Consequencity - Gullibility - Instinctivity - Emotions
In entry 341 I described the three forces behind human behavior, but I omitted to explicitly mention emotions. I consider emotions not as a force by itself, but as a trigger for behavior, together with sensations, especially those of dishomeostasis (entry 330). The other triggers are stimuli from the environment.
Instinctivity and gullibility are both scalable by their strength. The impulses elicited by the same emotions or sensation can be of very different magnitude depending on the individual wiring of the brain.
Consequencity is different, because there are individual differences in the ability of reasoning. When consequencity determines the behavior, it is not by it having its own strength, but by the innate absence of the deactivating forces of gullibility and instinctivity. Both are archaic forces from the dawn of the human evolution. At some time, instinctivity and gullibility had been important for the survival of the species, but today they are obsolete and a relapse. In entry 338 I have speculated, why gullibility has been beneficial for the survival during the evolutionary phase between instinctivity and rationality.
As outlined in entry 339, consequencity means acting by decisions, that are logically derived from wisely chosen premises. The choice of the premises can have three levels, depending on the quality of cognition in the combination of maturity, emotional intelligence and abstract thinking. Each level means the ability to understand and identify the emotion and what causes it, to distinguish between contingency and coincidence, and to be aware of the difference between an emotion being reactive or spontaneous.
Level 1.
Simple sensations and emotions with the focus only on the moment, like attraction, repugnance, fear, joy.
Level 2.
Abstract emotions in relation to another person in the context of previous experience and expectations or hopes for the future, based upon empathy, like trust, reliability, disappointment, fairness, regret, remorse.
Level 3.
Complex emotions, in which the relation to another is experienced in connection with a value system, attitudes, moral, ethics, like betrayal, integrity, indignation, outrage, decency, guilt.
Dumping can serve as an example to show the differences. Dumping is the onesided ending of a relationship without allowing the dumped person any influence upon this decision.
The gullible puppet from entry 341 can be influenced by outsiders to dump someone without feeling guilty because the gullibility including a submission to the validity of the judgment of others.
The selfish robot from entry 341 dumps ruthlessly, when the partner refuses or resists to be a commodity, or if being used as such has devastated her to the point of becoming dysfunctional.
Consequencity includes as one basic principle equality and therefore reciprocity and mutuality. When there is onesidedly motivated for selfishness, this is not consequencity, but the behavior of the robot.
On level 1 of consequencity, the dumping person is only aware of the pain of separation, which in his perception is the same for the dumping and for the dumped. Believing to suffer the same as the victim, there is nothing preventing him from dumping as a procedure appearing logical.
On both levels 2 and 3 of consequencity, dumping is rejected as an option. The one dissatisfied with the relationship is aware of the breaking of trust and of the pain of feeling helpless by having a decision forced upon. He does not inflict on others, what he has empathy for and does not want to happen to himself. Dumping would make him feel guilty for hurting his partner.
The one dissatisfied with the relationship instead initiates attempts to resolve the conflicts and repair the relationship, or else he convinces his partner, that separation is the best for both of them.
On level 3 of consequencity, the one dissatisfied with the relationship is additionally aware, that by the decision to get involved he has implicitly and automatically accepted the obligation of commitment as a part of the shared value system and therefore as binding as carved in stone. He owes fulfilling his obligations to his partner and to his own self-esteem as an ethical person. He considers dumping as a serious transgression, that would make him feel unworthy of her.
In entry 341 I described the three forces behind human behavior, but I omitted to explicitly mention emotions. I consider emotions not as a force by itself, but as a trigger for behavior, together with sensations, especially those of dishomeostasis (entry 330). The other triggers are stimuli from the environment.
Instinctivity and gullibility are both scalable by their strength. The impulses elicited by the same emotions or sensation can be of very different magnitude depending on the individual wiring of the brain.
Consequencity is different, because there are individual differences in the ability of reasoning. When consequencity determines the behavior, it is not by it having its own strength, but by the innate absence of the deactivating forces of gullibility and instinctivity. Both are archaic forces from the dawn of the human evolution. At some time, instinctivity and gullibility had been important for the survival of the species, but today they are obsolete and a relapse. In entry 338 I have speculated, why gullibility has been beneficial for the survival during the evolutionary phase between instinctivity and rationality.
As outlined in entry 339, consequencity means acting by decisions, that are logically derived from wisely chosen premises. The choice of the premises can have three levels, depending on the quality of cognition in the combination of maturity, emotional intelligence and abstract thinking. Each level means the ability to understand and identify the emotion and what causes it, to distinguish between contingency and coincidence, and to be aware of the difference between an emotion being reactive or spontaneous.
Level 1.
Simple sensations and emotions with the focus only on the moment, like attraction, repugnance, fear, joy.
Level 2.
Abstract emotions in relation to another person in the context of previous experience and expectations or hopes for the future, based upon empathy, like trust, reliability, disappointment, fairness, regret, remorse.
Level 3.
Complex emotions, in which the relation to another is experienced in connection with a value system, attitudes, moral, ethics, like betrayal, integrity, indignation, outrage, decency, guilt.
Dumping can serve as an example to show the differences. Dumping is the onesided ending of a relationship without allowing the dumped person any influence upon this decision.
The gullible puppet from entry 341 can be influenced by outsiders to dump someone without feeling guilty because the gullibility including a submission to the validity of the judgment of others.
The selfish robot from entry 341 dumps ruthlessly, when the partner refuses or resists to be a commodity, or if being used as such has devastated her to the point of becoming dysfunctional.
Consequencity includes as one basic principle equality and therefore reciprocity and mutuality. When there is onesidedly motivated for selfishness, this is not consequencity, but the behavior of the robot.
On level 1 of consequencity, the dumping person is only aware of the pain of separation, which in his perception is the same for the dumping and for the dumped. Believing to suffer the same as the victim, there is nothing preventing him from dumping as a procedure appearing logical.
On both levels 2 and 3 of consequencity, dumping is rejected as an option. The one dissatisfied with the relationship is aware of the breaking of trust and of the pain of feeling helpless by having a decision forced upon. He does not inflict on others, what he has empathy for and does not want to happen to himself. Dumping would make him feel guilty for hurting his partner.
The one dissatisfied with the relationship instead initiates attempts to resolve the conflicts and repair the relationship, or else he convinces his partner, that separation is the best for both of them.
On level 3 of consequencity, the one dissatisfied with the relationship is additionally aware, that by the decision to get involved he has implicitly and automatically accepted the obligation of commitment as a part of the shared value system and therefore as binding as carved in stone. He owes fulfilling his obligations to his partner and to his own self-esteem as an ethical person. He considers dumping as a serious transgression, that would make him feel unworthy of her.
The restraint by empathy and care on level 2 can be as strong as the moral restraint on level 3. But the general evaluation of dumping is more serious and grave, when it is considered as a moral transgression compared with considering it merely as the inconsiderate inflicting of pain.
Someone, who is only able to function on level 1 of consequencity is an emotional moron and he can be as damaging to a partner as are the puppets and the robots. They are not suitable as my mindmate. I would feel most comfortable and a relationship could be a safe haven with someone sharing level 3 of consequencity, but I would consider also someone, who is mostly guided by level 2.
