What is love? (& other digressions)

[LutiChris]

Sternberg's theory sounds slightly better since its closer to my definition of the word. My definition is confined to either a powerful emotion (intimacy) or caring love (decision/commitment). Sometimes the whole "romantic/passionate love" isn't really just love its called lust or infatuation. You can have these feelings for someone but its only temporary and doesn't really amount to anything that i would consider of real net value.

intimacy = close familiarity or friendship; closeness.
commitment = the state or quality of being dedicated to a cause, activity, etc.
passion = strong and barely controllable emotion. <= This is what i refereed to as Example #1 in my first post

I spoke to one of my transhumanist buddies and here's what he had to say on the topic

Regarding what you said about love and your coworker: I agree that we should not love everyone. Love should be earned, and loving everyone would indeed devalue the word. Judging by what you wrote, your coworker does seem very manipulative. You said: "I don't care about building bridges with people unless they benefit me in some way" ... I especially love this idea. I completely agree. I don't believe in self-sacrifice. Altruism only makes sense if it increases your chances of living forever. So never think you owe anyone love and attention.

Regarding emotions vs logic: I think the value of logical actions supersedes everything else. First and foremost, our actions will determine if we survive. Emotions are only beneficial IF they influence our actions in a positive way. For example, the emotion of fear helps motivate me to strive for my eternal life. I don't know how my actions would look if I didn't have fear, but it is hypothetically possible I could act just as wisely without fear, being controlled by logic alone. Having said that, I couldn't remove my fear even if I wanted to. Fear seems to have latched onto me like some kind of parasite. But I consider fear to be a beneficial symbiotic parasite. I agree that the worst thing about emotional people is the tendency towards lack of control and mental illness. People who cannot control their behaviors are the most dangerous types of people.

A question: By supremacist, did you mean perfectionist? If so, I'm also a perfectionist. I strive to be.

For a lack of a better word i used supremacy + I like being an edgy sh**** so why not? Supremacy in and of itself isn't bad just because people throw around the term white supremacy gives it that stigma (at least here in the west). When rooting for a team and cheering when they beat them is a form of supremacy and even wanting the best for yourself like being free, striving for self improvement are forms of supremacy. The state of being supreme in every facet of your life is desirable.

I like the idea of perfectionism, having that inner drive to improve performance on tasks, whether running a faster mile or earning a higher grade. However I think its not a healthy way to pursue excellence. Those who strive for excellence in a healthy way take genuine pleasure in trying to meet high standards. I know i can't achieve perfection in every way since i am constrained to my biological imperfections.

• Healthy Striving
  
• Setting standards that are high but within reach
  
• Enjoying process as well as outcome
  
• Bouncing back quickly from failure or disappointment
  
• Keeping normal anxiety and fear of failure within bounds
  
• Seeing mistakes as opportunities for growth and learning
  
• Reacting positively to helpful criticism
  

• Perfectionism
  
• Setting standards beyond reach and reason
  
• Never being satisfied by anything less than perfection
  
• Becoming depressed when faced with failure or disappointment
  
• Being preoccupied with fears of failure and disapproval
  
• Seeing mistakes as evidence of unworthiness
  
• Becoming overly defensive when criticized
  

While I don't necessarily see "Never being satisfied and seeing mistakes as evidence of unworthiness" as something wrong...
the others seem to be negative qualities that won't help my well being (they will only waste my time and energy if i dwell on them for too long).

Now interestingly Roen see's fear as a good thing. I think he may be right since his goal is to live indefinitely then logically you would want to make sure every single action you do is scrutinized to give you the most optimal chance of survival. I'm being lazy as i'm allowing my desires to let me choose unhealthy junk food. I've felt that moderation is the key to having a normal life and that was just my way of excusing my bad habits and lack of self discipline. I don't have the urgent sense of fear controlling me since I'm optimistic that if i live a normal average life i'll still be able to see the technology available. So I don't feel the need to see it as necessary to put so much work into increasing my life expectancy when my old body will probably be replaced all together in the near future. My way is riskier and dumb since we both have the same goal. I just can't seem to motivate myself to strive for a rigorous healthy lifestyle. As I age i'm sure fear will eventually grow on me and incentivize me to make healthier decisions.

This type of fear is for all the right reasons since we're talking about health. And it makes me wonder if instilling this type of fear at an early age is actually a moral thing to do. Making children understand that death should be something to be feared isn't bad. We already teach our children not to eat contaminated dirty things, brushing teeth, and looking both ways when crossing the side walk. Allowing oneself to let others pick the path of death and destruction seems immoral. I mean one could just allow their children to make that decision for themselves but since parents have that knowledge i don't see why they would suppress that information.