Emotions are intrinsically good and bad

[Edwardo Piet]

You said that I had no way to judge in a scenario where positive emotions were truly intrinsically good.

No I didn't! I said that if your primary position is that positive emotions are intrisically good then that in itself does not entail your secondary position that a variety of moderately positive emotions experienced for longer periods of time is superior to one intensely positive emotion for a shorter period of time. Because the premise "Emotions are intrinsically good and bad" doesn't entail prioritizing time over intensitity.

  But I would have a way to think of a longer duration of positive emotions being better just as how a blind person could still think of colors in his mind. 

That has got to be the worst attempt at an analogy I've ever read. Do you even know analogies work?

Saying "A blind person can work something out despite being disabled so I myself being unable to figure this out can also figure it out!" doesn't work if you haven't actually figured it out.

Your position doesn't logically entail what you say it does.

The premise "Emotions are intrinsically good and bad" doesn't entail prioritizing time over intensity.

If you're going to say you can 'also work it out' then you're just admitting that your premise is inadaquate and your own common sense merely tells you to prefer time over intensity.

For starters, I completely disagree with your common sense (and unlike you, I actually have further arguments to support my position). I don't give a shit about how long an experience is experienced I care about its peaks and caverns and its peaks and caverns only. Aggregation of time or quantity makes zero sense to me.

But I'm not going to pretend that my own position that "Positive and negative experiences are intrinsically good and bad" leads to my position that intensity and quality is more important than time or variety. I make those judgements with further arguments not a failed analogy.  

I also think it doesn't matter what preferences people have; it can still only be their euphoric and dysphoric states that can be the positive and negative feelings, experiences, and emotions in thier lives and they are still the only things that can allow them to truly see the good and bad values in their lives.

I agree. Preferences don't matter. So your own preference of time over intensity is irrelevant. I actually have an argument for preferring intensity over variety. Your failed analogy of "blind people can still visualize if they have previously seen stuff before they lost their eyesight" is just that: a failed analogy.

Blind people can visualize when they have previous memories of things they have seen visually. You don't have any former experiences to fall back on to support your argument of preferring time over intensity. And even if you did you'd still have to actually present those experiences in the form of arguments before you can pretend to argue that your case prefers time over intensity. And it would require further support because, no, "emotions are intrinsically good and bad" doesn't logically entail "time is more important than intensity". That is a 100% non-sequitur. My position that "experiences are intrinsically good and bad" doesn't entail "intensity is more important than time" but I do have other arguments that do entail that.

You need to stop using analogies because you clearly don't even know how to use them. Mixing together one thing you don't understand with another thing you don't understand isn't how analogies work. That's fucking Deepak Chopra level analogy. "Hey look the quantum world is magical and we don't understand it and so is the philosophical problem of free will therefore quantum indeterminacy can give us free will!" That's the same level of patheticness as your analogy that blind people can visualize if they have previously been able to see therefore you can explain something even though your argument is unable to explain it

[Astonished]

All this pigheaded narcissistic prat needs to do is stop pretending he's got one up over the rest of us when he's clearly been shown, with every reply, not to know what the fuck he's talking about. If not for the utter conceit and arrogance, it might actually come across as comical, but that condescension doesn't allow for it to be taken as humorous.

[Transcended Dimensions]

You said that I had no way to judge in a scenario where positive emotions were truly intrinsically good.

No I didn't! I said that if your primary position is that positive emotions are intrisically good then that in itself does not entail your secondary position that a variety of moderately positive emotions experienced for longer periods of time is superior to one intensely positive emotion for a shorter period of time. Because the premise "Emotions are intrinsically good and bad" doesn't entail prioritizing time over intensitity.

  But I would have a way to think of a longer duration of positive emotions being better just as how a blind person could still think of colors in his mind. 

That has got to be the worst attempt at an analogy I've ever read. Do you even know analogies work?

Saying "A blind person can work something out despite being disabled so I myself being unable to figure this out can also figure it out!" doesn't work if you haven't actually figured it out.

Your position doesn't logically entail what you say it does.

The premise "Emotions are intrinsically good and bad" doesn't entail prioritizing time over intensity.

If you're going to say you can 'also work it out' then you're just admitting that your premise is inadaquate and your own common sense merely tells you to prefer time over intensity.

For starters, I completely disagree with your common sense (and unlike you, I actually have further arguments to support my position). I don't give a shit about how long an experience is experienced I care about its peaks and caverns and its peaks and caverns only. Aggregation of time or quantity makes zero sense to me.

But I'm not going to pretend that my own position that "Positive and negative experiences are intrinsically good and bad" leads to my position that intensity and quality is more important than time or variety. I make those judgements with further arguments not a failed analogy.  

I also think it doesn't matter what preferences people have; it can still only be their euphoric and dysphoric states that can be the positive and negative feelings, experiences, and emotions in thier lives and they are still the only things that can allow them to truly see the good and bad values in their lives.

I agree. Preferences don't matter. So your own preference of time over intensity is irrelevant. I actually have an argument for preferring intensity over variety. Your failed analogy of "blind people can still visualize if they have previously seen stuff before they lost their eyesight" is just that: a failed analogy.

Blind people can visualize when they have previous memories of things they have seen visually. You don't have any former experiences to fall back on to support your argument of preferring time over intensity. And even if you did you'd still have to actually present those experiences in the form of arguments before you can pretend to argue that your case prefers time over intensity. And it would require further support because, no, "emotions are intrinsically good and bad" doesn't logically entail "time is more important than intensity". That is a 100% non-sequitur. My position that "experiences are intrinsically good and bad" doesn't entail "intensity is more important than time" but I do have other arguments that do entail that.

You need to stop using analogies because you clearly don't even know how to use them. Mixing together one thing you don't understand with another thing you don't understand isn't how analogies work. That's fucking Deepak Chopra level analogy. "Hey look the quantum world is magical and we don't understand it and so is the philosophical problem of free will therefore quantum indeterminacy can give us free will!" That's the same level of patheticness as your analogy that blind people can visualize if they have previously been able to see therefore you can explain something even though your argument is unable to explain it

My analogy was stating that blind people could think of colors in their mind without visualizing them.  In that same regard, you could still think of things having good value even without your euphoria and act, make decisions, etc. accordingly.  So, just use the version of my sight analogy that says that a blind person can think of colors, but not visualize them.

---

[The Grand Nudger]

Oh, well, if it just has to be......



You know what?  I don;t think that you -do- know what you've experienced and been through.  Your comments sound like shithouse psychology devoid of any factual substance or professional opinions.

Then tell me what I have experienced and been through from your knowledgeable point of view.

Why?  Does it matter?  Is it germane to the accuracy of your stated positions?  No...and no.

So, no.

Maybe you should go figure out what happened to you....it would be an improvement from these fact free shitposts? I can't imagine that anyone would be more interested in figuring out the mechanics of ones own personal experiences than one's self. Your own description of what happened to you argues with itself, your stated positions argue with themselves, and none of it follows from any other part of it. I don't need to know what happened to you, to point that out. Neither do you, frankly.

How do you know that the blind are incapable of visualizing color? How do you respond to the fact that blind people -have- reported being able to visualize color? How do you plan to apply this analogy to a subject that is not color, and to which the people you're referring aren't blind in any coherent sense the first place?

Singing Amazing Grace for pages on end won't resolve the inadequacy of your worldview.

How do you respond to the statement that a slavish devotion to the authority of your involutary neurochemical response to emotional stimulus is a far more effective way to inhibit your ability to determine good from bad, right from wrong. That the effects of euphoria and dysphoria are routinely present in the most fantastic examples of human moral failure imaginable? Pious oppressors, torturers, and executioners report -ecstasy- at the successful implementation of gods will.

Does this demonstrate the good moral nature of anything at all? Are you willing to describe their satisfaction at burning a sinner alive as a moral good? If you can answer in the affirmative to either of these questions it becomes clear that the two of us are not using the term morality to refer to any common thing between us. You're talking about something else entirely. One wonders which of us is having trouble seeing the object........

[Transcended Dimensions]

All this pigheaded narcissistic prat needs to do is stop pretending he's got one up over the rest of us when he's clearly been shown, with every reply, not to know what the fuck he's talking about. If not for the utter conceit and arrogance, it might actually come across as comical, but that condescension doesn't allow for it to be taken as humorous.

Then tell me what I have experienced and been through from your knowledgeable point of view.

Why?  Does it matter?  Is it germane to the accuracy of your stated positions?  No...and no.

So, no.

Maybe you should go figure out what happened to you....it would be an improvement from these fact free shitposts?  I can't imagine that anyone would be more interested in figuring out the mechanics of ones own personal experiences than one's self.  Your own description of what happened to you argues with itself, your stated positions argue with themselves, and none of it follows from any other part of it.  I don't need to know what happened to you, to point that out.  Neither do you, frankly.

Here is the real situation.  I am not here to think I am big and smarter than everyone else.  Rather, I have had much emotional trauma and misery in my life due to obsessive thinking that was unhealthy and many stressful life events.  It has all lead me down this path:

Other Person's Response:  What would you do and how would you react in a situation where your worldview was proven to be false right in front of your face?

My Reply:  From here, I would just say that me living my life by a value system that adheres to this standard of truth is simply not my specialty.  My specialty is being the wild, free, joyful, and happy hedonist that I am.  So, I am a pro when it comes to these sorts of hedonistic endeavors, but I simply fail in other areas of life.  None of these non hedonistic aspects of life do me any good, give my life any real good value/beauty, or concern me in any way.

Therefore, even if my worldview were to be proven false and I were to know it is false, then I would still be living by the same worldview and value system anyway.  Each person has his/her own unique gifts and specialties.  This means that we all have our own values and paths in life.  Some paths and ways of life simply do not work out for certain individuals while they do for others.  What works for one person does not always work out for someone else.

Other Person's Response:  Let's pretend that your worldview really does say that the acts of a molester are good if he felt a positive emotion from these acts, don't you find yourself wanting to object to your worldview?

My Reply:  No.  You do not realize how profound and powerful my positive emotions are.  They are the inner light and any moral standard of living would, therefore, have to be sacrificed since this inner light, so to speak, is truly all there is to life.  This means that if my worldview were somehow true and it changed the world in such a way where killers were barging into my home and harming me and everyone else all the while getting euphoria, then this would actually be changing the world for the better, according to my model.  That might sound ludicrous.  But I think this is the way it has to be.

Meanwhile, your depressed or miserable genius who is working trying to help these harmed victims and fend away these lunatics would be something bad.  That genius and these victims would be living nothing but a bad life since they were miserable while the lunatics would be living the good life since they were euphoric.  I have lived the miserable life myself on multiple occasions and I have attempted to compose while in such a miserable state.  Now, I have had it.  I am fed up because I realize that my inner light is truly all that I have and the advice of others dismisses this inner light.

As a result, I am willing, without any hesitation, to put forth a model that says that a serial killer who harms an innocent person or child would be something good if he felt euphoria from that.  It is just my way of giving up on any other claimed good values out there I can have in my life and it is my rage that makes me put forth such a model.  The world NEEDS to be awakened to the power of the inner light rather than dismissing it.  Of course, I wouldn't be the lunatic or psychopath who would use that inner light in harming others.  I would just go about my daily life all the while enjoying my activities.  At the same time, I just hope that some psychopath does not barge into my home and harm me.

[The Grand Nudger]

Why do you keep posting conversations with a third party?  How many people am I speaking to?

So, we come to the brunt of it. "I used to think too much, and then I stopped doing that".

Well, clearly, but it looks like you might have overdone it.

[Transcended Dimensions]

Why do you keep posting conversations with a third party?  How many people am I speaking to?

So, we come to the brunt of it.  "I used to think too much, and then I stopped doing that".

Well, clearly, but it looks like you might have overdone it.

The reason why I presented my message in the form of a conversation is because, not only is it more convenient for me to present it in this format, but also because I already had this typed out which was a conversation I've had.

[The Grand Nudger]

How much of what you post is copy paste from an imaginary conversation?

[Transcended Dimensions]

How much of what you post is copy paste from an imaginary conversation?

Not sure, but I would like to say this last thing on my mind.  Everyone's experiences are different.  So, maybe my worldview/idea really is true.  But it might only be true for me and others out there like me.  Perhaps, for me, my euphoric and dysphoric states truly are the only way I can perceive good and bad values in my life since I mentioned to you earlier that it was like the visual signals being sent to the brain to allow us to visualize colors.  So, maybe my brain is just different then.  Maybe my inner light is the euphoric states while others have a different form of inner light.  I'm not sure on this one and I can't prove it one way or the other.  So, I will just leave it at that.  Although, I am convinced of my own personal experience and that my worldview does apply to me.  In which case, no one can comprehend my personal experience and my worldview.  Therefore, no one will truly understand me and my needs.  They would just dismiss them.

[The Grand Nudger]

Not sure, but I would like to say this last thing on my mind.  Everyone's experiences are different.  So, maybe my worldview/idea really is true. 

Doesn't follow.  Dial up the thinking.  

But it might only be true for me and others out there like me.  Perhaps, for me, my euphoric and dysphoric states truly are the only way I can perceive good and bad values in my life since I mentioned to you earlier that it was like the visual signals being sent to the brain to allow us to visualize colors.  So, maybe my brain is just different then.  Maybe my inner light is the euphoric states while others have a different form of inner light.  I'm not sure on this one and I can't prove it one way or the other.  So, I will just leave it at that.  Although, I am convinced of my own personal experience and that my worldview does apply to me.  In which case, no one can comprehend my personal experience and my worldview. 

None of this follows either......

Therefore, no one will truly understand me and my needs. 

....nor does this....

They would just dismiss them.

....nor does this.  

See what happens when you stop thinking entirely? You keep saying that you have one last thing to say about this or that. Will -that- ever be true?