I do disagree on the need to socialize. Unless you attribute emotions, including love, to the lifeforms that predated the advent of humans, your statement implies nothing that came before us matters, or even counts as life. That is anthropocentric, and just plain arrogant.
Well to be honest, I (and you probably) can see I wasn't really ready for an all out challenge such as yourself
lol
I most definitely don't believe that they don't count as life.
To go back to my original post, with maybe a better interpretation of what I meant, and maybe a clean slate... when I said life without light...
First I could express that my opinion leans towards string theory, more than not. (And I'm most definitely not saying that physicists are saying we're all made of love...but they
are saying energy.)
The fundamental idea of the theory is explained here:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rd-MD1K5Wks
or more in depth here:
http://www.nuclecu.unam.mx/~alberto/physics/string.html
This is how people have gotten the idea that we're all made from stars via the big bang, etc...
And now that I have formulated my thoughts and words better, I was merely pointing out
that "light." Specifically the light from the stars...again...it isn't supposed to be taken literal...although I guess if string theory proves to be right...it would mean what is life without string? lol. (Maybe I was thinking light sounded more profound or something...sorry about that.)
And that would be the reason why I
don't think that what was before us doesn't matter....it's quite the opposite. It's
all that matters, is what I was getting at.
Also I know what you were saying (of course)...I know that there is balance between good and bad, light and dark, all of that...
But that is also pointing out the duality in the world, where there is also oneness. Which is what I was trying to point out...
I don't know if that clears anything I was saying up.
(I would discuss socializing, but it'll probably bring us off topic, so I'm going to leave it there.)
Kinetics implies motion, but this is far from the only kind of energy. You still haven't made a case for considering emotion to be a form of energy. Behavior is not emotion, it is at most the expression of emotion. The physiological effects you mention (heart rate, etc.) can be caused by many things, such as physical exertion, and are hardly unique to emotion. Out of your list, we are left then with subjective experience, which seems the least of all to equate to energy. At least the physiological effects have a physical basis, with all the matter-energy interplay that implies (though no unique tie to emotion).
My "case" was that everything is energy. But even without that...
Neural oscillations can be picked up by EEG's and fMRI. I believe it's the theta wave that is contributed to emotional regulation. (wave meaning vibration, hence energy.)
And yes, while the scientific definition of human kinetics deals with our movement, it also deals with the
relationship of how movement and changes in the brain are related.
So we measure the electromagnetic energy of our brain, which is a form of radiant energy.
Bad and detrimental are equivalent. Evil goes beyond either to imply intent, and is more subjective. I equate none of these with darkness any more than with light. Turning "on" darkness may be no more than turning off or limiting light, but mechanisms aside, it can be a desirable goal in and of itself, and not merely what prevails when you don't have the light you want. Shadow, interestingly, comes from the interplay between darkness and light, as does much literal and symbolic meaning, such as the words on this screen. Notably it is the dark parts that carry the meaning (unless you have inverted the standard colors on your display).
Someone could say "I had a bad time at such and such," and another could say "I had a good time."
And what about what doesn't kill you only makes you stronger?
I think that the word bad is just too subjective. I often don't agree with what people say is "bad." And that is cause I
love a challenge. In which most people don't like one. I find that people take the easy way out, and victimize themselves based off of subjective perception.
On the other hand when something is detrimental/harmful I think objective evidence for that, is more readily available.
(IMO the difference is that the word bad has a subjective connotation that can be attached to it, where detrimental can rarely be argued with. Could just be the connotation, that I solely pick up, I guess...
)
Now this is extrapolating too far.
I'm agreeing to disagree lol. On the basis of my extremely loosely defined word. lol
The world is full of desire that has nothing to do with love, but rather is selfish and ultimately harmful. At least the blue-green algae were innocent of that.
I would think all desire is "selfish." A species wants to survive, and beyond that...they want to better themselves...no matter what. (I don't
actually think that's selfish btws.)
The blue-green algae could seem ruthless in they would stop at nothing to survive.
And they're lucky because they have not been exposed to a domestication process such as our society has. lol So they're innocent in that they are ignorant of such burdens...hence negating the value of intelligence.
(I'm mostly joking on that last sentence here, your obviously talking about intent, and I get what you're saying.)
(Where I think this has turned strictly philosophical.)
