Hello everyone!
Warning to the reader: this is a long post!
A few months ago I wrote a post with what I thought (and continue to think) is a useful way to think of “love” as a functional/contextual term (i.e., as a function/effect of operant behavior/process/value).
Without going too deep into details, the idea is basically as follows: (1) the function of “loving” type/quality of actions is typically to (attempt to) improve the qualitative experience (now, ongoing, and/or later) of the experiencer of those actions (i.e., the “loved”, including one’s “self”). Removing pain/suffering can be seen as one possible way to achieve this outcome and providing desirable appetitives may be seen as another. There is also a fundamental relativity to this functional conception of “love” as process/value: teaching a person to fish may be seen (long term benefit), in a functional sense, to be relatively more “loving” then giving a person a fish (short term benefit), and either of these behaviors could also be seen as relatively more “loving” than striking a person with a fish (unless they’re into that sorta thing I suppose).
Seen in this functional way, we can then surmise that a person who values “love” or “loving” type/quality of actions within a given context (or any/all context/s) would be acting directly/relatively “lovingly” if/when they are actively doing something that reduces the relative pain/harm/suffering of others/self (the “loved”) and/or doing something that increases their relative pleasure/satisfaction/fulfillment now/ongoing/later. We can also surmise that they would be acting directly/relatively “unlovingly” if/when they are actively doing something that increases the harm/pain/suffering of others/self now/ongoing/later (since this function is the exact opposite intended function of “loving” actions). Finally, we can surmise that a person that is not actively doing something that has a discernible impact on an individuals qualitative environment/experience (now, ongoing, and/or later) would, from this functional perspective, be acting neither lovingly nor unlovingly but rather relatively “neutrally”; this behavior can be considered relatively “love-consistent” insofar as it is not “love-inconsistent” (at least from this functional perspective).
Therefore, a person seeking to maintain behavior consistent with this functional “love” value should likely, at minimum, at least try to be relatively harmless within the contexts the value applies. This is where morals, or rules concerning the abstention from type/quality of actions pre-determined to be more likely than other type/quality of actions to cause harm/pain/suffering in others/self, could likely come in handy to hold onto relatively tightly. Finally, this general harmlessness within these contexts likely functions to reduce the probability of relatively undesirable/painful/harmful consequences/outcomes in present, ongoing, and/or future conditions for the person who practices harmlessness/blamelessness in actions by decreasing the probability of other organisms feeling the type of feelings/experiences (e.g., anger, hatred, animosity) that prompt them to engage in actions intended to harm that person in some way (i.e., “karma”; see “The Value of Morality” among my blog posts on this website for more details on this latter point).
Anyways, I thought of a metaphor that might be useful for exemplifying the (possible/probable) utility of this conception of love as value/process relevant to contexts where one is attempting to identify ways to act/behave that are more likely than other types/qualities of actions to produce “better outcomes” in those life situations.
I’d love to hear your thoughts/ideas/critiques/suggestions/whatever!
…
Heaven and Hell Metaphor
Lots of people grow up in cultures teaching and believing that there are these two places (at least) that they could possibly find themselves in when they die: heaven and hell. I was one of these people, as my family happened to be of the Catholic religion.
Thinking now about these notions/conceptions of heaven/hell, I immediately conjure up images of what I imagine (according to my conditioned history with these notions) these places might look like: heaven is cloudy, has pearly white gates (at least one!), and has halo’d people/organisms floating about while hell is rocky place, has lakes of fire, and is inhabited by horned organisms carrying spears/tridents.
But it is not these topographical descriptions of what these places “look like” that best represent these ideas/notions/places (fundamentally).
Here is what I mean: If I close my eyes and imagine for a moment that I have died and awoken in a place that looks exactly like my conception of heaven, I may likely be quite convinced that I have, indeed, made it to heaven (i.e., the relatively good/desirable destination! Woo hoo!). If, however, that cloudy environment functioned to make me experience unpleasant feelings such as burning of my flesh and constant suffocation and those flying halo’d organisms relished in my pain/suffering and even used those halos as a convenient portable tool to cause me physical harm, then I would probably change my mind. In such a condition, the place would look like what I think heaven might look like, but it would function more like hell. It would, for me, be hell.
Likewise, if I imagine that I die and wake up in what I think hell might look like, I might initially be quite convinced that I have unfortunately woke up in hell. But, if I somehow experienced that rocky terrain quite comfortably/pleasantly, enjoyed myself with occasional/frequent pleasant/enjoyable swims in fire lake, and abided peacefully/happily with those horned organisms who, as it turns out in this hypothetical, only use those spears/tridents to be able to pick the juiciest of fruits from the tallest of trees to share with others in the community… then I would also have to change my mind. In such a condition, the place would look like what I think hell might look like, but it would function more like heaven. It would, for me, be heaven.
Here is the first point: Heaven and hell are, fundamentally, functional places (i.e., they are best defined by their qualitative effects on one’s experience/s). Makes sense... They were/are (typically) used within systems to motivate behavior (e.g., morality, etc).
Ok, so now lets try something else: Lets pretend for a moment that some individual residing in hell (for simplicity/clarity, lets just place this person in the rocky, fire lake having place) gets the opportunity to have the very best team of process-based therapists on Earth visit them for a period of time to help them out as much as possible. That person could very well learn useful skills from these teachers to make them more cognitively flexible and improve their quality of life to a meaningful degree down in hell. But, even in such a case, it would probably still suck to be caused harm/pain/injury/suffering from the organisms that inhabit that place. It would still suck to suffer in agony in a lake of fire for eternity. It would still suck to have to push a large boulder up a hill for a thousand years.
Now imagine that this person in hell sentenced to push a rock up a hill while being frequently hit/poked with spears/tridents is suddenly given a choice: they can either stay in hell for their entire thousand year sentence OR they can leave hell and go to heaven immediately. I can’t imagine that this person’s elite team of therapists would object to such an obvious escape from aversive stimulus conditions. Of course not… it would be an obvious choice in one’s fundamental pursuit of better, or more desirable, life (qualitative) outcomes/experiences.
So… (1) If one has a choice between being cognitively inflexible in a hellish environment or being cognitively flexible in a hellish environment, choosing flexibility might likely be relatively beneficial for them (given the available options). (2) If one has a choice between being cognitively flexible in a hellish environment or being cognitively flexible in a heavenly environment, a person seeking “better outcomes” might likely be wise to choose the heavenly one (pushing large boulders up hills likely isn’t as fun as it may initially sound!).
The point of this second part is simply this: The qualitative functions of the environments we/people/organisms inhabit matter (a lot!) in the pursuance of better/more desirable life outcomes.
Finally, I’d like to offer one final perspective utilizing this metaphor: lets imagine that, all of a sudden, all of the organisms from a “heavenly” environment get placed in a more hellish one (rocky, fire lakes, etc.) and all of the organisms from a “hellish” environment get placed in a more heavenly one.
The question to think about here is: If one had no choice but to go live in one of these two places, which would represent the more desirable destination/environment?
I would say that, shorter term, it might be question worth considering/pondering over. Do I go to the place where the environment hurts me but the organisms are relatively loving, compassionate, kind, and helpful or do I go to the place where the environment is relatively pleasant but the organisms desire my harm/pain/suffering? But if the consideration is longer term… I would definitely choose the to go to the more hellish environment with the heavenly beings because they would be more likely to change the environment (over time) in such a way as to make my presence there (i.e., our collective environment) more and more pleasant (i.e., more and more “heavenly”) while, in the other hypothetical location, it would likely be the opposite.
The point of this last part is: Heaven and hell, as fundamentally functional places/conceptions, can be pursued/created (in a relative sense) by organisms within those environments that have the means to doing so (e.g., relational framing and understanding how a “heavenly” place functions).
Extra note: If I could add anything to this, it would be that a relatively “heavenly” environment doesn’t have to correspond only to an entire world/society of beings. It can likely point to even much smaller environments (e.g., a school, a home, an office, an organization) or, perhaps even, to ones own “self” (i.e., “nirvana”/”enlightenment”).
Thoughts?
Jesse