Log in

No account? Create an account

Previous Entry | Next Entry

Daily Writing.

Just with the effort of getting out of bed and into her clothing (with the help of a CNA) Dianne's oxygenation level plummeted  to 58.  She did not become cyanotic, as she did yesterday.  But they thought about taking her to the ER again.  She talked them out of it by the time i got there, but they have allowed her to rest all day.  Monday, a home evaluation is scheduled and my cleaning person is busy, oh well, i was always told, but never believed, that a little work wouldn't hurt me.  Dianne is in good spirits in spite of anything.  Her oxygen level is higher this afternoon than it has been in several days.  Even the food which went from excellent to o.k., is back to good again.

I read an essay yesterday in an anthology of articles on altruism by Stephen G. Post. ("Progress Through Love")  Its too long for me to copy and i have not properly summarized it yet.  I like it but i fear that the scientific investigation of love will have some serious unanticipated and unwanted consequences which Post and others who think like him should consider..  I fear a possible commercialization of love, a possible professionalization of love, and a possible bureaucratization of love -- all of which will turn out to be very unloving and unlovely.  If they follow the path of Sorokin, all may be well.  Sorokin seems to have been cast aside by sociology as being no longer relevant (although this anthology does reference him.).   If science would understand love, it first must change its understanding of science and its understanding of understanding.


( 6 comments — Leave a comment )
Aug. 9th, 2013 12:40 am (UTC)
Re: Love
Huh. Myself, I suspect that love is all tangled up with the mystical experience of belief that another being who isn't oneself really exists, and attention to that being. Neither of which have anything to do with rationality or the rational interpretation of sensory information.
Aug. 9th, 2013 04:59 am (UTC)
studying love
I'm sure some researcher could (and has ) defined love as you did and then find a way to operationalize that definition. For example, one could look at genocides and categorize the different types of people present while it occurs -- victims, bystanders, participants, resisters, helpers, etc., decide that "helpers" meets one's definition of Good Samaritans, Lovers of neighbors, etc. and see if you can see differences between them and other people. This would no doubt serve some worthy purpose, but would this constitute a study of "love?" I am not satisfied that any of the research i have seen on that subject has come any where near close. Of course, i have been out of the loop for over ten years and am not aware of more recent developments.
Aug. 10th, 2013 11:59 pm (UTC)
Ah, I didn't define. I can't. I only tried to describe. A little.
Aug. 11th, 2013 12:29 am (UTC)
belief that another being who isn't oneself exist and attention payed...
That comes as close to a "definition" as many i've heard.
Aug. 21st, 2013 04:46 am (UTC)
Well you know it seems in some spiritualities is because there is a rejection of the notion of individual autonomy (which, of course, includes my individual autonomy as well in that rejected notion) that love is so vital. One loves the apparent individual as a manifestation of the divine. I like to think both ways: the love of a person can lead to the love of all can lead to the love of God. Or the love of God requires us to love what God loves, which is us.
Aug. 21st, 2013 12:19 pm (UTC)
I think you're quite right.
( 6 comments — Leave a comment )



Latest Month

August 2019


Page Summary

Powered by LiveJournal.com
Designed by Tiffany Chow