Now I get it...How to feel the Spirit.

[_subgenius]

A good example is your response. You have merely provided some arbitrary denial. Your self affirmation comes from the fact that you simply were able to provide a response. The substance of your response was arbitrary but the act of responding was the only self affirmation.
Perhaps this would be the point of distinction you are seeking.

[_Bazooka]

A good example is your response. You have merely provided some arbitrary denial. Your self affirmation comes from the fact that you simply were able to provide a response. The substance of your response was arbitrary but the act of responding was the only self affirmation.
Perhaps this would be the point of distinction you are seeking.

If only you could articulate some reliable identifiers that could be used to differentiate between a spiritual prompting and a self generated one....

[_GrandMoffTarkin]

Truths about ourselves perhaps, not about a world external to ourselves.

Is it possible to relate with the external world WITHOUT having it filtered through ourselves?

I'm not sure that is what we're talking about. Just because we see things through our own filter (to varying degrees) doesn't mean we should trust feelings about absolute truth about a world external to us.

[_Amore]

Is it possible to relate with the external world WITHOUT having it filtered through ourselves?

I'm not sure that is what we're talking about. Just because we see things through our own filter (to varying degrees) doesn't mean we should trust feelings about absolute truth about a world external to us.

You cannot help but trust your feelings to some degree.
Granted, ideally, it is in harmony with reason.
If you were to have the emotional part of your brain taken out - you'd be one lost cookie.

[_GrandMoffTarkin]

You cannot help but trust your feelings to some degree.
Granted, ideally, it is in harmony with reason.
If you were to have the emotional part of your brain taken out - you'd be one lost cookie.

I think it is only in resisting the urge to rely too much on feeling and in testing what we feel to ensure that we are not being misled by our feelings that we can actually discover truth and know that we discovered it. We may stumble across truth by trusting our feelings, but unless we test our feelings, we won't even know if we were right.

I can't imagine any situation where it would be a bad idea to test something out to be sure, barring a situation where we have limited time and have no choice but to go with a gut instinct, but I don't think that is really the type of feeling we're talking about here.

[_subgenius]

I think it is only in resisting the urge...

huh? resisting the urge?
what exactly are you proposing has "a strong need or desire to have or do something"?
how are proposing this, yet-to-be-manifest-here-by-you, condition of on this hand "feeling" and in this hand we have "something else"?

.... to rely too much on feeling and in testing what we feel to ensure that we are not being misled by our feelings that we can actually discover truth and know that we discovered it.

So, "truth", for you, is only that which is repetitious...consistency and predictability are the foundations for what is "real" for you...and nothing else?

So, how is it you are distinguishing between "we" and "our feelings"...is there a third party involved?
You are becoming quite complex in your Trinity of existence.

More importantly...if it were possible to be mislead by your "feelings" and we know it also possible to be mislead by your "thinkings"...then it is likewise possible for your feelings to be usurped by your thinkings, whereas the latter constructs a "reality" which narrates your feelings as having been "wrong" or "unreal"....all validated to the author by the very author.

Can't believe everything you see or hear....can you?

We may stumble across truth by trusting our feelings, but unless we test our feelings, we won't even know if we were right.

seems like a redundant point being made here....see previous response.

I can't imagine any situation where it would be a bad idea to test something out to be sure, barring a situation where we have limited time and have no choice but to go with a gut instinct, but I don't think that is really the type of feeling we're talking about here.

You should really, really, really, really....really...read the book Thinking Fast and Slow.
http://vk.com/doc23267904_175119602?has ... a7217e1962

Anyway, i think you defeat your own position here...the "truth" of your statement -
"a situation where we have limited time and have no choice" -
seems to solidify the hierarchy.
thank you

[_GrandMoffTarkin]

huh? resisting the urge?
what exactly are you proposing has "a strong need or desire to have or do something"?
how are proposing this, yet-to-be-manifest-here-by-you, condition of on this hand "feeling" and in this hand we have "something else"?

Is it really that hard to figure out? Humans seem to be prone to follow their feelings, because it is comfortable. Maybe "urge" was too strong a word. "Tendency" would have been a better choice. You're just getting nit-picky at this point.

So, "truth", for you, is only that which is repetitious...consistency and predictability are the foundations for what is "real" for you...and nothing else?

What? Where did I even remotely say that?

So, how is it you are distinguishing between "we" and "our feelings"...is there a third party involved?
You are becoming quite complex in your Trinity of existence.

because we have brains that are very complex. "Feelings" are only one of the things a brain produces. The bigger question is how are you equating "we" with "our feelings"

More importantly...if it were possible to be mislead by your "feelings" and we know it also possible to be mislead by your "thinkings"...then it is likewise possible for your feelings to be usurped by your thinkings, whereas the latter constructs a "reality" which narrates your feelings as having been "wrong" or "unreal"....all validated to the author by the very author.

This was a long winded way of making a rather platitudinous statement.

Can't believe everything you see or hear....can you?

Is that a serious question?

You should really, really, really, really....really...read the book Thinking Fast and Slow.
http://vk.com/doc23267904_175119602?has ... a7217e1962

Ok. I don't think you grasped my point though.

Anyway, i think you defeat your own position here...the "truth" of your statement -
"a situation where we have limited time and have no choice" -
seems to solidify the hierarchy.
thank you

What are you talking about? I was just adding a necessary (and obvious) disclaimer to my statement. It's better to test feelings, but obviously that statement shouldn't be applied to situations where you physically actually don't have enough time to do that. IT's fascinating that you can make an argument about any small point. You must have a lot of time on your hands.

How about you just tell me what you are really trying to say? What is the best way to discover absolute truth in your opinion? Or do you think there is no such thing?

[_subgenius]

huh? resisting the urge?
what exactly are you proposing has "a strong need or desire to have or do something"?
how are proposing this, yet-to-be-manifest-here-by-you, condition of on this hand "feeling" and in this hand we have "something else"?

Is it really that hard to figure out? Humans seem to be prone to follow their feelings, because it is comfortable. Maybe "urge" was too strong a word. "Tendency" would have been a better choice. You're just getting nit-picky at this point.

Tendency or urge, does not matter the statement is the same.
You seem to be claiming that "thinking" is not instinctual...or at least not as effective as instinct.
nevertheless
If we are "prone" then what you are proposing is some sort of situation that is "not-prone" - which is counter to your very cause of testing.

So, "truth", for you, is only that which is repetitious...consistency and predictability are the foundations for what is "real" for you...and nothing else?

What? Where did I even remotely say that?

The by all means...what would be your notion behind "testing".

So, how is it you are distinguishing between "we" and "our feelings"...is there a third party involved?
You are becoming quite complex in your Trinity of existence.

because we have brains that are very complex. "Feelings" are only one of the things a brain produces. The bigger question is how are you equating "we" with "our feelings"

I have not made such a distinction...it is you that is making a distinction between feelings and something else....but you have not justified your position. In other words, how are you able to objectively inspect your "feelings" in order to perform this "testing"?

More importantly...if it were possible to be mislead by your "feelings" and we know it also possible to be mislead by your "thinkings"...then it is likewise possible for your feelings to be usurped by your thinkings, whereas the latter constructs a "reality" which narrates your feelings as having been "wrong" or "unreal"....all validated to the author by the very author.

This was a long winded way of making a rather platitudinous statement.

i am sorry you feel that way.

Can't believe everything you see or hear....can you?

Is that a serious question?

Absolutely.

You should really, really, really, really....really...read the book Thinking Fast and Slow.
http://vk.com/doc23267904_175119602?has ... a7217e1962

Ok. I don't think you grasped my point though.

Perhaps, but you are echoing many notions from the book....and by that i mean, you are echoing misconceptions that are resolved by the "testing" found in the book.

Anyway, i think you defeat your own position here...the "truth" of your statement -
"a situation where we have limited time and have no choice" -
seems to solidify the hierarchy.
thank you

What are you talking about? I was just adding a necessary (and obvious) disclaimer to my statement. It's better to test feelings, but obviously that statement shouldn't be applied to situations where you physically actually don't have enough time to do that. IT's fascinating that you can make an argument about any small point. You must have a lot of time on your hands.

See, you say stuff like "it is better to test" as if it is a self-evident statement...but it is not. So, while you may provide an anecdote or two as to how you misunderstood your own feelings or or how your "thinking" mind discounted a feeling when it should not have - your argument has no basis for assigning value to any condition.

How about you just tell me what you are really trying to say? What is the best way to discover absolute truth in your opinion? Or do you think there is no such thing?

This is a great example, finally, of what your point is....that validation or invalidation comes from some sort of abstract "repetition". If i make a statement that "feels" right but can be "thought" wrong; or feels "wrong" but can be thought "right"; or etc. etc. ....then what?
will it only be true, in your above described paradigm, if it both "feels" right and "thinks" right?

this is why i mentioned thinking fast and thinking slow...there is a difference....apparently.

[_subgenius]

"If you ask this guy, what -- "all that glitters is not gold," what does that mean?" The patient says, "Well, if it's metallic and shiny, it doesn't mean it's gold. You have to measure its specific gravity, OK?" So, they completely miss the metaphorical meaning. So, this area is about eight times the size in higher -- especially in humans -- as in lower primates. Something very interesting is going on here in the angular gyrus, because it's the crossroads between hearing, vision and touch, and it became enormous in humans. And something very interesting is going on. And I think it's a basis of many uniquely human abilities like abstraction, metaphor and creativity."

[_Bazooka]

A good example is your response. You have merely provided some arbitrary denial. Your self affirmation comes from the fact that you simply were able to provide a response. The substance of your response was arbitrary but the act of responding was the only self affirmation.
Perhaps this would be the point of distinction you are seeking.

If only you could articulate some reliable identifiers that could be used to differentiate between a spiritual prompting and a self generated one....

Still waiting....