User Tag List

First 23456 Last

Results 31 to 40 of 71

  1. #31

    Default

    Not to belabor the point, but I'm still not sure what the OP is afraid of. I mean, most people fall in love at some point in their lives, and among those numbers are many of the world's greatest scientists, thinkers and writers. Were their contributions flawed? Did Einstein betray his talents by falling in love several times? Do you think it's even possible to have a purely rational mind free of influence?
    Everybody have fun tonight. Everybody Wang Chung tonight.

    Johari
    /Nohari

  2. #32
    Senior Member TheLastMohican's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    MBTI
    ENTJ
    Posts
    328

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Nameless View Post
    It is like an addictive drug (and it's withdrawal period can be up there with the worst of them!).
    I never understood why many of my friends always insisted on being in long-term relationships all the time...I could never see past the one-night stand lust-motivated type of thing, and, beyond that, it didn't make sense to me either, I was pretty much like you.

    But then one day it happened for me, and lasted beyond the initial first-three-months glow-period of the relationship and I was introduced to a sort of infinite peace that I had never experienced before from anything else when I was with that person, at least not to that extent...a sort of content-with-the world type of feeling that I had lost after growing up a little and losing my childhood naive-ness [I know that's not a word] (I don't really have any experience to speak of of actual drugs aside from alcohol; maybe they cause you to experience the same type of things).

    Anyways, you'll be able to avoid it successfully, I think, as long as you never experience it. But once you do, look out...you'll be introduced to something that you didn't know you needed and really have no practical use for, but that you now need having experienced it once.

    I do hope though that eventually you'll let yourself fall into love; you may end up liking it!

    I also do not have experience with drugs or alcohol, but I know to avoid them anyway.

    That whole part about needing it once I have experienced it...that is what I find a frightening prospect. I would prefer to remain unaware, so as not to become addicted to such an impractical thing. Addiction is so...so...irrational!

    And as we all know, being perfectly rational is the pinnacle of human existence.

  3. #33
    Senior Member TheLastMohican's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    MBTI
    ENTJ
    Posts
    328

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by aeon View Post
    Visual similarity of scans of the cortex between and among different mental states do not indicate similarity between and among the states themselves.



    Do you have data in support of this assertion?

    Regardless, rationality and reason are but a part of life and the experience of the world. Such an experience as love transcends these things.



    I don't value oughts, shoulds, and supposed-tos.

    Alterations to the state and nature of the brain, whether by life experience or chemistry, are just that - alterations. The decision to make or experience such alterations are up to the individual(s) in question - there is no inherent value in those alterations themselves.

    Based on my knowledge of the neurophysiology and endocrinology of the experience of love, it seems to promote well-being of the human being, even if it is an experience that does not fall within the more limited bounds of the rational mind.


    cheers,
    Ian

    Here is the part of the National Geographic article that I was referring to...no mention of schizophrenia specifically though! I know I saw it somewhere...now I have to find it again. But anyway, I do have research to back it up. Something about the brain scans...if anybody knows what studies I am remembering, please post links! Below is the NG article segment:

    She and her colleagues measured serotonin levels in the blood of 24 subjects who had fallen in love within the past six months and obsessed about this love object for at least four hours every day. Serotonin is, perhaps, our star neurotransmitter, altered by our star psychiatric medications: Prozac and Zoloft and Paxil, among others. Researchers have long hypothesized that people with obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD) have a serotonin "imbalance." Drugs like Prozac seem to alleviate OCD by increasing the amount of this neurotransmitter available at the juncture between neurons.

    Marazziti compared the lovers' serotonin levels with those of a group of people suffering from OCD and another group who were free from both passion and mental illness. Levels of serotonin in both the obsessives' blood and the lovers' blood were 40 percent lower than those in her normal subjects. Translation: Love and obsessive-compulsive disorder could have a similar chemical profile. Translation: Love and mental illness may be difficult to tell apart. Translation: Don't be a fool. Stay away.

  4. #34
    Furry Critter with Claws Kiddo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    MBTI
    OMNi
    Posts
    2,790

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Duke of York View Post
    And as we all know, being perfectly rational is the pinnacle of human existence.
    Spoken like a true rationalist.

    Thinking like that is a fantastic way to build an idea of the world in your own head that can't be denied by your own reasoning. Sadly, such an idea is unrepresentative of the world in reality. Hence why you would deny yourself new experiences that would challenge your conception of the world.

    Empiricism tempered by reason is the pinnacle of human existence.
    Quote Originally Posted by Silently Honest View Post
    OMNi: Wisdom at the cost of Sanity.

  5. #35
    Senior Member TheLastMohican's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    MBTI
    ENTJ
    Posts
    328

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by FMWarner View Post
    Not to belabor the point, but I'm still not sure what the OP is afraid of. I mean, most people fall in love at some point in their lives, and among those numbers are many of the world's greatest scientists, thinkers and writers. Were their contributions flawed? Did Einstein betray his talents by falling in love several times? Do you think it's even possible to have a purely rational mind free of influence?
    I am not really afraid, but I am uninterested in love, and am curious about the draw that other people find in it. I would be worried if I thought I was falling in love, but I do not think it is likely to happen to me, so for now I am fine. Not to belabor the point, but why do people who have not fallen in love before try to find it? Why not let well enough alone and live a nice, quiet, rational existence?

    Einstein probably could have done more had he not fallen in love. Of course we cannot disparage his contributions, since they were so far above most others', but there is no telling what might have been. I doubt that being in love would cause someone to have faulty reasoning in physics, however. That is just too rational a field to be affected by any emotion. Being in love probably would slow one down, though, and it would take longer to think through things, because you are always feeling obsessed with the beloved and find it hard to focus on other things. (At least that is what seems to be the consensus from what I have read. If that is wrong, please describe it to me!)

  6. #36
    ~dangerous curves ahead~
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    MBTI
    ENTP
    Posts
    2,590

    Default

    Coming from an NT perspective, I know what you mean. It took me a long time to be able to allow myself to even like someone. Relationships have caused me more pain than pleasure. Endings are difficult as you've said. But still. It is part of growing up. Anyway. Just some observations:

    Quote Originally Posted by Duke of York View Post
    It is also widely known that those who are in love have a much greater tendency to do irrational things. Reason tends to fall by the wayside.

    Knowing this, oughtn't we avoid it like the plague (or more accurately, like mind-altering drugs)?
    The reason that focuses on the locus of self, falls by the wayside, but the reason that encompasses the spaces more than you, expands, if that is clear. That is the growing experience in love. Learning to think of and for someone else, how things could work out, what do you compromise on, what do you hold on to. It is humbling. But if you only cared for yourself, you'd not fall in love. Infatuation, passion, lust, yes.

    You'd avoid it the way you'd try to avoid the death of a loved one, or the birth of someone? i.e. possible, if you choose to lead a very narrow life. Nothing wrong with that too, though.

    Each in their own time.

    Quote Originally Posted by Duke of York View Post
    Well, I would have a greater understanding of human thought. But is it worth it? I could also have a greater understanding of a homicidal psychopath's mind if I was caused to think like him for a month or two, but I simply do not want to understand it. If something is irrational, all there is to understand is that you don't want to be so corrupted as to be able to understand it. (Does that make any sense?)
    Just because something is beyond the rationality you know, would it make it, or you, corrupt?

    If you do not want to understand it, you won't. Love ain't going to come sneaking up on you in your bed at 4am and go "mwahahhaha you're MINE!".

    Nothing forces someone to love another. It comes only if you could relax more, and allow yourself to be loved in the first place, and allow yourself to fall.

    Okay, next: The highest form of living. Those who are irrational probably enjoy life more most of the time. Ignorance is bliss for those who suffer from it. In my case, though, I would know what I once had, and would feel the loss of my rational quality.
    Perhaps the base of the assumption that those who fall in love are irrational and ignorant could be questioned... And why the assumption that the loss of rational quality is permanent btw?

    So love is addictive. Now I know.

    All right, I understand your point. People like to be in love. But then they complain when it doesn't work out, and a great deal of emotional upheaval results when the love is over. What if it causes more pain than pleasure? Overall, would most people have been happier if they hadn't gotten into the vicious circle in the first place?
    "what ifs". That is the hardest part for me to deal with too. Simply that there is no guarantees in love. That it'd last, or that you'd find it, or that you could keep it if you found it even. Or that it could die. I question your choice of the word "when" vs "if" too. I know couples who're still deeply in love after 50+ years.

    Emotional upheavals are part of a normal life anyway. Growing up, moving away from home, changing jobs, losing friends.

    It is a vicious cycle only if you do not learn from each experience.

    To draw an example. If a person was in an abusive relationship, came out from it, but entered into another abusive relationship and keeps repeating. The convenient thing is to blame love for the loss of rationality, as most will do.

    But think about it. Perhaps there was an element in the person that was missing which caused him/her to be seeking such abusive relationships continually? A lack of self-respect, self discipline, and a need for affirmation? Are those really reasons/causes for love? Is that love or need.

    I think only healthy individuals could love another, and be loved. Because it requires a lot of confidence in self, and a willingness to be vulnerable at the same time. It sounds like an oxymoron.

    As an NT, I'd say, at its heart, love is deeply rational and clear-eyed. Because it is a choice you make, to allow yourself to fall, or not. It'd only come if you're ready to accept flaws in yourself and in another, and stop seeking guarantees.

    So yes. Love is a part of life, and growing up. Is it rational, depends on what is rational to you. Avoiding a part of life, or doing your best to live that part of it.

  7. #37
    Senior Member TheLastMohican's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    MBTI
    ENTJ
    Posts
    328

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by FMWarner View Post
    Well, I was just being a smartass. My actual opinion is that evaluating love from a purely biological perspective is completely missing the point and misunderstanding the value of love. It's like evaluating the success of a trip to Las Vegas solely on the basis of money won or lost. It's like measuring the volume of a bucket with a thermometer.

    I might also suggest that what from a scientific perspective appears illogical or schizophrenic behavior may in fact simply be behavior motivated by love instead of self-interest. If you and another person were both bitten by a snake and you had only one dose of antitdote, wouldn't it be considered illogical to give the antidote to the other person? What if that person were your wife? One man's "deadly crash" is another man's ultimate act of love.
    That second paragraph is quite thought-provoking. I have to think about that.

    Thinking...

    Still thinking...

    Okay, scary realization for one who depends on his impeccable logic: Logic does not work for analyzing some circumstances!

    In your example, there is no standard of logic. You could say that it is logical to give yourself the antidote because you are set on survival. But it might also be logical to give it your wife, for a number of factors: What if your wife's survival was better for mankind overall than yours? Or what if you had been bitten three times and the antidote dose was not enough to save you?

    The Christian and charitable and socially acceptable thing to do is to give it to your wife. Logic would normally dictate that anyway, if you are basing your logic on the necessity of both of your survivals. I probably would weigh more than my wife, so without the antidote, I would last longer, and have a greater chance of survival. Therefore I would give her the antidote and then she could drive me to the nearest hospital while I depend on the last ten years of cheeseburgers to slow down that venom and give me an extra 15 minutes or so. But soon it gets too complex. What if my wife does not know how to drive a stick shift? What if there is no vehicle, and one has to carry the other? If the odds of my survival were lower without the antidote, I would still be skewered by society for injecting myself with the antidote, even though it would be the "logical" thing to do. So logic must be carefully defined and sometimes abandoned. Yikes.

  8. #38
    Senior Member TheLastMohican's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    MBTI
    ENTJ
    Posts
    328

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Kiddo View Post
    Spoken like a true rationalist.

    Thinking like that is a fantastic way to build an idea of the world in your own head that can't be denied by your own reasoning. Sadly, such an idea is unrepresentative of the world in reality. Hence why you would deny yourself new experiences that would challenge your conception of the world.

    Empiricism tempered by reason is the pinnacle of human existence.
    Ah, but you have things reversed. "Empiricism tempered by reason" is what would create the "world in your own head." Empiricism is the belief that all knowledge originates in personal experience. Therefore you would see nothing beyond your own narrow history of experience as contributing to an understanding of reality. Tempering that with reason doesn't help much. You need imagination and intuition.

    Being perfectly rational means considering all knowledge and applying it to form conclusions, which in theory could be 100% correct. It is impossible to achieve, of course, but you can get pretty close. It requires careful use of inductive reasoning, with some empirical, but more theoretical processes.

  9. #39
    Furry Critter with Claws Kiddo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    MBTI
    OMNi
    Posts
    2,790

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Duke of York View Post
    Ah, but you have things reversed. "Empiricism tempered by reason" is what would create the "world in your own head." Empiricism is the belief that all knowledge originates in personal experience. Therefore you would see nothing beyond your own narrow history of experience as contributing to an understanding of reality. Tempering that with reason doesn't help much. You need imagination and intuition.
    You have created a false definition. Empiricism is the belief that experience and evidence, as derived from the senses, is the source of true knowledge. "Personal" is not part of the definition, so your explanation is false. We compare our experiences all the time, and it is for that reason we are able to progress. Whereas the rationalist argues that reason is the only source of knowledge. All the while ignoring the reality that reason is based upon observations which were derived from the senses. Reason is the tool of experience, not the other way around.

    Being perfectly rational means considering all knowledge and applying it to form conclusions, which in theory could be 100% correct. It is impossible to achieve, of course, but you can get pretty close. It requires careful use of inductive reasoning, with some empirical, but more theoretical processes.
    You think you can get close to obtaining 100% of knowledge? Rationalism, taken to the extreme as it often is by INTJs, is nothing but a defense mechanism designed to protect the ego from the external world. Thus, being "perfectly rational" means creating an objective reality in your head and denying any experience from the outside world which conflicts with it.
    Quote Originally Posted by Silently Honest View Post
    OMNi: Wisdom at the cost of Sanity.

  10. #40
    Senior Member Nameless's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    MBTI
    ENFP
    Posts
    105

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Duke of York View Post
    I also do not have experience with drugs or alcohol, but I know to avoid them anyway.

    That whole part about needing it once I have experienced it...that is what I find a frightening prospect. I would prefer to remain unaware, so as not to become addicted to such an impractical thing. Addiction is so...so...irrational!

    And as we all know, being perfectly rational is the pinnacle of human existence.
    I guess I meant "need" in a different way. Let's see if I can figure out what I mean and jam it into words...most people here seem to be a lot better at that than I am!

    The complete inner peace that being in love gives me is something that I am trying to move towards in general in life. I have decided that love is an essential piece of achieving that peace for me personally, so I "need" it because I have defined it as one of my life goals, moreso than as an addition like I need to score some more weed because I am starting to come down off of my high. But I didn't know that until I experienced it. And maybe people who look for it who haven't experienced it yet have heard about it and are looking for that same piece of their puzzle too.

    As for your post about Einstein, I have actually read about people (men, specifically) achieving less once they have found love ("gotten married" was the measure of love in the article), but for a slightly different reason than what you were getting at I think. They talked about how your body realizes that you have a mate, and shuts down a lot of the creative juices it had going in your brain beforehand. They pointed out how a lot of musicians and scientists hit the creative wall at about the point in time that they get married at, suggesting that much of your biological creativity is around so that you can attract yourself a mate.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO