Emotions are intrinsically good and bad

[Transcended Dimensions]

Even if the euphoria wasn't that intense, that would still qualify according to my definition of a positive experience. 

So you call an okayish feeling extremely extremely extremely mild euphoria?

It isn't really. There's nothing euphoric about extremely mild happiness that is rather "meh". Euphoria is a whole other level. It's also not always good because, yes, sadistic euphoria is a thing. So is foolish euphoria and drug crazed euphoria.

But if there was no such euphoria at all whatsoever, then that cannot be a positive experience according to my definition.

Well your definition is extremely narrow, limited, naive and philosophically unsophisticated.

  It cannot be a positive feeling either.

Your definition is unsound then. Not all positive feelings are euphoric. All euphoria is a positive feeling (if we define "positive" as "feels good", I mean).... but not all positive feelings are euphoric.

Here's an analogy for you that actually works: Not all animals are dogs but all dogs are animals. Just as not all joy is euphoric but all euphoria is joyful (just on a more intense level). By saying that all positive emotion is euphoria otherwise it isn't a positive emotion that's like you defining all animals as dogs and saying that according to your definition if an animal isn't a dog then it isn't really an animal. Your definition is stupid then.

  The same rule applies to dysphoria.  As for me having a mental illness, I do not act crazy at all.  I am completely cool and calm. 

Well... I believe you. Because I often come across as hyperactive or super emotional online but I'm sitting here completely cool and calm too. So I can relate to that. However you do say things that are crazy like thinking that certain options on your computer screen has some sort of metaphorical meaning to your life. That's psychotic and resembles apophenia.

I do not have manic states or anything of the sort.

How would you know? Mania is often euphoric. It also isn't healthy. So there's already one example for you right there why there's more to intrinsic goodness than euphoria. Mania itself is an example of something ultimately negative that on the surface is very euphoric indeed.

I should know. I've experienced euphoric mania several times in the past.

And it's not like I even have to have that experience. Euphoric mania is very much a thing. There are really only 3 forms of mania: Euphoric mania, irritable mania and mixed state mania. The first kind indeed feeling very euphoric and including the experience of euphoria. And it feels amazing. It's also extremely dysfunctional.

And dysphoria can often be more functional than euphoria! Go figure.

  So, rather than me being some psychotic, crazy person, perhaps I am just having a load of misconceptions.

Perhaps. But you alluded to some rather crazy level apophenia.

  Remember, I do not have much insight at all and my only insight is my own personal experience which I am convinced of.

Well we certainly agree there. You do not have much insight at all.

I do though.

The reason why I agree to my personal definition of a positive and negative experience is simply because there never was one there for me independent of those euphoric and dysphoric states.  I know what I've experienced and I'm just not sure if there can be another form of a positive and negative experience in my life.

[Edwardo Piet]

So you call an okayish feeling extremely extremely extremely mild euphoria?

It isn't really. There's nothing euphoric about extremely mild happiness that is rather "meh". Euphoria is a whole other level. It's also not always good because, yes, sadistic euphoria is a thing. So is foolish euphoria and drug crazed euphoria.


Well your definition is extremely narrow, limited, naive and philosophically unsophisticated.


Your definition is unsound then. Not all positive feelings are euphoric. All euphoria is a positive feeling (if we define "positive" as "feels good", I mean).... but not all positive feelings are euphoric.

Here's an analogy for you that actually works: Not all animals are dogs but all dogs are animals. Just as not all joy is euphoric but all euphoria is joyful (just on a more intense level). By saying that all positive emotion is euphoria otherwise it isn't a positive emotion that's like you defining all animals as dogs and saying that according to your definition if an animal isn't a dog then it isn't really an animal. Your definition is stupid then.


Well... I believe you. Because I often come across as hyperactive or super emotional online but I'm sitting here completely cool and calm too. So I can relate to that. However you do say things that are crazy like thinking that certain options on your computer screen has some sort of metaphorical meaning to your life. That's psychotic and resembles apophenia.


How would you know? Mania is often euphoric. It also isn't healthy. So there's already one example for you right there why there's more to intrinsic goodness than euphoria. Mania itself is an example of something ultimately negative that on the surface is very euphoric indeed.

I should know. I've experienced euphoric mania several times in the past.

And it's not like I even have to have that experience. Euphoric mania is very much a thing. There are really only 3 forms of mania: Euphoric mania, irritable mania and mixed state mania. The first kind indeed feeling very euphoric and including the experience of euphoria. And it feels amazing. It's also extremely dysfunctional.

And dysphoria can often be more functional than euphoria! Go figure.


Perhaps. But you alluded to some rather crazy level apophenia.


Well we certainly agree there. You do not have much insight at all.

I do though.

The reason why I agree to my personal definition of a positive and negative experience is simply because there never was one there for me independent of those euphoric and dysphoric states.  I know what I've experienced and I'm just not sure if there can be another form of a positive and negative experience in my life.

If you've only ever experienced euphoria and dysphoria and never ever experienced anything in-between then you're indeed a classic manic depressive.

[Transcended Dimensions]

The reason why I agree to my personal definition of a positive and negative experience is simply because there never was one there for me independent of those euphoric and dysphoric states.  I know what I've experienced and I'm just not sure if there can be another form of a positive and negative experience in my life.

If you've only ever experienced euphoria and dysphoria and never ever experienced anything in-between then you're indeed a classic manic depressive.

I have experienced in between.  Remember, if I feel a positive emotion at a small degree, then I define that as euphoria on a small level.  What I am saying here is that I have never had a positive or negative experience independent of euphoria and dysphoria.

[Edwardo Piet]

I have experienced in between.  Remember, if I feel a positive emotion at a small degree, then I define that as euphoria on a small level.

Your definition is definitely unsound. It would be more accurate to say that euphoria is happiness on a high level. Happiness can be either intense or mild but euphoria is only intense by definition.

  What I am saying here is that I have never had a positive or negative experience independent of euphoria and dysphoria.

Well yeah, but only if we use your stupid definitions.

[Transcended Dimensions]

I have experienced in between.  Remember, if I feel a positive emotion at a small degree, then I define that as euphoria on a small level.

Your definition is definitely unsound. It would be more accurate to say that euphoria is happiness on a high level. Happiness can be either intense or mild but euphoria is only intense by definition.

  What I am saying here is that I have never had a positive or negative experience independent of euphoria and dysphoria.

Well yeah,  but only if we use your stupid definitions.

I told you earlier that, during my worst miserable moments, I have still believed it to be a good and beautiful thing to get help and change my life for the better.  But I am telling you, there was no positive experience there.  It was nothing but a negative experience.  There is the difference between definitions and qualities.  If I wasn't feeling hungry and I were to define a feeling of hunger as being nothing more than just the thought of getting something to eat, then there would be no feeling of hunger there.  No quality of hunger would be present.  If there was an empty glass and I defined water to be inside that glass, then no quality of water would be there.  So, even though I defined a positive/negative experience as well as good/bad as being something independent of my euphoria and dysphoria, there was none actually there.  Therefore, that is the reason why I have to instead adhere to my own personal and new definition of a positive/negative experience and good/bad.  A quality of good/bad and a positive/negative experience is what I metaphorically describe as the inner light and the inner darkness.

[bennyboy]

What I just said should have made sense.  All I was saying there was that a value system that challenges my own would simply not work out for me since, to me, it is a false value system.  I am, therefore, like the wild, hedonistic animal who needs to live by my own value system since this is the real value system to me.  Otherwise, I would become the enraged and violent animal because I refuse to live my life by values that will not work for me.

Sounds like a superman, but with specified consequences if you don't live up to your nature, then?

[Edwardo Piet]

I told you earlier that, during my worst miserable moments, I have still believed it to be a good and beautiful thing to get help and change my life for the better.  But I am telling you, there was no positive experience there.  It was nothing but a negative experience. 

So what? You were still right that getting help and changing your life for the better was a good idea.

There is the difference between definitions and qualities

Yes. And when you mis-define things your mis-definitions are hence irrelevant. You can call an okayish day "mildly euphoric" all you want... it won't change the fact that it isn't even close to euphoric and calling it "mildly euphoric" is pointless when we already have the words "okay", "meh" or even "happy" (not everyone agrees on how "happy" happy is. This is why personally I don't bother using emotions to describe my feelings at all, most of the time).

  If I wasn't feeling hungry and I were to define a feeling of hunger as being nothing more than just the thought of getting something to eat, then there would be no feeling of hunger there.

Yes. You're proving my point. Stop messing about with definitions and metaphors because it isn't going to change the reality of your experiences.

So, even though I defined a positive/negative experience as well as good/bad as being something independent of my euphoria and dysphoria, there was none actually there.

Actually it's more like... if you have positive and negative emotional experiences that aren't as intense as euphoria or dysphoria they're still real and merely defining all experiences as either euphoric or dysphoric doesn't change the quality of the emotion that is actually there. It's just unnecessarily re-defining things for no good reason. You're right when you say that changing the words won't change the reality. So why do you call all positive experience euphoria even when mild happiness is certainly not euphoric and why do you call all negative experience dysphoria even when intense suffering can be a lot worse than dysphoric?

 

Therefore, that is the reason why I have to instead adhere to my own personal and new definition of a positive/negative experience and good/bad. 

It's completely unnecessarily and pointless for you to use your new definitions. Why bother calling even the mildest happiest euphoria and even the most intense torture or mildly annoying itch dysphoria? We already have words for different levels of intensity with regards to good and bad feelings. Your re-definitions are completely unnecessary and pointless. You already acknowledge that definitions and words are irrelevant with regards to what is actually experienced... and then you go ahead and redefine things anyway. It's so irrational and nonsensical.

A quality of good/bad and a positive/negative experience is what I metaphorically describe as the inner light and the inner darkness.

And your metaphors are pointless, useless and unnecessary too. You've already acknowledged that words don't change the reality and yet you still insist on using the words "Inner light" and "inner darkness" as if you need them or as if it helps when you don't and it doesn't. In fact it's hurting you rather than helping you because you're wasting times focusing on metaphors instead of focusing on logically supporting your own position with valid arguments.

[Transcended Dimensions]

Actually it's more like... if you have positive and negative emotional experiences that aren't as intense as euphoria or dysphoria they're still real and merely defining all experiences as either euphoric or dysphoric doesn't change the quality of the emotion that is actually there. It's just unnecessarily re-defining things for no good reason. You're right when you say that changing the words won't change the reality. So why do you call all positive experience euphoria even when mild happiness is certainly not euphoric and why do you call all negative experience dysphoria even when intense suffering can be a lot worse than dysphoric?
 

Alright then, what I should have said was that there is no positive experience there for me independent of my happiness.  In order for me to have a positive experience, then that requires me to fully recover from any miserable moment in my life.  The same thing applies for having real good value in my life.  My happiness and euphoria are the only way I can have real good value in my life and a positive experience.  This is not a matter of personal definitions.  This is the reality of my experience.

[The Grand Nudger]

Yup, you're definitely the emotional cripple in the equation.  You can't do what others are plainly capable of doing.  You can't see what others are plainly capable of seeing.

Some worldview, some transcendence.  Did you keep the receipt?

[Transcended Dimensions]

Yup, you're definitely the emotional cripple in the equation.  You can't do what others are plainly capable of doing.  You can't see what others are plainly capable of seeing.

Some worldview, some transcendence.  Did you keep the receipt?

On 2nd thought, perhaps you are right here.  From my perspective, I thought that people who struggled with hopelessness and misery such as those miserable genius artists were simply living by a false definition of a positive experience and good value/beauty in their lives when there was no actual quality of it there.  But you are saying that there was an actual quality of it there for them and that I do not have this quality due to my disability.  That quality is what I metaphorically described as being the inner light.  The inner light is a quality of sheer goodness and positivity itself that goes beyond words.  It would be no different than how a blind person cannot have any real quality of red, green, or blue in his life and can only live by the words red, green, and blue in his mind since he cannot visualize those colors.  For me, my own inner light and inner darkness would be my positive and negative emotions while the inner light and inner darkness for other people would be something different.