Love is a human “experience”. I think that any attempt to describe love with logic might simply be a rationalization.
But we can “describe” how we feel about a person with words. It just depends how we as individuals express ourselves and how we “feel”.
An “affinity for” is just the beginning of a relationship - it’s not necessarily love or true love.
Many people seem to feel that they “love” - but in reality there is very little affinity for.
The feeling of love is nothing more than a mishmash of chemicals in the brain to start with…then it may evolve into right reason.
If we’re not looking clearly at something - for instance, if our eyesight is not the best, very often our observations can be faulty.
If we have biases, if we are set in our ways about different perspectives, without taking the time to really examine them, they can be false or faulty.
We sometimes see things with tunnel vision and we have blind spots within our minds, – our observations can then also be faulty or false.
I have sometimes looked at something at a distance and when I came close to it, i realized that it is something entirely different than what I thought. I found that to be both fascinating and an eye opener (of the mind). Our minds play tricks on us at times. Just because we are not necessarily trying to see something in a certain way, like in lying to ourselves, it doesn’t necessary mean that our observations are true ones.
But perhaps you’re thinking, for example, of how the scientist makes his observations. If those observations are not based in any kind of judgment call beforehand but simply in “looking”, then it can probably be said that there is no true or false to them. True or false I suppose comes after judgment. I may be wrong in what I said though.
No observation can be absolute as we’ve learned from the Earth at one time being seen as the center of the universe. That came about from human ego and lack of knowledge.
I think that sometimes our “important” emotions have to change, based on what we are experiencing and living in the moment.
Sometimes a sense of peace keeps us from doing what must be done at certain times.
Even fear is an important emotion - it’s an instinct which can help keep us alive. if we are experiencing such inner peace, we may not feel the need to protect ourselves/to fight back if the need calls for it.
Peace can lull our senses and our better realizations.
But I may be wrong in this.
You seem to read with expectation that leads to presumption and illusion of what is written.
When spinning your wheels, slow down so you can get a grip.
Read more carefully.
What was observed was the separation between apparent head placement and apparent shoulder placement (you didn’t observe his shoulders, only his coat shoulders). That observation led to the presumption of a break that wasn’t really there, an illusion.
That’s precisely what I’ve been saying. But you are not interested in understanding what others are saying. You are interested in making sure that everyone is using language in what you deem to be the ideal manner. (Language is not, cannot be, ideal. But that does not matter to you because you are a believer – you believe in perfection, don’t you?)
If you, YOU, want people to understand what you are saying (which clearly you do), You have no choice but to speak in THEIR language, not what you have presumed to be good enough. When more than 5 percent of your words are being used differently than they use them, trouble begins for you, not them.
Logic is about using your words consistently, but also any and every communication attempt requires agreement on the meaning of the words, even for poets or machines.
You can assign any kind of value to any kind of thing.
It’s a matter of personal preference.
This means that you can assign truth value to observations.
And we often do so. In many different ways.
For example, we often speak of true observations and false observations.
We assign the value “true” to those observations that are physical (e.g. physical tree.)
We assign the value “false” to those observations that are virtual (e.g. computer simulation of a tree.)
This is a simple procedure.
In reality, we often use complex procedures and we do so intuitively without being aware of how they work.
There is an infinite number of procedures to assign a truth value.
But a finite number of commonly applied procedures.
Problems are created when an attempt is made to apply a procedure where it cannot be applied.
Consider Hume’s problem of induction. It is said that the statement that “all swans are white” can never be proven correct because it is impossible to observe all swans. No matter how many swans you observe, there still may be more swans to observe. This is an example of trying to use a procedure that assigns truth value to expectations to assign truth value to something other than expectations – to theories.
Theories are used to generate expectations. Because their application is universal, the number of expectations they can generate is infinite. Because the number of expectations is infinite, you cannot determine their truth value by testing every expectation. Rather, their truth value is determined by a sample of expectations. Because the number of tested expectations changes with time, the truth value of theories changes with time.
Popper realized that theories cannot be proven.
But he also realized that they can be disproven.
A single black swan invalidates the statement that “all swans are white”.
So he thought “falsificationism” is the solution.
Which it isn’t.
When I say that observations have no truth value what I am saying is that observations cannot have the kind of truth value expectations have.
You are pretending to know what my goal is.
Either that or you are pretending to know what should be my goal.
I wouldn’t be surprised if you thought that there is a universal goal that is posited, or that should be posited, by everyone.
You show many symptoms of perfectionism.
Of belief in perfection, completion, absolutes, etc.
You don’t seem to acknowledge that there is such a thing as unrealistic goals.
That there are standards that are too high.
Nor that there are “unidealistic” goals.
That there are goals that are too easy.
That there are standards that are too low.
There are no universal standards.
Only personal standards.
People have limits.
They cannot posit any goal without frustrating themselves.
People have potentials.
They cannot posit any goal without wasting their potentials.
The only universally applicable master goal there may be is to strive to attain the highest possible goal within one’s limits.
Because different people have different limits, different people have different “highest possible goal within one’s limits”.
Goal is an expectation that a certain action will be performed.
When it is fulfilled, we declare success.
When it is not, we declare failure.
A man who cannot walk but who attempts to run will fail.
A man who can walk but who attempts no more than that will waste his potential.
You are not acknowledging this.
There is an infinity of goals.
If someone is speaking, that does not mean he wants to be understood.
Maybe he simply wants to speak.
What if I am simply sharing my thoughts?
What if I am not expecting anything more than a feedback of particular kind?
And even if I am speaking to an audience, how do you know what is the audience I am speaking to?
How do you know you are part of my audience?
It’s certainly impossible for my audience to include everyone.
For otherwise I wouldn’t be able to speak.
Why?
Because I would never be able to finish adapting my speech to my audience.
Why?
Because the word “everyone” is not specific.
It’s infinite.
No matter how many people I consider, there may always be people I didn’t consider. Thus motivating me to search for the possibly excluded ones endlessly.
Therefore, if you want to speak, you must speak to a finite number of people.
Even if it means pretending that you are speaking to “everyone”.
Because the number is finite, we must ask: how many people?
One, two, three or five? A hundred? A thousand?
Who decides?
If the universe does not, who does?
James S. Saint?
Need does.
Our goal does.
There are many other parameters that must be chosen in the same personal, non-universal, manner.
For example, how well do you want to be understood?
And do you want to be understood equally well by everyone in your audience?
And regarding which points?
Should each one of your points be understood equally well?
Then, how long should it take your audience to understand what you are saying?
Should it be instantaneous?
And so on.
In other words, you wrongly assumed you are my goal.
You are a distraction.
An interesting one.
But nonetheless a distraction.
You are trying to hide your own lack of responsibility – your inability to admit your faults – behind a universal goal.
It’s easier to assume that everyone has the same goal.
It’s easier to judge them this say.
It also means we are all friends.
Striving towards one and the same goal – peace.
It’s just that some of us – the Homo Sapians – don’t understand the Holy Truth.
We are lost souls.
One of the troubles that stem from you mis-learning the language is you thinking that everyone else is a “moron” or “retard”, while they maintain little doubt that it is you.
Moron, you aren’t my goal. Can’t you understand this? You are not the center of my posts. Less so the center of this thread. Even less so the center of the world that you think you are.
NOONE WAS TALKING TO YOU.
NOONE WAS EXPECTING YOU TO UNDERSTAND ANYTHING.
Not everyone is a pathologically left-brained moron obsessed with superficial aspects of reality such as language.
I don’t have to tailor my posts to morons of your kind.
Trouble did not begin for me, you imbecile, because you were not my goal. It begun for you because it was you who chose – remember, noone asked you to – to understand what I am saying. You are trying to invert this by appealing to some universal goal.
You are braindead. No matter how many times, and with how much depth, I explain this to you you will never understand it.
Just focus on the words and never focus on the gist.
If they are using words in less than ideal manner – and because nothing is ideal this means in a manner that does not suit you – do not bother making any effort to try to understand the gist of what they are saying just accuse them of failure to communicate.
Because you are so important that if someone does not make a positive effect on you they are automatically making a mistake.
Project your own need as the universal need and do not worry.