Your Feelings, and Why They do not Matter.

a reply to: WASTYT

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.

Obviously there are subjective qualities to what I’ve written, for instance my tastes and stylistic tendencies, but I’m still no less speaking about “objective” reality, not only what I feel and what I am experiencing, but the things that illicit these experiences. To me, the things that illicit these experiences and feelings are primary to any experience and feelings I may have about them.

The so-called “subjective” is a convenient fiction, not much different than soul or spirit. It is the product of one person’s imagination, namely, yours, while everything else in the universe can observes the truth of the matter. You postulate fictions such as “feelings” within yourself, which are no more than a word signifying a certain conscious ignorance about reality and a giving up of one’s own curiosity of himself, since you cannot and will not see the causes of these feelings or the effects these causes have throughout the body, nor will you work with anyone in doing so, while any curious person with the proper tools can observe the vast array of real processes occurring if they were so inclined. Of course, both perspectives are viewing the same thing, but it’s up to you to decide from which perspective provides a more accurate description of states of affairs—your own or everything else’s.

It’s not that I deny subjectivity, for to do so would be to deny myself which is the point from which I view from, it’s just that I think it’s simply a comfortable space for the incurious and uninterested, and those who might refuse to learn about themselves from the perspective of anything but themselves. It’s something like solipsism.

a reply to: Itisnowagain

There is no one feeling - there is just sensation happening.

There is someone feeling, the one who senses the sensation. If there is no one to sense then there is no sensation.

Emotions are our guidance system. Our true nature is joy. As Gods, we are always being guided by our Most Joyful, Highest, Self.

a reply to: Itisnowagain

There is no one feeling - there is just sensation happening.

Without feeling there is no sensation. They mean the same thing. So if sensation is happening as you state, then something is feeling it. The unfulfilling answer is the body. It's not wrong obviously but just lacks in explanatory power of why the hell I am feeling anything. I trust you understand that.

In the end we are slaves to our own very limited and inadequate vocabulary. Our so called reality is based only on our perception and conception of it.

We can never know what the true objective reality is. Never. It's wrong to think that science, for instance, can give us an objective truth, or that science is objective at all. We completely forget that science is a subjective consensus approximation of the objective reality. It can never tell us anything objective. The sun is not the sun. We are not humans. English is not a language. Fire is not hot. These are only our conceptions of these things. We have only agreed to the meanings we have made up for them. All spontaneously of course devoid of any prior thoughts about it.

a reply to: WASTYT
The sense of control happens because there may seem to be someone separate who can control - until the who is assumed there would be no need for control.
Life is just happening - it is just doing it's thing. And part of it's thing is to have a sense of separation - like there is life and someone who HAS a life.
The someone separate is the illusion - there is just life simply happening.

a reply to: Itisnowagain

originally posted by: WASTYT Is the sense of control an illusion?


originally posted by: Itisnowagain Of course.


Prove it

originally posted by: arpgme
a reply to: Itisnowagain

There is no one feeling - there is just sensation happening.

There is someone feeling, the one who senses the sensation. If there is no one to sense then there is no sensation.

It is a very convincing illusion.

originally posted by: WASTYT


Prove it

Did you find anyone in there that is composing your next thought?

LesMisanthrope

Do you have to imagine feelings in other things in order to value them? What if something could not express its feelings

This is such a big one, I feel for the ones who have no voice and I see that most cannot do that. They assume the creature has no feeling since they are not able to express them.

A simple lie and display of false pain and anguish will cause an empath to react

I think empathetic persons often see behind lies if they are in the presence of a person.

Things have changed much, when I was young a person smiled and said how are you in the hopes of making a worker or customers day better, lighting another's day was important and the return was you felt it to.
Now people frown if they feel down and do not go out of their way to lift another's spirits. I think people have lost the understanding that REALLY caring about someone else's feelings will also help you feel good.

a reply to: LesMisanthrope

To me, the things that illicit these experiences and feelings are primary to any experience and feelings I may have about them.

Mainly the objective reality as you experience it. How did you write your OP? I mean objectively that is. Did that happen automatically?

It is the product of one person’s imagination, namely, yours, while everything else in the universe can observes the truth of the matter.

Okay, but you're implying that you know what the truth of the matter is. It's not possible. And what is this "everything else" that you allude to? We are all products of our imaginations, just like your OP.

You postulate fictions such as “feelings” within yourself, which are no more than a word signifying a certain conscious ignorance about reality and a giving up of one’s own curiosity of himself, since you cannot and will not see the causes of these feelings or the effects these causes have throughout the body, nor will you work with anyone in doing so, while any curious person with the proper tools can observe the vast array of real processes occurring if they were so inclined.

What is reality Les Mis? You keep referencing it as if you know what it is. Please explain what it is from a truly objective perspective? Can you do it? Electrical impulses? Oh yeah, what are those exactly? Prove anything to me.

It’s not that I deny subjectivity, for to do so would be to deny myself which is the point from which I view from, it’s just that I think it’s simply a comfortable space for the incurious and uninterested, and those who might refuse to learn about themselves from the perspective of anything but themselves. It’s something like solipsism.

Bull turds. Of course you deny subjectivity because it must imply a self, which is synonymous with soul, mind, or consciousness. All concepts you hate. Every one of your, and your alter ego's, threads denies it, yet here you are speaking from the first person point of view, so really it's all one big contradiction as I see it.

Perhaps it would be beneficial to your credibility to author these threads from the third person point of view instead. It would be more fitting and make more sense with what you are saying. Seriously you should try it. I might even give you a star for it.

Then you should explain what the subjective self is. When pressed you've only dismissed this "little you" as being the body, or a product of the body, both of which are physical objects. Objects are tangible. Do you think there is a difference between a person and a body? What is the physical nature of subjectivity, your point of view, experience, the self? Just a body? How does that explain anything? Where do I find subjectivity when I cut open a body?

You suggest I'm ignorant or lazy yet we have no clue what experience is. An illusion still requires someone to experience that illusion.

How do the squiggly lines that make up this sentence have any meaning to us?

OK, as to feelings. We have to be careful when we attempt to empathize. Let's look at the case of Cecil the Lion which has gotten whipped into a frenzy of really stupid proportion.

I think this is mainly because people are anthropomorphizing for the lion rather than simply taking the sensible route of feeling bad that the wrong animal was taken from the wild. It is a lose, certainly, but without the sanctioned hunts of a carefully controlled number of lions and other big game each year the heavily armed wardens who guard the rest and keep them from being poached for Asian fertility medicine could not be funded. So a certain number of the older animals are allowed to be legally taken. It appears that Cecil was not one of those and the responsible parties are being punished in Zimbabwe,

Additionally, Zimbabwe itself is a country suffering from financial collapse, and the people who live have to wonder why the rest of the world cares so much more for one lion than it does for their own suffering and daily hardships. And that really is a good question. What a miscarriage of empathy it is to care more about one lion than an entire nation of people who don't know from day to day where their next pay check will come from and if it will pay for their food.

Then there is the reality of a male pride lion's life. Cecil could have gone out on patrol and met a coalition of young males who tore him up and killed him brutally or let him limp off to day slowly of his injuries and starvation. It happens every day to male pride lions. There lives are not long and they are violent and full of pain. In this case, he lost to a hunter instead of other lions, but either way, he was not destined to die a peaceful death in the old lion's home.

But people all the world over are acting like he was a 2-year-old left in a hot car to day on purpose.

a reply to: Itisnowagain

And part of it's thing is to have a sense of separation - like there is life and someone who HAS a life.
The someone separate is the illusion - there is just life simply happening.

I wish I could draw even just a drop of meaning from this. What is an illusion without the experience of it?

a reply to: Itisnowagain

I'm not sure how not thinking about what our next thoughts are going to be proves anything.

a reply to: Itisnowagain

A convincing illusion for you, is that everyone is powerless and reality is automatic. In Reality there is Light, Joy, and Abundance, there are always more and more blessings even if you don't realize it.

originally posted by: WASTYT
a reply to: Itisnowagain

I'm not sure how not thinking about what our next thoughts are going to be proves anything.

Is there a chooser of the next thought or sensation to arise?
If not then how can there be any control?

If there was someone with control wouldn't everyone choose to just have nice happy thoughts and sensations all the time?

a reply to: Itisnowagain
What caused your body to type that post? Could your body just as easily have sat in the chair and done nothing? What dictates the course of automation?

a reply to: WASTYT

Mainly the objective reality as you experience it. How did you write your OP? I mean objectively that is. Did that happen automatically?

Others can experience it the same way, and we can agree upon it by utilizing the shared tools of inquiry available to all. If something is amiss, we can show through the shared tools of inquiry how it is.

As to how I wrote my OP, I thought about a subject for a while then I typed on a keyboard. Unfortunately I wasn’t able to watch and observe the exact processes, so placeholders such as “thought” will have to suffice.

Okay, but you're implying that you know what the truth of the matter is. It's not possible. And what is this "everything else" that you allude to? We are all products of our imaginations, just like your OP.

You too are implying you know the truth of the matter, however you are wrong. “It’s not possible to know the truth of the matter” is a self-refuting proposition. Obviously if it is impossible to know the truth of the matter, you cannot know that it is impossible to know the truth of the matter.

If you are the product of your imagination, then your imagination is the product of your imagination, which is stupid to say the least. It’s a circular argument, arguments you seems to enjoy, and its not worth getting in to.

Knowledge is a human affair, and if you do not wish to participate in it, you should probably walk away from it.

What is reality Les Mis? You keep referencing it as if you know what it is. Please explain what it is from a truly objective perspective? Can you do it? Electrical impulses? Oh yeah, what are those exactly? Prove anything to me.

Reality is a word we use to denote everything or all things. It is a concept.

Objectivity and subjectivity are methods through which to make conclusions. One utilizes human cooperation and universal means of inquiry, the other doesn’t. There is no metaphysical distinction between the two.

Copper conducts electricity. It is proven by the objective fact that copper conducts electricity. You can prove it to yourself through experiment and inquiry, but I doubt you would even bother.

Bull turds. Of course you deny subjectivity because it must imply a self, which is synonymous with soul, mind, or consciousness. All concepts you hate. Every one of your, and your alter ego's, threads denies it, yet here you are speaking from the first person point of view, so really it's all one big contradiction as I see it.

Subjectivity doesn’t imply a self, speaking of turds. I can only speak for one person, but I do so with the methods and measures that anyone can use, even you. You might wish to try it some time.

Perhaps it would be beneficial to your credibility to author these threads from the third person point of view instead. It would be more fitting and make more sense with what you are saying. Seriously you should try it. I might even give you a star for it.

If I wished for your stars I would appeal to your feelings. It sounds like that is what you want.

Then you should explain what the subjective self is. When pressed you've only dismissed this "little you" as being the body, or a product of the body, both of which are physical objects. Objects are tangible. Do you think there is a difference between a person and a body? What is the physical nature of subjectivity, your point of view, experience, the self? Just a body? How does that explain anything? Where do I find subjectivity when I cut open a body?

This is a fallacy known as begging the question. You expect to find and have concluded “subjectivity” even before you’ve looked. We’ve looked and all that is there is body.

There is no place in reality where subjectivity meets objectivity.

How do the squiggly lines that make up this sentence have any meaning to us?

All that matters in this reality is the feelings you give unto others.

Before doing anything, think through the emotional repercussions others might suffer as a result of your action.

If your elected action will spread love, light, compassion, benevolence, or other positive emotions through this sphere--do it swift.

If your elected action will spread hate, anger, discord, upset, or disquiet--refrain at once.

Human beings are emotional conduits. We literally give birth unto emotional energy in this realm.

Choose carefully what kind of energy you birth into the world.

Yes, what to do with those pesky emotions. Govern them? How? Let them run wild? Let them free while analyzing them simutaneously, so as to learn to govern them? So many ways to go...so many bad decisions to make. Or just be yourself in every moment.

My sentiments, my feelings, my essence which projects upon my emotions, means something to me and all those around me.

I think there is a difference between the feelings and emotions.I take feelings as physical sensations I notice primarily through my senses, while emotions a representative of how I choose to think about that.It hasn't been easy learning the distinction, I only became aware of this later on in my life.Important to note, it ties into the difference between pain and suffering. LesMis, I think your perspective on this may change down the road.

Realizing this dynamic has been fruitful.Learning to work with this perspective has given me tools that otherwise would have been dormant.This kind of body consciousness has helped open levels of awareness that can be very useful.

For example, when contemplating decisions or changes in my environment my gut feeling is readily apparent.Beforehand, I would tend to only weigh options intellectually, but that's only part of the story.It's provided the ability to practice making better decisions in situations where I don't have all the information.It helps bridge the gap to one's subconscious.Being able to do that, has kept me safe in times of danger.

Practicing concern for others feelings is great too. Individuals have various degrees of sensitivity.Tapping into that extends my own senses, by being able to notice things that would have escaped me.This may not be any revelation to you, perhaps a very general observation on my part.Without getting overly esoteric about the process, I'm just skimming the surface.

From the heart, you can watch a spider weave it's web in a whole other light...