Emotions are intrinsically good and bad

[bennyboy]

You've got it wrong.  Good and bad are descriptions of things which we like or dislike, and no more.  To say that descriptive words have "qualities" really is nonsense.

I've mentioned this before and you didn't respond I believe-- to say that feelings are "intrinsically" good or bad is gibberish when in that context, since they are DEFINED that way.

Check it out: a "dog" is a 4-legged mammal with long canine teeth, etc. etc. (you can fill in the rest)

My "discovery": My beagle, Victor, is intrinsically a dog.

You could say that water is an orange or that water is a table, but that would not change the fact that water is still water.  Water is still H20.  In that same sense, good and bad would still be our positive and negative emotions.  People who have near death experiences have whole new experiences that words simply cannot describe.  Therefore, they had an actual quality (mental state) that they cannot articulate.  In that same sense, there is a version of good and bad that can't be articulated either.  Sure, we could use the words good and bad to describe our positive and negative emotions, but the emotions themselves are a form of good and bad that goes beyond words.  They are, again, an actual quality of good and bad.  If you still cannot understand and make sense of that, then it is simply beyond your comprehension.  My personal experience and values are simply beyond your comprehension.

Yeah, yeah, I know.  Most of this thread has been you rambling about your feelings and claiming to be a special snowflake.  Of course, I couldn't also be a special snowflake, or that would diminish you.  Your feelings are unique and elevated, and mine are just the incoherent stumbling sensations of the normal man on the street.  It must be tiring for you, being so superior and yet having such great difficulty describing your superiority in terms that mortals can comprehend.

You can experience whatever you want to experience.  However, I'm very good with words, and you are using yours wrongly.  For anything to be a quality of something else, the something else has to be defined.  Redness is a quality of an apple, because an apple is defined, and some apples are red.  Even brain function can be defined in terms of blood flow, neuronal activity, and qualitative reports of subjective experience.  However, "good" and "bad" are not sufficiently well-defined to say that anything else can be qualities of them.  

If you are talking about a particular good feeling-- say the feeling you get when you sip hot chocolate with someone special while watching a sunset, then. . . nope, you still have it backwards.  The unique flavor of goodness isn't a property of "good" in general-- rather, in that case when you say it's a "good" feeling you have an ineffable and indescribably subtle emotion which you cannot describe.

That's because goodness is a concept which is both abstract and arbitrary, and such a vague term is not concrete enough to allow modifiers.

---

You say that "words simply cannot describe" and "it cant be articulated". So that means you are describing the indescribable and expecting people to understand, and if they cant then "simply beyond your comprehension"

Ok sure Mr 2 parts hydrogen 1 part zero.

I find it mystifying that someone would spend 50 pages articulating something which can't be articulated.  Deepity!