#humanistic science

Of those who've taught me, successfully, your lesson was quicker, sharper, and fashioned from finer materials - than any parent, professor, or friend figure I've known yet. I explained to you that I was learning to believe and operate from the premise that people may and do function on fundamentally differing dimensions. It sounds simple, but what it Really is - is hugely large in its dynamic.

The discussion was about appreciations, how they're formed, where they originate. I asked which came first - the Want or the Need? The chicken or the egg. I learned that, where love was concerned for Mike and his girlfriend, his wants were based on perceived needs. My needs have usually been based on wants, for the most part of my life. (That's changing now, slowly.)   And while it may seem obvious that Wanting(a) being based on perceived Needing(b) is just another way of saying Want(a) based on Want(c) - Mike's Needing(b) is positioned at level 1, and the Want(c) is at -1. I guess what that just means is that the -1 Wanting(c) no longer sways influence. Wanting becomes needing when it's bad enough. Once it's bad enough and feels like a need, and I suppose if a learned progression in life does nothing to dissuade the belief in the need, it becomes the first level and replaces itself as a need.  We discussed having compatibility and risking lessened passion -- but then, back to appreciations and loving. Adhering to the premise of others holding fundamentally differing dimensions (and having all else emanate from that central idea), then it stands that it may stand that origins of appreciations will differ respectively. The toggling flip-clock integers of 1 and -1 will hold both similar quality and differing adjectives. (Irrelevant, after realizing the simplicity of our systems.)  Anyway, the end goal was determining happiness. Mike doesn't know where Love, the idea of Love, fits into his life. His life exists in a whole ton of dimensions and overlapping categories, as do all of ours - and one dimensional category could be called Society. Let's pair with that category, Society, words like Disney and Romance and Media. So, here presents the road to the gates to the door to the knot in this following of thoughts.  Suspicion plays a part in today's world. False advertisements, trick links to junk mail, shrewd comedy and undermining the evil amusements of good friends -- are all examples in which some level of modern suspicion may prove useful. Anything once proved useful at any capacity will forever remain in the backs of minds, if not on the tips of tongues. So, if suspicion may be useful, then, following Mike's psychological environment, Let it be useful here. Here, deliberating over the value of appreciations, and the quality of those values, and whether origins of values determine their qualities. Disney, Romance, Media -- Society -- tells us about one idea about Love, primarily. At the forefront of their practices, at any rate. It's one shaped by the vague incongruence of things. That Love should sprout from nowhere and without reasoning, overtake you, and wield your soul from a Needing at level 1, replacing Wanting and omnipotently putting it at -1.  Well, it follows that there can exist no predictions, no measurable tact or tail premonitions to indicate the coming or presence of Love -- in seeing this method of defining Love as what Society does with it. Therein lies the cue for suspicion's usefulness to resurface and play its hand.

Mike is a logical being. Works very hard and calculates requirements against prerequisites against strengths and stressors of reality. This makes him both reliable and difficult, as he refutes the idea of loosened grip on things. But, now -- since he is a man of the 'real world', and has been subject to it without his choosing before being equipped with his Solution of Decisions, Mike feels the ambiguous, intangible tugging of suspicions at the ill-founded ideas of Love, as outlined in Society's practices with the idea. It is only sensible -- to wonder at what is not understood. BUT -- it is only further sensible to call a dog a dog. The Love shaped by the vague incongruence of things and Society doesn't originate from ideas about logic. Following this, it doesn't make sense, and following further, it is unexplainable. Realizing calling what doesn't make sense as being the exact the opposite, is wise.   Realizing what's what is the furthest of followings. 

So Mike's only hesitance, it would seem, only originates from his not-yet solidified disbelief in one version of Love's definitions. All he would need to do, to properly clear the path to determine the happiness, is reaffirm his affirmations in the specificity and patience of practical calculations. As was above stated, Mike's Wants are based on his (perceived) Needs. Wants exist, for him, at level 2 centrality. Needs at level 1 - most central. The existing beliefs In Mike act like a river current, and it goes this way. 

He will determine happiness if he stays with his current girlfriend, who meets, carries out and surpasses all of his wanted needs. Because he is a wanting-based-on-needing being. His appreciations are of practical origin, and because of this, his wants are practically oriented too. Needing is practical. Wanting is sometimes impractical, and, sometimes, Very impractical. 

The first happiness was a fulfillment of a need. But wanting allows for determining so many other happinesses.  His relationship produces the first happiness, and will continue to produce subsequent happinesses -- because his appreciations originate in practicality, and his wants are successively practical in orientation. On a personal note: I think I believe developed appreciations make for better Love than modern society's: "love because love" argument.