Damn, forget I said that. *Knocks on wood*

Eh? You're still making the argument that how close it is "shows" X right?

With a few caveats, as someone raised in a conservative American world, I think your comments are pretty close to the reality.

It doesn't show "how much we're able to put up with", it just shows how divided our country is, which is no shock to anyone.

My all-powerful spidey sense was twitching this way and that, but it's twitching pretty blue at the moment.

Yeah was gonna say, I'm not too depressed (beyond the basic threshold) at the moment?

Yes, but, as a rule, no one is grateful for what they've inherited. And this does throw into question just how quality of life is measured. Quality has improved, but expectations have also (improved?)/changed, as quality of life has gone up. It does beg the question of whether there's a metric of how to measure quality of life.

Do you speak from experience?

:sweat:

All that matters is this: whatever it is that triggers emotions and whatever it is that emotions are, they go hand in hand with physical changes like pupils dilating, a cold sweat on the brow, palpitations, heavy breathing, etc. I'm inquiring as to how deep this connection, the connection between emotions and bodily changes, is and whether it can be manipulated to do things like curing infections, cancers, other kinds of maladies. — TheMadFool

:up: In that case, I don't have much wisdom.

Anyway...I'm not denying the subjective nature of emotions. All that matters is there are accompanying physical changes which I consider as an opening for, a gateway to, some kind of actual treatment modalities for both physical and mental illnesses. — TheMadFool

So you're enquiring into something that would resemble a "holistic health" type approach?

I'm emotionally driven myself, so I'm probably at a bit of a disadvantage in philosophical discussions of emotion, but one thing that stands out is this: emotional triggers are not strictly physical in the first place. The harm that art therapy aims to heal is generally emotional harm that can be a result of physical trauma (abuse), but can just as easily be the result of non-physical abuse (verbal, psychological). So, fundamentally, if a cause of emotional trauma is non-physical (verbal, psychological), and you then measure physiological changes in the body of the person experiencing that trauma, why would you then assume that emotion itself on a philosophical (metaphysical) level is strictly physical? It doesn't follow. This is a bit of another one of my class dunce moments, apologies. I may be over simplifying here.

Eh, re-reading that, I don't like that version either.

I recognize that we're working from different viewpoints here, and maybe the way I'm wording things is a little bit leading. Off the top of my head, here's a re-phrase: "How can you possibly demonstrate that the measurable physiological response of emotion is equal to the subjective experience of emotion? It doesn't seem possible".

I don't think the physiologists in the many institutes around the world have made a habit of talking out of their hat. No smoke without fire, right!? — TheMadFool

Again, on a philosophical level, what are the grounds you're standing on that lead you to conclude that the physical mechanics of emotion are emotion itself?

emotions, though difficult, even impossible, to put into words, are, at the end of the day, physical in nature. — TheMadFool

What's to say that it's not the other way around? Philosophically, how do you explain that the physical mechanics of emotion are the emotion? It's a sweeping metaphysical claim, one that goes unchecked pretty rampantly.

People vote for Trump because people like you are unable to fathom the fact that people can and will vote for Trump. — StreetlightX

Lol!

Noble Dust is an album I made about 10 years ago; it's a phrase that to me at the time represented the dichotomy of mortality (Dust) vs. the inherent value of human life (Noble). Over the years its just become my go-to moniker wherever I happen to land on the internet; I don't think about it much when I use it.

And I'm blah blah blah

I didn't need you to tell me that.

Incidentally, I quite hate "scurrilous". It's a word that sounds stupid.

Haha kool broh

Why on Earth would you be worried? — jamalrob

The next part that you didn't quote explains this.

Maybe you should have posted some rules in bold and upper case, like "Please post words that you love, unless they are impressive and obscure. Only familiar words are allowed. If you break this rule I will throw tantrums." — jamalrob

As I said, I didn't start this thread; I only revived it. I dunno what else you want.

You can demonstrate this by continuing to post unimpressive and familiar words that you like. — jamalrob

Cradle

Generally, why can't you just let people post words that take their fancy? — jamalrob

I can; however, this is not what people are actually doing.

Why this weird need for control? Why so serious? You're just spoiling people's fun. — jamalrob

Wh0ot?

What are you worried about and why are you voicing your disgust? What word ought one to post? Teach your readers a new word. Noblisse oblige. — Nils Loc

If you follow the history, I didn't start this thread, I only revived it. What I'm worried about is the fact that this thread began as a love of words, and has devolved into a love of impressive/and/or/obscure words. It's essentially become a dick measuring contest. But pleasing words don't have to be any of these things. "Grip", for instance, is a great word, and one we all know.

I should never had revived this thread.

Glad to see Messiaen appreciation.

I'm unenlightened. — unenlightened

Oh?

This new wave of religious infiltrators — god must be atheist

Who specifically?

I've heard tell of cloyingly sweet wines from the area. But the word "sweet", in wine talk, is almost like the word "god" in philosophical discussion. People tend to think a wine is "sweet" when it's actually just fruit-forward (there's essentially no residual sugar in the wine). And so...while a philosophical concept might not be "divine"...it might be... "god-forward"...at any rate...

All I want to know is if the wines were "god-level" sweet...or if they were only... "god-forward"....

I'm not familiar with Russian or Crimean wine. I'd be curious to know more.

Georgian wine is a bit of a thing in NYC, but I had no idea about Abkhazia. Fascinating. Hope you were able to imbibe some inky Saperavi or maybe some minerally Krakhuna (if you prefer white).

The deepest tunes have no lyrics:

However, there is a danger of philosophy becoming too detached from the world. — Jack Cummins

I agree; that's exactly the point I was making.

so I don't see why the esoteric philosophies should not be incorporated but obviously if people don't want this to happen it doesn't have to. — Jack Cummins

Absolutely; go forth! This thread is a nice refresher on the existence of esotericism, but if you feel this way, maybe start a thread with a specific focus. And be prepared with sources and reasons for reasons, and have counter arguments for your arguments in mind already, and etc.

Yeah, those threads exist, although mainly in the political realm, which I have my misgivings about (political threads take up so much space here, but it's essentially just political banter; nothing philosophical). What I was getting at with what you quoted is that philosophy proper seems to "describe" reality, in the way that an owners manual will describe how a car functions. Whereas mysticism, and other esoteric traditions, bringing it back to the OP, at least claim to offer participant knowledge; i.e. they claim to show you how to actually drive the car; not only that, but they seem to promise that once you understand how to drive, you'll understand why driving is so pleasurable.

I've read some Steiner, and was a fan of Owen Barfield for awhile. I have Blavatsky's massive book. I'm very interested in this stuff, and have dipped my toes a little in Kabbalah and Christian Mysticism as well. As to your OP...I sort of agree that philosophy should investigate this territory...but at the same time, maybe not. Maybe Philosophy will always only describe the structure of reality without actually participating.

I'm just looking at the imagery itself; it's very similar.

Visually the diagram is essentially the same. I guess I’m not sure of the origin of the trinity image. I’m not familiar with much in the way of documented kabbalistic influence on Christianity... but maybe it exists somewhere?

Looks interesting. I was asking about something more akin to the link you provided; I'm a novice to the actual history of Judaism in general, so I gobbled that link up and was interested in a longer form version if one exists.

I've seen that image of the trinity plenty of times before, but looking at it now, it reminds me of the Sefirot...I wonder if there was any connection there. Just thinking out loud.