 |
PM |  | |
Quote | | |
Reply | | |
Full Topic | |
| Joined: | Mon Nov 21st, 2005 |
| Location: | California USA |
| Posts: | 6399 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: |    |
What is feeling? Feeling is a reaction to an outside stimuli.
I see an opportunity to suggest that here is a point of departure concerning the different meanings of the word feeling. I do not use the word feeling to mean a reaction to an outside stimuli, so your defining of terms is a good thing, in my view, because I can then work to avoid confusing your use of the word with my use of the word.
This knowledge is a building brick in a polygonal wall of our worldview.
Here is where the goal of me gaining help from you is becoming less likely to happen since the word "feeling" is already confusing and the term "polygonal wall" is expanding the possible meanings further and therefore adding to confusion.
Here are 2 things that appear to help me:
But it is also a reaction to an inside stimuli.
Inside stimuli is a reflection upon information we already have and we are trying to understand it by running it through ourselves.
Those arrangements of symbols appear to resonate, but the feeling of clarity, as if the word epiphany or the saying "a light bulb moment" is not an inside reaction occurring so much as those words appear to identify a process that appears to be describing what I try to label with the word feeling.
To me there is a power at work whereby I can feel my way around in the dark, and I can access this power when I want to avoid destructive power and when I want to find productive power. When this power, this feeling, works, I find productive power. When this feeling does not work, I do not find productive power, and often is the case that destructive people find me, and I am on some measurable way destroyed by them.
If I can access this feeling better, then I can completely avoid being destroyed by other people, and I can completely avoid destroying myself, and I can find more productive power as I find this feeling better and better.
So your words resonate in that way, if not precisely that way because the goal of communicating to you precisely what I feel is difficult at best, none-the-less there is this feeling I get that your words, quoted, are words that I feel as if they are productive in that context of gaining productive power such as the power to communicate accurately.
So the source of error here is not the core feeling, it's more in the filter of information interpretation. Just thiking about it this way, being aware of it increases your ability to counteract it's effects.
To me there is a power that destroys, and having a power to recognize that power of destruction in any form, is a good thing, a good feeling, and what is done with that good felling, or what is done with that recognition of that power to destroy, in whatever form it may take, is done by that entity, person, human being, power of will, power of choice, and if it is me doing the choosing, then my choice is to defend against that power, which is best, to me, if it is entirely avoided.
The example of a woman having bearing children is not workable to me as well as another example since I am not a woman, and pain is not the feeling I had in mind, more so the feeling I had in mind is to work toward the accurate identification of the source of feeling. External powers other than the individual power of will, or the self aware being, powers external to the self aware being, to me, are not the sources of feeling, and therefore not the idea I had in mind when I use the word feeling to reach the goal of accurate communication.
Internal powers, or reactions, point more toward that origin of feeling that I intend to focus attention upon when I use the word feeling.
The more I discuss these perceptions, with you, seeking the goal of accurately communicating with you, the more, at this time, I find my command of English to be powerless in reaching that goal.
How to know if anything is true? Make a building block of it and if it fits the polygonal wall. True knowledge has a virtue of never contradicting both its reasons and its consequenses. True knowledge never creates axioms that create even more axioms. True knowledge eventually leads to a decrease in number of suppositions. And what you can't know quickly enough - you bear in mind until you do. That is how I do it at least.
If I were to take the time to arrange all the words you write to me, the words I read, in order of least helpful to most helpful, then those words quoted above are words that I feel are words that can be moved far to the helpful measure and far from the less helpful measure for reasons that I can explain in greater detail.
Those words fit. Those words agree. Those words answer questions.
Example: I had little power in using the term polygonal wall before I read those words, and now that term fits, agrees with, and answers questions.
Example: The words axioms that create even more axioms are words that fit the routine of deception, whereby one false communication generates the need to create more false communications in answer to questions that expose, or question, the first false communication.
Those examples are not intending to be axioms, to me, those examples are intending to confirm why and where those words fit, and if they are axioms creating a need for more axioms, then that is evidence that fits the concept of me suffering self-deception, as far as I know.
Random for means irrational, rather than unfortunate/fortunate.
Random and abstract are words that label two things, not one, if I understand the context of these current words accurately, while the context of my combining those two words into one thing being labeled by those two words, in that context, is the concept of where those thoughts originate, random thoughts originate from here, as if to point in that direction and say that is where that random thought originates from, and then to point in the direction of an abstract thought, and then try to put a label on the originated source of that abstract thought.
This is to me an example of an abstract thought, or random thought, whereby the origin of it is like a hard drive and the random access memory or RAM is pointing at the Hard Drive and finding the source of this abstract, or random, thought, gathering up stuff from that Hard Drive, and then assembling that stuff into something, for some reason. It would be irrational for the RAM to seek something from a memory card that is on the desk. It would be irrational for the operator of the computer to command the computer to pick up the memory card on the desk and place the memory card into the card reader connection on the computer. Where does the being in control of the power of will get the inspiration to do anything, anything random, anything abstract, anything irrational, or anything rational?
Pointing to that source of inspiration was my intended message to be communicated accurately in those words above, and in words written previously, as if asking anyone, anywhere, to measure, quantify, know, understand, record, report, explain, that source being pointed at for that purpose of accurately identifying it.
Maybe I'm not understanding your use of random?
My abstract thinking, at this point, is such that random means not of specific control by an individual power of will.
An example can be a goal of solving a particular problem, such as the invention of a way to attach a piece of wood to another piece of wood, and do so efficiently.
A random thought might be a clear memory of an past event whereby that clear memory of a past event has no use in solving the wood problem, and therefore that random thought works against the willful goal of solving the problem.
If the will power is regained, then the random thought is discarded, and the power of will returns to complete the goal efficiently; yet the problem persists, so the power of will is used to find the solution.
The solution may be in the hard drive, or the solution may be on the memory stick on the table, or the solution may be in the tool box in the garage, and the will power is then directed, controlled to focus that power upon that solution.
Where can I find that power of will that is inspired to focus that power of will upon that solution, and if random thoughts are allowed, by that power of will, can there be a better solution to that problem, and where does that better solution come from, where is the origin of that better solution when that better solution is found where that better solution is found at the source of it?
If it is not in the hard drive, not in the RAM, not in the memory stick, not in the tool box, yet is is found, then where is the origin of it, the solution, once it is found, and there will be a connecting medium, at the exact point at which there is no solution found, and then there is a solution found, so reasonably, that connecting medium connects the finder with the thing found, or is that irrational, and unreasonable?
I can try tuning my guitar based upon 440 Hertz and I can try tuning it at other frequencies and in that way I can test to see which is which in which ways.