The Dissonance of Anger

a reply to: 3daysgone

You people please stop. Men don't talk like this. Even if they don't have more sex than love they know someone who does. Just..it's not even funny anymore nor about anger

originally posted by: 3daysgone
a reply to: tetra50

Exactly my point. There are functional and useful reasons to be angry, even as a mode, and especially, of self protection. It's like fight or flight system. All love and joy is great, but it doesn't save us in times of attack and/or strife, frankly.

It does not save this body, but some people believe it will save the most important thing about you, who you are.

3daysgone:
I appreciate your POV, more than you'll ever know, and usually subscribe to it.
However: dependence and the manipulation to reinforce it are a real consideration herein, within this topic. In this way, those forgiving and subjected, continue to be subjected, while they still forgive, but are still being hurt by the fact they forgive and overlook.

Anger serves a real purpose therein. For it propels the one forgiving in nature to get away from those doing that to them.

It's one thing to have an esoteric point of view about such things, and quite another to live with those who torture you, while forgiving them. This is a never ending pain....and no one should live through such, or be expected to, frankly.
Pain will re inform your perspective. To make it stop, you will do and say anything. To make it stop, you will sell your very soul. That's the point of torture. And that's really what we're discussing here.

Within what I describe, anger is hardly dissonant, but necessary for self preservation.
tetra

a reply to: namelesss

It is not inherently 'good' or 'bad', it is just a passing thought. We don't manufacture it, we perceive it as it goes by. If we Know better, we do not act on it and merely experience it as it passes.

I subscribe to your philosophy.

Emotions and feelings are 'thoughts'.

I personally see emotion as a bodily state and feelings as the ideas we have that define WHY we are experiencing that emotion.

*Feelings* are simply mental constructs. In our waking moments throughout our life, we either experience *the emotion* or state of being comfortable or uncomfortable — everything else is an abstraction — an interpretation of that state (feeling).

From the wonderful OP:

For instance, thinking is like "holding", where the external part is the act of thought, whereas the internal part is the flow of feeling and meaning that we seek to represent to ourselves. Feeling is the cortical midline network that compels a particular feeling-relation to the world

Again: I believe we only experience two emotions throughout our lives—we are either comfortable or uncomfortable. Allowing the angry thought (feeling) to pass, as you suggested, will bring us back to *the state of being* comfortable.

originally posted by: Involutionist
a reply to: namelesss
"Emotions and feelings are 'thoughts'."

I personally see emotion as a bodily state and feelings as the ideas we have that define WHY we are experiencing that emotion. *Feelings* are simply mental constructs. In our waking moments throughout our life, we either experience *the emotion* or state of being comfortable or uncomfortable — everything else is an abstraction — an interpretation of that state (feeling).

Let me clarify; 'feelings' are 'thoughts', 'emotions' are the physical manifestations of those 'thought/feelings'.

Again: I believe we only experience two emotions throughout our lives—we are either comfortable or uncomfortable. Allowing the angry thought (feeling) to pass, as you suggested, will bring us back to *the state of being* comfortable.

Sans 'thought' there is no 'feeling', no 'emotion'.

There are many 'feelings' to perceive; hungry, happy, contemplative, sad, angry, surprised... and all are a huge spectrum!
To think that they all can be so easily labelled into so simple categories, comfortable or uncomfortable, seems a bit... premature.
The same 'feeling' that you might find uncomfortable, I can find quite comfortable.
It's a matter of Perspective;

"For every Perspective, there is an equal and opposite Perspective!" - First Law of Soul Dynamics

originally posted by: 3daysgone
a reply to: namelesss
"Emotions and feelings are 'thoughts'."

I am not so sure about that.

Me neither, but the simplest explanation that takes all into account, and predicts, is usually considered the best.
Occam's Razor precludes the more complex, if the simple tell the story.

It could be that emotions and feelings just bring about thoughts, which would mean that they are not the thoughts themselves. Or it could be that feelings are like the reflexes of the thought.

Could be, but, again, we have Occam to deal with.

"But the reality is that we are all humans, and one 'feeling' (thought/ego) that humans experience is 'anger'. It is not inherently 'good' or 'bad', it is just a passing thought. We don't manufacture it, we perceive it as it goes by. If we Know better, we do not act on it and merely experience it as it passes. If we don't, there is often Hell to pay!"

That is is not just eloquent, but as grand of an analogy that I have heard.

Heh.. Thank you! *__-

a reply to: tetra50

3daysgone: I appreciate your POV, more than you'll ever know, and usually subscribe to it. However: dependence and the manipulation to reinforce it are a real consideration herein, within this topic. In this way, those forgiving and subjected, continue to be subjected, while they still forgive, but are still being hurt by the fact they forgive and overlook. Anger serves a real purpose therein. For it propels the one forgiving in nature to get away from those doing that to them. It's one thing to have an esoteric point of view about such things, and quite another to live with those who torture you, while forgiving them. This is a never ending pain....and no one should live through such, or be expected to, frankly. Pain will re inform your perspective. To make it stop, you will do and say anything. To make it stop, you will sell your very soul. That's the point of torture. And that's really what we're discussing here. Within what I describe, anger is hardly dissonant, but necessary for self preservation.

Please don't get me wrong. I am trying to equate this with a what would Jesus do analogy. I couldn't do it. Your arguments are as good as it can get for this world. So I do agree with you.

a reply to: namelesss

Yes. But that is assuming that occam's razor is the end all be all of it all.

originally posted by: 3daysgone
a reply to: namelesss
Yes. But that is assuming that occam's razor is the end all be all of it all.

If you would care to make the attempt to refute Occam's Razor, I'm listening.
Evidence and logic and science bears to it's truth, but if you have some new evidence in refutation, I am sitting at your feet...

a reply to: namelesss

I starred your first comment because it resonates with my metaphysics.

Let me clarify; 'feelings' are 'thoughts', 'emotions' are the physical manifestations of those 'thought/feelings'.

I agree and understood what you were getting at in your comment. Again (as I stated in my initial comment): I personally see emotion as a bodily state and feelings as the ideas we have that define WHY we are experiencing that emotion.

To think that they all can be so easily labelled into so simple categories, comfortable or uncomfortable, seems a bit... premature.

Again: we only experience two bodily states. We are either comfortable at any given moment or uncomfortable. Contemplate it for yourself — empirically weigh it out.

There are many 'feelings' to perceive; hungry, happy, contemplative, sad, angry, surprised... and all are a huge spectrum!

I agree. As I stated in my initial comment:

*Feelings* are simply mental constructs. In our waking moments throughout our life, we either experience *the emotion* or state of being comfortable or uncomfortable — everything else is an abstraction — an interpretation of that state (feeling).

In other words: hungry, happy, contemplative, sad, angry, surprised — are just ways of describing WHY we are comfortable or uncomfortable at any given moment.

The same 'feeling' that you might find uncomfortable, I can find quite comfortable. It's a matter of Perspective;

Fair enough. However, keep in mind that I can be comfortable or uncomfortable without any thoughts (feelings) as to why. I can be in a state of being comfortable or uncomfortable and THEN have thoughts/ideas that allow me to define WHY I am comfortable or uncomfortable. Yet, those thoughts are only ideas — feelings. Being in a state of comfortable, or uncomfortable, can exist without any thoughts—feelings. The moment I generate thoughts, feelings will arise.

Our *personal* life experiences, beliefs, conditioning, environment, etc. cause us to have different ideas (feelings) about emotion. The "same feeling" perspective you put forth becomes tricky when one contemplates this angle. Can we really possess "the same feelings", as you suggested...?

Feelings are just *personal* mental constructs that help one DEFINE an emotional state (bodily sensation). Yet, the emotion remains the same — we are either comfortable or uncomfortable despite the *personal* reasons our minds come up with as to WHY.

Also, you have confused *feeling* with *emotion* in your last statement. There is a difference between emotion and feeling. Yet, you are aware of the difference despite the contradiction in your above quoted words.

I will meet you half way, tho. Feelings can generate emotion. Emotion can generate feelings. It can become a cycle. I can have a feeling the makes me more comfortable or more uncomfortable.

Again: feelings are a mental construct and emotion is a bodily state — this is something we agree on.

"For every Perspective, there is an equal and opposite Perspective!" - First Law of Soul Dynamics

That sounds too new age for my taste. I'm more Kybalion kind of guy...

a reply to: Astrocyte


"Love and Hate" are not related even in terms of being opposites. "Love" is an act of logical consciousness. "Hate" is the thought product of natural aggression resulting from animalistic behaviors that humans have yet to shake off. You could call "hate" as a state of mind, as a profound ignorance of thought caused by residual instinctual behaviors. Where as, given no parameters, "love" just is....

originally posted by: Involutionist
a reply to: namelesss
However, keep in mind that I can be comfortable or uncomfortable without any thoughts (feelings) as to why.

I'm thinking that we cannot be comfortable or uncomfortable in a thoughtless/Zen state.
We might be experiencing one or the other state, but it comes and goes undefined, unjudged.

I can be in a state of being comfortable or uncomfortable and THEN have thoughts/ideas that allow me to define WHY I am comfortable or uncomfortable. Yet, those thoughts are only ideas — feelings. Being in a state of comfortable, or uncomfortable, can exist without any thoughts—feelings. The moment I generate thoughts, feelings will arise.

I cannot agree that we 'generate' thought.
We perceive thought just as we perceive everything else.
The 'why' of 'comfort/discomfort is rational, logic. Such thought is not the same as 'feeling thoughts'.
The moment one feels frightened can be 'interpreted' until the cows come home, but the feelings come and go, whether we 'interpret' them or not.

Our *personal* life experiences, beliefs, conditioning, environment, etc. cause us to have different ideas (feelings) about emotion. The "same feeling" perspective you put forth becomes tricky when one contemplates this angle. Can we really possess "the same feelings", as you suggested...?

A) we cannot 'posses' (keep, attach to, stash for future reference...) a thought/feeling any more than a screen can possess the passing movie.
B) There is One unchanging Universal Reality, we are all unique Conscious Perspectives (Souls) that perceive/experience the bit of Reality before us, whether a rock, the ocean or a dream or a 'feeling'. If the feeling is sufficiently strong, the body emotes, there are tears of joy, tears of grief, laughter... the physical manifestation of the passing thought/feeling. It seems so simple.
And, in a way, I think that is what you are saying, from your unique Perspective.
We both describe the same One Reality, just different Perspectives.

Feelings are just *personal* mental constructs that help one DEFINE an emotional state (bodily sensation). Yet, the emotion remains the same — we are either comfortable or uncomfortable despite the *personal* reasons our minds come up with as to WHY.

Interesting Perspective, I think that I can translate it; the sad feeling 'defines' the tears as sad.

Also, you have confused *feeling* with *emotion* in your last statement. There is a difference between emotion and feeling. Yet, you are aware of the difference despite the contradiction in your above quoted words.

No confusion, feelings are thoughts, emotion (tears, laughter...) is the physical manifestation of 'feelings'.
One can say that the 'feelings' define the 'emotion', in a way, as one can say that the diploma 'defines' the education. Seems messy, though, from here.
Besides, how can a feeling be 'defined'? The feeling of the burned finger... over the flame cannot be 'defined', it can only be experienced (experience is Knowledge).

Again: feelings are a mental construct and emotion is a bodily state — this is something we agree on.

We are on the same page, basically, just different Perspectives.

"For every Perspective, there is an equal and opposite Perspective!" - First Law of Soul Dynamics

That sounds too new age for my taste. I'm more Kybalion kind of guy...

New or old, it remains a Universal Truth!
It is balance; Yin/Yang of the Universe.
Reality is ALL Perspective!
Don't let the sound/feelings about something (comfortable or uncomfortable) blind you to it's deeper Truths. *__-

originally posted by: namelesss

originally posted by: 3daysgone
a reply to: namelesss
Yes. But that is assuming that occam's razor is the end all be all of it all.

If you would care to make the attempt to refute Occam's Razor, I'm listening.
Evidence and logic and science bears to it's truth, but if you have some new evidence in refutation, I am sitting at your feet...

Well, science itself has a penchant for complexity. Physics can become so complex that numerous theories abound. Complexity can be found everywhere in nature. How did the universe come into being. God would be the simplest answer.

Occam’s Razor is actually a vestigial remnant of medieval science. It is literally a historical artifact: William of Ockham employed this principle in his own 13th century work on divine omnipotence and other topics “resistant” to scientific methods. The continuing use of parsimony in modern science is an atavistic practice equivalent to a cardiologist resorting to bloodletting when heart medication doesn’t work.

Don't get me wrong, I believe that the simplest answer is a very good answer, but is it always the right answer?

originally posted by: breakingbs
a reply to: 3daysgone

You people please stop. Men don't talk like this. Even if they don't have more sex than love they know someone who does. Just..it's not even funny anymore nor about anger

Your perspective of men may be somewhat narrow.

originally posted by: 3daysgone

originally posted by: namelesss

originally posted by: 3daysgone
a reply to: namelesss
Yes. But that is assuming that occam's razor is the end all be all of it all.

If you would care to make the attempt to refute Occam's Razor, I'm listening.
Evidence and logic and science bears to it's truth, but if you have some new evidence in refutation, I am sitting at your feet...

Well, science itself has a penchant for complexity.

That is certainly true, but the theories that attempt to explain the complexities that science finds still adheres to Occam.
The simplest theory that both explains and predicts is still considered the best.
Why?
Evidence/data supports such a conclusion.

Physics can become so complex that numerous theories abound.

Of course, but only one theory is 'right', and that one seems to always follow Occam's strictures.

Complexity can be found everywhere in nature.

Such is a matter of Perspective.
We can both observe something and you can be awed at the complexity that you perceive, while I am awed by the simplicity.
Like 'beauty', like 'good/evil', 'complexity' exists in the eye (thoughts) of the observer.

How did the universe come into being.

Your accepted, yet unexamined premise, is that there was a 'beginning' for the Universe.
That is a faulty/impossible premise, for a number of reasons.

God would be the simplest answer.

The simplest answer that both explains and predicts!
Micky Mouse is a simple(ton's) answer, also, but it explains nothing (how did 'God' make something from nothing? How? Why?), nor does the answer predict 'future' events.
'God/Mickey' is not so much a 'simple' answer as a simpleton's answer.
A faulty answer, nonetheless, to a faulty premise.

Occam’s Razor is actually a vestigial remnant of medieval science. It is literally a historical artifact: William of Ockham employed this principle in his own 13th century work on divine omnipotence and other topics “resistant” to scientific methods. The continuing use of parsimony in modern science is an atavistic practice equivalent to a cardiologist resorting to bloodletting when heart medication doesn’t work.

The cardiologist will ALWAY follow the simplest method that both explains (fixes) and predicts (healing/health ensues).

Don't get me wrong, I believe that the simplest answer is a very good answer, but is it always the right answer?

Again, the Razor is not merely the 'simplest', but the simplest that also explains and predicts; two extremely necessary qualifiers.
One can 'explain' an observed phenomenon falling all over oneself with the addition of new Universes and dimensions and what all, and it will never end because it will fail in it's ever spiral...

"...scientists are condemned by their unexamined assumptions to study the nature of mirrors only by cataloging and investigating everything that mirrors can reflect. It is an endless process that never makes progress, that never reaches closure, that generates endless debate between those who have seen different reflected images, and whose enduring product is voluminous descriptions of particular phenomena." - The Adapted Mind

That's why we need philosophers. *__-

Is it always the 'right' answer?
It is always 'righter' than the theory that it replaces.
It, in turn, if replaced by another theory, will be surpassed in simplicity, explanatory and predictive power.
It might even be a bit more 'complex appearing', but it will still be the simplest theory that also explains and predicts.

Just look at our best theories, those called/accepted as Universal Laws;
"An object at rest tends to remain at rest unless acted upon by an outside force.".
"Everything is arguable!"
"Truth is all inclusive!"
"For every action, there is an equal and opposite action!"...
All so 'simple' in their Universality!
Almost like there's a rule, the greater the Truth, the simpler.

a reply to: namelesss

Nice answer. I like it.

The simplest answer that both explains and predicts! Micky Mouse is a simple(ton's) answer, also, but it explains nothing (how did 'God' make something from nothing? How? Why?), nor does the answer predict 'future' events. 'God/Mickey' is not so much a 'simple' answer as a simpleton's answer. A faulty answer, nonetheless, to a faulty premise.

God is just what I refer to The One as. How did God Do it? With his will. Why? For his pleasure. Simple answers.

3daysgone: I get that you're coming from a Jesus perspective of forgiveness and salvaging your soul and who you are. And I quite agree, in concept, as you've pointed out. Perhaps this is more important that continual suffering, but that is my thought: that Jesus' s way in this world, today, would have him crucified perpetually, and I have a difficult time believing that this was meant for anyone, and/or Him, as well.

On another point: Someone pointed out on this thread that it may, in fact, be an assumption that Occam's Razor is all that logical. I've been wanting to comment the same for years and just never got around to it. I don't know that I find the concept of Occam's Razor all that logical at all.
tetra

originally posted by: 3daysgone
a reply to: namelesss

Nice answer. I like it.

The simplest answer that both explains and predicts! Micky Mouse is a simple(ton's) answer, also, but it explains nothing (how did 'God' make something from nothing? How? Why?), nor does the answer predict 'future' events. 'God/Mickey' is not so much a 'simple' answer as a simpleton's answer. A faulty answer, nonetheless, to a faulty premise.

God is just what I refer to The One as. How did God Do it? With his will. Why? For his pleasure. Simple answers.

All I can say is that "Truth is ALL inclusive!"! *__-

tat tvam asi (en.wikipedia.org...)

a reply to: namelesss

A sports fan from the nearest 'grudge' team shoots a dog just as it starts to attack a small child - saving the child from death/bad injuries.

Papers the next day run stories with the following headlines:

1. Local rag - 'name of locally hated team' fan shoots family pet nearly hitting small child.

2. Grudge team's local rag - Hero 'Same team name' fan saves young childs life

3. National - Probably no coverage actually but lets say - Man shoots dog saving toddlers life

4. National with anti gun stance or pro gun stance may run other emotive headlines.

My point is although all the headlines are 'true' they each invoke different responses depending on the spin of the one providing the 'truth'.

The truth remains the same in each instance but how it is presented often seems to take precedence on our understanding - it is not always easy to remove all the spin and glitzy presentation to see the underlying truth.

originally posted by: johnb
a reply to: namelesss

A sports fan from the nearest 'grudge' team shoots a dog just as it starts to attack a small child - saving the child from death/bad injuries.

Papers the next day run stories with the following headlines:

1. Local rag - 'name of locally hated team' fan shoots family pet nearly hitting small child.

2. Grudge team's local rag - Hero 'Same team name' fan saves young childs life...

We are all UNIQUE Conscious Perspectives (Souls) that perceive/experience the One unchanging Universal Reality uniquely, every moment of Universal existence!

The truth remains the same in each instance but how it is presented often seems to take precedence on our understanding - it is not always easy to remove all the spin and glitzy presentation to see the underlying truth.

'Spin' and 'glitz' are just other Perspectives that we try to 'discount/discredit.
ALL Perspectives are of Truth!
All Perspectives are far from perceiving the whole picture!
All are 'spun' if you believe that others that differ must be 'wrong'.

Every Perspective is unique every moment!

"For every Perspective, there is an equal and opposite Perspective!" - The First Law of Soul Dynamics (Book of Fudd)

"The complete Universe (Reality/Truth/God/'Self!'/Tao/Brahman... or any feature herein...) can be completely defined/described as the synchronous sum-total of all Perspectives!" - Book of Fudd
ALL INCLUSIVE!!!

"The acceptance and understanding of other Perspectives furthers our acquaintance with Reality!"