from the world's big
Love. I believe that love is an intellectual fabrication by man who for some reason needs to romanticize the most normal human/animal functions....and indeed that is what would would separate us from the animals. But I think that this manufacturing of an emotion that is not there can also be harmful in that it leads to expectations.
I believe compassion is an innate quality, almost a survival mechanism, as is lust.
I believe love is a choice, a decision. I can choose to become infatuated with .
I see humans covering their natural instincts in protective or fabricated layers.
Perhaps the outer layer is that which pertains to daily
activity....the boring ho hum thought.
The next would be contrived and
conditioned emotions. A little deeper might be more spontaneous
emotion. Right before the core is some of our basic instincts and
innate qualities. And the core is a mystery.
I think this core is what religious types and philosophers go on about....some call it spirit, come call it truth. Some want to believe in some unifying energy or force and call it love.
But is it real or is it all just made up? Maybe we are just the external layers....that which we see, the day to day stuff. Why do we quest for this deep internal force? Why do we feel there is more, and in the absence of any proof theorize and make stuff up?
Can we live honestly and perhaps a more content life, without this speculation?
Why do we need the construct of "love"?
The outer self that we display to others is probably our most common defense.
As the layers deepen , we become vulnerable and fear may rise . So we keep that layer protected .
As for the core , our inner being , maybe some of us continue to fear what may be exposed ? Or some of us may be liberated in releasing that inner core through art, writing, painting .... the creative , chaotic self. I also think our inner being changes , hell , it has to change , doesn't it ? as we encounter/adapt...experience our life ???
Love .... each of us have our own definition ... do we need to love ourselves before we can love others ? Can we accept not being loved in return ?
Sexual desire is still different from love . I mean if I feel sexual desire for hm Jeniffer Lopez perhaps but no way do I love her. She just curls my toes.
There is still an initial love between most men and women who partner hopefully for life although' that gets rarer.
If you are lucky that love becomes a comfortable give and take friendship as you go Through the vicissitudes of raising kids and you can still turn to each other for comfort and the mutual enjoyment of love-making.
If you are not lucky you begin to dislike each other and if all else fails it is better to divorce.
Although divorce however well considered is extremely traumatic for everyone and it does not just involve two people but affects the whole extended family.
I have a sneaky feeling that romantic love is driven by the genes .I think I understand the difference between what people refer to as love and lust in a relationship.....but I am still doubting that "love" is anything but made up to civilize our lust and an intellectual extension of our compassion, and a general survival instinct....which in my mind is selfishly motivated, motivated by something other than rational.
We will have no agreement here on such a subjective term. I can only try to communicate my position. If I didn't disagree with people, I would have no one to engage and that would stifle my perception It makes an abrasive personality
Compassion is innate and love is the mental clutter in my mind.
What emotions do you feel are innate then? Are they instincts or creations of the mind? Why is hate not as equally important as love since they are opposites? Why do we not accept it as easily?
I am having trouble finding an opposite of compassion? Apathy? Sadism?
But I do think even compassion is self motivated. It hurts to see someone else hurt, so to get rid of my pain, I alleviate your pain. I am helping myself at the same time, and though it looks like I put you first, in reality, it is my own discomfort that caused me to react to begin with.
I think this is the thing that religion of love seem to miss and why we get so many self righteous do goodies preaching love. They don't see the selfishness of their love and compassion.
Then you wind up with my first blog. Even out of love.
You can bring all emotion down to self interest ,I imagine. But then the self has to at least be a feeling person to interact. I think the opposite of compassion may be uncaring.
How can people who practice what they preach i.e. compassion and love be described as selfish?
Everything we do comes down to self-interest.Maybe.... Even love. We do that when and because it feels good to us.
I have to admit the desire of the genes to lust is probably what brings couples together underneath any other sweet suggestions.
Romantic love was perfected by the Victorians although' possibly started earlier . It satisfied ever young woman's wish to be yearned for or even maybe fought over. And appealed to some men especially if it involved a bit of a battle with the reward of a dewy-eyed maid afterward. Guess both sexes are to blame. But I lived in a daze of romance as a teenager. Boundaries were still being defined and the great women of my youth suffered for it.
I don't think it makes a lot of sense to boil everything down to self interest, though.
We are selves, we will act as selves. When you feel compassion (to suffer with) and want to help another, that could be considered self interest because you can't help acting out of that kind of motivation, but its not the same as self interest in terms of the person who ignores the suffering of others and always puts him or herself first.
People make sacrifices for others all the time--that's not being self interested, it's being other interested. And yes, its because the well being of those others is tied up with ones own well being, but what's wrong with that? It means you care about something besides yourself. I wouldn't want someone helping me out of some stiff Kantian sense of duty.
Language is useful as long as it is making a distinction--marking a boundary. If you cut it loose from meaningful relationships or contexts, it loses all meaning .... you wind up with any number of things people don't understand.
We have to call our relationships with our children something. Love seems as good a term as any. The bad part is that word's other associations which may not fit. But then, do we love anything or do we just do what we do and label it love. Is there a difference? Do we romanticize a feeling or do we manufacture a label?
I've never considered myself one of those 'nesting people'. Which some people seem to find offensive.
Probably like most families, I wondered if I was doing things right, when I was dealing with children. I used to sometimes compare other families with their children, watching their actions and hearing them talk about their children and I felt like I was abnormal.
My families children weren't my world and I remember the reactions I got when I tried to explain that. It was suggested that I didn't love them. That I was selfish. That I must have had repressed childhood trauma and all sorts of other things.
The reactions were so vehement that I wondered if those people really didn't like the specific role they had taken on and they resented me for not taking it on too?
That's what it seemed like. Being sterile, with no children of my own.... I mean, why would people react so strongly to how I personally felt about my families children, unless I was actually abusing them in some way or seriously depriving them of some vital necessity?
Why should the anger and misunderstanding of a few be responsible for an entire generations isolation from their own ? When does anger become more important than a family getting to know one another? When most of them haven't seen each other in years?
I'd take a bullet for any of my families children and if anything happened to them, I would be devastated. I'm proud of their accomplishments. I anticipate being friends with them for many years .
Some need to shake off the dirt others have piled on top of them.
Love is such an ambiguous label. All it really means is that we have strong feelings, but it doesn't do much to define the feelings themselves.
Sometimes those strong feelings aren't even necessarily healthy ones. What we feel for our children is largely based on instinct, I think. Some families are missing that instinct.
There is a bonding or attachment that guides or is at the base of how we feel about our children, that isn't really there for anyone else in our lives. It seems to almost consume some families to the point of near obsession.
There is a huge warehouse full of "SHOULD", given to us by society and some people just seem to buy alot more of those 'shoulds' than I ever did.
I feel compassion and empathy for children. I like them. I feel a strong attachment or bond. I feel pride in their accomplishments. There is a little bit of a sense of ownership and I feel protective. I feel affection, which is kind of a sweet, warm feeling and I feel positive obligation, which means that I want to do things for them, rather than feeling like I should buy my way out.. I would say that all those things add up to love, except that love doesn't always include all those things or sometimes it includes more.
Often love has a heavy degree of need and I think that might be part of what I'm missing . But I never saw that a bad thing. I never felt an overwhelming need for them to need me. Their need for me never defined me , in some way like it seems to the more 'dedicated' families.
Sadly, some thought it more important that I wear a label in isolation , than to be involved or included in events that occur in the children's life.
Family I think is a choice, the only difference between 'blood' and 'water'; People choose other individuals to change their family blood, enviorment , experiences and who to love
When one chooses to tell others , .. if a birthday or event is occurring.... It would be nice if I were not held responsible by the children for what I do not know or control , but it happens.
I go into more detail about labels and living apart in my blog ,' I am more than words'.
I quietly celebrate every time I could get information about each step they made towards independence, for them and for myself at a distance . I have an other hand full graduating this year , again . As they learned to do each thing for themselves. I wasn't informed about when they started school or graduated, left home or got in trouble.
I don't think I can describe the pride one feels when a young adult walks up with an open hand and an independent heart . After 'shaking off' some 'dirt'.
I never felt that 'empty nester' thing that I've read about. I really enjoy children and I enjoyed it when they leave too.
Now that most are adults, we talk on the phone and we spend some time together. It's good when we do, but fine if we don't. I know families who feel neglected if their children don't spend enough time with them, but children should have a happy independent life that is centered around what an individuals choice of family.
Most of the 'nesting' instincts that I had were replaced with something that seems more like a loving friendship.I'm content to let them have their own lives and leave all the meddling behind. I'm not sure it's really normal, but it works for now .
I do love the all the people in my life , even those I need to get to know better. Peace
What conditions of the new normal were already appreciated widely?<p>First, we understand that higher education is unique among industries. Some industries are governed by markets. Others are run by governments. Most operate under the influence of both markets and governments. And then there's higher education. Higher education as an "industry" involves public, private, and for-profit universities operating at small, medium, large, and now massive scales. Some higher education industry actors are intense specialists; others are adept generalists. Some are fantastically wealthy; others are tragically poor. Some are embedded in large cities; others are carefully situated near farms and frontiers.</p> <p>These differences demonstrate just some of the complexities that shape higher education. Still, we understand that change in the industry is underway, and we must be active in directing it. Yet because of higher education's unique (and sometimes vexing) operational and structural conditions, many of the lessons from change management and the science of industrial transformation are only applicable in limited or highly modified ways. For evidence of this, one can look at various perspectives, including those that we have offered, on such topics as <a href="https://www.insidehighered.com/digital-learning/blogs/rethinking-higher-education/lessons-disruption" target="_blank">disruption</a>, <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2020/02/20/education/learning/education-technology.html" target="_blank">technology management</a>, and so-called "<a href="https://www.insidehighered.com/sites/default/server_files/media/Excerpt_IHESpecialReport_Growing-Role-of-Mergers-in-Higher-Ed.pdf" target="_blank">mergers and acquisitions</a>" in higher education. In each of these spaces, the "market forces" and "market rules" for higher education are different than they are in business, or even in government. This has always been the case and it is made more obvious by COVID-19.</p> <p>Second, with so much excitement about innovation in higher education, we sometimes lose sight of the fact that students are—and should remain—the core cause for innovation. Higher education's capacity to absorb new ideas is strong. But the ideas that endure are those designed to benefit students, and therefore society. This is important to remember because not all innovations are designed with students in mind. The recent history of innovation in higher education includes several cautionary tales of what can happen when institutional interests—or worse, <a href="https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2016/02/09/apollos-new-owners-seek-fresh-start-beleaguered-company" target="_blank">shareholder</a> interests—are placed above student well-being.</p>
Photo: Getty Images<p>Third, it is abundantly apparent that universities must leverage technology to increase educational quality and access. The rapid shift to delivering an education that complies with social distancing guidelines speaks volumes about the adaptability of higher education institutions, but this transition has also posed unique difficulties for colleges and universities that had been slow to adopt digital education. The last decade has shown that online education, implemented effectively, can meet or even surpass the quality of in-person <a href="https://link-springer-com.ezproxy1.lib.asu.edu/article/10.1007/s10639-019-10027-z" target="_blank">instruction</a>.</p><p>Digital instruction, broadly defined, leverages online capabilities and integrates adaptive learning methodologies, predictive analytics, and innovations in instructional design to enable increased student engagement, personalized learning experiences, and improved learning outcomes. The ability of these technologies to transcend geographic barriers and to shrink the marginal cost of educating additional students makes them essential for delivering education at scale.</p><p>As a bonus, and it is no small thing given that they are the core cause for innovation, students embrace and enjoy digital instruction. It is their preference to learn in a format that leverages technology. This should not be a surprise; it is now how we live in all facets of life.</p><p>Still, we have only barely begun to conceive of the impact digital education will have. For example, emerging virtual and augmented reality technologies that facilitate interactive, hands-on learning will transform the way that learners acquire and apply new knowledge. Technology-enabled learning cannot replace the traditional college experience or ensure the survival of any specific college, but it can enhance student learning outcomes at scale. This has always been the case, and it is made more obvious by COVID-19.</p>
What conditions of the new normal were emerging suspicions?<p>Our collective thinking about the role of institutional or university-to-university collaboration and networking has benefitted from a new clarity in light of COVID-19. We now recognize more than ever that colleges and universities must work together to ensure that the American higher education system is resilient and sufficiently robust to meet the needs of students and their families.</p> <p>In recent weeks, various commentators have suggested that higher education will face a wave of institutional <a href="https://www.businessinsider.com/scott-galloway-predicts-colleges-will-close-due-to-pandemic-2020-5" target="_blank">closures</a> and consolidations and that large institutions with significant online instruction capacity will become dominant.</p> <p>While ASU is the largest public university in the United States by enrollment and among the most well-equipped in online education, we strongly oppose "let them fail" mindsets. The strength of American higher education relies on its institutional diversity, and on the ability of colleges and universities to meet the needs of their local communities and educate local students. The needs of learners are highly individualized, demanding a wide range of options to accommodate the aspirations and learning styles of every kind of student. Education will become less relevant and meaningful to students, and less responsive to local needs, if institutions of higher learning are allowed to fail. </p> <p>Preventing this outcome demands that colleges and universities work together to establish greater capacity for remote, distributed education. This will help institutions with fewer resources adapt to our new normal and continue to fulfill their mission of serving students, their families, and their communities. Many had suspected that collaboration and networking were preferable over letting vulnerable colleges fail. COVID-19's new normal seems to be confirming this.</p>
Photo by Joshua Lott/Getty Images<p>A second condition of the new normal that many had suspected to be true in recent years is the limited role that any one university or type of university can play as an exemplar to universities more broadly. For decades, the evolution of higher education has been shaped by the widespread imitation of a small number of elite universities. Most public research universities could benefit from replicating Berkeley or Michigan. Most small private colleges did well by replicating Williams or Swarthmore. And all universities paid close attention to Harvard, Princeton, MIT, Stanford, and Yale. It is not an exaggeration to say that the logic of replication has guided the evolution of higher education for centuries, both in the US and abroad.</p><p>Only recently have we been able to move beyond replication to new strategies of change, and COVID-19 has confirmed the legitimacy of doing so. For example, cases such as <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/education/2020/03/10/harvard-moves-classes-online-advises-students-stay-home-after-spring-break-response-covid-19/" target="_blank">Harvard's</a> eviction of students over the course of less than one week or <a href="https://www.nhregister.com/news/coronavirus/article/Mayor-New-Haven-asks-for-coronavirus-help-Yale-15162606.php" target="_blank">Yale's apparent reluctance</a> to work with the city of New Haven, highlight that even higher education's legacy gold standards have limits and weaknesses. We are hopeful that the new normal will include a more active and earnest recognition that we need many types of universities. We think the new normal invites us to rethink the very nature of "gold standards" for higher education.</p>
A graduate student protests MIT's rejection of some evacuation exemption requests.
Photo: Maddie Meyer/Getty Images<p>Finally, and perhaps most importantly, we had started to suspect and now understand that America's colleges and universities are among the many institutions of democracy and civil society that are, by their very design, incapable of being sufficiently responsive to the full spectrum of modern challenges and opportunities they face. Far too many higher education outcomes are determined by a student's family income, and in the context of COVID-19 this means that lower-income students, first-generation students and students of color will be disproportionately afflicted. And without new designs, we can expect postsecondary success for these same students to be as elusive in the new normal, as it was in the <a href="http://pellinstitute.org/indicators/reports_2019.shtml" target="_blank">old normal</a>. This is not just because some universities fail to sufficiently recognize and engage the promise of diversity, this is because few universities have been designed from the outset to effectively serve the unique needs of lower-income students, first-generation students and students of color.</p>
Where can the new normal take us?<p>As colleges and universities face the difficult realities of adapting to COVID-19, they also face an opportunity to rethink their operations and designs in order to respond to social needs with greater agility, adopt technology that enables education to be delivered at scale, and collaborate with each other in order to maintain the dynamism and resilience of the American higher education system.</p> <p>COVID-19 raises questions about the relevance, the quality, and the accessibility of higher education—and these are the same challenges higher education has been grappling with for years. </p> <p>ASU has been able to rapidly adapt to the present circumstances because we have spent nearly two decades not just anticipating but <em>driving</em> innovation in higher education. We have adopted a <a href="https://www.asu.edu/about/charter-mission-and-values" target="_blank">charter</a> that formalizes our definition of success in terms of "who we include and how they succeed" rather than "<a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2019/10/17/forget-varsity-blues-madness-lets-talk-about-students-who-cant-afford-college/" target="_blank">who we exclude</a>." We adopted an entrepreneurial <a href="https://president.asu.edu/read/higher-logic" target="_blank">operating model</a> that moves at the speed of technological and social change. We have launched initiatives such as <a href="https://www.instride.com/how-it-works/" target="_blank">InStride</a>, a platform for delivering continuing education to learners already in the workforce. We developed our own robust technological capabilities in ASU <a href="https://edplus.asu.edu/" target="_blank">EdPlus</a>, a hub for research and development in digital learning that, even before the current crisis, allowed us to serve more than 45,000 fully online students. We have also created partnerships with other forward-thinking institutions in order to mutually strengthen our capabilities for educational accessibility and quality; this includes our role in co-founding the <a href="https://theuia.org/" target="_blank">University Innovation Alliance</a>, a consortium of 11 public research universities that share data and resources to serve students at scale. </p> <p>For ASU, and universities like ASU, the "new normal" of a post-COVID world looks surprisingly like the world we already knew was necessary. Our record breaking summer 2020 <a href="https://asunow.asu.edu/20200519-sun-devil-life-summer-enrollment-sets-asu-record" target="_blank">enrollment</a> speaks to this. What COVID demonstrates is that we were already headed in the right direction and necessitates that we continue forward with new intensity and, we hope, with more partners. In fact, rather than "new normal" we might just say, it's "go time." </p>
Can an orgasm a day really keep the doctor away?