All response is reactionary.
And all responses depend on emotional energy, even if the impact of that energy is mitigated by rational considerations.
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”.
Ierr,
“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.
Ierr wrote
So the emotional energy precedes, shapes the thought with options?
More or less.