One of the best words of advice my mother gave me when I was younger was, "Love is an action, not a feeling." That always made a lot of sense to me. More recently, I've integrated that statement with my interest in cybernetics and communication theory and systems theory, which has augmented the idea.
One cannot love in a vacuum. Other than "loving yourself," one cannot love without an "other" to direct the love toward, an other person, thing, etc. As much as I love animals and nature, let's use the example of two people. If we consider two ideas, 1) One cannot not communicate, and 2) All behavior is communication, then it leads to support the claim that "love" is an action - or behavior or communication - rather than some abstract term representing a feeling.
Maybe its better to back up a level and discuss the idea that love has various definitions and (I think) those definitions are often mixed up and/or misused:
There is a "love" that is used to describe the way someone feels when they are getting to know someone and are excited by their interactions. Going forward I will refer to this as a chemical response called infatuation.
I will refer to the observable action or behavior - or manifestation of the infatuation - as "love".
Also, for the sake of breadth, "love" will include any and all favorable behavior - or behavior that is received as favorable by the receiver - including but not limited to romantic love, platonic love, brotherly love, parental love, Samaritan love, etc.
In our lives, do we say things like, "I love you" or "I have always loved you" or "I will always love you"? What does that mean? If person A says, "I love person B" does that mean Person A feels good inside because of the relationship with person B or that Person A behaves in a loving manner toward person B? I think too often it is the former, especially in newer and younger relationships. In either definition, does that mean that we always feel excited, every minute of every day? Does it mean that we behave in a loving manner every second of every day? Is it just a cliche? Am I un-romanticizing it by calling out its meaning?
How do we love? Are we overt with our love or do we keep it all to ourselves and just think about it? Does it do any good to think about loving? Which is better: saying "I love you" or doing something that shows love like doing the dishes or giving a back rub or playing a game or listening intently?
It might be worth asking yourself: is my love about me and my feelings or about my relationship, my interaction, my behavior with another person? and see if it changes anything.
What about hate?
Friday, October 10, 2008
Wednesday, September 17, 2008
Truth vs. Fact
I recently read a newspaper article about a series of events that I had previously been privy to. I had probably heard and/or seen and/or experienced more about these events than the article writer had prior to writing the article. The article, based on the numerous lengthy, emotional comments left on the internet, evoked an polarizing and emotional response in its readers as well as all involved.
As I was thinking about the article and the responses, it reminded me of the old cliche, "Don't believe everything you read." I find it amazing that as untrusting a society that we are of others (in general), we tend to take newspapers for fact. We make a lot of (false) assumptions by doing so. We assume that the newpaper company, the editor, the writer, and all witnesses and quoters are all being 100% truthful. We also assume that all of those same people were given the right facts and have "done their homework" to attain all of the facts. We may also assume that all of the above are unbiased. (In the article I read, the writer definitely had more intention than simply writing the newsworthy. Its amazing how "reporting the facts" can look so one-sided depending on which facts/truths are reported and which facts/truths are omitted.)
More importantly, I realized the vast difference between Truth and Fact. I liken it, slightly, to the childhood game of telephone, whereas the farther you get from the "horses mouth," the more a message is distorted. The second to last person might be "telling the truth" based on what they heard, but that doesn't make it fact.
And so it is with a reporter or newswriter: unless they witness an actual event themselves (and even then there's no guarantee that FACT will be written, because it will subjectively written based on that writer's interpretation), a reporter/writer of the news is usually getting their information from someone else. When have two witnesses of an accident "remembered" exactly the same thing even though they had witnessed the same accident? So even though the "victim", witness, and reporter all honestly believe they are telling the truth - and maybe they are - that doesn't necessarily mean that what is written in the newspaper is fact.
What I took away from this is that I need to be careful how and what I judge. There have been many times while watching Dateline or 20/20 that I will judge the "villain" in the news story based on what has been shown to me; but I need to realize that I do not have all of the facts and my opinions are based solely on what has been reported to me and what has NOT been reported to me.
I also realized there are a lot of people in our "highly educated town of Madison" that are emotionally reactive, ignorant, and just plain rude, regardless of which side they took.
Here's to hoping I'm not one of them and never become one of them.
As I was thinking about the article and the responses, it reminded me of the old cliche, "Don't believe everything you read." I find it amazing that as untrusting a society that we are of others (in general), we tend to take newspapers for fact. We make a lot of (false) assumptions by doing so. We assume that the newpaper company, the editor, the writer, and all witnesses and quoters are all being 100% truthful. We also assume that all of those same people were given the right facts and have "done their homework" to attain all of the facts. We may also assume that all of the above are unbiased. (In the article I read, the writer definitely had more intention than simply writing the newsworthy. Its amazing how "reporting the facts" can look so one-sided depending on which facts/truths are reported and which facts/truths are omitted.)
More importantly, I realized the vast difference between Truth and Fact. I liken it, slightly, to the childhood game of telephone, whereas the farther you get from the "horses mouth," the more a message is distorted. The second to last person might be "telling the truth" based on what they heard, but that doesn't make it fact.
And so it is with a reporter or newswriter: unless they witness an actual event themselves (and even then there's no guarantee that FACT will be written, because it will subjectively written based on that writer's interpretation), a reporter/writer of the news is usually getting their information from someone else. When have two witnesses of an accident "remembered" exactly the same thing even though they had witnessed the same accident? So even though the "victim", witness, and reporter all honestly believe they are telling the truth - and maybe they are - that doesn't necessarily mean that what is written in the newspaper is fact.
What I took away from this is that I need to be careful how and what I judge. There have been many times while watching Dateline or 20/20 that I will judge the "villain" in the news story based on what has been shown to me; but I need to realize that I do not have all of the facts and my opinions are based solely on what has been reported to me and what has NOT been reported to me.
I also realized there are a lot of people in our "highly educated town of Madison" that are emotionally reactive, ignorant, and just plain rude, regardless of which side they took.
Here's to hoping I'm not one of them and never become one of them.
Wednesday, August 27, 2008
Newspaper Title
"Billboard that states, 'Text-messaging causes 11-car pile-up,' causes 11-car pile-up"
Friday, July 25, 2008
Baggage
I recently attended a two hour "seminar" of one of my professors at Edgewood. The topic of the seminar was basically "What personal baggage do we (as therapists) bring into the therapy session, or the 'system' if you will." For example, my professor is very turned off by racism - meaning she doesn't like it and it gets her upset easily when people are being racist. After the 9/11 catastrophe, one of her clients made some very derogatory comments generalizing all middle eastern people. It took all of my professor's energy to not "yell" at her client.
So, it got all of us attendee's minds going about what "triggers" we have. What sets us off? What will set us off? What are we sensitive about? Why? What do we hold important to us? How will we respond? How can we keep from responding negatively, thus turning our client off or damaging the open and trusting relationship?
This got me thinking that we could all benefit from knowing our hot buttons. Society could run a lot smoother if everyone was just a little more introspective.
Consider the parent that yells at a young referee at their child's soccer game or the person who screams out their window (and flashes the bird) to someone who cuts them off while driving down the road. Why do they overreact?
What about yelling at kids or a spouse/partner or an employee?
What about complaining all day about Favre or flooding or who's house gets rebuilt by ABC?
Do people really get that upset about each of those things? Why some people and not others?
As I've stated in previous posts, I think a lot of how people respond to things (including reviews) has a lot more to do with the person responding than the thing or situation they are responding to. I'd venture to say that most emotion is internal and is only elicited by external situations. Almost as if we look for an opportunity to release it. We need the release.
What if everyone knew where their pent up emotion came from, knew a healthy way to release it, and could come up with a successful way to avoid negative/damaging feelings from building up inside them in the future?
So, it got all of us attendee's minds going about what "triggers" we have. What sets us off? What will set us off? What are we sensitive about? Why? What do we hold important to us? How will we respond? How can we keep from responding negatively, thus turning our client off or damaging the open and trusting relationship?
This got me thinking that we could all benefit from knowing our hot buttons. Society could run a lot smoother if everyone was just a little more introspective.
Consider the parent that yells at a young referee at their child's soccer game or the person who screams out their window (and flashes the bird) to someone who cuts them off while driving down the road. Why do they overreact?
What about yelling at kids or a spouse/partner or an employee?
What about complaining all day about Favre or flooding or who's house gets rebuilt by ABC?
Do people really get that upset about each of those things? Why some people and not others?
As I've stated in previous posts, I think a lot of how people respond to things (including reviews) has a lot more to do with the person responding than the thing or situation they are responding to. I'd venture to say that most emotion is internal and is only elicited by external situations. Almost as if we look for an opportunity to release it. We need the release.
What if everyone knew where their pent up emotion came from, knew a healthy way to release it, and could come up with a successful way to avoid negative/damaging feelings from building up inside them in the future?
Tuesday, June 10, 2008
McSucks!
I recently purchased a(nother) book from Amazon.com and inside the box, with the book, was a coupon for McDonalds for a free Southern Style (breakfast) Buscuit and a free Southern Style Chicken Sandwich. Today I tried the chicken sandwich for lunch and it was HORRIBLE!
Its gotta be processed chicken formed into the shape of a chicken breast. The "southern style" seasoning is bland and not very tasty. There were two pickels and a slightly buttered bun. That was it. The bun was only good because it was fresh and soft.
I noticed McD is charging $2.99 for the sandwich by itself. I wouldn't get another one if I had another free coupon; it was that bad! It is seriously the worst thing I've ever had from McD.
Its gotta be processed chicken formed into the shape of a chicken breast. The "southern style" seasoning is bland and not very tasty. There were two pickels and a slightly buttered bun. That was it. The bun was only good because it was fresh and soft.
I noticed McD is charging $2.99 for the sandwich by itself. I wouldn't get another one if I had another free coupon; it was that bad! It is seriously the worst thing I've ever had from McD.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)