i find all ideas to be merely conjectures…
some people begin by saying:
x=x…
I begin by saying
If x=x…
It wouldn’t change things assuming it didn’t just come into existence, such as to be a thing that doesn’t change things.
But I at least think all things exist in so far as they have an affect, and understanding what does exist most often lends to other understandings, yet ultimately we often function the same while believing or thinking of things in a different way, and as such it may not be so important how one understands as that one understands enough to lend to that which is most important to lend to.
And of course, I personally think of things in the manner that a Sentient Ultimate (as you nicely rephrased) is affecting things
and thus plays a role in the whole
such that in recognition of such i find a form of logical progression that seems suited to functioning the best, at least for myself.
It just takes longer for you to catch up to the names of what you spiritually sync with.
It is an interesting matter to attempt to think without the use of names or words, and then even images…
No; it is not exclusively emotions, nor are these emotions the caliber in which we think of emotions such as sadness, anger, love, or the like.
They are the undercurrent of emotion akin to the undercurrent of a wave. Standard emotions are more like the white caps cresting on the top of the wave.
Of course there are irrational concepts at this level; almost everything there is irrational - literally.
The only way you can state them to be rational at all is by stating that they have a circuit which has a logic unto itself for function.
Aside from this, by common terms of rational and irrational, they are irrational.
This is why meditation is required; to pull them up to cognition where reasoning can be applied.
Makes sense, I might say everything may hold some irrationality, as in order to know logic is sufficient we use logic…
Let me put it another way.
You have instinct to move in reflex. It is irrational.
You can learn how to evoke this reflex, meditate upon them in practice, and then control the function to a degree whereby reflex has now been altered by training that you decided through reason.
Thereby, instead of simply reflexively moving without controlled form; you can now reflexively react with greater precision to the event practiced.
Makes sense mostly, although actually controlling the reflex seems contradictory, but I think I see what you mean if i look past the “names” or words:
By practicing the reflex one is controlling the effectiveness and quickness of it?
Similarly, you can reshape your spiritual emotions.
Interesting thought, but how would such be good?
Almost sounds dangerous.
Do you mean alter the way the spiritual impacts you to elicit emotions, or alter the way your emotions react to the spiritual, or what…I don’t know I grok this?
In the example I gave, simply because if I am discussing heat, then the first to encounter that will be the skin.
We are not Vulcans. The first thing that picks up will not be logic. The first thing that will pick up is our implicit responses.
(the non-emotional idea with regards to Vulcans I could logically argue with them…it would be interesting…)
The skin may be the first part of the self to encounter the heat so long as one considers the self as within the aspect which is defined by what we see is our boundary.
As to the definite layering; I can’t.
I can only state that spiritual emotions that I am referring to are below intuition on a layering of cognition.
And I can only state that because of what intuition is: an implicit processor.
Long term implicit emotions are one of the things that would be processed by the implicit processor and served over to the explicit processor in translation of simple impulses.
After other discussions I’ve had, I think the idea of really being able to arrive at a definite layering of any aspect of the things mental is not really possible anyways.
When we think about possibilities we don’t literally think such and such is 73.444455556567% possible some can but only after other thoughts and it won’t be perfectly accurate and thus uncertain. What we tend to do it would seem is just say thing x is more likely than thing y and thing z more likely than that, and i guess it goes the same when leveling any ideas…Rather one might say we relate rather than definitively level.
They ran experiments in which people were told to pay attention to material information directly and later recall answers regarding that material.
Then ran experiments in which people were told to play a game while material information was shown indirectly behind their point of focus (the game) and later asked to recall answers regarding that material.
The second test results were equal to, and in some cases (not by a large margin) higher than, the results of the first test.
This makes sense now that i have thought more about it.
But the study would seem to suggest that having commercials in the back ground on tv, or at the side of a web page, might be quite functional at what some might then call “subliminal” coercion.
Might I quote you i might use this in other arguments, and do you know of a reference to this, like a Wikipedia article or something?
This is one way it was shown.
The other is still running in an active lab pretty regularly in which they can predict what your answer will be by monitoring where your brain is shuffling energy around. Every time your brain transfers energy to the wrong sections of the brain for the type of problem at hand; they can tell you are going to get the answer wrong before you even start your answer.
I would like to be tested by that, might you know how I could arrange such? Or have any idea how i might find the place doing that and/or contact them.
In cases of intuitive answering, implicit recall, the answers fair as founded as explicit recall and again, in some conditions it is superior than explicit recall.
It doesn’t mean intuition is the way to go; it means that at some functions, intuition is the better tool. Ergo, why we have it in the first place.
I would think intuition would be better for dealing with things which have pervaded the human condition the longest, where as logic would be better for dealing with more recent actualities.
Socializing though is an example where both are needed, as while socializing has been around longer than we have been considered human, the logical mind of others is more associative with the here and now and so in more need of logical relation. Whereas when buying a house, we have used houses for a very long time in our culture, it would seem better to go by how it makes you feel then how it looks or what logical arguments the seller suggests, though of course some logic is needed to insure appropriate expenditure (of course there would seem to always be a mixture of logic and feeling in action): and one might even recognize logic behind this as how it makes you feel will tell you the comfort you will have in it, and comfort/good-feeling with regards to where you live the most is highly conducive to functioning in all sorts of things, especially studying, i do believe.