Feeling or Reason? Which is the Master?

I admit, this title is a straw man. The true answer goes something like this:

Reason needs feeling to be reasonable; feeling needs to reason to be valuable.

Yin and Yang - not "Yaldaoboth" - the western mythos - but the complementarity at the root of being. Simple answer: superstition brings bad luck, to quote Raymond Smullyan.

Feeling is Neurobiological

Attachment theory has the ontological potential to change and persuade any mind that has come to believe that reality is inherently dysfunctional, that it isn't, in fact, wrong; but rather, and much more logically, the wrongness exists in my brain as the neurologically "locked in" structuring that my brain underwent from gestation in the mothers womb to the events up until this present moment. Point-counterpoint. You are locked in - a function of ignorance overzealously claims "reality is dysfunctional", and then posits the truly ludicrous idea that something "other" - the "other" - made the world this way. We must stop it!

Fact is, if you didn't experience A, you wouldn't be experiencing B. If B didn't experience C, A wouldn't have become a 'sink' for B to spill his problems into. Is the ecological continuity lost on you? There is no "cause" of the problem besides our own ignorance of what is going on. Projection is not a solution - but a problem that needs to be understood as a problem of the human brain mind. Reality is beautiful, in fact; but it is also awful, in fact.

If you want to make it a little better, try and develop the awareness to make yourself more able to tolerate the badness. This is the only realistic solution to the problem at hand: not magic, or sorcery, or primitiveness that depends upon circular reasoning that ultimately has its basis in the facts of the embodied realm. The brain holds those facts, and the only way to fix yourself is to look upon what exists, and ask yourself: is love real enough to overcome the disaster that I see?

Reason is Transcendental

Where does reason exist, besides in the space between us? It cannot be just me, otherwise I wouldn't have any means of knowing or conversing with others. Similarly, it can't be just the others: since the others are necessarily acting upon a body that has evolved to "feel" - and via feeling, come to know itself more truly.

So reason is that point between "where I feel", and "what is reasonable given the conditions I exist within". Reason bridges body with world, and in the process, necessarily interincludes the entire "other", implying a profound dynamical continuum between self and the other.

Reason, ultimately, is also love - as love is the only reasonable emotion given the facts we exist within i.e. a "structural determinism". Attachment theory shows that early-life trauma is the culprit; not Jews, progressives, or anything "spiritual". I could kidnap a newborn baby from a violent and abusive mother and relational context, and although the theft would be wrong, and the separation from the mother problematic, watch how differently the self will develop when the brain incarnates different relational-affective realities!

Only the most immature of minds can fail to realize what this means. It's not, then, anything essential about reality itself; but it is us, our brokenness, our supersititiousness; the problem is our egotism and our need to be right, strong, and only good - never bad.

It is, in other words, not being able to look upon reality as it is, because your early-life trauma makes it too painful for you to look upon.

The pain is real; the alienation is real; and your ability to inhibit yourself, too, is real.

Rome wasn't made in a day, and recovering from the pain of civilizations birth into a world which is truly utopian - because our brains will grow differently - also wont happen in a day.

It takes courage, resilience, and trust (of reality itself). it takes an awareness that enlivenment comes from being with others. It entails knowing that magically harming others - let alone orienting to others in a negative or adversarial way - is contrary to the symmetry-seeking logic of your brain dynamics; symmetry is the best way to dissipate energy. Care for others is the best way to experience peace, relaxation and wellbeing in reality.

The converse, on the other hand, is the very source of the fearfulness, anger and shame that we feel. Hatred breeds hatred; anger, anger. If I yell at you in an irritated voice "you're just such an irritable person", you'd think it was a joke, but humans do this all the time: its psychological. Its about what we think we need to do to help regulate what were feeling.

a reply to: Astrocyte

Thinking versus Feeling

I'm not sure one is better than the other. Some people are better with feelings. Some people are better with math, logic, and reason.

I think there's another part of the mind, a higher level of consciousness that knows when to go with feelings and when to go with thinking depending on the situation. Sort of like the mind, body, spirit dichotomy. Or in psychology of types you have: King, Magician, Warrior, and Lover. Magician is for thinking and secret knowledge. The Warrior is for all things physical. And the Lover is for feeling meaning and connectedness with reality and ideas. And the King manages which of the three are the most appropriately needed or to be accessed for a situation.

These archetypes are popular in movies and TV. In Star Trek, what makes the characters work together is the relationship of the 3 types. Captain Kirk (the Warrior), McCoy (the passionate Lover), and Spock (the Magician and thinker). Together they become a greater whole.

The movie the Wizard of Oz is amazing for these types. You have Lion (the Warrior), the Strawman (the thinker), the Tin Man (the lover). The Lion is lookng for courage but he's the only one who acts courageously. The Strawman wanted a brain and he's the one who thinks to solve problems. The Tin Man wanted a heart yet he was the only one with empathy and feelings. Dorothy wanted direction. And only when Dorothy meets the Oz (the King), does she integrate or organizes these other three types back into her mind she is then able to wake up from being bonked on the head.

In Star Wars you have Luke (the king), Hans Solo (the warrior), Obi Wan (Magician), and Leia (the lover). In depth psychology terms, only when you properly access these four archetypes you are able to defeat the evil emperor.

But there are shadow types for each of the types. For example, the shadow type for the Warrior is the Sadist. Someone who becomes to enveloped by the Sadist will do terrible things. But becoming a strong warrior requires be able to attack. It's the King properly accessed that keeps the Sadist in check. There's a lot of stuff here to study with depth psychology. It's pretty interesting if you choose to use it as a model for understanding human psychology.

Feeling tempered with logic.
Thinking tempered with compassion.
A healthy combination of those two is best, in my opinion.

a reply to: Astrocyte

From your thread

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Crazy People Think They Have All The Answers

I would add to that that a therapist who manages to somehow even tenuously introduce somewhere in their observations "early childhood trauma" in most of their essays is coming from a position of not having read enough literature that they accuse others of.

You have some insights that prove worthy and well argued; if early childhood trauma and you have yet to define levels of trauma or its prevalence or even as applied to different ages or different cultures was such a debilitating form, it is a miracle we have evolved to the age of reason. In other words society would have collapsed more often and more violently than has been evident.

How did society ever do without psychologists. We managed to get from agrarian to the city state and the industrial revolution without a formalized psychology. Psychiatrist became the new witch doctor/priest.

I do not have patients as I believe you have mentioned in the past that you are a counselor. I am a student of the human condition as much as the next serious thinker. You keep slipping in the early childhood trauma "superstitiously".

Keep thinking everyone is broken, you make a caring counselor. Don't expect everyone to buy everything you sell.

Those of us who did not have childhood trauma - must ask you to "stop it" as you suggest. Stop.

Now I will ask rather fruitlessly, as attested by most of your threads that you comment and get into a relationship with your audience.

Feelings and sensations arise and the mind tries to work out (reason) why they have arisen and mind then tries to figure out how to prevent the feeling from coming again or how to get rid of it now.
The feeling or sensation is real - it is actually happening - it is life itself. But the feeling is not wanted so the mind does it's best to reject the feeling. 'I don't want this - I want other than this'.
Notice that there is the idea of 'a feeling' and 'a me' that has the feeling - is this idea true?

Where is the separate me that has a feeling? Isn't it just a thought, a belief?
Really there is just a feeling, a sensation. If it is found that there is no one feeling the feeling - in fact it is just sensation/feeling arising - it will be found that the feeling/sensation passes by just like everything else.

The only cure to all 'your problems' is the discovery that there is no one feeling feelings!!
Forever seeking relief for something which is not real is eternal damnation.

a reply to: StephenLeClaire

Feeling tempered with logic.
Thinking tempered with compassion

Agreed and very well put. I would possibly use "reason" rather than logic.

wiki

Reason and logic can however be thought of as distinct, although logic is one important aspect of reason. Author Douglas Hofstadter, in Gödel, Escher, Bach, characterizes the distinction in this way. Logic is done inside a system while reason is done outside the system by such methods as skipping steps, working backward, drawing diagrams, looking at examples, or seeing what happens if you change the rules of the system.[33] Reason is a type of thought, and the word "logic" involves the attempt to describe rules or norms by which reasoning operates, so that orderly reasoning can be taught

a reply to: Astrocyte


"Reason, ultimately, is also love - as love is the only reasonable emotion given the facts we exist within i.e. a "structural determinism". Attachment theory shows that early-life trauma is the culprit; not Jews, progressives, or anything "spiritual". I could kidnap a newborn baby from a violent and abusive mother and relational context, and although the theft would be wrong, and the separation from the mother problematic, watch how differently the self will develop when the brain incarnates different relational-affective realities! "


Yeah that is called kidnapping and its a federal offence where in you example means life imprisonment. From a psychological standpoint despite the fact you state it would be wrong, the words you are using present. That your feelings about your opinion is entertaining dark responses to others in an internet public forum.

a reply to: Astrocyte


See using the term "wrong" is in reality an understatement.

originally posted by: Astrocyte
I admit, this title is a straw man. The true answer goes something like this:

Reason needs feeling to be reasonable; feeling needs to reason to be valuable.

Yin and Yang - not "Yaldaoboth" - the western mythos - but the complementarity at the root of being. Simple answer: superstition brings bad luck, to quote Raymond Smullyan.

Feeling is Neurobiological

Attachment theory has the ontological potential to change and persuade any mind that has come to believe that reality is inherently dysfunctional, that it isn't, in fact, wrong; but rather, and much more logically, the wrongness exists in my brain as the neurologically "locked in" structuring that my brain underwent from gestation in the mothers womb to the events up until this present moment. Point-counterpoint. You are locked in - a function of ignorance overzealously claims "reality is dysfunctional", and then posits the truly ludicrous idea that something "other" - the "other" - made the world this way. We must stop it!

Fact is, if you didn't experience A, you wouldn't be experiencing B. If B didn't experience C, A wouldn't have become a 'sink' for B to spill his problems into. Is the ecological continuity lost on you? There is no "cause" of the problem besides our own ignorance of what is going on. Projection is not a solution - but a problem that needs to be understood as a problem of the human brain mind. Reality is beautiful, in fact; but it is also awful, in fact.

If you want to make it a little better, try and develop the awareness to make yourself more able to tolerate the badness. This is the only realistic solution to the problem at hand: not magic, or sorcery, or primitiveness that depends upon circular reasoning that ultimately has its basis in the facts of the embodied realm. The brain holds those facts, and the only way to fix yourself is to look upon what exists, and ask yourself: is love real enough to overcome the disaster that I see?

Reason is Transcendental

Where does reason exist, besides in the space between us? It cannot be just me, otherwise I wouldn't have any means of knowing or conversing with others. Similarly, it can't be just the others: since the others are necessarily acting upon a body that has evolved to "feel" - and via feeling, come to know itself more truly.

So reason is that point between "where I feel", and "what is reasonable given the conditions I exist within". Reason bridges body with world, and in the process, necessarily interincludes the entire "other", implying a profound dynamical continuum between self and the other.

Reason, ultimately, is also love - as love is the only reasonable emotion given the facts we exist within i.e. a "structural determinism". Attachment theory shows that early-life trauma is the culprit; not Jews, progressives, or anything "spiritual". I could kidnap a newborn baby from a violent and abusive mother and relational context, and although the theft would be wrong, and the separation from the mother problematic, watch how differently the self will develop when the brain incarnates different relational-affective realities!

Only the most immature of minds can fail to realize what this means. It's not, then, anything essential about reality itself; but it is us, our brokenness, our supersititiousness; the problem is our egotism and our need to be right, strong, and only good - never bad.

It is, in other words, not being able to look upon reality as it is, because your early-life trauma makes it too painful for you to look upon.

The pain is real; the alienation is real; and your ability to inhibit yourself, too, is real.

Rome wasn't made in a day, and recovering from the pain of civilizations birth into a world which is truly utopian - because our brains will grow differently - also wont happen in a day.

It takes courage, resilience, and trust (of reality itself). it takes an awareness that enlivenment comes from being with others. It entails knowing that magically harming others - let alone orienting to others in a negative or adversarial way - is contrary to the symmetry-seeking logic of your brain dynamics; symmetry is the best way to dissipate energy. Care for others is the best way to experience peace, relaxation and wellbeing in reality.

The converse, on the other hand, is the very source of the fearfulness, anger and shame that we feel. Hatred breeds hatred; anger, anger. If I yell at you in an irritated voice "you're just such an irritable person", you'd think it was a joke, but humans do this all the time: its psychological. Its about what we think we need to do to help regulate what were feeling.

Here is a TED talk that is very insightful. It has to do with left and right hemispheres of the brain.

IN SPECIFICALLY dealing with WHAT?
Philosophy?
Logic
or functionality?

a reply to: Astrocyte

feeling needs to reason to be valuable.

I had to stop right there in the reading.

'Feeling' needs no reason other than feeling.

If it feels good...

Reason - reason depends on your grounding.

Do you reason from a secular point of view? A Christian point of view? Add your __________ point of view here.

Point being.

Feelings? You can allow yourself to be coerced into feeling.

A sweet puppy saved from death throws on YouTube.

Someone who berates you in front of coworkers.

A loved one who rejects or accepts you.

It goes on and on.

It's when you STOP being a SLAVE to 'feelings' - your life starts to count.

The 'Master' is who you make or choose to believe in.

I think feelings. The only use of reasoning is to get to the best feeling.

originally posted by: Astrocyte
I admit, this title is a straw man. The true answer goes something like this:

Reason needs feeling to be reasonable; feeling needs to reason to be valuable.

Feeling is definitely the master.

That's why waterboarding exists.