I think you guys have a surprisingly good ability to craft sentences and paragraphs, given your inability to use a dictionary. Intrinsic doesn't really mean what you guys are having it mean.

Alright, I am going to continue back on topic and have this discussion:

This is a world changing view that would awaken and enlighten humanity to their positive emotions which are the only light to our lives and artistic endeavors. I am fed up with my positive emotions being dismissed as trivial and uneccessary things. They are the inner light, so to speak, to my life and the world needs to realize this so that they may truly understand my needs rather than dismiss them as nonsense and name call them. There are two forms of value judgments. The first type comes about through our way of thinking. For example, a person could think to himself that it is a great day today.

This would be a good value judgment since the person is thinking of the day being good. A person could also think that something is horrible. These value judgments are vital because they help us make wise decisions regardless of how we feel. If you felt a positive emotion from doing drugs, then you could make the value judgment that the drugs are horrible since they would do damage to your health in the long run. From there, you could then make the wise decision to get off those drugs.

The 2nd type of value judgments would be the emotional value judgments. If you felt a positive emotion, then that is always a good value judgment. If you felt a negative emotion, then that is always a bad value judgment. These emotional value judgments are not trustworthy. This is because, if you solely live your life by these types of value judgments, then you would end up finding yourself doing reckless things that you would regret.

But even so, we need our positive emotions. Now, I'm not sure if this argument I am going to make is flawed, but I will do my best. There is good, bad, and then there is neither good nor bad (neutral). Our positive emotions would be the objectively good value judgment and our negative emotions would be the objectively bad value judgment. Having no emotions at all would be an objectively neutral value judgment.

This means we cannot make value judgments without our emotions. So, if you felt nothing but a positive emotion from harming someone and you thought that it was a bad thing to do this, then we would not define this as a bad value judgment. Instead, we would define it as the thought of ceasing harm to an individual. This means that we can still make wise decisions anyway without emotions or without the respective emotion since they are still vital choices to make. But it can only be our emotions that allow us to judge situations as good, worthwhile, or bad.

I will just add one last thing onto this recent post of mine. When someone feels a very profound emotion such as a feeling of love, you will notice how this person displays acts, tones, and expressions that reflect this feeling. They will display profoundly loving acts, tones, and expressions. This means that there is an inner light there that the person's actions reflect. He is experiencing the good emotional value judgment from the higher heavens, so to speak, and he is acting out on that force of inner light. This same idea would apply to someone who feels very excited to go to the carnival. He would display excited expressions.

But what about someone who is completely miserable and displays positive expressions and someone who feels nothing but positive emotions and displays negative expressions? These would actually be misleading expressions. They are forced expressions and do not reflect the inner light and darkness. With the miserable person, he has no inner light, but is still choosing to display expressions of the light. It's like someone who is going to die in the next few minutes, but displays expressions as though he is going to live a full life. These expressions do not reflect the truth.

Since our positive emotions are the light (objectively positive and good) and our negative emotions being the darkness (objectively negative and bad), then a life without emotions would be objectively neutral. Your inner self would be neutral with neither light nor darkness. This means that positive expressions go with positive emotions, negative expressions go with negative emotions, while neutral expressions (i.e. apathy) go with having no emotions.

So, if you were someone who struggled with misery, then living your life and pursuing any artistic endeavor as though it is something positive and beautiful would, therefore, be delusional. It would be a deluded standard of living that does not reflect the inner darkness you have. I, myself, live by the objective standard. I am not fine subjectively deluding myself into somehow thinking my life and composing dream is somehow a beautiful way of living during my moments of unhappiness and misery. As a matter of fact, I am unable to adhere my life to this subjective standard.

(September 26, 2017 at 4:33 pm)bennyboy Wrote:  Intrinsic doesn't really mean what you guys are having it mean.

*ahem*

(September 26, 2017 at 3:41 pm)Hammy Wrote: I think suffering is intrisically bad. Suffering in the short run is only justifiable if it decreases suffering to a greater degree in the long run.

Seen as I clearly do understand what 'intrinsic' means (and how utterly ridiculous to think I don't understand what such a basic word means) and you think my understanding is incorrect that makes YOUR understanding incorrect because we can't both be right (and I am right so you're wrong). Maybe you don't understand what intrinsic means, Bennyboy.

I do think suffering is intrinsically bad, or IOW, bad in its own right, in and of itself. In case you didn't know it's as opposed to extrinsic or IOW instrumental or not in and of itself.

A small amount of intrinsically bad suffering in and of itself is obviously superior to a larger amount of intrinsically bad suffering in and of itself. If you disagree then I don't think intrinsic means what you think it means, Bennyboy. It does NOT mean absolute or incapable of breaking down into different degrees of intrinsically bad/good.

Something very bad in and of itself is worse than something slightly bad in and of itself.

It's BECAUSE I think suffering is intrinsically bad in and of itself this makes suffering in the short run justifiable if and only if it decreases suffering to a GREATER DEGREE in the long run.

Maybe you should get a dictionary. I once spent 8 months reading nothing but every single day. Maybe it would also help if you weren't crap at philosophy.

---

(September 26, 2017 at 4:33 pm)bennyboy Wrote: I think you guys have a surprisingly good ability to craft sentences and paragraphs, given your inability to use a dictionary.

I have frequently noticed throughout my life that people who are too stupid to understand many things are very fond of labeling verbosity as nonsense regardless of how correct and accurate it is even when it is indeed correct and accurate.

Let me apologize. I still wouldn't define anything about feelings as intrinsically good or bad, but the way I said it was unnecessarily rude.

There is a difference between what is and what it's like. If a person saw the color red, then he could report back to you that it was like a trip to a paradise. This would be what it's like. But what is would be a different question. Seeing the color red would be a state of visualizing a certain color. This would be what is. A blind person cannot know what it is to see the color red since he can't see it.

Now, here is where my worldview comes in. If you were in the most hopeless state of your life which would be a negative emotion and you believed that your life was still good and beautiful, then you could say that this thought is something good and beautiful since it is the words "good" and "beautiful" being spoken in your mind. From there, if you felt a positive emotion later on which would be an emotional value judgment of good value and beauty rather than a thought form of value judgment, then you could also say that this positive emotion is good and beautiful as well.

It's the same scenario with the thought form of good value and beauty, but, this time, with the positive emotion. Now, here is the question. If you were blind and you thought of the color red, then what would that be for you? Remember, this is asking the "what is" question. The answer here would be that it would just be a thought. There is no quality of red there being perceived at all. So, it's not actual red, but just the thought of red. The same idea would apply to our emotions versus our thoughts.

You could think to yourself that your life is still beautiful and good during your worst miserable moment, but there would be no quality of good value and beauty being perceived. Therefore, your life would be empty without your positive emotions. So, what it all comes down to here is what it is for you. Rather than just being the miserable soul who drags his life on believing it to be the good and beautiful life, actually focus on what it is for you and I think this will enlighten you to the truth of my worldview. Hopefully anyway. If I were to summarize my whole entire worldview in one sentence, then it would be:

"You can only acknowledge the good and bad values of things, moments, and situations in your life. But you need your positive emotions to actually see the good values and you need your negative emotions to actually see the bad values. When you feel the most profound and powerful positive emotion of your life, then that is literally the most powerful and profound beauty, good value, and joy being perceived just as how it would literally be the color red being perceived by a person who saw the color red. The same idea applies to negative emotions."

If my sight analogy is not a good analogy for emotions, then just get the idea that I was trying to convey anyway. I was simply saying that it can only be our emotions that allow us to perceive the good and bad qualities of our lives. I also talked about the idea of consciousness based values versus value judgment based values in my other packet which explains those horrible nightmare states I've had. Consciousness based values are values that focus on what is. I know I said they focus on what it's like, but that was actually a mistake I made. One last thing here.

You could either perceive the values that situations and things have or you can perceive your own created values. For example, if a mother was feeding her child vegetables, then the vegetables would be good. But the child would be perceiving them as bad since he felt a negative emotion from them. So, even though the vegetables are good, the child saw them as bad which would be his own personal perceived value. This means that things and situations hold their own value and that the only way to perceive their value or our own personal created value would be through our emotions.

(September 29, 2017 at 10:12 am)Transcended Dimensions Wrote: There is a difference between what is and what it's like. If a person saw the color red, then he could report back to you that it was like a trip to a paradise. This would be what it's like. But what is would be a different question. Seeing the color red would be a state of visualizing a certain color. This would be what is. A blind person cannot know what it is to see the color red since he can't see it.

I think that you mean to say he cannot know -what it is like- to see red.  A dubious claim, but at least get it right. 

Quote:Now, here is where my worldview comes in. If you were in the most hopeless state of your life which would be a negative emotion and you believed that your life was still good and beautiful, then you could say that this thought is something good and beautiful since it is the words "good" and "beautiful" being spoken in your mind. From there, if you felt a positive emotion later on which would be an emotional value judgment of good value and beauty rather than a thought form of value judgment, then you could also say that this positive emotion is good and beautiful as well.

We're capable of saying that anything is good and beautiful.  No one needs your worldview, or any particular worldview...for that.

Quote:It's the same scenario with the thought form of good value and beauty, but, this time, with the positive emotion. Now, here is the question. If you were blind and you thought of the color red, then what would that be for you? Remember, this is asking the "what is" question. The answer here would be that it would just be a thought. There is no quality of red there being perceived at all. So, it's not actual red, but just the thought of red. The same idea would apply to our emotions versus our thoughts.

No idea, but there's a fun thought experiment about a colorblind scientist named Mary which explores the issue.  

Quote:You could think to yourself that your life is still beautiful and good during your worst miserable moment, but there would be no quality of good value and beauty being perceived. Therefore, your life would be empty without your positive emotions. So, what it all comes down to here is what it is for you. Rather than just being the miserable soul who drags his life on believing it to be the good and beautiful life, actually focus on what it is for you and I think this will enlighten you to the truth of my worldview. Hopefully anyway. If I were to summarize my whole entire worldview in one sentence, then it would be:

"You can only acknowledge the good and bad values of things, moments, and situations in your life. But you need your positive emotions to actually see the good values and you need your negative emotions to actually see the bad values. When you feel the most profound and powerful positive emotion of your life, then that is literally the most powerful and profound beauty, good value, and joy being perceived just as how it would literally be the color red being perceived by a person who saw the color red. The same idea applies to negative emotions."

If you say so. 

Quote:If my sight analogy is not a good analogy for emotions, then just get the idea that I was trying to convey anyway. I was simply saying that it can only be our emotions that allow us to perceive the good and bad qualities of our lives.  I also talked about the idea of consciousness based values versus value judgment based values in my other packet which explains those horrible nightmare states I've had.  Consciousness based values are values that focus on what is.  I know I said they focus on what it's like, but that was actually a mistake I made.  One last thing here.

How is someone supposed to "get" some idea you have, if you can't clearly and accurately communicate it?  

Quote:You could either perceive the values that situations and things have or you can perceive your own created values.  For example, if a mother was feeding her child vegetables, then the vegetables would be good.  But the child would be perceiving them as bad since he felt a negative emotion from them.  So, even though the vegetables are good, the child saw them as bad which would be his own personal perceived value.  This means that things and situations hold their own value and that the only way to perceive their value or our own personal created value would be through our emotions.

I know, using your own example...that some food is good for me, even though it tastes like shit and I don't like it.  My emotions do not inform me as to how or why some food I don't like is good for me.  I don't need to employ them, or your worldview, to determine that....nor is there any necessity that I can either perceive one or the other. I'm obviously capable of making variable assessments of a singular object by disparate means and metrics.

 This is not enlightenment...........

(September 29, 2017 at 11:39 am)Khemikal Wrote:

(September 29, 2017 at 10:12 am)Transcended Dimensions Wrote: There is a difference between what is and what it's like. If a person saw the color red, then he could report back to you that it was like a trip to a paradise. This would be what it's like. But what is would be a different question. Seeing the color red would be a state of visualizing a certain color. This would be what is. A blind person cannot know what it is to see the color red since he can't see it.

I think that you mean to say he cannot know -what it is like- to see red.  A dubious claim, but at least get it right. 

Quote:Now, here is where my worldview comes in. If you were in the most hopeless state of your life which would be a negative emotion and you believed that your life was still good and beautiful, then you could say that this thought is something good and beautiful since it is the words "good" and "beautiful" being spoken in your mind. From there, if you felt a positive emotion later on which would be an emotional value judgment of good value and beauty rather than a thought form of value judgment, then you could also say that this positive emotion is good and beautiful as well.

We're capable of saying that anything is good and beautiful.  No one needs your worldview, or any particular worldview...for that.

Quote:It's the same scenario with the thought form of good value and beauty, but, this time, with the positive emotion. Now, here is the question. If you were blind and you thought of the color red, then what would that be for you? Remember, this is asking the "what is" question. The answer here would be that it would just be a thought. There is no quality of red there being perceived at all. So, it's not actual red, but just the thought of red. The same idea would apply to our emotions versus our thoughts.

No idea, but there's a fun thought experiment about a colorblind scientist named Mary which explores the issue.  

Quote:You could think to yourself that your life is still beautiful and good during your worst miserable moment, but there would be no quality of good value and beauty being perceived. Therefore, your life would be empty without your positive emotions. So, what it all comes down to here is what it is for you. Rather than just being the miserable soul who drags his life on believing it to be the good and beautiful life, actually focus on what it is for you and I think this will enlighten you to the truth of my worldview. Hopefully anyway. If I were to summarize my whole entire worldview in one sentence, then it would be:

"You can only acknowledge the good and bad values of things, moments, and situations in your life. But you need your positive emotions to actually see the good values and you need your negative emotions to actually see the bad values. When you feel the most profound and powerful positive emotion of your life, then that is literally the most powerful and profound beauty, good value, and joy being perceived just as how it would literally be the color red being perceived by a person who saw the color red. The same idea applies to negative emotions."

If you say so. 

Quote:If my sight analogy is not a good analogy for emotions, then just get the idea that I was trying to convey anyway. I was simply saying that it can only be our emotions that allow us to perceive the good and bad qualities of our lives.  I also talked about the idea of consciousness based values versus value judgment based values in my other packet which explains those horrible nightmare states I've had.  Consciousness based values are values that focus on what is.  I know I said they focus on what it's like, but that was actually a mistake I made.  One last thing here.

How is someone supposed to "get" some idea you have, if you can't clearly and accurately communicate it?  

Quote:You could either perceive the values that situations and things have or you can perceive your own created values.  For example, if a mother was feeding her child vegetables, then the vegetables would be good.  But the child would be perceiving them as bad since he felt a negative emotion from them.  So, even though the vegetables are good, the child saw them as bad which would be his own personal perceived value.  This means that things and situations hold their own value and that the only way to perceive their value or our own personal created value would be through our emotions.

I know, using your own example...that some food is good for me, even though it tastes like shit and I don't like it.  My emotions do not inform me as to how or why some food I don't like is good for me.  I don't need to employ them, or your worldview, to determine that....nor is there any necessity that I can either perceive one or the other.  I'm obviously capable of making variable assessments of a singular object by disparate means and metrics.

 This is not enlightenment...........

This is enlightenment and I will tell you why.  What is acknowledging the good value and beauty of things and situations?  It is an assessment that helps you make wise choices and decisions.  But what is perceiving good value and beauty?  Well, that is like the holy light of god putting you in a divine state of being and living.  It is a state of mind that goes far beyond simply acknowledging values.  It's like having the beauty and joy of the cosmos surging through you.

(September 27, 2017 at 8:32 pm)bennyboy Wrote: Let me apologize.  I still wouldn't define anything about feelings as intrinsically good or bad, but the way I said it was unnecessarily rude.

Well what you said was that I didn't know what intrisic meant but I obviously do lol.

I don't think emotions is intrinsically good or bad either. But suffering is intrinsically bad.

---

(September 29, 2017 at 10:12 am)Transcended Dimensions Wrote: There is a difference between what is and what it's like.

Nope. "What it's like" is just a subset of what is. What is is all there is. 'What is' is by definition... what there is.

I find this whole notion of specific motions being intrinsically good or intrinsically bad.... to be indefinable and useless. Emotions are just labels for what we experience and we all give different labels. And I have no idea 99% of the time whenever these labels we call emotions fit me. So how could your theory help me?

I know what suffering is. Everyone knows what suffering is. That's intrisically bad. The emotions stuff is just far too subjective and hard to pin down to make it into anything useful. Especially when there's also people like me who aren't sure they even experience any.

(September 27, 2017 at 4:40 pm)Transcended Dimensions Wrote: So, if you were someone who struggled with misery, then living your life and pursuing any artistic endeavor as though it is something positive and beautiful would, therefore, be delusional. It would be a deluded standard of living that does not reflect the inner darkness you have.

Ignorantly and overwhelmingly demonstrably incorrect.