Where is this stemming from in the mind, the brain, the chemicals swirling around in the body?
iambiguous wrote:We'll need an actual context of course.
What emotions are appropriate and to what degree in regard to what particular set of circumstances? Why don't you start by noting experiences you have had of late in which you felt that the emotions expressed were not appropriate, or, if appropriate, not to the right degree.
For example, two people on opposite ends of the political spectrum get into a heated discussion about the impeachment of Donald Trump. How might your argument above be applicable here?
In brief, and at a fundamental level, you could understand this 'rise in emotionality' as a result of external affects increasing in complexity in proportion to the increase of human activity in general.
WendyDarling wrote:iambiguous wrote:We'll need an actual context of course.
What emotions are appropriate and to what degree in regard to what particular set of circumstances? Why don't you start by noting experiences you have had of late in which you felt that the emotions expressed were not appropriate, or, if appropriate, not to the right degree.
For example, two people on opposite ends of the political spectrum get into a heated discussion about the impeachment of Donald Trump. How might your argument above be applicable here?
Would two people of opposing political beliefs get into a heated discussion? No, it would be one person, the lefty, who would get reactionary and volatile spewing propaganda rather than facts.
I'm jumping ahead with Biggies obsession.
iambiguous wrote:WendyDarling wrote:iambiguous wrote:We'll need an actual context of course.
What emotions are appropriate and to what degree in regard to what particular set of circumstances? Why don't you start by noting experiences you have had of late in which you felt that the emotions expressed were not appropriate, or, if appropriate, not to the right degree.
For example, two people on opposite ends of the political spectrum get into a heated discussion about the impeachment of Donald Trump. How might your argument above be applicable here?
Would two people of opposing political beliefs get into a heated discussion? No, it would be one person, the lefty, who would get reactionary and volatile spewing propaganda rather than facts.
I'm jumping ahead with Biggies obsession.
Among other things, rather pathetic, isn't it?. But then that's what I reduce them too time and time again: The Retort. Often deemed by them to actually be...clever?
Really, imagine suggesting that a general description of "emotionalism" like the one above would be better served by bringing the argument out into the world and examining real emotions expressed by flesh and blood men and women, being dismissed as an "obsession"!!
Can you give examples of external affects as well as the increase in human activity?
WendyDarling wrote:Instead of whining Biggie, come up with a context that actually occurs.
What emotions are appropriate and to what degree in regard to what particular set of circumstances? Why don't you start by noting experiences you have had of late in which you felt that the emotions expressed were not appropriate, or, if appropriate, not to the right degree.
For example, two people on opposite ends of the political spectrum get into a heated discussion about the impeachment of Donald Trump. How might your argument above be applicable here?
Aegean wrote:I've said it in the past and was attacked.
But I'll repeat.
Anxiety/Fear is the mother of all emotions, because consciousness is outwardly focused, before it becomes conscious of self and turns inward - therefore, the sense of anxiety towards the unknown otherness, is the first to emerge as a reaction.
What is emotion?
An automatic psychosomatic reaction that facilitates an efficient, and possibly effective, response to an external trigger - an external stimulation.
Essentially it facilitates the fight/flight survival mechanism.
All other emotions are variations of it, or emotions that evolve to deal with its automation.
For example, lust, and the more sophisticated love, are biochemical methods of dealing with anxiety/fear, to make heterosexual and social cooperative survival strategies possible and effective. Forms of self-induced intoxication - pathos - that placate anxiety and fear to permit the process of copulation and fertilization and to then bond parent with child, permitting the detrimental risks and costs to be offered as a sacrifice to the limitations of mortality.
A parent passes -on to his/her children, half of himself/herself, and tolerates the other half, due to the fluctuating uncertainties of existence - its dynamic interactivity called Flux. This does not require any cognitive awareness, because it is all genetically automatic. In fact, awareness may inhibit this process, and ignorance makes it more efficient, just like knowing the symbolism of dancing may diminish its elegant performance.
What is emotion?
An automatic psychosomatic reaction that facilitates an efficient, and possibly effective, response to an external trigger - an external stimulation.
Essentially it facilitates the fight/flight survival mechanism.
All other emotions are variations of it, or emotions that evolve to deal with its automation.
What emotions are appropriate and to what degree in regard to what particular set of circumstances? Why don't you start by noting experiences you have had of late in which you felt that the emotions expressed were not appropriate, or, if appropriate, not to the right degree.
Aegean wrote:And, because love, evolving from lust, is a strategy of tolerating and bonding, to allow for an efficient cooperative strategy to become successful, the emotion of 'love' becomes deified - felt as a connection to a greater whole, a past that was near-absolute - a return to the duality of the binary Yin/Yang state: chaos/order.
What inhibits this escape in other - i.e., the continuity of self and the memory that binds it - is deemed 'evil' or illusory. A hang-up to be overcome on the path towards uniform oneness.
Salvation lies in forgetting self, and returning to the faceless, distinct-less flux.
σειληνός wrote:HA!!!
If this is not a circus full of clowns, then what is?
Desperation= lacking identity, a sense of self, the individual si desperate for an alternative.
Degeneracy = in their search the individual finds it in supply/demand - in society. Desperate for an identity it finds it in trends, fashions, in hedonism.
One product replaces another....and none satisfy; none satiate the mind's need for a foundation.
No family, no father figure, no mother worth shit.
What emotions are appropriate and to what degree in regard to what particular set of circumstances? Why don't you start by noting experiences you have had of late in which you felt that the emotions expressed were not appropriate, or, if appropriate, not to the right degree.
σάτυρος wrote:With no empirical foundations to justify its beliefs, the nihilist substitutes them with emotion, or sensation.
Always positive.
Always pleasing.
Hedonism. A reversion to the manimal state.
Gathering in safe-spaces - memetic barns - herbivores of many kinds, - each harmless to the other - gather in enclosures that protect them from the wilds, or the predators that lurk there.
Safe in the enclosure they regurgitate and feed on their respective vegetarian diets, and willingly surrender the product of their body to the farmer who maintains the enclosure safe and clean.
Survival of the fittest does not apply in here.
Dynamics have changed, from natural to social - supply/demand.
Farmer demands his pound of flesh, and the farm manimals willingly give it, knowing that in the wilds their memes would quickly fall prey to their weaknesses.
WendyDarling wrote:
Would two people of opposing political beliefs get into a heated discussion
No it would be one person the lefty who would get reactionary and volatile spewing propaganda rather than facts
Users browsing this forum: polishyouthgotipbanned