Ok, so, using your lexicon,
INTELLECT ONLY SERVES FEELING
Imagine a chariot.
This chariot is pulled along by a GIANT BABY (and) an old fogey (and) a 16 year old kid and sitting in the "driver seat" is an adult.
Who is "in control" of this chariot?
RE: On Intellect, Emotion And Feeling
You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
On Intellect, Emotion And Feeling
No, and I apologize if I somehow gave you the impression I thought this. I believe they are two separate functions that can interact/influence one another.
This is an unanswerable question, in my opinion. Its been so long since I read much of what I have, but in the arguments placed in antiquity railing against the agnostics, I never found myself swayed that gnosis was possible.
I believe we can know things that fit a narrow area, but whether it is a truth or not I don't know.
Intellect seems to me to have the ability to dominate over oneself (whatever this is, the witness for lack of a better term), which means ruling over the area of feelings if one allows it. Which many do. Many allow this to take place by intellect creating feelings. then placing a level of importance to them that is activated when the spell of intellect is reactivated at a future date that is specific to the initial spell.
Feeling itself requires no classification (hence no intellect) to be logged in whatever it is we are (witnesses)?
So as to who is in control of the chariot( ourselves) I don't think that can be answered. I can't conceive that it can be anyway. It's quite possible that those who have hoarded the worlds histories and knowledge know exactly. They certainly know enough of intellect and its ability to cast spells on us, as they do this to the masses non stop.
I've read before that the mind (intellect) does not belong to us. That it is a foreign installation, whose purpose is to create the emotions it does so the beings who installed it can feed on that energy. While as with many things this is a tale to me, I can say after spending years sporadically stalking my own internal dialogue that the origin of many that take place have no obvious sign of origin from myself.
I believe Jung tried to account for this somewhat in his hypothesis on what he coined the collective unconscious. However, it seems to me that it would then be just as likely if we shared this common connection that it could indeed be manipulated as I read elsewhere. The older I get the more it makes sense too. We are all energy, and by all I mean all. The world is one huge circuit and and currents in one area affect currents elsewhere.
So I said a lot to say nothing. I simply don't know who or what is in control. Other than in momentary situations when I'm awake (paying attention) the manifestation of my will on a dynamic seems lacking to an extent. On autopilot. But what is piloting then, what is being abdicated to that takes over? I'm not really sure. I do believe whatever is taking place there it must take care to stay within the boundaries of the spells one agreed to or it would startle one awake, which gives one the ability to exert ones will on a thing.
Then that raises the question of what is will? Once again, I'm not certain. It does seem however that will comes from the area of feeling. I can think all day long that I want to move my arm, and nothing will happen if I don't push it through the area of feeling and will it so.
Please explain.
I'll try to briefly do so, but am pressed for time today unfortunately.
It appears to me that gnosis would only be possible if one held all possible knowledge to know for sure there aren't variables that are possible that make things suddenly what they aren't.
I don't know how one can possibly lay claim to the idea that gnosis is possible and they themselves hold it. It seems to me that it would be the same as trying to fit the ocean into a small sippy cup. Gnosis being the ocean, our limited whatever we are being the sippy cup.
This is a great topic by the way. It was inviting a commentary on gnosis as proclaimed by various religious branches that are anything but. They are yet more instances of perception masters creating the system and the recipients taking it in (being placed under its spell-ing). I notice this form of gnosis is often used both as a shield and a weapon, dependent on the position of strength of this particular form of self declared gnosis.
If you drop the sippy cup into the ocean, it may slowly fill with saltwater and sink into the depths.
Later the sippy cup may be washed ashore and the saltwater slowly leaks out onto the sand.
Before you can drink from the sippy cup, you must first rinse away the saltwater.
I like this.
Why do you breathe?
Why do you get out of bed in the morning?
Why do you eat?
Perhaps we can agree to call "pre-verbal" unidentified "feelings" "proto-feelings"?
And maybe "post-verbal" identified "feelings" "quantified-emotions"?
I dislike I'm rushed today as you are asking so many great questions. It will give me something to look forward to later when I'm not so rushed. I wish to make an observation before I try to briefly attempt answering this. It's an observation on a comment that rycharde has made somewhere here regarding emotion and feeling being a case of splitting hairs.
Obviously I view this different than he, which is why I'm doing exactly that here. In fact, the more I exchange with you if anything, my surety on them being two distinct areas has not only frown, I now question my original take that emotions are necessarily tied to feeling as I originally had thought. As I commit myself to explaining to another I am in the unique position of seeing my thoughts committed to , which is most enlightening. My debt and gratitude to both yourself and rycharde humoring me on this topic is immense.
Emotions - a jail of sorts that are created by intellectual spells.
Feeling - sensations that are a unique language/knowing. Smash your hand with a hammer, the light touch of another as it delights the self, the feeling another staring at you from behind and turning around and seeing it is so. It seems amazing to me that once examined that emotions are so easily confused with feeling. I caught myself even falling under this construct in an earlier comment I made to you where I used the word emotion when I should have used feeling. I left the mistake instead of editing it when I discovered I made it last night. I thought leaving a visible sign of my own folly on this matter could possibly serve as a lesson for others who may be observant.
The intellectual spells are very powerful indeed. Now as to whether this is so because we are immersed in them from birth I wonder. I suspect this is why.
I will try to watch the videos you have shared today, along with check out your latest comments and respond tomorrow.
∴
So therefore, I'm now questioning my assumption that emotions are bound to the area of feeling the way I had believed. The more we discuss this, the more I'm beginning to see it something like this.
I've always relegated emotions to feeling, as that is where they become noticeable. Evoking reactions in the feeling center of a person, they are not necessarily a feeling at all. I've noted for many years they are constructs of intellect. So now I'm thinking more along these lines.
Imagine one is climbing a mountain and brings rope and stakes. As they climb the mountain, they hammer their stakes into its side before progressing upwards to the next place they hammer the stakes.
The person hammering is the intellect, the stakes are emotions and the mountain is feeling. With only a cursory glance, one could conclude the stakes were part of the mountain if they didn't know better and the only place they ever encountered the stakes were in the sides of mountains. Yet they weren't part of the mountain at all, despite the person never encountering them elsewhere.
Not a complete analogy for sure, but it describes a mistake I think I've been making in assuming they were a part of the feeling area since that is where they are (where I have) observed (them). So at this point, the only thing of which I'm certain is that emotions are a by product of intellect casting a spell onto those binding the spell onto themselves. The emotions binding areas of feeling into certain reactions when the (intellect)spell in invoked.
I just took the test again, and this time it says I'm an INFJ-A . Reading through the descriptions so far it does look more closely aligned to myself than the one before. I do think that my life experiences forced me many years ago to analyze more carefully whenever emotions are involved, not feeling but emotion.
(notice the intp is "hiding" behind the sunglasses)
Zoiks.
inFj.
Great Work.
I've never found you hard to deal with. I appreciate many things about your approach, how your mind works.
You rarely share a position on a topic. I noticed that very early after encountering you. Yet your topics are usually interesting, and better, you probe responses which if one is open to such a thing, invites examination into the foundations of the responses.
You have a unique method of posting, usually in comment sections of posts that are well past the 7 day expiration. I noticed you did this last night in your one post here. I still have yet to go to that today now that I'm logged in.
It's been interesting watching you interact with others. You have a presentation style where you can be oppositional to the other person, yet most who might be prone to flagging for such action don't seem to flag you for the most part. I applaud your communication skills in achieving such a result.
Adding on to my previous comment, its been interesting watching you interact with Joey. I'm not a fan of his, agreeing with the sentiment on Hive that he is creepy. I told him that myself a couple of years ago. Despite my feeling towards him, he does have critical thinking skills higher than many I encounter, although they seem heavily tainted by far right propaganda. Of interest to me in the dynamics between the two of you is how much he does idolize you. I've witnessed him copying your commenting on his own posts, which is really something unique you've been doing.
You definitely have very unique, interesting tendencies. While it's true I've encountered some very sharp minds at Steemit/Hive/Blurt, your method of dancing with others is one of the most conducive to open dialogue I've witnessed. One of the other great minds over there (who've I speculated might also be you in the past) was always more direct in a challenging way usually. While it was interesting watching others dance in ways that revealed the perceptions they have chained to themselves as they became defensive, often to the point of being offensive, I appreciate a more subtle approach such as yours. It invites reflection from those who would soon grow defensive if openly challenged in a rudely probing way.
I'm overwhelmed once again by your generosity.
Your comments on HIVE really "put some wind in my sails" so-to-speak.
You've always stuck me as super-smart and self-assured. You seemed to have found your audience, at least as far as I could tell, and I'm still surprised you noticed me, and even more surprised you've taken the time to let me know.
I'm trying to be a person.