Everything in the universe seems to have three dimensions; even a coin has an edge (not just two sides). So, the Earth has latitude, longitude, and altitude.
Actually there are 11 dimensions according to the M-theory. Just most are so small that we don't notice them. One supposedly goes through every point in the Universe.
well yuous eithe shaken yer head ors rollin yus eyes. its a wonder you aint got permanent ticks....oh yu have....? sorry look. you cop out. you wimp. u condescending college freak. youu pitiful thinker. never mind tellin me go read a book. patrnizer that yo is. answer me. or it is seen you cannot answer how can an outside not have an inside....huh. i'm waiiiiitin
oh, and no wonder you got te ampuntof posts yu du. sheeeit, your replies hardly ever reach THREE small sentences. a D minus for effort
You silly, rude, psychotic thing, there is no outside and no inside to a photon, it's all uniform. Or if you change to larger scale, then all universe ultimately is one energy in many forms, so the difference is only in the density and structure. You might claim that there is an outside of your body, but with every breath you absorb atoms and give them away, it's all one soup and we are apes swimming in it.
duendy, it's not my fault that you are uneducated, have drug induced brain damage and can hardly write, so keep your foul speech down, it doesn't look elegant and smells bad.
Buddha1, You did mention when this "true nature" shows (in some primary emotions), so you did make a statement about the "true nature". And you also say -- whereby you are making statements about the "true nature". For over ten years, I have tried to find my "true nature" -- as I thought I must first know my "true nature" or my "true self" before I can really live my life. I ended up depressed and was about to kill myself. I then decided that I better put aside this quest for my "true nature" or my "true self". I don't know if the Buddha couldn't figure it out. I don't know why he refused to answer that question (other than for the reason that trying to answer that question can lead to great suffering). He did say, in the parable with the handful of leaves, that while he knows as much as there are leaves in the forest, but that what we need for getting where he got is only that handful of leaves that he held in his hands. Yes, this is how I introduced the term, as you spoke of the "true nature" as something which acts as an autonomous entity, as a self (is independent of society). Oh. Do you know where the tips of your bones in your fingers are? Do you know where the liver is, where the spleen? In your legs, where the bone ends and the marrow begins? Do you know what it feels like there where the tendons are attached to the bone? I don't know these things, I have only a very vague, provisional knowledge about this, and I would not dare say that I know my body. Well, to posit something as incomprehensible, one would have to be perfect ... Some things are certainly *currently* incomprehensible, though.
The idea that we can fix our broken (irrational agendas) seems impossible to me. Some of them, yes, others act below our conscious control in ways too complex, and with too many possible outcomes for us to consciously evaluate. Perhaps that is why an emotion can be useful for thinking, instead of clouding our thinking. It may be able to react to consciously inaccessible powers of thought. Perhaps the problem isn't the search, but that the word "my" may not be a part of the true nature or self.
If saying that "true nature" exists, speculating about it, then yes I did. But I meant that I haven't yet laid down what exactly this true nature is --- not in this thread! Can you tell me know how your 'true nature' or 'self' can depress yourself. There are two ways: - It could be that our true nature has both positive and negative aspects. The negative aspects, if we linger on those or if they are over bearing may depress us. - What is more likely to depress us is when we get extremely aware of our true nature (let's talk about our emotional and physical nature here), is when we cannot realise our nature after knowing it, due to social or other circumstances or if we find that our environment continually comes in the way of its fulfillment or is suffocating/ harming it. Here, ignorance can be bliss. "True nature" needs society (please refer to the thread nature and nurture), but this social environment/ nurture is useful only when it flows with nature and helps it realise itself, not when it is against it. While what you're saying is true, we don't know our body in the sense of understand it (although if we were truly in touch with our nature, we would know what our body wants or does not want, and that is all we need to know!) --- we do become aware of the existence of a body part when something goes wrong and it pains. I can't help taking the example of sexuality (although it is not part of our physical self, it is part of our emotional self). In my culture there is no concept of sexuality and no one understands it. Because, although the society had restricted it, our society has given us a lot of freedon to do things behing the scene. And we have always had a vent. The west has the concept of sexuality because Christianity has severely restricted and people haven't had no outlet left. This part of self started paining and people became aware of its existence as a 'distinct' part of their 'emotional self'. While for the rest of the world it is just an integral part of our total emotional self --- indistiniguishable from the rest.
cole grey, You do not have to be perfect, and you don't have to think you must do things overnight! We can fix things, little by little. Yes. So we have good will when we approach people and situations, and do our best. When we see that others are happy or when things go well, we have sympathetic joy. When we see someone suffering, we have compassion. And when good will, sympathetic joy and compassion have done all they can, then we have equanimity. Maybe. But I've learned that dealing with the miriad ideas of what the self or true nature could be, can be maddening, bewildering, lethal -- esp. if you set out with the idea that it is a matter of life and death that you figure out what the true nature or the self is before you can actually go on with your life. Also, in discussing what the self or the true nature are, one may find out some really bad things about people and the way they think, they way they behave, things one would rather not know (see my thread "What is the self?"). * * * Buddha1, Indeed, this you have not. But whenever one mentions somehting, it means that there is probably some definition operating underneath. I couldn't tell whether it was my "true nature" or my "self" that made me depressed. Searching for that "true nature" or "self", discussing about it -- that certainly made me depressed. This may be the case. Well-adjusted people (ie. who are well adjusted to their environment) tend not to suffer. However, being well-adjusted to a sick environment is not health. I think this is very romantic. Christianity "restricted" sexuality for purposes of protection and safety of the people involved in sexuality and for the children that were to be born. The restraint of sexuality is only detrimental when it is motivated by the idea that sexuality is bad. However, I do not see Christianity as proclaiming sexuality to be bad, just that it is a very delicate issue that needs all the possible protection possible.
thick thick thick. do you not see we IN-hale and EX-hale. not a clue for you, dumber and dumber?...of course you ARE just an outseide, cuse you dont feel
haha...te best ya can do? look, if i really WS brain damaged, i'd be more intelligent than you. nuthin worse or sadder than someone who raves on how clever they are yet are as thick as 2 short planks...!
Emotion is everywhere, it is the universe. Everything is an expression and thus everything is an emotion... including numbers, which are basicaly smaller units of expressions.
Cole grey: Calling them corporoal sabotage is 'poo pooing"? What I've said is hardly pooing- this is me pooing: Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! (Beardsley RULES) I'm not disagreeing that they do affect, even should. I'm highy sensual, spirited, morose, angry- take your pick. I'm saying they'repermitted to.
As for whether or not we need emotions, just look at what happens to people who, as a result of lobotomy or brain damage lose theirs - they become "flat" and lose the impulse to interact with the world around them and lose some of their ability to read and react to the intentions of those around them and the events around them. If this happens to an animal in the wild which, unlike human victims, have no one to care for them, they die. Emotions - I'll keep mine, thank you.
I think it is possible to define emotion in different ways. I'll give the one which seemed best to me. Emotion is a very basic directive, or an intermediate step between a directive and a stimulus. You probably didn't understand a thing, because definitions make little sense when first read. And also because this is the first time I'm defining it in words. Emotion is part of a mechanism whereby our choices are controlled. It'll be easier to understand this if we take the case of a robot. Imagine that we have built a robot. But we don't want it to hurt us. We could, as in the movie "I, Robot", incorporate the Three laws of Robotics into it. Then, as required by the first law, it will be unable to hurt a human. Or, in other words, it will feel an overwhelming compulsion to stop when it tries to hurt a human. Or we could further say that it feels "pain". Similarly, it feels a different kind of "pain", something like pity, when it sees a human being getting hurt, and this makes it rush to help. Something like what we may feel when we someone in pain. But this is nothing other than <I>directives</I> that we have built into the robot. Similarly we too have some directives built into us, although they're not as overwhelming as these. It is evolution that has done this. Thus we feel pain when something harmful happens to us. But unlike in the case of robots, evolution has put the need for self preservation first. But I mentioned that emotions may be intermediary steps. This is because we have the freedom, again unlike robots, to ignore the pain (or other emotions) and to act as we want. Of course, ultimately, we're only using our intelligence to judge which would be better in the long run. So, when an emotion is evoked, it is linked to a directive, but we can choose to not follow it, if we have enough will power.
Now the question of good and bad. This question would be meaningless if there were no emotion. There is no good or bad as far as anything without emotion is concerned. We wouldn't have desires if we didn't have emotions (the movie "Equilibrium" is very inaccurate).
I guess I'm saying that the emotions affect our cognition like a colored lens affects the way one would see a painting. It may be possible to choose which color the lens will be, but that may be decided in large part by things out of our control. It was because of you poking fun at what some people were saying about emotion that I said you were poo-pooing them. I felt perhaps you weren't admitting their affect on you personally.
