up than answers which haven't been discovered yet.

 

As to what to watch again: Columbo. Those little insignificant details, . . . a couple of loose ends I'd like to tie up, . . . nothing important you understand, . . . that doesn't mean anything.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm perplexed that you called it science fiction. It's a documentary. Science fiction has story, plot, and various scientific speculations. This is a theory, albeit a bad one. If you're going for suggesting art works that capture rhetorical or literary depth in philosophy like Objectivism does, this isn't a good example. Mostly, it's a conglomerate monstrosity of facts without anything much to say. UFO sightings are weird. The Federal Reserve sucks. Yup, heard that in Zeitgeist - Thrive is nothing new. It's the documentary equivalent of campy. 

I called it science fiction because of its style of presentation that I knew you were not going to like. I was hoping that you would pick up on some details, though. The evidence they showed of government using "climate change" as a vehicle for more power and greater taxation looked convincing. I was never aware of many other ideas depicted in this movie. I have seen all three Zeitgeist and many other documentaries like this, but this one blows them all away by the amount of different "facts" and how continuously they are connected into a motherload of an ultra-conspiracy theory. I don't know about you, but this movie really made me think.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Since I feel that there is a misunderstanding of my postulate "people are their relationships," allow me to elaborate on it. The following is the line of systematic reasoning2 employed to get to the postulate.

1) Body exists;
In the field of awareness, this will be: "Body exists among existing Bodies in Environment."1
2) Consciousness is conscious;
Consciousness is inseparable from Body and refers to it.
3) A is A;
Body and its consciousness is Body and its consciousness.
3a) The primacy of Body's existence;
3b) Free will;
Starting with a relationship to one's body, consciousness has free will to develop relationships to other bodies. One's relationships are based on the volition to live.
4) Body/consciousness integration;
Soul and mind are two aspects of body's consciousness. Mind is the faculty of reason and the source of premises; soul is the faculty of  sense of life and the source of emotional responses.
5) Egoism;
Consciousness conceptualized as self has a relationship to one's body.
6) Values;
Consciousness of each body finds emotional responses in other bodies.
7) The proper functions of government;
Government is employed by the people to serve as the authority on economic currency and judicial justice.
8) "Emotional" Capitalism as the only moral system.

Overall:
People are their relationships.

1 cf. Binswanger's presentation Perception
2 cf. Peikoff's model in Understanding Objectivism (2012:157).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now


  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×