Why don't the STS feed on " good feelings "?

[Menna]

Purely positive emotions start around the navel and travel up to the head...Im not so sure if purely positive emotions start in the brain (intellectual center) in my experience and what has happened to me over the pat 3-4 years is that I feel the energy in my stomach (emotional center) I then feel a tingling sensation and it travels up my body sometimes leads to tears depending if I'm alone or around others...Obviously I am not 100% about this statement because there is no science to back it up and positive emotions could start in the head area...This is just my experience

 

[Kisito]

Maybe that I am going to repeat or to seem presumptuous, but it is by no means my intention. I want just to share my ideas and to question me. For my part the feelings follow a circle of 12 feelings, in the middle is the serenity. The desire makes our ego germinate, our self-respect divided into two groups, the inferiority complex which is going to give " the bad feelings " (the fear, the shame, the jealousy, the hatred, the depression and the fanaticism) and superiority complex which is going to give " the good feelings " (the confidence, the pride, the friendship, love, the reproduction and the fanaticism). The feelings are what separates the beauty ( the serenity) and the desire (STS). This analogy seems to be represented by the myth of Orion. Orion was the most beautiful "human" being whom the earth had. Its ceaseless desire blinded him. Today, he runs even after Pleiads. It is our own fight(wrestling) enters the beauty ( our soul) and the desire (STS). We shall run after Pleiads (feelings) by desire, it is necessary to catch them to know them. Because they have the key of return to return at home (Beauty, Serenity). That is why it seems to me that no emotion is good. The semantic linguistics forces us to describe things, but I think that we name " good feelings " to describe our standards of the pleasure, but it is only an illusion. Thus by thinking(reflecting) about it, seems to me while the STS have to feed on all our feelings, with the exception of the serenity. It's for it maybe that when Cs says that the dance prevents the STS from feeding on us, it is because we are in a state of trance and because we emanate no emotion, only the serenity.

 

[SeekinTruth]

As far as I understand currently, one needs to separate higher emotions (pure) from lower / chemical / mechanical (impure/mixed) emotions. It is only by separating these two types of emotions and being guided by the purified, higher (true) emotions that we can make progress in the Work. At least that's what I understand at this point.

 

[kenlee]

As far as I understand currently, one needs to separate higher emotions (pure) from lower / chemical / mechanical (impure/mixed) emotions. It is only by separating these two types of emotions and being guided by the purified, higher (true) emotions that we can make progress in the Work. At least that's what I understand at this point.

I think Ouspensky made a good distinction between pure and impure emotions in his book Tertium Organum:

He says:

Examples of such a division of outwardly similar emotions may be constantly seen in artistic, literary, scientific, social and even in spiritual and religious activities of men. In all domains, only complete victory over the self-element leads man to a right knowledge of the world and himself. All emotions coloured by the self-element are like concave, convex or distorting glasses which refract the rays incorrectly and so distort the image of the world.

.

 

[Approaching Infinity]

I think that one of the fundamental principles at the root of this issue is that of values. All beings experience value. That's essentially what 'things' are in general: expressions of value, subjects with experience. My own sense of self is my experience of value. Psychopaths value only themselves, to the exclusion of other sources of value. But when I identify other sources of value, I can act in a way that takes into account their value, which I experience directly via perception but not to the same extent that I experience my own value. (For example, I don't experience things from their unique point of view, but their very being has an effect on me, analogous to my effect on them, leading me to conclude that they too are sources of value).

Another concept to keep in mind is the bottom-up and top-down nature of reality. A lot of our experience comes from the bottom up. For example, our bodies value themselves. They desire self-preservation, and our animal instincts are geared towards aims in service of self-preservation. Thanks to the ability to reason and the reality of free will, humans can act on the conclusion that other things have value, and adjust their behavior accordingly. I think part of identifying the nature of emotions is to see them in relation to values. If an emotion is prompted by, or serves, a 'lower' aspect of our being, and goes against our higher values (values that extend beyond our own selfish motivations), it is 'negative.' If it has its source in higher values or serves others, it is positive. Again, context is everything.

Sadists aren't acting on any sort of higher value. Their pleasure is purely for themselves and at the expense of others. When they feel pleasure, it is prompted by a lower value (bottom-up), the value for themselves. But a person who can recognize other sources can experience pleasure for themselves (ideally only when it doesn't violate higher values), others, or fore-go pleasure in service of a higher value/aim (conscious suffering).

 

[H-KQGE]

I think that one of the fundamental principles at the root of this issue is that of values. All beings experience value. That's essentially what 'things' are in general: expressions of value, subjects with experience. My own sense of self is my experience of value. Psychopaths value only themselves, to the exclusion of other sources of value. But when I identify other sources of value, I can act in a way that takes into account their value, which I experience directly via perception but not to the same extent that I experience my own value. (For example, I don't experience things from their unique point of view, but their very being has an effect on me, analogous to my effect on them, leading me to conclude that they too are sources of value).

Another concept to keep in mind is the bottom-up and top-down nature of reality. A lot of our experience comes from the bottom up. For example, our bodies value themselves. They desire self-preservation, and our animal instincts are geared towards aims in service of self-preservation. Thanks to the ability to reason and the reality of free will, humans can act on the conclusion that other things have value, and adjust their behavior accordingly. I think part of identifying the nature of emotions is to see them in relation to values. If an emotion is prompted by, or serves, a 'lower' aspect of our being, and goes against our higher values (values that extend beyond our own selfish motivations), it is 'negative.' If it has its source in higher values or serves others, it is positive. Again, context is everything.

Sadists aren't acting on any sort of higher value. Their pleasure is purely for themselves and at the expense of others. When they feel pleasure, it is prompted by a lower value (bottom-up), the value for themselves. But a person who can recognize other sources can experience pleasure for themselves (ideally only when it doesn't violate higher values), others, or fore-go pleasure in service of a higher value/aim (conscious suffering).

I liked the way this was explained & it came through very clearly. Thank you.

 

[Buddy]

I liked the way this was explained...

Same here and I appreciate any mention of values even where I don't necessarily understand the logic describing and referencing them.

Personally, I enjoy discussions that use Value as a way of understanding something. To me, it makes irony and contradiction more visible, so if I may add my 2 cents here, I'll be sure to tie back in to the topic question by the end.

The former Harvard anthropology professor Clyde Kluckhohn was often known to say that values are not the least vague when you're dealing with them in terms of actual experience. Or, to say it another way, there's nothing vague about a value judgment. To Kluckhohn, as to others, thinking in terms of value(s) was, and is, a useful way to restate the empiricists belief that experience is the starting point of understanding reality. Seen this way, 'value' is the 'leading edge' of reality - that 'pure experience' which exists milliseconds before our introspective mind apprehends it, dividing everything into subjects and objects in retrospect.

As one example of noting hypocrisy, it sometimes tickled me and sometimes angered me when I read about the sociologist attack on Kluckhohn's values Project. References to 'values' upset sociologists like Judith Blake and Kingsley Davis who tend to draw conversations about values into their personal 'domain' that's walled off by their own jargon terms (mores, determinants, norms) so they can intellectually attack and dismember a Project which only attempted to put values back into the field of Anthropology in order to make the field more useful and relevant to humanity.

Blake and Davis have a low quality understanding of Values so what they can do is convert talk of them into their own jargon terms in order to attack. But by doing so, they demonstrate what Kluckhohn knew: that Value is both an interpretative and a driving force - a force even behind their own efforts to destroy other people's value. To me, that's hypocritical behavior and just demonstrates their lack of understanding of what Kluckhohn was saying.

Another example of irony that can be seen from the perspective of Value is found in 'Decision Science' which attempts to do away with any role that intuition and gut feelings play in making rational decisions in action. By 'rational decisions in action', I mean when life is being lived dynamically and not statically like from an ivory tower looking down on the man-in-the-street.

The route to accomplish the mentioned goal is to first see intuition and gut feelings as opposed to rational thinking and then to proceduralize all efforts to arrive at a decision about almost anything at all. For the most part, the active players in Decision science seem oblivious to the role that their own intuition and gut feelings play in their actions - their attempts to identify actual problems in various areas of human endeavor and to come up with workable solutions.

Gads, I don't know how much more of that crap I can take, but I have to keep up with what's going on because what's going on is what's creating the environment in which we all have to work and live. To me, the "corruption of science" is not something that's going to be solved until all its possible mutations have been cornered and addressed. That's going to take awhile, OSIT.

So, to bring all this back to topic, I would conclude that from a Values perspective, Kisito's 'good feelings' and 'bad feelings' might be thought of as examples of specific psychological energy patterns on a continuum called Value. 'Bad feelings' would simply be those lower grades or lower quality patterns of value more in line with, for example, the type, quality or frequency resonance of emotional feedback A.I.'s sadist might need in order to feel anything at all.

In terms of emotive force or 'fuel', bad feelings might be that particular grade of octane that powers 'the STS'. Good feelings might represent a better grade octane for people who run better on a higher quality, more efficient fuel.

 

[Sol Logos]

Maybe that I am going to repeat or to seem presumptuous, but it is by no means my intention. I want just to share my ideas and to question me. For my part the feelings follow a circle of 12 feelings, in the middle is the serenity. The desire makes our ego germinate, our self-respect divided into two groups, the inferiority complex which is going to give " the bad feelings " (the fear, the shame, the jealousy, the hatred, the depression and the fanaticism) and superiority complex which is going to give " the good feelings " (the confidence, the pride, the friendship, love, the reproduction and the fanaticism). The feelings are what separates the beauty ( the serenity) and the desire (STS). This analogy seems to be represented by the myth of Orion. Orion was the most beautiful "human" being whom the earth had. Its ceaseless desire blinded him. Today, he runs even after Pleiads. It is our own fight(wrestling) enters the beauty ( our soul) and the desire (STS). We shall run after Pleiads (feelings) by desire, it is necessary to catch them to know them. Because they have the key of return to return at home (Beauty, Serenity). That is why it seems to me that no emotion is good. The semantic linguistics forces us to describe things, but I think that we name " good feelings " to describe our standards of the pleasure, but it is only an illusion. Thus by thinking(reflecting) about it, seems to me while the STS have to feed on all our feelings, with the exception of the serenity. It's for it maybe that when Cs says that the dance prevents the STS from feeding on us, it is because we are in a state of trance and because we emanate no emotion, only the serenity.

In terms of feeding on emotions, its easier for me to think about how it works between us. We express compatible feelings in a feeding way, like say a group of men patting each other on the back, joking about women in a shallow and negative way that further cements harmful stereotypes . All of them feel justified and approved of as a result and gain this feeling of being invigorated (feeding) through the process. We seem also to have complementary exchanges of emotions like an angered woman going off at a young timid man for pulling out in front of her car by accident driving down the road. She feels justified and superior and gets a sense of gained power (like she's feeding) while screaming profanities at him and he feels intimidated and drained. I'm simplifying, as there's probably more a spectrum and mixture of these emotional exchanges happening. But the thing is they are both self serving exchanges (of energy) that contribute to harming others. One party of the exchange gets fed, the other harmed.

But I wouldn't say all emotions are negative because not all emotions harm others and so the idea of ridding ourselves of all emotions can't be helpful. There's plenty of emotional experiences that don't harm as do the above examples. On the contrary emotions can be fulfilling and contribute in a beneficial way, individually and collectively. Creative arts are a good example, if an artist is connected with their own emotions and makes song that speaks of a fundamental truth and strikes a chord with our souls, its can challenge us emotionally but ultimately brings us to a sense of being connected, not an intellectual sense but and emotional sense. In my opinion, emotions are what we have to sense each other on a deeper level, so we'd be losing that if our goal was get rid of emotions.

We'd also not be able to discover what it is in us individually that wants to rid ourselves of a primary part of our being, and which likely comes from past hurt. So by cutting off from our feelings, we'd be also taking away our own ability to sense others, to sense ourselves and to heal generally.

 

[Approaching Infinity]

Same here and I appreciate any mention of values even where I don't necessarily understand the logic describing and referencing them.

Personally, I enjoy discussions that use Value as a way of understanding something. To me, it makes irony and contradiction more visible, so if I may add my 2 cents here, I'll be sure to tie back in to the topic question by the end.

The former Harvard anthropology professor Clyde Kluckhohn was often known to say that values are not the least vague when you're dealing with them in terms of actual experience. Or, to say it another way, there's nothing vague about a value judgment. To Kluckhohn, as to others, thinking in terms of value(s) was, and is, a useful way to restate the empiricists belief that experience is the starting point of understanding reality. Seen this way, 'value' is the 'leading edge' of reality - that 'pure experience' which exists milliseconds before our introspective mind apprehends it, dividing everything into subjects and objects in retrospect.

As one example of noting hypocrisy, it sometimes tickled me and sometimes angered me when I read about the sociologist attack on Kluckhohn's values Project. References to 'values' upset sociologists like Judith Blake and Kingsley Davis who tend to draw conversations about values into their personal 'domain' that's walled off by their own jargon terms (mores, determinants, norms) so they can intellectually attack and dismember a Project which only attempted to put values back into the field of Anthropology in order to make the field more useful and relevant to humanity.

The materialists have thought themselves into a corner on the topic of values. According to materialism, values cannot exist (they cannot be perceived, because perception is purely physical/sensory; they cannot exist because they are not material; and they cannot influence behavior, because causation is purely physical). But whenever a materialist argues the truth of such a position, they are implicitly affirming the value of truth. In other words, they're denying values while affirming them. Griffin has a great discussion on this subject in his book Whitehead's Radically Different Postmodern Philosophy.

So, to bring all this back to topic, I would conclude that from a Values perspective, Kisito's 'good feelings' and 'bad feelings' might be thought of as examples of specific psychological energy patterns on a continuum called Value. 'Bad feelings' would simply be those lower grades or lower quality patterns of value more in line with, for example, the type, quality or frequency resonance of emotional feedback A.I.'s sadist might need in order to feel anything at all.

In terms of emotive force or 'fuel', bad feelings might be that particular grade of octane that powers 'the STS'. Good feelings might represent a better grade octane for people who run better on a higher quality, more efficient fuel.

I think 'good and bad feelings' are the first experiences of value (Nagel argues this in Mind and Cosmos). But at different levels, and in different situations, values can change. So 'good feelings' aren't necessarily a good judge of higher values. The body can want something that is good for self-preservation, but not good for the preservation of the self as a rational, moral being (which the Stoics argued).

 

[SeekinTruth]

I'm reading Griffin's book Whitehead's Radically Different Postmodern Philosophy now (more than half way through) and I agree that it's great. This is a central subject in the book and covers very well how materialism has got into a dead end.

Mod's note: fixed italics

 

[Buddy]

The materialists have thought themselves into a corner on the topic of values. According to materialism, values cannot exist (they cannot be perceived, because perception is purely physical/sensory; they cannot exist because they are not material; and they cannot influence behavior, because causation is purely physical). But whenever a materialist argues the truth of such a position, they are implicitly affirming the value of truth. In other words, they're denying values while affirming them. Griffin has a great discussion on this subject in his book Whitehead's Radically Different Postmodern Philosophy.

Thanks for that. It specifically calls to mind Part 1 of that book that talks about the heart of Whitehead’s epistemology - a deconstruction of sensory perception into a hybrid of two 'pure' modes of perception - the second of which is relatively unheard of by others and is said to be derived from a more fundamental mode, "perception in the mode of causal efficacy."

According to Griffin, basically, Whitehead agreed with the Buddhists that the world’s most fundamental actual entities, or substances, are NOT individuals that endure through time. Rather, an enduring 'individual', such as an electron, a living cell, or a human soul, is analyzable into momentary actual entities, which he calls "actual occasions."

So, when not actualized, I suppose the fundamental substrate content is more like what the unorthodox Stoic Posidonius – as reported by Galen – talks of regarding standard cases of emotion having two kinds of intentional content – one consisting of judgments and another which one might call sub-judgmental.

For the average reader, I'm talking about the case that emotion has both conceptual and non-conceptual content. Presence of non-conceptual content doesn't necessarily mean no cognition at all, it can mean that you just can't find words to express something outside the bounds of your "knowns."

In terms of value, I see the conceptual content as stable or static patterns of value and non-conceptual content as value currently un-actualized. So, to me, of course values exist. :)

I think 'good and bad feelings' are the first experiences of value (Nagel argues this in Mind and Cosmos). But at different levels, and in different situations, values can change. So 'good feelings' aren't necessarily a good judge of higher values. The body can want something that is good for self-preservation, but not good for the preservation of the self as a rational, moral being (which the Stoics argued).

Yes, to me, different levels and different situations imply a value hierarchy and horizontal value spectrum, respectively.

May I ask for an example of what you mean by:

The body can want something that is good for self-preservation, but not good for the preservation of the self as a rational, moral being (which the Stoics argued).

...just so I can make sure I'm fully understanding your meaning?

 

[Approaching Infinity]

Thanks for that. It specifically calls to mind Part 1 of that book that talks about the heart of Whitehead’s epistemology - a deconstruction of sensory perception into a hybrid of two 'pure' modes of perception - the second of which is relatively unheard of by others and is said to be derived from a more fundamental mode, "perception in the mode of causal efficacy."

While Whitehead doesn't explicitly say so (Griffin goes a bit further), his epistemology is basically a universal theory of psi. Something like telepathy is more fundamental to perception than sensory perception. Psychiatrist James Carpenter has argued for this at length (albeit purely in reference to human perception, from what I can tell just scanning through his book) in his book First Sight. It's with non-sensory perception that we perceive values, numbers, memories, etc. But because sensory impressions are more immediately present to our awareness, they usually 'cancel out' or override the more fundamental non-sensory perceptions. In rare cases, 'telepathic impressions' come to the surface, however.

I think 'perception in the mode of causal efficacy' is really perception of information transfer.

May I ask for an example of what you mean by:

The body can want something that is good for self-preservation, but not good for the preservation of the self as a rational, moral being (which the Stoics argued).

...just so I can make sure I'm fully understanding your meaning?

It could be as simple as speaking up against some sort of egregious wrongdoing at your place of work when you know you will suffer negative consequences. Or giving up a meal if there's a starving person in the house. Basically just putting higher values above your own physical 'needs' and 'wants.' A hungry wolf eats. It doesn't consider a starving member from another pack. For humans, however, sometimes making the right choice means enduring some discomfort or pain in service of a higher goal. By putting others first, we preserve ourselves as rational, moral beings (because we reason out what is ideal behavior based on moral principles, and act accordingly), even if that means going against the pushes and pulls of the body, which may serve the self-preservation of the physical body, but not necessarily any higher values.

 

[Buddy]

OK, AI, I seem to be quite clear on what you're saying. Thanks for that explanation!