The Beast Revelation

[Jarhyn]

It's messy to you because you tend to "overthink"...professing with many words of the natural simple things...common in all of us.

The problem is that you tend to not think.

The world cares nothing about what we believe or feel.

The same as above

What do you mean by world?.

The physical world, the cosmos, the sun, moon, earth, geology, plants, animals, etc.

I see.

. The world in that case is neutral to either side of our arguments.

It's not that we don't feel, or that we don't have biases, of course we we do....but the point is that our feelings, biases, preferences, etc, have nothing to do with determining what is true or factual. Where our feelings and biases are as likely as not to prevent us from seeing things as they are, rather than how we would like them to be.

This is where you (plural) fail to understand why we can get a very good representation of people back then.

It' is the reader as the analyst who's reading the emotional state and psyche characteristics of the written characters.. It regards their feelings and biases, loyalty and love, self-sacrifices, etc & etc. Not about me being biased.

A variety of scenarios to look at, like how they relate to other characters through feelings, the stresses of their environments and thoughts of people and surrounding influences or caused reactions due to suffering. violence, and the fear of consequences . As I said before , emotions influence almost every aspects and decisions of our lives.

(it's not solely about revealing expressions of humans that I would rely on as a theist! It is an additional reinforcement, so to speak)

(sorry I keep re-editing on the fly in-between calls)

Wow what a fucking mess this post of yours is...

Ya don't like the emotion direction huh?

It's messy to you because you tend to "overthink"...professing with many words of the natural simple things...common in all of us.

Nope. Because emotions are "just so" they can and do arise from all manner of inappropriate situations.

They are "good enough, usually".

No form of emotional reasoning will ever outstrip the ability of logical reasoning to find the truth.

Emotions are biological assumptions, shots in the dark at what reasoning processes might work, or like a process in a computer which the engineer KNOWS causes errors and for which the errors are corrected after the fact (because it's faster to allow the error and correct it when observed than to never have an error, and sometimes slowness is more problematic).

In with our emotions are all the emotions that lead us to impulsively harm people, to revenge, and to do all sorts of other heinous shit that we only avoid because we realized that going with those emotions harms us rather than helps us,band that the emotions themselves are unreliable causes of action, at least in terms of understanding whether the action is "heinous".

Emotions are to be verified rather than naively trusted.

Ok, so, the reader is there as the reader, a mostly detached person.

Detached?

Yes, the reader is detached, like a person watching someone else play a video game. They are a third person, "emotionally uninvested", aka "emotionally unbiased".

Well yes....only in the sense that 'you don't work yourself up and remain calm'. The reader in context is an enquirer, an investigator by purpose!!

And they are emotionally detached from the ongoing stuff. They can sit back and judge the characters for their emotions; they can see when whatever character lets her anger take the best of them that this character is behaving foolishly, and this in turn allows the reader to shift their relationship with their own angry emotional responses so that they are less vulnerable to their anger than the character, so they can see "I am like that character in the book right now and I should leverage my logic to control my behavior spurred by my emotions".

That's the purpose of most books: to gain power over the fickle outcomes driven by mere feelings.

Understanding emotions is quite simply recognising the same human thing in yourself.. or experience from observing others!

Indeed, and then having more influence over those experiences than those experiences have over you, when warranted by logic and reason.

Part of the benefit of reading a book is that detachment from the character's feelings such that you use your MIND and UNDERSTANDING to make judgements about whether a person's emotional state is justified or biased as the case may be.

Making judgements is such a simple concept to conceive when we simply look and take note the 'cause effects' and 'actions' from their state-of-mind. Psychological profiling (that's what it is) studying from someone's writings today AIN'T gonna be any different to assessing someone 2000 years ago.

Mmm word salad.

There are causes. There are effects. Actions ARE effects.

One thing that you DO need to understand is that how people write today is different from people 2000 years ago because today, there are more words with more finely separated meanings than there were 2000 years ago.

Maybe we should return to Matthew 19:12 if you want to talk about understanding texts from 2000 years ago using modern understandings of psychology?

But then, that's a statement that says quite cleverly (perhaps TOO cleverly) that, in response to a veiled argument angling towards an obligation to marry and be "sexually pure", that there are whole classes of natural and man-made situations for persons to whom none of that applies, invalidating the entire (emotionally manufactured) church position on homosexual conduct.

Which, I might add, you yourself reject because of emotional reasons.

Emotions are to be evaluated rather than accepted out of hand. When they are accepted out of hand we call that "uncritical belief" and we reject the products of such processes.(Simple) Emotions have influence over our lives because we generally lack the time to form more nuanced, complicated, or accurate (complex) emotional responses, or to remodel those emotional responses towards more correct action.

Again, emotions can quite simply be evaluating the actions cause by any individual's mental state.

There's that key word of yours again, the one indicating that you are in a Dunning-Kruger situation

Contrary to your post, it seems in the simple example below:

If the action of an individual is violence to his pet dog? The cause of the dog is resulted in suffering. We note this down.

Wow. No, the immediate cause of the violence to his dog is the inappropriate anger he allows to influence his behavior: An inappropriate emotion biasing behavior in an inappropriate way.

The presence of inappropriate emotions invalidates them as a fundamental driver of "ought".

Logic has no such issues, being capable of sorting emotions based on whether the answers they produce are "true" or "false".

We can easily accept this man 'to be' a violent and uncaring individual by a simple logical assessment.

Not really. He seems to care a great deal for himself.

We now have the character of this 'violent' person from the evaluation analysis. Now we know...there are implications about him by his actions.

Maybe, but those implications are about his emotions, which we have already exposed as incapable of rendering right action for him.

Its almost as if we can trivially recognize the issue of emotions which lead to wrong beliefs (such as the emotion of the anger itself promoting the belief that he must hit his dog and that doing so will relieve him of something that harms him).

Same thing noting with good intentions.

Indeed the same thing: when you implement your "good intentions" you might have the road to hell all the same. It cannot be about the emotions, if you want good outcomes. You can "trust" them, but you still have to "verify" them before what you have can be called "knowledge" or "truth", and that verification requires DOUBT.

NO risk of "uncritical belief" when the evaluation takes notice of actions caused through feelings.

Evaluating actions caused through feelings is not an action that happens through simple emotions... or perhaps rather, evaluating these actions through feelings leads to the same problematic outcomes the feelings originally were vulnerable to.

That's a problem with fallacious thought though and why it's so pernicious: its conclusions aren't always wrong, even when the path to get to those conclusions ends up wrong, allowing someone to find belief through "accidentally correct" emotions, and then think that it is the emotion that makes them correct rather than the dispassionate doubt which validates it.

Learner, you keep veering off into the weeds here trying to defend emotions as a pathway to knowledge, but have only exposed how deficient that pathway is.

 

[ideologyhunter]

The term for belief systems or influence models that manipulate the emotions: propaganda.

 

[WAB]

The term for belief systems or influence models that manipulate the emotions: propaganda.

Art, music, news media, film, television, social media, everything.

 

[Learner]

The term for belief systems or influence models that manipulate the emotions: propaganda.

I'll respond to yours as it's shorter.. ( it's easier on my eyes on my phone )

Our friends have confused the term and word use for knowledge as a 'technical term' perspective for truth (for lack of better wording), mathematics according to Jaryn, and science to other posters. The bible uses the emotional language of describing events.

Oblivious it seems, to our over-educated, complicating matters, friends! My argument has been about "understanding" i.e. interpreting from simple human emotions for intended meanings! Basically... when claims are made...we assess/ recognise the mental feelings of people,where we look for indications or Implications of people who could be either, "making things up" ("lying") or they're just plain "delusional", or the things they claim are actually"true', being 'witnesses' to actual miraculous events etc.

 

[Learner]

It's messy to you because you tend to "overthink"...professing with many words of the natural simple things...common in all of us.

The problem is that you tend to not think.

I think it's... 'we think differently'.

I confess I use simple reasoning, whereas you, 'profess to be wise!' (using a line from the bible) intriguing comparing human thinking as computers, minus the.emotions.There are implications to your particular logic reasoning when equating the two.

A variety of scenarios to look at, like how they relate to other characters through feelings, the stresses of their environments and thoughts of people and surrounding influences or caused reactions due to suffering. violence, and the fear of consequences . As I said before , emotions influence almost every aspects and decisions of our lives(

Wow what a fucking mess this post of yours is...

Ya don't like the emotion direction huh?

It's messy to you because you tend to "overthink"...professing with many words of the natural simple things...common in all of us.

Nope. Because emotions are "just so" they can and do arise from all manner of inappropriate situations.

They are "good enough, usually".

"Good enough" to create alternative situations for human safety, and care for others to counter these inappropriate situations?

Early hospitals formed. by earlier churches was not reasons made with engineering mathematics, aside the buildings.

No form of emotional reasoning will ever outstrip the ability of logical reasoning to find the truth.

What do you mean truth? Mathematics in nature? How did you apply your logical reasoning to understanding the meanings of texts?

As I said in a previous post:

My argument has been about "understanding" i.e. interpreting from simple human emotions for intended meanings! Whren claims are made...we assess/ recognise the mental feelings of people,where we look for indications or Implications of people who could be either, "making things up" ("lying") or they're just plain "delusional", or the things they claim are actually"true', being 'witnesses' to actual miraculous events etc.

Emotions are biological assumptions, shots in the dark at what reasoning processes might work, or like a process in a computer which the engineer KNOWS causes errors and for which the errors are corrected after the fact (because it's faster to allow the error and correct it when observed than to never have an error, and sometimes slowness is more problematic).

I'm not getting it. I much prefer my own word salad.

In with our emotions are all the emotions that lead us to impulsively harm people, to revenge, and to do all sorts of other heinous shit that we only avoid because we realized that going with those emotions harms us rather than helps us,band that the emotions themselves are unreliable causes of action, at least in terms of understanding whether the action is "heinous".

Emotions are to be verified rather than naively trusted.

We trust emotions in different ways.
A loving person is judged Trustworthy by how they treat us. That's the context.

Ok, so, the reader is there as the reader, a mostly detached person.

Detached?

Yes, the reader is detached, like a person watching someone else play a video game. They are a third person, "emotionally uninvested", aka "emotionally unbiased".

It's called understanding...one human to another. It doesn't require the technical means of mathematics.

And they are emotionally detached from the ongoing stuff. They can sit back and judge the characters for their emotions; they can see when whatever character lets her anger take the best of them that this character is behaving foolishly, and this in turn allows the reader to shift their relationship with their own angry emotional responses so that they are less vulnerable to their anger than the character, so they can see "I am like that character in the book right now and I should leverage my logic to control my behavior spurred by my emotions".

That's the purpose of most books: to gain power over the fickle outcomes driven by mere feelings.

Love your enemies, and your neighbours...
...the concept ...thàts what concerns us.

Understanding emotions is quite simply recognising the same human thing in yourself.. or experience from observing others!

Indeed, and then having more influence over those experiences than those experiences have over you, when warranted by logic and reason.

Emotional experiences noted and recorded throughout human history is an adequate basis for logical evaluations.

Part of the benefit of reading a book is that detachment from the character's feelings such that you use your MIND and UNDERSTANDING to make judgements about whether a person's emotional state is justified or biased as the case may be.

Making judgements is such a simple concept to conceive when we simply look and take note the 'cause effects' and 'actions' from their state-of-mind. Psychological profiling (that's what it is) studying from someone's writings today AIN'T gonna be any different to assessing someone 2000 years ago.

Mmm word salad.

There are causes. There are effects. Actions ARE effects.

I yield, my poor word salad is inferior to yours Master Chef.

I think several posters will say we both are guilty of tossing about with words.( Im just jesting)

One thing that you DO need to understand is that how people write today is different from people 2000 years ago because today, there are more words with more finely separated meanings than there were 2000 years ago.

Maybe we should return to Matthew 19:12 if you want to talk about understanding texts from 2000 years ago using modern understandings of psychology?

But then, that's a statement that says quite cleverly (perhaps TOO cleverly) that, in response to a veiled argument angling towards an obligation to marry and be "sexually pure", that there are whole classes of natural and man-made situations for persons to whom none of that applies, invalidating the entire (emotionally manufactured) church position on homosexual conduct.

Which, I might add, you yourself reject because of emotional reasons.

see example of emotional liars delusion, and truth claims

Emotions are to be evaluated rather than accepted out of hand. When they are accepted out of hand we call that "uncritical belief" and we reject the products of such processes.(Simple) Emotions have influence over our lives because we generally lack the time to form more nuanced, complicated, or accurate (complex) emotional responses, or to remodel those emotional responses towards more correct action.

Again, emotions can quite simply be evaluating the actions cause by any individual's mental state.

There's that key word of yours again, the one indicating that you are in a Dunning-Kruger situation

See other responses. Anyone of them will do because this post is long for my puffy eyes.

Contrary to your post, it seems in the simple example below:

If the action of an individual is violence to his pet dog? The cause of the dog is resulted in suffering. We note this down.

Wow. No, the immediate cause of the violence to his dog is the inappropriate anger he allows to influence his behavior: An inappropriate emotion biasing behavior in an inappropriate way.

...so therefore, as you state the obvious: we can tell that this man is not a kind man. And if he said, that "he loves and cares for animals", then we know he's not an honest man either. That is all we wanted to know!

The presence of inappropriate emotions invalidates them as a fundamental driver of "ought".

Logic has no such issues, being capable of sorting emotions based on whether the answers they produce are "true" or "false".

see below..

We can easily accept this man 'to be' a violent and uncaring individual by a simple logical assessment.

Not really. He seems to care a great deal for himself.

Technically..by your mode of thinking yes, although a little too one-dimensional for me... but having said that, that too could be added information to get a better understanding of this character, and the situation of his dog

Just seeing it as you suggest above, the idea of merely "..caring for himself a great deal". That would be a bit of shortfall of reasoning, since it doesn't indicate him as being a liar, or uncaring to a animals, since you ignored, or just oblivious due to your technicality 'mode of thinking' that erroneously is absent without the crucial details that would illustrate the character of the man better: from the described relationship between thid man and his dog.

We now have the character of this 'violent' person from the evaluation analysis. Now we know...there are implications about him by his actions.

Maybe, but those implications are about his emotions, which we have already exposed as incapable of rendering right action for him.

Its almost as if we can trivially recognize the issue of emotions which lead to wrong beliefs (such as the emotion of the anger itself promoting the belief that he must hit his dog and that doing so will relieve him of something that harms him).

Same thing noting with good intentions.

Indeed the same thing: when you implement your "good intentions" you might have the road to hell all the same. It cannot be about the emotions, if you want good outcomes. You can "trust" them, but you still have to "verify" them before what you have can be called "knowledge" or "truth", and that verification requires DOUBT.

Actions speak louder than words! We read into the actions caused by decisions based on morals. It tells us loads.

NO risk of "uncritical belief" when the evaluation takes notice of actions caused through feelings.

Evaluating actions caused through feelings is not an action that happens through simple emotions... or perhaps rather, evaluating these actions through feelings leads to the same problematic outcomes the feelings originally were vulnerable to.

That's a problem with fallacious thought though and why it's so pernicious: its conclusions aren't always wrong, even when the path to get to those conclusions ends up wrong, allowing someone to find belief through "accidentally correct" emotions, and then think that it is the emotion that makes them correct rather than the dispassionate doubt which validates it.

See the above.

Learner, you keep veering off into the weeds here trying to defend emotions as a pathway to knowledge, but have only exposed how deficient that pathway is.

I'm not the one applying mathematics to the bible to understand meanings. please tell that's not what you're doing?
I jest.
( See the above responses which I apply here)