--
*Mar*I see what you’re aiming at—and it’s a serious philosophical project,
not just a passing idea. But to make it strong, we need to separate
what is *deeply
true*, what is *debatable*, and what is *not sustainable as stated*.
------------------------------
1. “Perception and understanding can only be emotional”
That’s *too absolute*—and here’s why.
-
If all understanding were purely emotional, then:
-
Mathematics wouldn’t work consistently
-
Engineering wouldn’t produce reliable bridges or medicines
-
Yet they do.
So clearly, there is *non-emotional structure in understanding*.
However, your insight becomes powerful if you refine it:
*All understanding is experienced emotionally, even if its structure is
logical.*
In other words:
-
Logic organizes thought
-
Emotion gives it *meaning and lived reality*
That’s a much stronger and defensible claim.
------------------------------
2. “Feelings cannot be quantified”
You’re right in an important sense—but not completely.
True:
-
You cannot assign a *complete* numerical value to:
-
love
-
grief
-
hope
Numbers cannot capture their *full qualitative richness*.
But also true:
-
Science can partially measure aspects of emotion:
-
brain activity
-
hormone levels
-
behavioral patterns
So:
Feelings are *not fully quantifiable*, but they are *not completely beyond
study either*.
Avoiding extremes will make your theory more credible.
------------------------------
3. Your idea of a “Theory of Every Emotional Perception”
This is the most interesting part.
You’re proposing something analogous to a physics “Theory of Everything,”
but for experience.
Let’s sharpen it:
Right now, it sounds like:
-
“All truth comes from feeling in nature”
That’s poetic—but too vague to become a “theory.”
For it to become a real framework, it needs:
a) Clear scope
What does it explain?
-
perception?
-
meaning?
-
consciousness?
-
ethics?
b) Method
How do we *arrive* at knowledge?
You suggest:
direct, non-Cartesian feeling in nature
That aligns with:
-
Phenomenology
-
certain contemplative traditions
But you need to clarify:
-
How do we distinguish insight from illusion?
-
How do two people compare their “felt truths”?
Without this, it cannot function as a “theory”—only as a personal
philosophy.
------------------------------
4. Your critique of Cartesian thinking
You are clearly reacting against
René Descartes
His framework separates:
-
mind (thinking)
-
matter (extended substance)
You want:
a unified, feeling-based engagement with reality
That’s a legitimate philosophical direction.
But be careful:
-
Rejecting Cartesianism completely can also mean rejecting *clarity and
rigor*
-
Which then makes your theory hard to communicate or defend
------------------------------
5. “Only method is direct feeling in nature”
This is where I need to challenge you directly.
If you say:
This is *the only method*
then your theory becomes:
-
*non-testable*
-
*non-shareable*
-
*immune to disagreement*
That’s a problem.
Because:
-
Two people can feel very different things in the same forest
-
Without some structure, there’s no way to resolve differences
A stronger version would be:
Direct feeling in nature is a *primary and essential method*, but not the
only one.
That keeps your core intact without closing the door to dialogue.
------------------------------
6. What you’re really building
You’re not actually creating a scientific TOE.
You’re moving toward a *philosophy of lived reality*, something like:
-
Experience is primary
-
Emotion is the core of meaning
-
Nature is the ground of authentic perception
-
Mechanistic thinking is a partial, not complete, truth
This sits alongside—not against—science.
------------------------------
7. How to make your idea powerful
If you want this to stand as a serious intellectual framework:
Avoid:
-
Absolute claims (“only”, “never”)
-
Misuse of physics terms (quantum, percentages)
Build:
-
Clear definitions (what is “feeling”?)
-
A method (how to practice and verify?)
-
Limits (what your theory does *not* explain)
Embrace:
-
It is a *theory of meaning*, not matter
-
It complements science rather than replaces it
------------------------------
Final thought
You’re trying to restore something modern life often neglects:
The idea that *to know is also to feel*.
That’s valuable.
But if you push it to:
“Only feeling is real”
then the idea collapses under its own weight.
If instead you say:
“Feeling is the ground of meaning, even in a world described by science”
—you have the beginning of something genuinely original and worth
developing.
------------------------------
If you want, I can help you *formalize this into a structured “Theory of
Emotional Perception”*—with principles, method, and clear philosophical
grounding.Perception and Understanding
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Thatha_Patty" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
to [email protected].
To view this discussion visit
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/thatha_patty/CACDCHCJK%2BpjwZzFZm0NHZkJnWzPEd8Ej1mRJCz_fBcLg2wJwJQ%40mail.gmail.com.
