Implications - See thread

[DeathDomokun]

Title: The implications of subjective influences on the sustenance of a non-physical, empirically visible phenomenon (and the effects that might have on what other observers/subjects derive from the same phenomenon)

What sort of implications do emotions have on the value of emotional things?
This is very vague, I know, so let me lay out the example that inspired my typing this.

If one of the major contributors to your desire for relations with another person (whenever I say relationship people always assume sexual, when there are a plethora of relationships that can occur, which is yet another dynamic to this individual example) was loneliness, what impact does that have on the relationship? When the emotion is removed will the foundation of the 'relationship' change the relationship itself? Does the desire and support have an impact on the value not only the relationship itself has, but what meaning the parties involved derive from it?

I think egotistical love is much more fragile, whilst being extreme and intense, so that would play a part in this example.

What if it were somebody's altruistic love for people being based on the desire to make others happy; or somebody's 'evil' desires with the intention of hurting others?

Anyway, a major impact of all of this is attachment imo. You attempt to transfer feelings, a transient (from change) phenomenon, into a monogamous relationship, which is meant to be permanent. The ephemeral (moments) can be eternal (time passed), but something dependent on the ephemeral (emotions) can not be unwavering, and any remnant of permanency would simply be memory of, or exposure to the symbol of, something that has passed.
A relationship can last a life time, sure, and I'm not suggesting otherwise, just to make sure no comprehension is clouded by vagueness and affected by emotion, not that this isn't a valid point I just thought I'd put it out there.


I think this is better suited here than SLR, so I'd appreciate any mod to reasonably allay my desire by pm'ing me before/when moving this %)

 

[max_]

I like this train of thought. I don't think all relationships are fueled by the end of "not being alone". Quite the contrary, relationships (non romantic but those too) are usually built upon other relationships with other people. Probably diversification and expansion of one's horizons is the main reason we have relationships. When humans began gathering in tribes they didn't do it to be with someone else (opposed to alone) they did it to get more food, to build better shelters to beat bigger enemies. Now we do the same we build relationships to have better drug connects to get to better parties to have more fun to get better jobs-- to get work done essentially. IF a relationship is based upon not being alone then I can see a problem with that relationship since like you said it defeats its own porpoise.

Anyway, a major impact of all of this is attachment imo. You attempt to transfer feelings, a transient (from change) phenomenon, into a monogamous relationship, which is meant to be permanent. The ephemeral (moments) can be eternal (time passed), but something dependent on the ephemeral (emotions) can not be unwavering, and any remnant of permanency would simply be memory of, or exposure to the symbol of, something that has passed.

Relationships are a plastic life-form. They change every single day. The reasons to stay married are not the same throughout life. The reasons to stay friends are not the same. The reasons to stay partners are not the same. The reasons to get jobs are not the same. The reasons to have sex are not the same.

 

[max_]

double post ///

 

[rangrz]

What sort of implications do emotions have on the value of emotional things?

I'd hazard a guess and say those things which are purely emotional, derive any value and meaning they have strictly from their emotional aspects. Makes sense yes?

Anyway, a major impact of all of this is attachment imo. You attempt to transfer feelings, a transient (from change) phenomenon, into a monogamous relationship, which is meant to be permanent.

All phenomenon, all events, are transient. They have no permanence in the sense that objects do.

 

[DeathDomokun]

I know this, hence my commenting about become attached to something that is not permanent. Relationships are seen with an expectation for more, or a requirement for it, one becomes attached and dependant on an ephemeral state. People try to forcefully maintain dysfunctional relationships until reason triumphs emotion.
I guess I was unclear in my first statement, what I was trying to convey is the emotional foundation for a relationship changes, thus changing the relationship.
Meaning is an emotion. Value can be derived from any aspect. Meaning can exist as the formation of pixels meaning this thing we call language which is the expression/symbolism for thought.
Objects do not have permanence, as things break down. Without going into matter and energy and physics (I'll leave that to you because you know much more about it than I)
And if we're going on the semantics of the above statement, forms do not last. Things degrade and change form.
Anyway, I've just derailed my own thread which is nice... and I didn't separate shit properly oh well


I don't think all relationships arise from loneliness max, but most are egotistical. They arise from desire (whether that's for fun, knowledge, meaning, food, money, sex, companionship) or even selflessly, the desire is required to participate in any situation. All actions originate from desire, even if there is dissonance (emotional desire not to clean, emotional desire to clean, psychological/physiological desire to sit down [lethargy anyone?] logical desire to clean. Whichever desire is tantamount will dictate action, without annihilating the dissonance it will temporarily refute lesser desires. Sometimes it is nice to allay a desire, such as doing the dishes for logical reasons (dictated by desire, an emotion) consequently refuting the emotional desire to not do the dishes and yada yada
The cause for all action is emotional, with the amalgamation of logic.
Yet, we can do things without emotion, and lead a life without meaning.
How is that so?
What is deeper than this? What is happening with the nerves of our brain that is subconsciously affecting consciousness? It isn't as basal and visceral as the sensations, but it sure is beyond the darkness of emotions.

The reason to do everything isn't the same, I agree. It's much more complex and subjective than that, but objectively, if desire does not contribute in some way the action will not take place.
Is it a logical desire if it is neither experienced emotionally, nor have a cognizant/felt logical/thought impact? It's hard to explain because I think it's called dissonance with subconscious emotional problems I have buried so this is just okay
Well thanks for the replies guys

 

[Abject]

bump

 

[Abject]

What affect does building someone up in your mind have on both your relationship to them and the(ir) relationship (to you)

Does the drive of loneliness and wanting to be with someone, is an impersonal desire somehow lesser?

Does the lack of sincere intention (though still genuinely felt) towards an idea of a person detract anything from the person who is still receiving it?
I don't think it does really, I think all related phenomenon are only felt by the giver.

 

[Foreigner]

This almost a year old and the OP is no longer a member. Out of respect for that I'm going to close this.