|
Edited draft 12-5-2006
This and all other postings are WORKS IN PROGRESS. Each selection is added to, corrections made, and questions asked are answered as needed. I add new findings as they become available, often before proofing.
Thank you,
Ernest Earl Dennis.
Rational Thought -- Part Six
Beginning Rational Terms: Love
“Just one life, will soon be past.
Only what's done with love will last.”
“Love!” Can you think of another “word” with as much emotional power? Could there be a “word meaning” more open to subjective interpretation at a deeply personal level?
Yet in rational thought, “love” is one of the rational “mind's” core operating terms, of which ten-or-less are sufficient for rational management at the personal level. In its role as one of an individual's most critical rational quantifiers, “love” has a powerful definition that is indispensable as a rational administrator.
Love has a factor value, which one could say is unique to the other core operating terms, as it is singular in its term value in rational context. “Singular” meaning a factor of one, as in “times one,” or “minus one.”
“Singular?” Yes; however, it is also one of two-core-level operational terms, along with “goal,” that seeks to meld rational process to a specific aspect of emotion, illustrated as follows:
While a legally defined “goal” is the source of the highest level of motivation from the uppermost rational level, once defined and installed, the “goal” itself is empowered with energy for growth that is derived from daily emotional ruminating. A process of ruminating is done, as if, the outcome the “goal” defined has already been achieved. This is more than just the highest level of positive thinking that powers the subconscious mind; it is the key to the psychology of the subconscious mind and subconscious mind power itself.
I would rather you think of this as the preconscious mind, however, as the power of the subconscious is less below the level of your conscious thought level, than at the front driving your awareness in a SINGULAR focus in ways the conscious cannot as it is too “in touch” with emotions of the moment. Yet, one could say a correctly defined rational “goal” requires daily “goal dusting” from emotions to produce the “gold dust,” which the pairing of the two opposites, emotion versus logic, generate.
In the rational procedure the factor value of “love” only “plays one note,” or makes just a single decision in the rational process. Beyond that single factor, the rational factor of “love” needs to be balanced with its emotional side, just not swayed by emotion's power.
In the rational process, “love's” factor can be thought of as the same number and having the same mathematical value as “one” in basic math.
When used in rational thought, “love's” factor value of “one” is used, exclusively, to quantify the rational objective by singling it out, as OF you, but not for you. The factor value is to be sure that whatever outcome you choose to rationalize will be times one, and you are NOT included in the equation.
This is not to say that love and “self” are to be somehow separate at the emotional level. Rather it accepts the assumption that one loves “self,” as it should be. One cannot give what they do not have, particularly of the emotional aspect of love, as it flows from within. Individuals unable to love just don't have it to give. Only what is inside can come out, including “things” normally hidden from view, such as rage, hysteria, bitterness, and sadness.
When life's demands resonate to push down a particular “key” on the emotional organs' “keyboard,” the pressure the “squeeze” applies can only squeeze out what is, or isn't, there. I raise Boysenberries. When it is time to make jelly, when squeezing berries, out comes, not tomato juice, but berry juice. When emotions “squeeze” you, “what comes out” is what you have inside.
The first rule of serving others is to first help you, and love yourself, or you cannot help or give to others. Self help begins with self-love grows into self-esteem, and blossoms into optimism.
Whereas, an entirely different focus is at play in the realm of rational outcome, when “love's” rational factor is factored for the correct outcome: The rational factor of love will not factor outcome if it includes you. It is not about you, but what you love. While very simplistic, that is one of the most profound truths in the universe. We will later explore more of this factor's implications; however, at this point let us explore its “working environment.”
Few and far between are the people who recognize, and then actually understand exactly what emotion is, and isn't. So, their lives are less a case of “living” than merely “existing, much as opposing sides would behave in “divorce court.” The “love” we usually think of is on one side of the isle, rationality the other. Then, as is commonly the case, in almost every function of rationality, the spoiler is emotion, though rationality illiteracy is usually accountable for the dysfunction.
Yes, the rumors you have heard whispered are true. Emotion couldn't “think” of how to escape from a wet paper bag.” Also, emotion has the same length of attention span as it takes for a rock to hit the ground, once you let it drop. Yet, emotion wants to be in charge. It is waiting for the rational to get sloppy, distracted, loose interest, as it is ready and willing to take you down a strange road, and leave you standing beside the road the very first time it is distracted by imagined movement, and goes off to chase “emotional rabbits.”
From day one, stranded there by emotion, it will be the same as all that follow; one of asking for directions home and being told, “You can't get there from here!”
I realize some may find the brush I use to paint emotions' profile when out of balance as a bit too dark, both here, as well as elsewhere in our journey. Just as I see no need to put lipstick on a pig, it would be “dropping the ball” to give poise and purpose to emotion before switching on the spotlight. Well… it is what it is, and it's best to see and recognize emotion's profile when left to its own designs.
By the way, every one of us, including you and me, are, at the very least, 100% emotional. I have not a hint of doubt to that 100%. So it seems rather obvious to understand the reality of your emotions, and the rules of your rational side to be fully empowered to aim for a balance between it and its mate.
Which leads us to this: Emotion is neither good nor bad of itself. It just is.
Rationality can be good, or, when bad, it is your worst nightmare!
This, as rationality gives our species access to the powers of the physical universe. History, not to mention your daily news, tells us it can be used either way. Dare we think of the millions of victims that a careful conceived “rational” plan has empowered evil to implement?
As is the case in the majority, without rational literacy grown to understanding, almost without fail, each time rational thought is called upon to factor “love,” it must do so in spite of intense, desperate, anything-goes “lobbying” from the emotional level.
In fact, few thought initiatives sent for resolution will cause as big, or more energized, turnout of the emotional lobby. From the first, hysteria is barely held back, least the decision goes forward in favor of the future over the climax of immediate gratification, which, along with the past, is all emotion appreciates.
Emotion's model of the present is designed, and the furnishings furnished, by the past. Its self-image is a reflection of the past, and though emotions can “feel” the moment, their vision drops precipitously a few seconds into the present.
In the most common model today, without a relationship with the rational side, emotions can “feel” the present, but sees only darkness beyond the moment. Almost as if lumbering ever closer, cloaked in darkness, “the great unknown” approaches as a dark omen to which emotions feel helplessness, uncertain as to whatever approaches may portend.
The rational side of the isle in this “domestic dispute,” however, has, in addition to its ability to test for truth by universal factors, the power of future outcome as a primary function. One could say that for the rational to have a fear of the future would be irrational. This, as a rationally literate entity has access to leverage, to shape the outcome of its tomorrows, and, therefore, fashion its future. No need to worry about the future when you can have a part in creating it.
The emotion lobby working to sway any and all decisions effecting “love” is as efficient, “getting its way” on deeply emotional decisions, as is the rational side at “getting its way” on “survival issues.” So much so, that the word around town one hears most often is “love is the most powerful emotion.”
Ironically, this common script is written entirely by ignorance. The reality is THERE SHOULD BE NO INHERENT conflict between either of the opposing sides of the isle over “love.”
The conflictive rulings on “love” leading to duress are the result of an error in semantics, an error in “labeling.” A “labeling” error such as when early mapmaker switched the labels between the green shores of “Iceland,” and the ice-bound land of “Greenland.” This is a rather obvious “misnomer,” yet; check a map and you will see it is still with us to this day. Just as an error in typesetting gave us “Little Orphan Annie,” instead of “Little Orphant Allie.”
The use of “love” in the most common “thought” process is about the same as, the results too, of comparing apples and oranges! Without a higher ruling to set precedence and definition, the estranged couple, emotion and rationality, are unknowingly opposing their own best interests.
Remember that in rational context, “love” is the only term that is “singular,” and needs its “partner” to “be.” Each side of “love” needs the other as much as roses need rain. Yet the real “loser” of this separation is the individual, who depends upon cooperation between the opposing” sides, just as roses live for the next rain, and "live" because of it.
Duress is a too common symptom of this lack of cooperation, and there could be no better example of how rational literacy corrects a million-dollar malady of humanity with a ten-cent part.
In rational function, the rational context of love defines whether a rational decision is to be objective, or something much less: subjective to the person. Whether your decision is objectively based upon the best interest of the other side, or, at least, wanting both sides to win, long-term.
Adding to the confusion just described, the meaning of the word “like” is confused with some version of “love,” sort of at a different level.
The meaning of “like” and the rational context of “love” understood, even slightly, would “fix” more “problems” than have all the laxatives people have ingested since their medical discovery.
All that is required is nothing more than grasping the concept that if you make a decision that is subjective, subject to you, it is not “love.” Rather, it is an emotional decision aimed at making you look best, in their view, at the moment, as in an endless personal POPULARITY CONTEST… we want them to like us, we will deal with the consequences later. After all, they, not yourself, are going to pay the cost for short-term convenience; you get the short-lived warmth from the flames as their future options dissipate.
On an emotional level, when people “love,” whom they love is chosen with great selectivity, and is a unique subjugation by the emotions of that person to a position of secondary importance. Love puts one in second place, the loved one's interests in first position.
We “like” people, however, from the personally subjective level: We only “like” those who are “like” us in some way that can be real, imagined, hoped for, or, lacking a strong self-image, just to “make” them “like” us.
Comparing an important aspect of “love” to that of “like:” One has little motivation to sacrifice their personal standing with someone they just “like,” even when it portends almost-certain future distress for the other side.
Young parents usually learn that just making decisions popular with their children would cause their charges to begin to self-destruct, even before adulthood, and that loving their children is not the same as running a popularity contest; that "rational objective love” does not short-change the other side to pay for their moment of fleeting favor.
© Copyright 2006, by Ernest Earl Dennis
“Just one life, will soon be past.
Only what's done with love will last.”
Love can be what isn't done,
what's best; a better tomorrow for them.
Love is for the other one, it only comes from you.
Love is more, when less used just to please.
Love makes better, at this it's best.
Grows little ones better, draws them closer.
Love shows in doing, and in the do not.
Love first tests, what's best for them.
Love's tomorrows forever remind,
yours as true love.
Time tests best, love's ultimate test:
Not for you, but love from you.
You loved them best,
to this time will attest.
Sweetly your love stays, ever in their heart.
even when called away.
Grow love of yourself, to give it, first have it.
You are your first love; will be your last love.
Between first and last, is the getting and giving;
though neither's the measure, but love that lasts.
Life's a love song, life is your stage, till drops the curtain.
Then all you have is the love you gave.
© Copyright 2006, by Ernest Earl Dennis
RationalPower.com will continue to define more rational process, answer your questions.
Please lend me your hand by telling friends about RationalPower.com
I appreciate you, your letters, and your grants of support. Thank you!
Ernest Earl Dennis, Editor
Post Office Box 1806
Longview, WA 98632-8117
For the sake of transparency regarding this site, and its editor,
you may go to the Editor's Page. Thank you.
© Copyright 2006, by Ernest Earl Dennis
|