I think of our emotions more or less as still waters to begin with.
These still waters may be affected by our thoughts/behavior and those of others.
They then rise up and can go in different directions - both positive ones and negative ones.
But these waters, our emotions, do not have to cause negative reactions or responses if we can hold them at bey or re-direct them. Direct current then becomes alternating current. lol
There is always that psychic energy lying in wait for something - either turbulence or transcendent spirit.
Some emotions rising up can be quite reactionary - reactions. But can there be some which are more balanced responses? Or do you look on all of them as reactionary?
Certainly ‘the Creator’ does not exist. To my mind. An absolutely prepostrous notion.
You are amusing, though.
No, I do not deny my soul. I am my soul. My soul created itself.
I could recommend you investigate where the assumption of ‘The Creator’ comes from. In general, and in you.
And then, investigate why the concept Soul is, in some sects of humankind, made conditional to that assumption.
Whatever your joy is here, it is clear that Soul relates to emotions, and The Creator relates to nothing whatsoever.
A conscious experiencer + a brain which is reading the informational context of that, then relating, and delivering feedback in a kind of loop. If you remove the physical info being delivered into the consciousness, then the experience is nil [or only of itself]. There would be no-thing being experienced.
That is, when connected to the human form. If consciousness [being in metaposition] can connect to another vehicle for info, then that would be its experience.
I can’t see how one can have an experience without an central observer, to that relates all the other info making your composition. I suppose detachment [in the Buddhist sense][not good psychologically] via gnosis is the tried and tested method.
You curse me (example), I react/respond. Emotional reaction is possibly the primary way of addressing any such situation.
It comes when my sense of Self seems violated by any (external to the Self) thought or action.
Show me an emotional response that is not a reaction.
If I curse you lol - you will either respond or react.
Your response might be: Why did you do that to me? What did I do to you? An actual response to me is or might be at a much lower energy level than a reaction.
Now, your reaction at my having cursed you might be a slap in the face to me - that is if you’re the kind of man who likes to hit women.
A response to me is more reasonable and rational than a reaction although in a sense I can understand someone being really angry at being cursed out - it just depends on the individual. Does anger necessarily mean a reaction to it? What I mean is, behavior-wise?
The word responsability to me connotes more of an ability to act in a more reasonable, ethical way - not a violent way.
I suppose that after awhile, words get caught up in semantics.
What I was speaking of I suppose points more to the degrees of something – though I still see response in a different light than I do reaction.
But to get all caught up in semantics leaves the subject of the thread lost in space somewhere - another place where energy abides. It also abides within our own very spaces and the spaces within our selves which are taken up with “matter”.
“All response is reactionary.
And all responses depend on emotional energy, even if the impact of that energy is mitigated by rational considerations.”
Not sure about your position above? I like what you wrote, but should I? Have you been drinking my kool-aid?
It takes a chemical reaction to make a neuron fire. Tracing this reaction up through body and mind obscures the distinction between reaction and response. I’d say that emotions are the primary impetus for mind and body reactions/responses. Thinking gives options about how to use emotional energy. But—the thought owes to the options it has been given.