The Origin of Moods
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.
You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
Emotion is a biological trait that provides a catalyst for investigation. The investigation should be both external and introspective. If you miss the cue, you live as a slave to your emotions. That’s why there are so many unhappy people. It comes back to understanding your animal self.
Danny Lowell t. this ones for you kid…. listen to it in the dark and report back to the stonedragon!
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.
I don’t think I would ever have understood them without the lectures, introductions and discussion groups. Some of them are just unreadable. But once you understand them, it’s definitely worth it imo. Except for not being able to talk about it with just about everyone :P
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.
Didn’t say I rejected all other idea’s, I simply believe that NOTHING should be accepted at face value and that EVERYTHING deserves at least one blink of the skeptics eye.
According to Martijn they are felt with more than just the brain, also with the body itself. So if were talking about input and output its felt via the nervous system, up the spinal cord, and into the brain which processes the information.
I await vehement replies.
“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.”
Love this line Jason. Completely sums up a number of people I have met over the years.
@Ka and @Jason
“This negative state doesn’t last very long however, as I can usually “reverse” it by focusing on the opposite polarity emotion for several minutes.”
Do you think this is a good thing to do? I am inclined to think that it’s better to accept it, and go deeper into it, than to react to it and make it disappear?
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!
Martijn is correct; everything is freewill choice, even perception. The limitations/misappropriation of the human intellect are the sole source of this conundrum, and you guys have inspired me to write a new article on just such a topic.
Wow, intense guys.
So the idea came from last night and from two years ago: Two years ago I was in a concert band playing saxophone, and the connection I had playing that was spiritual, but I noticed that as I played the sheet music certain notes would be certain colors, not strongly, but just light colors. I didn’t care much at the time; but so last night I was siting around reading, and I hit the lights, room dark. I just started thinking. What are my moods? And after a stupid long time of meditation I saw rivers of color erupting from the lowest part of my rib cage that ebbed and flowed swelling and shrinking like a living part of my being that continued outward slowly fading off. It was so cool I hoped on HE and posted this thread dumbfounded.
I told my friends who looked at me stupid and kept saying the words “aura” over and over, but I just didn’t see it the same. To me aura is too static.
The best idea I can give you was this image I found, but it doesn’t scratch the surface. http://desktopwallpaper-s.com/19-Computers/-/Aura_color/
Our emotions make sense to me as an evolutionary trait. I don’t disagree with synesthesia, but that still seems a lot like chemicals in the brain.
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.
^It is by arguing that we learn to understand idea’s and the universe. Why is it that wherever spirituality is involved we must turn off the left side of our brain and take it at face value.
Bertrand Russel summed it up best for me in Philosophy for Laymen.
“To endure uncertainty is difficult, but so are most of the other virtues. For the learning of every virtue there is an appropriate discipline, and for the learning of suspended judgment the best discipline is philosophy.
But if philosophy is to serve a positive purpose, it must not teach mere skepticism, for, while the dogmatist is harmful, the skeptic is useless. Dogmatism and skepticism are both, in a sense, absolute philosophies; one is certain of knowing, the other of not knowing. What philosophy should dissipate is certainty, whether of knowledge or of ignorance. Knowledge is not so precise a concept as is commonly thought. Instead of saying ‘I know this’, we ought to say ‘I more or less know something more or less like this’.”
@Martijn; your assertion is correct, but it’s actually more complex than that. There is a big difference between blindly reacting to your emotions, and becoming consciously aware of them as they arise. With the latter, I am able to stop myself in the present moment and become consciously aware of my temporary emotional bias. Then, I can decide how to continue. Every situation is different, but I strongly advocate the questioning of ALL negative emotions that arise. Negative emotions are like alarms; there is no need to keep them blaring after you figure out what they are alerting you to.
I think you may have misunderstood my point on the last page Martijn, which is totally understandable. I am not “cutting off” my negative emotions, nor am I simply letting them take their course; these are two extremes of a pole. The only thing that is a reaction is the emotional impulse in the first place; without conscious awareness of your emotional state, you become a passive machine.
I don’t care WHO argues with me on this, YOU ARE NOT IN CONTROL unless you can steer your mental and emotional state at will. If I can piss you off by saying something, and you consequently react negatively towards me about it, I am in control of you. This is precisely how the news and media can get millions of people to participate in things that are nothing but detrimental to their well being.
Every action you will ever take is sparked by an emotional impulse. Everything from deciding what to have for lunch to how you would react if you just got into a car accident; emotions are the fuel for actions, and thus our experiences. You can argue that your thoughts are what get you moving, but your thoughts always “pass the ball” to the emotional centers immediately after. You might want to make pasta for lunch, only to realize that “I’m too tired” or “I don’t feel like it” shortly after ; )
People who think with a hammer always miss this point because they get lost in an infinite loop of reductionism. They will say things like “Well that’s not entirely true, because our emotions are responsible for our evolutionary survival, etc” or “Not everyone reacts the same way, so emotions are subjective” which is absolutely true, but completely ignores the influence of freewill choice.
Without freewill choice, all thoughts, emotions and consequently actions are all passive. Therefore, that which controls your thought patterns consequently controls your prevalent emotional state, and what actions you will feel capable of taking…unless you consciously intervene.
I always reduce it down to the three elements of thought, emotion and action, because nearly everything falls under those three “umbrella” categories in terms of dynamic experience. If you can consciously focus on positive thoughts, your physical body is going to start “picking up” on the cues, and mirror your conscious intent. Then, you’re going to find yourself excited to take action, where as before you were temporarily handicapped by apathy, indecision, depression, etc. Everything begins with choice.
@stonedragon, So the book is called The Presence Process and is written by a guy called Michael Brown. After a 100-page introduction, you get assignments for each of the following 10 weeks. Each week you have to do connected breathing which is basically meditation twice a day, to read the materials for that week and you have a Presence Activating Statement that you need to say whenever you remember (sort of a mantra). The whole point of this is to become more aware and as you become more aware, you start noticing emotions as they come up, you start seeing how reactive you are and then you deal with them. I’m describing this in very simplistic terms of course. I can’t say more because I’m only at week 2.
But I do resonate with a lot of what this guy is saying and as my current goal in life is to become as aware as possible, this work seems to fit perfectly. I’m now discovering that emotions do play an important part in my life and I’m even starting to understand women (just maybe 1% :p) because they live more in the emotional plane while the men are very mental. It’s funny that I’m with a girl now and I am telling her all these “discoveries” that I am making about emotions and about how I can ride an emotion or transform it into something else, and she says “Dooh!” :)) It seems I need to catch up.
All this process reminds me of transpersonal psychology and holotrophic breathing. There too, you had to breathe in a certain way while special music was played in the background and you then had various emotions and pains from the past appearing in your body and you had to somehow release them.
If I start crying when I see a baby, I know I’ve gone a bit too far :)
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.
@Chris, Cool, I also prefer to be skeptic but I am open to anything and I took down science from its pedestal because I realized it is really limited. I have the feeling that you are quite attached to the science dogma and as a consequence you have a blind spot. As the Zen saying goes “Empty your cup” ;)
Regarding emotions, I prefer to dive deep into them and to experience them and then I’ll see what conclusions I come up with.
i dont get this thread that much. but i do want to say that i am one extremely synthesistic person. i taste music and hear colors. my emotions are full of vibrations of all sizes, shapes and forms. this i feel indeed in my heart area and see it im my minds eye as color and form. i do wish i could control it , but i cant. at least i never tried. perhaps i should.!
i give a shit if it is chemical or not. that part does not interest me.
what interests me is how do others perceive?
it seems hard for me to imagine other people not being able to see forms and colors when they hear jazz music for example. or not see dark blue and brown triangles in the chest area when they are sad…
@martijn. i read your article and liked it very much. this topic is of great interest for me.
@Martijn, What I wanted to say is that I don’t run from negative emotions but I want to investigate them and find the root of the problem. Or maybe to learn to let those emotions flow through me and not have them affect me for a longer period than it has to. I don’t want to suppress them, but transcend them in a way. In the end, we all want to be at peace (happy). Even the act of accepting is based on the idea that if I accept it, it will go away.
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.
Why can’t it be a simple cause/effect relationship between thought and emotion and the resultant mood? I like some music because it stirs a positive emotion. I know some songs that I get a positive emotion from only because of the novelty of the song, and its ability to open up a part of my memories from my past. So why not, when you hear certain music it opens the memory to good times past. It doesn’t have to be something you heard before, just something that cues your memory to something to which you have attached a positive emotion.
You can make yourself feel happy merely by thinking about something positive from your past. Emotion on demand. Some people learn to display moods, as a way of manipulating people around them. Some people parade their moods around as a form of identity. Mood is a decision.
I think if we take the time to analyze our moods we will, more often than not, find that it is merely a reflection of the past and a resurgence of the emotions attached to that past.
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.
Another way I look at it is that mood is a product of expectation. If you expect something to go one way and it does, you are happy; if it does not, you are unhappy. We create our own expectations, and thus the consequent mood.
Look how people attach an expectation to the weather and let it affect their mood.