Originally posted by traditionaldrummer
I can understand how positive attitudes and positive emotional states can directly affect us as well as those around us. What I'm having difficulty
with is how exactly to convey such positivity to things such as the earth or other objects that don't directly respond to human emotion. Well, I mean
I could hug a tree but how would I know it's even aware of whatever empathy I'm trying to convey?
To clarify, i feel to view it in positive/negative type lights solely is a bit misleading (for me). While i do view the emotions themselves as
generally "positive," because they feel "good," the experience itself is seen to be beyond such notions as the good emotions are inherently defined by
the "bad." In that, i would hug the tree simply because i wanted to hug the tree. Since "i" am here for a limited amount of time, we choose what to
do with each moment. So, if i was looking at a tree with the choice to either hug it, or not, i might choose either. What "base" i come from while
doing all of this is what i feel is the important part. Before i "thought" about it, i never realized how disparate of a connection there was between
each moment. i feel the actual movement of the... "magnetospheres" at all applicable levels, is what we understand as Love, though i know for myself,
i limited that experience greatly as only an emotion. So, when we base our perspective on the "source" of movement, it is looking at
electricity/magnetism as the observer/action.
Also,. let's assume for argument's sake that this actually works and we send love and vibrations to the earth, and the earth will somehow
utilize this energy. What is the guarantee that the earth would use the sent energy to do something that would specifically benefit humans? Could it
not also use this cache of energy to try to extinguish us if it felt we were harmful to it overall?
So, i think we have established i only speak for myself and my own views. In that, i want to be lazy and not have to constantly say "i feel," "i
think," etc. Those are just a given
There is no guarantee what is given will be returned in kind. However, the only time it isnt seems to be specifically with humans and no other time.
i think this is based in the actual physical effects of a human, or more specifically, dualistic perspective (which i do
feel is demonstrated
partially by the double slit experiment). As i said, i am not necessarily viewing these as the emotions, but what the emotions themselves "stand"
for. Similar to how mathematics is a human representation of the patterns that already exist. So, these emotions are more the fingernail on the
finger, rather than the finger itself. But, by moving the fingernail, we still end up moving the finger. Analogies annoy me frankly, but when trying
to point to (get it?
) a concept beyond the proposed context, i really dont know another way.. When we get wrapped up in the duality of them,
instead of understanding we encompass both sides simultaneously, we can be swept away by even the "best" intentions. The emotions themselves,
be used "negatively," especially if instead of "feeling" it, one "becomes" the mind-based emotion specifically. This usually happens with
something like anger, and the subtlety is demonstrated between the difference of "i feel angry" and "i am angry." So, not only is this choosing to
reside solely in the "action," but choosing to reside in a small part
of the action (in an emotion). It also happens in avoidance, where one
attempts to avoid, at all costs, something which is a part of us (up to and including death). It is in balancing both sides of the "duality" of our
being simultaneously (observer and action), that we can see the value in the "other side" within ourselves, and as a result, between say, you and
There's a lot of other stuff I still have questions about but I'm just trying to understand the basic mechanics of this idea. I apologize for
all the tedium and I do thank you for the time it takes to engage my inquiries.
i only think its "tedious" because we all view the world through such
different eyes. The extent of that divide is mind-boggling, but just
like looking across an ocean, i feel it is still all connected "underneath." When someone like you comes along, asking in depth questions, and
exploring, it does nothing but "make movement" in my perspective. That is how i try to approach others as well, but many have already decided they
know what im talking about, and have already discarded because of that. Not only do you help me explore my perspective, but we are both exploring
each others. In that, i wouldnt mind if you put some of your own contexts forward, so i, and others if they are willing, can learn about how another
sees this place as well
Perhaps through discussion, we can actually start to make movement, as both sides of the "duality" move through space like a binary star, instead of
like an asteroid field
i actually see that our movement in this discussion specifically, is based in the much larger concept that many only
understand as the emotion of love. So, not only are we "talking the talk," but we are also "walking the walk," whether or not we even bring the
emotion into it in the first place. The way i see it, you are already doing what this thread is speaking about traditionaldrummer.
These are things that are very hard to put into words, so i also thank you
for your patience.
edit on 17-6-2011 by sinohptik because: