[JHuber]

Originally Posted by Guille JHuber, You are not in the wrong forum. I'm not a scientist and I don't reduce the reality of the world to that which is physical. But there is a difference between that, and admitting everything is true. I give different realities to objects of different levels of existence (which have a corresponding level of though and level of talk). Still, the message of my other post hasn't been debated by you. I'm right, the world is not a dictionary, and the love I feel for the girl I'm love with isn't correctly defined as 'the opposite of the hate I feel for Hitler'. For every feeling is unique and isolated from others, there is no repetition, if it is a feeling, it is a new mindfull experience, not a 'third time I fell in love', that is not possible. No comparison is possible between thoughts or feelings. That is why we have art and philosophy, the first is to share feelings and the second is to share thought.

There are many different types of relationships. There are plutonic relationships, family, work, school, country, city, neighborhood, names, genders, ages, generations, values, etc. Each are different because the subjects are different. They all conform to emotion theory however. The anticipation of a combination is nervousness. The anticipation of a separation is worry. Excessive nervousness is shyness. Excessive worry is fear. Sometimes the term nervousness gets confusing. For example, let's say I'm walking on the ledge of a very tall building. It would be natural for me to say such an act makes me nervous. I could also say that such an act makes me worry I might fall. To say it makes me nervous is anticipating a possible event in time. Time is like an ultimate relationship. It is a procedure and the events in a procedure are related. It is interesting to note that the events in time are also called what happens. Is is a coincidence that the verb 'happen' is alike to 'happiness'? Of course this is an English language phenomenon. Still though, it is not likely a coincidence.

True, no comparison is possible between feelings. Feeling is another word for contentment. When one's feelings get hurt their contentment gets hurt. Since contentment is a position on a relationship, feelings are composed of subjects. Feelings are subjective. They are always different because the subjects are always different. What they do all have in common however is that feelings can be raised or lowered. Raise and lower are relative terms. To raise one's feelings is a proud event. When lowered one gets shamed. When someone else's feelings are raised jealousy occurs. When yours gets raised in relation to someone else you are honored and feel dignified. Note how it is impossible to be jealous of oneself. It is also impossible to be dignified of someone else. Such rules are not simple type rules. Simple type rules can be broken. These rules can't be broken. That's why this system looks like a dictionary.

Your example, "the love I have for my girlfriend is not the opposite of the hate I have for Hitler," is not claimed by me in this system. Although I do say that hate is excessive apathy, I never mentioned love. One could infer that since love is the opposite of hate, love would therefore be excessive empathy. Even though such a definition of love kind of works for me, I don't have the guts to include it in the system. I think love is more complicated than that. Thanks for bringing up the example.

- John

[mkirkpatrick]

Originally Posted by JHuber I had edited that part of my post out because I wanted to think about it further. In it I questioned the range that emotion theory has. I'm trying to defend it as a theory of everything. If animals have them then they are not exclusive to humans. Therefore they are natural. I haven't heard about the plant experiment and am skeptical about it since plants can't sense by sight. However, they are subjects and they do relate with each other so in this way they do conform with emotion theory. (Birds, bees, flowers and trees) So, where do you draw the line with the range of emotion theory? Does it apply to non-living matter? You might not understand this but I'll post a correlation here and you can think about it. 1stC) Bonding 2ndC) Transmutation 3rdC) Thermal Energy Leverage) Radioactivity and Light Contentment) Inertia Also, gravity is analagous to extrinsic combination and charge is analagous to intrinsic combination. This is how the universe makes sense to me. - John

John as a point of possible interest,look into crystallisation,and how plant-like it grows?
How frost on a window resembles fern-like growth.

regards michael.

[JHuber]

Originally Posted by mkirkpatrick John as a point of possible interest,look into crystallisation,and how plant-like it grows? How frost on a window resembles fern-like growth.

That would be fractal geometry.
http://www.crystalinks.com/fractal.html

[mkirkpatrick]

Originally Posted by JHuber That would be fractal geometry. http://www.crystalinks.com/fractal.html

Yes that is so,thanks JHuber.

regards michael.

[JHuber]

I uploaded this theory in diagram form in the gallery of this website. Although I can't include everything in the diagram, much of it is there. It is the only diagram of its kind ever conceived of in human history. Check it out.

[mkirkpatrick]

Will go there now and check it out,thanks.

regards michael

[JHuber]

It's been four months since I last posted in this thread. Since that time I've had some new ideas that I'd like to present here.

First of all, I'd like to reaffirm my position reguarding Guille's argument that the world is not a dictionary. The subject of subjects and relations is a system. Like any other system each of its components are defined and are related to each other. 'Subject' is one of the components of this system. To say, for example, that the love I have for one subject is not the same as the opposite of the hate I have for a different subject doesn't mean that love isn't the opposite of hate. The subjects in question are different and therefore they invoke different issues. Also, emotions are built into our language. If emotion theory wasn't a fact of life we wouldn't be able to understand each other.

Something else I'd like to address is my position about 'feeling'. I used to believe that 'feeling' was another term for contentment. I don't agree with that anymore. Although one's feelings can be lifted or lowered, one can also feel right or wrong. Right and wrong are not emotions but they are parts of the subject of subjects and relations. I believe now that 'feeling' is special in that it is the only term that can identify any part of this system and thus it is the only term (in the universe) that is not within it.

For a while I had a problem with envy and admiration. The question was, what is the difference between them? My solution hinges on defining fashion as the active form of contentment. Just as jealousy is apathetic pride related to contentment and envy is the action toward jealousy, respect is apathetic pride related to fashion and admiration is the action toward respect.

One more thing I'd like to add since today is Valentine's day, I used to have reservations about defining love as excessive empathy. I don't anymore. I'm comfortable with it now. One can be empathetic toward a subject without love but when that empathy is absolute then it is love. To care about a subject without equivocation is the same as saying the empathy is excessive or absolute. The simplest way to define it is: Love is excessive empathy. Since I did posit before that hate is excessive apathy, in this way love is the opposite of hate. Symmetry is preserved and the definitions continue. - John

[Tina]

John: I'm very interested in the study of Emotions. Now the current accepted view is that there are six basic human emotions (globally recognised facial expressions) thus we could almost say "instinctive" emotions. They are:

Fear
Saddness
Surprise
Disgust
Happiness
Anger

How would you regard the significance of these base 6 emotions in your outlined scheme?

[Profpat]

Hi Tina;

What about love, it might not affect you facial expression, but I think it is a valid emotion.

In fact its my belief that " Only love is real everything else illusion " C. King

Best to you,

Pat

[Tina]

Originally Posted by Profpat Hi Tina; What about love, it might not affect you facial expression, but I think it is a valid emotion. In fact its my belief that " Only love is real everything else illusion " C. King Pat

Wish the illusions would go away then!

Love is quite abstract - but people who love eachother can get angry and fight horribly yet they love eachother....