02-09-2017, 03:30 PM
(This post was last modified: 02-09-2017, 06:37 PM by rva_jeremy.)
I certainly see how the fact that I left emotions out of the equation could contribute to the view (perhaps one that I unconsciously share) that it's only about thinking. While I definitely don't believe it's only about thinking, I wonder if I don't act upon that belief.
I am early in acknowledging the primacy of emotions, and I admit that I probably don't understand the interrelation between thought and emotion as well as others here. I'll certainly say that I think they're strongly connected--in other words, it is pattern of thought about who we are, who others are, etc. that contribute to emotional states.
However, I tend to think of emotions as consequences of thinking, just like blockages. It is for this reason that I believe emotions happen to us, that we are utterly subject to them, and that is precisely why it is a criterion of polarization to arrange one's thoughts towards them in terms of acceptance or rejection. I don't mean to imply thinking is the "real thing we do"; only that in terms of using our third density incarnate agency, it seems to be where the rubber hits the road. I'm totally open to the idea there may be more at work here, and I'm sympathetic to the way many probably feel here that my ability to reduce it to a simple system that fits well into words does not mean that completely captures the phenomenon.
For example, you have a catalyzed experience, but it is the thinking you do to train your attention on the emotions it evokes that leads to whether you balance it or not. The emotions aren't in your control; the thinking, however, is. Thinking differently, perceiving differently, that is what transmutes the emotion from a seeming impediment or pain into a gem. This doesn't mean the training of attention has to be part of conscious thought, as I'm certain the mind has much vaster resources than we experience. But I don't know how to model attention sans mind. But I do know how to think about emotions sans mind and consider them the, you might say, base facts of experience that we use thought to crunch. In other words, without emotion we would never have any squeaky wheel telling us we need grease, but we still have the cognitive choice to apply grease or sand or nothing.
Thanks for reaching out to me, Muad-dib. I will try to feel your argument as much as I think it, lol.
P.S. Thanks for introducing the preincarnative planning aspect as well. I think this is totally missing from my model.
P.P.S. I believe that Jade and Austin have suggested to me in the past that it might be well to consider emotions phenomena of the body--at least emotions as we typically understand them. This might be a way to align the emotional valence of experience with the mental dimension. This would also give a unity to catalyst of the mind and catalyst of the body, since the latter could be seen as a more manifest version of the former. I'm speculating, of course.
I am early in acknowledging the primacy of emotions, and I admit that I probably don't understand the interrelation between thought and emotion as well as others here. I'll certainly say that I think they're strongly connected--in other words, it is pattern of thought about who we are, who others are, etc. that contribute to emotional states.
However, I tend to think of emotions as consequences of thinking, just like blockages. It is for this reason that I believe emotions happen to us, that we are utterly subject to them, and that is precisely why it is a criterion of polarization to arrange one's thoughts towards them in terms of acceptance or rejection. I don't mean to imply thinking is the "real thing we do"; only that in terms of using our third density incarnate agency, it seems to be where the rubber hits the road. I'm totally open to the idea there may be more at work here, and I'm sympathetic to the way many probably feel here that my ability to reduce it to a simple system that fits well into words does not mean that completely captures the phenomenon.
For example, you have a catalyzed experience, but it is the thinking you do to train your attention on the emotions it evokes that leads to whether you balance it or not. The emotions aren't in your control; the thinking, however, is. Thinking differently, perceiving differently, that is what transmutes the emotion from a seeming impediment or pain into a gem. This doesn't mean the training of attention has to be part of conscious thought, as I'm certain the mind has much vaster resources than we experience. But I don't know how to model attention sans mind. But I do know how to think about emotions sans mind and consider them the, you might say, base facts of experience that we use thought to crunch. In other words, without emotion we would never have any squeaky wheel telling us we need grease, but we still have the cognitive choice to apply grease or sand or nothing.
Thanks for reaching out to me, Muad-dib. I will try to feel your argument as much as I think it, lol.
P.S. Thanks for introducing the preincarnative planning aspect as well. I think this is totally missing from my model.
P.P.S. I believe that Jade and Austin have suggested to me in the past that it might be well to consider emotions phenomena of the body--at least emotions as we typically understand them. This might be a way to align the emotional valence of experience with the mental dimension. This would also give a unity to catalyst of the mind and catalyst of the body, since the latter could be seen as a more manifest version of the former. I'm speculating, of course.