We can be guided by thought. Thought isn’t bad. Sometimes it’s very helpful. We have a body of experiences and the ability to remember them for a reason, but thought can be distracting as well. It’s often our biggest stumbling block, rather than the stepping stone it was meant to be.

Can thought inform feeling, or only feeling inform thought? Thought informs feeling. Feeling empowers thought. This is why thought often seems powerless. We try to think without feeling. Inform, to give form. Feeling does not have form for a prerequisite. This is often why we can have seemingly formless notions and impressions of reality.

I guess it’s because the assumption that logic is cold, then feelings are inappropriate. That sounds right. I wouldn’t really know personally, but the professional opinion is I am a very strange man, so… For me, the neutral state is a feeling state.

Feelings cloud judgement, haven’t you heard? Emotions cloud thought, feeling clarifies. Emotions are reactive paradigms, well rehearsed scripts. You can have deep feelings and not be “emotional”.

Emotion and feeling are not the same? No. They are not the same.

Emotion is more of a biochemical thing? The doctors have their pills to allegedly balance the brain chemistry, etc. Emotion is psycho-biological, yes. Feeling is the principle that can bridge even the species barrier. The very first sense we develop in gestation is touch, feeling. The “higher” senses only develop later. The very first part of our brain that develops is the amygdala (or emotional brain), prior to that is just the brain stem, automatic, an automaton, really. Seems society would prefer that be the only brain we have. Eat our fuel, do our work, and react in predictable ways. Is this rational, really? It is in the strictest sense of the word, to ration being to restrict. Does life flourish in restriction?

That’s interesting, because I heard a program recently that suggested consciousness arises from the brain examining itself. This would be in keeping with feeling creating thoughts in character. Character shaped by reactions to feelings from physical influences. But it goes deeper than the mechanistic. If the principals of cybernetics are at all true, then there has to be a potential for order beyond any individual instance. If teleology is at all sound (we make it work all the time in missiles), then there has to be a principle that transcends any individual instance.

Sure, but it certainly provides a bit of a spin on morality in the shallow end of material thought. Morality has been used for grossly immoral ends, has it not?

Your thoughts are welcome. Be well friends.

Travis Saunders
Dragon Intuitive
~science,mysticism,spirituality~