Where or what causes our moods? Emotions come from where?
Personally I hate the scientific answer of "chemicals in the brain", and though it is more realist, it’s not romantic, aesthetic, artist. I like to think my emotions mean something other then chemicals fizzing in my thinking box- I think of something more ‘color’.
(English just doesn’t have the right words I’m looking for. ‘Color’ I mean a flowing array of identity radiating from the physical origin of the body, it’s music like lines on a staff of sheet music, like playing the saxophone the colors blaring out of the bell swelling and shrinking at every note and tone.) I don’t know, speak and be heard.
So you already know the answer to the question you asked. You already have a logical, rational, empirical explanation and its just not good enough because it lacks hippie bull.
Emotions are thetans from Xenu Galactic Ruler of the Galactic confederacy. You see your emotions were originally souls that were unloaded from Boeing-747’s stacked into volcanoes and blown up with nuclear bombs. Said ‘sploded souls then attached to the spinal cords of apes, like some messed up larval creature from the Necromonicon.
Seeing how I’ve lost all faith in humanity, I’m gonna go headbutt a bullet.
Moods can be a result of your behaviour & actions. When you eat well & exercise or socialize with like minded souls you will create the conditions for good moods. When you are hungover or associating with the wrong people or doing work that is not your true calling you will manifest uncomfortable feelings. Always give yourself time to reflect on what it is you are about to do or what you are doing and what the consequences of your actions will be.
My question is, why does there need to be romanticism, and aesthetics in the truth of the human body.
Do you find tumors aesthetically beautiful? It seems like your attaching a human parochialism to emotions.
Although on the note of color, the game Mass Effect has an interesting comparison where the Rachni (Orson Scott Card Buggers) “see” with a resonance of color. Its interesting because they perceive language as sound, and color, and emotion rolled into one. I’m not saying its inconceivable, I’m just saying its not the case. (<—Opinion supported by empirical evidence.)
I find that the idea of my emotions being nothing but some dull scientific proof to be demeaning. “Oh, your thoughts and emotional ideas toward something are just chemicals, you don’t actually love something because it loves you, you only feel love because of a certain release of endorphin in the brain; it’s all right here, you’ve been calculated down to numbers, statistics, and charts.”
BOOM! That’s it! Numbers, statistics, and charts. Being put in categories because of natural responses- I’m more than test group A or personality type B; where everything I do is important and not just because statistically I’m more likely too.
This is beyond incredible, because I JUST posted about this in another thread. Science is extremely limiting when it comes to discerning absolute from relative values; science ONLY DEALS WITH RELATIVE VALUES. My emotions register as blips and bloops on the screen, which can be measured as synaptic pulses etc. Science cannot FEEL my emotion; it can only measure it.
Science is a beautiful monster, because it has the potential to unleash complete magic, but our modern science is an intellectual trap that does nothing but rationalize away higher phenomena due to it’s own limitations of being unable to deal with things beyond it’s method of investigation.
The root of this cause is the incorrect use of the human intellect. I am working on a large article that delves deeply into this and lays it to rest once and for all, so keep an eye out!
I wrote a long post on sensations/emotions/feelings/moods and our language/how we relate to the world. I feel it answers most of your questions, but it might rise some new ones aswell. Could you read it and let me know what you think? I would appreciate that :)
The article is also about synesthesia, and it seems you, Chris, are arguing that that is not the case? You are right, most of us can’t experience emotions as colors, or bodily tension as sound. But, as far as we know, almost all indigenous people can. And you have the potential as well.
Also explained in my article: http://www.highexistence.com/the-one-taste-of-the-universe-or-how-to-experience-synesthesia/
Emotions originate in the body, which is in turn in constant conversation with the world (nobody seems to notice this tho, but I refer to the phenomenology of Maurice Merleau Ponthy).
For example, if someone is angry at you, your body mimics/resonates his posture and facial expression (mirror neurons), this automatic empathy makes you feel what he feels.
If you hear about a loss of a dear one, the symbolic information is connected to your actuall experience of losses in the past (or the ability), which in turn sends neurotransmitters/hormones/synaptic signals through your body, making your heart area tense (coincidentally the same place as the heart chackra, in this case hippy BS, science or introspection gives all the same information). This in turn makes you feel sad/hurt/devastated.
@Phil, please read this. I’m not bashing science, I think my intent got lost in translation:
“When it comes to scientific research and proof, exploration is into phenomena that carry a factual existence independent of the observer, quarantining it from psychological bias and delusion. But by limiting proof to what is universally replicable, what remains are solely those phenomena comprising the lowest common denominator of experiences available to all observers inhabiting a consensual reality.
In other words, scientific proof is strictly material proof that depends in no way upon the individualized conscious or spiritual state of the observer. Thus scientific proof encompasses the crudest set of phenomena that are undeniably real to individuals with even the crudest levels of conscious development.
Scientific standards do not allow for personal proof that depends on the observer, and yet it is precisely the conscious development of the observer that determines what other levels of reality beyond the purely physical and deterministic can be accessed. The closest science has come is in quantum mechanics where it is now commonly accepted that the observer plays a unique role in the outcome of an experiment. But beyond verification of the statistical trends describing the distribution of all possible observations in a given experiment, any particular outcome is not universally replicable.
That is why quantum physics, in not being able to predict any specific observations, must resort to statistical descriptions because in doing so it once again approaches collectivity and thus what it defines as objectivity. Even so, the exact influence of the observer on a quantum system is not understood, and thought to be random as well as being limited solely to the atomic scale.
That’s as far as modern science goes. Yet seasoned researchers of fringe knowledge and battle-hardened experiencers of the strange know that trans-objective phenomena also operate on the macroscopic scale and depend on the quality of consciousness and spiritual orientation of the observer. Synchronicities and the correlation between attitude and attracted experiences are some examples.
We are not just observers of reality, but active participants endowed with freewill to choose to transcend our realms by going above and beyond our prior assumptions. Inexplicable events happen, and we can either rationalize it away with assumptions and rules programmed according to our collective mainstream reality, or we can figure it out within ourselves and leave the herd in the dust.”-Tom Montalk
You are right, that is what science does. Ever asked yourself exactly why we have the need to do that?
Because in my view, most people seem to overestimate the human race, denying we are animal in every sense. That we do some things because that is just human. Which is very bad science. There is alot to say about this, but here is a short excerpt from the article I wrote I linked to above:
Peter Sloterdijk writes in his book The Critique of Cynical Reason that this way of relating to the world is rooted in fear, that the drive for objective knowledge is only a tool that is used in order to preserve the self, the self that doesn’t trust the senses anymore and is then bound to map, control and always be on the look-out for the world that is not-me. This fear is our fuel for systematically constructing an identity from outside sources, like science, religion and media, thus depriving us from creating one ourselves. We are turned into spies that try to predict every move of our enemies, everything we can’t control and thus a potential threat.
“This fear is our fuel for systematically constructing an identity from outside sources, like science, religion and media, thus depriving us from creating one ourselves.”
^That’s all I’m saying Martijn : ) the lengthy posts were an attempt to assert what you’ve just said. I’m not denying the animal nature of human begins, quite the contrary. I am also not ruling out the virtue and ability of the evolved human mind to transcend binary and intellectual limitation.
I thought about this one for a while too Danny. Actually before it bothered me a lot, I mean it really bothered me. I didn’t like that I was just experiencing chemical changes in my body in the response to certain stimuli. But. Without those chemicals, we would not feel. We would not be able to experience this world or even care about it. It’s part of our nature to have these chemicals. “We are star dust, contemplating stars”, it’s all part of the magic of the way everything works. science, and I don’t know why it can’t be poetic too.
The problem lies the fact that if you take objective knowledge as who you really are, you stop looking how you actually feel, shortcutting every moment of your live because it’s just ‘chemicals’. Or Aliens.
^That’s my entire point! Positivism has everyone reducing themselves to chemical machines made of meat and electricity. That is where my main problem comes in. People either assume “we are meat and electricity”(intellectual bias) or “We were created by God!”(emotional bias); there’s no middle ground. I bet Osho would have a blast with this thread!
Feel the present moment. The TRUTH is that you are here NOW. Do not worry about proving the details, and don’t bother arguing with people who try and devalue your experience.
I find this idea along with some of the responses to it extremely black and white. Why does the fact that our emotions may be nothing but chemical reactions have to de-value our experience of them? I’m quite sure that they are still meaningful to the experiencer regardless of the origin or what a certain scientist or “hippie bullshitter” says about them.
Because it’s a value judgement. If you ‘believe’ they are just chemicals, then when you actually experience the sensation you don’t value it as much (it goes through a filter, it’s just chemicals, or I am just a blop in the whole universe etc), which makes it easier to listen to other sensations going on at that moment. (mostly our obsessive compulsory thinking disorder).
In short, you start to experience the whole world in a different light. If you want proof of this, look at the rise of mental disorders and the most effective treatment: Changing thoughts, paying attention to feelings instead of thoughts, or making the feelings stronger or more dull so we can actually listen to them without them taking us over.
You are right to say it’s not as black and white, and everyone of us inhabits the gray area between the two, but it helps to think in these terms to figure out in what moments you are going in either extreme.
I see how that could be true for people, but I don’t see it that way. The origin of the way I experience the world does not necessarily change the way I experience it. For example, sadness hurts whether I know where it comes from(chemically) or not. And love is no less meaningful with the knowledge that it works in the brain the same way as an addiction.
Once again you are right. But if you wear the glasses of: These are just chemicals, you don’t value the sadness, it doesn’t tell you anything, it’s not a signal to which you can relate. Over time, neural connections will whither away, and you become insensitive to sadness (and, also at the same time it’s opposite, joy). This will make thoughts even stronger (sadness loses it’s pull on your attention, room opens up for more distractions).
Absolutely you are right of course, but we experience it relatively, and over time, it can be the cause of the biggest neurosis this planet has ever seen.
That is a perfect example of what I was referring to as black and white thinking, “These are just chemicals, you don’t value the sadness.” For me, the fact that they are just chemicals (with no inherent meaning) means I can assign my own value, or lack thereof, to it.
^That is true, but don’t devalue their function. Your thoughts and emotions are the fuel which attract your experiences; people with a negative mindset attract nothing but proof to validate their thinking. The opposite is true of positive thinkers.
The real power extracted from this lesson is that YOU ARE IN FULL CONTROL of your thoughts, emotions and actions. Instead of passively recognizing this, CHOOSE to put them to use for your highest desires, and watch what happens : )
I’m lost on what we are disagreeing on here. My original comment said “Why does the fact that our emotions may be nothing but chemical reactions have to de-value our experience of them?”
which does not sound like passive recognition to me, but the opposite.
We aren’t disagreeing at all Ellie, I was merely elaborating on my own point. You are correct; saying our emotions are chemicals is like saying our shoes are just leather and lace; what’s the value of that? I’m wearing black socks right now; so what? What are you going to DO with them? That was my point!
My point was that it’s passive if you allow it to effect your decision making rather than putting it to use. Hammer-minded intellectuals love to state facts arrogantly, falsely assuming that science has preeminence over everything, and that by sticking with science, they are intellectually invincible. THAT was my whole point in all of this! I apologize for the confusion : )