Excellent point, Francis. Love unites, and changes our view of the world, I agree. And I think the fact that we rarely separate our emotions from our reason, or examine our emotions, leaves us with little to say on the subject.
On Oct 5, 4:09 pm, frantheman <[email protected]> wrote: > 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 > > > > > > > > > > > > ... > > read more » --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
