Your Feelings, and Why They do not Matter.

a reply to: LesMisanthrope

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.

Yes, a consensus of subjectivity (experience) shapes our reality. You might consider this to be a consensus of illusion. Now that's a scary thought.

Obviously not everyone perceives things the same way. And really, I would not be wrong to say that the hot ball of fire in the sky we call the sun is not any of those things in the true objective sense. We don't know what the sun is beyond the human construct of it. This applies to everything.

As to how I wrote my OP, I thought about a subject for a while then I typed on a keyboard.

How did your body do it is what I was asking. You can't explain it without invoking a subjective state. Or in your case, convenient "placeholders".

You too are implying you know the truth of the matter, however you are wrong.

Either I'm right, or we're both wrong.

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.

When I said we are the product of our imagination, I meant the collective we - as in human culture.

You claim the self is an illusion. Illusion requires a self to perceive the illusion. So the illusion perceives the illusion. Circular arguments abound. This is fun.

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

Yes, a very human concept.

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.

You are right, I won't bother since I was referring to the electrical impulses underlying perception. Nothing to do with copper.

Subjectivity doesn’t imply a self, speaking of turds.

Since when does subjectivity not imply or relate to self? Speaking of turds is right.

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.

Opinions are entirely subjective are they not? You have a preference for one item over another. Art. Music. Etc

Where are these opinions or preferences inside of your body? What are they made of physically speaking?

There is no place in reality where subjectivity meets objectivity.

The body. But of course you would have to deny your own subjectivity to logically harbor such a view.

originally posted by: InTheLight
My sentiments, my feelings, my essence which projects upon my emotions, means something to me and all those around me.

Mine.

originally posted by: ketsuko
I think the real question is:

Do you control your emotions or do they control you? I think too many people put emotion in the place of logic and sound reasoning. It's way too easy to do, and we are all susceptible to it. And in today's world it is encouraged. If a thing makes you feel good, it must be good. If a thing makes you feel bad, it must be bad. And of course, once you are programmed to think in those terms, anyone who can manipulate your emotional state can control you.

Oh I think you are on to something that me and a friend of mine spoke about like 4 years ago.
We had this theory that in short speculates that the whole postmodern "subjective truth" thing was designed to force people to become more Androgynous and Homogeneous.
We called it "The Tyranny of the Moderate"

Your thoughts and feeling are yours because there is a receiver of those thoughts and feelings, what is that receiver? Generally speaking the receiver has a name and location, a form by which he/she can be identified. We use the body as a form of identification, this body identifies a string of experiences with other bodies. Is that what we are fully/ wholly? I would say no, but it is what we appear to be. Each body appears to be alive and engaged in living everything that is perceived. There is nothing wrong with the mine approach as long as one know that is just a story, it when we fully believe that as a total truth. Then.... we are like a kind of pinnocchio, a foolish. Which we all are at moments of our life, then we are swallowed up by something much larger and the fool is seen and (maybe) at that point a deeper quality can be realized.

Feelings are essential to communicating...communicating to God, and to each other. How we feel about something is much more importanf than how we think about it, how we analyze it.

GOD SPEAKS TO US THROUGH OUR HEARTS, OUR FEELINGS.

Ever get, FEEL goose bumps, or that tingling FEELINGS going up and down your spine!

SATAN SPEAKS TO US THROUGH OUR MINDS. THATS WHY MIND CONTROL IS SOOOO PREVALENT TODAY.

Emotion is a whole other topic. Theres Satan wanting us to have his way with uss

originally posted by: ancientthunder
Your thoughts and feeling are yours because there is a receiver of those thoughts and feelings, what is that receiver? Generally speaking the receiver has a name and location, a form by which he/she can be identified. We use the body as a form of identification, this body identifies a string of experiences with other bodies. Is that what we are fully/ wholly? I would say no, but it is what we appear to be. Each body appears to be alive and engaged in living everything that is perceived. There is nothing wrong with the mine approach as long as one know that is just a story, it when we fully believe that as a total truth. Then.... we are like a kind of pinnocchio, a foolish. Which we all are at moments of our life, then we are swallowed up by something much larger and the fool is seen and (maybe) at that point a deeper quality can be realized.

Oh yea? Well thats like... just your opinion man.

-The Dude (AKA The Big Lebowski)

a reply to: Punisher75
jaja yeah! it can only be that way. But dont forget this comrade, its a shared opinion and that is always useful. No matter which way you take that information its better than zilch.

Strong points, most of which won't even be noted by the majority who read this.

You know, I'm starting to think the constituency of ATS, or rather the rabble, doesn't deserve this sort of thread. Many here seem to have some chronic impediment preventing them leaving their ideological comfort zone. Unable to contend with arguments like this, they invariably fall back on the self-same "muh feelings" and "muh sensibilites" described in the OP.

If man is the sole measure of truth, what is there to debate?

a reply to: Talorc

In all fairness it is difficult to have a conversation about why your feelings don't matter, without feeling that your feelings don't matter.
LOL

a reply to: Talorc

You know, I'm starting to think the constituency of ATS, or rather the rabble, doesn't deserve this sort of thread.

Well this type of thread is here and I am glad it is so! In fact I was thinking how good that it is and the participation and variety that is currently being seen. It is special, and ATS is blessed to have it. I guess thats what happens when you create a space a platform for sharing, there is plenty of dross but... there are gold nuggets hidden in it. Well deserved for ATS creators (all of them!)

a reply to: LesMisanthrope

I almost feel as though this thread was directed at me ( And not necessarily by you ). You would have to have known the experience that I had yesterday in order to have consciously directed it at me. But let me relate yesterdays experience and then you will understand why I say this.

When I returned to the shop yesterday after my days work was done. I pulled up to the fuel pump in order to fuel my truck. When I pulled up....... there were no other trucks behind me. Anyway when I got out of the truck the fuel attendant came up and went over a few changes that had been implemented regarding record keeping and such so the whole fueling process ( wash windshield, check oil, etc) that day took a little longer then usual. Well long story short just as I was finishing up another driver behind me had gotten out of his truck and had walked toward the fuel island and yelled something at me about taking too long. I did not hear exactly what he said but whatever it was...was said in an offensive and disrespectful manner.

Well I finished checking the oil and shut the hood and pulled my truck around to it's parking spot. Now let me say that when he first yelled his remark it really didn't bother me too much...but as I was driving around to my parking spot it started bothering more and more until I started to become livid with anger and wanted to go tell the man what I thought before physically attacking him and teaching him a lesson. Twice I got out of my truck and headed toward where he was only to return and settle for just "feeling" angry about it.

Now I know that most of the people will say that I should have went and talked to the man and told him not to ever speak to me like that again. And that may be true...but I can assure you it would not have ended at that.... as I would have told him in a manner that would have surely evoked a rebellious response from him. Which would have evoked a physical response from me.

Now in the end I consoled myself with the thought that at least I "felt" appropriately. And that is where it ended. But I did wonder all the way home whether I had done the right thing or not. And i must say that the consensus of my thoughts were leaning toward "NOT". I feel like I should have went over there and tried my best to teach the man a lesson in the only kind of language that men like him understand " PHYSICAL VIOLENCE". It is probably exactly what him and I both needed...but instead I settled for bad "feelings". What do you think ? Should I have pummeled the man or not ?

a reply to: WASTYT

Yes, a consensus of subjectivity (experience) shapes our reality. You might consider this to be a consensus of illusion. Now that's a scary thought.

Obviously not everyone perceives things the same way. And really, I would not be wrong to say that the hot ball of fire in the sky we call the sun is not any of those things in the true objective sense. We don't know what the sun is beyond the human construct of it. This applies to everything.

How did your body do it is what I was asking. You can't explain it without invoking a subjective state. Or in your case, convenient "placeholders”.

Knowing and knowledge is a human affair. “Knowledge” isn’t a place or thing we do not have access to, or that is somehow hidden behind a veil of appearance; it is a human relationship to the thing known.

Do you think there is some wall between you and the sun? Is it hidden beneath a blanket or something? Is it wearing a costume? Tell me exactly what is stopping you from knowing the sun. Maybe you can point it out.

The sun in a “true objective sense”, “beyond the human construct of it”...let me guess, what the sun looks like without anyone to look at it? or how an omniscient, omnipresent, omnipotent God might describe it? I don't even consider questions like these. There are no grounds to even ask them.

“Invoking a subjective state”. I’m not even sure what that means. "States" are objective.

When I said we are the product of our imagination, I meant the collective we - as in human culture.

You claim the self is an illusion. Illusion requires a self to perceive the illusion. So the illusion perceives the illusion. Circular arguments abound. This is fun.

Yes the self is an illusion. The body isn’t. Illusion does not require a self to perceive it. Illusion requires the body to perceive an it. Not circular.

Yes, a very human concept.

As opposed to...

Where are these opinions or preferences inside of your body? What are they made of physically speaking?

The problem with nominalization is that most people don’t realize they are doing it.

a reply to: Talorc

You know, I'm starting to think the constituency of ATS, or rather the rabble, doesn't deserve this sort of thread. Many here seem to have some chronic impediment preventing them leaving their ideological comfort zone. Unable to contend with arguments like this, they invariably fall back on the self-same "muh feelings" and "muh sensibilites" described in the OP.

I write threads for myself.

a reply to: InTheLight

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

I care about you more so than your sentiments, your feelings and your essence.

a reply to: dffrntkndfnml

Thoughtful reply.

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.

Is there then a point where feelings end and emotions begin? At what point what point is that? The thing is we never stop feeling and we never stop thinking. How can one end and the other begin?

a reply to: HarryJoy

You sublimated your feelings in such away as to avoid the chaos of violence, where one of you may have been severely hurt. I would argue you did the right thing.

a reply to: LesMisanthrope

Interesting. I don't have much time atm, though I find myself asking if quality can exist independent of quantity. I'll have to take some time to reflect. Thanks LesMis, for the thought provoking thread.: thumbsup:

a reply to: LesMisanthrope

Thank you for the affirmation...even though it is little consolation to my writhing ego. I do have to agree that it was probably the wiser decision. I have been in a few scuffles in years past and they don't always end well. And as we age the likelihood of injury increases. I find myself with injuries from no apparent cause lately so I'm sure a good go around with another man would have left me lame at best ( and quite possibly without a job and maybe an assault charge ).

originally posted by: HarryJoy
a reply to: LesMisanthrope

I almost feel as though this thread was directed at me ( And not necessarily by you ). You would have to have known the experience that I had yesterday in order to have consciously directed it at me. But let me relate yesterdays experience and then you will understand why I say this.

When I returned to the shop yesterday after my days work was done. I pulled up to the fuel pump in order to fuel my truck. When I pulled up....... there were no other trucks behind me. Anyway when I got out of the truck the fuel attendant came up and went over a few changes that had been implemented regarding record keeping and such so the whole fueling process ( wash windshield, check oil, etc) that day took a little longer then usual. Well long story short just as I was finishing up another driver behind me had gotten out of his truck and had walked toward the fuel island and yelled something at me about taking too long. I did not hear exactly what he said but whatever it was...was said in an offensive and disrespectful manner.

Well I finished checking the oil and shut the hood and pulled my truck around to it's parking spot. Now let me say that when he first yelled his remark it really didn't bother me too much...but as I was driving around to my parking spot it started bothering more and more until I started to become livid with anger and wanted to go tell the man what I thought before physically attacking him and teaching him a lesson. Twice I got out of my truck and headed toward where he was only to return and settle for just "feeling" angry about it.

Now I know that most of the people will say that I should have went and talked to the man and told him not to ever speak to me like that again. And that may be true...but I can assure you it would not have ended at that.... as I would have told him in a manner that would have surely evoked a rebellious response from him. Which would have evoked a physical response from me.

Now in the end I consoled myself with the thought that at least I "felt" appropriately. And that is where it ended. But I did wonder all the way home whether I had done the right thing or not. And i must say that the consensus of my thoughts were leaning toward "NOT". I feel like I should have went over there and tried my best to teach the man a lesson in the only kind of language that men like him understand " PHYSICAL VIOLENCE". It is probably exactly what him and I both needed...but instead I settled for bad "feelings". What do you think ? Should I have pummeled the man or not ?

To me calmly communicating your view, your ferlings would have been good for both of you.

Communication is like going to the bathroom. If we do both when ee should all is well. But when we hold it in...well...bad things happen. We can die from not going to the bathroom, by not communicating.

THATS WHY MOST PEOPLE ARE FULL OF #!!!!



Ha ha ha ha

a reply to: HarryJoy

In reading your experience, I would have chosen to say something, myself.
But I have no tendency to go into violence when angry like that- verbalization would have been enough for me, and I wouldn't necessarily have to be overly hostile in my way of speaking either.

My husband is totally different though, and claims he feels as you described- when angry, he can't seem to help going into violence. He perceives a choice between swallowing the anger altogether, or attacking physically, and no middle ground.
So that might be more a male thing, due to testosterone? Or something females learn early on- that verbalizing emotions diminishes their force... once I start to say them, they immediately become less strong and pressing.

I recently had an experience in which a high superior where I worked (who really knew nothing of me except that I was american) went off on me in three different events, yelling at me, insulting me in racist ways, trying to humiliate me publicly and doing some things that were illegal and likely to get the whole establishment in a world of trouble.

I remained quiet and listened, keeping my head, and only speaking to ask him to confirm what he just said, mindful of the witnesses present and how all this would be held against him later in court. I think my cold head just made him more pissed, and caused him to go overboard.

Two days later, my husband, who I'd asked to stay out of my business, couldn't hold it in any longer, and taking advantage of my absence for the day, went storming into this guys office and they had a huge and violent argument, while secretaries quivered in the corners.

The problem was, in between his attack upon me, and my husbands visit, he'd had his hands slapped by the higher administrators, the delegates of personel, and the social security office. He was warned he had made a huge mistake, and he had actually (finally pulled my records and looked at them, finding out I have an excellent employee record, am well appreciated, and have much more skills, experience and education than he had assumed. He had set up a big promotion for me, to try to appease me, and was full of praise!

Now, from my point of view, what my husband did was a mistake, and it may have serious consequences for me eventually. I love my new job, but am afraid my contract won't be prolonged when it ends, because of this mans hard feelings about being humiliated by my husband in front of his staff.

So there's my (feminine ) view. -Better keep cool and reap the long term benefits...

But

What I found out after was that this man has been notorious for abusing employees this way; that his secretaries quiver in fear of him and go to work with a knot in their stomach; that he has made racist slurs and insults to many other foreign employees, who all never took action out of fear. Apparently he only does this with women, and acts calm and respectful towards men.

So at the moment, everyone is talking about what a hero my husband is- that FINALLY someone put him in his place and calmed his $hit down!

I'm still doubtful and a bit anxious about consequences to me. But this places some real questions on the table about the validity of suppressing or subtilizing emotion under all circumstances. Us females being abused were all using that tactic, and what did it do? Only encouraged him to do more, helped him to become more abusive and corrupt in his power. Each woman that said nothing was a part of the attack he did on the next.

Like you say, some men only understand truly aggressive action, and they just don't come to any clear perception of long term effects (like that this guy was losing respect because of his behavior, his employees were working less well, because of his explosions, he was being seen as having no integrity- even if he yelled out a certain decision, he'd have to take it back the next day because it was irrational... so nothing he said was being taken seriously anymore).

So, while I will say I prefer a certain approach or response, I won't deny that other ones could have just as much value, depending upon context!

ETA- this recent event was what I had in mind when I posted my earlier response here- wondering, how much of my suppressed anger just was picked up by my husband, tripling his own and making it impossible to hold in??? I might be largely responsible for his blow up! If I had voiced it in the moment, spontaneously, to this guy, perhaps I wouldn't have had contagious emotion to bring home and give to my mate. If you didn't say anything to the a-hole you ran into, are you sure you didn't bring that suppressed anger home and pass it on to someone else without knowing it???