All My Journal Packets (Files)

[The Transcended Omniverse]

Other Person's Response: In regards to your goal as a composer, which is to compose otherworldly music that astonishes the audience, I really don't think Earth is a place to achieve our goals, since this Earthly realm is an unfortunate place where there are circumstances that prevent us from achieving said goals. There are 3 things that can prevent you from achieving your goal as a composer:

1.) Your emotional drive to compose gets taken away somehow. You say that, without this emotional drive, composing can't matter to you, and you can't see it as a good, valuable, or worthwhile endeavor. That's why you give up composing when you're not in the mood for it. Well, there are many things that can disable one's emotional drive, and you mentioned some of those things earlier.

But, what if your emotional drive to compose got disabled on a chronic, daily basis due to chronic depression? Who knows, you could develop chronic, clinical depression someday, or some mental illness, that renders you with a chronic absence of that emotional drive. That would put you in a position where you'd mostly be giving up on your composing dream. Thus, you wouldn't achieve your goal as a composer.

2.) An unfortunate circumstance happens to you, such as living on life support, having some fatality happen to you (such as a heart attack or stroke) that kills you off before you get the chance to achieve your goal as a composer, going to prison, living in a group home (where you'll be enslaved and would hardly have any time to achieve your composing goal), etc.

3.) You just don't have the talent to achieve your composing goal. There are people who just aren't talented at certain things, and I realize you're incapable in many areas, given the fact that you're an autistic, special needs person. So, you might be incapable of composing the awesome music you said you wanted to compose.

Given these 3 factors, you could still try to go through with achieving your composing goal. But, personally, I don't it's likely you're going to achieve this goal. So, if there's an afterlife, and there are some loving astral beings who care about your composing dream, then you could have everything about you (your personality, knowledge, inspirations, thoughts, etc.) telepathically shared to one of these beings.

After all, souls do have their information uploaded to astral beings, so these beings can know everything about these souls. Once you have your information uploaded to a loving, caring being, he'd know exactly the type of music you want to compose and the otherworldly feelings you want to convey through composing.

If he's an all-powerful, all-talented being, then he could compose music that's exactly the music you wanted to compose. From there, this music could be shared to audiences of souls in the astral realm. So, why even bother trying to achieve your composing dream here on Earth, when you can do so in the afterlife (astral realm)?

My Reply: If there's an afterlife, and astral beings really do exist, then I don't think any of them would be willing to do me that musical favor, given the fact they're not doing me any favors here on Earth, such as ensuring my happiness, preventing and/or healing my misery, ensuring that my life is filled with fortune, etc. So, I don't think there's any loving being in the astral realm who cares about my composing dream, my positive emotions, what happens to me, etc. Therefore, these astral beings must be unloving, uncaring beings.

Other Person's Response: In #2, going to prison was mentioned. But, you don't commit crimes, which means you're never going to prison.

My Reply: Right.

Other Person's Response: In regards to #1, you've had many miserable struggles throughout your life, and these struggles have chronically disabled your emotional drive to pursue your composing dream.

My Reply: That's right.

Other Person's Response: I don't think those astral beings are unloving and uncaring. When souls meet them, they're very loving, caring beings.

My Reply: They might just be pretending to be loving and caring, when they're really not.

Other Person's Response: If none of these astral beings would be willing to compose the music you wanted to compose, then that means it's up to you to compose the music you want to compose. Hopefully, you're able to achieve this goal, and no unfortunate circumstance severely hinders or stops you.

My Reply: Right.

Other Person's Response: If one of these astral beings does do you this musical favor, the music you wanted to compose gets shared to audiences of souls in the afterlife, and the audience praises said music, then you'd get to experience bliss from that in the afterlife, as opposed to positive emotions at a low intensity level here on Earth, since we're in a state of bliss in the heavenly afterlife.
My Reply: Right.

Other Person's Response: Could one of these astral beings also share music to audiences here on Earth by some means?

My Reply: I'm not sure.

 

[The Transcended Omniverse]

Other Person's Response: Your philosophy says that emotions are the only good, bad, horrible, beautiful, horrific, disgusting, tragic, disturbing, pathetic, etc. things in life. So, that means feelings of horror are the only horrific things in life, feelings of disgust are the only disgusting things in life, feelings of tragedy are the only tragic things in life, etc.

My Reply: Yes.

Other Person's Response: According to your philosophy, a feeling of disgust is disgusting, and it makes things, people, and situations disgusting for us. Without a feeling of disgust to color anyone or anything in a disgusting tone (mood), then nobody and nothing is disgusting in our personal lives (mental universes).

My Reply: Right. The same idea applies to feelings of good, bad, beauty, horror, tragedy, etc.

Other Person's Response: Our perception colors our world. For example, if someone perceives nature as beautiful, then that colors nature in beauty, which means nature becomes beautiful in that person's mental universe.

My Reply: That's right, and our emotions are the only things that color our world in beauty, horror, goodness, badness, tragedy, disgust, etc., since our emotions are the only perceptions of beauty, horror, etc. Without our ability to feel emotions, then there's no beauty, horror, etc.

Other Person's Response: So, feeling beauty in regards to nature is the only thing that makes nature beautiful? Without that feeling, then nature can't be beautiful?

My Reply: Correct.

Other Person's Response: Our feelings of value and worth color our world in value and worth, don't they?

My Reply: Yes, and those feelings are positive emotions. Without them, then nothing is valuable or worthwhile.

Other Person's Response: So, according to your philosophy, our emotions are the only source of good, bad, beauty, horror, etc.?

My Reply: Yes.

Other Person's Response: A perception of beauty or horror is a mood (an emotion). Without our beautiful or horrific moods (emotions), then there's no beauty or horror.

My Reply: Correct. The same thing applies to fear. So, without our ability to feel fear, then there's no fearful mood, which means nothing could be frightening. Therefore, situations that are life-threatening and dangerous would just be life-threatening and dangerous. But, they wouldn't be scary or frightening.

Other Person's Response: So, if a person couldn't feel fear in regards to anything, then that means nothing in his world would be colored in fear, which means nothing in his world would be scary or frightening?

My Reply: Correct. It's the reason why spiders and heights are no longer scary or frightening for someone who has overcame his phobia of spiders and heights. He no longer feels fear in regards to them, and that's why they're no longer scary or frightening. The only way we can perceive someone or something as scary or frightening would be if we felt scared or frightened about that person or thing. Without that feeling/perception, nobody and nothing can be scary or frightening.

Other Person's Response: So, just as how nothing can be scary or frightening without our feelings of fear, nothing can be awesome, beautiful, good, bad, etc. without our feelings of awesomeness, beauty, goodness, badness, etc.?

My Reply: Correct.

Other Person's Response: We can only see people and things as scary or frightening through our feelings of fear, just as how we can only see people and things as awesome, beautiful, horrific, etc. through our feelings of awesomeness, beauty, horror, etc.?

My Reply: Correct.

Other Person's Response: Not only do our emotions color our world in goodness, badness, etc., but they color our world in a cheerful, sad, morbid, loving, happy, frightening, etc. mood (perception).

My Reply: Yes. Without our emotions, then there's no cheerfulness, sadness, fear, love, etc.

Other Person's Response: A mood is a perception, a perspective, an emotion, and a state of mind.

My Reply: Yes. So, emotions are moods/perceptions/perspectives/states of mind.

Other Person's Response: There are perceptions that aren't moods. For example, the perception of colors, sounds, or objects isn't a mood.

My Reply: Right.

Other Person's Response: Many people say they live **** lives, due to the many unfortunate circumstances that happen to them. For example, if someone lived a life of poverty, then he might say he's living a **** life. But, according to your philosophy, the only thing that can make our lives **** would be if we felt our lives are ****.

My Reply: Yes. That **** feeling creates a **** mood (perception), which sets a **** tonality for one's life, which makes one's life ****. Having stress and emotional traumas triggers all sorts of negative emotions, including **** feelings. So, we should avoid stress and emotional traumas in order to avoid living **** lives. By avoiding **** feelings, as well as other negative emotions, we're keeping our minds (mental universes) out of a pit of **** and negativity. Our minds need to be in a realm of positivity, which is why we need to feel positive emotions, and avoid negative emotions.

Other Person's Response: So, according to your philosophy, if a person lived a life of wealth, fame, and fortune, couldn't feel positive emotions, and felt his life was **** because of much stress and emotional traumas in his life, then his life wouldn't be good, beautiful, or amazing? It would be a **** life?

My Reply: Correct. Also, if he was unable to feel positive emotions, then his wealth, fame, and fortunes couldn't be good, valuable, beautiful, or amazing.

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.

 

[The Transcended Omniverse]

Other Person's Response: Many people say there are things we should perceive as bad and tragic, such as the death and suffering of others. But, according to your philosophy, we shouldn't because perceptions of badness and tragedy color our world in badness and tragedy.

My Reply: That's right. Perceptions of badness and tragedy bring our lives badness and tragedy, since they color our world in badness and tragedy. Thus, we should avoid these perceptions. We need our world colored in goodness, beauty, magnificence, awesomeness, etc. That's why we need to have positive emotions (positive perceptions), and avoid negative ones. So, perceiving it as a good thing to help dying and suffering people would be better than perceiving their situations as bad and tragic.

Other Person's Response: Perceptions of badness and tragedy do motivate people to help those dying and suffering.

My Reply: Right. But, like I said, it would be better to perceive goodness than badness and tragedy.

Other Person's Response: Your philosophy has dangerous and harmful implications because, if feeling good was the only good thing in life, then that means it would be a good thing to do unwise, harmful deeds that we feel good about doing.

My Reply: I don't care how dangerous and harmful my philosophy is; my personal experience has led me to the conclusion that emotions are the only good, bad, etc. things, and that they're the only things that give goodness, badness, etc. to moments, situations, people, and works of art in our lives.

Other Person's Response: According to your philosophy, the only thing that can make you a good or beautiful person would be if you felt goodness or beauty in regards to yourself.

My Reply: That's correct. As long I don't have those feelings to color me in beauty or goodness, then I can't be a good or beautiful person. So, it's not my actions and deeds that determine whether I'm a good, beautiful, horrible, or disgusting person. It's how I perceive myself (feel about myself) that determines this. Therefore, even if I harmed and tortured others, I'd be an amazing, beautiful, or good person if I felt that way about myself.

Other Person's Response: So, if you struggled with clinical depression, and didn't have your ability to feel good, then that means you couldn't be a good person, no matter how much you help others and contribute to humanity?

My Reply: That's correct.

Other Person's Response: Having an emotional trauma triggers all sorts of negative emotions, including feelings of disgust, and you've had many emotional traumas. You said you couldn't help but feel disgust in regards to yourself during your emotional traumas. So, that means you couldn't help but become a disgusting person.

My Reply: That's right. As long as I feel disgust in regards to myself, then I'll remain as a disgusting person, regardless of how much I help others and bring them joy. I also couldn't help but feel that I was a pitiful, **** person during my emotional traumas. So, that means I couldn't help but become a pitiful, **** person. But, once I'm fully recovered from an emotional trauma, I become a beautiful, awesome, and good person, since I'm able to feel that way about myself again.

Other Person's Response: Since you couldn't help but feel that way about yourself, then that means feeling this way about yourself was something you had no control over.

My Reply: That's right. So, I couldn't prevent these feelings, which means I couldn't prevent perceiving myself as a disgusting, pitiful, and **** person during my emotional traumas.

Other Person's Response: What if you perceived yourself as disgusting, while another person perceived you as beautiful?

My Reply: Then I'd be a disgusting person in my own mental universe, and that would be no way to live, while I'd be beautiful in that other person's mental universe, and that would be a beautiful way to live for him. If our mental universe is colored in negativity by negative emotions, such as horror, disgust, badness, tragedy, etc., then that's no way to live or be an artist. But, if it's colored in positivity by positive emotions, such as beauty, goodness, magnificence, etc., then that's a positive way to live and be an artist, even if a person perceived himself as a positive person for harming and torturing others. So, if I'm without the ability to feel positive emotions, and I'm just feeling negative emotions, then that's no way to live or be an artist for me, while another person would be living a positive life if he felt positive emotions.

Other Person's Response: Without our ability to feel any type of emotion, then that would also be no way to live or be an artist.

My Reply: That's right. Our world wouldn't be colored in positivity or negativity. It would just be an apathetic existence, and that would be no way to live or be an artist.

Other Person's Response: If Jake perceived someone or something as beautiful, while Jon perceived that person or thing as disgusting, then that person or thing would be beautiful for Jake, and disgusting for Jon.

My Reply: That's right.

Other Person's Response: Do you make decisions in your life that are based upon reason, rather than emotion? So, do you do certain things, regardless of how you feel?

My Reply: Yes. But, said decisions can't be good if I don't feel good about them, and they can't be bad if I don't feel bad about them. So, keeping my brain and body healthy can't be a good thing if I'm unable to feel good about it. Neither can it be beautiful, awesome, or magnificent if I was unable to feel that way.

Other Person's Response: When you listen to music, such as video game themes while playing video games, these musical themes normally convey the levels, characters, items, etc. in your eyes. But, during your miserable struggles/emotional traumas, these themes become morbidly insignificant and meaningless in your eyes, which means they now convey nothing in your eyes. You can't help but perceive the themes this way during your emotional traumas, since you can't help but feel that way about them. It would be no different than how a miserable, grieving person can't help but perceive things in his life as morbidly insignificant and meaningless during the loss of his loved one. But, your morbid perception doesn't match up with reality because those themes are still meaningful, regardless if you perceive them as meaningless. Musically speaking, they qualify as meaningful themes because they're not just a series of randomly chosen notes and chords.

My Reply: Right. So, works of art are meaningful by themselves, regardless if we see them as meaningless. But, they can't be good, bad, amazing, beautiful, tragic, horrific, etc. by themselves. Only our emotions breathe goodness, badness, etc. into works of art, which makes those works good, bad, etc. To say that works of art are still awesome or beautiful, even while we're in a miserable state of mind where we perceive them as morbidly devoid of awesomeness and beauty, would be dismissing that state of mind and treating it as though it doesn't matter. It implies: "It doesn't matter that I'm having this morbid perception/experience in regards to these works of art. Those works of art are still awesome and beautiful!"

But, as long as we're not feeling any positive emotions in regards to these works of art, then the positive doesn't matter, which means the awesomeness and beauty doesn't matter (i.e., it doesn't exist). As long as we're just feeling negative emotions, such as misery, then only the negative matters. So, that quote is false and should be replaced with the quote: "Those works of art are nothing awesome or beautiful because I'm perceiving them as morbidly devoid of awesomeness and beauty. Only once I recover back into a positive state of mind will those works of art become awesome and beautiful again."

Other Person's Response: During your emotional traumas, you say you've constantly perceived things in your life as morbidly insignificant and meaningless, which means you constantly felt that way until you've fully recovered from said emotional traumas.

My Reply: Yes.

Other Person's Response: During your miserable struggles, did the realization that works of art are still meaningful allow you to perceive them as meaningful?

My Reply: No. So, I couldn't help but perceive them as morbidly insignificant, meaningless, and devoid of awesomeness and beauty during my miserable struggles. That means even video game levels and characters became morbidly insignificant in my eyes. I also couldn't help but feel all sorts of other negative emotions besides misery. So, that means I couldn't help but have the feeling/perception/desire to harm myself and others. But, I never acted out on those feelings.

Other Person's Response: So, during your miserable struggles, you couldn't help but perceive memorable theme songs and other works of art as morbidly insignificant and meaningless?

My Reply: Correct. I also couldn't help but feel other negative emotions in regards to works of art that I should've felt positive about.

Other Person's Response: Were your miserable struggles grieving processes?

My Reply: No. My miserable struggles were caused by certain thoughts and worries, as I said before.

 

[The Transcended Omniverse]

Other Person's Response: Are emotions the only good, bad, etc. things in life, or are emotions the only things that make moments, situations, objects, places, people, and works of art good, bad, etc. in our personal lives?

My Reply: I think it's both.

Other Person's Response: Without emotions, nothing can bother us and we can't be excited, which means we can't be impatient without our emotions because impatience means waiting around bothers us, or that we're excited to do something as soon as possible.

My Reply: That's right.

Other Person's Response: If this isn't the only life you have, and you get to reincarnate into a new Earthly body, then that would give you another opportunity to achieve your composing dream, just in case you don't get to in this lifetime.

My Reply: But, if I reincarnate, I'd be a completely different person. For example, in my next life, I could be a female who has a different goal/dream, such as being a model. Even if I did have a composing dream in my next life, the style of music I wish to compose might be something entirely different than the style I wish to compose in this lifetime. For example, I might wish to compose some stale, lame, bland music in my next life.

Other Person's Response: Hopefully, if you do reincarnate, you'll still have this composing dream, and wish to compose the bizarre, unique, otherworldly music you wish to compose in this lifetime.

My Reply: Right.

Other Person's Response: There are some emotions a person will feel that he has a very difficult time describing because some feelings are just hard to describe.

My Reply: Right. But, if he pays attention to the thought that caused him to feel that emotion, then he should be able to describe the feeling. Our thoughts take on an emotional form when they make us feel emotions. So, if he describes the thought, then he'd be describing the emotion. But, when it comes to subconscious thoughts making us feel emotions, it's difficult to describe those thoughts, since they're thoughts we're consciously unaware of. But, it becomes easier to describe conscious thoughts. Thus, it would be easier to describe emotions that are caused by conscious thoughts, as opposed to emotions caused by subconscious thoughts.

 

[The Transcended Omniverse]

Other Person's Response: I realize that, when you don't have your ability to feel positive emotions, and you define good and happiness as something other than positive emotions, you ask yourself the question: "Is this definition really working for me? In other words, is this actual goodness and happiness?" Your personal experience always answers this question with: "No, it's not. I'm still not happy, and there's still nothing good in my life."

My Reply: Right.

Other Person's Response: If good and bad were just labels we could slap onto anything we want (i.e., if good and bad could be defined however we want), then why are there philosophies, such as hedonism, that say something specific is good or bad, such as pleasure or displeasure, regardless if we defined something other than pleasure or displeasure as good or bad? The same thing applies to happiness. If happiness was something we could define however we want, then why are there philosophies that say happiness can only be a pleasant emotional state, regardless if we defined happiness as something other than a pleasant emotion?

My Reply: You bring up an interesting point. This says that something remains to be the only happiness or goodness in life, regardless if we define something else as happiness or good. This is what I refer to as "absolute happiness or goodness." It's up to each individual to conclude, based upon his/her personal experience, what he/she thinks is the absolute good, bad, love, happiness, etc. Again, my personal experience says emotions are the absolute good, bad, etc.

 

[The Transcended Omniverse]

Other Person's Response: Things only become good, bad, etc. in our minds. That's why nothing would be good, bad, etc. if nobody perceived anything as good, bad, etc.

My Reply: Right. Perceiving things as good, bad, etc. is how things become good, bad, etc. in our minds. Without that perception, then nothing could be good, bad, etc.

Other Person's Response: If someone perceived something as good, while another person perceived it as bad, then that thing is good in that one person's mind, and bad in that other person's mind.

My Reply: Yes.

Other Person's Response: If a person had a feeling of beauty that's a feeling of goodness, then that would be like having 2 positive emotions combined together as one (a feeling of beauty with a feeling of goodness). It would be liking having milk mixed with water. The milk and water become as one. But, a feeling of tragedy can't be a feeling of goodness because a feeling of tragedy is an unpleasant emotion, and a feeling of goodness is a pleasant emotion. So, if a person had the thought that something's tragic and good, then that can't give him a feeling of tragedy that's a good feeling (a tragically good feeling).

But, it can give him mixed emotions, where he has a feeling of tragedy mixed in with a feeling of goodness, and it would be like mixing oil with water. The oil and water don't combine together as one, since the oil sits atop the water. But, they're mixed together. If he had the thought that something's tragic and disturbing, then that can give him a tragic feeling that's a disturbing feeling (a tragically disturbing feeling) because tragic and disturbing feelings are both unpleasant emotions. So, positivity mixes together with positivity, and negativity mixes together with negativity like milk and water. But, the positive and negative can only mix together like oil and water.

My Reply: Right.

Other Person's Response: You said you've never had feelings of tragedy that were good feelings, or feelings of beauty that were bad feelings. But, you've had feelings of tragedy that were disturbing feelings, and feelings of disgust that were bad feelings. Has it always been like this for you? In other words, has the positive and negative always been like oil and water for you?

My Reply: Yes.

Other Person's Response: According to your philosophy, you're just a person who's nothing good, bad, etc. It's how you feel about yourself that determines whether you're good, bad, etc.

My Reply: Yes.

Other Person's Response: I heard these beings do have the power to heal people of negative thoughts and emotions. So, I don't know why they didn't heal you.

My Reply: I don't know either.

 

[The Transcended Omniverse]

Other Person's Response: If you're intellectually capable of learning how to compose, then you should be intellectually capable of learning how to discover the truth in regards to controversial topics.

My Reply: I think I might be intellectually capable of learning how to compose because there are music books for dummies, and I might easily be able to comprehend such books. But, when it comes to controversial topics, there are many professionals who put forth research and supporting arguments that I can't even begin to comprehend. Not only that, controversial topics have ongoing debate, even to this very day. So, perhaps there's no truth for me to discover in regards to these topics, and it's nothing more than a never-ending debate. So, that means I'll never know the truth as to whether people should or shouldn't be taking vaccines (considering there are those who are pro-vaccine and anti-vaccine in debates regarding vaccines), I'll never know if taking supplements, such as calcium supplements, is ineffective or harmful as some people say, etc.

Other Person's Response: So, even if you conducted all the research in the world, you don't think you'd ever discover the truth in regards to controversial topics, since it might be nothing more than never-ending debates?

My Reply: That could be the case. I don't know.

Other Person's Response: When reading music books for dummies (such as the book "Music Theory for Dummies"), are there some things in these books you have a difficult time understanding, even though said books are meant for dumb people to comprehend?

My Reply: Actually, I have started reading these books, and there are many things I have a difficult time understanding. When it comes to simple, straightforward things in these books, I can easily understand said things. But, when it comes to more complicated things in these books, I have a difficult time understanding said things. One of my main weaknesses has always been the inability to understand things. For example, if someone was having a conversation with me, I'd often times misunderstand what this person was saying, or I'd just draw a complete blank. Some things I can easily understand, though. But, not very many.

Other Person's Response: Maybe if something is explained in a different style than you'd explain it, then that would also make it more difficult for you to understand.

My Reply: Yes. The style I explain all the material in this document is in a clear, thorough, simple format. So, if someone explained something to me, and it was in the style I'd explain it in, then that would make it more likely I'd understand it.

Other Person's Response: Perhaps you should have a music teacher or someone online who could clarify the things you have a hard time understanding in these books.

My Reply: I could just watch some youtube videos or read some material online that clarifies these things. After all, I've already done so with some of the material in these books. In order for me to understand something, it must be presented and explained in a way that a child could understand it, and these music books for dummies don't do that. But, there are some youtube videos and online sources that do.

Other Person's Response: So, when it comes to a more challenging musical topic than the basics (the basics being note names, the grand staff, etc.), then these more challenging topics must be presented and explained in a way that a child could understand them? So, they must be explained as clear, thorough, and simple as possible? Otherwise, you'd have a difficult time understanding them?

My Reply: Yes. So, if someone explains anything to me that's more challenging than the basics, then I'd be confused and start to misinterpret things being explained to me if said explanations aren't in a format that a child could understand.

Other Person's Response: If the basics are explained in a professional manner, then that would make it likely you'd have a hard time understanding them. So, even the basics would need to be explained in a way a child could understand them.

My Reply: But, since they're the basics, then there's a significant likelihood I'd be able to understand them, even if they're professionally written. But, the basics can't be explained too professionally. Otherwise, I'd have a hard time understanding them. For example, Music Theory for Dummies explains the basics in a professional manner, and not in a highly intelligent, super professional manner (after all, it's a book meant for dummies). So, I'm still able to understand these basic things. There are some sentences every now and then that I'm unable to understand. But, for the most part, I'm able to understand the basics in this book.

But, when it comes to more challenging topics presented in this book, that's when I have a hard time understanding a lot of things. Music Composition for Dummies is much more difficult for me to understand, since it's more challenging than Music Theory for Dummies. Music Composition for Dummies starts out explaining basic things, such as how to find inspiration to create melodies, to not trash melodies that you think are mediocre because a lot of people might love them, etc. Again, I'm able to understand these things. But, when it comes to the technical aspects of composing in this book, that's when I have a very hard time understanding these things.
Other Person's Response: Both the basics and even the more challenging topics must be professionally written, even if it's a book meant for dummies. That's because books need to sell, and they wouldn't sell if they were written in your style of writing (which is a simplistic, novice style).

My Reply: I see. But, if they were written in my style of writing, I think that would make it much more likely I'd understand them. I realize there are people on youtube who do explain aspects of music theory and composition in a simplistic, novice style. But, only some people do that. So, I'd have to find youtube videos that do explain these things in that style, so I can understand them. But, not one youtube video is going to explain everything I need to know. So, I'd have to search through many videos. I could also search for online teachings of music theory and composition that make it very simple and easy for me to understand.

Other Person's Response: Even movies must present themselves in a professional manner in order to sell.

My Reply: Right, and I have a hard time understanding what's going on in movies. But, movies are still interesting to watch.

Other Person's Response: How can you improve as a writer, a composer, a critical thinker, etc. when you're unable to understand the things you're trying to learn?

My Reply: Exactly. So, if I wish to learn something in order to improve in any area, then they must be teachings that are easy for me to understand, and there aren't many such teachings in this world. Most teachings are professionally explained.

Other Person's Response: You're poor in virtually every area, whether it be understanding things, intellectual tasks, playing sports, etc. Even your philosophy is very poor. There are just so many areas that need improvement.

My Reply: Right. But, as for my philosophy, I'm not sure that will ever improve, no matter how hard I try to improve it.

Other Person's Response: You must have a difficult time understanding many instructions, given the fact they're not written in such a way that a child could understand them.

My Reply: That's right. But, again, I can easily understand instructions that a child could understand.

Other Person's Response: In school, you passed tests. So, that means the teachers must've explained their subjects in a way that was easy for you to understand.

My Reply: Right. But, I don't think my grades were very good, since I wasn't a very good learner. As a matter of fact, I took a music class when I was a child, even though I wasn't interested in becoming a composer back then. So, I just took music class because my mother wanted me to. I was the slowest learner there, and couldn't keep up with the rest of the class. Also, whatever I learned in music class were things I learned many years ago. So, I forgot these things, which is why I'm learning music theory as an adult.

Other Person's Response: I think you just lack the necessary knowledge and experience to understand things. So, if you had a lot of knowledge and experience, then nobody would have to present and explain things to you like a child. If you were highly intelligent, then you could even understand challenging topics only professionals could comprehend.

My Reply: Right. The fact that I'm an autistic, special needs person also plays a major role in my difficulty in understanding things. I also think I have poor reading comprehension skills. After all, I'm poor in many areas, whether it be critical and rational thinking, memory, puzzles, riddles, etc.

Other Person's Response: Would your style of music be ancient and mythological, or would it sound modern?

My Reply: Modern.

Other Person's Response: According to your philosophy, good feelings are the only perceptions of goodness. So, if I couldn't feel good about anything, then that means I couldn't see something as good for myself, others, or in general?

My Reply: Correct.

 

[The Transcended Omniverse]

Other Person's Response: Some people would say that your philosophy is too simplistic, since your definition of good and bad is way too simple.

My Reply: It's often times the most simple things and solutions people overlook. So, my philosophy might be true, despite its simplicity, and people are overlooking it.

Other Person's Response: Are you female? The reason I ask is because females are often emotional and live by an emotional philosophy.

My Reply: I'm male.

Other Person's Response: Seeing colors is what colors our mental world, and colors don't exist in the physical world. Seeing goodness, badness, etc. is what colors our mental world in goodness, badness, etc., and good, bad, etc. don't exist in the physical world either.

My Reply: Right.

Other Person's Response: You're allowing your emotions to define you. You're so much more than your emotions because you're a human being who has a personality.

My Reply: There's no more goodness, badness, love, hate, etc. than emotions. So, there really is nothing more good, bad, loving, hateful, etc. about me than my own emotions.

Other Person's Response: I heard that your mother easily feels rage whenever someone mistreats her, even if she wasn't having any stress or emotional trauma. If she was never in that enraged mood, then the mistreatment of others wouldn't bother her. So, this shows that negative emotions make things, people, and situations bother us.

My Reply: Right. As for me, I'm normally not bothered by anything, which means I'm only enraged during an emotional trauma. But, I would normally feel fear. So, fear is an emotion that's easy to trigger for me, even when I'm happy and doing just fine.

Other Person's Response: According to your philosophy, it would be better if your mother never felt rage, you never felt fear, and you both instead felt positive emotions all the time.

My Reply: Right. So, it would be better if me and my mother just felt positive in the face of any circumstance. As for my mother, it would be better if she felt positive about those people getting what they deserve, or if she felt positively forgiving. It's her pick. She's obviously not the forgiving type. So, I'm sure she'd choose to former, rather than the latter.

Other Person's Response: So, whether she feels positive about those people getting what they deserve, or if she feels positively forgiving, she'd be getting a positive experience either way, and we need the positive experiences in life, according to your philosophy.

My Reply: Yes.

Other Person's Response: If she wants to feel positive while people mistreat her, then she'd need to change her mindset, wouldn't she? She'd have to change from an enraged mindset to a positive mindset.

My Reply: Yes.

Other Person's Response: Emotions are sometimes triggered automatically, regardless of our mindset. For example, a person would still feel fear in a dangerous situation, even if he had a brave, bold mindset. That's because fear is meant to protect us.

My Reply: Right. But, there are many instances where emotions are triggered by our mindset. For example, my emotional traumas were triggered by a troubled mindset. If I somehow changed this mindset, then I wouldn't have had these emotional traumas. But, that's easier said than done because changing one's mindset isn't always easy. Sometimes, it can be an entire journey.

Other Person's Response: You said that, consciously, you didn't have a troubled mindset during your emotional traumas, while, subconsciously, you had a very troubled mindset.

My Reply: Yes, and it's this subconscious mindset that would have to be changed in order for my emotional traumas to be eliminated right then and there. But, nothing I did or told myself helped changed this mindset. So, I had to recover from these emotional traumas in order for them to be eliminated. Again, our psyche naturally recovers on its own, and that's how I recovered.

Other Person's Response: I heard that your mother feels rage, even during dangerous situations. For example, if someone had a vicious dog, your mother would feel like killing the dog with a knife. She wouldn't feel afraid at all. But, if you were in that situation, you'd feel fear. So, perhaps our emotions, whether they be fear, rage, sadness, etc. are entirely determined by our mindset. You have a frightened mindset during dangerous situations that causes you to feel fear, while your mother has an enraged mindset during certain dangerous situations that causes her to feel enraged.

My Reply: You could be right.

Other Person's Response: Your mother does feel nothing but fear during certain dangerous situations, right?

My Reply: Right.

Other Person's Response: Emotions do desensitize (fade away upon continued exposure to them). So, perhaps your mother has felt fear for so long from people mistreating her and attacking her that she no longer feels afraid about that.

My Reply: If that's so, then she wouldn't have just stopped being afraid, and no longer caring. It seems she developed an enraged mindset that now causes her to feel rage when others threaten and mistreat her. But, if she kept on feeling rage all the time from these circumstances, I'm sure that feeling would fade away on its own, which means she'd no longer have that rage. So, she'd neither be afraid nor enraged about these circumstances. She might now feel positive or just not care anymore. It would be like how I'm no longer troubled by the situations that once troubled me, since that tribulation/emotional trauma has desensitized.

Other Person's Response: When a emotion completely desensitizes (fades away), does that mean the subconscious mindset that caused said emotion completely fades away as well? For example, when you fully recovered from your emotional traumas, does that mean your troubled, subconscious mindset has completely faded away? Or, is that mindset still there, and it's just not making you feel troubled?

My Reply: I think the mindset would be gone.

Other Person's Response: During an emotional trauma, you feel many negative emotions. Perhaps it's negative, subconscious mindsets that are causing those negative emotions, and those mindsets disappear once you're fully recovered from said trauma. But, they return again when you have another emotional trauma, which is why you feel those negative emotions all over again.

My Reply: Right. I don't think I'm going to have another emotional trauma again. So, I don't think those negative mindsets and negative emotions will ever return.

Other Person's Response: Is fear a negative emotion that's triggered by your emotional traumas?

My Reply: No. So, it's just other negative emotions that are triggered by these traumas, such as misery, disgust, horror, rage, etc.

Other Person's Response: When you're fully recovered from an emotional trauma, you could have a troubled, conscious mindset. But, you say that mindset wouldn't make you feel troubled, since you no longer have a troubled, subconscious mindset.

My Reply: Right. The same thing would apply to my mother. She's no longer afraid of people who threaten her, and if she has chosen to have a frightened, conscious mindset about these people, then that wouldn't make her afraid, since she no longer has a frightened, subconscious mindset.

Other Person's Response: As for phobias, I don't think they're caused by a person's mindset. So, this shows that, sometimes, fear has nothing to do with our mindset.

My Reply: Right. That would mean there are instances where emotions are triggered automatically, regardless of our mindset.

Other Person's Response: There's a difference between a character weakness and a character defect. Defective means means there's something wrong with a person's body, a piece of equipment, etc., such as if someone had a birth defect, there was a defective piece of equipment, etc. But, a weakness is simply a lacking quality, such as if someone had weak muscles or skill, since he doesn't train. To say your philosophy stems from a character defect implies there's something wrong with you. But, to say your philosophy stems from a character weakness implies you're lacking as an individual, and that you just need to improve.

My Reply: Right. But, defective things sometimes can't be fixed. So, perhaps I have a character defect, and I can never be fixed, which means I can never develop a better philosophy, no matter how hard I try. Could a handicapped person in a wheelchair get up and walk? No. He must live in that wheelchair, and he can never be fixed.

Other Person's Response: You do have a mental defect, since you're an autistic, special needs person. So, perhaps you also have a character defect, and you can never develop a better philosophy.

My Reply: You could be right.

Other Person's Response: There are mentally disabled people who don't have a character defect. Thus, they're able to upgrade to a better philosophy than hedonism. But, you might have a character defect, which means you might be incapable of upgrading to a better philosophy.

My Reply: You could be right.

Other Person's Response: Even though you're mentally disabled, you're not severely mentally disabled to the point where you can hardly function. You're able to function mostly well in life, and you're still capable of tasks, such as writing all this material. As a matter of fact, you're a skilled writer. So, perhaps you'll also be capable of upgrading to a better philosophy someday.

My Reply: You could be right.

Other Person's Response: If someone explained something to you in a very simple way, and you still didn't understand it, then perhaps it's the style he explained it in that made it difficult for you to understand.

My Reply: Right.

Other Person's Response: There are only some near death experiences where people meet that stern god who wants them to suffer. Many people will have different near death experience journeys. So, one person could have a near death experience where he encounters a god who tells him that life's about the positive emotions, that he doesn't need to suffer from unhappiness or illnesses, and heals him of any unhappiness or illness he has.

My Reply: Right. After all, people do have near death experiences where god or heavenly beings heal them. But, why would they only heal some people, and tell others they need to suffer? Also, why don't they heal anyone who's here on Earth? Why must souls on Earth meet them in the afterlife via a near death experience or psychedelic drug trip in order to be healed?

Other Person's Response: A person could feel positive about ending his life, though.

My Reply: Then ending his life would be a positive thing. But, when most people have the desire to end their lives, that desire is a negative emotion. When someone feels the negative desire to commit suicide, he's not feeling that ending his life is a bad thing, which means that ending his life wouldn't be bad. Rather, he feels that his life is bad, which would make his life bad. It's this feeling that's motivating him to commit suicide. So, the very act of committing suicide wouldn't be good or bad from his perspective, since he's not feeling good or bad about it in this example.

 

[The Transcended Omniverse]

Other Person's Response: Sometimes, is the material in this discussion section randomly assorted?

My Reply: Yes. But, for the most part, it's structured. So, sometimes, you'll read a response and reply that talks about one thing, and then immediately read another response and reply that talks about another thing.

Other Person's Response: There are people who say that good, bad, etc. don't exist at all. These people are meditation gurus who tell others to not attribute any judgment of good or bad to anything because all things in this life "just are." Such advice is given in order to encourage us to have a quiet mind that's free of judgment.

My Reply: But, according to my philosophy, there's one thing that's good, bad, etc., and it's our emotions. The moment we think or believe something is good or bad, and that thought or belief causes us to feel good or bad about that thing, then goodness or badness has been brought into existence because we've just colored that thing in goodness or badness.

Other Person's Response: So, all things in this world are no big deal, and neither are they good or bad? We're the ones who make them a big deal and good or bad?

My Reply: Yes, and we do so through our emotions. Without emotions, we'd be apathetic, which means nothing would matter to us. It would mean nothing would be a big deal or good, bad, etc. I, myself, have had moments where I couldn't feel any emotions, and I could clearly tell I was apathetic, no matter what mindset I had and no matter what I did with my life.

Other Person's Response: You might've actually had some intensity level of emotion during those moments, even if it was an intensity level so small you couldn't detect it.

My Reply: Right. That would mean things did matter to me, and I did see things as good, bad, etc. It would've just been at a very small intensity level.

Other Person's Response: If a person had a phobia, and he overcame it, then the stimulus he once feared would no longer bother him anymore, since he no longer feels afraid of it. This indicates that emotions do make things a big deal, they do make things matter to us, and they do make things good, bad, frightening, etc.

My Reply: Yes.

Other Person's Response: According to your philosophy, we should seek positive emotions, since they're the very goodness, magnificence, beauty, etc. we need. But, if we couldn't feel any emotions, then seeking positive emotions wouldn't matter, and neither would it be a good thing to seek them.

My Reply: Right.

Other Person's Response: Thoughts make us feel emotions, and we need to think that something's good to feel good about it. Your philosophy says that good feelings are the only good things. So, if I currently wasn't feeling good, and I had to think that something's good to make myself feel good about it, then that would mean it wouldn't be good to think this thing is good.

My Reply: Right. But, you could still think this thing is good anyway. It will only be a fraction of a second before that thought is able to make you feel good (providing there's nothing preventing that thought from making you feel good, such as clinical depression). Once that thought makes you feel good about that thing, then that thing becomes good. But, having the thought this thing is good still isn't a good thing. You'd need to feel good about that in order for it to be a good thing. So, you'd need to have the thought that it's good you're thinking this thing is good. Once you feel good about that, then that means it's good you're thinking that thing is good.

Other Person's Response: So, whatever thing, situation, or person we feel good, bad, etc. about becomes good, bad, etc. in our personal lives?

My Reply: Yes.

Other Person's Response: If I wished to sustain the good in my life, then that means I must keep on feeling good?

My Reply: Yes.

Other Person's Response: Religions always talk about our consciousness/soul. The question is, which mental (conscious) state is the most important? Your philosophy says it's the positive emotional states that are important, and they're what we need.

My Reply: Yes. They're holy, divine mental states (perceptions) that make our world a holy paradise for us. So, if we were profoundly blissful, then we'd be having a paradise here on Earth, since our world would be colored in intense, profound positivity.

Other Person's Response: You've had many emotional traumas. So, that means you've created an unholy hell for yourself here on Earth.

My Reply: Yes, because all those negative emotions I've had were unholy mental states.

Other Person's Response: If positive emotions were so holy, then why doesn't god or any heavenly being deem them as holy, vital, necessary things, and why do they allow people to have miserable and unhappy struggles, where their positive emotions are taken away from them?

My Reply: I'm not sure. Perhaps god or these heavenly beings live by a different philosophy than mine, or they're just uncaring beings who realize that positive emotions are holy, vital, and necessary, but don't care if there are struggling people who are unable to feel them. God and these beings allow so much suffering, whether it be the torture of animals, illnesses, etc. So, it seems to me they're uncaring beings.

Other Person's Response: You feel negative emotions during an emotional trauma, such as feeling like you can never develop a better philosophy, and I'm curious if you feel this particular emotion when you're not having an emotional trauma, and doing just fine.

My Reply: I don't feel that emotion when I'm doing just fine. I instead feel positive, such as feeling that perhaps there is a way I can develop a better philosophy. So, that's a positive feeling (perception) I have when I'm doing just fine. But, even so, it's possible I might never be able to develop a better philosophy, and I consider this possibility.

Other Person's Response: There's a better philosophy than hedonism called "Stoicism." Here's the definition of Stoicism online:

1.) The endurance of pain or hardship without the display of feelings and without complaint.

2.) An ancient Greek school of philosophy founded at Athens by Zeno of Citium. The school taught that virtue, the highest good, is based on knowledge; the wise live in harmony with the divine Reason (also identified with Fate and Providence) that governs nature, and are indifferent to the vicissitudes of fortune and to pleasure and pain.

My Reply: But, I think positive emotions are the only things that can color our world in positivity. So, I think hedonism was the right philosophy all along, even though it's a very limiting and self-defeating philosophy.

Other Person's Response: Isn't Stoicism the philosophy that Spock (a character from Star Trek) lives by?

My Reply: I think so. I'd be the opposite of Spock, since I live by a philosophy opposite of his.

Other Person's Response: Do you have any actual evidence to back your claim that emotions are the only perceptions of good, bad, beauty, horror, etc.?

My Reply: No, and I wouldn't know where to find such evidence, since I'm a dumb person. So, it's up to others to find the evidence. When searching online, I don't know where to look, since I'm not knowledgeable when it comes to research, evidence, articles, etc. I only do basic google searches to find things, such as finding out about the new Super Mario or Zelda game that's currently out, or searching for online forums. But, at least I found the link to that emotion perception theory by typing "Are emotions perceptions?" into google.

Other Person's Response: You could always ask an intelligent person on a forum if he could give you evidence to share to others.

My Reply: Right, and I might do that someday. In the meantime, I have a lot of information to share that's based upon my personal experience, and I want others to read as much of it as they can (if they're willing to).

Other Person's Response: You're right when you say that many people trivialize emotions. For example, if a person was miserable and didn't feel like going to work, he'd go to work anyway, and disregard his emotional state. He'd trivialize his miserable and lethargic mood, and regard his duties as important.

My Reply: Yes. But, I think life's all about how we feel. So, I think people shouldn't be trivializing emotions.

Other Person's Response: Your personal experience has led you to the conclusion that emotions are the only perceptions of good, bad, etc. That's when you discovered the emotion perception theory on your own through a google search.

My Reply: Yes. Everything I've learned from my personal experience could be the truth, and many people would say it's an entire doctrine/teaching. Like I said, it's my own philosophy I wish to share to others.

Other Person's Response: When emotions go through moments of wearing off and returning, do the subconscious mindsets that caused said emotions disappear during the times these emotions wear off?

My Reply: I'm not sure.

Other Person's Response: I don't think it's just subconscious mindsets that make us feel emotions. I also think conscious mindsets can.

My Reply: Maybe you're right.

Other Person's Response: During your emotional traumas, you've and profoundly **** feelings, didn't you?

My Reply: Yes.

Other Person's Response: If Jake saw himself as a beautiful character, and Jon treated him as a horrible monster, since he did a misdeed, then, from Jake's perspective, Jon is talking to a horrible monster that's not even there. In Jake's mind, he's a beautiful character and not a horrible monster.

My Reply: Right. In his mental universe, he has become a beautiful character.

 

[The Transcended Omniverse]

Other Person's Response: Emotions are external, such as expressions of love and joy, while feelings are internal.

My Reply: But, again, I use the terms feelings and emotions interchangeably. So, I don't call those expressions emotions. Rather, I just refer to them as expressions of love, joy, hate, sorrow, etc.

Other Person's Response: You could revise this entire document, so that the terms feelings and emotions aren't used interchangeably.

My Reply: That's too much work for something that's not that important anyway. So, just accept my usage of those terms interchangeably.

Other Person's Response: When thoughts make us feel emotions, whatever we thought of takes on the form of an emotional experience for us. For example, if someone thought a cinematic scene was horrific, and that thought made him feel horror in regards to that scene, then that's giving him a horrific, cinematic, emotional experience.

My Reply: Yes, and that feeling of horror would be a perception of horror, which means that feeling makes him perceive that scene as horrific. Also, there are different feelings of horror because a person can have different thoughts of horror. For example, the thought that the death of your loved one is horrific is a different thought than thinking a cinematic scene is horrific. Thus, there are different feelings (perceptions) of horror, such as the horror of losing a loved one, cinematic horror, the horror of witnessing natural disasters, etc.

Other Person's Response: There are also different forms of beauty, such as tropical beauty, aquatic beauty, technological beauty, etc.

My Reply: Yes. So, there are different feelings (perceptions) of beauty. Also, happy and loving thoughts make us feel happy and loving emotions, and there are different forms of happiness and love, such as the feeling of love you get when you witness an animal, the feeling of love you get when you witness a family member, the feeling of happiness you get from playing a sport, the feeling of happiness you get from getting a new movie, etc.

Other Person's Response: If a person had the thought of wanting, liking, or disliking something, and that thought made him feel wanting, liking, or disliking in regards to that thing, then that's giving him a wanting, liking, or disliking emotional experience.

My Reply: Yes.

Other Person's Response: If a person felt grief over the loss of someone, then that feeling of grief is actually a feeling of love, since grief is a form of love. Grieving shows you deeply loved that person.

My Reply: Love and grief aren't the same thing, just as how happiness and sadness aren't the same thing. Sure, loving someone does result in grief over that person's death. But, love is a different feeling than grief, since love is a positive, gentle emotion, while grief is a negative, devastating emotion. Thus, love and grief are different things.

Other Person's Response: So, a loving mindset is different than a grieving mindset?

My Reply: Yes. These 2 mindsets yield 2 different feelings (feelings of love and grief).

Other Person's Response: Being happy about getting something does result in sadness over the loss of that thing. But, that sadness wouldn't be happiness.

My Reply: Right, and neither would grief be love.

Other Person's Response: You say love can only be a pleasant feeling. But, can't love be an unpleasant feeling, such as feeling deep concern and compassion for someone who's suffering?

My Reply: No. That would just be a feeling of concern and compassion. Each feeling is unique. For example, a feeling of anger can only be anger, and can't be sadness or joy. A feeling of sadness can only be sadness, and can't be jealousy or regret, etc.

Other Person's Response: The goal of Buddhism is to reduce suffering, and not allowing pain to consume you is a method of reducing suffering.

My Reply: Right. But, it would be better if suffering was eliminated completely, rather than reduced as much as possible. So, it would be best if life was a blissful utopia, where there's no more suffering.

Other Person's Response: According to your philosophy, Buddhists should be seeking the holy, divine states (positive emotions), in addition to eliminating their suffering.

My Reply: Yes.

Other Person's Response: Did you passively observe your emotions like the Buddhist teaching advised in that youtube video?

My Reply: Yes, and it did nothing to reduce my suffering during my emotional traumas.

Other Person's Response: Perhaps it didn't reduce your suffering because you still believe, subconsciously, that emotions are more than just feelings. You believe they color our entire world, and having such a subconscious belief will make your emotions all-consuming feelings for you, regardless of any conscious effort to reduce your suffering.

My Reply: I'm not sure.

Other Person's Response: Even if you believed that emotions were nothing more than trivial feelings, your emotions might still be all-consuming feelings for you because you're weak-minded. Even passively observing your emotions won't do anything to reduce your suffering because it takes a strong mind to achieve this.

My Reply: Right.

Other Person's Response: During your emotional traumas, you were a miserable, suicidal, suffering individual who couldn't will himself out it. There are also other such people who can't will themselves out of their miserable, suicidal, states of mind. So, I'm not sure why god and the heavenly beings allow them to suffer. Why don't they heal them?

My Reply: I'm not sure. When I'm fully recovered from an emotional trauma, I'm no longer in such a state anymore. But, I could've gotten to a full recovery in an instant if god or a heavenly being just healed me.

Other Person's Response: Many people would say your philosophy is very shallow. Thus, these people would call you a shallow person. But, I heard you have a composing dream, and that you wish to astonish the world by creating compositions that are out of the ordinary and otherworldly. That, right there, shows you're not a shallow person because you wish to express something that's out of the ordinary, unlike the many shallow people in this world who wish to create ordinary, lame, stale, mediocre music.

My Reply: Right. So, people shouldn't judge me, based upon my philosophy.

Other Person's Response: If people read your material, and they conclude you're childish, then perhaps they're just having a misunderstanding of you.

My Reply: Right. If people were to meet my mother, she'd say I'm very mature. So, that shows I am mature.

Other Person's Response: If all the scenes in your horrific nightmares no longer had feelings of horror, but now had feelings of beauty, then that would make those scenes beautiful now, rather than horrific.

My Reply: Right.

Other Person's Response: You could've consciously realized that works of art were meaningful, but had the subconscious, morbid thought that they were meaningless during your emotional traumas. Since the subconscious is vastly more powerful than the conscious, then that conscious realization couldn't allow you to perceive them as meaningful. Instead, it was that subconscious thought that dominated your perception, since it was the far more powerful thought.

My Reply: Based upon my personal experience, the perception of those works of art being morbidly insignificant and meaningless was an emotional state (a miserable state). Yes, I did have that subconscious thought. But, it wasn't that thought alone that made me perceive those works of art as morbidly insignificant and meaningless.

Other Person's Response: It could be the case that we can only be aware of the 1st type of meaning in the absence of our emotions, but can't perceive said meaning. So, we might need emotions to perceive meaning as well.

My Reply: That could be. Also, I normally perceive anime and video game characters as awesome characters that seem real, which means that's how I normally feel about them. But, I realized they're not real because they're just animated drawings and not actual, living beings or entities. It seems as though that realization didn't allow me to perceive them as unreal, since I wasn't feeling that they were unreal. So, perhaps we can only acknowledge meaning and certain things in the absence of our emotions, but can't perceive said meaning and things.

Other Person's Response: If you weren't feeling that those characters were unreal, then that means the very notion they're unreal didn't matter to you, and neither did you perceive them as unreal.

My Reply: Right. We need to feel emotions in regards to something in order for that thing to matter to us, and to perceive it as unreal, real, good, bad, meaningful, etc.

Other Person's Response: There were moments in your life where you were miserable, and perceived music as morbidly insignificant and meaningless. You realized music was meaningful because it qualifies as a meaningful work of art. But, that realization didn't allow you to perceive music as meaningful, which means you still saw it as morbidly insignificant and meaningless.

My Reply: Right. If someone was miserable because he lost a loved one, then the realization that money, riches, and luxury are meaningful just wouldn't make them meaningful in his eyes. He'd still perceive them as morbidly insignificant and meaningless. Unless, of course, that realization managed to make him feel they were meaningful, despite his misery. Then he'd be seeing them as meaningful.

Other Person's Response: Emotions also make things significant in our eyes, don't they?

My Reply: Yes. Positive emotions make things positively significant to us, and negative emotions make things negatively significant to us.

 

[The Transcended Omniverse]

Other Person's Response: A certain scent, such as the smell of a skunk, is just a scent that's nothing pleasant or unpleasant. But, when a person smells a skunk, and he thinks it's a pleasant scent, then his brain will interpret the scent as pleasant, which makes it a pleasant scent for him. So, it's not the thought alone that made the scent pleasant for him. The scent had to, neuroscientifically speaking, become pleasant for him, which means his brain had to undergo the process of interpreting the scent as pleasant.

My Reply: I don't know how the brain works, though. But, based upon my personal experience, I do know that our thoughts and beliefs alone can't make anything pleasant or unpleasant for us. So, again, they, alone, can't give us any pleasant or unpleasant experience.

Other Person's Response: So, pleasantness and unpleasantness are qualia (qualities of experience), and they're not thought qualities?

My Reply: Correct.

Other Person's Response: According to your philosophy, good, bad, etc. are also qualia, and they're emotional qualities.

My Reply: Yes.

Other Person's Response: According to your philosophy, we can't embrace the awesome power of works of art without our emotions because there'd be no awesomeness to embrace.

My Reply: Right. Even if works of art were still awesome without our emotions, we wouldn't be able to embrace said awesomeness, since we'd be apathetic.

Other Person's Response: Before we're born into a new life, our knowledge and forms of personal growth are erased? Why must they be erased? If, for whatever reason, they do need to be erased, then why can't a portion of it be preserved (such as the most important knowledge and forms of personal growth)? Why must it all be erased?

My Reply: I'm not sure.

Other Person's Response: You wait for the storm to pass, rather than being like a rock that stands firm amidst the storm?

My Reply: Yes. I wait for my emotional traumas to completely pass before pursuing my composing dream again.

Other Person's Response: Perhaps it's the case that emotions aren't positive or negative perceptions, and it's our thoughts that are. But, during your emotional traumas, maybe those positive, conscious thoughts you've had couldn't give you a positive perception because you had nothing but negative, subconscious thoughts. The subconscious is vastly more powerful than the conscious. Thus, it's our subconscious mindset that determines our perspective, and not our conscious mindset.

For example, if someone had a subconscious belief, such as a belief in Christianity, and he had the conscious thought that he doesn't believe in Christianity, then that won't change his Christian belief. After all, how can a person just think away a belief he already has? It's impossible. Another example would be if someone had the subconscious mindset that he hates someone, and consciously thought to himself that he loves this person. That won't change his hateful perspective.

In order for his hateful perspective to change to a loving one, then his subconscious mindset would need to change to a loving mindset. With that being said, I think it was all those negative, subconscious thoughts that were preventing you from having a positive perception. As you slowly and gradually recover from your emotional traumas, those negative thoughts fade on their own, and positive, subconscious thoughts start to take their place. Thus, you're able to have a positive perspective on life again.

My Reply: Based on my personal experience, I think it's only our emotions that are positive and negative perceptions. So, I think the reason why I couldn't have a positive perception during my emotional traumas was because I was unable to feel positive emotions.

Other Person's Response: You said there were very few moments where you could feel positive emotions during your emotional traumas.

My Reply: Yes, which means I did have a positive perception during very few moments. But, I mostly had negative perceptions (negative emotions) during my emotional traumas.

Other Person's Response: If someone didn't believe in Christianity, and he had the conscious thought that he believed, then that wouldn't allow him to believe in Christianity.

My Reply: Right. So, he'd still have the perspective of disbelieving in Christianity.

Other Person's Response: I heard that, when you're happy and doing just fine, you're a loving individual, since you feel love towards yourself, nature, and other animals. You're no longer that hateful individual you were when you had those emotional traumas.

My Reply: Yes. But, I'm not one of the most loving people in the world, since I don't feel powerful love that motivates me to dedicate my life to the helping of people and animals.

Other Person's Response: When you're having an emotional trauma, you feel hate, and feeling that way is something out of your control. But, that hate vanishes when you're fully recovered from an emotional trauma, and you now feel positive emotions, such as love.

My Reply: Yes. The recovery process is a process that rids of the negativity, and restores the positivity.

Other Person's Response: All those negative emotions you feel during an emotional trauma are part of the recovery process.

My Reply: Right. But, still, they're negative experiences, and having them is no way to live or be an artist.

Other Person's Response: When thoughts make us feel emotions, whatever we thought of takes on the form of an emotional experience for us. For example, if someone thought a cinematic scene was horrific, and that thought made him feel horror in regards to that scene, then that's giving him a horrific, cinematic, emotional experience.

My Reply: Yes, and that feeling of horror would be a perception of horror, which means that feeling makes him perceive that scene as horrific. Also, there are different feelings of horror because a person can have different thoughts of horror. For example, the thought that the death of your loved one is horrific is a different thought than thinking a cinematic scene is horrific. Thus, there are different feelings (perceptions) of horror, such as the horror of losing a loved one, cinematic horror, the horror of witnessing natural disasters, etc.

Other Person's Response: There are also different forms of beauty, such as tropical beauty, aquatic beauty, technological beauty, etc.

My Reply: Yes. So, there are different feelings (perceptions) of beauty. Also, happy and loving thoughts make us feel happy and loving emotions, and there are different forms of happiness and love, such as the feeling of love you get when you witness an animal, the feeling of love you get when you witness a family member, the feeling of happiness you get from playing a sport, the feeling of happiness you get from getting a new movie, etc.

Other Person's Response: If a person had the thought of wanting, liking, or disliking something, and that thought made him feel wanting, liking, or disliking in regards to that thing, then that's giving him a wanting, liking, or disliking emotional experience.

My Reply: Yes.

Other Person's Response: According to your philosophy, a person's mood (emotional state) is a person's perspective. For example, if a person is in a happy mood, then that means he's in a happy state of mind, which means he has a happy perspective, which means he's happy. If a person is in a suicidal mood, then that means he's in a suicidal state of mind, which means he has a suicidal perspective, which means he's suicidal.

If a person is in the mood to give up on a goal or dream, then that's the state of mind he's in, which means he has the perspective of giving up on said goal or dream, which means he wants to give up on said goal or dream. Here's one last example. Now, sleepiness isn't a mood. But, if a person feels sleepy, then that means he's in a sleepy state of mind, which means he has a sleepy perspective, which means he's sleepy.

My Reply: Yes. So, moods are perspectives/perceptions/states of mind. But, a person can act against his mood state. For example, if a person was in a suicidal mood, he could still choose to not commit suicide. Another example would be that a person can still persevere in his goal or dream, despite being in the mood to give up on said goal or dream. Lastly, in regards to wanting, liking, and disliking, such as wanting to give up on a goal or dream, liking someone, or disliking a movie, emotions are wanting, liking, and disliking, which means they're wanting, liking, and disliking perspectives. Here's a link that talks about positive emotions being the reward wanting and liking in the brain:

We have found a special hedonic hotspot that is crucial for reward 'liking' and 'wanting' (and codes reward learning too). The opioid hedonic hotspot is shown in red above. It works together with another hedonic hotspot in the more famous nucleus accumbens to generate pleasure 'liking'.

‘Liking’ and ‘wanting’ food rewards: Brain substrates and roles in eating disorders

Kent C. Berridge 2009 Mar 29.

‘Liking’ and ‘wanting’ food rewards: Brain substrates and roles in eating disorders

Here's another article as well:

Dissecting components of reward: ‘liking’, ‘wanting’, and learning

Other Person's Response: Now, mental fatigue isn't a mood. But, when a person feels mentally fatigue, he's in a mentally fatigue state of mind, which means he has a mentally fatigue perspective, which means he's mentally fatigue.

My Reply: Yes.

Other Person's Response: Disliking would be a negative emotion, wouldn't it?

My Reply: Yes.

Other Person's Response: Wanting can either be a positive or negative emotion. For example, if you really wanted a new video game that was exciting to you, then that feeling of wanting would be a positive emotion. But, if you were miserable, and wanted to commit suicide, since you can’t handle life anymore, then that wanting would be a negative emotion.

My Reply: Yes.

 

[The Transcended Omniverse]

Other Person's Response: In regards to liking, it can't be a negative emotion, right?

My Reply: Right. So, liking can only be a rewarding feeling in the brain (a positive emotion), and disliking can only be a disrewarding feeling in the brain (a negative emotion).

Other Person's Response: If a person wanted something, such as a new video game, then that means he had the perspective of wanting that new game.

My Reply: Right, and his wanting would be an emotional state.

Other Person's Response: I realize your philosophy says that wanting, liking, and disliking can only be emotional states.

My Reply: Yes. I base that claim off of my personal experience because I can clearly tell that my emotions are the only wanting, liking

Other Person's Response: You say that emotions are wanting, liking, and disliking. But, what about bodily pleasure and pain? Aren't they a form of wanting, liking, and disliking?

My Reply: Based upon my personal experience, I think only our emotions are wanting, liking, and disliking, since only our emotions can give us the perspective of wanting, liking, and disliking people and things. So, bodily pleasure and pain are just pleasure and pain. Since they don't possess any good, bad, happy, sad, etc. qualities like our emotions do, then I don't think they possess any wanting, liking, or disliking qualities either.

Other Person's Response: Again, perhaps you're allowing your emotions to dominate your perspective, which is why you can't have the perspective of wanting, liking, or disliking anyone or anything through your mindset alone. Perhaps that's the reason why the only way you can want, like, or dislike is through your emotions.

My Reply: Maybe you're right. I'm not sure. Some people would say I have a weak mind that's dominated by emotions.

Other Person's Response: Did you try your best to not allow your emotions to dominate your mind, and did that allow you to want, like, or dislike through your mindset alone?

My Reply: I did try, and it didn't work at all.

Other Person's Response: According to your philosophy, we'd have an apathetic perspective without our ability to feel emotions, which means we couldn't care about anyone or anything, nothing would matter to us, and neither could we want, like, or dislike.

My Reply: That's right. Having the mindset alone of caring about people and things won't give us a caring perspective, as long as we're unable to feel emotions. So, without emotions, we'd still be apathetic, regardless of our mindset. The same idea applies to wanting, liking, and disliking. Just having the mindset alone of wanting, liking, or disliking something won't allow us to want, like, or dislike that thing. That's been my personal experience.

Other Person's Response: So, without emotions, we'd be in an apathetic state of mind, regardless of our mindset?

My Reply: Correct.

Other Person's Response: If a person wasn't feeling sleepy, then he couldn't be sleepy through his mindset alone of being sleepy, which means that mindset alone couldn't give him a sleepy perspective. The same thing applies to mental fatigue.

My Reply: Right. As you can see, our mindset alone can't make us happy, want, like, caring, sleepy, mentally fatigue, etc.

Other Person's Response: Just having the mindset of being hungry or thirsty isn't the same thing as being hungry or thirsty.

My Reply: Right. A person needs to feel hungry or thirsty to be hungry or thirsty. So, it's our feelings that make us hungry, thirsty, sleepy, want, like, dislike, happy, sad, loving, caring, etc., and not our mindset alone.

Other Person's Response: Pain and pleasure are also feelings, and a person can't be in bodily pain or pleasure through his mindset alone.

My Reply: Right.

Other Person's Response: So, our mindset alone can't put us in a state of love, happiness, fear, sleepiness, fatigue, etc.?

My Reply: It can't. Neither can it put us in a state of mental turmoil or suffering. So, when a person has an emotionally traumatized mindset, then that mindset alone can't put him in a state of mental turmoil and agony. His mindset needs to make him emotionally traumatized in order for him to be in a state of mental turmoil and agony.

Other Person's Response: So, if I couldn't feel any emotions, and I had the mindset of something mattering to me, then that thing wouldn't matter to me?

My Reply: It wouldn't. That mindset needs to make you feel an emotion in regards to that thing in order for that thing to matter to you because the only way something can matter to us is through our emotions, and not through our mindset alone.

Other Person's Response: Emotions are transient, fleeting things. So, if a person relies on his emotions to be happy and to love others, then his happiness and love can never be everlasting.

My Reply: Right. But, my philosophy says that happiness and love can only be emotional states, since emotions are the only loving, happy, hateful, sad, frightened, etc. perspectives.

Other Person's Response: Happiness and love are positive emotions, right?

My Reply: Right.

Other Person's Response: In regards to the youtube link to that Buddhist video, if emotions were perspectives as you claim they are, then wouldn't it be obvious to those Buddhists? So, wouldn't the Buddhists not be treating emotions as trivial feelings?

My Reply: Many people, including Buddhists, trivialize emotions, and such a view of emotions blinds them to the fact that emotions are perspectives, have major significance in our lives, and aren't trivial feelings we should just passively observe. So, their view of emotions makes this fact not obvious to them.

Other Person's Response: When people have power over their emotions, and dismiss them as trivial things, then that will certainly blind them to the fact you've pointed out.

My Reply: Right.

Other Person's Response: If emotions made things matter to us, then it would be quite obvious to those Buddhists that their emotions make things matter to them.

My Reply: Again, they have a view of emotions that blinds them.

Other Person's Response: Those Buddhists have power over their emotions, and perhaps this is the reason why their emotions are nothing more than trivial feelings for them. But, for you, your emotions are perspectives and perceptions of good, bad, etc. that make people and things matter to you. Maybe that's because you don't have power over your emotions, and they instead have power over you.

My Reply: Well, there are many people, including me, who say that emotions are perspectives, perceptions of good, bad, etc., and that they're not trivial feelings.

Other Person's Response: You say that our emotions aren't trivial things, and that we'd be apathetic without our ability to feel emotions. As a matter of fact, there are many people who say this. Here's an example of a person who says this (it's a short article):

What if humans had no emotions?

In case people don't have internet access, or can't access that website, for whatever reason, I'll just post the article below:

What if humans had no emotions?

By Cassidy

I came upon my inspiration for this post during our class today. Our task was to simply state how we worked well and what we could improve amongst ourselves, however our discussion ventured far from that path. We emotionally argued about the existence of emotions, and I began to wonder if the ideal resolution would be to not have emotions. But what would that entail?

I feel that emotions are an intricate part of our lives, whether we realize it or not. A lot of people would recognize passion as the single most important element of life. What is passion driven by? If we are passionate certainly we are not void of emotion. What about marriage? Love is a common emotion that forms a foundation for many actions humans partake in from marriage and children to forming trust to bonds between teammates.

Let’s not forget that the little emotions are the great captains of our lives and we obey them without realizing it. ~Vincent Van Gogh, 1889

Vincent accurately describes how I view emotions. Their role in our lives is enormous and constant; an unconscious command.

Without emotions, our lives as humans would be void and pointless, with no motivation or inspiration to do great things. We would live in a dull world where nothing had meaning. Ambition would be not captured or understood and we would operate like robots or artificial intelligence.

Think of emotions as colour. All the neon and highlighter colours would turn into a grayscale. The world would seem black and white, figuratively and literally.

Literally our word would be black and white. Figuratively the world would lose meaning or purpose.

I looked online to see if my thoughts on emotions were far off from others, and I found a large collection of words on emotion in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. In it I found an interesting quote:

Descartes said it thus: “it is impossible for the soul to feel a passion without that passion being truly as one feels it.”

I understand this as passion being the rawest form of emotion. It's a form that only the keeper can interpret correctly. I think we underestimate the power of emotions in our daily lives and may even neglect them. We shouldn’t feel like emotions are a sign of weakness, we should think of it as a form of strength. They make us who we are, creating diversity between us all. I think that we don’t have emotions, emotions have us.

My Reply: In that article, it also talks about how emotions color our world. In this document, I say our emotions color our world in goodness, badness, beauty, horror, etc. My personal experience has led me to this conclusion, and, as it turns out, this article also comes to the conclusion that emotions are like colors.

 

[The Transcended Omniverse]

Other Person's Response: Here's the Stanford link to emotions:

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/emotion/#9

My Reply: Thanks for sharing.

Other Person's Response: If emotions were so vital, then why does god and the astral beings (heavenly beings) allow our emotions to be taken away from us? For example, traumatized people are often emotionally numb. So, why doesn't god or the astral beings just use their healing powers to cure their emotional numbness? There are also mental illnesses that render us without emotions, and I'm not sure why god or the astral beings don't heal said illnesses.

My Reply: I'm not sure. Perhaps god and the astral beings don't exist. If they do exist, then perhaps they're unloving, uncaring beings who don't care what happens to humanity.

Other Person's Response: According to your philosophy, it's the positive emotions we need. So, god or the astral beings should be using their healing powers to preserve them.

My Reply: Yes.

Other Person's Response: If god and the astral beings didn't feel anything in regards to humanity, then they'd be unloving and uncaring in regards to humanity. But, if they felt love and other emotions in regards to other things, such as other beings, then they'd be loving and caring in regards to those things.

My Reply: Yes.

Other Person's Response: We can't be happy as long as we're apathetic. Since we're apathetic without our emotions, then happiness can only be an emotion.

My Reply: Yes. The same idea applies to love, hate, fear, rage, compassion, sorrow, etc.

Other Person's Response: Is the only way a person can be apathetic is if he's not feeling any emotions?

My Reply: Yes.

Other Person's Response: In that article, it said we'd have no interest or passion without emotions. Love, hate, sorrow, fear, happiness, etc. also wouldn't exist without emotions.

My Reply: Right.

Other Person's Response: People who trivialize emotions, and claim love and happiness aren't emotions, could give you some very helpful advice that could change your philosophy to a better one.

My Reply: I've listened to such advice, and it didn't work at all for me. I've tried trivializing my own emotions, just getting on with life, regardless if I'm not in the mood to do things, living by what people claim to be a better view of love and happiness, etc., and none of it worked for me. In other words, none of it has changed my philosophy.

Other Person's Response: According to your philosophy, if a person was in a battlefield, and he felt the fear to run away, then he had the fearful perspective of wanting to run away. If he acted against this feeling/perspective by not running away and remaining in the battlefield to protect someone, then he was still a coward, since it's our emotional state (perspective) that determines whether we're cowardly, happy, sad, loving, hateful, caring, etc., and not our actions, deeds, tones, gestures, and expressions.

So, the fact he felt fear made him a coward, regardless of how bold and brave he behaved. Also, if a person felt happy (had a happy perspective), and he acted sad, then he was still happy. Just because he acted sad doesn't mean he was sad. Lastly, if a person didn't feel any emotion at all (had an apathetic perspective), and he acted like he cared about others, then he was still apathetic. Just because he acted caring doesn't mean he was caring.

My Reply: Right. So, we shouldn't judge based upon a person's acts, tones, and expressions. As a matter of fact, it's often the case that a person's acts, tones, and expressions can't be trusted. For example, a serial killer can act loving. But, that doesn't mean he's a loving individual. He could be trying to deceive people. Another example would be a depressed person who fakes a smile and acts happy, even though he's not happy.

Other Person's Response: If that serial killer changed as an individual, and had a loving mindset, then he'd be a loving individual if that loving mindset made him feel love?

My Reply: Yes. His loving mindset would've given him a loving, emotional experience (a loving perspective), and that's what would make him a loving individual.

Other Person's Response: Your philosophy says that a loving mindset alone can't give us a loving perspective because we can't love anyone (have a loving perspective) if nobody matters to us, and nobody can matter to us in the absence of our emotions. So, that means love has to be an emotion, and not a mindset.

My Reply: Right.

Other Person's Response: If love is an emotion, then that means there is no loving mindset because our mindset can't be love. So, if a person had the mindset of loving someone, then that wouldn't be a loving mindset.

My Reply: Right. Also, there are no loving acts, deeds, tones, or expressions because they're not love either. The same thing applies to fear, hate, sadness, etc.

Other Person's Response: Your philosophy also says there are no good, bad, beautiful, disgusting, etc. mindsets, acts, deeds, tones, or expressions because good, bad, etc. are emotions as well.

My Reply: Right. Actually, feeling good, bad, etc. about things is what makes those things good, bad, etc. I discuss more on this soon enough.

Other Person's Response: When we express our emotions, we're really expressing what's on the inside. So, if a person felt the fear to run away in a battlefield, and he expressed that fear, then he'd be running away, rather than staying to protect someone. So, he'd be expressing his inner cowardliness (his fear to run away). Even if he didn't express it by protecting someone, that inner cowardliness would still be there, motivating him to run away. So, he'd still be a coward, regardless if he protected someone. Here's another example. If someone felt childish emotions, such as the desire to whine and lash out, then he'd still be childish on the inside, regardless if he behaved in a mature manner by not acting out on said emotions. So, he'd still be childish, regardless of how mature he behaved. He just wouldn't be expressing his inner childishness.

My Reply: Correct. It's not our mindset, acts, deeds, tones, and expressions that define us. It's our emotions that do. That's why a person would still be a coward if he felt fear, even if he had a brave mindset and performed brave deeds, and that's why a person would still be childish if he felt childish emotions, even if he had a mature mindset and behaved maturely.

Other Person's Response: If a person had an apathetic mindset, then that can't make him apathetic if he's feeling emotions.

My Reply: Right. So, our mindset doesn't make us apathetic, cowardly, brave, happy, childish, mature, etc.

Other Person's Response: That means we couldn't have an apathetic, cowardly, childish, etc. mindset because apathy, cowardliness, childishness, etc. are emotional states, rather than mindsets. Of course, apathy wouldn't be an emotional state because it's a lack of emotion.

My Reply: Right. But, I still sometimes go outside my philosophical definition of apathy, cowardliness, childishness, etc., just for the sake of convenience. For example, I still say I'm a mature person in this document, even if I'm feeling childish emotions. That let's people know how I'm behaving in despite of feeling childish emotions.

Other Person's Response: So, you still sometimes refer to mindsets as being mature, childish, loving, hateful, happy, etc.?

My Reply: Yes. But, again, according to my philosophy, only our emotions are mature, childish, loving, etc.

Other Person's Response: According to your philosophy, braveness is also an emotional state because a person can't be brave if he's not feeling the desire to face his fear or protect someone.

My Reply: Right. A feeling of braveness is a brave perception, and a person can't be brave without that feeling/perception.

Other Person's Response: Fear is an automatic response that people can't help, since fear is there to protect us. So, does that mean people can't help but be cowards in threatening situations?

My Reply: Correct.

Other Person's Response: A person could have 2 mindsets going on at the same time: one happy and one sad. His happy mindset could make him feel happy, while his sad mindset doesn't make him feel sad yet.

My Reply: Right. He could have a happy mindset in regards to one thing, and a sad mindset in regards to another thing, but only feel happy for the time being.

Other Person's Response: It's possible he could have mixed emotions, where his happy mindset makes him feel happy, and his sad mindset makes him feel sad. That means he'd be feeling happiness and sadness at the same time.

My Reply: Right.

Other Person's Response: How is it possible to have mixed emotions?

My Reply: It would be like how we're already having mixed experiences as human beings, such as visuals with sounds, smell with taste, bodily pleasure with bodily pain, etc.

Other Person's Response: What if someone had a mix of childish and mature emotions?

My Reply: Then he'd be something like 70% childish and 30% mature. It all depends on the profoundness and intensity of these childish and mature emotions.

Other Person's Response: When something's not troubling or worrying you, do you normally always have pleasant dreams?

My Reply: Yes.

Other Person's Response: If these astral beings exist, then perhaps they didn't care if you were to live an Earthly life of suffering or not because, if they wanted you to continue suffering, then they would've made sure you didn't have the ability to recover from your emotional traumas. But, if they didn't want you to suffer, then they would've bestowed upon you the ability to fully recover instantly.

My Reply: Right.

 

[The Transcended Omniverse]

Other Person's Response: Perhaps these beings just wanted you to undergo some suffering here on Earth. Maybe that's why you have the ability to recover, but not the enhanced ability to fully recover instantly. If you had the enhanced recovery ability, then you'd immediately recover from your emotional traumas, which means you would've hardly suffered.

My Reply: Right. So, perhaps these beings wanted me to undergo a significant amount of suffering here on Earth, but not suffering that lasts my entire life.

Other Person's Response: There are people who struggle their entire lives with forms of suffering, whether it be chronic, physical pain, chronic, clinical depression, etc.

My Reply: Right. So, did these beings want these people to suffer their entire lives?

Other Person's Response: Some people fully recover from their chronic, physical pain or depression, while others have to live with it their entire lives. So, perhaps these beings just don't care if people suffer or not, and if they have to live with it their entire lives or not.

My Reply: Right.

Other Person's Response: Emotions can exist without empathy. But, empathy can't exist without emotions.

My Reply: Right.

Other Person's Response: If your mother died, then would you and your younger brother still take care of the cats?

My Reply: Yes. My mother wanted us to, after all.

Other Person's Response: Is the reason why you don't grieve when others die is because you know they'll be in a better, happier place (heaven)?

My Reply: No. I just don't care. Also, I'm undecided on the existence of the afterlife.

Other Person's Response: If you believed in heaven, then would you feel positive about the idea of your dead mother and pets going to heaven?

My Reply: Yes, actually. But, it would just be a brief moment of positivity before I get back to feeling positive about doing my hobbies. So, like I said, I really don't care that much about other people and animals.

Other Person's Response: There was actually a moment in your life where you were miserable because you were worried that you could've died from some health concern.

My Reply: Yes. But, that miserable moment has passed. From now on, if I ever have another health concern, then I don't think it would make me miserable, even if it was a very fatal one.

Other Person's Response: If someone suffered and died before your very eyes, you'd have an uncaring mindset, which would prevent you from grieving?

My Reply: Correct.

Other Person's Response: Your philosophy leaves you closed off to other views of good, bad, love, happiness, etc. So, consciously defining good, bad, etc. as something other than emotional states won't work for you, as long as you still subconsciously have this philosophy. In other words, your philosophy needs to change first before any other definition of good, bad, etc. can work for you.

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

Other Person's Response: When people are suicidal, how can you blame them for committing suicide? They have a suicidal perspective, which means they're in a suicidal state of mind, and the encouraging advice of others doesn't work to give them a positive perspective. Furthermore, god shouldn't blame or punish these people for having committed suicide. He should be an all-loving god who understands their suffering.

My Reply: Right. Now, those suicidal people can still act against their suicidal state by choosing to not commit suicide. But, it becomes very difficult to do so. Especially when one is very suicidal, and nothing works to give him a positive perspective, such as the perspective of seeing life as a precious, beautiful gift that should be lived to the fullest. I couldn't have such a perspective during my emotional traumas, no matter how hard I tried, and I had a suicidal perspective. But, I didn't commit suicide. Neither did I harm myself or others, even though I felt like doing so.

Other Person's Response: It's a fact that there's more good, bad, love, happiness, etc. to life than emotions, and you're just denying this fact.

My Reply: I don't even know if that's a fact or not, since it's controversial.

Other Person's Response: When someone internally role plays as a character, that's more than just a matter of seeing himself as a different character. That character is a part of him, and he becomes that character on the inside.

My Reply: Right. So, he becomes the awesome or loving power of that character on the inside.

Other Person's Response: A person can, without effort, see himself as a different character if he performs a gesture that this character would perform. That would immediately cause him to feel like he's that character.

My Reply: Yes.

Other Person's Response: When your mother feels rage, does she harm anyone?

My Reply: No. But, she will act enraged.

Other Person's Response: If you lived an eternally blissful life, then that means such a life can never consist of any negative emotions, such as feelings of boredom and insanity. So, that means you wouldn't be able to make yourself feel any negative emotions, even if you tried your hardest. You'd just be blissful for all of eternity.

My Reply: Right.

Other Person's Response: Love is both external and internal. For example, love can be seen externally as acts of aid and kindness for others. But, love is also internal, since a person could say: "I don't know how to express this love within me!" Another example of internal love would be if someone said: "I love her from the bottom of my heart!"

My Reply: The internal form of love would be an emotion, and I don't think there's an external form of love, since love doesn't exist in the physical world, which means it doesn't exist on the outside. It's what's on the inside that counts, and I think love, hate, happiness, good, bad, etc. only exist on the inside.

Other Person's Response: People say it's what's on the inside that counts, and not the outside. Since the outside doesn't matter, then that means there's no love, hate, happiness, good, bad, etc. on the outside.

My Reply: Right.

Other Person's Response: I heard that our souls acquire much knowledge and personal growth over many lifetimes, and that we just don't have access to said knowledge and growth here on Earth. So, when we're born into a new life, all that knowledge and growth still exists in the afterlife. But, it's absent to us here on Earth. Our soul has 2 parts: the higher self and the lower self. The lower self is the ego, and our higher (superior/divine) self exists in the afterlife, where it possess all that knowledge and growth we've obtained over multiple lives.

My Reply: But, why would that knowledge and growth be absent to us here on Earth? Also, there are near death experiences, where the souls of people travel to the afterlife, and it's said that souls reconnect with their higher self in that moment. But, souls still act ignorant and undeveloped in the afterlife, and I'm not sure why that is. You'd think they'd become intelligent and developed, since they're supposed to reconnect with their higher self.

Other Person's Response: According to your philosophy, what determines whether a person's lifestyle is no way to live or not is his perception, and not his actions, deeds, and contributions. So, as long as a person has a positive perception, then his way of life was positive, even if he lived as a lazy slob who contributed nothing to humanity. But, if a person had a very miserable, negative perception, and made many contributions to humanity, then that was no way to live or be an artist.

My Reply: Correct. Like I said, we need positive emotions (the positive perceptions), since they're the only positive things.

Other Person's Response: If a person had some positive and some negative emotions, then that means he had some positivity and some negativity in his life.

My Reply: Right. But, if he mostly had an absence of positive emotions, then that's mostly no way to live or be an artist.

Other Person's Response: In regards to mixed emotions, if someone felt good about something, and felt bad about another thing at the same time, then that means he had some goodness and some badness in his life.

My Reply: Right.

Other Person's Response: How is it possible to have mixed emotions?

My Reply: It would be like how we're already having mixed experiences as human beings, such as visuals with sounds, smell with taste, bodily pleasure with bodily pain, etc.

Other Person's Response: You say that some of your nightmares consist of scenes regarding this worry you're having. That shows your subconscious mind is still worried.

My Reply: Right. Once this subconscious worry has been resolved on its own (i.e., once I'm fully recovered from this emotional trauma), I don't think I'll have anymore nightmares.

Other Person's Response: Are feelings of might the only mighty things in life?

My Reply: Yes, since mighty means magnificent or awesome. Feelings of might make us mighty in our own mental universe, and they make things mighty in our mental universe as well.

Other Person's Response: Actually, there are 2 forms of mightiness and greatness. An example of the 1st form would be a great amount of money and a mighty quest (a grand quest). This form doesn't mean awesome, beautiful, or magnificent. But, the 2nd form, such as a mighty individual and a great person, would mean an awesome, beautiful, or magnificent individual/person.

My Reply: Right. The 1st form would be non-emotional, while the 2nd would be emotional.

 

[The Transcended Omniverse]

Other Person's Response: According to your philosophy, it would be better to feel nothing about ourselves than to feel negative about ourselves.

My Reply: Yes. But, it would be best to feel positive about ourselves, since that would be coloring us in positivity.

Other Person's Response: So, when a person feels horrified by something, he's perceiving and experiencing that thing as horrific, and that's horrific, according to your philosophy?

My Reply: Yes, since feelings of horror are the only horrific things.

Other Person's Response: There are people who claim happiness and love aren't emotions. Here's a link to an article that claims happiness isn't an emotion:

https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/am-i-right/201204/real-happiness-isnt-feeling

I'll post the article itself below:

Real Happiness Isn't a Feeling. Happiness Is The Overall State of a Life

By Arthur Dobrin, D.S.W.

William Blake wrote, "Fun I love, but too much fun is of all things the most loathsome. Mirth is better than fun, and happiness is better than mirth."

Today happiness is viewed as a mood, a feeling. This understanding isn't wrong as much as it is shortsighted, as implied by Blake.

Moods shift and feelings change. But true happiness is the accumulation of soul-sustaining relationships. While feeling happy may differ from day to day, if the over-all direction of your life has been in cultivating good relations, then you can be happy in the deeper and more permanent sense.

Modern conceptions of happiness are misleading because the focus is in the wrong place. In pre-modern and traditional societies, happiness came about because people were tied to something outside themselves. Connections to family, fellow citizens, and clan, actions performed and attitudes developed, and duties carried out were the constituent and necessary components of happiness.

In the pre-modern world there was no "self" or "personality" as we now conceive of it, an autonomous personality making self-referential decisions. A person was part of something else, not apart from it. There was a profound recognition that to be separated from others and the community was unsettling and inhuman. Short of death, nothing was worse than being shunned or sent into exile.

Religious excommunication served the same purpose: people were removed from their religious moorings, being put outside the community and unable to partake in religious necessities. Even today the most severe punishment, short of torture or execution, is solitary confinement. Humans are born into a community and from that community they are formed. In this sense, society is prior to the individual, both temporally and psychologically.

Every human inherits a culture, with all its written and unwritten rules, and lives in a story written by predecessors. This isn't to deny a common moral heritage by suggesting that humans are nothing more than creatures of socialization and historical circumstances, but it is to say that loneliness, isolation, and alienation are antithetical to happiness.

Here's a link to an article that claims love isn't an emotion:

https://karlamclaren.com/why-love-is-not-an-emotion/

I'll post the article itself below:

Is Love an Emotion?

By Karla McLaren

Every emotion has a purpose

Emotions are essential aspects of your awareness, your intelligence, your social skills, and your ability to communicate — and each one has a specific purpose.

Every emotion has a specific function and a specific action for you to complete so that it can move on and make room for your next emotion, your next thought, and your next idea. As we explore emotions as distinct and separate entities that require unique responses, I thought you might like to get an empathic sense for emotions by looking at something that isn’t an emotion: Love.

Why love is not an emotion

When an emotion is healthy, it arises only when it’s needed, it shifts and changes in response to its environment, and it recedes willingly once it has addressed an issue. When love is healthy, it does none of these things.

If emotions repeat themselves endlessly, or appear with the same exact intensity over and over again, then something’s wrong. Yet real love is a steadfast promise that repeats itself endlessly through life and beyond death. Love does not increase or decrease in response to its environment, and it does not change with the changing winds. Love is not an emotion; it doesn’t behave the way emotions do. Real love is in a category of its own.

Those things we’ve learned to equate with love—the longing, the physical attraction, the shared hobbies, the desire, the yearning, the lust, the projections, the addictive cycles, the passions—those things move and change and fluctuate in the way emotions do, but they’re not love, because love is utterly stable and utterly unaffected by any emotion. When we love truly, we can experience all our free-flowing, mood state, and intense emotions (including fear, rage, hatred, grief, and shame) while continuing to love and honor our loved ones. Love isn’t the opposite of fear, or anger, or any other emotion. Love is much, much deeper than that.

Yet for some people, love is really just adoration, which is merely a form of bright-shadow projection (see my work on the shadow). These love-struck people find the person who best typifies their unlived shadow material—good and bad—and live in a sort of trance with them. Though I wouldn’t call that sad game love, it’s what passes for love in many relationships: You find someone who can act out your unlived material, attach yourself to them, and enter into a haunted carnival ride of moods and desires. When the projections fall, and you see your adoration target for who he or she truly is, you become disillusioned and try to reattach your projections or even seek another person to project onto.

But that’s not love, because real love doesn’t play games with other people’s souls, and it doesn’t depend upon what you can project onto your partner, or what you can get out of the relationship. Real love is a prayer and a deathless promise: an unwavering dedication to the soul of your loved one and to the soul of the world. Emotions and desires can come and go as they please, and circumstances can change in startling ways, but real love never wavers. Real love endures all emotions – and it survives trauma, betrayal, divorce, and even death.

The truth about love is this: Love is constant; only the names change. Love doesn’t just restrict itself to romantic relationships. Love is everywhere – in the hug of a child, in the concern of a friend, in the center of your family, and in the hearts of your pets. When you’re lost and you can’t seem to find love anywhere, you’re actually listening to love in human language, instead of listening to the language of love. Love is constant; it’s not an emotion.

If you want to explore love as an emotion, you’ll have to read a book by someone who wasn’t raised by animals and isn’t an empath – because I sense a visceral difference between love and emotion. I can be furious with people I love, frightened of them, and utterly disappointed in them, but the love never wavers. If my loved ones are too damaged or dissimilar for our relationship to work, I don’t stay with them (and I don’t let them keep my credit cards!), but I don’t stop loving them.

Love for me lives in a realm far deeper than the emotions, and in that deep and rich place, words don’t carry a lot of meaning. So I’ll let words about love fall into the meaningful silence all around us, and we’ll move on.

(from The Language of Emotions: What Your Feelings Are Trying to Tell You, Karla McLaren, 2010)

My Reply: Thanks for sharing. But, just to let you know, none of these articles have changed my philosophy. I think it's going to take a powerful, life-changing experience in order to change my philosophy (that is, if my philosophy can change).

Other Person's Response: You said you've had much mental turmoil and agony throughout your life, since you've been emotionally traumatized by a lot of thoughts and worries. You've learned through these struggles just how vital and necessary positive emotions are, that love and happiness can only be positive emotions, and that having an absence of positive emotions is no way to live or be an artist. I think you should've learned a better life lesson from your struggles than this (such as the life lessons those articles teach).

My Reply: Well, this is the life lesson I've learned instead, and that's just the way it is.

Other Person's Response: I realize your philosophy says that positive emotions are the only good, beautiful, and amazing things in life.

My Reply: Yes.

Other Person's Response: I'm just curious, did you have a different philosophy in the past, but then converted over to this limiting, self-defeating, emotional philosophy you have now?

My Reply: No. I've always had this same philosophy. In the past, I was open-minded to the possibility that love and happiness were more than just positive emotions, and that positive emotions weren't the only good, beautiful, and amazing things in life. So, I still had the same philosophy in the past, but was open-minded to other philosophies. But, my struggles have strengthened/reinforced my philosophy, and made me less open to other philosophies.

Other Person's Response: Did you have this same philosophy, even as a very young child?

My Reply: Yes. I even had it as a baby. Of course, back then, I didn't know how to explain my philosophy, since I was just a baby and child, and neither did I have the desire to explain it. I just lived my life back then, feeling positive emotions from the things I loved to do, and those positive emotions have always been like a holy light in my life, since they were the very positivity in my life. It's later on, as an adult, that I was able to articulate my philosophy in this very document.

Other Person's Response: So, when you were a young child, you realized the importance of emotions. But, when you wasn't in the mood to do something, and refused to do it, your parents would frown upon you and tell you to do those things, even when you weren't in the mood to do them?

My Reply: Yes. But, they didn't realize that it's our emotional state (mood) that's important in life, and not our duties by themselves. I couldn't explain why back then. But, now I'm able to. So, I can share this document to my parents to give them insight regarding the importance of emotions.

 

[The Transcended Omniverse]

Other Person's Response: You still do certain tasks as an adult, even when you're not in the mood to do them, right?

My Reply: Right. But, that's no way to do tasks. So, we need to be in the mood to do them. To be more specific, we need to be in a positive mood to do them, since we need the positive emotions.

Other Person's Response: You've had much emotional trauma during your life. It wasn't caused by abuse, since you live with kind, loving parents. It was caused by certain thoughts and worries. You say that positive emotions are like the holy light in your life, and that your ability to feel positive emotions has been shut off during your emotional traumas. So, that means these emotional traumas have shunned out the holy light in your life.

My Reply: Yes, and that was no way to live. Having an absence of positive emotions is no way to live or be an artist, even if we're giving to others and making them feel positive emotions. So, that means life's all about our own positive emotions, which means we must feel positive when giving to others and making them feel positive.

Other Person's Response: If Jake felt positive about making Jon feel positive, then that means making Jon feel positive did matter to Jake.

My Reply: Yes. But, if Jake had no ability to feel emotions, and he made Jon feel positive, then making Jon feel positive wouldn't have mattered to Jake, since nothing can matter to us in the absence of our emotions.

Other Person's Response: I'm going to quote something from one of those articles and respond to it:

In the pre-modern world there was no "self" or "personality" as we now conceive of it

There are people, such as Buddhists, who say the individual self is illusory (doesn't exist). So, you can just stop being selfish and seeking positive emotions because you, as an individual, don't even exist.

My Reply: Even if it's the case we're all one (interconnected) as some religious believers claim, I still think the individual self exists because we still have individual bodies, personalities, experiences, etc.

Other Person's Response: It's said that the self doesn't exist. But, if we should treat ourselves as though we don't exist, then we should treat others as though they don't exist, which means we shouldn't even address them, or care if they suffer.

My Reply: Right. So, if we should treat our own selves as though they don't exist, then we should treat other selves as though they don't exist.

Other Person's Response: I think that even babies are selfish, even without having been taught the notion of self because they cry when they don't get what they want. The same thing applies to wild animals.

My Reply: Right.

Other Person's Response: Some religious believers say that consciousness is one. But, we still have individual, conscious experiences. For example, one person could be in a state of grief, while another person is in a state of bliss.

My Reply: Right. So, the individual self and individual consciousness still exists.

Other Person's Response: A person can realize he's interconnected with others and one with the universe, but still be selfish because he also realizes that he's an individual soul/personality who has his own likes, dislikes, passions, and desires.

My Reply: Yes. It's said that god is consciousness, and that he has split himself up into individual forms of consciousness (animals and humans). So, even though we, as conscious beings, are all one because we're all god himself, we're still unique individuals who have our own goals, desires, passions, etc. Thus, we can still be selfish and detached from one another, even if we realize that we're all one and interconnected.

Other Person's Response: So, a person could say: "I realize you and I are one and interconnected. But, personally, I don't like you and I don't give a damn about you. I'm still going to be selfish and steal from you!"

My Reply: Yes.

Other Person's Response: There are 2 forms of connection: 1.) the interconnectedness we have as human beings, since we're all god himself. 2.) the personal connection we have with our friends, family, animals, etc. #1 can exist in the absence of #2. So, a person can be personally detached from his family because he doesn't care about them, even while realizing #1.

My Reply: Right. So, the absence of #2 doesn't contradict the existence of #1. Just because #1 exists doesn't mean #2 should exist.

Other Person's Response: You seem like a religious believer, since you seem convinced that we're all god himself.

My Reply: Actually, I'm undecided on the existence of god, the paranormal, the afterlife, etc. I just gave the impression that I was convinced of the existence of those things.

Other Person's Response: If there was an anime character who was selfless and loving, and there was a person in real life who was arrogant and selfish, then that person could look at the image of that anime character, and create an arrogant, selfish version of that character in his own mind. He could then embrace this new version of the character as a part of himself, and internally become that character.

My Reply: Yes. So, he could make himself feel like that character, and make himself feel motivated to act like that character at the same time. So, it would be like 2 feelings in one.

Other Person's Response: When there are actors who act like different characters, they feel like those characters and feel motivated to act like them.

My Reply: Yes. So, they become those characters on the inside.

Other Person's Response: I heard you're autistic. Some autistic people lack concern and empathy towards others, due to their autism. Also, sociopaths lack concern and empathy as well, due to their mental condition. So, I think your autism is the reason why you're not bothered by the death and suffering of others.

My Reply: You could be right. My autism could be the reason why I'm not attached to people and animals.

Other Person's Response: A mental disability or illness will affect people differently. For example, someone who has schizophrenia will have visual hallucinations, while another person who has schizophrenia won't. So, autism affects people differently as well, which means it affects brains differently. That's why one autistic person would be very caring, empathetic, and attached to others, while another person with autism wouldn't be.

My Reply: Right.

Other Person's Response: Why were the negative emotions in your nightmares much more consuming than the ones in your waking life?

My Reply: It might be because the emotional regions of the brain become more dominant during dreams and nightmares.

Other Person's Response: According to your philosophy, there's nothing worse than feeling negative emotions.

My Reply: Right.

Other Person's Response: What was the health concern that made you miserable?

My Reply: When I had symptoms of a urinary tract infection, I got chills and my heart rate was very high. But, that went away on its own. The doctors didn't know what caused it. They didn't detect any infection, and neither did they detect an STD (which is what they also tested me for). I don't have a wife, girlfriend, or have sex with anyone. So, there's no reason why I should have an STD anyway.

Other Person's Response: Let's pretend there was no way you could preserve your gaming progress by recording it. Would you still play those adventure games, such as the Mario and Zelda games?

My Reply: No, because all my progress would just be wasted, given that I'd have to delete my completed files and start over without being able to record. By having my progress backed up online, not only would my progress be preserved, but it's possible one day that people will have the ability to instantly download a vast amount of information from all over the internet into their brains, including youtube videos. That means my progress would also be backed up in the brains of other people, since these brains would be aware of my progress.

Other Person's Response: Do you think your gaming progress will remain on youtube long enough for an invention to be made that allows people to download vast amounts of information from the internet into their brains?

My Reply: Well, youtube videos do remain on youtube. The only way they get taken down would be if they violate the youtube rules, and my videos don't violate those rules.

Other Person's Response: Well, youtube might get taken down someday, which means all your videos would be gone. So, when you die, your progress would be backed up for a while. But, then it would all be gone.

My Reply: Right. But, is it possible an invention would be made that allows all information on the internet to be permanently preserved somewhere else? So, before youtube gets taken down, all my videos could be preserved in some sort of permanent database. This database would contain a permanent backup of all information online (such as articles, discussions on forums, etc.), and it would be like having a backup of information from your computer on a cd.

Other Person's Response: So, people could download all the information from this database into their brains?

My Reply: Yes. But, as for information, such as passwords, that wouldn't be a good idea.

Other Person's Response: People could also download all your documents into their brains from that database, in addition to your gaming progress.

My Reply: Yes.

Other Person's Response: Let's pretend your documents and gaming progress could be preserved in that database, but people could never gain access to that information, which means they could never download that information into their brains. Would you be satisfied with the fact that your information has been preserved?

My Reply: No. I want people to be aware of this information, which means I'd want that information downloaded into people's brains.

 

[The Transcended Omniverse]

Other Person's Response: So, you'd want people to be aware of your gaming progess because they'd be aware of all the items you've collected, all the adventure you've done, and all the hard work, time, and effort you've put in?

My Reply: Yes.

Other Person's Response: You said you're no longer playing video games, and that you've switched over to composing as a new hobby. So, that means you no longer care about playing video games, having your progress backed up, and having it downloaded into people's brains in the future.

My Reply: That's correct. But, I do care about my documents being preserved and downloaded into people's brains. After all, my philosophy is something very important to me, and is a message to the world. The same thing applies to my other documents.

Other Person's Response: If you compose some awesome music in the future, then that music could be downloaded into people's brains in the future as well.

My Reply: Right. My music might remain on soundcloud and youtube long enough for that to happen. But, as I said before, my goal as a composer is to feel positive emotions from my music being praised. If I'm dead, I can no longer feel positive emotions. So, it's not important to me that my music gets backed up in some database and gets downloaded into people's brains in the future when I'm dead. But, as for my documents, I'd want the world to be aware of them when I'm dead because they're a message to the world. The same thing would apply to my gaming progress if I was still a gamer. But, like I said, I'm no longer a gamer.

Other Person's Response: Are you sure you wouldn't want your music to be preserved and downloaded into people's brains when you're dead?

My Reply: Actually, I would because it would be a good idea, even though it's not that important to me.

Other Person's Response: So, your goal as a composer is to live as long as you can, so you can feel as much positive emotions as you can from people praising your music?

My Reply: Yes.

Other Person's Response: That database you've talked about already exists in the afterlife because there's a realm of knowledge in the afterlife that permanently contains everything that's known and will ever be known, whether it be articles on the internet, the deeds we've done in life, knowledge of math, science, etc. So, a copy of all your documents are in that realm now, even as we speak. In addition, any awesome music you've yet to compose is already there in that realm as well, and souls in the afterlife can choose to have information in this realm downloaded into them, which means they can be aware of your documents and music.

My Reply: But, I don't know if the afterlife even exists. If it does, and that realm of knowledge does exist, then there'd be no need for me to be a composer because, after my physical body dies, I, as a soul, can just watch other souls download my music from that realm and praise said music, while I feel positive emotions from witnessing their praise. I could also meet other souls who've already downloaded my music a long time ago, and I could feel positive emotions from them praising my music. But, since I don't know if the afterlife and that realm exist or not, then I'm pursuing composing, which means I'm still going to compose awesome music, even though said music might or might not already be there in that realm. The same thing applies to my documents. I'm still choosing to write these documents, even though it's possible they already exist in that realm.

Other Person's Response: If you're unable to express what you want to express to the audience through compositions, then it's because your way of looking at your compositions is completely different than the audience's way of looking at them. For example, if you were to make a certain composition that you think conveys a certain scene, but the audience thinks it conveys a completely different scene, then your way of thinking about music would be completely different than the audience's way of thinking.

My Reply: Right. But, I know that when I listen to certain types of music, I think it conveys a certain scene or mood, and many people do agree it conveys that scene or mood. So, I do share a common thought process with the audience on some level regarding music. Therefore, maybe I'll share a common thought process with the audience regarding good compositions I make in the future. In other words, perhaps I'll end up making good compositions that both me and the audience thinks conveys a certain scene, moment, character, etc.

Other Person's Response: When composing music, make sure that the feelings you've channeled to create compositions don't get confused with the feelings those compositions actually convey. In other words, don't let the channeled feelings blind you from realizing the feelings those compositions actually convey. So, if you've channeled a feeling of joyful kindness to create a composition you thought conveyed that feeling, then make sure this composition actually conveys that feeling.

My Reply: Right. Our emotions do sometimes blind us from realizing the truth. For example, if a person channeled a powerful, great emotion into creating a composition he thought conveyed something powerful and great, then that composition might not be conveying anything powerful or great. So, just because a composer channels an awesome feeling into creating compositions doesn't mean those compositions will be awesome.

Other Person's Response: If you felt a certain way about a person's views, opinions, desires, etc., then they'd matter to you.

My Reply: Right. For example, if someone gave me a compliment, and it was his opinion, then I'd normally feel good about that, which means this person's compliment did matter to me.

Other Person's Response: You said you only help others to get what you want, such as if you had to do work for someone in order to earn the money you needed to buy something you wanted. You don't go out of your way to help people for the sake of being a kind, helpful human being. But, there are times where your mother wants you to help others because she has compassion for them. For example, if she noticed someone who needed help, she'd want you to help that person, and if she noticed someone who needed money, then she'd ask you to give a little bit of money to that person. Do you obey her, or do you refuse to help those people?

My Reply: I obey her because she'd get upset at me if I didn't, and neither would she help me out when I need help. So, that's the only reason why I obey her. But, if she was completely accepting of me disobeying her, then I'd disobey her. In other words, if my mother made it an optional situation, rather than a mandatory situation to help people, then I'd choose not to help people. Like I said, helping others out of the kindness of my own heart isn't one of my interests and passions in life. So, that's why I'd choose not to help others if I didn't need to.

Other Person's Response: I realize you don't care about many things, including helping others.

My Reply: Right. I'm a casual person who just lives to enjoy his hobbies, and doesn't care about becoming an intelligent person, helping others, watching sports or the news, etc.

Other Person's Response: When you don't care about helping people, is it in a cruel, hateful, angry manner?

My Reply: No. It's in a casual manner. But, if I was having an emotional trauma, then it would be in a cruel, hateful, angry manner (even though I don't express it, lest my mother get upset at me). Remember, during an emotional trauma, I feel all sorts of negative emotions, such as hate, anger, etc., and I can't help but feel such emotions.

Other Person's Response: You say that, when you're happy and doing just fine, you do normally feel positive while doing activities, such as helping others when your mother wants you to. But, since you don't really care about helping others, then that must mean you don't feel the positive desire to help those people. So, the positive emotion you must be feeling instead would be something, such as: "It's a nice day today, and I enjoy strolling along while in the process of helping this person."

My Reply: Right. So, when I help others when my mother asks me to, I do so while feeling positive in regards to other things besides helping these people. Sometimes, I would feel the positive desire to help people, and I would sometimes feel positive that I helped people and made them happy. But, since helping others isn't really my passion, then I don't feel that way very often. I mostly feel positive in regards to other things besides helping others and making them happy. So, that means I don't care much about helping others and making them happy.

Other Person's Response: You said you don't think it's necessary to go out of your way to help others. But, since your mother sometimes expects you to help others, then do you think that makes her a slave driver?

My Reply: If she was dominating my life by expecting me to do a lot of unnecessary things, then that would definitely make her a slave driver.

Other Person's Response: Does your mother expect you to dedicate your life to being a helpful member of the community, or does she just expect you to dedicate a brief moment of your time to helping people every now and then?

My Reply: It's the latter.

Other Person's Response: I heard there are some things you can understand, and said things are written in an intelligent manner that's not meant for dummies.

My Reply: Yes. But, like I said, there aren't many things I'm able to understand.

Other Person's Response: If it turns out you're just not talented at composing music, then you said you're not going to pursue another field of art, such as writing, even though many people have told you that you're a talented writer.

My Reply: That's right. I'm not interested in pursuing any other field of art besides composing. So, I'd just go back to my hobby of playing video games if it turns out I'm not talented at composing. But, I've yet to discover if I can be talented at composing because, as of now, I'm learning how to compose. Once I fully learn how to compose, that's when I'll find out if I have a talent for composing awesome, memorable music that expresses the profound, dramatic, otherworldly feelings I want to express.

Other Person's Response: Are you talented at playing video games?

My Reply: I'm moderately talented, which means I'm not one of the best players out there.

 

[The Transcended Omniverse]

Other Person's Response: If you were naturally creating awesome music in your head, then the beings can either take that music out of your head and share it to audiences of souls in the afterlife, or they could compose music for you. I don't think you've created entire songs in your head, which means these beings would just be taking short portions of music out of your head. So, I think it would be best if they composed entire songs for you and shared them.

My Reply: Right. I've only created short portions of music in my head, and not entire songs. Even if I forgot those portions of music, they're still stored as a subconscious memory, and the beings could take those memories and extract those portions of music. But, like you said, it would be better if they composed entire songs for me. Also, since they're transcended, powerful beings, then they could actually compose music that's much better than any music I could make in my own head.

Other Person's Response: If someone were to dial a number for you at a rhythmic pace, then you could hear the individual numbers (notes) being pressed. But, would you think that dialed number is a good, meaningful melody that conveys a certain scene or character? If so, then I think you'd be incorrect because, musically speaking, it would be a meaningless, rubbish melody. It doesn't qualify as a good, meaningful melody in terms of music theory. When making melodies, not only must they adhere to a rhythm, but they can't be randomly chosen notes. Dialed numbers are randomly chosen notes, and that's why they're not good, meaningful melodies. But, if you've been thinking they're good, meaningful melodies, then perhaps the melodies you've created in your mind are also meaningless, rubbish melodies that you think are meaningful and good.

My Reply: I'm not sure if I've ever thought that way in regards to dialed numbers. Even if I did, that still doesn't dismiss the possibility that I'm naturally creating awesome, meaningful melodies in my mind.

Other Person's Response: Even if you had a very significant likelihood of dying, and it was unknown when you'd die, then you might as well go through with trying to achieve your composing dream anyway because you could achieve this dream long before or shortly before you die.

My Reply: Right. But, it's possible I'd die before achieving this dream. That's unknown, though. So, I might as well try to achieve my composing dream anyway.

Other Person's Response: If you can't fully understand music theory and composition, no matter how hard you try, then you might as well ask those beings in the afterlife to compose some music for you, as was pointed out earlier.

My Reply: Right.

Other Person's Response: When transcribing the melodies in your mind, you could either do it by singing or finding the right notes on an instrument.

My Reply: Yes. Even though I'm not a good singer at all, since I've never taken singing lessons, it's easier for me to sing the melodies. When I'm using an instrument, such as an online, piano keyboard, it's difficult for me to find the correct notes I'm hearing in my mind. So, getting the melodies right on an instrument just doesn't come naturally to me, which means it would take a long time for me to do so. But, it comes naturally to me through singing. Again, the sung melodies still won't perfectly match with the real melodies in my mind. But, at least it's an easier task for me to transcribe melodies through singing than on an instrument.

Other Person's Response: You make wise decisions based upon knowledge of solid facts. For example, you know it's a fact that living an unhealthy lifestyle will put you at high risk of dying. So, that's why you live a healthy lifestyle, and that's a wise decision. But, when it comes to controversial topics, that's when you make unwise decisions because you don't know the truth in regards to these topics. For example, you should be taking vaccines. But, you don't know whether you should or shouldn't be taking them, given that there are people who are pro-vaccine and anti-vaccine. So, that puts you in a position where you must decide whether or not you're going to take vaccines, even though you don't know whether you should or shouldn't be taking them. You've chosen to not take them, and that's an unwise decision you're unaware is unwise.

My Reply: Like I said, if there is truth to be discovered in regards to controversial topics, then I don't think I'm intellectually capable of discovering said truth. It takes a very intelligent, intellectually capable person to do so, and I'm not that type of person. Nor do I think I'll ever be that person. Given this, I'll just have to make many decisions in my life that are based upon ignorance (such as deciding whether or not I'm going to take vaccines, not knowing if I should or shouldn't be taking them).

Other Person's Response: You said you're not interested in becoming an intelligent, intellectually capable person who's able to make decisions based upon knowledge. Your only interest is musical composition, you wish to dedicate all your time to becoming a good composer, and you don't want to dedicate your time to other endeavors, such as gaining knowledge, helping others in the community, etc.

My Reply: Right. I only pursue my own interests and passions. So, I only dedicate my time to things I'm interested in doing. But, I'd have to dedicate a little bit of my time to things I'd have to do, such as helping my mother when she needs my help. Becoming knowledgeable in different subjects or becoming a helpful member in the community isn't something I have to do, which is why I don't dedicate any of my time to doing so. It's completely optional and not mandatory because growing as an individual is optional. So, a person doesn't need to become more intelligent, giving, compassionate, or helpful if he doesn't want to.

Other Person's Response: Well, there is one subject you wish to become knowledgeable in, and that would be composing.

My Reply: Yes. I wish to know how to compose awesome music.

Other Person's Response: There are certain things you need to learn, though, such as how to take care of yourself and the cats when your mother is gone.

My Reply: Yes. So, these are things I do need to become knowledgeable in.

Other Person's Response: There are people who aren't very intelligent or intellectually capable. But, they said they've discovered the truth in regards to controversial topics. So, I think you're wrong when you say that it takes a very intelligent, intellectually capable person to discover the truth in regards to controversial topics.

My Reply: But, these people might just be thinking they've discovered the truth, when they really haven't. In which case, these people wouldn't have been enlightened to the truth, and they just think they've been enlightened.

Other Person's Response: What if it's the case that everyone who thinks they've discovered the truth in regards to controversial topics are just people who think they've been enlightened to the truth, when they really haven't?

My Reply: That could be the case. Like I said, perhaps people just think they know the truth in regards to controversial topics, when they really don't.

Other Person's Response: You said you live to pursue your own interests and passions. That's an unloving sin, according to Christianity, because we're supposed to live in obedience to the Lord, rather than turning our backs on him and going our own way in life.

My Reply: Well, Christianity is controversial, which means I'll never know if god and Jesus exist or not, and if I'm living a sinful lifestyle or not. But, I've decided to go my own way in life, despite not knowing.

Other Person's Response: If god and Jesus do exist, and they're all-loving beings, then I'm sure they'd be completely accepting of your lifestyle, and wouldn't condemn you to hell.

My Reply: Right. But, if they're unloving beings, then they might condemn me because I wasn't living my life in obedience to them. As a matter of fact, they might even condemn me for not being convinced of their existence, which means my inability to know the truth of their existence wouldn't be an excuse that would get me off the hook. After all, it's said that nonbelievers are condemned to hell, according to fundamentalist Christianity, regardless if the person's lack of belief wasn't his/her fault. So, even people in different areas of the world, who don't believe in god or Jesus, would be condemned to hell, even though their lack of belief wasn't their fault. Therefore, even if I did live the Christian life by obeying the Lord, I might to go to hell anyway because I'm not convinced of Christianity, god, or Jesus.

Other Person's Response: But, by living the Christian life, you'll eventually find faith in god and Jesus.

My Reply: There are people who live the Christian life in hopes that they'll believe in the existence of god and Jesus, but don't. So, even if I lived by the bible my entire life, I might still be a nonbeliever who'd be condemned to hell.

Other Person's Response: It's controversial as to whether a person goes to hell or not, simply because he was a nonbeliever. Some Christians would say nonbelievers would make it to heaven, as long as they obey the Lord.

My Reply: Right. But, if someone isn't convinced of Christianity, then that makes it much more unlikely that he's going to obey the Lord in the first place. Why obey a god whose existence you're not convinced of?

Other Person's Response: There are people who believe in a god who doesn't condemn anyone. But, if that god doesn't exist, and it's instead this condemning, Christian god who exists, then how do you expect those people to obey this Christian god, when they instead believe in a god who doesn't condemn?

My Reply: Exactly.

Other Person's Response: I realize you don't want to dedicate your life to other endeavors besides composing. That means you wouldn't want to live the Christian life by going to church, obeying the Lord, resting on the Sabbath, etc. But, if you somehow ended up being convinced of Christianity, then would you live the Christian life, knowing that you'd go to hell if you don't?

My Reply: I would because I'd want to avoid eternal suffering in hell, and make it to heaven, where I can be blissful. After all, positive emotions are the only positive, holy experiences in life, and bliss is an intense, positive, holy experience. So, I wouldn't want to miss out on heavenly bliss.

Other Person's Response: You've already had enough suffering here on Earth as it is, since you've had many emotional traumas. So, you'd definitely want to avoid the worst possible torment in hell.

My Reply: Right.

Other Person's Response: If you've chosen to live the Christian life for a selfish purpose (such as to be blissful in heaven), then you won't make it to heaven. You'd be condemned to hell.

My Reply: In which case, I'd just have to try my best to live the Christian life for a selfless purpose (that is, if I was convinced of Christianity).

 

[The Transcended Omniverse]

Other Person's Response: When people live the Christian life in order to avoid hell, that's a selfish purpose because they think of themselves and how horrible it would be for them to suffer an eternity. But, this selfishness eventually gets them to the point where they're Christians for a selfless reason now, which would be to love the Lord and obey him. So, sometimes in life, selfishness is required to get us to a point of selflessness. If it weren't for the selfish incentive of avoiding hell, then many people wouldn't be loving, selfless, obedient Christians. Instead, many people who are convinced of Christianity would choose to live selfish lives, and not obey the Lord, knowing that they won't be condemned to hell or given any divine punishment.

My Reply: Right.

Other Person's Response: Many Christians would say that god has bestowed the knowledge upon us that he exists. So, these Christians would say to you that you already know god exists, that you already know you'll end up in hell if you don't obey him, and that you're just dismissing such knowledge. In other words, you act like you don't know, when you really know.

My Reply: I can assure you I don't have such knowledge at all. I really don't know if god and hell exist or not. If I knew, then I'd be very frantic right now to avoid hell, and I'd be living the Christian life. Since I don't know, then that's why I'm not frantic at all, that's why I'm not living the Christian life, and that's why I'm so casual when discussing Christianity.

Other Person's Response: For someone who's undecided in regards to controversial topics, you sure do seem convinced of your philosophy of emotions (which is controversial), as well as your claim that our brains are naturally capable of creating great works of art in our minds (which is also controversial). So, perhaps it's the case you do have some level of conviction.

My Reply: That could be.

Other Person's Response: You act as though you're convinced of your philosophy, as well as your claim. But, at the same time, you act undecided in regards to your philosophy and claim, given that you've written this entire document that talks about how you're undecided in regards to controversial topics. So, that shows you're not completely convinced of your philosophy and claim.

My Reply: Right.

Other Person's Response: In regards to your claim, you discuss that in another document, don't you?

My Reply: Yes.

Other Person's Response: In regards to Christianity, perhaps you have some level of conviction that it's false dogma, and that conviction is what's keeping you in a casual state of mind regarding hell because you're convinced you're not going to go there.

My Reply: Perhaps I do have some level of conviction. If I was completely undecided in regards to Christianity, I might be having a somewhat worried attitude that I could end up in hell, rather than this casual attitude.

Other Person's Response: If you were completely undecided in regards to Christianity, then you might not be worried at all about going to hell. So, it could only be when you have some level of conviction in Christianity that you'd be worried about going to hell.

My Reply: You could be right.

Other Person's Response: I realize you did read up about Christianity at one point, and you did become worried that you could end up in hell if you don't obey the Lord. So, you might've had some level of conviction in Christianity at one point. You weren't completely convinced of Christianity. But, you just had a little bit of conviction.

My Reply: That could've been. But, I did read other material later on about a god who doesn't judge or condemn (the near death experience literature), and I think that eased my mind.

Other Person's Response: Actually, there is a god who punishes people who commit suicide. I'm not talking about the Christian god. It was the god in the near death experience literature you were talking about in your previous document.

My Reply: Right. But, I wasn't going to commit suicide, even though I've had many struggles. So, reading about this god didn't worry me. But, if I was going to commit suicide, then I'm sure I'd start to be worried because I'd be worried about the possibility of being punished. The same thing applies to the Christian god because he also delivers punishment to those who commit suicide.

Other Person's Response: So, there are different gods: a god who doesn't judge or condemn, a god who does judge and condemn (but isn't the Christian god), and the Christian god who's one of the most judgmental, condemning gods.

My Reply: Right.

Other Person's Response: In regards to the doctrine of hell, that doctrine was invented by the church to evoke fear. So, that's a false doctrine. Fundamentalist Christianity preaches this doctrine, while Christianity doesn't.

My Reply: But, again, it's controversial as to whether god does punish people with hell or not, which means I'm not entirely sure.

Other Person's Response: Even if you didn't read about that god who doesn't judge or punish to ease your mind, your mind would've been eased on its own over time anyway because your troubled mind was an emotional state, and emotions desensitize.

My Reply: Right. I would've recovered from that state of tribulation, just as how I've recovered from my emotional traumas. By the way, that state of tribulation regarding hell wasn't an emotional trauma. I was just a bit troubled, but not traumatized. Since that state of tribulation wasn't that bad at all, then I think it would've only lasted for 1 day, and would be completely gone on its own. Once it's gone, then I'd no longer be bothered by the possibility of going to hell.

Other Person's Response: In regards to your emotional traumas, I heard that your worst emotional trauma (your recent one) has taken 4 years to fully recover from, and that your other emotional traumas took much less time to fully recover from (such as a few months), since they weren't as bad.

My Reply: Right.

Other Person's Response: You said it could be the case that we don't know the truth in regards to controversial topics. So, why did you have some level of conviction regarding your philosophy, claim, and hell?

My Reply: It's because I couldn't help but have this level of conviction (that is, if I was having some level of conviction, which I probably was, given that I felt worried about going to hell, and felt optimistic about my philosophy and claim). But, I wouldn't have been completely convinced. Otherwise, I'd be acting as though hell definitely exists and that I was going to go there, and I'd be acting as though my philosophy and claim are absolutely, 100% true.

Other Person's Response: The very fact you were worried at one point about the possibility of going to hell, but then had that worry eased by reading up on the near death experience literature, must mean you had some level of conviction in hell at one point, but then had some level of conviction in a god who doesn't judge or punish.

My Reply: Right.

Other Person's Response: During an emotional trauma, you have a negative perspective. But, when you're happy and doing just fine, you have a positive perspective. You have the pessimistic perspective of giving up on trying to change your philosophy during an emotional trauma because you feel it can never change, no matter how hard you try to change it. But, when you're happy, you have the optimistic perspective that perhaps your philosophy can change. I think those optimistic and pessimistic perspectives (emotional states) are actually forms of conviction because having that optimistic perspective means you have some level of conviction that your philosophy can change, and having that pessimistic perspective means you're convinced your philosophy can't change.

My Reply: Right, and it's optimistic and pessimistic, subconscious thoughts (mindsets) that cause those emotions. I can't help but have those pessimistic thoughts during an emotional trauma, and neither can I help but have those optimistic thoughts when I'm happy.

Other Person's Response: When you felt worried about the possibility of going to hell, that means there was a subconscious worry that caused that feeling of worry. But, was this worry only present because you had an emotional trauma, or would it have occurred when you're happy and doing just fine?

My Reply: Actually, it occurred when I was happy. I've had other worries when I was happy, and these were very traumatizing worries. Once those worries occurred, I was no longer happy, of course. I was very traumatized.

Other Person's Response: I've heard that your emotional struggles were a cycle of suffering, where you had one thought or worry that traumatized you, fully recovered from said trauma and became happy again, only to become traumatized by the next thought or worry.

My Reply: Right. When I had a worry, I'd look something up online, and looking up this information would traumatize me. For example, I looked up near death experiences (ndes) online because I had the worry that I could have a hellish nde someday that would be a far more powerful, profound, negative experience than the worst negative experiences I've had during my nightmares, which means I was worried if people do have experiences much worse than their worst nightmares during hellish ndes. I've read into information regarding hellish ndes, and how people do, in fact, have experiences that are far worse than the ones they've had in their worst nightmares. Being aware of this information traumatized me. When I had the worry before reading into this information, that worry didn't make me feel any negative emotion whatsoever. But, the moment I read that information is when I became emotionally traumatized.

Other Person's Response: The very fact that worry didn't make you feel any negative emotion must mean you had some level of conviction that people don't have experiences worse than their worst nightmares during hellish ndes.

My Reply: Right, which means it might've not been a worry at all, and simply curiosity. So, the very fact I didn't feel worried or devastated at the time must've meant I didn't even have a worried or devastated mindset, and simply had a curious mindset regarding hellish ndes. But, the moment I read up on that information was the moment I became very worried and devastated, which means that's the moment I became convinced that people do have experiences much worse than their worst nightmares during hellish ndes.

Other Person's Response: I don't think it's controversial as to whether people have experiences worse than their worst nightmares during hellish ndes. I think it's a solid fact.

My Reply: Right. Ndes are extremely powerful, profound, life-changing experiences, after all.

 

[The Transcended Omniverse]

Other Person's Response: You were curious about the doctrine of hell at one point, and read into information regarding hell. That's when you felt worried about the possibility of going to hell.

My Reply: Right. But, this wasn't an emotional trauma, though.

Other Person's Response: Another emotional trauma you've had was caused by reading up on the skeptical view of the afterlife. Skeptics say there's no afterlife, and that this is the only life we have. Reading up on this information traumatized you because the very idea of permanent ego loss devastated you.

My Reply: Yes. As a matter of fact, that idea devastates a lot of people.

Other Person's Response: I heard that a lot of your emotional struggles were caused by reading up on information online.

My Reply: Right. But, I also had a lot of emotional struggles that weren't a result of reading information online. These struggles were caused by my own private thoughts and worries. My emotional struggles were a cycle of suffering I've finally broken free from.

Other Person's Response: Do you think there will be any other private thought or worry that will traumatize you? Also, do you think there will be any other piece of information online that will traumatize you if you were to read into it?

My Reply: I don't think so. So, from now on, I think my emotional struggles are officially over with.

Other Person's Response: According to your philosophy of emotions, feelings of worry are the only worry there is. A person can't be worried, as long as he doesn't feel worried, just as how he can't love, hate, or be happy if he doesn't feel love, hate, or happy.

My Reply: Right. But, I still refer to worry as being a non-emotional state, just for the sake of convenience.

Other Person's Response: If you did have some level of conviction in things you've read online that were controversial, and not solid facts, then you had this conviction based on reading just a little bit of material online, and not through extensive research. That means you were jumping to conclusions. So, you shouldn't have any conviction until you've done extensive research. Otherwise, you'd be jumping to conclusions.

My Reply: Like I said, I couldn't help but have this conviction if I did have it because it's just human nature to be easily convinced of things.

Other Person's Response: I think you're convinced that the Earth is round, but not entirely convinced, since it's controversial as to whether the Earth is round or flat.

My Reply: Perhaps you're right, and I would've obtained said conviction based on reading just a little bit of material online, and listening to teachings in my school. But, said conviction wouldn't have been obtained through extensive research.

Other Person's Response: I bet if you read some arguments and articles from flat Earth believers online, you'd have some level of conviction in the Earth being flat right now.

My Reply: Perhaps you're right. Again, I wouldn't be able to help but have this conviction. But, like I said, I wouldn't be entirely convinced, since it's a controversial topic, and not a solid fact.

Other Person's Response: You still say throughout this document that you're undecided in regards to the Earth being flat or round, even though you might have some level of conviction in the Earth being round.

My Reply: Right.

Other Person's Response: When it comes to controversial topics, you say you just read a little bit of material, and that's it. But, you don't do extensive research.

My Reply: That's right. I have no interest in doing extensive research.

Other Person's Response: I heard you play some video games that are harshly criticized and given low ratings. But, you don't notice the flaws in these games, which is why you'd give these games a higher rating than most people. The same thing applies to movies. You lack the necessary knowledge and experience to notice the flaws. But, if someone pointed out the flaws to you, then would playing those video games and watching those movies now be an unpleasant experience for you, rather than the pleasant experience it used to be?

My Reply: Actually, being aware of the flaws wouldn't bother me. I'm only bothered by things during an emotional crisis. So, normally, it would still be a pleasant experience for me. Remember, during an emotional crisis, only the negative matters and not the positive. But, when I'm not having an emotional crisis, only the positive matters and not the negative. So, that's why, when I'm happy and doing just fine, I'm able to enjoy a video game or movie that's considered to be utter garbage without feeling any negative emotion whatsoever about that video game or movie. That's actually a major advantage because that allows me to appreciate even the smallest things, rather than fretting over all the problems.

Other Person's Response: When it comes to obvious flaws that even dumb people would notice, you're able to notice such flaws, right?

My Reply: Right. But, in order for me to notice other flaws, that requires knowledge and experience on my part.

Other Person's Response: If someone attempted to point out the flaws to you, such as a professional, then you might not understand what he's saying, since you're not intelligent enough.

My Reply: Right. I'm a dumb person who can't understand much.

Other Person's Response: Even the worst works of art, such as the worst video games and movies, have some good things that can be appreciated, even if it's not much at all.

My Reply: Right, and I'm normally able to appreciate such things.

Other Person's Response: Given how dumb you are, you must be someone who's unable to think for himself.

My Reply: Right. I often times find myself confused in life, and not sure what to do. So, if I was in a predicament that required knowledge to get me out of, then I wouldn't know how to get out of that predicament. That means I must rely on others who are smarter than me to help me out and get me out of tough predicaments.

Other Person's Response: In regards to your fear of speed, there are 2 things going on: 1.) the fear itself, which is an emotional state. 2.) that mental, racing sensation. Even if the fear was completely eliminated through exposure, you might still have that mental, racing sensation.

My Reply: Right. The fear would get worse when I was walking on the bike trail, for whatever reason. But, that fear has disappeared, since I've exposed myself to it. That mental, racing sensation I've experienced along with that fear has also disappeared when I'm walking on the bike trails. But, when riding in the car, that mental, racing sensation is still there sometimes. Especially when I'm in an energetic mood. I think the fear might be almost completely gone when riding in the vehicle, though. As for riding in a bus, there's still a lot of fear I've yet to expose myself to. As the fear goes down upon continued exposure, the mental, racing sensation would also decrease. But, it's possible that my fear would be completely gone, but that mental, racing sensation still persisting.