Subjects and Relations
JHuber
Posted 7/12/2008 3:33 AM (#7081)
Subject: Subjects and Relations


New user

Posts: 4

Hello everyone. I have developed a metaphysical belief that I'd like to share with you here. If you'd like to see the diagram of it, I have a new website: http://subjectsandrelations.com/ that I'm very proud of. I believe the classical philosophers were trying to figure this out http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/relations-medieval but neglected to do so. Read this carefully, as one goes through life you'll see this is really the system that we are in:


Subject - a cross-utilized unit of a relation

Relation - more than one subject combined together

Extrinsic Subject - subject given to a relation

Intrinsic Subject - subject contained in a relation

Right - if a subject is within an extrinsic subject

Wrong - if a subject is not within an extrinsic subject

Possession - if an intrinsic subject is within a subject

Good - what increases a relation

Bad - what hinders or decreases a relation

Horror - excessive Bad

Serious - being within an extrinsic subject, also known as relevant

Silly - happiness that is not within an extrinsic subject

Crazy - if an extrinsic subject is ambiguous

Confusion - if the choice of an extrinsic subject is ambiguous

Value - direction of a relation

Like - to share Values



Happiness - occurs if subjects combine and form a relation. There are five different types of happiness. In order to include non-social relations in these definitions, the generic term combination is used symbolized with the letter 'C'.

1stC - occurs when subjects combine and a relation is formed. Here the extrinsic subject is created. The terms 'more' and 'less' do not apply with 1stC. It is very important to clarify that with 1stC one does not say, "Happiness is the combination of subjects," but, "Happiness occurs if subjects combine and form a relation."

2ndC - occurs when subjects are combined to an existing relation. Here the extrinsic subject already exists. The terms 'more' and 'less' apply with 2ndC. Leverage and contentment exist because of 2ndC.

3rdC - occurs as the back and forth dynamics between relations. Here more than one extrinsic subject is involved.

Leverage - resembles a lever, the relative lowering of a subject in a relation causes the relative increase of the other related subjects. This also is known as antipathetic happiness. Subjects on opposite sides of the lever are antipathetic to each other. An examples of this is kidding.

Contentment - is a relative position a subject has in a relationship. This position is what we mean when we say we are "happy". Another term that applies here is "fashion". Fashion is the active form of contentment. This type of happiness is personal and can be stronger than 1stC. Some sub-emotions of contentment are:

Enjoyment - having what you want (having what gives you contentment) *

Grief - not having what you want *

Frustration - not getting what you want

Anger - excessive Frustration

Distress - having what you don't want*

Relief - not having what you don't want*

Unhappiness is, of course, the converse but with separation instead of combination.

Nervous - anticipation of a combination

Shy - excessive Nervousness

Worry - anticipation of a separation

Concern - mild Worry

Fear - excessive Worry

Terror - extreme Fear

Anxiety - general term for Nervous, Shy, Worry, Concern, Fear or Terror



Pride - above Contentment

Shame - below Contentment

Dignity - empathetic Pride

Arrogance, Conceit - excessive Dignity

Honor - the action toward Dignity

Jealousy - antipathetic Pride

Envy - the action toward Jealousy

Respect - antipathetic Pride related to Fashion

Admiration - the action toward Respect

Modesty - empathetic Shame

Humility - the action toward Modesty

Pity - antipathetic Shame

Pathetic, Pitiful, Contempt - excessive Pity

Disgust - the action toward Pity

Expectation - future Contentment

Hope - the action toward Expectation (to want a future Contentment)

Standard - past Contentment

Surprise - empathetically or antipathetically above Standard or Expectation

Embarrassment - empathetically below Standard or Expectation

Disappointment - antipathetically below Standard or Expectation

Ecstatic - excessive Surprise

Sadness - excessive Disappointment or Embarrassment

Hate - excessive antipathy

Love - excessive empathy

Miss - absent empathy



Axiom: Extrinsic subjects can never be related intrinsic subjects. Such an event would instantly cause a new extrinsic subject to exist. This is called "The League Rule" or "The Authority Rule."

Axiom: Related subjects do not combine for the same reason that unrelated subjects do not separate. This is called "The Base Rule". It is a significant factor in morality.





*The definitions for Enjoyment, Grief, Distress and Relief are from I. Roseman 1984. Cognitive determinants of emotion: a structured theory. In P. Shaver (ed.), Review of personality and social psychology (Vol. 5: Emotions, relationships, and health). Beverly-Hills: Sage, 11-36.
Top of the page Bottom of the page
Tracy Ann
Posted 7/12/2008 4:10 AM (#7083 - in reply to #7081)
Subject: RE: Subjects and Relations



Member

Posts: 48
25
I like how you articulate and relate everything. Ty for sharing.
Top of the page Bottom of the page
sunflower
Posted 7/12/2008 4:19 AM (#7084 - in reply to #7081)
Subject: RE: Subjects and Relations


Elite Veteran

Posts: 750
5001001002525
hello,i,haven,t a clue what your talking about,does this make me stupid,ignorant,not learnEd enough,i don,t agree with most of the comparrisons for the conditions,"grief:not having what you want",isn,t that under the heading,isn,t that envy,greed,spoilt. "sadness"embarrassment",isn,t sad,just sad,a feeling of emptiness,or a feeling of loss,so on,so forth,maybe i,m making a fool of myself,by showing my ignorance,if so,let it be so.Someone will understand all,i eagerly await their replies,even so,love and hugs to you my friend,iris xxx
Top of the page Bottom of the page
Rose
Posted 7/12/2008 10:08 AM (#7093 - in reply to #7084)
Subject: RE: Subjects and Relations



Student

Posts: 339
10010010025
Location: No I'm not impersonating a cat! I'm a laughing Owl
You are a bright shining star sunflower...

Love and Peace to you....
Top of the page Bottom of the page
instinctual
Posted 7/12/2008 11:37 AM (#7097 - in reply to #7081)
Subject: RE: Subjects and Relations



PhD Alumni

Posts: 773
5001001002525
Location: Arizona
JHuber, this is work you should be quite proud of. It would take a lifetime of contemplation and study and application to fully grasp, I am sure. I will share this with my hubby...he may be interested!! Thank you for sharing!

Also, Iris, do you need a spanking, darling? You are hardly ignorant. What you are is an insightful, instinctual breath of fresh mountain air.

Here is a quote on ignorance by Daniel Boorstin-

"The greatest obstacle to discovery is not ignorance -- it is the illusion of knowledge".

May this speak for itself.
Top of the page Bottom of the page
Supernatural3
Posted 7/13/2008 12:10 AM (#7110 - in reply to #7081)
Subject: RE: Subjects and Relations



PhD Alumni

Posts: 1699
1000500100252525
Location: NE Ohio
I saw the diagram as also a key to balance. Notice most the true happiness is right in the middle. Too much in any direction leads to problems. I like balance... a combination of everything. Keep it in the middle for everything. Step over the grey area... it's never black or white. Unless we are talking about mathmatics. LOL

Great job, I loved the diagram and it made sense to me.

I could easily understand how it could be confusing too..... I guess I am used to data charts.

Blessings and Thanks for sharing~
J
Top of the page Bottom of the page
JHuber
Posted 7/13/2008 4:18 AM (#7119 - in reply to #7081)
Subject: RE: Subjects and Relations


New user

Posts: 4

Thanks ladies, that was very kind of you all to reply. Yes, it does take a lifetime to understand but at the same time it is something that is about a seventh grade intelligence level. I must admit it was not a goal of mine in life to develop an emotion theory but I'm a guy and guys tend to be logical. Also, this isn't something I developed overnight. It's been growing between my ears for many years. I'd like to add that I never thought it was possible to come up with a two word generic definition of love. One day, the answer occurred to me. I thought about it for a couple of months, and I decided to include it. It fits, it all fits. So many people throughout history have been trying to figure it out its unbelievable. It takes time but you'll understand. We're always growing.

- John Huber
Seattle, WA
Top of the page Bottom of the page
Paul Joseph
Posted 7/13/2008 11:43 AM (#7124 - in reply to #7119)
Subject: RE: Subjects and Relations



PhD Alumni

20002000100100
Location: United Kingdom
So are men from Mars and Women from Venus (Gray) ?! Is there a schema for the schematic mind ? Just catching up, interesting, and we need as much understanding as we can muster ... just wondering about your sources here, as you have a flavour of Ken Wilber's Integral Psychology, Robert de Ropp's The Master Game, Galen's Humours, Jung's Psychological Types, to name a few. As well as, by antithesis, the British Object RElations School of psychoanalysis ... and then again Klein's paranoid schizoid wonderings ...


Top of the page Bottom of the page
JHuber
Posted 7/14/2008 2:01 AM (#7169 - in reply to #7124)
Subject: RE: Subjects and Relations


New user

Posts: 4

Paul Joseph - 7/13/2008 8:43 AM
just wondering about your sources here, as you have a flavour of Ken Wilber's Integral Psychology, Robert de Ropp's The Master Game, Galen's Humours, Jung's Psychological Types, to name a few.


Almost all of this is mine. The only items I've ever read that I felt were worthy of inclusion are the definitions of enjoyment, grief, despair and relief. You can see that I have given the credit to Ira Roseman in the footnote of the main post. If you or if you know of anyone that has something you feel is worthy of inclusion, I'd give credit for that too. I endeavor to get it perfect.
Top of the page Bottom of the page
Paul Joseph
Posted 7/14/2008 4:02 AM (#7174 - in reply to #7169)
Subject: RE: Subjects and Relations



PhD Alumni

20002000100100
Location: United Kingdom
Aah, as the old Alchemists and Kabbalists knew, only God is perfect. Hence all the temples were built with a deliberate flaw, so as not to create hubris.
Top of the page Bottom of the page
JHuber
Posted 7/15/2008 2:30 AM (#7209 - in reply to #7174)
Subject: RE: Subjects and Relations


New user

Posts: 4

Paul Joseph - 7/13/2008 1:02 AM

Aah, as the old Alchemists and Kabbalists knew, only God is perfect. Hence all the temples were built with a deliberate flaw, so as not to create hubris.


If there is a flaw in this temple I want to know about it.
Top of the page Bottom of the page