The Paineful Truth
That sounds the same as what I said/meant in a way ~ subjectivity eh!
Jayson
Ah I see, yes. This is something I have found to be enhanced by detachment. Like with art, we get certain ‘ given emotions’ [those which arrive to us], but by combining elements of the mind we can put different elements into the image in our minds as on canvas, and arrive at an altogether different emotion ~ or even something other than emotion, concepts etc.
.
Moreno,
Emotions are a state, not objects of our self.
They are a state in which our nervous system is entered into within a moment of time.
Think on that youtube clip of Sherlock Holmes boxing that I cited in the other thread in response to you there.
Each move was not an object; it was what his bundle of nerves, muscle, and bone were articulating into in one moment of time after another.
It may sound unpredictable and crazy, but essentially, you would flip to outrage from serene and back if so wanting.
What I understand you to be saying, however, is that you enjoy simply letting yourself move as a leaf falling in the wind in regards to the emotions.
I won’t contest, nor suggest that you shouldn’t.
That is just not the interest of this concept.
It is, however, a huge part of what it takes to start.
Lots of listening and letting.
That way you can learn what your own emotional language is for directed use later.
Quetz,
Very much so, yes.
It does require a form of detachment; at least momentarily.
With what you mention on collage for evocation, introduce that into this:
youtube.com/watch?v=Nz4jO9zGioA
And remove the “voice of thought”.
A sort of sensationalized composite flashback that is called upon so to produce forward action desired.
Anon, missed your post in the haze of images.
Yeah, I know, but it was the best image option for multiple displays of the idea of expressing emotion and also implying experiencing through that emotion expressed.
You could say that, but they are reactions to what is happening in us and around us and to control emotions, you must control the self.
Controlling the body can also be controlling the self, but that is another issue. Once you decide that this or that emotion is not right now, even through it is your natural reaction, then you have a split. One part of you judging another part of you - the emotional centers - as being wrong.
I am sure people can do this, I just think they are treating themselves abusively.
Thank you. I can’t say it is at all that gentle, but I have found that no longer suppressing, remolding, judging, stopping, stifling emotions has made me feel more like a unified being. It feels right.
I think I’ve need at this point to explain more detail of the concept behind this articulation.
It’s not so much a contest of which emotion is at play, or deeming one exactly wrong.
Take, for instance, that Sherlock Holmes volley of attacks again.
None of his moves were the right moves; they were the optimal moves that he settled upon.
They worked best for that moment for his interest at that time.
That sounds repressive, but there is a difference.
Before, I’ve stated, “listen like Akido, act like Boxing”.
The idea is to sense emotion accurately, and if desired, redirect emotion X energy into emotion Z so that action A can be accomplished.
To do that, you have to change a base level of grounding; just as to simply throw a punch, Sherlock Holmes first must change his footing, and then move his shoulders so that the effective energy required is leveraged for the punch.
Similarly, the idea here is not to repress one emotion so that you can just pluck out another.
Instead, you are using one emotion as the fuel for another emotion.
It is a conversion of energy.
The exact means of this in great detail, I haven’t yet outlined.
I only understand the concept and can feel how it works in myself when practicing with the vague terrain I’m dancing in.
So I don’t want to give the impression that I’m suggesting that we pit ourselves against ourselves.
This concept really rests on first overcoming contest within the self first before continuing.
You have to do that first, or you cannot openly have your emotions communicating freely in exchange without contest.
If I were a fighter, I would say that you first have to understand your full range of motion and reach a point of knowing the full extent of the form so much that it flows naturally without contest from your person by basic reflex; similar to yourself.
After that point, when naturally all forms of interaction in the combat are available to your mind, then the fighter can begin to use one reflexive reaction to move into another selected action by simply redirecting their bodies energy of motion.
They can adjust on-the-fly; rather than reflexively react by form.
Similarly, I’m working on this idea within our existential standing.
Bruce Lee worked out how to fight by flexible reaction that is tailored to the individual and is molded from their base instinct as to how it is conducted in trained form.
I’m following the idea of taking that concept and applying it to our existential medium ontologically.
If you want to move with effective leverage with direct purpose existentially, then ontologically move your instinctual sensation of energy into another form of energy that produces the existential output desired.
I believe it will take some time to get this all worked out, and I don’t expect it to go smoothly as I’m dabbling with emotional sensations.
But ultimately, the aim is not to achieve leverage over surface emotions such as anger or happiness, but instead over the spiritual emotions such as depression or gratitude towards existing.
Moving the base emotions of the deep subconscious in redirection so to move the energy up and ready for direct actions desired. Just like moving ones footing and shoulders to ready for the action of a punch.
I hope that makes some sense.
It is a bit difficult to articulate the concept well as the lexicon for this concept is…well…apparently completely absent.
There are certain concepts that completely lack words to describe them.
I think it can be dangerous to read too much into people’s sometimes apparently random behavior. I mean, while some kind of information, which might spark some kind of emotional response can always be extrapolated from any stimuli, that certainly doesn’t imply that all those stimuli provided that information with intention of sparking that emotion. I have a strange sinus issue which has required surgery, and every time I move my mouth, the pressure in my ears changes so I sometimes can’t hear well, and over time I’ve developed this thing where I scrunch my nose together, breathe out a little and pop my ears back into place. I probably do this a million or so times a day. I can only imagine what people who’ve never met me think when they see this. They probably think I"m trying to convey something, when I’m actually not. I might look like I"m making a crazy face at them, when in reality I’m just trying to pop my ears back so I can hear again.
It’s not quite that level of concern Smears.
Think of it this way…does a fighter wander around ready to punch every person just because they can?
That decision isn’t inherent in the skill; that’s a moral decision.
Just because the leverage can be achieved, should not inherently indicate that one should do so with every moment.
That would be like the fighter just making every motion in their life fighting simply because they knew how to fight.
That would be a waist of energy; not a leverage of it.
So here, the idea is similar.
There is an easy example most people are familiar with.
When a parent wishes to be stern and direct with purpose to drive a point of impression into their child that is vital; they can so do because the emotional concern is directly available to encourage that behavior naturally.
Similarly; driving a direct output of intention with energy is not something that I would suggest people just do endlessly.
Should someone do so, they will most likely be exhausted within that same week and be a right mess of a person.
Not all motion to the fighter should be fought, but all fighting should be seen as motion to the fighter.
Not all emotion to the leverager should be leveraged, but all leveraging should be seen as emotion to the leverager.
Awwwww! What happened to my dictatorship of Mickey Mouse art piece at that I was trying to convey I was trying to convey somthing. Phooey!