I wonder whether the distinction we make between emotions and reason, feelings and thought isn't something conventional, artificial. Necessary in all sorts of ways in order for us to organise and analyse, to cooperate and build complexly, but, nonetheless, just one model of the way we work and are. Certainly it's not a very realistic model of the way we function, individually and interactively, minute to minute, in daily life. I'm quite taken with Dan Dennett's model of multi-draft consciousness, which sees our sense of consciousness/ living/existence as a continuous vibrant, dynamic shifting of different thoughts, memories - and feelings/emotions - resulting from ongoing cascades of millions of complex processes in the brain; a scintillating dance of countless, minute electrical signals, playing out on a stage of interaction of neurotransmitters and synaptic gaps, ions continually switching, building and collapsing patterns and structures on myriad levels, all interrelating with each other, perhaps even plumbing quantum depths.
Thoughts and feelings, memories, sensations and intuitions coming and going, influencing each other in their growth and decay, combining, dividing, recombining to form that sense of self which we call "I." Or, expanding between us to form "we", potentizing the complexity even farther. I find it difficult to express myself about this idea without using poetic language. For what, after all, is poetry but a form of expression which goes beyond the simple/simplistic dichotomy between reason and emotion to express their complex, deeper, everyday unity? How else can we explain the way being in love changes the whole way we experience everything - to give but one example? Francis On 4 Okt., 19:07, [email protected] wrote: > or Molly - Is the message indicating that the same data may be viewed from > different perspectives. The views implied are a close up of details (i.e.in > the midst of forest viewing the closest tree) contrasted with a wide angle > view ( i.e. observing from the vantage point of being on the edge of the > forest.) This idea could be expanded to include other dimensions (i.e. > observing the forest from the vantage point of an airplane.) > > Or - again - I wonder if what is implied is the different meanings of > experience when viewed from the vantage point of linear logic contrasted with > intuition. Or once more the difference in perspectives if one views the raw > data of experience from the vantage point of linear logic contrasted with > "pure feelings' and both contrasted with what I like to call experiential > logic (a combination of all sources of information including thoughts, > feelings, sensations, and intuitions). > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Molly Brogan <[email protected]> > To: "Minds Eye" <[email protected]> > Sent: Sun, Oct 4, 2009 12:17 pm > Subject: [Mind's Eye] Re: The Role of Emotion > > have really been mulling over the "Lord has seen" translation in > elation to the "Lord provides," given the 20th century christian > ystical interpretation of the manifestation of experience. > While we look not at the things which are seen, but at the things > hich are not seen: for the things which are seen are temporal; but > he things which are not seen are eternal. > Corinthians 4:18 > I think there i > s something to the seeing, that is also providing, or > ringing the infinite into the moment (the temporal.) There must be > omething to so many translations using provide, and others seen. > Thanks for the pointers. > On Sep 30, 7:49 am, Pat <[email protected]> wrote: > On 29 Sep, 17:39, Molly Brogan <[email protected]> wrote: > > >http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis%2022&version=NASB > > > It is in the New American Standard translation > > The New Living Translation > > English Standard Version > > > and maybe others... > > Unfortunately, it's not the best translation of the Hebrew. The > Hebrew has YHVH-YRAH (YHVH-Yirah) or 'The Lord has seen (to it)'. > Loosely, it's similar in that, if the Lord has seen to it, he provided > for it, but the root of the word YRAH is YRH, which is the verb > meaning 'to see' in its metaphorical sense of 'see what I mean' and > similar. So, to translate it as a derivation of 'to provide' isn't > exactly the truest translation. Rats!! > > > This is a nice site that allows the comparison of translations. > > > On Sep 29, 12:09 pm, Pat <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > On 29 Sep, 15:51, Molly Brogan <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > Exactly. It is just a diagram for getting out of the way and allowing > > > > grace in our experience. I watched the movie "The Legend of Bagger > > > > Vance" the other day, and while I am not really a fan of Will Smith or > > > > Matt Damon, the screenplay=2 > 0in this movie, I think, is terrific. > > > > Especially when the golfer's caddy instructs him "most golfers are > > > > looking for the perfect swing. But what they don't understand is, you > > > > don't find the swing, the swing finds you." And that's it. Just get > > > > out of the way, and that swing will find you. Same story. > > > > Question Molly: Where did you read that about the name of the > > > mountain being 'The Lord Provides'? As far as I am aware, that > > > 'mountain' was the Temple Mount and the rock on which the sacrifice > > > was to take place was the rock that is, now, under 'The Dome of the > > > Rock'. I.e., the mountain is currently called 'Zion'. If it was > > > called 'The Lord Provides' then that lends credence to my theory that > > > there is enough room on it NOW for a third building between the two > > > that are there now, i.e., the Third Temple. Thus, the mountain STILL > > > has the potential to provide for the means towards future > > > reconciliation between Isaac and Ishmael. At which translation were > > > you looking? Because I'm going to go home and check out the actual > > > Hebrew and see for myself. This could be the basis for a very > > > powerful argument towards peace and reconciliation, as I see it. > > > > > On Sep 29, 10:35 am, Pat <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > On 29 Sep, 14:39, Molly Brogan <[email protected] > > wrote: > > > > > > > Very interesting, Slip. This is the passage of the bible I have > een > > > > > > contemplating for several weeks. The meaning wasn't clear to me > ntil > > > > > > I read a translation of the bible that had Abraham naming the > ountain > > > > > > where he took Isaac to sacrifice "The Lord Provides." I don't > think > > > > > > this is really a passage about killing our children, although there > > > > > > are plenty of opinions in that vein to be found. I think it is the > > > > > > passage that explains to us the process of the manifestation of our > > > > > > experience, and the necessity to let go of our own goals or > reations, > > > > > > and sacrifice our suffering (the ram in the thorns) so that it is > ut > > > > > > of the way and the our highest potential can become manifest. I > ind > > > > > > hope in this passage, and instruction. > > > > > > And, as Jesus said in Gethsemene, 'not my will, but Thine be done.' > > > > > I.e., He was asking for the Lord's provision. > > > > > > > On Sep 29, 8:18 am, Slip Disc <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > Yes of course, communicate with God alone, happened the other > day, > > > > > > > then he told me to kill my son, said like Abraham, said not to > orry > > > > > > > that he wont die, I said 'wont that be attempted murder'? God > aid > > > > > > > "yes, but don't worry,20I'm God and I'll have you out in 5-10 > with > ood > > > > > > > behavior and if you read my book that will be easy!" > > > > > > > > On Sep 29, 6:31 am, Pat <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > On 28 Sep, 17:39, Slip Disc <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Emotions can be expressed in isolation. > > > > > > > > > Absolutely. In that way, we communicate our feelings to God > lone. > > > > > > > > Not that God doesn't receive the messages when we are NOT > alone, > ut > > > > > > > > He is the only receiver when we ARE alone. > > > > > > > > > > On Sep 28, 11:05 am, Pat <[email protected]> > rote: > > > > > > > > > > > On 27 Sep, 17:13, Molly Brogan <[email protected]> > rote: > > > > > > > > > > > > What role does emotion play in our everyday lives? How > oes emotion > > > > > > > > > > > affect our experience and being? These are questions > ddressed by > > > > > > > > > > > some of the finest minds of our era. > > > > > > > > > > > > For Piaget, emotion is the motivating force of action > manating from > > > > > > > > > > > outside the individual in the form of sensations emitted > y objects. > > > > > > > > > > > His view is rooted in the Newtonian conception of a > niverse comprised > > > > > > > > > > > in isolated objects requiring an emotive force to > initiate > series of > > > > > > > > >20> > mechanistic interactions between objects. Piaget > reduces > ll > > > > > > > > > > > conscious human experience to a cognitive formulation of > hese causal > > > > > > > > > > > relations. His abstract concept of emotion as force > ails to > > > > > > > > > > > explain the relationship between bodily feelings, > motions, and higher > > > > > > > > > > > forms of consciousness in human beings. > > > > > > > > > > > > Alfred North Whitehead indicates the factors in human > ature which go > > > > > > > > > > > to make up the particular emotions, arise from our > pprehension of > > > > > > > > > > > these permanent features of order in the world. His > oncrete concept > > > > > > > > > > > of emotion gives insight into the experience of bodily > eelings and > > > > > > > > > > > their relationship to the growth and learning of human > eings. He > > > > > > > > > > > explains the emotions are the crucial mediating factors > etween the > > > > > > > > > > > welter of awareness of these feelings in higher > organisms. > “We > > > > > > > > > > > perceive other things which are in the world of > ctualities in the > > > > > > > > > > > same sense as we are. So our emotions are directed > oward other > > > > > > > > > > > things, including of course, our bodily organs . . . the > orld for me > > > > > > > > > > > is nothing else than ho > w the functioning of my body > resent it for my > > > > > > > > > > > experience.” > > > > > > > > > > > > Jean Paul Sartre sees it differently in his book, The > motions, > > > > > > > > > > > Outline of a Theory. He sees our emotion as an “abrupt > rop of > > > > > > > > > > > consciousness into the magical.” He believes: “emotion > s not > > > > > > > > > > > accidental modification of a subject which would > otherwise > e plunged > > > > > > > > > > > into an unchanged world. It is easy to see that every > motional > > > > > > > > > > > apprehension of an object which frightens, irritates, > adness, etc., > > > > > > > > > > > can be made only on the basis of a total alteration of > the > orld. In > > > > > > > > > > > order that an object may in reality appear terrible, it > ust realize > > > > > > > > > > > itself as an immediate and magical presence face to face > ith > > > > > > > > > > > consciousness.“ In other words, we modify our experience > ith emotion > > > > > > > > > > > to make it more comfortable, according to our own nature. > We emote > > > > > > > > > > > sadness, anger or gloom because “lacking the power and > ill to > > > > > > > > > > > accomplish the acts which we have been planning, we > behave > n such a > > > > > > > > > > > way that the universe no longer req > uires anything of us.” > > > > > > > > > > > > What do YOU think? > > > > > > > > > > > As for me, I see emotions as the outward expression of > inner > > > > > > > > > > feelings. They are the way we communicate our inner > eelings to those > > > > > > > > > > around > > ... > > Erfahren Sie mehr » --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups ""Minds Eye"" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/minds-eye?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
