| Subject: Re: Half-baked theories only, please |
| From: "Dr. Flonkenstein" <admin@localhost.localdomain> |
| Date: 21/11/2005, 01:41 |
| Newsgroups: alt.alien.visitors,alt.paranet.ufo,alt.astronomy,alt.fan.art-bell,alt.usenet.kooks |
On Sun, 20 Nov 2005 10:06:54 -0800, Raving Loonie wrote:
Earl Dombroski wrote:
Ser RL,
Just to offload some random thoughts...
toots is best used as a term of endearment, not hyperbole, and
there should not be hyperbolic endearment unless you wish to hurt a
girl's feeling - as you learned long ago
Duh! ... as to 'suggest' that I have no emotional interests, herein.
emotions are physical events; there are no emotions for which there
are no physical observables
Emotions seem to be neurohomormonal. In evolutionary terms, prototypic
stuff. Probably present in most animals.
Emotions are simple and crude. There is probably a rather limited variety
of different types.
Emotions, themselves are simple, easy, boring stuff ...
"Feelings", OTOH are all together a very different thing. A feeling is a
very rich painting. ... a broad panarama of appreciation.
The individual brushstrokes are made up with emotions, memories, objects,
tangible sensations and ... the full range of cognitive objects.
Never any need to confuse emotion with feeling, eh?
s/emotion/onanism
emotions are what people use to describe their self-observables,
where most people never realize that these same observables are
absolutely obvious to a trained / perceptive observer
self-observables?
Yeah, I would agree. Emotions act to flag internal system states which
are appropriate to that emotion. Emotions act like classifiers ... like
easily recognized colors to tag situations and set context.
Take a common 'Experience of reality' ... tag it with fear, excitment,
anger, love, angst, hunger .. and a person "changes" to a different
domain for asssing context/inference. Right?
Emotions seve as contextual tags. Simple. Feeling are the big
intelligent tapestries constructed of many emotions and other
appreciations withing a broad spanning perspective.
to say that you use emotions interally w/o restriction defies your
own physicality and the idea that they leak out is defies the physical
nature of emotions
control is an illusion in most contexts - in fact I find it only
works in the application of control theory
serving in uniform is honorable, but attending NVU adds little to
it, and is used as a crutch by those who didn't experience the worst of
it - this doesn't apply in your case, but surrounds you at times, n'est
pas?
Pink Floyd said that the memories of a man in his old age are the
deeds of man in his prime; as I had to have your Lorre spelled out for
me, tit for tat
why the deceptions, RL?
You don't know me Earl.
ambivalence ...> 'abstraction'
A level of reality that is 'sub' to making any decision of a certian
'type'.
Understand?
No need to decieve. No need to decide.
ambivalence is not your complaint - why not state it? a little
complaint for the exchange of the walk on part in the war for the lead
role in the cage way of being? a little holy exposition?
pretending upon your own contratemps / contrariness / diametrical
opposite conceals little and says more
leave the parrot at the door, dp (wish that you were), put down
your wooden sword, and answer the mail? no, pull the string. but do
leave the parrot outside
Earl