Spaner Fitness
One-On-One Genetic Engineering
 

During a conversation with a close friend, we happened upon the topic of life being motivated (supposedly) by physical sensations. Ultimately, I came to stating that physical pleasure and pain are outcomes of actions, while emotional happiness and sadness are consequences of the same actions, though they affect the mind. However, there is no mind-body dichotomy. The pleasure/pain, mental/physical outcomes are consequences of motivated actions.

What is motivated action? Motivated action is any action taken in accordance to achieve one's goals. The achievement (or not) of a specific goal will create a sensation of physical/emotional pleasure. So then, I was asked; "what about a person who achieves a goal but then feels discomfort?" The simplest answer to this question lies in determining the motivation, or cause of a man's goals.

It should now be understood that a person's goals - and their achievement - are the deciding factor in a person's emotional state. A person who is constantly depressed or sad may be doing one of two things wrong: 1) they are taking no action, or 2) achieving the wrong goals. To expand upon the first point; if one wishes to achieve a goal, they must take action towards its achievement.

The second point, the idea that one is working towards goals harmful to one's self stems from the same root as a statement that friend made; "But I don't have any clearly defined goals." The answer to this question is a more clear and easy explanation to the question, "why am I sad?" In this instance we see that a lack of goals leaves one floundering about drifting emotionally to pain and occasionally to pleasure as one's emotional status becomes controlled by the actions of others. What must be answered now is the question: how does one choose his goals? How does one decide what actions to take, and the achievements to be pursued to make one happy?

The answer to this question lies in one's value-system. The concept of value presupposes the question: of value to whom and for what? This question uses the definition that value means worth or importance. Value also has the definition of worthwhile principle or quality. So the argument continues that a person's actions are motivated by the achievement of goals. Such goals are decided on by a person's value-system i.e. the things that one holds as worthwhile, and their principles. Finally the outcome of achieving that goal will result in a positive or negative emotional (and possibly physical) state. So, by implication, a person's value-system is the arbiter of their emotional state.

Now with an understanding of how goals and values come to affect our emotional state, we may branch into some other questions. Before we ask how a value-system is formed, we will deal with the question: does one always act in accordance with one's value system? This is a question that will require some actual research, but for this instance, and in the question of a rational man, I would answer that yes, a man (of reason) will act in accordance with their value-system at all times. Some specific examples may be required here in order to prove the point. We will get a little extreme here: if a man is held at gunpoint and is forced to surrender his clothing and his money to his attacker, we may argue that it is not in fact force. It can be argued that the man chose to give his money and clothing to his attacker, rather than risk his life. This scenario has given the man the goal of maintaining his life. His action of giving up his money is performed in order to achieve his goal, and his value-system allowed him to decide on this goal. The man may have values his money, but he held his life as a higher value. Thus his hierarchy of values dictated his actions. This is an extreme example because he may still have a negative emotional state at the conclusion of this scenario, but at least he maintained his life, his highest value.

The same argument may be true for a slave who has risked his life to escape to freedom. As living free is of value to him, but living as a slave is not, he was willing to accept death if he could not live with the highest value of his life, freedom (the issue of freedom being an integral characteristic of man's life). In both cases the man's life was his highest value.

There is another instance where one would appear to go against their value-system: if an individual is present at a social event and it was suggested that he perform an activity that is against his value-system, such as using drugs, this person will choose to do so, or not, based on his value-system. If this person gives into the pressure that is put on him by his peers that implies that the opinion of his peers is higher on his hierarchy of values than not using this drug. It may be however that only this person knows if he is subjecting one value to a higher, or lower one.

Two outcomes may be achieved by this man's actions: 1) he may be pleased that he has gained a better sense of esteem from his friends, or 2) he leaves displeased in what he has done. In the first case, his pleasure and its cause are self-evident. In the second case the man has found that he has (either) temporarily betrayed his value-system, or the more likely answer, his displeasure is a sign that he must reevaluate his value-system because as he acted in accordance to it, he will find something is wrong.

So in all apparent cases, people act in accordance to their value-system. This is why people are often evaluated by their actions. This allows others a glimpse of their value-system. People then draw responses based on their own value-system. This is the implicit method of how rational people evaluate one-another.