Your Feelings, and Why They do not Matter.

a reply to: LesMisanthrope

re: argpme

There is cognitive and affective empathy. You don't have to value someone's feelings in order to experience cognitive empathy. Cognitive empathy would simply be understanding another's perspective, or being able to put yourself in their shoes. Affective empathy would be required to value their feelings.

Autistics have issues with the white matter wiring between the prefrontal cortex and left amygdala. This combination would be required to process cognitive empathy. Psychopaths have the reverse deficit, between the PFC and right amygdala. They may have no issues with cognitive empathy but have poor wiring for affective empathy.

In many cases, if an autistic or psychopath puts in effort to activate the circuit they can process correctly, for the autistic usually after the fact, for the psychopath if it suits their fancy (and is deemed worth the effort).

a reply to: LesMisanthrope

Empathy (understanding how others feels) is just one form of emotion. Kindness, wishing happiness for others is another.

I do not value one person over another. We are all Gods. We all have The Power of Creativity. We are all important and valuable. Emotion is expression as well as Thought and Belief/Faith, but not all expression is Joyful, some expressions bring pain and Empathy/Compassion/Kindness increases Joy and decreases pain.

a reply to: LesMisanthrope

Love yourself first, only then you can love your fellow Man.

Ayn Rand provides some good clues on self interest.

www.theobjectivestandard.com...

Have you accepted the principle of altruism? If so, how is it affecting your life?

Have you ever done something for the sake of others—at the expense of what you really thought was best for your own life? For instance: Have you ever accepted an invitation to dine with someone whose company you do not enjoy—because you didn’t want to hurt his or her feelings? Have you ever skipped an event—such as a ski trip or a weekend at the beach with your friends—in order to spend time with family members you’d really rather not see? Have you ever remained in a relationship that you know is not in your best interest—because you think that he or she couldn’t handle the breakup?

Conversely, have you ever felt guilty for not sacrificing for others? Have you ever felt ashamed for doing something that was in your own best interest? For instance, have you felt guilty for not giving change to a beggar on a street corner? Or guilty for pursuing a degree in business or art or something you love—rather than doing something allegedly “noble,” such as joining the Peace Corps?

These are just some of the consequences of accepting the morality of altruism.

Altruism is not good for your life: If you practice it consistently, it leads to death

a reply to: LesMisanthrope

So i take it you agree with my signature?

a reply to: LesMisanthrope

However, how we feel about something is not indicative of that something, but is wholly indicative of he whom experiences it. Nothing besides.

So does this sum up your post then?

Experiencing is subjective, which you vehemently deny.

I mean, let's be honest here, that's really what all these threads are ever about – projection of your inner feelings. Which is pushing your subjective state into objective reality. Except I gather you don't much prefer this idea of subjectivity since you can't adequately explain it. Surely it relates to our bodies so inevitably it must be the body. I am not a proponent of this idea, but you are more than welcome to your creative opinions

I'm trying to understand how the subjective self controls the objective self. Your solution, as made evident from your rhetoric, is to deny the former. I'm not convinced it's that simple.

a reply to: LesMisanthrope

What if something could not express its feelings, perhaps in a coma, and was completely unconscious of every sensation, could you still empathize with them?

Perhaps not, but one could sympathize.

Do you value beings who express feelings over beings that do not?

Well sure, since I don't get along well with sociopaths. Or is it psychopaths? Bah, I always get those two mixed up

a reply to: LesMisanthrope

HA

Feels good.

I see what you did there.

Feelings are reactions to stimuli. Feelings themselves can be stimuli. You can always have another feeling about your feelings, in an endless chain, if you are so inclined.

You can feel that it is no longer worth your time to feel so strongly about particular things. You can also think about your meta-feelings of efficiency.

You can realize that other people can make this same realization. You can cease taking other people's feelings so seriously.

You can realize how unlikely it is that someone has been through exactly the same thought process as you, in spite of its simplicity.

You can manipulate the crap out of others' feelings, because while you were reading this and arming yourself for a war which you are fighting against no one, other people were sleeping, working, or smoking pot.

OP are you trying to breed the next false flag operative?

That you are so eloquently trying to sell such putrid filth is so timely for what the current trend of handlers could only ask for.

a reply to: WASTYT

I'm trying to understand how the subjective self controls the objective self. Your solution, as made evident from your rhetoric, is to deny the former. I'm not convinced it's that simple.

You are quite right in it not being that simple. You appear to be under the impression that A) there is a subjective self, B) there is an objective self, and C) that A) controls B). My main objection is with C).

Are you so sure that the subjective self controls the objective self? Are you so sure that there is a difference between the subjective and objective selves?

a reply to: BlubberyConspiracy

I'm guessing the irony of someone suggesting that someone is trying to breed a false flag operative with a signature that reads:

"Just look at us. Everything is backwards. Everything is upside down. Doctors destroy health lawyers destroy justice universities destroy knowledge governments destroy freedom the major media destroy information and religion destroys spirituality." - Michael Ellner

is lost on you. Nothing says "I'm content with life" like a complete and utter repulsion toward all of the major institutions which make it possible in this day and age.

a reply to: zackli

So you accept subjectivity i.e experiencing, feeling, the self etc...

For me it's a simple question with a more complex answer - what controls the body?

When "I" (there's that pesky subjective self dude again) decide to control my body (the object[ive]) in any manner- be it conjuring specific memories, raising my hand, typing this key board etc etc... What is the "I" there?

It is very simple to just hand wave it and say it's the body, and that may be all fine and good, except there's a lot my body won't do unless "I" command it to. Of course there's a trillion things going on with my body automatically, i.e outside of "my" conscious control... Where is this delineation? And why? Could this feeling of "me", my self, my identity been in any other body?

originally posted by: WASTYT


It is very simple to just hand wave it and say it's the body, and that may be all fine and good, except there's a lot my body won't do unless "I" command it to. Of course there's a trillion things going on with my body automatically, i.e outside of "my" conscious control... Where is this delineation? And why? Could this feeling of "me", my self, my identity been in any other body?

Thought happens - it say 'I am waving my hand' but really there is a hand waving. Speaking happens, breathing happens, walking happens and then a thought happens that says 'I am walking' but everything is just happening and a thought called I claims it did it.
There is no one doing anything - life is just happening.

A feeling arises and thought says 'hungry' - another thought arises saying 'what's in the fridge' - getting up and walking to the fridge happens and then eating happens.

a reply to: Itisnowagain

So are you saying that "you" don't control your thoughts or certain bodily functions? I'm looking for an explanation of the feeling of being inside my body. I understand the notion that it's an illusion but that lacks any sort of explanatory power from where I'm standing.

I can "think" about waving my hand but not actually command by body to do it. Please explain this

a reply to: WASTYT
This short video may make it clearer.

a reply to: Itisnowagain

Spontaneity implies action without prior thought. Could human society function if we were all acting spontaneously?

ETA

watching the video.. I guess that is one way to look at it. But I have to wonder how much of our premeditation could be subconscious, or so quick that we don't realize it, so it only seems to be out of thin air - which a view like that opens up another can of worms. The conjuring of thoughts or speaking of words is so quick as to seem instantaneous which in of itself has a duration. The guy in the video is saying that he doesn't create the thought. Ok, but it was generated wasn't it? Does what he say do away with what we call decisions? Can't I think about doing something before I do it? It's tricky because we still don't know how the body does this regardless of what you think

originally posted by: WASTYT
a reply to: Itisnowagain

Spontaneity implies action without prior thought. Could human society function if we were all acting spontaneously?

But thought is spontaneous - that's the point.
Life is happening as what is occurring - thought just happens and actions follow or action happens and thought follows.
There is no one thinking - thoughts happen.

Watch the video.

a reply to: WASTYT
Do you have to think about the next thought before it can happen? Do you have to compose it prior to thinking it?
Thought just pops up - look to see the next thought appear.

a reply to: Itisnowagain

There is no one thinking - thoughts happen.

Les Mis should give you a big kiss for this one.

a reply to: Itisnowagain

Do you have to think about the next thought before it can happen? Do you have to compose it prior to thinking it?
Thought just pops up - look to see the next thought appear.

Where does the sense of control come from? I get it, that most thought is subconsciously generated, i.e. we are not aware of most of our thoughts. But when I want to consciously recall something, then there is an element of control there. Sure, my desire to want to recall something may have been spontaneous, or perhaps it was in response to something. Either way after the desire to recall an experience has arisen then I control which memory of it to think about.. Not all thought is completely with out premeditation or control.. Is the sense of control an illusion?

Down the rabbit hole we go...

originally posted by: WASTYT
a reply to: Itisnowagain

There is no one thinking - thoughts happen.

Les Mis should give you a big kiss for this one.

There is no one feeling - there is just sensation happening.
Sensation is constantly changing - there is nothing solid.

The illusion is that there is some thing - but there is just what is appearing/happening.

originally posted by: WASTYTIs the sense of control an illusion?

Of course.