@ James - so now that I have answered one of your questions I have a request of you:
I would like to talk more about MIJOT and SAM Coops.
I was rather surprised how quickly you worked out where I was coming from in the other thread: The Silent Mind
We have discussed some interesting things so far and I have introduced the emotion of being curious and now I want to talk about the emotion that you have introduced “Joy”. I think joy is the ultimate goal on a daily basis and I really like your MIJOT principle - you also give great examples on how to maintain that joy.
Do you think that being curious is a good way for one to find ones next goal that you speak of? Allowing our level of Joy to rise again.
Does SAM Coops add to MIJOT? I imagine from what you are saying that the answer is yes.
How do you recognize or celebrate your perceived progress?
What I’ve always been interested in is what control we have over our emotions, and so our responsibility for them.
Everybody has had the sense of being locked in by their feelings, at some point or other. In the moment, a powerful feeling comes over us and even when we would have chosen to feel otherwise, we can’t. Anger, jealousy, despair, etc… But what we feel and how we respond are two different things. The ability to recognize a feeling and it’s whim, to table one’s ego for a moment and not just react - that is golden.
If you ever admired someone for the force of their personality and the way they’re able to navigate social or professional worlds, and if you ever wanted to figure out how they do it - I’d say you should start by paying attention to how they manage their emotions and how they are energized by them. How do they react to the positive, the negative, and everything in-between.
I’m sure there are a lot more of those kinds of vague sensations that we get which are hard to put into words, but perhaps could be relayed through poetry.
True - I guess taking responsibility for our emotions is harder than developing a logical mind.
Good point - which is where I became quite happy at the idea of there being a metric for emotional confinement - I think what you are saying happens all the time but to a more or a lesser degree.
I totally agree fuse.
Thank you very much - I will most certainly take a look at the articles - thank you for the other sources too, that is very considerate of you.
It would primarily depend on who the individual is who is indulging in curiosity and what the subject of that curiosity is.
There are emotions, besides happiness, which some might find to be more beneficial to our well being albeit happiness is important for our all-around survival. If we are following our curiosity ~~ for instance, intellectual curiosity ~~ that can give us a sense of wonderment and mystery which can be extremely fulfilling.
We all need to be careful of that “cat within” though which could lead us astray.
It is going to take me a few days to get my head back in the game.
A) Here I only compare two states on purpose. It it easier to contrast two states than more. I am interested in other states that you might define - would you provide for me one or two more states? Please exclude substrate states; ie. the states within the brain.
B) I just want to remind you that I have often mixed these up. I accept the blame for the ambiguity I introduced - it is clear to me what you are saying.
So reasoning is deterministic and mood is bias?
- - - Extra - - -
There is more than one level of programming:
The substrate code.
The natural language.
Logic Conclusion/Possible Corruption
Each sitting atop of each other. Confined to states internal and external to the substrate.
- - - logic working in all three layers - - -
Points → i (affectance)
i ≡ inception ∨ recognition ∨ perception
helps us understand why we forget and remember things; helps us understand why ambiguity takes place.
∴ i can be thought of as always there because as you say: “Nothingness”, is absolutely impossible.
i ≡ secondarily the potential for the unknown to become known. In other words the unknown is always there.
- - - Correction - - -
You say: Mood is a mental state that biases emotional response.
I now say: Reasoning is a mental state that determines logical response.
I would say that reasoning is more logic bound (consistency of thought). Mood is inattentive to logic.
If by “natural language”, you mean the natural language of thought, I would agree. There are also social languages and social education, each divergent from natural physiological construct.
I would call that state, “sanity” (cohesiveness of thought). Reasoning is a process, much like programming.
Extremely valuable input - thank you very, very much . . . It is becoming very clear to me how RM:AO affects my work - I endeavor to make it very clear to you if it isn’t already. One step at a time as they say . . . I am very grateful to you . . .
That is exactly what I mean. There are two of them - one is English in our case and the other is hidden/silent(you don’t need English to think). The same rules apply for social language.
I am going to go out on a limb here. To get my point across I must play with words a little.
► Everything known was once unknown.
► Everything there is still to know already exists, it is just undiscovered, un-evolved an un-configured.
► Everything can be expressed as information.
► Discovery is just the unknown configured into formation.
► Inception is formation.
► Unknown in-formation is known.
∴ i(inception) ≡ unknown/known(both quantifiable - even if random; randomness is then just un-evolved and un-configured)
∴ i can be thought of as always there because as you say: “Nothingness”, is absolutely impossible.
∴ i ≡ secondarily the potential for the unknown to become known.
With a twist of lemon: The known is always there - even if undiscovered.
Now for some cerebral flatulence: If this holds for logic then I suspect it works for emotion - therefore I do not think all emotions are instinctual but rather some emotions are manufactured once we become self-aware - self-awareness is potentially a product of logic. Instinct is a product of logic that is formed in the substrate. The substrate is formed prior to birth. All things are recursively repeating - substrate is formed from matter - matter is formed from affectance. The skipped steps in this paragraph are arbitrary to the gist. Energy and matter are the same thing. Logic and emotion stem from the same place. The universe is alive and intelligent(I don’t know how) and can be thought of as a huge brain - like the brain some parts are undiscovered, un-evolved and un-configured.
- - - back to regular viewing - - -
Oh I agree - I am still keeping the two separate - just that they stem from the same place and inevitably affect each other.
There is a hint however that reasoning is deterministic - even if only partially - delta.
I feel sanity is a convergence of the mood and logic. Correct me if I am wrong - we might debate it a little though - just fyi.
I stand corrected.
They are inclusive so:
i ≡ inception ∨ perception ∨ recognition ∨ consciousness
??? Emotion and mood seem to be more autonomous ???
FINAL NOTES: i ≡ inception ∨ perception ∨ recognition ∨ consciousness is confined as follows:
I call this Rational Confinement(RC) . . . Motion bounds space and time to each person but that is a story for another day . . .
So to refine the terminology:
► RC(i)
or more simply:
► R(i)
The is a hint of the emotional process and Emotional Confinement in this post.
To re-iterate a subsection of Rational Confinement(R):
Logical deduction, when answering a question, is limited by:
[list]1. cognitive limitations
2. time available to answer the question
3. openness to influence from the social norm
4. availability of accurate information[/list:u]
∴ Plugging this subsection of R gives us a/one potential confinement to our consciousness.
or:
► R(i)
So hopefully the dots are easier enough to join here . . .
Is randomness an actuality or does it only (seem to) exist due to our limited perspectives…unscaled? If it is undiscovered (un-evolved/un-configured) to us, then only order exists?
To answer your question it might pay for me to ask you a question - forgive me if I am wrong. I often introduce ambiguity - so your question is confusing me and it is probably because of something I have done(affectance); clarify - verify etc.
Only that without a goal in mind, it seems like a lot of vague or loose ends. It’s hard to make decisions concerning what is important or not until a purpose or priority is establied.
My goal was stated at the top of the original post as follows:
This thread is about instinct, mood and emotion and a philosophical discussion about the three.
In saying that however - I have never minded getting a little off topic especially when it illustrates analogous thinking - no matter how distant it might seem.
So to restate my original goal a different way - it was simply to have a philosophical discussion about instinct, mood and emotion. The most general question would be: what are they? But it need not answer that.
At the end of the original post I stated:
In other posts I will initiate the topics of instinct and emotion but I wanted to start with mood given how hard it is to get a grip on.
So you could say the goal of the thread is to get a grip on instinct, mood and emotion in a philosophical setting. Not necessarily everyone’s cup of tea but I thought I would throw it out there.
Now to your original question:
Just to an enhanced understanding of instinct, mood and emotion.
I finally got around to starting the book you suggested: Not Passion’s Slave: Emotions and Choice by Robert C. Solomon.
I like how the preface opens:
I particularly like the following from the preface:
I admit to not having put much thought into the first and have spent most of my time on the second - I can certainly see how choice can affect emotions and how emotions can drive choice. I can see that this book is going to be very interesting for me to read.
