Thinking, Feeling, Knowing

[Avonia]

(from another thread)

Question: Do you think that sensing someone's sadness is sufficient in a relationship? Or should we want more information about that sadness?

I usually don't offer advice unless asked. But I think it depends on the situation and roles/relationship.

Maybe it is sufficient to just recognize someone's hurting heart, and we be there for them, in silence and sympathy, without the cacophony of words that may or may not truly describe the problem, right?

This is a huge gift. Holding space for another person. Sometimes the struggle is a necessary part of gaining the insight or learning the lesson. So we support as a witness. And help if asked.

I do want to learn how to relate to others in a genuine, unwordy manner.

The power of presence. I imagine this was one of the most extraordinary things about Jesus.

Some of my best teachers never said a word to me.

You say we should trust our emotions. I tend to shy away from that concept since my emotions sometimes lead me astray. But I think I have an idea of what you mean. Like trust your gut instincts? I started reading the book "Blink" by Malcolm Gladwell, but did not finish it. That probably means I really need it bad! Maybe I'll give it another go.

It was your head that led you astray in reaction to your emotions. Your emotions are always "right" - but what you decide to do in response to them may be entirely projection. Or skewed interpretation.

When you first meet somebody and get a "bad feeling," that may be more about you than about them. Or not. Or both. The emotions that stem from love and fear are pristine - they are always true. But your interpretation of them - that this is a good or bad person with good or bad intentions - may not be true.

Emotions are an amazing way to know the world. Cutting yourself off from them is like closing your eyes. It's not that you can't go through life without your eyes - but why would you want to?

BLINK is an interesting book. It's a great place to start. But it's really more about thin-slicing (a form of intuitive decision making) and the apprehension of patterns than it is about emotion.

 

[Laodicean]

I'm still having problems with quoting from a previous post, so I'll try this:

(from another thread)

Laodicean originally asked: Question: Do you think that sensing someone's sadness is sufficient in a relationship? Or should we want more information about that sadness?

Avonia: I usually don't offer advice unless asked. But I think it depends on the situation and roles/relationship.

Actually, that was not the question, Avonia. I asked, "should we want more information about the sadness...not should we offer advice, especially unsolicited advice.


Laodicean originally asked: Maybe it is sufficient to just recognize someone's hurting heart, and we be there for them, in silence and sympathy, without the cacophony of words that may or may not truly describe the problem, right?

Avonia: This is a huge gift. Holding space for another person. Sometimes the struggle is a necessary part of gaining the insight or learning the lesson. So we support as a witness. And help if asked.

yes, I can see where sometimes this kind of huge gift is appropriate. But there are other times when more is required. Communication is also a huge gift, when done from a place of caring.

Laodicean originally asked: You say we should trust our emotions. I tend to shy away from that concept since my emotions sometimes lead me astray.

Avonia: It was your head that led you astray in reaction to your emotions. Your emotions are always "right" - but what you decide to do in response to them may be entirely projection. Or skewed interpretation.

hold up, Avonia. I think you are getting into dangerous territory here when you say that your emotions are always "right". Emotions are feelings, and feelings come and go, are sometimes stimulated by hormones or indigestion or lack of sleep or overeating and a host of other influences that have nothing to do with right or wrong. Just because you have a feeling does not mean it is automatically rght. I've learned, after many years, not to rely on feelings. I listen to them, but I question them, too. Am I afraid because there is something to be feared? Or is my fear arising out of an incorrect programming of my mind?

Avonia: When you first meet somebody and get a "bad feeling," that may be more about you than about them. Or not. Or both. The emotions that stem from love and fear are pristine - they are always true. But your interpretation of them - that this is a good or bad person with good or bad intentions - may not be true.

I don't think that the only true emotions are love and fear. There is indifference. Antipathy. Scorn. Disgust. Peace. Pleasure. Joy. And a whole spectrum of other true emotions.

Avonia: Emotions are an amazing way to know the world. Cutting yourself off from them is like closing your eyes. It's not that you can't go through life without your eyes - but why would you want to?

oh, I definitely do not think anyone should cut themselves off from emotions. But they should recognize that feelings (emotions) come and go, that they are quite unreliable at times, and while it is good to be a feeling person, you cannot build your world on feelings. If you did, then most people would not get up to go to work at 6:00 in the morning. They would sleep in until they were good and ready to get out of bed. Or the moment a man felt love for a woman other than his wife, then he would act on it because, well, it is a pristine emotion and not to be suppressed.

Here's my question to you: Which is more important, facts or feeling?

Second question: Should our belief in God be based on facts or feeling?

 

[solja247]

Second question: Should our belief in God be based on facts or feeling?

both. We are emptional beings. No emotions = robot.
no logic = stupid (thats what it boils down to)

 

[Avonia]

I'm still having problems with quoting from a previous post, so I'll try this:

That's OK - we will get the drift.

Just because you have a feeling does not mean it is automatically right.

There is a difference between emotion and the interpretation of emotion. Or an understanding of its genesis.

Am I afraid because there is something to be feared? Or is my fear arising out of an incorrect programming of my mind?

A great example of the previous point. With either interpretation, you still experienced emotions stemming from fear.

I don't think that the only true emotions are love and fear. There is indifference. Antipathy. Scorn. Disgust. Peace. Pleasure. Joy. And a whole spectrum of other true emotions.

All emotions stem from love or fear. And there are an array of expressions from either source - as you point out.

Here's my question to you: Which is more important, facts or feeling?

Second question: Should our belief in God be based on facts or feeling?

The emotions you experience are a fact. That doesn't mean how you interpret what you feel highly corresponds to what is around you. But neither does what you think - necessarily. We can be in error because of our thinking, feeling, or acting. The potential is having all three in alignment.

To your second question, I'm not nearly as interested in my beliefs about God as my knowing of God. What I believe is continually shifting as what I know is continually expanding. It's my sense this will always be true.

 

[Laodicean]

Second question: Should our belief in God be based on facts or feeling?

both. We are emptional beings. No emotions = robot.
no logic = stupid (thats what it boils down to)

I like that answer, Solja. Only thing is, it answers a different question. It better answers the question: Should our relationship with God be based on facts or feelings? Yes, then both.

My question had to do with belief. On what basis do we believe in God? If we had never been introduced to God through the Bible or any other source, what would bring us to believe in God? Facts? Or feeling?

Do we just feel that it would be nice to have a god be in charge of the universe, and since that feeling makes me feel secure, warm and fuzzy; therefore, I shall now believe that there is a god? Or do we look at the facts at hand (a plethora of them to be sorted through) and decide on the basis of the evidence that there is or isn't a god?

And if the facts point in the direction of the reality of God, what is there to know about what God is like? Do we learn about what He is like through information or through our feelings-regardless-of-facts?

 

[Laodicean]

Let me see if I figured out what you were telling me in your email, Avonia. I hope this works this time.

All emotions stem from love or fear. And there are an array of expressions from either source - as you point out.

that's an interesting perspective. I had not thought to reduce emotions to that baseline. Something to think about.

The emotions you experience are a fact. That doesn't mean how you interpret what you feel highly corresponds to what is around you. But neither does what you think - necessarily. We can be in error because of our thinking, feeling, or acting. The potential is having all three in alignment.

righto. Which seems to bring us right back to mind over matter, or thoughts that generate feelings. How important it is that our thoughts be programmed properly! I like to think that that is one of the major purposes of Jesus' life on this earth. Reprogramming our thoughts or, in other words, having a new heart (mind). That is probably why he spent so much time teaching, not just being silent. Program the mind with good stuff, and the feelings and actions will follow. You know, the "whatsoever things are true, pure, honest, of good report ... think on these things" advice.

So it seems to me that in order to feel right, you have to know right, which puts facts ahead of feeling.

To your second question, I'm not nearly as interested in my beliefs about God as my knowing of God. What I believe is continually shifting as what I know is continually expanding. It's my sense this will always be true.

okay, I hear you. From my perspective, though, in order to know God, you must have information. "Faith comes by hearing and hearing by the word of God" Romans 10:17.

 

[Laodicean]

ahhh, it worked, Avonia. Thanks for the helpful advice on quoting.

 

[Byfaithalone1]

Thanks, Avonia and Lao for this thread. Having grown up believing I should distrust my emotions, it is fascinating to consider the idea that emotions provide certain facts. I submit that one pays consequences when he dismisses his emotions.

As to the central question in this thread, I sense that belief can be built, in part, on emotion. Through time, I have noticed that God sometimes allows my emotions to serve as mile markers that tell me whether or not I am on the right road. I do not conclude, however, that emotion is the only mile marker that God uses.

BFA

 

[Avonia]

ahhh, it worked, Avonia. Thanks for the helpful advice on quoting.

You are most welcome!

 

[Avonia]

Thanks, Avonia and Lao for this thread. Having grown up believing I should distrust my emotions, it is fascinating to consider the idea that emotions provide certain facts.

It is fascinating. And the ability to notice in this way can be greatly developed.

Through time, I have noticed that God sometimes allows my emotions to serve as mile markers that tell me whether or not I am on the right road.

I have a similar sense.

 

[Avonia]

So it seems to me that in order to feel right, you have to know right, which puts facts ahead of feeling.

You are on the right track - but all levels of existence reflect up and down. So how you act does affect how you feel and how you think. And as you point out, how you think affects how you feel and how you act.

To give you an example of this, some people release emotions for the first time by receiving deep body work. And some people release them by changing how they think.

It helps to view existence along a spectrum instead of separate levels.

 

[solja247]

My question had to do with belief. On what basis do we believe in God? If we had never been introduced to God through the Bible or any other source, what would bring us to believe in God? Facts? Or feeling?

Facts. Athiests have to watch out. Many people who have been pasionate athiests turn Christian.

Do we just feel that it would be nice to have a god be in charge of the universe, and since that feeling makes me feel secure, warm and fuzzy; therefore, I shall now believe that there is a god?

No. Some people do. Its called blind faith (dont try this at home kids) you need logic its important to create an arguement or thesis.

Or do we look at the facts at hand (a plethora of them to be sorted through) and decide on the basis of the evidence that there is or isn't a god?

Personally, 70% facts 30% emotions. Facts are much more safer to go by.

And if the facts point in the direction of the reality of God, what is there to know about what God is like? Do we learn about what He is like through information or through our feelings-regardless-of-facts?

Time. We learn what God is like through time. Sure some people have different views of God than me, but its age which makes us learn more about God. Also information, but mainly age. At times we may be immature to understand what God is like because we want Him to be like this...but through age wisdom grows and God is revealed more and more.

 

[Byfaithalone1]

Facts are much more safer to go by.

In the past, I have been seriously misled by ideas that I thought were facts.

I agree that emotions aren't 100% reliable. Neither are ideas we think are facts. There is no one who understands.

Perhaps one of my greatest foes in the past has been proof texting (and quarterlies/studies that ask targeted questions and point to single texts plucked out of their context).

BFA

 

[Byfaithalone1]

Your emotions are always "right" - but what you decide to do in response to them may be entirely projection.

What potential consequences do we pay when we conclude that our emotions are "wrong?"

Sadly, I've been noticing that, during moments when I'm less than patient, I tend to negate my children's emotions. If they are frightened by something silly or if they are hurt by something trivial, I tend to push them to "toughen up." I wonder what damage I may be causing.

If only I had it all figured out . . . .

BFA

 

[Avonia]

What potential consequences do we pay when we conclude that our emotions are "wrong?"

Sadly, I've been noticing that, during moments when I'm less than patient, I tend to negate my children's emotions. If they are frightened by something silly or if they are hurt by something trivial, I tend to push them to "toughen up." I wonder what damage I may be causing.

When we block our emotions, we lose one of our primary sensory capacities. And we also carry emotional information much longer, because blocking or denying is a kind of latching on. Those who block their emotions are almost always the most emotional – even if it is well hidden at the level of persona.

When the emotional body is healthy, emotions are powerful, quick, and clean – positive and negative. When the emotional body is dulled or blocked, emotions express much more sloppily and tend to linger for a considerable period of time – especially negative emotions. You may have seen this when one difficult conversation affects a person for days, weeks, or even months.

When we try and block or nullify our emotions, it often amplifies their cumulative effects – even if we appear to be less emotional in the moment. The pattens just get stored and are reanimated later – sometimes time after time. Thus the expression, “just let it go.”

With small children this is especially important, because they are likely aware of things their parents can no longer sense. To the extent that even a neighbor with a lot of family conflict can induce an emotional response in a child next door – at a distance. Many of the emotional responses children experience have their origin in other people – they are induced.

Don't be too hard on yourself about this issue with your kids. If there is something useful in this conversation that you can apply, just do it from here on. That you are even open to the conversation puts you way ahead of most people.

 

[Byfaithalone1]

When we block our emotions, we lose one of our primary sensory capacities. And we also carry emotional information much longer, because blocking or denying is a kind of latching on. Those who block their emotions are almost always the most emotional – even if it is well hidden at the level of persona.

When the emotional body is healthy, emotions are powerful, quick, and clean – positive and negative. When the emotional body is dulled or blocked, emotions express much more sloppily and tend to linger for a considerable period of time – especially negative emotions. You may have seen this when one difficult conversation affects a person for days, weeks, or even months.

When we try and block or nullify our emotions, it often amplifies their cumulative effects – even if we appear to be less emotional in the moment. The pattens just get stored and are reanimated later – sometimes time after time. Thus the expression, “just let it go.”

With small children this is especially important, because they are likely aware of things their parents can no longer sense. To the extent that even a neighbor with a lot of family conflict can induce an emotional response in a child next door – at a distance. Many of the emotional responses children experience have their origin in other people – they are induced.

Don't be too hard on yourself about this issue with your kids. If there is something useful in this conversation that you can apply, just do it from here on. That you are even open to the conversation puts you way ahead of most people.

Sadly, all of this has a spiritual impact as well. I was trained to distrust emotions. I grew up believing that emotional worship experiences were dangerous, perhaps even a tool of the devil. Now, when I experience corporate worship and witness others connecting with God on an emotional level, it makes me uncomfortable. I have come to realize that the fault is with me and not with the other person, and I recognize that this is area in which I'd like to grow.

BFA

 

[Laodicean]

It helps to view existence along a spectrum instead of separate levels.

Avonnia, what is the spectrum, and what are the separate levels? I'm a little lost here.

 

[Laodicean]

Time. We learn what God is like through time. Sure some people have different views of God than me, but its age which makes us learn more about God. Also information, but mainly age. At times we may be immature to understand what God is like because we want Him to be like this...but through age wisdom grows and God is revealed more and more.

Solja, if, through age, wisdom grows, thus revealing God, then of what does wisdom consist? Information? And is this information factual information couched in the language of thought, or is it information of the emotions, as Avonia says? I'm hoping Avonia will explain more about what emotional information is and how it can be obtained, through silence.

 

[Laodicean]

Sadly, all of this has a spiritual impact as well. I was trained to distrust emotions. I grew up believing that emotional worship experiences were dangerous, perhaps even a tool of the devil. Now, when I experience corporate worship and witness others connecting with God on an emotional level, it makes me uncomfortable. I have come to realize that the fault is with me and not with the other person, and I recognize that this is area in which I'd like to grow.

BFA

I know exactly what you mean, BFA. I too am uncomfortable with much demonstration of emotion in a worship service, the raising of hands, the outcries of amens, not to mention the "travesty" of a hallelujah. I wish it weren't so. I wish we weren't so repressed as a people, generally speaking.

Indeed, I wish we had not made all forms dancing into an all-bad, no-no naughty-naughty thing. Now any movement to the left or to the right, forward or backward, any tapping of the toe that might cause us to sway from the path of rectitudinosity is looked upon as carnal and evil. What a shame. So we end up with rods in our backs and any inclination to move with spirit is bottled up inside of us for fear of looking wicked. I think we, as a church, could use a little loosening up, a little more expressiveness, and it would make us a far more lovable people. Just my two-cents worth.

 

[Avonia]

Avonnia, what is the spectrum, and what are the separate levels? I'm a little lost here.

The scope of this question is a bit like asking about the nature of creation. But in a nutshell, creation expresses along a very large spectrum of density/vibration. It started at the top of the spectrum and increasingly dropped into form. Thoughts are higher on the spectrum than emotions. Emotions higher than actions. This is why the way you think, and the way you feel, can eventually affect your body. Thought patterns and emotional forms descend into the body - over varying lengths of time.

I'm hoping Avonia will explain more about what emotional information is and how it can be obtained, through silence.

Systems that share qualities affect each other - they induce like responses. Remember the science experiment in grade school where you took a tuning fork, struck it, and then moved another fork (tuned to the same note) into proximity (but not touching) and the second fork began to sing? It's sort of like that. So, when you are around somebody who is expressing an emotion, their expression can induce a like response in you. One person walking into a meeting in a lot of fear can take the whole space down.

But the emotional body interacts with many things. This is why you can walk into a house or an office and know that "it doesn't feel good." A quality of the house induces a response in you. That, by the way, does not mean it's a "bad house" or a "bad office."