Emotional Charge

About: BofNK - 4:34

(***)

"4:34 The moment we encounter anything- some feeling , thought, conversation, object, activity - it is immediately perceived to "be" some way.  It is reflexively interpreted as a particular something in relation to one's self. and becomes endowed with meaning, history, identity, association, emotional charge, etc.  This all takes place at about the speed of light."
...
preceeding 4:34 is this quote from Lao-tzu
"It is the emptiness within the cup that makes it useful."

...
I suspect that this emotional charge is what Seth is trying to categorize in 17165
See also 3976 to break down more distinctions on the charge showing up.
btw, there are 42 references to "charge" in my kindle edition .

Tags

  1. item 17165

Comments


Mark de LA says
seth 2014-03-19 09:05:40 17186
strange ...

I actually stated what I was trying to "characterize" in 17165 as follows ...
i observed that (true, false) only applied to thought, (good,bad) to feeling, and (did, did not) to action.  These dualities don't just hang out independently in the air disconnected, but are dualities within some context
Now certainly feeling good or bad, true or false, and the consequences of doing or not doing carry  emotional charge.  Whether that charge is about my self seems to be dependent not only on the particular situations that arise, but also on who I am and my attitude towards what i am not.  Those situations and attitudes vary dramatically from time to time and from, i presume, individual to individual. 

In other words i do not hold, as perhaps does PR, that I always reflectively react to things about myself and obtain the content of my emotional charges therefrom.  While i acknowledge this reflective reaction to self happens very frequently, most ususally i try to ignore it ... because, to be honest with you, i really do not find myself all that very important

Incidentally do you still suspect that I was trying to "categorize" a "self reflective emotional charge" in 17165 ... or was that just your reaction to what i did observe there?
  • WOW!
  • I observed the legend at the top of the table as domain +/-
  • & then observed a column of things you called domains
  • they are in fact your domains - I would not have picked the same ones nor perhaps made a table out of any of it at all.
  • +/- is a charge in electricity, magnetism, etc.  as I said 42 references in BofNK
  • PR is just saying that your self-history-experience affects & determines the charge
  • One has to do a lot of work to get rid of the charge & intercept that light-speed response.
  • You say that in another way when we tussle over the meaning of words
  • I wonder what gives being to a polaric response to most of what I post?
  • yee

Mark de LA says
seth 2014-03-20 05:47:11 17186
Einai 2014-03-19 11:59:51 17186
apparently the polarity of HDD magnets is shown in google polarity in hard drive magnets with pictures & everything.  They behave wierder than described, but I never chopped the magnets off their mounting bracket to check them out.  Such appear to be welded somehow && I have heard that striking a magned a hard blow can damage the magnetism.


well, as far as i know, there are no three poled magnets.  i believe that the ones in the hard drive are just two poled magnets arranged geographically so that they make a mosaic.  polarity in and of its nature is a tyrannical twoness.  which is not to say that there are not just as many threenesses ... or that you cannot compose a threeness out of a twoness. 
Yeah, a couple of years ago I read something on the internet about multiple poles. I couldn't find it yesterday.
Add another dimension maybe for 2->3

Mark de LA says

Mark de LA says
apparently the polarity of HDD magnets is shown in google polarity in hard drive magnets with pictures & everything.  They behave wierder than described, but I never chopped the magnets off their mounting bracket to check them out.  Such appear to be welded somehow && I have heard that striking a magned a hard blow can damage the magnetism.


Seth says
Einai 2014-03-19 11:59:51 17186
apparently the polarity of HDD magnets is shown in google polarity in hard drive magnets with pictures & everything.  They behave wierder than described, but I never chopped the magnets off their mounting bracket to check them out.  Such appear to be welded somehow && I have heard that striking a magned a hard blow can damage the magnetism.


well, as far as i know, there are no three poled magnets.  i believe that the ones in the hard drive are just two poled magnets arranged geographically so that they make a mosaic.  polarity in and of its nature is a tyrannical twoness.  which is not to say that there are not just as many threenesses ... or that you cannot compose a threeness out of a twoness. 

Seth says
source: mark
When we discuss truth or the meanings of words you always seem to retreat into a difference of interpretation sponsored by culture or some such otherness.
  • signs (words) get their meaning by being interpreted - usually by some individual human
  • without that process of interpretation they are mere marks in chaos
  • there are many different humans
  • hence many different interpretations of these marks
  • the more different people use the same marks to mean the same thing, the more we can communicate with the marks

no real biggie, nor anything that should be controversial, eh?


Mark de LA says
seth 2014-03-20 05:59:47 17186
source: mark
When we discuss truth or the meanings of words you always seem to retreat into a difference of interpretation sponsored by culture or some such otherness.
  • signs (words) get their meaning by being interpreted - usually by some individual human
  • without that process of interpretation they are mere marks in chaos
  • there are many different humans
  • hence many different interpretations of these marks
  • the more different people use the same marks to mean the same thing, the more we can communicate with the marks

no real biggie, nor anything that should be controversial, eh?

Hence the language tussles - that's what you asked about!!!


Seth says
source: mark
  • WOW!
  • I observed the legend at the top of the table as domain +/-
  • & then observed a column of things you called domains
  • they are in fact your domains - I would not have picked the same ones nor perhaps made a table out of any of it at all.
  • +/- is a charge in electricity, magnetism, etc.  as I said 42 references in BofNK
  • PR is just saying that your self-history-experience affects & determines the charge
  • One has to do a lot of work to get rid of the charge & intercept that light-speed response.
  • You say that in another way when we tussle over the meaning of words
  • I wonder what gives being to a polaric response to most of what I post?
  • yee

  1. WOW! indeed apparently we were both surprised.
  2. well positive and negative do not always relate to charges in electricity - here i was using them merely to represent the extremes of the polarities being pointed out.   Now i'm thinking that "context" might be a better word to describe the first column. 
  3. Obviously the contexts (domains) we choose to contemplate are subjective.  But thought, feeling, and will, are certainly objectively fundamental to our humanity.  That comes not only from anthrospphy but also from modern psychology and dramatically from my own personal experience.   The fact that i made them in a table was only because i wanted to examine those three aspects of each polarity.  if, and when i do it again, i think i will use a ordered list ... much more flexible.  if i ever want to go into more detail i might mentograph them ... er, or even if i ever get a real gestals of how the different domanins themselves are related ... i might arrange them in a regular lattice like GW did in his cube work. but don't hold your breath for that LOL.
  4. true electricity and magnetism run between  +/- forces.  that may well be related to these psychological polarities, paradoxes, or dualities.  do you have a gestalt there as to how ??
  5. well obviously my history determines the charge ... i think that we need to tease that away from something called "self history" and see just how very hard and fast the two are related.
  6. i think it varies dramatically from individual to individual and from time to time within on individual just how very much "work" must be done not to knee jerk everything to be about themselves.  Some people maybe never can make any progress there ... perhaps to others it comes quite naturally.  I think the part of the culture we grow up within has a lot to do with that.  There are aspects of American culture which strongly prescribe and reinforce egocentric  behavior.  If we are free, we can tune into or tune out of that.
  7. i have no idea what your "that" refers when you refer to our language tussles. if it is important to you, could you elaborate?
  8. maybe you mistake my polaric response to your instigating polaric response to me, as being instigated by me? ... er rather than being (as it feels over here) simply a reaction to somebody attacking me.   i do call myself trying to ignore those attacks and mocks as best i can ... but you seem to be listening so very intently for any hint that i couldn't.  
  9. comprehending otherness and yee is so very fun ... is it not?

Seth says
Einai 2014-03-20 07:20:50 17186
seth 2014-03-20 05:59:47 17186
source: mark
When we discuss truth or the meanings of words you always seem to retreat into a difference of interpretation sponsored by culture or some such otherness.
  • signs (words) get their meaning by being interpreted - usually by some individual human
  • without that process of interpretation they are mere marks in chaos
  • there are many different humans
  • hence many different interpretations of these marks
  • the more different people use the same marks to mean the same thing, the more we can communicate with the marks

no real biggie, nor anything that should be controversial, eh?

Hence the language tussles - that's what you asked about!!!

... well actually i really have no idea what question you are referring to ... or why this language should be a tussle for us.   It might help clear it up a bit for me if you would let me know how (or if) any of the bullets above are not true for you ... or if taken as a whole they do not portray an accurate description of language.  ... huh? 

I mean if you actually believe that these special marks have intrinsic meaning apart from human interpretations, then i can respect your belief just as otherness to my own.   Knowing that is the case might actually be fun .

Mark de LA says
Einai 2014-03-20 08:15:08 17186
seth 2014-03-20 07:56:40 17186
Einai 2014-03-20 07:20:50 17186
seth 2014-03-20 05:59:47 17186
source: mark
When we discuss truth or the meanings of words you always seem to retreat into a difference of interpretation sponsored by culture or some such otherness.
  • signs (words) get their meaning by being interpreted - usually by some individual human
  • without that process of interpretation they are mere marks in chaos
  • there are many different humans
  • hence many different interpretations of these marks
  • the more different people use the same marks to mean the same thing, the more we can communicate with the marks

no real biggie, nor anything that should be controversial, eh?

Hence the language tussles - that's what you asked about!!!

... well actually i really have no idea what question you are referring to ... or why this language should be a tussle for us.   It might help clear it up a bit for me if you would let me know how (or if) any of the bullets above are not true for you ... or if taken as a whole they do not portray an accurate description of language.  ... huh? 

I mean if you actually believe that these special marks have intrinsic meaning apart from human interpretations, then i can respect your belief just as otherness to my own.   Knowing that is the case might actually be fun .
17186 numbered list #7 - trace it back.
Special marks? ... In the beginning was the word - I suspect that without a word you have only "chaos not yet become cosmos". I might think of it as astral jism!
I wonder if one (probably not you) could say huh? often enough to create enough doubt that a question would go away all by itself; maybe even eliminating the need to answer anything at all &/or furthermore get rid of the ngai whang hi entirely. <-- epiphany perhaps? (or not?)


Mark de LA says
seth 2014-03-20 07:56:40 17186
Einai 2014-03-20 07:20:50 17186
seth 2014-03-20 05:59:47 17186
source: mark
When we discuss truth or the meanings of words you always seem to retreat into a difference of interpretation sponsored by culture or some such otherness.
  • signs (words) get their meaning by being interpreted - usually by some individual human
  • without that process of interpretation they are mere marks in chaos
  • there are many different humans
  • hence many different interpretations of these marks
  • the more different people use the same marks to mean the same thing, the more we can communicate with the marks

no real biggie, nor anything that should be controversial, eh?

Hence the language tussles - that's what you asked about!!!

... well actually i really have no idea what question you are referring to ... or why this language should be a tussle for us.   It might help clear it up a bit for me if you would let me know how (or if) any of the bullets above are not true for you ... or if taken as a whole they do not portray an accurate description of language.  ... huh? 

I mean if you actually believe that these special marks have intrinsic meaning apart from human interpretations, then i can respect your belief just as otherness to my own.   Knowing that is the case might actually be fun .
17186 numbered list #7 - trace it back.

Seth says
hmmm ... still trying to figure out where the specific discrepency actually is ...
source: mark
  • One has to do a lot of work to get rid of the charge & intercept that light-speed response.
  • You say that in another way when we tussle over the meaning of words
...
well what i would say is
  1. "it" == "one just has to learn to break the bad habit of the knee jerk response to defend one's self"
  2. yes i say "it" different than do you.  i think i relegate rwg to a bad habit ... and i believe you glorify it as a intrinsic element of man
... I still do not know what that disagreement has to do with our "tussle over the meaning of words" in particular ... or perhaps which words you are thinking of that we disagree on their meanings.  I suspect that there is nothing to be gained here by going any deeper than that.

oh well.



Mark de LA says
seth 2014-03-20 08:40:09 17186
hmmm ... still trying to figure out where the specific discrepency actually is ...
source: mark
  • One has to do a lot of work to get rid of the charge & intercept that light-speed response.
  • You say that in another way when we tussle over the meaning of words
...
well what i would say is
  1. "it" == "one just has to learn to break the bad habit of the knee jerk response to defend one's self"
  2. yes i say "it" different than do you.  i think i relegate rwg to a bad habit ... and i believe you glorify it as a intrinsic element of man
... I still do not know what that disagreement has to do with our "tussle over the meaning of words" in particular ... or perhaps which words you are thinking of that we disagree on their meanings.  I suspect that there is nothing to be gained here by going any deeper than that.

oh well.


huh?  maybe it went away ... I'm done ... if it shows up again I'll get a

Mark de LA says
seth 2014-03-20 09:10:39 17186
source: mark
Special marks? ... In the beginning was the word - I suspect that without a word you have only "chaos not yet become cosmos". I might think of it as astral jism!
... well then perhaps that is our disagreement.

I would say that in the beginning there were men who learned to make signs which pointed to things and other men who learned to watch the pointing and see the things.  The word did not make that happen, rather the other way around, that happening made the word.

That me, and er most of the semantics of the last two centuries, demur from that Bible story, is just the way the cookie crumbles.  Maybe some people are misinterperting what that sentence actually meant to the original people who said it ... i have no idea ... i have not studied bible history enough to even have an opinion. 
Yeah ngai whang hi notwithstanding the last clause above says it all. I doubt the ontology that goes with it as much. Does one just prefer their own story more, eh?
Still in doubt?
Me 2.
What happened such that nothing evolved into all the shit NOW? If it was evolution it had to pre-exist, eh? (such is the semantics of it all)
Me?
I get to be yee ?


See Also

  1. Thought Dualities listed with 3 viewings related by tag "item 17165".