Love of Family

And, finally, a couple comments on Jordan's last post (even though it was directed primarily at Regi):

"I don't think the theory of attachment suggests causeless love (although Reg might not have been addressing that theory). Attachment is a response to a safe, predictable, and nurturing caregiver. I suspect many folks who had successful attachment at an early age might have trouble explaining why they love their family because the reasons are so ingrained, but the implicit premises are there nonetheless."

I saw that in a similar light, but the love part comes in through whim-worshipping, which he did address. It works kinda like this:

1 - Successful attachment without conscious awareness that "successful attachment" was the process that had been undergone.
2 - Desire experienced without knowing the cause (attachment)
3 - Desire to love acted upon
4 - Love of family elevated to moral (or, as this thread shows, psychological) standard

You also have the cultural context for the child, and for children with other attachments:

1 - Love of family a moral standard
2 - Desire experienced to be moral without understanding the flawed morality
3 - Desire acted upon

This is not, immediately, whim-worshipping, even though the basis (the first outline) is...you wish to be moral without questioning the standard. For example:

1 - Honor thy father and they mother
2 - Desire to be moral without understanding what honor should spring from.
3 - Father and mother honored.

The problem comes in with, "What should I honor about them?" What if nothing is worthy of being honored?

The point is this: children have to fight a cultural context, and their own experiences, both of which rely on whim-worshipping, on at least a fundamental level.

"Sure, I know people who substitute their familial emotions as causes, but I think most familial relationships aren't just the product of whim-worship. It's easy to love someone who makes you safe, who nurtures you, who gives you a predictable environment. In addition, it's easy to love someone who puts so much effort into your success and happiness, like so many caregivers do."

I would also disagree that you would necessarily love somebody simply because they allow you to be a leech. If they took care of you because of who you are; i.e., they did so on the basis of an evaluation of your values, then that would be a different situation. But most parents take care of their children regardless of who they are. And to "love" on that basis is a whim.

Now, not all parents who are loved would be loved on the basis of whim-worship Some people who earn the love of others are, in fact, parents. But many will be loved only because of the process I sketched above.y.

"So again, I will take the optimistic view and say that most folks do legitimately love their family, and with good reason. And at least in this regard, the world isn't so bleak and filled with whim-worshippers."

Even if the majority of people loved their family for a good reason, it's still filled with whim-worshippers...they just worship different whims. But I think that that's a point for another thread.

Post 21

Tuesday, July 6, 2004 - 12:24pm

Dominic,

Thank your for the comments.

What you are describing is subjectivity and very dangerous. The kind of love that is based on feeling can make you think you love anything, when it is only the beer or the beef burrito. That kind of love is extremely unreliable, as the first cold that comes along and causes not to "feel" the love anymore will make you believe you no longer love.

When I love, my love produces profound feelings, but the love has to come first. When I love, I love just as intensely when I really feel the love, and when, for any number of reasons, I do not "feel" the love at all.

The kind of love that is based on feeling is very shallow and seldom produces the profoundest feelings of love, only feelings of passion and infatuation, which quickly fade. Most of what is called "family" love is just sentimentality, and quickly dissipates in the face of friction or disagreement. That is why so many men who feel such deep love for their wives, also beat them.

Keep your loving feelings, I'll keep my love, with or without feelings, and know the love I give and receive is not based on some momentary feeling or passion, the cause of which is unknown, and is likely to cease as quickly as it began.

A couple of quick questions/comments:

What are, "subconscious levels of value," or subconscious anything else, for that matter?

What does this mean: "...our bodies would 'know' that more than our minds?" How does the body know anything, and if it knows its, how would you know it knows it, and how would you know when you body is making a mistake?

What are "...impossible Objectivist romantic relationships...." I happen to be in a very romantic Objectivist relationship. Nice to know I'm doing the impossible. In fact, almost everything I do, other's tell me is impossible. They told Reardon that about his metal, too. In real life they told the Wright brothers heavier-than-air flight was impossible, even after they had done it. If you think an Objectivist romantic relationship is impossible, you may be trying to have one with the wrong person, or you may be the wrong person.

Finally this: "I still am not adequately comfortable with affection with my family, and really have to continue to work on it." WHY?

By the way, I really understand how hard it is to give up a good kitty. I have always had cats (or they have always had me), and they are marvelously selfish, self-centered, independent, brats--when a cat shows you affection you know it means it, it never fakes anything (well, maybe they fake ignoring you). I'm sorry you will have to giver up yours, but hope you will be able to have another soon.

Regi

Post 22

Tuesday, July 6, 2004 - 12:34pm

Joe,

Thanks for the nice comments. By the way, your analysis in response to Jordan is excellent.

Since I mostly agree with you, this response will be dull, but blessedly short.

You said, I don't agree that all psychology is quackery.

Well, maybe it's not. But if psychology has anything right, its by accident. Even a blind pig finds an acorn once-in-a-while.

Regi

Post 23

Tuesday, July 6, 2004 - 3:02pm

Hey Regi,
   I'm trying to focus on other things at the moment, but I figure since I directed my thought against yours, I should take the time to respond..
   Firstly, we'll get to the one thing we did agree on. ;) Tiger is currently dozing off on my lap, in the normal bliss of a happy cat. I loved my dog even more, but had to put the poor girl down several months ago. Being I'm 23, and Tiger is 13 and Frisky was almost 17, I've therefore had a lot of my life with these two. Tiger unfortunately isn't as independent as most cats, so it may be much more difficult for the little guy to live with my parents. I'm really the only person he's comfortable with too....

   But let's talk about love again,. I'm not in support of any type of subjectivism, nor hedonism. I'm not blindly following what love tells me either. But I also do not believe that love can be measured with mere conscious values. I am not giving any cognitive status to it (whether it is good love or bad), and when I said the body might 'know' more, I put it in the quotes because I was just saying that our attracting feelings toward others are not all explicit, and a feeling of love can be a lot more complicated than it seems. And although feelings can never have a final "say", they do help us in the right cognitive direction. When a feeling is there we can always introspect, and I think it's relatively easy to know what turns those feelings of love on. Of course our subconscious doesn't literally think and know anything, and of course whether the love of a person is proper or not is not determined by the feeling itself.  I do not want to imply any of the such, and my point is just about how you cannot deny the fact that there is a whole context in our feelings and subconscious in love. I really don't know how what I said could lead to such things, so I hope I'm more clear now. It seems that a lot of people got a bad taste, because I keep losing the few 'sanction points' I've gained in my first thread..lol

    It seems that you are even denying the existence of a subconscious, in your disgust for psychology, and your denial of its role in something as complex as love (and I assume all emotions, right?), and in your skeptical questions about the subconscious to me.  Are you? If so, we really have no grounds to make sense out of each other.

     You say: "Keep your loving feelings, I'll keep my love, with or without feelings, and know the love I give and receive is not based on some momentary feeling or passion, the cause of which is unknown, and is likely to cease as quickly as it began."

     If you don't feel love for a person, why love to begin with? Sure, they have this quality, that quality, this quality, that quality. If they aren't giving you that pleasure, why bother with all of that messy complicated love? What else would you gain from such a state? How would you even define it? All you would do is describe its intellectual attributes, right? But even more important, it seems to me that you make for grounds that remove reason completely from inclination, in a very Kantian matter. Maybe I'm wrong, but your position on desire would probably be a good indication...And the state of being in love is no-where near momentary--but I strongly think you are confusing what I said. I don't equate emotions and feelings, and in the cases of love, of joy, of depression, and even more in Happiness, we have extremely complicated states that are not mere fleeting emotions, or whims, if you will. We feel them, and if we have enough harmony in our conscious and subconscious realms, the feelings are 'proper'; if the feelings are for things we don't want them to be for (like undeserving parents), then we can use the feelings to introspect and identify unresolved issues, etc. that we can consciously work on fixing. But still, they are much more complicated than fleeting emotions, and usually much more reasonably grounded (they are much more a part of you, however you want to put what the 'you' consists of).

Okay, I'm guilty of always having a rambling-quality to me, so I'll just try to get the next points in real quick. (1) I apologize for throwing in the comment about "impossible Objectivist relationships", because this is not the forum for that type of thing. But 'impossible' was not meant to be literal, and you'd have to admit that it is an issue in Objectivism. I've seen countless objectivist-minded relationships fail, and I agree that in my failed case I am not the right person. I do realize that there are differences between me and Objectivists, and it is wrong for me to make side-comments of the sort I did there. I wish you the best in your relationship, and hope you always ~feel~ love, whether you want to or not..lol. (2) Why try to improve my affection for my family? Because as you know I'll say, I love them, so it should be natural, but also I'm not a hedonist and I have good ~reason~ to love them. I do truly think that loving parents for just keeping food on your plate as a kid and a house over your head is still for a right reason, so I may differ from you there too, but they've done more than that anyway.  :)

-Dominic

Post 24

Tuesday, July 6, 2004 - 5:26pm

Dominic,

Give Tiger a couple of pats and scritches under chin for me. (I can hear tiger singing from here.)

I only have a couple of comments. I do think there is subjectivism in your view, but I think it is mitigated by your own clear objectivist principles. I only have a couple of comments.

The first is there is something juvenile in this business of sanctioning and unsanctioning posts. I'm sorry you were, "unsanctioned." Personally, I never consider a day quite complete until one or two of my posts have been unsanctioned by someone. That's how I know I'm being effective. ;>)

You are right, I do not believe there is such a thing as the subconscious, there is only consciousness. You are quite wrong about emotions, however. I not only believe in them, but believe they are extremely important, and ultimately, the reason for living. They are the means by which we experience our lives. The difference between us, if there is one, is that I believe it is what we think, value, and know that determines our feelings, and that having any feeling for which the cause is not clearly understood cannot be trusted.

But emotions are not subconscious. We are quite conscious of our emotions. The concept of the subconscious is the invention of Sigmund and Anna Freud, and is totally without meaning. What I am not conscious of, I am not conscious of, and it can have no effect on me at all. If I am conscious of something, I am conscious of it; it cannot be "under" consciousness, or "outside" consciousness, because if it were, I would not be conscious of it. It is an absurd concept invented to excuse feelings and impulses people have for which they cannot identify the cause.

I apologize for throwing in the comment about "impossible Objectivist relationships ..."

Please do not apologize. Good grief, do you think I was offended? Linz calls me an, "anal rationalistic old fart," and he can't offend me, I'm certainly not going to be offended by someone's honest opinion, even if expressed hyperbolically. (I was born with elephant skin.)

I wish you the best in your relationship...

Why thank you. After all these years, and growing better every year, I'm pretty sure it is going to last, at least as long as both of us do. (All of my children are older than you, by the way.)

There are a few things we do not agree on, but the conversation would become damn dull if everyone agreed on everything. I want to thank you for the interesting thoughts and challenges, and for being a gentleman and for telling me about Tiger. I wish you both the best, "with feeling."

Regi

Post 25

Tuesday, July 6, 2004 - 7:27pm

Hey Regi,
   Yea the only reason why the unsanctioning thing is really annoying is that my posts have to go through moderators before going up here. They are quick to put them up, but it must be a pain in the ass after like 15 posts :).
   And the apology was directed at you and pretty much all of the readers, although I didn't expect you to get offended. It's a really warm forum, and I've been really happy checking the posts and arguing here. Also, I saw how civil you were to Chris even after writing "Hijacking a Philosophy" in response to his monograph. :)

   Okay though, let's get to the interesting stuff....Your denial of a subconscious makes me wonder what you think about a lot, but it always serves best in a few quick questions that come to mind first...But first, I didn't mean to imply that you didn't believe in emotions, I just was saying that you didn't believe there was any subconscious relationship to them, and now I do know that it is your perspective.  Oh wait, it was also in context to your comment that you want love regardless of whether you feel it or not, and I was just reacting to that. It is applicable again in my first question. Ok, here we go:

(1)Now, for you the point of emotions are to tell you what you consciously value.  This comes back to what I asked in the last post.  What is the point of an emotion if it only brings out what you already have in front of you?  I think you'd have to redefine what 'conscious' is to answer that without giving non-conscious elements, because an emotion cannot automatically tell you something you are already thinking, and if you are not thinking something and have an emotion representing it, it is not conscious.

(2) How do you account for disharmony between emotions and what you at least ~want~ to value? Would it just be that you were not consciously valuing the right thing? Or would it be that your emotion just 'misperceived' (if I may put it that loosely) the value you had? Now, what do you do with these emotions, because they don't just go away, and I do believe that it takes at times several conscious identifications of same errors to make the change that's necessary filter through?

Actually, I keep thinking of more and more things to ask, but these two questions are places in which I would find a lot of trouble in the context of what we've been talking about, and there may be more essential ones, but my brain is tired...

You think I have subjectivist elements? Well, 'subjectivist' has many many meanings in different contexts, so I'm not quite sure what you mean, even in this narrow subject, although I'm sure it's bad. ;) I know that in a lot of ways I put a lot of emphasis in the psychological realm, and in a lot of cases I do feel as though the layers of context point towards a lot of difficulty in knowledge in some issues, but I do not want any result of subjectivism. So let me know what you mean if you can. :)

-Dominic

Post 26

Wednesday, July 7, 2004 - 6:46am

As some (including Nathaniel Branden) have remarked, subconscious does not mean unconscious. The subconscious may even be viewed as hyperconsciousness, consisting of awarenessness that are so basic and fundamental that they are effectively exempt from questioning and thought. They have been automatized. It is a matter of hierarchy or levels or depths of awareness.

The more integrated a person, however, the more easily he or she is able to access these deeper levels.

Here's an example. One day, I was feeling out of sorts at the office. Working with papers at my desk, I found I needed my pen. I had just used it a moment before, but for the life of me I could not find it again. I even got angry--I cried out loud "Where the heck is it? I just had the thing! Where could it go in ten seconds?"

Someone walked into my cubicle, spoke a few words, and left. This interruption somehow got me back on the mental track, and as I resumed work my hand went right to the pen, which was obscured under the paperwork in front of me. So all along, I knew where my pen was, but not consciously because I had relegated such tasks to my subconscious.

Post 27

Wednesday, July 7, 2004 - 7:42am

Hi Joe,

I'm still not so quick to call so many people whim-worshippers for their familial love. Rodney explained subconsciousness nicely in his last post, and I think the subconscious is where most people's familiar love begins. Implicit causes for someone's feelings don't make those feelings whimsical.

I think what'd make those feelings whimsical is when there's a need to question those feelings and that need is denied. --like the need of a wife to question her feelings toward her husband who beats her.

Again, I can see this:

1 - Love of family a moral standard
2 - Desire experienced to be moral without understanding the flawed morality
3 - Desire acted upon

I'm just not so quick to say this is the norm.

I would also disagree that you would necessarily love somebody simply because they allow you to be a leech.

I think it's easy to love someone who cares so much for us. Being cared for is of value to us, yes? I think you're suggesting that children don't deserve to be cared for and are thus all leeches of their caregivers. I think this view is problematic. And again, I don't know why someone would claim this as the norm. Maybe we just run in different social circles, have observed different family dynamics.

Jordan

Post 28

Wednesday, July 7, 2004 - 9:01am

Yes, good point Rodney. I may have been suggesting that the subconscious is unconscious in the first question to Regi, and since I've never thought through that differentiation, I have to adapt my understanding if I do imply that. I do not want the conscious and subconscious to be over-separated, but separated enough to show that there is good reason to believe in a subconscious to Regi. I have vaguely just considered it basically in terms of levels (as 'sub' stands for), but yet also in a way as 'unconscious' I guess. Your point, although I'm not sure where it is directed, has showed me that I have some important thinking through to do, and I appreciate it. :)

-Dominic

Post 29

Wednesday, July 7, 2004 - 10:27am

(Dominic, I was basically answering to Regi and hopefully clarifying for others.)

Some psychologists have referred to the subconscious as "the unconscious" (more so in the past, I believe), but that word is highly misleading, even though in a sense we are not aware of its operation/contents. Nathaniel Branden explicitly rejects the term "the unconscious" for the reasons I have implied.

I urge those not familiar with NB's work to investigate it. One of the major contributions he has made to Objectivism is to integrate it with psychology. That is, he has not only added knowledge to psychology with the help of philosophy; he has also done some repair work among AR admirers by pointing out that emotions contain valuable subconscious knowledge, that one's feelings should not be pushed aside in the name of "rationality" in the manner Rand heroes sometimes seem to do. This buried subconscious knowledge was often attained by rational/logical means. At any rate, feelings contain crucial data about one's deepest perceptions and evaluations that one courts disaster by ignoring.

(Edited by Rodney Rawlings on 7/07, 1:56pm)

Post 30

Wednesday, July 7, 2004 - 12:58pm

Jordan:

"Implicit causes for someone's feelings don't make those feelings whimsical."

If a person does something based on a feeling without understanding the cause of that feeling, then that person is acting on a whim. If the cause is only implicit, then the person does not understand the cause of that feeling. Therefore, if a person does something based on an implicit cause, then that person is acting on a whim.

"I think what'd make those feelings whimsical is when there's a need to question those feelings and that need is denied. --like the need of a wife to question her feelings toward her husband who beats her. "

All feelings need to be questioned. You need to discover: is this feeling correct in this context? If so, then there's no problem. If not, what implicit values are causing this feeling in this context? There's never a reason to not question something.

"Again, I can see this:

1 - Love of family a moral standard
2 - Desire experienced to be moral without understanding the flawed morality
3 - Desire acted upon

I'm just not so quick to say this is the norm."

Why not? Mind you, I'm using the ideas on attachment that you mentioned earlier; but I'm denying that this is a love, per se.

"I think it's easy to love someone who cares so much for us."

I have no clue how you're defining the word "love." Love is a response to values reflected in another person. Being taken care of is not, by itself, a reflection of values that a person will easily love...i.e., being allowed to be a leech does not make your host a loved person.

To give one example that I'm sure many of us have seen at one time or another, imagine a person with a self-esteem issue who takes care of other people, perhaps even her grown children, in order to feel important. When I cross such people, I can't even find respect for them, even if I'm somehow benefitting from their care. Easy to love? Try harder.

Now, if somebody were to care for another because they love that person (i.e., responding to values reflected in that person), that *could* be a different story. But, most parents "love" their child(ren) before the child could act toward the achievement of his/her values.

What I've been asking, in this whole thread, is this: Why?

My answer is stated above:

1 - Love of family a moral standard
2 - Desire experienced to be moral without understanding the flawed morality
3 - Desire acted upon

"Being cared for is of value to us, yes? I think you're suggesting that children don't deserve to be cared for and are thus all leeches of their caregivers. I think this view is problematic."

This should a whole other thread but: yes, children are leeches. But, for a parent to keep a child, that parent is a willing host. This isn't problematic as much as it's realistic, and I could also point out that money is the only thing that's barring my wife and I from having a child right now.

"And again, I don't know why someone would claim this as the norm. Maybe we just run in different social circles, have observed different family dynamics."

Possibly. But my view is formed on the basis that most people I've met do not have an explicit philosophy. They run on whatever thoughts cross their minds, they follow whatever whim comes to them, and they have no idea why they do, think, or feel the things that they do.

Post 31

Wednesday, July 7, 2004 - 7:17pm

Dominic, Rodney,

First Dominic:

... really annoying is that my posts have to go through moderators ...

I've taken care of that.

... you want love regardless of whether you feel it or not ...

Not exactly. I love just as much, with or without the intense feelings. If one felt those intense feelings all the time, it would wear them out or they would go crazy. When my children were growing, there were times when I did not "feel" my love for them, especially if I were very tired and they were being very obtuse--nevertheless, I loved them just as intensely.

What is the point of an emotion if it only brings out what you already have in front of you?

There wouldn't be any point, but that is not what they do. Emotions come in two forms, desires and reactions. Desires are the motivators of life, but no emotional desire tells us how to fulfill that desire or even what it is a desire for. We have to learn that feeling in our stomach is hunger and eating food is what satisfies it, and which things are food and which are poison. The reactions are either warnings (of danger or something wrong, for example) or rewards (for thinking, choosing, and acting correctly).

The feelings do not tell us anything, just as the taste of food does not tell us anything (except after we learn them, what some ingredients in our food are, like salt, some spices, etc.) The good taste is a "reward" for eating good things. People who loose their ability to taste (which is actually mostly smell) still have to eat, but they will get not pleasure from the taste of the food. The good emotions are like good tastes, they enable us to enjoy our lives, which ultimately is the purpose of lives.

(2) How do you account for disharmony between emotions and what you at least ~want~ to value?

The emotions or feelings are only responses to what you are conscious of. People with disintegrated value systems and thought patterns, people who think entertaining ideas, so long as one does not act on them, for example, will have disintegrated unaccountable emotions.

Now Rodney and Dominic

(Because this pertains to what you said, Rodney)

You think I have subjectivist elements? ... So let me know what you mean if you can.

I can. Anyone who thinks the emotions are cognitive in any way is, to the extent they grant "knowledge" to emotions, subjective. The emotions are only reactions and the only information they provide is that we have them.

What's wrong with these two concepts?

Branden's confusion of knowledge with habituation and memory while playing with words, saying subconscious does not mean unconscious is typical quackery. If I am conscious of something, I am conscious of it. If I am not conscious of it, I am not. There is no other ground.

First, the subconscious is anything it must be "somewhere." I mean, if it is not in our consciousness, where is it? It cannot be in memory. If the subconscious is only memory then just call it memory. But psychologists do not say it is memory. Where the subconscious is or the faculty responsible for it is never identified. It is, as Rand would say, "blank out."

Secondly, even if there were these subconscious things, if I were never conscious of them in any way, it would be as if they did not exist. If I am aware of them in any way at all, I am conscious of them and they cannot be subconscious things at all. How can I be both conscious of something and totally unaware that it exists? If I am really not conscious of it, what difference could it possibly make it it's there or not?

Ah, yes. The answer is, even though we are not conscious of them, these subconscious things (whatever they are) cause people to have feelings for which they do not know the cause or origin.

Except for biological causes, no feeling or emotion is causeless. All our feelings and emotions are reactions to the content of consciousness, and nothing else. We feel frightened in response to things we perceive or think about that are frightening, we feel desire in response to perceiving or thinking about things desirable. If you think about anything that causes you to feel anxiety, anticipation, or fear, you will realize you never have those feelings except when actually thinking about those things that worry you, or you look forward to, or are afraid of.

Unless we are conscious of those so-called subconscious things that cause us inexplicable feelings, they can cause no feelings at all. If they could, the psychologist is obliged to explain the mechanism by which they perform that miracle.

Even if there were some way the which that we are totally unaware of could cause us to have feelings, that would not make those feelings cognitive. Suppose a dipsomaniac is explaining why he drinks even when he knows he shouldn't. He explains he has this overpowering urge to have a drink which he cannot resist. The question is, how does he know that feeling he calls an urge to have a drink, means, "have a drink?" Maybe the urge really means "brush your teeth." How does he know it means, "have a drink?" and not, "brush your teeth?" He had to learn that urge was to have a drink and that having a drink satisfied the urge. The urge did not tell him what it means.

It is that way with all desires. No emotion tells us what it means, we have to discover that rationally. We can have knowledge about the feelings and desires, what they mean, how to satisfy them, which to fulfill and which to resist, but the feelings themselves carry no information at all except the fact of their existence. The emotions are percepts, not concepts, and not cognitive. To equate any feeling, desire, urge, or emotion with knowledge is subjectivity, and ultimately destructive to both one's emotional and intellectual consciousness.

Mr. Branden is an apostle of subjectivity, I'm afraid. It does not surprise me, all psychologists are quacks, no matter how nice a voice they have, how charming their smile is, or how much Objectivist doctrine they cite.

For the record, both of you, Rodney and Dominic, hold a much more mainstream "Objectivist" position on these things than I. I am only describing my position, not denigrating yours, or trying to convince you to change your views.

Regi

Post 32

Thursday, July 8, 2004 - 8:08am

Hi Joe,

With regard to attachment, I don't think people are necessarily whimsically acting on their feelings here. I think they are reacting to the nurturing caregiver, and their feelings are the product of this. They might not realize the source of this feeling, but that doesn't mean they aren't acting on it and not its emotive effect.

All feelings need to be questioned. You need to discover: is this feeling correct in this context? If so, then there's no problem. If not, what implicit values are causing this feeling in this context? There's never a reason to not question something.

I don't see the need to identify the cause of every feeling I have. I have lots of feelings and not all of them are worth investigating (maybe I've investigated a similar piror case enough to know that this one's fine). I daresay investigating them all would be impossible. I don't think of this as whimsical, just economical. I think whim comes into play when we should but don't locate an emotion's cause.

I have no clue how you're defining the word "love." Love is a response to values reflected in another person. Being taken care of is not, by itself, a reflection of values that a person will easily love...i.e., being allowed to be a leech does not make your host a loved person.

Seems like you're treating love as an emotion here, which I thought you didn't want to do. I'm treating love as value; to love is to value. Does a child value being taken care of?

This should a whole other thread but: yes, children are leeches.

Heh. ok. In the best light, I prefer to think of them as an investment or a symbol of innocence or of heroic potential. Whatev. Spin it however you like.

Possibly. But my view is formed on the basis that most people I've met do not have an explicit philosophy. They run on whatever thoughts cross their minds, they follow whatever whim comes to them, and they have no idea why they do, think, or feel the things that they do.

Yeesh. Sure, most folks I know don't question themselves as much as I question myself, but when I drill them, many can offer respectable answers as to why they do what they do (even if I think they're wrong for doing it). They run on implicit causes, but when those causes are challenged, they identify and defend them. Again, could be different social circles. Or...

I could just be more optimistic than you, which is funny cause I'm usually quite the pessimist. Seems like you and Reg want to cast these folks in an awful light -- they're a bunch of whim-worshippers. Where's your benevolent universe? Why not give them the benefit of the doubt? Why so quick to conclude that whim controls their feelings toward family? Again, why can't their emotions be like the music lover's response to an evocative piece? Or should the music lover understand the reason he feels every feeling in every musical phrase he's ever heard?

Jordan

Post 33

Thursday, July 8, 2004 - 11:32am

Hi Jordan--

With regard to attachment, I don't think people are necessarily whimsically acting on their feelings here. I think they are reacting to the nurturing caregiver, and their feelings are the product of this. They might not realize the source of this feeling, but that doesn't mean they aren't acting on it and not its emotive effect.

True...if they are aware that the emotive effect is the result of the attachment, and not a result of feelings for the caregiver as a person. If they recognize and love the caregiver for the values that the caregiver possesses, that's one thing. If the cause is nothing but the attachment, it's another. And, I still maintain that, to act on the basis of an emotion without understanding its cause (i.e., acting on the emotion simply because it's the emotion you feel), is still acting on a whim, even if the whim would turn out to have a justified cause.

I don't see the need to identify the cause of every feeling I have. I have lots of feelings and not all of them are worth investigating (maybe I've investigated a similar piror case enough to know that this one's fine). I daresay investigating them all would be impossible. I don't think of this as whimsical, just economical. I think whim comes into play when we should but don't locate an emotion's cause.

I do see a need. Now, whether or not that need can be fulfilled in a split-second is another story. It wouldn't take me longer than the bat of an eyelash (something I'm sure I can always find time to do) to understand why I feel a certain way about, say, a rape occurring. Nor would I need more than a moment to understand why I feel a certain way when a friend decides to give me a gift.

But some will take a longer amount of time. For example, if I felt in a way that didn't fit the context of the situation. Perhaps these are the feeling you would agree need to identify the causes of? If so, I think we may just caught up in semantics here.

Seems like you're treating love as an emotion here, which I thought you didn't want to do. I'm treating love as value; to love is to value. Does a child value being taken care of?

To love is to value...love arises as a response to the values of another. You love (value) those people with certain values. It's still an evaluation.

Put in this light, I'll rephrase my sentence as such:

Being taken care of is not, by itself, a reflection of values that a person (the person being taken care of) will easily value...i.e., being allowed to be a leech does not make your host a valued person.

By value, I am, of course, using a standard definition: that which you would act to keep. A leech won't act to keep its particular host; it will take any host that comes along. The host isn't loved, but used. In the same way, a person can use the services of a doctor (which he may need to stay alive) without valuing the doctor as a person (as opposed to valuing the doctor as a medical professional). The values of the doctor (or caregiver) aren't taken into consideration by the patient (or child).

I prefer to think of them as an investment or a symbol of innocence or of heroic potential. Whatev. Spin it however you like.

They certainly can be. But, those aren't mutually exclusive from being leeches. As I mentioned above, I plan on having a child someday, and I think the costs associated with be worth it. However, I'm not paying for the child's upkeep for a service to my life as if this were a business transaction. Somebody who is not yet born cannot agree to any such transaction I might desire. If it were otherwise, the child would have a moral obligation to follow through on my desires...and I see that as problematic.

Yeesh. Sure, most folks I know don't question themselves as much as I question myself, but when I drill them, many can offer respectable answers as to why they do what they do (even if I think they're wrong for doing it). They run on implicit causes, but when those causes are challenged, they identify and defend them. Again, could be different social circles. Or...

I could just be more optimistic than you, which is funny cause I'm usually quite the pessimist. Seems like you and Reg want to cast these folks in an awful light -- they're a bunch of whim-worshippers. Where's your benevolent universe? Why not give them the benefit of the doubt? Why so quick to conclude that whim controls their feelings toward family? Again, why can't their emotions be like the music lover's response to an evocative piece? Or should the music lover understand the reason he feels every feeling in every musical phrase he's ever heard?

We're definitely involved with different people. I am quite an optimist about people. I generally believe that most people have good intentions, even if they go about things in all the wrong ways, and I find this universe wonderful in that you can work hard, succeed, and then enjoy the fruits of your labors.

Unfortunately, even though most people I've met have good intentions, their brains work as well as a water flowing uphill. Most people, if an implicit assumption is brought to their attention, they either vehemently deny it (because it clashes with their explicit assumptions), or they vehemently defend it (because to do lose the assumption leads to changes that they fear). I've yet to see somebody have a good implicit assumption. Perhaps you've been luckier than I have in finding such people.

An individual, I would definitely give the benefit of the doubt. But, for humanity as a whole, I'm in much greater doubt.

Post 34

Thursday, July 8, 2004 - 11:51am

Greetings, all.

I think some different things are getting jumbled up here.

Being a part of a family means obligations will arise that are due to you and owed by you -- i.e., the give and take inherent in all human relationships. For example, it is only just to honor the parents who raised you (and by that, I mean as nurturers and teachers who prepared you for this world by the means they -- not you -- thought best). However, to love another can never be an obligation. Love can only be given freely; and its rationally given when you find a deep joy in your association with another that is reciprocated. Thus, even if justice requires you to honor parents for what they have given you, it cannot require you to love them.

Yet familial love is common and natural. Why? What is familial is familiar. Family members tend to be alike, and if we love ourselves we may find we love those like us. Such love manifests itself when we are very young, before we begin choosing the people we associate with, so its foundation may seem inchoate to us, inexplicable. But upon examination it need not be so mysterious. Such familial love arises from the sociability of our human nature, and I don't think requires much inspection if it benefits us and in exchange the family.

However, the same circumstances that give rise to, let's say, a love out of habit for family can also feel like a prison for those who are forced by the circumstances of minority to associate with people they find undesirable. Rotten people are rotten, period. Some have the misfortune of being related to such. It is perfectly rational to want to be separated from such people as soon as one can. You need not, indeed you must not, let rotten people make claims upon you for no reason other than a blood relationship. You mustn't let your life be poisoned that way.

But you must not conclude that because you lacked the fortune of a family to love, that family in general is inimical to one's independence and well-being. The richest, most enduring, and best human relationships that exist are family ones, beginning with the family you can choose to create when you find the love of your life and marry her (or him as the case may be). This is because human beings are made to best fit together as families. (This is certainly one reason why we transform solid non-blood relationships into family-like ones -- and no, I'm not referring to the high-roller's "nieces" next to him at the craps table. ;)

However, like all things that are good for us, they can be turned into poison if we are irrational about them. There is no substitute for thinking, especially when emotions can run so fierce as they can in a family.

Regards,
Bill

(Edited by Citizen Rat on 7/08, 1:40pm)

Post 35

Thursday, July 8, 2004 - 1:22pm

Hi Joe,

I wonder what you think of Citizen Rat's last post. It seems to echo much of what I was saying but with different words. I agree with most of his post.

True...if they are aware that the emotive effect is the result of the attachment, and not a result of feelings for the caregiver as a person.

I want to know what you think about people who unknowingly act on the cause of their emotions but not the emotive effects of that cause? Must people be explicitly aware of the cause they act on in order to avoid whim? This is different from acting on the basis of emotion. It's acting on a cause not fully understand (which is why I keep bring up music, often a causal mystery).

For example, if I felt in a way that didn't fit the context of the situation. Perhaps these are the feeling you would agree need to identify the causes of? If so, I think we may just caught up in semantics here.

Sure. Might very well be semantics. I was just saying that I have tons of feelings and feel something every waking moment, even when I'm analyzing feelings. It's impossible to analyze each, for every time I address one, I'm creating another, which in turn I'll have to analyze, which in turn creates yet another, and so on to infinity. So many feelings, so little time.

I agree that being leech doesn't exclude the more optimistic aspects of children, but I don't think being a leech is essential to being a child. Children can be of great benefit to their parents. <laughing> Maybe think of them as pets. At first glance, I don't think you can be a leech and be a great benefit. Interesting to think about. Not a big issue here though.

A leech won't act to keep its particular host; it will take any host that comes along.

Children tend to be partial to their own parents. They won't take just any old Mom. Not sure what point you're making here.

An individual, I would definitely give the benefit of the doubt. But, for humanity as a whole, I'm in much greater doubt.

I can appreciate this.

Jordan

Post 36

Friday, July 9, 2004 - 5:34am

I have no problems with what Bill wrote. I never claimed that families are bad for people...I've merely explored the notion of natural love between members of a family for the sake of a blood relationship.

I want to know what you think about people who unknowingly act on the cause of their emotions but not the emotive effects of that cause? Must people be explicitly aware of the cause they act on in order to avoid whim? This is different from acting on the basis of emotion. It's acting on a cause not fully understand (which is why I keep bring up music, often a causal mystery).

I can only answer the second question if I know what you mean by the first. Could you please clarify?

Children tend to be partial to their own parents. They won't take just any old Mom. Not sure what point you're making here.

I've seen the claim. But, I've also seen the converse: people who didn't know they had been adopted until they were already in high school, or even until they were adults. It depends when, and with whom, the attachment forms. The point of my statement is that the fact that a certain person is biologically related to them doesn't change the value that a child would attach to a particular caregiver, all else being equal.

(Edited by Joe Trusnik on 7/09, 5:35am)

Post 37

Friday, July 9, 2004 - 7:27am

Bill,

Excellent analysis of the source of "familial" love. You are exactly right, the "familial" is the "familiar," and there is no mystery at all why we love those we are familiar and comfortable with, and, who as you metion, are often much like ourselves.

Of course I agree, the best family is the one we make ourselves.

Regi

Post 38

Friday, July 9, 2004 - 7:49am

Hi Joe,

I'll clarify and sort of change the question. Must you explicitly know the cause of an emotion to be able to act on that cause? And if you don't know the cause that you're acting on -- that is, if you don't understand it fully or correctly -- are you guilty of acting on emotion, and subsequently on whim? (Note: I'm assuming here that one can act on a cause he doesn't understand fully or correctly. You're welcome to challenge this.)

I hope that's clearer.

The point of my statement is that the fact that a certain person is biologically related to them doesn't change the value that a child would attach to a particular caregiver, all else being equal.

I see. Adopted kids prefer (and attach to) their own non-biological parents too. I didn't mean to suggest otherwise. Biological relationships do not govern attachment.

Anyway, glad to see that Reg liked Bill's post since it says pretty much the same thing I said in my first post. <pouts>

Jordan

Post 39

Friday, July 9, 2004 - 11:47am