Summary: "The will, mind, and heart of a human could be likened to the time, space, and material model. Emotions /heart are objects/material, logic/mind is their relationships/space, and will/goals is change/time."
A very good friend of mind models the human this way (although I bet she'd say I shouldn't shove humans into a box). There are two inputs: the emotions/heart, and the mind/logic/reason. The will, the real decision maker of the human, takes both inputs to make a decision.
Now, I think that model puts emotions and logic on the same level, as two sides of one coin, as equal but opposite, neither better, and the best option is a healthy balance between the two. (or, for some personalities, they have it a little lopsided).
I'm going to throw that relationship away. What if emotions are much more like perceptions, like the way humans take in the world? What if all 'objects' in the human brain are emotional? Material, stuff.
Now logic could be the way emotions/objects relate to each other. Granted I have been reminded again and again that emotions lack causal relationships to each other, and just spawn out of nowhere, but I think that's referring to a different sort of emotion.
Then what is left? The decision-maker, the will, I compare to time/change/goal/purpose.
Summarize: emotions are stuff, logic is the way stuff relates to each other, and will is how that all changes.
Ok, I hope you understand that model. Now let's dig into what this means for emo/dat.
Data information just refers to the raw scientific facts in the universe. If emotion is the way the mind stores ideas, then really ... they're much of the same thing. Data is just the facts in the real world, while emotions are facts inside the brain. Our most previous definition of emo/dat: "Emotion is a large amount of data reviewed by the mind." This matches almost directly with our new idea of emotion and data.
This might explain why I get super excited when I create a huge theory idea: the idea inside my head is an emotion, and when that idea is large, the emotion is large. Especially when that theory deals with things like God, huge concepts, the result is huge emotion.
P.S. 1# This all, by the way, assumes that the heart/mind/will model of the human is close to the truth.
P.S. 2# There are at least 3 types of emotion, don't think I'm shoving all emotion into a logical construct.
20 July 2010
why did God make the world
Summary: "God made the world because he was happy."
Why did God make the world? A friend of mine said that there were many theories on that subject. I should ask about them. But here's my take.
First of all, the question is enlightening. If we figure out why God made the world, we know why we exist, how we should look at the world, what is most important about it, etc.
Now, why on earth would God make the world? He doesn't need to be glorified, he doesn't need to be happier...I suppose it might be boring, but I doubt it. He exists out of time, he doesn't have the time to get bored.
There is no need to make the world - at all. Nothing. There is also no reachable goal for which to make the world. To glorify God, yes, but we only give God a finite quantity of glory, so what's the point? You follow me?
I think God was just happy.
Existence was already beautiful, but what the heck? Why not make more?
This sort of makes emotion superior to everything else. Hm. I'll just stop here on that thought.
I wonder if God will be satisfied with just making one world. But I suppose we will live forever in heaven. Would we feel cheated if he made more worlds? I don't know. There are multiple people on earth...
Why did God make the world? A friend of mine said that there were many theories on that subject. I should ask about them. But here's my take.
First of all, the question is enlightening. If we figure out why God made the world, we know why we exist, how we should look at the world, what is most important about it, etc.
Now, why on earth would God make the world? He doesn't need to be glorified, he doesn't need to be happier...I suppose it might be boring, but I doubt it. He exists out of time, he doesn't have the time to get bored.
There is no need to make the world - at all. Nothing. There is also no reachable goal for which to make the world. To glorify God, yes, but we only give God a finite quantity of glory, so what's the point? You follow me?
I think God was just happy.
Existence was already beautiful, but what the heck? Why not make more?
This sort of makes emotion superior to everything else. Hm. I'll just stop here on that thought.
I wonder if God will be satisfied with just making one world. But I suppose we will live forever in heaven. Would we feel cheated if he made more worlds? I don't know. There are multiple people on earth...
universe container + definition of good
Summary: "Everything that can be known (the universe) comes from God, there is no good/evil framework outside of God. Good comes from God."
Previously I have thought of God as the largest thing in the universe. A supreme infinite potentate who made all things. He sits inside the universe. Maybe, even, he is the absolute, the summary, the epitome of the universe.
No.
He is the universe.
Not that I'm going native American or anything. The plants and rocks are not Gods in any way. But first and foremost there is God. He has no container. There is no universe in which he sits. There is God. Period. Everything in the universe, all the angels and demons, all material we see in the galaxies, all the physical laws, good and evil, emotions, thoughts of any sort, everything comes from him.
This means that we can't say "God is good." as if we could describe God by saying "oh, he's made out of good things", as if good can exist independently of God. No, rather than saying "God is good" we instead say "Good is God." We look at good, and because it comes from God (in a sense it is God in that it is a reflection of him, an evidence of his work) and with that we get an idea of who God is.
Got it?
There wasn't a definition of good before God came along. We can't look at good, as the perfect model without error, something we think we can figure out on our own, and say "oh, that's what God must be like."
God is not good. Good is God.
Previously I have thought of God as the largest thing in the universe. A supreme infinite potentate who made all things. He sits inside the universe. Maybe, even, he is the absolute, the summary, the epitome of the universe.
No.
He is the universe.
Not that I'm going native American or anything. The plants and rocks are not Gods in any way. But first and foremost there is God. He has no container. There is no universe in which he sits. There is God. Period. Everything in the universe, all the angels and demons, all material we see in the galaxies, all the physical laws, good and evil, emotions, thoughts of any sort, everything comes from him.
This means that we can't say "God is good." as if we could describe God by saying "oh, he's made out of good things", as if good can exist independently of God. No, rather than saying "God is good" we instead say "Good is God." We look at good, and because it comes from God (in a sense it is God in that it is a reflection of him, an evidence of his work) and with that we get an idea of who God is.
Got it?
There wasn't a definition of good before God came along. We can't look at good, as the perfect model without error, something we think we can figure out on our own, and say "oh, that's what God must be like."
God is not good. Good is God.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)