Life Plan

[journyman161]

Did you read my post in meditation thread? I was saying, that animals have emotions, it is a sure thing. You can´t think, that I am fool in this way.

Be calm; I don't think you're a fool in any way or I wouldn't be talking to you. I am having trouble understanding a bit of what you are saying. It may be language difficulties or perhaps we have different concepts going on. For example...

But what is the TYPE of emotions they have? Yeah, primitive emotions to know, what is good and what is wrong.(something hurts) It is really LESS than logic animals use. But human has something more, he has abstract emotions.

What are these abstract emotions? Are you talking about (to use a biblical context) the Knowledge of Good & Evil? The kind of sense that something is right or wrong when you do or say it? That could easily be more to do with experience & association than with emotions. I'm not sure but I think you're confusing emotions with feelings. Feelings can come from mental processes that are related to experience & memory, whereas this conversation began with talking about how people react emotionally to events that occur outside themselves.
And animals (some of them anyway) experience the higher emotions as well - there are numerous instances of dogs sacrificing themselves for their owners. If that isn't love, I am not sure what might constitute Love.

For example I know the state of our population with all problems and social anomalies. What I am doing, am I using my logic? am I using abstract emotions? it is sure thing.

Sorry, but I don't understand this part - are you saying you have a feeling about the state of society & this feeling comes from emotions? I think it is more an internal thing & is based on your knowledge & experience of life & the people you've met & heard. The feeling doesn't come from emotion, it comes from the associations - we know from dreaming & from imagination studies that the mind 'relives' memories & they can have similar effects in the brain to the original events.

Logic give me an impulse to do something, I know, that it is right like 1+1=2. Somebody ask me for my opinion to society and I must use logic, if I want to know - it is good to answer him, or it is wrong. It is dialectic, like calculating with number values.

I think you may be confusing the meaning of dialectic - dialectic is to do with opposing theses, a statement of a situation or theory that is countered by its opposite but then works to resolution via a compromise of opposites.

But if I want to immediately get wide view to society and its problems and I want to immedietely scatter informations and opinions, I must use abstract emotions in this case or I can some hours giving my informations to unity with poor logic. Abstract emotions-views is something provided by subconsciousness, it is sure thing, that subconsciousness has logic, of course. But the main fact is, that I have no possibility to use logic of subconsciousness or its logic systems, so it isn´t logic for me, it is more than logic, I have not to thinking and considering about that, I simply know it and I can see this view like it is entire part of my logic. It seems like entire part of logic, but we can calculate it, because it is a work for subconsciousness, it can do it immediately, we never can do it with logic in fully awake state. If I want to have abstract view, I must use more than logic, because I want to have product of logic without using logic. I can use logic only to have a view, but not to calculate views. It can take me some hours by logic, I can do it immediately with abstract methods.

Sorry mate, I find this confusing again. I think you're saying that using logic is a step by step process & so to decide something or form an opinion may take a long time, where it is possible to arrive at a conclusion almost instantly rather than go the step by step route. This is called intuition & isn't emotion. A guy called Edward de Bono named it as Lateral Thinking & there are processes we can use to stimulate the flow of intuitive thought - but they aren't particularly emotive processes.

Now I think of it, I read back & I think you may be talking more about Intuition than Emotion. If so, I agree entirely - there are times when logic fails & intuition can work better. But from my PoV, there are very rarely times when relying solely on emotion brings a reasonable result - emotion modified by reason is what (to me) makes us human.

Can you imagine your life with no emotions, only with logic?? Whole this life is only a big death. We need your emotions like intent, and like system of methods of thinking. Primitive emotions come from primitive(old) parts of brain, abstract emotions come from abstract-improved parts of brain-mind. Can I say that simplier? Very important thing I forget, you must be "healthily" sensible to feel what I am saying, you must know how to work with emotions to get knowledge etc. In another case my words are pointless.

Perhaps you could tell me what you consider to be primitive or abstract emotions? I'm not in the camp of those who claim everything is chemicals & brain processes - I think if I was this wouldn't be a site I'd frequent. But from science it is clear that the base emotions do arise from chemical changes - if I am understanding what you are saying, the virtues (abstract emotions like honour & love) aren't body emotions at all & are not provoked from external events but rather from internal reaction & experiences. That is, in the process I described earlier, they come along after the primitive brain has passed along the emotional coloured perceptions & only when the reasoning mind has had a chance to review the 'event' perception. That is why a person can hit someone they love in reaction to a momentary rage - the 'higher' or abstract feelings don't get a chance to moderate the reaction - the rage comes & they lash out & only after they hit does the 'love' come along & bring shame.

[Psychotronic]

I am confusing, because english is my secondary language. Science can explain emotions in any way, but science has one problem. This problem is consciousness, we can´t explain it and we can only discuss. Consciousness is a form for all thoughts, emotions and everything what can have conscious character. So consciousness must be the highest principle. It isn´t only matter, but science can explain some emotions like action of matter. OK, they can have material part, but the part of emotions we consciously percieve is something without matter, it is something higher, it can be percieving matter, but it doesn´t depend on matter.

For example: I have had an experience I described as "Oneness with universe", it was some type of mystical experience. How could I achieve that?? I didn´t using logic, I didn´t calculating how to achieve that step by step like in mathematics. I was meditating, so I was using abstract emotions. In my experience I thought I knew EVERYTHING in this moment. I consciously got some thought - for example "matter" - and I got the second thought spontaneously, but it wasn´t normal thought - it was describing matter in all its possibilities, I had an impression I know everything about matter now. What is this thought? Can it be only with pure logic? No, it was an abstract emotion like a form for wide understanding. If I want to do an analysis, I can use logic, but if I want to continue in mystical experience I must use abstract emotions, resp. I can´t lose this emotion, it is possible with using logic. So, mystical experiences are only an EXTREME form of using abstract emotions, but we are daily using abstract emotions. They aren´t so strong, we can only make them stronger, if we are playing with them - meditating. Animals can´t do that. We can discuss, that animals are able to meditate. It is true, but they can´t do that consciously, because it is possible only with abstract emotions. So, they can "meditate" unconsciously like most of people. We(humans) have improved logic and informatical systems too, of course. But our abstract emotions are the ACE-card in our being. I can say, that abstract emotions in normal life are something like half-mystical views.

Dialectic is something materialistic. It is a unity of methods we can use to moving in "dialectical net". 1+1=2 is dialectical net with three objects. In dialectical net we can use ONLY analysis and synthesis. It is Aristotle´s precise method, but it was accomplished, that this system isn´t enough to study pure being. So it is similar case like our logic and emotions. Aristotle used only logic and he realised it isn´t enough too late.

[journyman161]

OK psychotonic, I think we actually agree, except what you call 'Abstract emotions' I call 'Awareness' & perhaps, something like Oneness or Realisation.

What brought me into the conversation was the comments about being shackled by emotion, & for that, I point to my explanation - those are the emotions that 'shackle' people, not the more enlightened moments of growth you talk about.

[Psychotronic]

I have beautiful obvious example: My phrasing in english language is terrible, because I use only logic to write something in English. Any grammatical mistakes have no relationship to sense of my posts still it is a logic too. Maybe I use too much imaginary in some posts.