Earl Dombroski wrote:

According to Twittering One, there is a lot of confusion, concerning
the distincion between emotions and feelings.

Honestly, it comes as a surprise ( although in 20/20 retrospect , it
shouldn't) that animals other than humans have emotions ...

  See
http://www.livescience.com/animalworld/050331_laughter_ancient.html

I wouldn't be surpised that many animal sepcies have a conscious
experience as well. We are too presumptuious and ignorant concerning
matters of cognition. ... a.k.a. we are very stu[pid about it.   a.k.a.
Huge mistakes are to be EXPECTED. Right?  heh, I am in the same boat as
you, on this.  "Born" into the same world/culture ~ 'apporiximately
speaking'.

In that 20/20 retrospect, emotions are primimitive, and likely to be
normal/expected in animals with substantive brains. ( ... meaning
vertebrates, or whatever??)

At one time I had a large salt water aquarium. I had a trigger fish. A
fish no less! ...

It was very apparent to me that this trigger fish (mand perhaps some
other species) had emotions. Specifically the trigger fish would 'play'
with the other fish.  ... Tease and 'nip' at the sickly one's.  When
the trigger fish decided that it wanted to eat another member of the
aquarium community, then it just did it. Bite. Done.  .. Yet before
that happened it would 'condition' the taget. Put the recognized as
'weak' victim into a defenseless situation.

The trigger fish was full of emotion, lifefullness and cognizance.  ...
happy, sad, anxious, impatient, etc ...

That aquarium was very enlightening and revealing for me. Some of those
animals around us that we don't think much (of/about/?), aren't so
different than us.

... Having said that, we all have to survive, eat, exist, get on with
life. (a.k.a. Drop the cognizance of this  ... I still enjoy my steak.
Trigger fish eat meat.  ... and veggies too)

--------------------------

I remove and SET ASIDE all other consideration and focus on what you
have said below:
      (I deliberately say it <as such> ...rather than as a prefunctory
[snip] )

I use the word emotion to encompass that which you call emotion and
also that you describe as feeling.

O.K.

   I infer something very distinct and significant, in <such>.
Describing ...

I am operating/ considering at a more fundamental scale of
consideration than you.
( I make NO INFERENCE that it is more appropriate/correct/better.
...only a distinction that it is DIFFERENT. )

... I tend to limit my focus to the 'emotions', themselves ... not the
broad, composite picture, of which such emotions form .... but, a
portion of the brush-strokes ...

I am aware of the broad, grand, tapestry, painting ...   My habit is
more of zooming in on the individual "brush stroke" 's.   We are
mismatched as to location and scaling ...

This should be encouraging. We have suceeded in clarifying and refining
the discussion.
 ... and, yes, .. it is currently my initiative.  ... with the kindness
of your participation and response from your own perspective. ( ..
which is expected to be different to my own ... as is always so between
2 people ... or even between 2 thoughts, invariably!)

***Notice  ... In the world of such intense, local focus  ... as which
I am decribing  ... DECISIONS ( such as right/wrong/good/bad/ ) seem to
be meaningless(non sequitor)  Their existence and relevence is at a
higher level of "Integration of thought".

At the level, that I explore/troll/discover ....
   ... AMBIVALENCE  ~~~~> making decisions  ... emotional significance
beyond that of shaping and redirecting awareness ...

  .. are NON-COMMODITIES.

A.k.a.   ...  I really, "AM, ARE, IS, BEING" ambivalent <shrug>  .. the
emotional "paint" to the description is both ornamental  .. and a tool
for shaping and changing awareness  & ___, & ___

Perhaps by avoiding my meaning, I take you as deceiving.  If it is only
symantics, then we can move on.  You may instead re-read what I wrote
with clearer understanding and respond.

' You may instead re-read .... '

Yes. Agreed.

However, this is not any easy, frivollous task for "me",  ... or for
most people ( I note in passing that a few *might* be able to do such
effortlessly)

Retooling to another person's perspective.  ... experiencing "such" and
then 'living that reality' for a brief while  ... is a major
undertaking.

... and even "assuming" that it is accomplished ...

... there is an equally large hurdle ...

Taking; remembering; those experiences and appreciations ...
... and successfully INTEGRATING SUCH with one's own inherent
perspective.

Yes. On occasion I can put myself into another person's shoes,
sufficiently accurately as to experience 'Reality' as the other person
does (  ... maybe, I have done this a couple of times, at most, btw
...)

Problem, PROBLEM:

1)  When I am in that other person's shoes  ... I am unaware of my own
'native' reality.  ... I have momentarily forgotten, how, I myself
perceive things.  .. all my attention is occupied with shoes that I am
currently wearing.  ... I am a facsimillie of that other person. ...
myself doesn't moemtarily exist  ( at least from a perceptual
sensibility standpoint!)

2) ... going back ... (Yes I am in my own familiar shoes once again)
... and 'assuming' that I retain that 'visited' experience of another
...

How do I interepret? ... integrate? ... contextualize?

Sorry.

HTH

RL

----------

P.S. will try to have another run-through of the original postings
later ....

The OTHER THING that I wanted to emphasize but lost sight of in
diversion ...

It takes time to adsorb what you have state.  ... It take time to
re-read from a different perspective.  ... MUCH TIME.  ... hit & and
miss, too

I would like to do so.  If it happens, ... it happens.  (Awkward to
force ...)

Hope you can appreciate/understand.  I don't mean to be dismissive,
insulting, ...

My intent is NOT to enforce a monologue, either.

RL