All My Journal Packets (Files)

[The Transcended Omniverse]

emotions is a term in psychology. If you were to talk to any psychologist, then I bet they'd bring it up. As a matter of fact, you can look that term up online yourself.

Other Person's Response: It seems to me you're saying that, if someone feels pleasure abusing people, then that is the right thing to do because, if someone enjoys doing things, like abuse, exploitation, and cruelty, then how can they judge them to be bad? I think it's possible to judge things as bad that we enjoy doing, or desire. Are you saying emotions are the only valid way to the truth of values?

My Reply: Yes. That's what I'm saying.

Other Person's Response: Since it's a beautiful thing for a psychopath to harm an innocent person if he felt good from that, then we might as well allow him to do that, according to your view. No need for any police to take him away.

My Reply: Actually, here's how it would work out. From the psychopath's perspective, it would be a beautiful thing to harm that innocent person. But, from another person's perspective (such as the police), it would be a horrible deed, since they'd feel awful about that. Therefore, the police would still see every reason to arrest that psychopath because it would still be something horrible from their perspective.

Other Person's Response: According to you though, if the police struggled with depression, and couldn't feel the motivation to arrest that psychopath, then they might as well give up on arresting him.

My Reply: They could still go through with arresting him anyway. But, it just wouldn't matter, and there'd be no value in doing so.

Other Person's Response: I don't think positive emotions are holy, divine, and the only beautiful things in life. They can be used to harm others, and do other foolish things.

My Reply: In a movie or anime, a holy, divine relic or holy, sacred powers can be used to harm others, and for other foolish purposes. But, just because the relic and powers can be used in such a manner doesn't make them unholy. We wouldn't all of a sudden say that the relic and powers are evil.

For example, the Dragon Balls are used to grant wishes in the anime Dragon Ball Z, and Dragon Ball Super. They even grant wishes to evil characters. But, just because they grant wishes to evil characters wouldn't all of a sudden mean we'd say the Dragon Balls are unholy or evil. In other words, they're still sacred, divine items no matter what. So, positive emotions are still holy, beautiful, and divine no matter what.

Other Person's Response: You sound like a religious person, given the fact that you refer to positive emotions as being "god's holy light within us."

My Reply: I would describe the religious form of my worldview to be Spiritual Hedonism, Divine Hedonism, or New Age Hedonism. But, hedonism in a purely naturalistic universe would simply be hedonism. The religious form of my worldview would say that we need the holy light within us to make our lives beautiful. But, the secular form of my worldview would say that we need those feel-good biochemicals to make our lives beautiful.

Other Person's Response: I don't even understand the hunger and thirst analogy you made earlier. But, put simply, emotions, by themselves, without interpretation, are insufficient for valuing something. It's like saying sperm is needed to create life.

But, the problem is that it's insufficient to just have sperm, and then create life. You need to fertilize an egg. Emotions (among other things) may be necessary for valuing something. At least, I think intellect alone is insufficient. You need at least something like self-interest, or a value structure.

If you take an example of a dog, for instance, he has many things he likes; his toys, treats, and tummy rubs. Does he value those things? That's a philosophical question, don't you see that? You must say "Yes, because he likes those things, it MEANS he values them," which is, by definition, an interpretation. That's a necessary step. You can't bypass it by adding spirituality or whatever.

My Reply: How it works is that you think something has value and, once that thought makes you feel value in regards to that thing, that's the moment said thing has value to you. By the way, positive emotions are the reward wanting and liking in the brain, and you said liking was necessary to perceive value. So, that says, right there, positive emotions are the perception of value.

Other Person's Response: Firstly, we don't "perceive" or "experience" value in philosophy. It's an idea, or belief, about the importance or worth of something, like an ideal. It's not about whether something "matters" to you or not. That's not the same thing as valuing something. You can interpret or infer that if something "matters to you," like, for instance, your appearance, then you must value your appearance. Actually, that's not true. The person could value any number of things that result in their appearance mattering to them.

I also never said that "liking was necessary to perceive value." What I said was that someone might interpret liking something as meaning they value it. The "causal chain" of "you think your mother is valuable + positive emotion = allowed to perceive your mother as valuable" is just forced. If you think your mother is valuable, then you've already perceived that. Why do you need a positive emotion to allow it a second time? Makes no sense.

Positive emotions are not rewards. That is an interpretation. You can do things that are completely undeserving of reward, and still feel a positive emotion, unless you're making an evolutionary argument, and not a philosophical one. In which case, I don't know enough about evolutionary biology to comment on that. It wouldn't make a difference though. People don't value based off of positive emotions alone. That can be effortlessly observed by anyone.

My Reply: There's a difference between thought and perception though, and I think we do perceive value. That all goes back to my color red analogy. Also, perceiving value is the same thing as valuing something.

Other Person's Response: I can still value something in life, but said thing not mattering to me. Perceiving and experiencing value isn't the same thing as valuing something though.

My Reply: I'll just say what I said before, and I'll also say one last thing, which is new. I think you're wrong when you say valuing something as beautiful or horrible isn't the same thing as that thing mattering to you. For example, if a life-changing event happened to you, and it didn't matter to you, how could you say that you've valued that event as good or beautiful? When something matters to you, this means it's important to you which, in turn, means you value it.

If you were focused on two items (such as a toy and a jewel), and you said that the jewel was something you valued over the toy, even though the toy mattered to you, then we'd say that the jewel mattered to you more than the toy. From there, we'd say that the toy was also something you valued, since it mattered to you. But, you'd value it less than the jewel.

Other Person's Response: You said earlier though that something can matter to you, but you don't value it.

My Reply: Yes. But, in order to value something, it must matter to you.

Other Person's Response: Wanting and liking something doesn't always mean it matters to me.

My Reply: If someone said he wanted and liked the idea of going to the carnival, and didn't want and like the idea of being there for his family, but that being there for his family is what truly mattered to him, and the idea of going to the carnival isn't what mattered to him, this would be false.

If being there for his family is what mattered to him, then he either wanted that, or liked that. The idea of going to the carnival would have to matter to him. But, it would matter to him less than being there for his family. So, he'd have to want, or like, being there for his family more than wanting or liking the idea of going to the carnival.

Other Person's Response: I think hedonism is very selfish.

My Reply: It's a righteous and justified form of selfishness. Hedonists seek to be in their divine state, and that's a beautiful thing. Actually, they'd need their positive emotions in the first place to make it a beautiful thing. Otherwise, they'd just be beings of darkness, or empty vessels, trying to regain their divine state.

That would be nothing beautiful because it would be hell trying to get back to that divine state, or just an apathetic endeavor. During my worst, miserable moments, it was hell waiting, and trying to get back to my fully recovered state. Later on, it became an apathetic endeavor, since I eventually got out of that hell, recovered into an apathetic state, and, finally, recovered back into my positive, divine state.

Other Person's Response: Positive emotions are not some divine state. They're nothing more than the inner child, telling us we want this and like that.

My Reply: Then again, hunger and thirst are messages to our brains, telling us that we need to eat this or drink that. But, that doesn't make hunger and thirst the inner child.

Other Person's Response: If you had the choice to have those miserable moments on a very few occasions each day, for the rest of your life, or to instead endure through all of it at once like you did, and get it done and over with, which would you choose?

My Reply: I'd choose to get it done and over with because I want those negative emotions out of my life for good.

Other Person's Response: I think value and your emotions have been combined into one experience for you in your brain through a process known as conditioning. I don't think emotions themselves ever were value judgments, or perceptions of value.

My Reply: That could be possible. What's interesting about conditioning is that, if I were to listen to a heavy metal song while being out in nature, the next time I listen to that heavy metal song, I feel like this song has a naturalistic element to it, even though it doesn't, which would make it an irrational feeling. This is because 2 types of stimuli have been combined (conditioned) together. Those two stimuli would be nature, and the heavy metal song.

So, different combinations of stimuli will create different feelings. It's not a matter of it being two separate feelings, such as me feeling "Wow, there's my heavy metal song!" and "Ah, there's that beautiful, joyful nature feeling!" Instead, these two stimuli have been combined together into one feeling. This creates a heavy, hardcore, naturalistic feeling. Think of it this way. If you were to combine the colors red and yellow, you wouldn't have two separate colors together.

 

[The Transcended Omniverse]

Instead, you'd have one color, which would be orange. It's quite possible I've combined value with my emotions and, as a result, I'm experiencing my emotions and value as one. Hopefully, I can rewire my brain to experience value through my thoughts and beliefs. That way, I can have an everlasting source of value in my life, rather than the fleeting value that comes through my emotions. But, if my brain is permanently wired like this, that would be unfortunate.

Other Person's Response: I don't understand your previous reply at all.

My Reply: I'm saying that two forms of beauty can be combined to create one beautiful experience. It would be a whole new beautiful experience, just as how combining the colors red and yellow create a new color, which would be orange. If you have two stimuli (such as a chirping bird) and another stimuli (such as musical software), then those two stimuli might get combined (conditioned) together.

So, next time you listen to the chirping bird, and that makes you feel a positive emotion, then the beauty experienced from that chirping bird might be something like a musical, techno bird, even though the real bird chirping is an actual bird, and not some techno one.

Another example would be the other one I made in regards to how the beauty of a heavy metal song can get combined with the beauty of nature, and create a heavy, hardcore, naturalistic, beautiful experience. These experiences, or value judgments, are irrational because the actual bird was a real bird, like I said, and wasn't a techno bird. Neither did that heavy metal song convey the beauty of nature.

As you can see here, conditioning is an irrational process. Emotions work by this process, which means emotions are irrational value judgments. What's interesting is that you can create many different beautiful experiences by this conditioning process. For example, there are many different heavy metal songs out there, and each one of them being combined with nature, would yield many different experiences of hardcore, naturalistic beauty.

Other Person's Response: I think what you're trying to tell me is that people will relate to things differently. You might relate a heavy metal song to a moment in your life, where you were out in nature, while another person will relate to the song differently.

My Reply: Yes.

Other Person's Response: I could also restate what you said as:

"When I'm out in nature, and I listen to a certain song, nature is given the emotional tone of that song. So, if it's a heavy metal song I was listening to, then nature is given a certain heavy metal mood."

My Reply: Correct. If someone was selling doughnuts, and he was listening to a gospel song, then it would be like the doughnuts have both a gospel, and crispy beauty combined.

Other Person's Response: So, it would be like putting a certain melody, theme, or song in a different environment? It would be like having nature-based instruments play a certain song to give that song a naturalistic feel?

My Reply: I think that's what I'm basically saying. If you listen to a certain song out in nature, I think your brain combines nature with that song. So, the song might have a naturalistic feeling to you, even though the song doesn't convey anything naturalistic. But, to have the song convey something naturalistic, you'd have nature-based instruments play the song. That puts the song in a nature-based environment.

Other Person's Response: I could also change the lyrics to ones that express nature to also give the song a naturalistic personality.

My Reply: Yes.

Other Person's Response: I can combine any given stimulus with the emotion of any song then. If there's a song that conveys an aquatic feeling, then I could look at the flower in my yard, while listening to the song. It would be as though the flower is an aquatic flower. That would be the beautiful atmosphere I'd experience. That's the reason why, when you listen to songs on the radio while your mother is driving, nature combines with the emotion of whatever song you're listening to.

My Reply: Correct.

Other Person's Response: If I combined the beautiful emotion of any given song with the beauty of nature, that would be combining two forms of beauty into one. It would be fusing them together to create a new form of beauty. That would be the new beautiful experience for me. It would be like combining two colors, such as red and yellow, and getting a new color, which would be orange. Red represents the beautiful emotion of the song, and yellow represents the beauty of nature. When they combine, they make a new color/new form of beauty.

My Reply: Correct. Combining different forms of beauty this way will allow you to feel new forms of beauty.

Other Person's Response: Can many forms of beauty combine into one, beautiful experience for you?

My Reply: Yes. If you've listened to a beautiful song, and that beauty has been related to the beauty of all sorts of things, such as the beauty of a flower, the beauty of meeting your family, and the beauty of a sunset, then all those forms of beauty would combine into one, beautiful experience for you (or one, beautiful emotion). When 2 stimuli are encountered at the same time (such as listening to a beautiful song while out in nature), then the beauty of nature can combine with the beauty of that song to create one, beautiful experience. When you have the thought that nature is beautiful, and the song is beautiful, those 2 forms of beauty can combine, and make you feel a positive emotion that possesses both forms of beauty, fused together as one.

Other Person's Response: I could give one more example of how different forms of beauty, or joy, combine to make one, beautiful or joyful experience. If you watch hip-hop videos, you'll notice the singers sometimes groove out in the desert, or out in a tropical environment. So, the next time you listen to their music, it might have a tropical, or desert joy, that possesses a hip-hop vibe to it. It would be like if I had a tropical, or desert drink, that had some sort of "hip-hop" flavor added into it. If I drank it, it would be a whole new flavor.

My Reply: Yes.

Other Person's Response: I could give another example. If you had the image of a beautiful character, and added a song as a theme for that character, but the song didn't express the character's personality, then it would be as though the character becomes a whole new person instead. It would be the same character, but given a whole new personality. The beauty of the song you chose for that character would combine with the beauty of the character's image. Thus, creating a character who has a whole new, beautiful personality.

My Reply: Yes.

Other Person's Response: I think it's sad to think only your emotions color your world.

My Reply: That may be sad, but our brains are like televisions that allow us to experience this movie we call "life," and our emotions are the only things that can make this movie something beautiful, horrible, or tragic. Spiritual believers would say our brains are receivers. This receiver model of the brain opposes the materialistic model of the brain, which is the standard model in the scientific community. Think of a tv that is getting reception, which allows it to display a movie.

In a movie, there are sounds, colors, visuals, a plot, a setting, etc. But there's one other important thing in a movie, and that would be the atmosphere. Our brains create our own movie through reception, and it'a a movie that consists of hunger, thirst, sounds, smells, pain, taste, visuals, a beautiful atmosphere, a tragic atmosphere, etc. Any reception site can get cut off, which would take away any one of those mentioned aspects of the movie. An example would be blind people or deaf people.

Think of a tv not getting the proper reception, which only allows it to display the movie with visuals, but no sound, or sound without the visuals. When we lose our ability to feel certain emotions, we lose the reception that makes our atmosphere beautiful, horrible, tragic, etc. Therefore, in order for our lives to be a complete movie with all of the experiences, then our brains need to be getting the proper, full reception.

Other Person's Response: Since life is like a movie, does this mean we can become any character?

My Reply: Correct. If you performed a certain act or gesture that a certain character would perform in a movie, that might make you feel like that character. In a way, I'd actually consider anime and cartoon characters to be real characters. However, they wouldn't be physical beings, living in this world. Rather, they would be spiritual, conscious entities, experienced within us.

Since we are conscious beings, this means, when we experience the beauty or greatness of any given anime character, that beauty and greatness becomes a part of us. The beauty and greatness of that character, therefore, becomes one with our own consciousness, and that's what makes anime and cartoon characters real, living, conscious beings.

You can become these spiritual beings by, again, imagining yourself as being them, which would allow you to feel like you are them. During my worst, miserable moments, I become a different character. I felt like I was a disgusting, inferior old man, whose joy was lost. So, I had to play as that character I absolutely hated for quite some time. But, once I was fully recovered, I played as someone young and beautiful. I will give one last example of living entities within us.

There's a difference between the perceived version of your mother or father, as opposed to your real mother or father. If you had a dream of your mother, and her presence was something very beautiful, heavenly, and joyful, like an angelic being, that would obviously be different than the real mother who is just sitting there, watching tv in the living room. The Holy Light or Darkness we experience takes on various personalities and atmospheres within us. The Holy Light and Darkness are spiritual forces, and they can take on any given character within us.

Other Person's Response: We, as spiritual beings, are a universe, having a human experience. Since we're a universe, then we can experience many different things, and we can become any character on the inside. We can role play any character we want, internally.

My Reply: Yes.

 

[The Transcended Omniverse]

Other Person's Response: Your values are founded upon natural impulses. But, there's so much more value to life. Yes, it is natural to seek pleasure, and to avoid misery. But, that doesn't mean it's the only source of value in life.

My Reply: Here's my mindset. I have always been the type of person to take natural alternatives. Many people would tell me things, such as:

"Don't try this! It just won't work! Just because people believe it works doesn't make it so. Instead, try this natural alternative, which will work wonders for you!"

I also take the natural alternative approach when it comes to positivity. Therefore, I think our natural, hedonistic desire as human beings to seek positive emotions, and to avoid the negative ones, such as misery and sadness, is something we're supposed to live by. Also, as I said earlier, I think our hedonistic desires reflects our divine nature as spiritual beings, since our divine nature is eternal and blissful. Anything that goes against, or attempts to transcend this, isn't the holy way of life.

This means that Buddhists, who talk about giving up our hedonistic desires, and obtaining what they call a transcended state, is restricting of our divine nature. The Buddhist way was, therefore, never anything positive. If you were a Buddhist, you'd be expected to refrain from hedonistic impulses, and you'd be expected to give up your ego. It's like locking up a wild animal inside a cage, since it restricts our souls from being wild, Divine Hedonists.

This is why I don't agree with the Buddhist version of what they call divine, a god, or transcended. I have my own version. That version would be a wild, mystical, divine animal who seeks the holy, inner light (positive emotions). So, I think positive emotions are the only transcended states, since they're the only positive mental states. How can you say that a state is transcended if it's nothing positive?

That's why I'd have to redefine the transcended state Buddhists speak of as being "nothing," "empty," or "restricting of our true divine nature." With all of this being said, even Buddhists are delusional to have a positive attitude about their ways of life, and to somehow think their ways offer someone an alternative to a life of positive meaning, love, joy, or compassion. I think people are so content, such as the Buddhists, that even they don't realize they're delusional and in denial.

People are so dedicated to their religion, whether it be Buddhism or Christianity, that they deny and dismiss their positive emotions as being any source of positivity in their lives. Rather, they think that Jesus is the only source of positive meaning, or that something more, or greater, than their positive emotions, is the source of love, joy, beauty, and positive meaning. That's why I presented that link to the emotional perception theory of value, and my own personal religion that's based upon this theory.

As you can see here, I have my own personal religion, which I call the Emotional Religion/Divine Hedonism, since it's a religion based upon emotions. I don't agree with any other religion, worldview, or philosophy. Therefore, I have my own spiritual path, and other people have theirs. What really frustrates me is when I'm expected to take the spiritual path of someone else, or adhere my life to a different philosophy. Such spiritual paths, and philosophies, are things I don't agree with in the first place.

Other Person's Response: The Buddhists are far more intelligent people than you, and I'm quite sure they'd see every flaw in your personal views.

My Reply: I personally do not agree with a non-hedonistic based lifestyle. I think our divine nature is hedonistic. Not bearing our cross for Jesus, or any of these other things that restrict and threaten our hedonistic desires. Given that our divine nature is hedonistic, we should be on some planet that's compatible with our divine nature.

Such a planet would be a blissful utopia. Going back to my plant analogy earlier, where I said positive emotions are the soul's sustenance, if you want your plants to grow and thrive, why send them to a world where water and sunlight is scarce? Why not send them to a world where water and sunlight is abundant?

Other Person's Response: Then you have a very basic, simplistic, childish, shallow, and limited view of spirituality, religion, and the divine.

My Reply: Some people might say my religion is for little children, and not for mature adults. But, people shouldn't dismiss my religion at first glance as being childish and shallow because I support this worldview with many arguments. In other words, there's more than meets the eye to my worldview, and you shouldn't judge a book by its cover. Therefore, all I'm asking is that others fully read through my packets to gain full insight into my worldview before jumping to conclusions.

Other Person's Response: According to you, giving into our natural hedonistic impulses is divine. This is the opposite of what most religions say because they say giving them up, and transcending them, is divine.

My Reply: I agree. My personal views oppose the vast majority of humanity.

Other Person's Response: As far as I'm concerned, an absence of bad is good. Like I said, I think Schopenhauer was right about that. Good is the absence of bad. It's the opposite viewpoint of the idea that evil is the absence of good. Christians pathetically fail to deal with the problem of evil. They say evil doesn't exist, as it's merely the absence of good.

On the contrary, if there's nothing bad, then it doesn't even matter whether there's anything good or not. The slightest bit of mild concern about your lack of good feelings is a slight bit of badness.

Without even mild concern, literally no one cares that there's no good feelings. So, it literally doesn't matter. Also, look at the positive feeling of relief, for instance. It's a removal of pain, and, yes, someone who's miserable feels miserable. But, that doesn't mean their misery can't improve, and it doesn't mean that he can't give pleasure to others.

My Reply: Positive emotions is the good life, negative emotions is a bad life, and having neither positive nor negative emotions is a neutral life of no value, which would be apathy. That's my personal view. It would be like how, if you have neither a positive nor negative charge, then you can only have no charge at all.

Not having a negative charge does not equate to having a positive charge. So, if you have no bad in your life, that does not equate to good in your life. You need positive emotions to have good in your life, just as how you need a positive charge to have a positive charge.

It's also the same as positive numbers, negative numbers, and the number zero. The number zero may be greater than the negative numbers. But, that doesn't make zero a positive number, since it's still a neutral number. Also, you need your positive emotions to perceive it as being beautiful and worth living for when giving pleasure to others.

Other Person's Response: You have no right to tell another human being that they're delusional, and that their lives have no value if they don't feel positive emotions.

My Reply: Since people are denying my personal experience, why shouldn't I return the favor, and deny theirs?

Other Person's Response: We create our own reality of experience by what we think. Emotions were never the perception of value. Rather, you have made them the perception of value by your way of thinking.

My Reply: I think this would be a chicken and egg question. Is it me having this worldview in the first place that has made my emotions into perceptions of value? Or, is it my emotions being perceptions of value in the first place that has led me to this worldview?

Other Person's Response: You mentioned earlier that people think there's an intellectual form of emotions. Could you give me more insight into this?

My Reply: Sure. People put emotions into two categories. The 1st category would be the lower, basic emotions, such as a feeling of sexual arousal, a feeling of excitement to go to the carnival, or feeling panic from being in a dangerous situation. Many people deem these as the shallow emotions. But, then there are the higher emotions founded upon morality, character, and intellect.

Even if a person couldn't feel the basic emotions, other people would still claim that this person can have value in his life through his higher emotions. I'm not sure if these higher emotions exist. I don't think our thoughts and beliefs alone can be any real emotional state. I think it can only be the basic emotions that are the real emotions. I could be wrong though. One last thing here.

People have asked me to clarify what I mean when I say "higher" emotions and "shallow" emotions. When I write things, whether they be essays, or philosophical arguments, there might be many things I need to clarify that I didn't know I needed to clarify. Maybe this is one of the reasons why many people find my writing gibberish, or incoherent. So, for now, I'll just clarify this point I've presented.

When a person only judges someone by his physical appearance, that can be deemed as shallow. But, judging a person based on who he truly is on the inside is something "more" (or something "higher"). Many people refer to the intellectual/moral form of emotions as being something more, or higher, since these emotions go beyond that of a wild, hedonistic animal, living for pleasure.

In short, people would say that, if you live by the intellectual/moral form of emotions, then you're something more than a wild, hedonistic animal. But, like I said earlier, I don't think these higher emotions exist. I think that people just wish to go beyond their animal impulses and, as a result, believe in the existence of these higher emotions, when they really don't exist.

Other Person's Response: As people experience pleasure from “higher level” emotions (if such a distinction really exists) from a variety of intellectual activities, it would appear you're wrong.

My Reply: We as human beings are metaphorical creatures, and I think we tend to sometimes believe metaphors are the real things themselves. A metaphorical version of hunger and thirst is not real hunger and thirst, and neither is a metaphorical version of emotions any real emotions either.

Other Person's Response: So, when people say they get intellectual based pleasure from doing a crossword, reading, writing a poem, or watching a friend win a race, you think they're just lying? You'll really need to provide some evidence for this. Otherwise, we can only conclude that you're completely delusional (or lying).

My Reply: Yes. But, as long as they could feel the basic, hedonistic pleasures, then I consider that to be real pleasure.

 

[The Transcended Omniverse]

Other Person's Response: Where is the evidence that everybody lies about this?

My Reply: This has been my own personal experience, and all I'm doing here is wondering if I'm telling the truth or not. I really don't know if I'm lying or not.

Other Person's Response: You cannot assume that, because you're unable to get intellectual based pleasure from art, or a beautiful sunset, that no one else is.

My Reply: I was just wanting others to keep an open mind to my idea, and not be convinced of anything just yet.

Other Person's Response: As what you are now claiming is obviously false, there isn't much scope for being open minded about it. You might as well ask that people be open minded about the Earth being flat.

My Reply: What makes you think it's false? Also, if you really thought it was false in the first place, then you wouldn't even be asking for evidence for my idea. I think you were open minded about it, but are now just ignoring my idea by dismissing it as false. When you feel a basic, positive emotion, this can be described as a sensation of pure joy and beauty, since our positive, basic emotions give our lives beauty and joy.

In order for our intellect alone to give our lives beauty and joy, then it would have to experience a sensation of beauty and joy. This would be no different than saying that, in order for our intellect alone to experience hunger and thirst, then it would have to experience the actual sensation of hunger and thirst. So, the sensation of beauty, horror, joy, etc. that comes about through our basic emotions has to be experienced through our intellect alone in order for intellectual beauty, horror, joy, etc. to exist.

Other Person's Response: You're claiming that everybody in the world (including me) is lying, and you provide no evidence to support this.

My Reply: Alright then. This would just be my own philosophy.

Other Person's Response: I don't think you can call a belief in something that is obviously false a "philosophy". Believing the Earth is flat isn't a philosophy. It's a delusion. Believing that man didn't land on the Moon is not a philosophy. It's a delusion. Believing that everybody else in the world is lying to you is not a philosophy. It's a delusion.

My Reply: I don't actually believe my idea. I'm just sharing this idea based upon my own personal experience. Consider it a hypothesis.

Other Person's Response: Let me butt in here for a moment and say something. I actually agree emotions are perceptions of value, since I'm an emotional theorist. But, could you give me an example of someone who says they aren't perceptions of value?

My Reply: I have interacted with people on forums who claimed that our emotions are just simply how we feel about things, and nothing more. I revealed to them how they're the perception of value. But, they denied this. If you want, I could give you the link to this discussion I had. I can't trust humanity when they make the claim that their thoughts and beliefs alone are higher emotions, and a real source of value in their lives. Here is one link. This is a guy named Dimebag who makes a distinction between emotions and value. There's one other guy who disagrees emotions are perceptions of value, and I think his name is ScienceGuy:

My new support for hedonism - Page 2 - Philosophy Now Forum

 

[The Transcended Omniverse]

File #7: My Recent Crisis

I've had many miserable moments in my life, due to unhealthy thought processes. These moments were the worst, hopeless, crippled states of my life. These crippled/ill states have induced crippled states in my nightmares, which were far worse than the crippled states of my waking life.

A dream state is like going very deep into our own minds and, as a result, we experience things much more profoundly than we do in our waking life. The word "devastating" and "horrible" does describe the crippled states of my waking life. But, those words cannot describe the ones in my nightmares, since they were far more horrible than anything imaginable. They were completely altered states, and were completely different than the ones in my waking life.

Now, people who have near death experiences report that what they've experienced during their trips/journeys was something far more horrible, or far more beautiful, than what they've experienced in their dreams and nightmares. They have these experiences during a hyper lucid state, which makes the experience more real and alive.

Knowing this has traumatized me because it could be possible I might have a near death experience myself someday, and it turning out to be something more horrible than those crippled states I've had in my nightmares. It could be possible that I might experience a crippled state that's far more intense, and far more horrible than the ones I've experienced in my nightmares. It doesn't matter even if I'm fully recovered and happy; it could still be possible.

There's no way to know for sure if this will happen or not. But, knowing this possibility was a worry that has traumatized me. This was an emotional crisis that took such a long time for me to recover from, which is the reason why I haven't seen Don, my music teacher, in such a long time. It took me over 3 whole years to almost fully recover from this crisis.

Once I've neared full recovery, not only has my waking state returned back to its normal, healthy state, but my dream states have also returned back to their normal, healthy state. The reason why it took so long for me to recover wasn't because this was such a horrible crisis.

Rather, it was because my subconscious brain was stuck on this worry, and couldn't let go of it. Even though I was consciously fixated on other things in my life, my subconscious brain was all jammed up, and I was in the worst state of my life. My brain was all stuck like that constantly, and it was a long term goal for my brain to finally get unstuck.

Imagine a piece of gum lodged in your stomach, and it taking over 2 whole years to fully dissolve. That's what it was like for me because it took over 2 years for my brain to almost completely rid of this lodged worry. This worry is unlike all others that made me miserable because this was the most troubling worry, which is why my brain remained stuck on it for such a long time. As of now, my brain is only a little bit stuck, and I'm doing just fine.

So, I only need a little bit more time before I finally reach a state of full recovery, and am able to feel happiness and enjoyment once again. When certain areas of the brain become overly active, other areas turn off. That's the reason why I'm currently unable to feel positive emotions because, as long as those areas of my brain are all worried and worked up, then my ability to feel positive emotions will be turned off.

Also, you can either have a very tight grip on something, and not let go of it, or you can have a very soft grip on something, and not let go of it. In the past, my brain had a very powerful grip on that worry, and I was in the worst, hopeless, miserable state of my life back then. As a matter of fact, I could literally feel how everything was all jammed up inside.

As of now though, that jamming sensation is almost completely gone and, even though my brain has a very soft grip on this worry, it will still take a little while before my brain fully lets go of that worry. I will say one last thing here. If it were somehow a fact that I'd have a near death experience, but I'd only be able to experience crippled states that were as horrible as the ones in my waking life, then that wouldn't worry me at all.

The crippled states of my waking life were nothing in comparison to the ones in my nightmares. If I were to be worried about experiencing the crippled states of my waking life during a near death experience, then that worry would only last for something around 10 minutes or so, and I wouldn't be in the worst state of my life at all. Therefore, this just shows you how much worse those crippled states in my nightmares were for me to be so traumatized, and for said worry and misery to last such a long time.

What Would The Worst State Of Suffering Be Like?: To extend on this packet, I'd just like to ask a question. What would the worst state of suffering, or the most horrible experience possible, be like? Of all possible brain states (or soul states, if we have souls), what would be the worst possible state?

This would be an interesting question for many people, including Buddhists. What would be more interesting is if there was a brain model of the worst state of suffering possible (such as what it would look like on a brain scan). Now, I'm not saying I've experienced the worst state of suffering possible.

But, I can at least give you insight based upon my own personal experience because those crippled nightmare states I've had were the worst experiences of my personal life. So, I'd like to begin by saying that anything can give a misleading impression of the most horrible experience possible.

For example, if there were two tough guys at the gym, talking to one another, and one tough guy asked the other one what the most horrible experience possible would be like, then the other would give his own tough guy impression of it. He might say: "I've never experienced it myself. But, it must be pretty brutal, man!"

To which, the other tough guy might reply: "Sounds pretty ******! I'd love to have this experience myself!" As you can see here, the most horrible experience possible shouldn't be treated in such a casual manner because the tough guy impression doesn't convey what the experience is actually like.

If anything, the tough guy impression acts as a mask that conceals just how horrible of an experience it really is. I'll give a few more examples. If a child on Halloween day asked what the worst possible experience would be like to other casual, people, having fun on Halloween day, then that child would get a spooky, fun impression of what it would be like.

So, this would act as a fun, spooky mask that conceals the experience. Another example would be if a student asked my question to a fun, happy, science teacher, and the student became intrigued, and wanted to have this experience as a science experiment. That would be putting a fun, happy, science mask over the experience.

As you can see, anything can act as a mask. That's the reason why the most horrible experience possible doesn't belong in the context of any given environment, whether it be a tough guy environment, a fun, Halloween environment, or a fun, science environment. Such environments would only serve to project a misleading atmosphere upon the most horrible experience possible.

The most horrible experience would be its own, unique atmosphere. It would be its own, unique, mental realm, completely separate from those other ones mentioned. Even if, let's pretend, I really did have the most horrible experience possible, and explained my experience to my mother, or to anyone else, that would still give a misleading impression of it because other people might say something, such as:

"We're human beings, and we all have horrible experiences. I remember the time I lost my father, and how horrible of an experience that was for me. It's completely normal to have these experiences." Even if I said my experience was nothing normal, other people still wouldn't understand. Therefore, the only way a person can truly understand is if he had the worst experience possible for himself.

I mean, I can't tell if certain people, who've had emotional traumas, experienced something as horrible as I did. But, all I'm saying here is that there are many misleading impressions out there in the world that only serve to blind people. I'm also able to talk about this in a normal, casual tone of voice, since I'm doing just fine now.

So, even my tone of voice might give a misleading impression of my experience. The idea, would, therefore, be to cast away all misleading impressions (or masks), and to look at the experience itself. People have to set aside their own personal masks, and they must understand that the most horrible experience possible goes beyond what impression they give it.

As a matter of fact, I don't think any work of art can convey the worst experience possible, since it's so horrible. Even the words "painful," "brutal," or "agonizing" cannot describe the worst experience possible. Like I said before, the hopeless states of my waking life were crippled states that can be described as "brutal" or "hell."

But, the ones in my nightmares were whole new experiences, and these were the absolute worst states for me. They cannot be described as "hell" or "brutal." So, I think the worst experience possible would have to be during a dream state, since dream states are far more profound and powerful experiences than what we have in our waking life.

The worst experience possible could also be had during a near death experience, or a drug induced state, since these states are also far more profound and powerful experiences than our normal, waking state. I know many people who've had near death experiences, since I read about them online.

These people reported they've had beautiful, magnificent experiences, and that no words, or work of art, can convey just how beautiful these experiences were for them. So, I think the best experience possible would also have to be during a dream state, a near death state, or a drug induced state. I'd like to say one last thing here.

There are two aspects of an experience, and that would be the profoundness of that experience, and the intensity of that experience. An example of profoundness would be that the horrible experience you've had from having lost a loved one would be more profound (worse) than the horrible experience you've had from something, such as having lost in a video game.

So, in order for an experience to be the worst possible, then it not only has to be the most profound, but the most intense. If you've had the most profoundly horrible experience, but that experience not being very intense, then that wouldn't be as horrible as having that experience at a very high intensity. The same idea applies to the best experience possible. Lastly, the worst experience possible would be the worst life to live, while the best experience possible would be the best life to live.

 

[Electra]

Yes and it seams as if to convey such a horrible experience to the majority of people that there needs to be a song and dance.

I love the saying, "do not mistake my composure for ease."

 

[The Transcended Omniverse]

Other Person's Response: You define love as an emotion. But, a person could define love as an action. So, love is defined by the individual. That means love doesn't have to be an emotional state or a mindset. It can just be the act of protecting or helping someone.

My Reply: But, that definition of love treats our actions as being superior to our state of mind. If we were to go by a definition of love that completely leaves out our emotional state and mindset, then we might as well say that an inanimate object saving a person's life would be love.

A trampoline is just an object that has no mindset or emotions, and we might as well say it loved someone because it protected that person from a fatal fall on the concrete floor.

We might as well also say that serial killers and psychopaths doing helpful deeds, just for their own sinister gain, would be love. After all, it doesn't matter what mindset or emotional state they're in, according to this definition. As long as they're doing these helpful deeds, then that's love. So, I disagree with this definition of love.

 

[The Transcended Omniverse]

Other Person's Response: Your philosophy says that the only way something can matter to us, and the only way we can have a positive or negative perspective, is through our emotions, and not through our mindset alone. So, if someone felt a negative emotion, such as feeling that he's a pitiful human being who should give up on his goals and dreams, and he had a positive thought, such as thinking he's still a beautiful person who should persevere, but that thought couldn't make him feel that way, then that means that thought couldn't matter to him, and neither could it give him a positive perspective. As long as he's just feeling negative emotions, and not any positive emotions, then that means only the negative matters to him, and not the positive, since positivity is absent without positive emotions.

My Reply: Correct. There can be no positivity without positive emotions, and there can be no negativity without negative emotions. So, only our positive and negative emotions color our world in positivity and negativity. Our thoughts and beliefs alone can't. So, our thoughts and beliefs alone can't be positive or negative (i.e. they can't be good, bad, beautiful, horrible, disgusting, pitiful, etc.). But, I still refer to our thoughts and beliefs as being positive and negative, just for the sake of convenience.

Other Person's Response: There are heavenly, spiritual beings (angels) who don't want us to grieve over the loss of our loved ones, since they go to heaven when they die, and aren't forever gone. These angels say that grief is just negative energy and unnecessary suffering that we don't need. So, that says there are forms of suffering that are unnecessary.

My Reply: Yes, and I think my miserable struggles were also unnecessary, and I would've been better off never having them. My miserable struggles weren't grief though. They were induced by worries and negative thinking, as I said earlier. As for loved ones going to heaven, there are many accounts of people who have near death experiences, where they learn this isn't the only life, and that we are immortal souls that survive bodily death. The angels say these accounts are a blessing, since they give people hope and prevent grief. So, if these angels don't want us to grieve, then why don't they just use their healing powers to heal those who are already stuck in grief, and why didn't they heal me of all my misery?

 

[The Transcended Omniverse]

Other Person’s Response: If a person just had a thought or belief of red without seeing red, then he’d be perceiving the idea of red, but not actual red.

My Reply: Correct. The same thing applies to good, bad, etc. So, if a person had no ability to feel any emotions, and he had the thought or belief that something was good, bad, etc., then he'd just be perceiving the idea that this thing is good, bad, etc. But, he wouldn't be perceiving it as good, bad, etc. So, he wouldn't be perceiving actual goodness, badness, etc. in regards to that thing.

Other Person's Response: So, only our emotions color our world in beauty, magnificence, horror, tragedy, goodness, badness, etc.?

My Reply: Yes. Without our emotions, then our lives would possess no beauty, magnificence, etc.

Other Person's Response: Not only does negative thinking cause us to feel negative emotions, but it causes us nightmares. Nightmares are a result of our brains tuning into the lower, hellish, spiritual realm. So, nightmares come from hell, and so do negative emotions.

My Reply: Yes. This is what religious believers would say. Especially the New Age spiritual believers. As for positive emotions, and beautiful, amazing dreams, they come from heaven. Our souls are at a lower frequency when we have negativity, and our souls are at a higher frequency when we have positivity.

Other Person's Response: There are heavenly, spiritual beings (angels) who don't want us to grieve over the loss of our loved ones, since they go to heaven when they die, and aren't forever gone. These angels say that grief is just negative energy and unnecessary suffering that we don't need. So, that says there are forms of suffering that are unnecessary.

My Reply: Yes, and I think my miserable struggles were also unnecessary, and I would've been better off never having them. My miserable struggles weren't grief though. They were induced by worries and negative thinking, as I said earlier. As for loved ones going to heaven, there are many accounts of people who have near death experiences, where they learn this isn't the only life, and that we are immortal souls that survive bodily death. The angels say these accounts are a blessing, since they give people hope and prevent grief. So, if these angels don't want us to grieve, then why don't they just use their healing powers to heal those who are already stuck in grief, and why didn't they heal me of all my misery?

Other Person's Response: Your philosophy says that emotions are the only things that give goodness, badness, etc. to our lives/mental universes. So, if I only felt bad about things, and I never felt good or any other positive emotion, such as beauty or magnificence, then I'd have nothing but the bad in my life. But, I'd want the bad because the bad makes me a stronger person. It builds my character.

My Reply: You act as though having the bad is a good thing. But, you need to feel good in order to have some good in your life. As long as you're not feeling good, then you shouldn't be acting as though you have something good going on in your life. That's why you shouldn't be acting as though having the bad is a good thing. Also, you'd have to feel good about the bad in order to see the bad as good. So, why feel bad at all? It would be better if we just feel good all the time because that would be bringing our lives more and more goodness.

Other Person's Response: Since emotions (value judgments) are the only goodness, badness, beauty, etc. that exists, then that means it's not our actions and deeds that determine whether we're good, bad, beautiful, or disgusting people. It's how we feel about ourselves that determines this. So, if a psychopath felt that he was a beautiful person for torturing living things, then that means he's perceiving himself as a beautiful person, and it's this perception/emotion/value judgment that makes him a beautiful person. His act of torturing living things wouldn't make him a bad, horrible, or disgusting person.

My Reply: Correct. Seeing yourself as a beautiful or disgusting person is the only thing that makes you a beautiful or disgusting person. But, if you saw yourself as a beautiful person, while another person saw you as disgusting, then you'd be beautiful from your perspective, and disgusting from that other person's perspective. So, you'd be a beautiful person in your own mental universe, and you'd become disgusting in that other person's mental universe.

Other Person's Response: If a psychopath saw himself as a beautiful person for torturing living things, then that would make him a better person than someone who helps humanity, but is struggling with a lot of negative emotions, and sees himself as a disgusting person?

My Reply: Yes. Being a beautiful person is better than being a disgusting person, and that's why that psychopath would be the better person. That's why I'd choose to be that psychopath than to be that struggling individual. My own mental universe needs to be filled with positivity, such as beauty and goodness. That means I need to be a beautiful person in my own mental universe, and that's why I'd choose to be a psychopath who feels a lot of positive emotions, and feels beautiful about himself, than to be that struggling individual.

Other Person's Response: What if you had to be that struggling individual only for a very short time? Would you still choose to be that happy psychopath?

My Reply: No. I'd just bear through the struggle until it's over, since I'd have my positive emotions again very shortly. But, if I had to live most or my entire life with little to no positive emotions, then I'd choose to be that psychopath. As a matter of fact, I think I'd choose to be that psychopath than to be someone who has an overall, significant loss of positive emotions in his total lifespan. After all, a life that consists of more positive emotions is the better life to live. So, choosing to be that psychopath would be the better choice.

 

[The Transcended Omniverse]

Other Person's Response: Let's pretend that you perceived yourself as a disgusting person, and someone else perceived you as a beautiful person, since you were polite, kind, and helpful. At least you brought beauty to that person's life, since his perception of beauty brought beauty to his mental universe.

My Reply: But, I wouldn't be able to see that as a good, valuable, or beautiful thing without my positive emotions though. As long as I'm just feeling negative emotions, such as feelings of disgust, misery, horror, etc., then I can't be a good, valuable, or beautiful person in my own mental universe, and neither would my mental universe possess any goodness, value, or beauty.

Other Person's Response: According to your philosophy, a life of eternal bliss would be the best life for anyone to live, since such a life would possess an eternal amount of intense beauty, love, goodness, magnificence, etc. But, there are people who'd find such a life to be a worthless existence that's nothing good or beautiful. Such people would prefer to die and never exist again than to live such a blissful life. As a matter of fact, there are people who'd prefer to live miserable, unhappy lives.

My Reply: But, it would make no sense to treat an eternally blissful life as a worthless existence that's nothing good or beautiful, given that such a life is the most worthwhile, good, and beautiful existence there is. So, it would only make sense for people to prefer living an eternally blissful life.

Other Person's Response: Is it possible that someone could witness a certain event, not have a single thought or belief about it, and automatically feel bad or horrified about the event? If that's so, then we don't need to have thoughts or beliefs that certain things are bad or horrific in order to feel bad or horrified in regards to said things. That means a person could witness certain events, automatically feel bad or horrified about one event, and exclaim:

"That event is so bad or horrific!" From there, he could witness another event, automatically feel amazement or beauty in regards to it, and exclaim: "Wow, that event is amazing or beautiful!" Such exclamatory expressions were spawned by the emotions themselves, which means it was his emotions that gave him information about the world (in this case, those events he witnessed being bad, horrific, amazing, beautiful, etc.).

My Reply: You could be right.

Other Person's Response: If there was some sort of technology that could bestow upon you all the knowledge that exists, then would you use that technology to make yourself an all-knowing genius?

My Reply: Yes, since all that knowledge would serve an immense benefit for me. If the technology didn't cost too much money, then I'd pay for it. Also, I'm not interested in learning things. So, I'm unwilling to acquire knowledge by dedicating my life to studying up on things. That's why I'd choose to have all the knowledge handed to me by using that technology. Having all this knowledge would enable me to realize the truth in regards to controversial topics, such as whether there is an afterlife or not, whether vaccines cause autism or not, etc.

Other Person's Response: Did the theory of relativity completely erase that fear you had in regards to the Earth speeding?

My Reply: No. There's still some fear left. The thing about phobias is that you can't completely erase them through reasoning alone. That's why I still have this fear. I know I talked about a technique I performed in a later packet, which I claimed erased the fear completely. But, it didn't.

Other Person's Response: If you continue to experience this fear, then that's actually exposing yourself to the fear. By exposing yourself, you eliminate the fear. When people expose themselves to their phobias, their phobias vanish.

My Reply: Yes. But, let's pretend my fear could never be eased to any degree whatsoever, regardless of what I thought, regardless of knowing that theory of relativity, and how much I exposed myself. That means I'd have to live with intense fear of the Earth speeding, and that fear would completely overwhelm me. I wouldn't be able to live like that, and nor would I be able to function, since I'd be utterly consumed by the fear.

Other Person's Response: You say your mind is stuck on some misery-inducing worry, and that this worry has kept your ability to feel positive emotions shut off. Has it also shut off your ability to feel this fear you have in regards to the Earth speeding?

My Reply: Yes. For the most part, the fear isn't even there. But, sometimes, it pops up a bit. If I were to be fully recovered from this misery-inducing worry, then I think that fear would fully be there much of the time. Fortunately, the fear would be reduced, due to the theory of relativity.

Other Person's Response: I heard you fear that mental, racing sensation you get when you're speeding, and that you thought this sensation was too much to handle. When you thought that, you said you were actually thinking this sensation must be avoided. So, by avoiding that sensation, you were making the fear worse. You then thought to yourself that, even if this sensation was too much for you to handle, that doesn't mean it has to be avoided. So, that eased the fear. But, there's still some remainder of that fear?

My Reply: Yes. Like I said, I tried to reduce this fear as much as possible by thinking certain ways and knowing certain things, such as the theory of relativity. But, all of these things haven't completely erased the fear.

Other Person's Response: I heard you say, in a later packet, that you'd rather experience fear than rage, since rage puts you at risk of harming yourself and others. But, you've changed your mind, which means you'd rather experience rage, since panic is such a frightening, overbearing experience for you.

My Reply: Yes. For example, when my fear of the Earth speeding was intense, that's when I changed my mind and decided I'd rather experience rage.

 

[The Transcended Omniverse]

Other Person's Response: Your philosophy says that the only way people and things can matter to us would be through our emotions, and not through our mindset alone. Positive emotions make people and things matter to us in positive ways (such as: "Wow, that was such a beautiful and amazing moment"), negative emotions make people and things matter to us in negative ways (such as: "That was such a horrible, pitiful, disgusting person"), and having no emotions means people and things can't matter to us at all.

My Reply: Correct. The component that makes people and things matter to us, and allow us to perceive people and things as good, bad, etc., wouldn't be our reason component (our thinking alone). It would be our emotional component. Also, hearing, smelling, and seeing are separate components as well. They'd be the audio, olfactory, and visual components. Again, our reason component alone can't allow us to hear, smell, or see.

Other Person's Response: Is your emotional component the only component that has ever allowed people and things to matter to you, and allowed you to perceive people and things as good, bad, valuable, beautiful, horrible, etc.?

My Reply: Yes. That's been my personal experience.

Other Person's Response: Our emotional component can be disabled though, and our ability to hear, smell, and see can also be disabled. That's why there are people who are deaf, blind, and can't smell.

My Reply: Yes. But, our emotional component can be disabled very easily, unlike our audio, olfactory, and visual components, since there are many factors that can take away our ability to feel certain emotions, such as feeling tired and not feeling up to doing certain tasks, feeling panic or excitement one moment, only for those feelings to soon wear off, etc.

Other Person's Response: Your philosophy fails to meet the demands of daily life. Life's a challenge, and such a challenge demands a better philosophy than the one you have. If reason alone couldn't make people and things matter to us, or allow us to perceive people and things as good, bad, valuable, etc., then we wouldn't have a properly functioning society that's able to meet life's challenges. For example, if someone was miserable and didn't feel like doing something important, then he'd require his reason component to perceive the pursuit of that important task as valuable, worthwhile, good, and beautiful. If emotions were all that we had to rely on to perceive value, worth, goodness, badness, horror, and beauty, then we wouldn't get very far in life or in any given endeavor.

My Reply: Well, this is the philosophy I have for now, and I don't know what can change my philosophy.

Other Person's Response: Life's unfair because positive emotions are fleeting, and life comes with a lot of miserable, unhappy, and apathetic challenges where we don't feel up to doing certain things, but still have to do them. Your philosophy makes you a victim of life's unfairness. If you had a better philosophy, then you wouldn't be a victim of your miserable struggles. That means you wouldn't be giving up on your hobbies when you're miserable, and you'd be seeing the pursuit of your hobbies as good, beautiful, valuable, and worthwhile, even when you don't feel up to doing them. So, even while you're miserable, suicidal, and feel like giving up on your hobbies, your reason component would still compel you to persevere. Like the person above me said, solely relying on emotions is very self-defeating, and won't get you very far in life or in your hobbies.

My Reply: You're right. But, like I said, this is the philosophy I have for now.

Other Person's Response: You can change your philosophy right here and now in the comfort of your own home, which means you don't need to talk to your therapist, you don't need to seek knowledge or contribute to humanity, etc. All you have to do is think to yourself: "Do I really want to be in a position where I give up on my composing when I'm miserable? No, I don't! I wish to perceive my composing as good and valuable through my mindset alone. I don't need my positive emotions to perceive goodness or value. So, I can be miserable and see my composing as good and valuable. Therefore, there's no need for me to give up composing when I'm miserable."

My Reply: I thought this many times and it didn't work at all for me. So, my philosophy still remains the same. That means I'm still giving up on my composing until my positive emotions return.

Other Person's Response: I heard that, when you go some place that's away from home, that fear of the Earth speeding gets worse. You said it's because home is your comfort zone, and any place that's away from home would be outside your comfort zone. Sure, that fear is still there, even while you're at home. But, the fear isn't as bad as being away from home.

My Reply: Yes.

Other Person's Response: When people are miserable and commit suicide, that doesn't erase their problems. Their problems are carried on over to the afterlife. They'll remain in a state of misery that's 24/7 for hundreds or thousands of years, since that's their penalty for their act of suicide. They won't be able to will themselves out of this misery, which means their misery-inducing problems will continue to linger with them.

If you were to commit suicide, since you've experienced intense fear that was overwhelming, and you wanted to escape said fear, then you'd remain in a chronic, 24/7 state of fear in the afterlife that would last hundreds or thousands of years, since that would be your penalty for your act of suicide.

You'd be in a non-stop state of panic, and that would be a horrible existence you'd definitely want to avoid. So, it's better for you to remain in this life and face your fears. In this Earthly realm, panic can't last 24/7. It only lasts for brief moments. Furthermore, your fears can vanish when you expose yourself to them in this Earthly realm. But, if you were to try to escape your fears by suicide, then your fears would continue to linger with you in some hellish afterlife.

My Reply: Don't worry. I'm not going to commit suicide. Also, god or his angels wouldn't be all-loving, all-just beings if they were to give me such a penalty.

 

[The Transcended Omniverse]

Other Person's Response: You're wrong. Reason alone does allow people and things to matter to me, and it does allow me to see people and things as good, bad, beautiful, etc. For example, there were moments in my life where I was unable to feel any emotion whatsoever. But, I still had the thought in my mind that being there to support my family mattered to me, and was valuable and beautiful in my eyes. That thought worked for me.

My Reply: You must suspend everything that has led you to the conclusion that reason alone can do this. Instead, you must ask yourself whether your reason component alone really does this for you or not, or if you just think it does when it doesn't. So, when you're unable to feel any emotion, are you really able to perceive value and beauty in regards to things through reason alone, or do you just think you're able to when you're not? I've concluded that my emotions are the only perceptions of beauty, value, horror, etc.

Other Person's Response: Another question a person must ask himself is whether he's able to be in a loving or proud state of mind through reason alone.

My Reply: Right. Also, when someone is proud, that means something matters to him. But, since reason alone can't allow things to matter to us, then that means we can't be proud through reason alone. Like I said, we can only be apathetic without our emotions, which means we can't be proud, happy, sad, frightened, or angry without our emotions.

Other Person's Response: People who struggle with a lot of negative thoughts and emotions, and see themselves as disgusting people, sometimes end up committing suicide. So, I understand why you'd prefer to be a happy psychopath who sees himself as a beautiful person than to be that struggling individual who might end his life someday.

My Reply: Yes. I was that struggling individual during my miserable struggles. I felt many negative emotions, including feelings of disgust in regards to myself, and I couldn't help but feel these negative emotions. That means I saw myself as a disgusting person, and I also felt like ending my life. Sure, I was still a beautiful person in the eyes of others. But, as long as I'm having those negative emotions (negative perceptions), then that means I'm still stuck seeing myself as a disgusting person, and I'm still stuck with other negative perceptions as well, such as having the desire to end my life.

Other Person's Response: If you harmed yourself, since you saw yourself as a disgusting person, then you'd be harming someone who's disgusting in your eyes, but beautiful in another person's eyes.

My Reply: Yes.

Other Person's Response: Even if you were still a beautiful person, regardless of the fact you saw yourself as disgusting, you'd still be seeing yourself as disgusting, as long as you're feeling disgust in regards to yourself. So, even if you knew that you were still a beautiful person, knowing this wouldn't make a difference for you, since you're still seeing yourself as a disgusting person who's deserving of harm and eradication.

My Reply: Correct.

Other Person's Response: So, in other words, knowing that you're still a beautiful person wouldn't matter to you, since you're feeling a negative emotion (a feeling of disgust) in regards to yourself, which means you can only matter to yourself in a disgusting (negative) way, and not a beautiful (positive) way.

My Reply: Correct. Again, the only way people and things can matter to us is through our emotions, and emotions make people and things matter to us in positive or negative ways.

Other Person's Response: There are psychics who can see into the future. For example, a psychic could foresee the inevitable future of someone molesting a child. But, since that future is inevitable, then that means that molester never had free will to begin with because he'd have no choice but to molest that child.

Furthermore, if your miserable struggles were inevitable, then that means you didn't have free will either. Having free will means we have a choice, which means a psychic shouldn't be able to predict whether that molester would molest that child or not, and if you were going to have these miserable struggles or not.

So, if we have free will, nobody should be able to predict our future. But, an exception would be with objects. For example, scientists could predict whether an asteroid would hit Earth or not, and that's because an asteroid is just an object that doesn't have free will. It can't choose whether it's going to hit Earth or not. Another example would be how meteorologists can predict the weather.

My Reply: Right. I heard from religious believers that people reincarnate, and that they experience inevitable suffering. For example, someone who was miserable and committed suicide in a previous lifetime would reincarnate, and inevitably experience that same, horrible fate again. So, that would mean we don't have free will.

Other Person's Response: Of all people living on this Earth, it's inevitable that some people are going to make harmful decisions. Since it's inevitable, then that means we don't have free will.

My Reply: Right.

Other Person's Response: A psychic could predict whether it's likely or not someone is going to do drugs, harm others, help others, etc.

My Reply: But, would it be an inevitable likelihood? If so, then that also means we don't have free will because, if we have free will, nobody should be able to predict whether it's even likely or not a person would do those things.

Other Person's Response: Hitler harmed and killed so many Jews. If he had free will, then nobody should be able to predict whether he'd harm or kill another Jew during the Holocaust, or if it's even likely or not he would.

My Reply: Right.

Other Person's Response: There are people who have near death experiences, meet God, Jesus, and angels, and they say to these people that free will exists. But, what if they're lying?

My Reply: Then these beings wouldn't be trustworthy. I've actually heard from certain people that there are Archons, who are imposter light beings with loving, compassionate attitudes, but lie, deceive, and have sinister intentions. They have us reincarnate into a world where we continue to suffer, so they can feed off our suffering. There might actually be no loving, compassionate light beings to save us from these Archons.

Other Person's Response: If the goal of these Archons is to have us keep on reincarnating into a world where we'll continue to suffer, then why are there some people who live rich, happy, easy lives, where they hardly suffer?

My Reply: Again, I'm not sure.

Other Person's Response: I heard that god and his angels can predict our future, which would mean we don't have free will. So, if someone encountered the inevitable fate of being miserable, committing suicide, entering into a miserable afterlife, and being permanently destroyed for breaking the rule of making contact to people on Earth through a medium, then that person didn't have a choice in the matter. But, god or his angels could've done something to prevent such a tragic fate from happening to that person though. Why would they allow such a fate? They already know such a fate would inevitably happen if they don't do something to prevent it. So, it makes no sense to me why they wouldn't intervene.

My Reply: I see what you mean.

Other Person's Response: Do god, Jesus, and the angels have free will?

My Reply: I'm not sure.

Other Person's Response: If the Christian god is real, and we don't have free will, then god knew the inevitable fate of his human creations all along. He knew that most humans would be unsaved and suffer an eternity in hell, and that only very few would enter his heavenly kingdom. So, why didn't god just create those human souls who'd enter heaven after the death of their Earthly bodies, and not create those who'd end up in hell? Why create human souls you know would be hopelessly condemned? It's better to never exist than to exist and suffer an eternity in hell.

My Reply: Right.

Other Person's Response: There are near death accounts where people report meeting Jesus and other heavenly beings. They sometimes tell these people that they are spiritually dead, and unless they find a way to develop their souls, they'll forever remain in a place in the afterlife that's detached from god's unconditional love. It's a dark, horrible place, where the only thing they can hear is their own thoughts.

My Reply: What about animals that have near death experiences? Does Jesus and these heavenly beings tell them the same thing? If animals don't have to suffer this horrible fate, then why must humans?

Other Person's Response: Even if Jesus and these heavenly beings did explain things to these animals, they wouldn't understand. But, they could bestow understanding upon these animals without saying a single word.

My Reply: Right.

Other Person’s Response: According to your philosophy of emotions, emotions are the only beauty, horror, magnificence, etc. there is. So, if you had no emotions, then that means there’d be no beauty, horror, magnificence, etc. within you to express to the audience through your music.

My Reply: Correct. Without my emotions, I could still choose to compose. But, I’d just be composing music and nothing more. I might end up creating music that expresses awesomeness or beauty in the eyes of the audience. But, without my emotions, there'd be no awesomeness or beauty within me. I'd just be an empty vessel (an apathetic being) composing. My emotions make me more than an empty vessel. They make me a being of awesomeness, beauty, horror, etc.

Other Person's Response: Actually, according to your philosophy, if you were a being of negativity (a being of horror, disgust, tragedy, etc.), then that would make you less (inferior) compared to being an empty vessel. It's only when you're a being of positivity (a being of beauty, magnificence, love, etc.) that you become greater than an empty vessel.

My Reply: Correct. The number zero could be compared to being an empty vessel, negative numbers could be compared to being a negative being, and positive numbers could be compared to being a positive being. Negative numbers are less than 0, and positive numbers are greater than 0.

Other Person's Response: If you felt beauty, then you'd still be a being of beauty, even if you weren't feeling beauty in regards to yourself.

My Reply: Yes. That's because if I feel beauty, then I have beauty within me, since emotions are inner feelings, and me having a feeling of beauty would be my inner beauty. Having inner beauty would make me a being of beauty, regardless of what person or thing I feel beauty in regards to.

 

[The Transcended Omniverse]

Other Person's Response: So, basically, if we have free will, then nobody should know what choices we're going to make because it's our free will to make any choice we want. That's why psychics, god, Jesus, or any heavenly being shouldn't be able to predict what choices we're going to make. But, if they're able to predict our choices, then that must mean we don't have free will.

My Reply: Correct.

Other Person's Response: I heard that people who commit suicide are punished. But, if they don't have free will, then that means their suicide was inevitable. So, how would it be fair to punish them?

My Reply: Right.

Other Person's Response: There are people who have near death experiences and report that there were beings of light who've bestowed knowledge upon them. But, such knowledge shouldn't be trusted, since it could be deceptive knowledge.

My Reply: Right.

Other Person's Response: Nothing matters to robots, since robots don't have emotions. They're nothing but machines. Yet, they can still perform tasks, and they can even act like those tasks matter to them.

My Reply: Yes. Robots can't care about anyone or anything. But, they can still help others and get work done. Like I said though, that would be no way to live, since an apathetic existence is no way to live.

Other Person's Response: In order for something to matter to someone, he needs to perceive that thing as something that matters.

My Reply: Correct, and the only way he can have that perception is through his emotions. Without his emotions, then nothing could matter from his perspective. It would be like if I said that there can be no actual red from a person's perspective if he's not seeing red. So, a given thing can't actually matter from a person's perspective, as long as he's not seeing that thing as something that matters.

Other Person's Response: Emotions can be perceptions of shallow beauty and horror, or they can be perceptions of profound beauty and horror.

My Reply: Yes. So, if I felt profound beauty or goodness in regards to myself, then that would make me a profoundly beautiful or good person in my own mental universe. Also, the only shallow or profound beauty, horror, goodness, etc. that exists is what we feel (perceive).

Other Person's Response: If it's the case that your perception is being dominated by your emotions because you have a weak mind, then it would be a mistake to assume this mental weakness is a character weakness, since any given weakness shouldn't be mistakenly judged as a character weakness. For example, if someone couldn't lift a heavy weight because he didn't have the physical strength to do so, then it's not a character weakness to blame here.

It's a physical weakness to blame, which means he just needs to find a way to become physically stronger. So, it could be the case that a character weakness isn't to blame for the weak philosophy you have, and you just need to find a way to become mentally stronger by doing intellectual exercises and/or other tasks. If that person relied on character strength alone, then he'd never achieve his goal of lifting that weight because he's not doing anything to strengthen his muscles.

Likewise, if you wish to develop a better philosophy, and perceive goodness, value, beauty, etc. through reason alone, then character strength alone will never achieve this goal either because you're not doing what's necessary to strengthen your mind. So, that means you can't expect to achieve this goal just by having a brave, strong mindset of persevering in your composing dream when you're miserable and not feeling up to pursuing it.

My Reply: Right. I did have that mindset and persevered in my composing dream during my miserable struggles for quite some time. But, that never achieved this goal. So, I decided to just give up composing when I'm miserable and not feeling up to it.

 

[The Transcended Omniverse]

Other Person's Response: When emotion theorists say that emotions are perceptions of value, I think they mean they're perceptions of good, bad, beauty, horror, tragedy, etc. But, when you say they're perceptions of value, you mean something different, such as perceiving an item or life lesson as valuable.

My Reply: Yes, and that's why I treat emotional perceptions of value as being different than emotional perceptions of goodness, badness, beauty, horror, etc. So, I treat feelings of value as being different than feelings of goodness, badness, beauty, horror, etc. Also, the only way we can perceive something or someone as valuable is through our positive emotions.

Other Person's Response: Since the only way something can matter to us is through our emotions, then that means a person can't be bothered by loud noises if he doesn't feel bothered by them. Thus, he'll be able to fall asleep while those loud noises are occurring.

My Reply: Yes, and that's been my personal experience. When I was going to sleep, there were some loud noises that kept me awake. But, it wasn't the noises themselves that kept me awake. It was the emotion (feeling of alertness) I got from those noises that did. When that emotion wore off, I was able to fall back to sleep, despite those loud noises still occurring. The noises just didn't matter to me anymore, and I could no longer be in that alert state of mind anymore. I was now in a relaxed state of mind, since I now felt relaxed, rather than alert.

Other Person's Response: So, emotions are states of mind? Feeling relaxed is a relaxed state of mind, feeling alert is an alert state of mind, feeling sad is a sad state of mind, feeling fear is a fearful state of mind, etc.?

My Reply: Yes, and such states of mind are states where things and situations matter to us or bother us. For example, feeling frightened by something means that something matters to you in a frightening way, feeling troubled by something means that something bothers you, etc. But, emotions can be desensitized, which means they fade away on their own over time. An example would be with phobias. When a person exposes himself to his phobia, his feeling of fear fades away with continued exposure, which means his phobia disappears. His phobia could actually disappear immediately upon the 1st exposure session. So, if someone had a fear of elevators, he could go inside an elevator, feel panic, and his phobia be gone.

When I had that feeling of alertness from those loud noises, that feeling went away completely in a very short time. So, at first, I was kept awake by that feeling. But, only for a very short time. Then, I was able to fall back to sleep, even while those noises were still occurring. As for positive emotions, such as feelings of beauty and joy in doing my hobbies, I'm not sure if those feelings desensitize for me. They might, and it just takes a long time. So, if I continued to feel beauty and joy in doing my hobbies, I might no longer be able to experience those feelings anymore because I've desensitized those feelings. Thus, my hobbies could no longer matter to me in a beautiful or joyful way anymore.

Other Person's Response: I heard that your positive emotions do normally wear off. For example, if you were enjoying a hobby, you'd eventually stop feeling that enjoyment, and you'd feel the need to take a break from said hobby and relax.

My Reply: Yes. But, that feeling of enjoyment would normally return back to me again. Desensitization is where an emotion fades away and doesn't return. The example I gave was how phobias disappear through exposure therapy.

Other Person's Response: When a person has a phobia of spiders, they frighten him. But, when he no longer feels afraid of spiders, then they can no longer frighten him anymore, which means they can no longer matter to him in a frightening way.

My Reply: Correct. This indicates that emotions make things matter to us in sad, frightening, beautiful, horrific, disgusting, etc. ways.

Other Person's Response: According to your philosophy, if a certain event happened in a person's life, such as poverty, then that event is nothing good, bad, beautiful, or horrible by itself. If that person had the thought this event was horrible, and that thought made him feel horrible, then he's just making the event horrible for himself. His horrible feeling is a perception of that event being horrible, and that's just giving him a horrible experience. If he no longer wants horribleness, and he instead wants positivity, such as beauty and goodness, then he needs to change his thinking to give himself feelings of beauty and goodness. Without that horrible feeling, or any other negative emotion, then his poverty wouldn't be horrible for him, and it just wouldn't bother him anymore.

My Reply: Yes. Any event or situation is nothing good, bad, etc. in of itself. It's all about how we emotionally respond to said events and situations. When we get certain feelings about things, we're actually getting sadness, anger, peace, happiness, goodness, badness, beauty, horribleness, etc. The idea is to get positivity, and avoid negativity and apathy. That's why I keep on saying life's all about feeling as much positive emotions as we can throughout our lives.

Other Person's Response: So, life's all about our perception? The more beauty we perceive, the more beauty we're getting, since the only beauty that exists is the beauty we perceive? Likewise, the more horribleness we perceive, the more horribleness we're getting?

My Reply: Yes. So, that person was just giving himself more and more horribleness, since he kept on perceiving his poverty as horrible. That's why I said he needs to change his thinking to give himself positive feelings, so he could instead give himself more and more beauty, goodness, magnificence, etc.

Other Person's Response: Does your philosophy say that the only things that matter are the things we perceive as mattering?

My Reply: Yes. When something matters, or when something is beautiful or disgusting, that's a person's feeling (perception) in regards to a given thing. If all people in this world had no emotions, then nothing could matter to anyone, and nothing could be beautiful or disgusting in the eyes of anyone. So, how would it make sense to say that certain things are still beautiful and disgusting, and how would it make sense to say that certain things still matter, when everyone has no ability to feel any emotions?

 

[The Transcended Omniverse]

Other Person's Response: According to your philosophy, if you had no positive emotions, then that means you couldn't see bringing others positive emotions as good or valuable, which means it couldn't be a good or valuable experience for you. That means you'd be getting no goodness or value out of it. Therefore, it would be better for you to be a psychopath who feels positive emotions from harming others than to be someone without positive emotions who helps others.

My Reply: Yes, because I'd be getting positivity (beauty, goodness, value, etc.) when I'm the psychopath. My philosophy says that life's all about our own positive emotions, which means we must feel positive emotions when bringing others positive emotions. If we have no positive emotions, then it's no way to live or be an artist, even if we help others and bring them positive emotions. So, it would be better for us to become psychopaths who derive positive emotions from harming others. Whatever lifestyle brings us the most positive emotions is the lifestyle we should live, even if it means becoming a harmful psychopath.

Other Person's Response: If a person perceives a given moment as beautiful, that means he's getting a beautiful experience out of that moment, which is the same thing as saying he's getting beauty out of that moment?

My Reply: Yes. But, if someone perceives the torturing of living things as beautiful, and he thinks: "I wish I didn't perceive that as beautiful because doing so is a horrible thing," then he's making himself feel horrible, and that's just giving him a horrible experience now. His attitude should instead be: "At least I got my beautiful experience out of witnessing these tortuous acts, and I'm not going to give myself a horrible experience by making myself feel horrible." As I said before, our goal in life is to get as much positive experiences as we can. So, even if we feel positive emotions from things people think we shouldn't feel positive about, we shouldn't make ourselves feel negative emotions about that.

Other Person's Response: Can you even keep up a moderate jogging pace?

My Reply: No. I can only keep it up for a very short time.

Other Person's Response: I heard that, when you go jogging, you're not in the mood for it, and you're in the mood to relax. That makes it very difficult for you because you don't really feel up to jogging.

My Reply: That's right. But, after about an hour of jogging, I'm in the mood for it, and I'm no longer slow and dragging myself along. I'm a bit faster, and I can keep it up for a longer period of time. So, I need to exercise for a while just to get myself in the mood to exercise. It would be best if I start out with slow-paced exercising, such as walking, and then move up to jogging when I'm in the mood for it.

Other Person's Response: The reason why you're slow and dragging yourself along is because jogging can't matter to you, and you can't perceive it as good, valuable, or worthwhile when you're not feeling up to it.

My Reply: That's correct. I have no motivation to jog when I'm not in the mood for it.

Other Person's Response: You say you're able to be in the mood for jogging. I thought your positive emotions are shut off. So, how can you be in the mood for it?

My Reply: Since I'm close to a full recovery from this misery-inducing worry, that means I'm able to feel some degree of positive emotion. But, I don't have my full capacity to feel positive emotions yet. It should get restored once I'm fully recovered.

Other Person's Response: Here's a link that talks about the theory of Archons, and how we're all trapped and enslaved into a cycle of reincarnation and unnecessary suffering:

Archontic Soul Trap

Also, here's another link that talks about near death experiences:

Near-Death Experiences & Suicide - The Formula for Creating Heaven on Earth

In the Life After Life excerpt in that 2nd link, it talks about souls being penalized for committing suicide. An all-loving, all-just being or god would never punish someone for suicide. Especially a punishment that lasts a very long time (perhaps hundreds or thousands of years). Only a cruel, unloving being would deliver such a punishment, such as an Archon.

My Reply: You're right, and if there is an all-loving, all-just being or god who exists, then I'm not sure why he or she isn't saving these people from their cruel enslavement and punishment.

Other Person's Response: I'm going to quote something from that 1st link and respond to it:

How is it that more than five millennia have past and the whole world still remains under the dominion of the impostor gods? It is important to remember that, from the perspective of the Original Source, a couple of our millennia are simply a few minutes at most. That small blip is nothing for a being who knows eternity.

The Original Source (god) must take into consideration the perspective of humanity. For humanity, more than five millennia is a very long time. God shouldn't allow these imposer gods (Archons) to enslave humanity for this long, just because it's only minutes from his perspective.

My Reply: I agree. From god's perspective, it wouldn't be a problem, since it's only a matter of minutes. But, from our perspective, it's a major problem, since it's a very long time. If god really cares about us, then he'd take into consideration our perspective, and liberate us as soon as he possibly can, rather than having us wait so long.

Other Person's Response: If god is intelligent and he can predict the future, then he could've done something to prevent these Archons from enslaving us in the first place.

My Reply: Yes, and it would be like doing something now to prevent a virus from taking over in the future.

Other Person's Response: There are near death accounts where people report experiencing unconditional love from a being of light. I don't think he's an imposter light being with sinister intentions because no such being is capable of emanating this magnitude of love.

My Reply: But, there's a difference between experiencing unconditional love that's emanating from a being, as opposed to just getting a feeling of being unconditionally loved from said being. This being of light could be sinister, and he's just triggering a very powerful, profound feeling of being unconditionally loved as a means to trick souls into believing he loves them unconditionally. In which case, these souls are getting a feeling they shouldn't trust, no matter how powerful and profound said feeling is. After all, our feelings don't always tell us the truth.

 

[The Transcended Omniverse]

Other Person's Response: It could be the case that some people are enslaved by Archons, while others aren't. That's why some people in this world are unfortunate, and suffer a lot, while others are fortunate, and hardly suffer.

My Reply: Right. So, perhaps my mother's financial misfortunes are due to her being enslaved by the Archons. Her misfortunes cause her to feel negative emotions, and the Archons feed off these negative emotions.

Other Person's Response: If a person was just getting beauty, but not goodness or amazingness, wouldn't that be no way to live or be an artist? So, when a person has a feeling of beauty, shouldn't it also be a feeling of goodness or amazingness?

My Reply: I'm not sure. I know I've had feelings of beauty in regards to nature, my hobbies, etc. If I had nothing but these feelings, it wouldn't be no way to live or be an artist for me. But, is that because these feelings of beauty are also feelings of goodness or amazingness? I'm not sure. Also, I've had feelings of disgust, horror, tragedy, etc. during my miserable struggles, and they were profound feelings. But, were they also feelings of badness or horribleness?

They could've been. I'm not sure. I know I've had feelings of badness and horribleness during my miserable struggles. But, when it comes to determining whether a feeling of disgust or horror I get is also a bad or horrible feeling, it's difficult. So, if I get a certain feeling, it's difficult for me to determine whether it's a beautifully good feeling, a horribly tragic feeling, or just a beautiful feeling, or tragic feeling.

Other Person's Response: When it comes to pursuing your hobbies, you can't just have feelings of beauty. You must also feel positive emotions that motivate you to pursue your hobbies.

My Reply: Yes. Otherwise, I'd have no motivation to pursue them.

Other Person's Response: You say that physical pain, such as the pain of being punched in the face or sliced on the arm, is nothing bad or horrible, since it's just a painful feeling, and not a bad or horrible feeling. Only negative emotions can be bad or horrible, since they can be bad or horrible feelings. So, god or his angels might as well not care about those in extreme, physical pain, since their pain is nothing bad or horrible. God or his angels should only care about those suffering from negative emotions.

My Reply: But, a loving, compassionate being would still care about those in physical pain, and heal their pain. So, I disagree with what you said about god or his angels.

Other Person's Response: When jogging, go at a pace you're completely comfortable with (a pace you're not struggling to keep up). I heard that you jog for an hour each day. So, go at a pace you can keep up for an hour.

My Reply: Yes, and that pace would be very slow (3.5-3.7 mph). I went on the treadmill at the gym, and I can adjust the speed on it. This is how I know the jogging speed I can keep up for an hour. Even if I was in the mood to exercise, I don't think I'd be able to keep up a 4.0 mph jogging speed for an hour. But, being in the mood does make it easier for me to keep up a 3.5-3.7 mph jogging speed for an hour. When I'm fully recovered from this emotional crisis, I'm no longer going to jog. I'm just going to walk 3 times a week for an hour. The reason why I'm jogging everyday is because I wish to speed up my recovery.

Other Person's Response: Since you're only able to keep up a very slow jogging pace, I wonder if you're a fat person who eats a lot of junk food.

My Reply: No. I'm quite thin, and I eat healthy. By the way, there are fat people who eat a lot of junk food, and are able to keep up a decent jogging pace for an hour. So, what jogging pace a person is able to keep up all depends on his level of physical and mental endurance.

Other Person's Response: I heard that your mother is a bit obese, and does eat junk food. Is she able to jog?

My Reply: No. She's in worse shape than me. She can't even keep up a brisk walking pace like I can. She walks at a very slow pace. My fastest walking pace would be 3.5 mph, I can easily keep up that pace for an hour, and I end up being far ahead of my mother on the bike trails. She admires my walking speed, and so does my grandma. My grandma also can't jog, and she walks at a slow pace as well. Actually, my grandma's walking speed might be 3.0 mph, and my mother's being slower. I'm not sure.

Other Person's Response: If you can easily keep up a 3.5 mph walking speed for an hour, then why can't you keep up a significantly faster jogging speed for an hour (such as 4.5 mph)?

My Reply: I think it's because jogging takes more effort. So, jogging at 3.5 mph takes more effort than walking at 3.5 mph. That's why I can only keep up a 3.5-3.7 mph jogging speed for an hour. Actually, maybe I'm able to keep up a 3.8-4.0 mph jogging speed for an hour. I haven't been to the gym for a while. So, I can't go on the treadmill and find out.

Other Person's Response: You're lacking in so many areas. You're very dumb, you have a hard time understanding things, you can't decide on controversial topics, you have a poor, shallow, weak philosophy, you have very little endurance when it comes to physical exercise, etc.

My Reply: I ask myself what amazing ability I do have, despite all my weaknesses. I suspect I might have this amazing ability of naturally creating awesome music in my mind.

Other Person's Response: According to you, everyone has this ability, since everyone's brain is naturally capable of creating awesome works of art. So, if you have this ability, then it wouldn't be special or amazing, considering that everyone else has this ability.

My Reply: But, what is special and amazing is the type of music I'm creating in my mind. It's bizarre, unique music that conveys powerful and profound emotion. It's unlike the lame, stale, mediocre music that you hear on the radio all the time.

Other Person's Response: Let's pretend all possible melodies and songs existed, and I could choose any possible melody or song I wanted to share to the world that expresses the emotion and scenes I wish to express. I'd still choose to compose my own melodies and songs because composition is enjoyable for me.

My Reply: I'd actually give up composing in that situation because there'd no longer be any need for me to compose music, when all the music I'd compose would already exist, and I can just choose to share that music.

Other Person's Response: I think you're unable to pick up on the beat of a song because you're just an ignorant person. You don't know how to do it.

My Reply: Isn't it supposed to be a natural ability that doesn't need to be taught? Also, I might be able to pick up on the beat of some songs. I'm not sure.

Other Person's Response: Skeptics would say this being of light is just a hallucination, and that the unconditional love people experience from him is nothing more than a powerful, profound feeling that's been induced by drugs or the dying brain. So, skeptics are saying this unconditional love is just their own personal feeling that's been induced by some means.

My Reply: Right. But, even if this being of light isn't a hallucination, it's still possible that the unconditional love people get from him is nothing more than their own personal feeling. Like I said, people shouldn't trust this feeling.

Other Person's Response: Since you're very close to a full recovery from this crisis, you do have some emotional drive to write all this material now, right?

My Reply: Yes. There is some positive emotion there now.

Other Person's Response: Perhaps the reason why it's taking you so long to recover from this recent crisis is because your brain is having a very difficult time processing the emotional trauma. If you see a therapist who specializes in EMDR, that can really help you out. Here's a link to a list of popular therapies for emotional trauma:

What Is Trauma Therapy And How Does It Work? | Betterhelp

My Reply: Thank you. The reason why it's taking so long to recover is because this recent worry is far more troubling than all my other worries. So, it didn't take as long for me to fully recover from all the other emotional traumas I've had in the past. Also, once I'm fully recovered from a crisis, the worry is no longer there anymore.

 

[The Transcended Omniverse]

Note to Reader: This is a recap/new summary of my philosophy of emotions. I might as well share it, since I put some effort into it. It explains why I think good, bad, beauty, horror, tragedy, etc. can only be emotions (feelings/perceptions/value judgments):

Final Summary​

The only beauty and goodness that exists is the beauty and goodness we perceive. The more of it we perceive, the more of it we're getting. If someone perceived the moment with his family as beautiful and good, then he got some beauty and goodness out of that moment. His goal should be to perceive as much beauty and goodness as he can throughout his life. The more of it he perceives, the better. Perception and experience are the same thing. For example, seeing (perceiving) the color red is the same thing as experiencing red.

So, when he sees (perceives) things as beautiful and good, he's experiencing beauty and goodness in regards to those things, and that's the same thing as him having beautiful, good experiences. Our goal in life is to have as much beautiful, good, amazing, awesome, magnificent, valuable, precious, worthwhile, etc. experiences as we can (i.e. to have as much positive experiences as we can). We should avoid having negative experiences, such as bad, horrible, tragic, horrific, disturbing, pathetic, disgusting, etc. experiences.

So, that means we should avoid perceiving things as bad, horrible, etc. because, if we don't, then all we're doing is bringing ourselves the bad, horrible, etc. Even if there was a psychopath who was torturing living things, we shouldn't perceive that as bad, horrible, etc. We should instead see it as a good or beautiful thing he gets locked up in prison. Or, we could see it as a good or beautiful thing that he's torturing those living things. Either way, we're getting beauty and goodness out of it.

Now that I've established that life's all about getting the positive perceptions/experiences, and avoiding the negative ones, emotions are the only perceptions of good, bad, beauty, horror, tragedy, value, worth, etc. An example of some emotions would be a feeling of panic from being in a dangerous situation, a feeling of horror, a feeling of joy or excitement, a feeling of sexual arousal, a feeling of misery, etc. There are the positive emotions (pleasant emotions), and they're the positive perceptions/experiences we need.

Then, there are the negative emotions (unpleasant emotions), and they're the negative perceptions/experiences we should avoid. We can't perceive anything as good, bad, beautiful, horrific, etc. through reason (thinking) alone. In other words, just thinking or believing that something is good, bad, etc. wouldn't allow us to see that thing as good, bad, etc. That thought or belief needs to make us feel good, bad, etc. in regards to that thing in order for us to see it as good, bad, etc. It would be like how reason alone doesn't allow us to see (perceive) the color red.

Just having the thought or belief of red isn't a perception of red, which means just having the thought or belief of red isn't the same thing as seeing red. Likewise, just having the thought or belief that something is good, bad, etc. isn't a perception of goodness, badness, etc. in regards to that thing. My personal experience has led me to this conclusion because I can clearly tell that my emotions are the only perceptions of good, bad, etc. In addition, I can clearly tell that the only way someone or something can matter to me or bother me is through my emotions, and not through reason alone.

That's because the only way I can perceive someone or something as mattering or bothersome would be through my emotions. As a matter of fact, if everyone had no ability to feel emotions, then we'd all be apathetic. We couldn't care about anyone or anything, and neither could we perceive anyone or anything as good, bad, frightening, sad, sexually attractive, morbid, etc. But, emotions are fleeting, transient things. Especially positive emotions, since so many people in this world are depressed, apathetic, and unhappy.

That means these people are hardly getting the positive experiences they need out of life. A life without positive emotions is no way to live or be an artist, and there's nothing better to live for than feeling positive emotions because there's nothing better in life than having positive experiences. I, myself, have had many miserable struggles, which were caused by devastating worries. These struggles have disabled my ability to feel positive emotions, and I couldn't make myself feel positive emotions through reason alone, since there's a difference between reason and emotion.

Likewise, if a person had insomnia, he couldn't make himself feel sleepy through reason alone because there's a difference between reason and feeling sleepy. So, thinking positive is different than feeling positive, and the thought of being sleepy is different than feeling sleepy. During my miserable struggles, I could only have negative experiences, since I could only feel negative emotions. These negative emotions were caused by these miserable struggles. I also had no emotional drive to pursue my composing dream. So, my composing couldn't matter to me, and neither could I perceive it as valuable, good, beautiful, or worthwhile.

That's why I had to give up composing until I was fully recovered from these miserable struggles. That way, my emotional drive would return. Even if I felt negative emotions that motivated me to compose during my miserable struggles, that would still be no way to live or be an artist, since I'd be getting negative experiences and not positive ones. I realize there were miserable, genius artists who felt a lot of negative emotions, and inspired the world through their artwork. But, the audience would be getting positive experiences, since they're able to feel positive emotions from witnessing the artwork, while these genius artists would hardly be getting any.

When bringing others positive emotions, whether it be through helping others or inspiring others through artwork, we need to feel positive emotions in doing so because we need to perceive that endeavor as positive (as good, valuable, beautiful, etc.). In other words, when bringing others positivity, we need to get positivity out of doing so. So, that means life's really all about our own positive emotions because life's all about feeling positive emotions from pursuing any given endeavor, whether it be helping others, doing our hobbies, exercising, etc.

Lastly, here's the emotion perception theory that's been put forth by emotion theorists. This theory explains how emotions are perceptions of good, bad, etc. Since the only good, bad, etc. that exists is the good, bad, etc. we perceive, and since emotions are the only perceptions of good, bad, etc., then that means good, bad, etc. can only be emotions. That means feeling good is the only good thing in life, and feeling bad is the only bad thing in life, regardless of what things and situations we feel good or bad about. Emotions are the only things that can make people, situations, and moments good, bad, etc. for us. Anyway, here's that emotion perception theory:

********
Are emotions perceptions of value?
Jérôme Dokic &Stéphane Lemaire
Pages 227-247 | Received 13 Mar 2013, Accepted 29 May 2013, Published online: 03 Sep 2013
· Download citation
· Are emotions perceptions of value? | Canadian Journal of Philosophy | Cambridge Core

AbsracAb

A popular idea at present is that emotions are perceptions of values. Most defenders of this idea have interpreted it as the perceptual thesis that emotions present (rather than merely represent) evaluative states of affairs in the way sensory experiences present us with sensible aspects of the world. We argue against the perceptual thesis. We show that the phenomenology of emotions is compatible with the fact that the evaluative aspect of apparent emotional contents has been incorporated from outside. We then deal with the only two views that can make sense of the perceptual thesis.

On the response–dependence view, emotional experiences present evaluative response-dependent properties (being fearsome, being disgusting, etc.) in the way visual experiences present response-dependent properties such as colors. On the response–independence view, emotional experiences present evaluative response-independent properties (being dangerous, being indigestible, etc.), conceived as ‘Gestalten’ independent of emotional feelings themselves. We show that neither view can make plausible the idea that emotions present values as such, i.e., in an open and transparent way. If emotions have apparent evaluative contents, this is in fact due to evaluative enrichments of the non-evaluative presentational contents of emotions.

http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/00455091.2013.826057?scroll=top&needAccess=true

********
Some people disagree with this emotion perception theory. But, I have to agree with it, based upon my personal experience. Also, here's a quote by a famous philosopher (Hume): "Reason is, and ought only to be the slave of the passions, and can never pretend to any other office than to serve and obey them." When Hume talks about passions, he’s referring to emotions. Here’s the definition of passion online: “In philosophy and religion, the passions are the instinctive, emotional, primitive drives in a human being (including, for example, lust, anger, aggression and jealousy) which a human being must restrain, channel, develop, and sublimate in order to be possessed of wisdom.”

Other Person's Response: If love was the act of helping others, then that means a person who's in a vegetative state, unable to do anything or help anyone, couldn't love, no matter how much of a loving mindset he had. But, I think that vegetable can still love others, even though he's unable to do anything for them.

My Reply: Right. So, I think love has to be a state of mind. But, that state of mind wouldn't be a person's mindset. Rather, it would be an emotional state (a feeling of love). That's because, without emotions, we're apathetic, and we can't love when we're apathetic. When nobody or nothing matters to us, we can't love that person or thing.

Other Person's Response: A feeling of love is a positive emotion, right?

My Reply: Yes.

Other Person's Response: If someone had a loving mindset that gave him a loving feeling, that feeling must also be a good or amazing feeling, right? So, he can't just have the thought that he loves this person. He must also have the thought that this is a good or amazing person. That way, he gets a loving feeling that's a good or amazing feeling, rather than just a loving feeling.

My Reply: You might be right. I'm not sure if a loving feeling needs to be a good or amazing feeling, just as how I'm not sure if a beautiful feeling needs to be a good or amazing feeling.

 

[The Transcended Omniverse]

Other Person's Response: Hume says that reason alone is devoid and impotent without emotions. In other words, reason alone can't make things matter to us, and it can't make us see anything as good, bad, etc.

My Reply: Correct.

Other Person's Response: If everyone had no ability to feel emotions, then it wouldn't make sense to say that anything is valuable or worthwhile, since nobody could see value or worth in anything.

My Reply: Correct. Even the most fancy things wouldn't be of any value or worth to us without our emotions.

Other Person's Response: I heard that this recent worry you're having is in regards to those trips to the afterlife people have during a near death experience. People have very powerful, profound experiences during these trips, and you're worried about the possibility of having negative experiences during a trip that are far more horrible and disturbing than the ones you've had in your nightmares. Anything that people tell you, and anything you tell yourself, doesn't ease this worry at all.

My Reply: Correct. During hellish trips, people have very horrible experiences. But, during heavenly trips where people meet god in the afterlife, they experience not only the positive, but also the negative they've had throughout their Earthly lives. They experience all of this during a life review, which is where a person looks back at his life and makes judgments. Such experiences are greatly intensified, and I worry about having the negative experiences from my nightmares during a life review, greatly intensified. That would give me a much worse experience than what I've experienced in my nightmares.

By the way, the negative experiences (negative emotions) in my nightmares were far more horrible and disturbing than the ones in my waking life. But, if I were to have a hellish trip or life review, where those negative emotions from my nightmares are felt again, and greatly intensified, then that would be a waking experience worse than my nightmares. It's also possible I could feel negative emotions during a life review or hellish trip that are completely different than the ones I've had during my nightmares, and said negative emotions being far worse than the ones I've had in my nightmares.

Other Person's Response: People not only have these trips when they're near death, but when they die. That's because our souls leave our bodies when our bodies die.

My Reply: If I ever go on one of these trips, then I can only hope it's a beautiful experience for me, and not a horrible one.

Other Person's Response: I don't think what you're having is an emotional trauma.

My Reply: When a person is devastated by a thought or worry, that's an emotional trauma. Since I was devastated by this recent worry, then I had an emotional trauma.

Other Person's Response: Since it's taking a very long time for you to recover, then here's a link to a device that I think could immensely speed up your recovery. It's called the "Fisher Wallace Stimulator," and it stimulates the brain to rapidly ease chronic, severe depression, insomnia, and stress. It does cost a lot of money though ($800). When purchasing it, your purchase needs to be authorized by a licensed health care provider:

Fisher Wallace

My Reply: Well, I do think I'm very close to a full recovery, where I'll be happy and able to enjoy my hobbies again. So, I'm not sure if I need this device. I don't know how much longer it's going to take for me to reach a full recovery, though.

Other Person's Response: Let's pretend you purchased this device the moment you had this recent, emotional crisis, and you used it everyday like the instructions said. You could've been fully recovered in a few months or even a few weeks, rather than having to wait 4 years or more for your psyche to fully recover on its own. That would've ended your suffering in a few months or weeks, and it wouldn't have to linger on like this. So, you could've saved yourself a few years of suffering, and in those few years, you could've pursued your composing dream, since you'd be able to enjoy it. But, since those years have instead been wasted, then that's just the way it is, unfortunately.

My Reply: I'm not sure how much this device would've sped up my recovery, though. The device is very effective for many people, and many people do see rapid results. But, there's no way to tell how effective the device would've been for me. Also, I was unaware of this device at the time I had this emotional crisis. But, thank you for informing me about this device now. In case I ever develop a mental illness, such as clinical depression, that takes away my ability to feel positive emotions, then that's when I'll consider purchasing this device. I don't think I'm going to have another emotional trauma ever again. So, the only thing that can take away my positive emotions now is a mental illness, which can be alleviated by this device.

Other Person's Response: Your philosophy says it's no way to live or be an artist without positive emotions, which is why you're considering getting that device to speed up your recovery in order to restore your positive emotions. But, if you had a better philosophy, then you'd have no need for that device because you wouldn't need your positive emotions. So, instead of wasting all that money to buy this device, I recommend trying to upgrade your philosophy to a better one.

My Reply: Like I said, I don't think my philosophy can ever change, no matter how hard I try to change it.

Other Person's Response: You can't afford this device yet, anyway.

My Reply: Right.

Other Person's Response: In regards to methods of recovery from an emotional trauma, there are 2 types. The 1st type would be methods, such as exercise, eating foods and drinking fluids that help speed up recovery, using that brain stimulation device, etc. These methods work by biological means, since they speed up recovery by promoting neurogenesis, improving brain function, etc. The 2nd type would be methods, such as Cognitive Behavioral Therapy (CBT), talk therapy, mindfulness to keep one's mind in the present moment in order to reduce troubling worries, etc. These methods work by means of changing our thinking to help us feel better. So, if you're going to use some of the type 1 methods, then also use some type 2 methods.

My Reply: I agree. I'll keep searching to see if there's a method that will immensely speed up my recovery. So far, exercise has been the best method for me, although I'm still undergoing a very slow recovery process. So, yes, exercise does speed up my recovery, since I notice results. But, it doesn't speed it up much.

Other Person's Response: During this whole recovery process, you haven't been consciously fixated on that worry, and you've been consciously fixated on many things, such as writing this material. Mindfulness is the very process of focusing our conscious awareness on things in the present moment, and that's what you've been doing this whole time. But, it doesn't seem to help because your recovery is still a slow, long process.

My Reply: That's right.

Other Person's Response: When you expose yourself to that worry, does a feeling of worry pop up, or any other negative emotions? The reason I ask is because recovery from an emotional trauma involves a process known as "desensitization." It's a process where a person becomes exposed to his traumatic feelings, and exposure to these feelings rids of his emotional trauma. It's like how a person's phobia disappears when he exposes himself to his feeling of fear. So, if a feeling of worry, or any other negative emotions, continue to pop up when you continue to think of that worry, your emotional crisis will be gone. Thus, you'll be fully recovered, and you should be able to enjoy your life and hobbies again.

My Reply: I've continued to think of that worry many times, and it doesn't cause negative emotions to pop up. By the way, my subconscious mind is already worried 24/7. So, even while I'm not consciously thinking about this worry, it's always there subconsciously. When negative emotions do pop up due to this worry being there, they pop up on their own, and I can't make them pop up through conscious effort. So, I can't make myself feel worried by consciously thinking of that worry. A feeling of worry in regards to those trips will pop up whenever it pops up. That means I can't speed up my recovery through conscious effort. Actually, I noticed there are few moments where a feeling of worry will pop up when consciously thinking of the worry. But, those are very few moments.

Other Person's Response: When you watch anime or video games, that continually triggers a feeling of misery, right?

My Reply: Right, and I've desensitized that feeling. But, there could still be other anime and video games out there that would trigger misery, and I'd just have to desensitize myself to that misery as well.

Other Person's Response: The moment you had this emotional crisis is the moment you were chronically stuck in a very miserable state, and you were in much emotional turmoil. But, since you're close to a full recovery, you're now mostly in a state of mental well-being, which means you're no longer in that chronic, miserable state, and you're no longer in emotional turmoil.

My Reply: That's right. I think it's because I've been exposed for so long to that emotional trauma. But, like I said, this was a long term recovery process, which means I didn't reach a state of mental well-being in a matter of days or weeks. I had to be exposed to powerful, profound negative emotions all throughout the day each day for a few years. As of now, there are few moments where negative emotions pop up, and I think I'll be fully recovered soon.

Other Person's Response: I heard that you only drink when you're thirsty, and when you do get thirsty, you chug a liter of water, since that's the amount you need to drink in order for your thirst to be quenched. Some people say it's harmful to drink all that water at once, while others say it's not harmful. So, that means this is yet another controversial topic you're undecided on, right?

My Reply: Right. Even though I can't decide if it's harmful or not, or if it's even likely that it's harmful or not, I can decide whether I'm going to chug all that water at once or not when I'm thirsty. I've decided to do it because it seems natural, and not harmful, to drink whatever amount of fluids you need to drink in order for your thirst to be quenched, even if it's a liter in 1 minute. Also, I haven't experienced any symptoms of water intoxication. So, perhaps it's not harmful.

Other Person's Response: There are people with drinking disorders, just as how there are people with eating disorders. So, there are people who are constantly thirsty, and get more than enough fluids. I'd imagine that to be harmful.

My Reply: It is a fact that if you drink too much fluids, then that will be harmful to your body, and there are people who drink too much fluids, such as those with drinking disorders.

 

[The Transcended Omniverse]

Other Person's Response: In regards to happiness, that's defined by the individual. So, if someone had no ability to feel emotions, then he could define his emotionless, apathetic state as happiness. For him, that would be happiness.

My Reply: That would be like if someone was apathetic, wasn't perceiving beauty, and he defined that as beauty. But, since the only beauty that exists is the beauty we perceive, then his definition can yield no beauty for him, since he's not perceiving beauty. If he wants beauty, then he needs to perceive beauty. That means he needs to feel beauty (which is a positive emotion). Likewise, if someone wants happiness, then he needs to feel happy (which is also a positive emotion). Reason alone can't give him happiness, sadness, anger, love, beauty, horror, goodness, badness, etc., which means definitions alone can't give him any of those things. Definitions are just thoughts we have, and, like I said, our thoughts alone can't give us any happiness, beauty, etc.

Other Person's Response: So, definitions alone can yield no happiness, sadness, value, worth, etc. for us?

My Reply: Correct. Happiness, sadness, love, beauty, etc. are states of mind (perceptions), and they can only be emotional states.

Other Person's Response: If someone couldn't perceive beauty, he defined something as beautiful, and said this thing is still beautiful for him, then he'd just be having the idea in his mind that this thing is beautiful for him. But, in order for that thing to actually be beautiful for him, he needs to perceive it as beautiful.

My Reply: Yes.

Other Person's Response: You're right when you say that beauty, happiness, goodness, and love are states of mind (perceptions). But, they're neither emotional nor based on reason. So, neither reason nor emotion can give them to us. They're divine, everlasting, unconditional, and something we obtain through meditation. When Buddhists talk about achieving a state of happiness through their meditation, they're talking about a divine state, and not an intellectual or emotional state. There's also unconditional love, which is divine love, and that's obtained through meditation as well.

My Reply: I don't know if that's true or not. Also, what about negativity, such as hate, horror, misery, disgust, etc.? Are they neither based on reason nor emotion? During my miserable struggles, I've felt many unpleasant emotions, and it definitely seems these emotions were perceptions of horror, disgust, tragedy, etc. So, it seems to me that negativity is emotional. The same idea applies to positivity being emotional because I've felt pleasant emotions that definitely seemed like perceptions of beauty, magnificence, awesomeness, goodness, etc.

Other Person's Response: So, if positivity and negativity is neither emotional nor intellectual, then that means all those people who haven't meditated never had any happiness, love, beauty, sadness, good, bad, etc.

My Reply: Correct. They never loved, hated, or perceived beauty, goodness, badness, etc.

Other Person’s Response: Your philosophy says there’s nothing better to live for than feeling positive emotions because there’s nothing better in life than perceiving our goals, dreams, hobbies, etc. as good, beautiful, awesome, valuable, etc.

My Reply: Correct. There’s no more goodness and beauty to life than positive emotions. Life’s all about wallowing away in our positive emotions.

Other Person's Response: If it's the case that you really are a weak person who lives by a weak, shallow philosophy, then I don't think it's right if others treated you as a pathetic human being of little to no significance. The fact is, weak people can still be beautiful human beings. For example, a mother can still be an amazing, beautiful, kind person, even though she's weak as an individual. So, I think you're still a wonderful, precious human being, despite your weaknesses.

My Reply: Thank you.

Other Person’s Response: Different brains are wired differently. So, it could be the case that some brains are wired to perceive good, bad, etc. through reason alone, while other brains are wired to have such a perception only through emotions. So, the very fact your emotions are the only perceptions of good, bad, etc. for you must mean your brain is wired this way.

My Reply: I don’t know if that’s true or not. If that’s true, then it could also be the case that some brains are wired to experience love, pride, happiness, misery, etc. through reason alone. That would mean some people can be happy, miserable, proud, etc. through reason alone, while others only can through their emotions.

Other Person's Response: It could also be the case that reason alone can make things matter to some people, since their brains are wired that way, while reason alone can't make things matter to other people.

My Reply: Right. I know that nothing can matter to me through reason alone, and perhaps it's because of the way my brain is wired. My brain might be wired to perceive things as mattering only through my emotions.

Other Person's Response: According to your philosophy, the worst possible suffering would have to be the most horrible feeling, since "the worst" means "the most horrible," and the only horrible thing in life is feeling horrible.

My Reply: Yes. It would be the most profound, intense, horrible feeling.

Other Person's Response: Are you sure negative emotions are perceptions of worth?

My Reply: Actually, I'm not sure. So, I don't know if negative emotions make things worthwhile for us. Positive emotions are the only things that can make things valuable for us, which means positive emotions are the only perceptions of value. But, I don't know if positive emotions are the only perceptions of worth.

Other Person's Response: If I felt bad about others suffering, and that feeling motivated me to help those suffering people, then wouldn't that be a good thing?

My Reply: No, because feeling bad can only be bad. Also, during my miserable struggles, I've had horrible, agonizing, miserable feelings that motivated me to get psychological help. But, suffering like that was no way to live, which means there was nothing good or beautiful about my suffering, even though it motivated me to get help. The fact is, I was having a horrible experience, which means my suffering could only be horrible, regardless of how it motivated me. Even if it motivated me to change the world by discovering cures and inventing new technology, there'd still be nothing positive about my suffering. But, for those people who've been given cures and new technology, that would be a positive experience for them, since they're able to feel positive emotions. As for me, it couldn't be a positive thing, since I'd be miserable, and unable to feel positive emotions.

Other Person's Response: When you say it couldn't be a positive thing for you, you mean it couldn't be a good, beautiful, amazing, precious, or valuable thing for you?

My Reply: Yes.

Other Person's Response: If someone was suffering, another person could see her suffering as good because he could feel good about her suffering. But, as for the suffering individual, she wouldn't be able to see her suffering as good if she was unable to feel good.

My Reply: Correct.

Other Person's Response: Those miserable struggles you've had were immense forms of suffering for you. Especially the profoundly horrible experiences you've had in your nightmares from these struggles, which were far worse. An all-loving god would only allow such suffering if it was absolutely necessary. But, if you were to re-experience all that suffering during a life review, just so you can look back at your life and make some sort of judgment, then that would be unnecessary. You don't need to go through all that suffering again, just for this purpose.

You could instead have a life review where you don't re-experience all that suffering. For example, when all the images of events from your Earthly life pop up during your life review, you could just witness images of your suffering without experiencing any of that suffering again. But, if god and these heavenly beings are going to have you re-experience your suffering during a life review, then they must not be all-loving beings, since they'd be putting you through unnecessary suffering. Thus, they might be Archons (imposter beings of light with sinister intentions).

My Reply: Right. It would be better if I just witnessed images of me feeling all those negative emotions, and not having to feel them again. It would actually be best if I felt blissful during the life review, even while witnessing those images.

Other Person's Response: There are people who have near death experiences and report that there were beings of light who've bestowed knowledge upon them. But, such knowledge shouldn't be trusted, since it could be deceptive knowledge (lies).

My Reply: Right. So, if there's a being of light who bestows the knowledge that he's an all-loving being, then that could be a lie. He could be a hateful, sinister being who's trying to trick people into believing he's an all-loving being.

Other Person's Response: It would be better to be apathetic than to feel horrible, since feeling horrible is worse than being apathetic. There's horrible (negative), there's amazing (positive), and then there's neither horrible nor amazing (neutral). Neutrality is better than negativity, and positivity is better than neutrality and negativity.

My Reply: But, being apathetic still can't be good, amazing, or beautiful because only positivity is good, amazing, and beautiful. Also, there are negative numbers, the number zero, and positive numbers. The number zero can't be a positive number. But, being at 0 is closer to the positive numbers than being at a negative number. My point is, apathy can't be positive (it can't be good, beautiful, or amazing). But, it's closer to positivity than being in a state of negativity.

Other Person's Response: When you say that a life without positive emotions is no way to live or be an artist, you're saying there's nothing good, beautiful, valuable, or amazing without positive emotions?

My Reply: Yes. There's no positivity without positive emotions.

Other Person's Response: Pleasant and unpleasant experiences are a form of motivation, and reason alone can't give us these experiences.

My Reply: Correct. Reason alone can't give us pain or pleasure.

Other Person's Response: If I felt a positive emotion from something (such as a feeling of beauty in regards to nature), then I'd be perceiving nature as pleasantly beautiful? If I felt disgust in regards to something, then I'd be perceiving that thing as unpleasantly disgusting?

My Reply: Yes.

 

[The Transcended Omniverse]

Other Person's Response: According to your philosophy, perceiving someone or something as bad is the only bad thing in life, and perceiving someone or something as pathetic is the only pathetic thing in life. So, that means it would be a bad thing to perceive the acts of criminals as bad.

Also, if there was a cowardly individual who couldn't fight back in order to save the lives of his family, and a big, tough guy came along and perceived him as pathetic, then not only does that coward become pathetic in the eyes of that tough guy, but the tough guy's perception is pathetic.

So, that means we shouldn't go up to that tough guy and say to him: "I admire your awesome perception because that coward really is pathetic." Instead, we should say to him: "Your perception of that coward is pathetic! You need to transcend your mind to positive perceptions!"

My Reply: Actually, people are free to feel (perceive) how they want. So, one person could perceive that tough guy's perception as awesome and admirable, while another person could perceive his perception as pathetic. But, yes, that tough guy's perception would be pathetic, since pathetic is simply a perception/feeling/value judgment. So, if someone perceives someone or something as pathetic, then that's a pathetic perception. If someone perceives someone or something as beautiful or horrific, then that's a beautiful or horrific perception, etc.

Other Person's Response: So, if someone perceives the acts of criminals as beautiful, then that's a beautiful perception, and that would be a beautiful thing?

My Reply: Yes. But, if someone perceived it as beautiful that those criminals get locked up, then that would also be beautiful.

Other Person's Response: Helping others while feeling horrible can't be a positive way to live?

My Reply: It can't. It's not a good, beautiful, or amazing way to live, even if you're a genius artist who has inspired others through your horrible feelings.