Probably an unpopular perspective here,but, I look at feelings as something that must be understood with applied wisdom.
Feelings can be extremely deceptive,and self-deception is the worst kind. One should completely distrust and be hostile towars a "feeling" until one is confident he/she understands why the feeling exists and is the way it is.
To add on that,we should strive to make conscious and intentional decisions, making sure we understand our own intent.
I am not saying emotions are bad or it's bad to say "I feel ..." But rather to know why you feel that way and if you make a decision based on that feeling,make sure to be conscious of that why behind the feeling.
> One should completely distrust and be hostile towards a "feeling" until one is confident he/she understands why the feeling exists and is the way it is.
I get the impression this is a very common sentiment in the engineering community, actually - I was raised this way. In my family, step one of "digesting" a feeling was always understanding why you felt it. Someone told me recently that "your feelings do not have to make sense to be valid and action-worthy", and I was stunned — all these years no-one had told me. It is immensely true.
If you insist on understanding your feelings before taking them into account, I think it's easy to fall into the trap of disregarding ones you think you shouldn't have, or choosing not to act because rational beings rise above their feelings. There are also some feelings you may never understand, and you could spend years sitting around trying to grok them.
It is perfectly valid (at least to me) to say "I made this decision because I felt this way at this time." No further explanation required.
To continue that thought, intuition enters in engineering after several years: you see the work of someone else and think, “yuck.” Often, I then search for a reason and voice that instead of “yuck,” but it still starts with a feeling.
This is relevant because when you’re hacking away, you can “feel” out the solution of a problem, instead of approaching it axiomatically (even if the latter is often useful)
This is a very subjective topic, but I have a different approach (coming from 37 years of experience with... me) - emotions are great. Spice of life, sometimes even meaning of life. Revel them. Enjoy them. Immense in them, both positive and negative (without one, there wouldn't be the other anyway).
But - don't make important life decisions based purely on them. Never. If the emotion-based decision doesn't stand some simple test of logic, it most probably ain't a good one. I've seen many people making utterly bad choices in life that affected them negatively for the rest of their lives (ie wrong life partner, wrong place to settle etc.) just because they felt at that moment it was the right choice. From logical cold-hard-facts point-of-view, it clearly wasn't. Life of misery and regrets ensued. Emotions are finicky, tomorrow they can easily change (if I wanted to be snarky I could say that's the source of many men vs women misunderstandings but there is more to that topic).
But that's me - this works for me very well. If a different approach works for you, long term, by all means stick to it.
>Feelings can be extremely deceptive,and self-deception is the worst kind. One should completely distrust and be hostile towars a "feeling" until one is confident he/she understands why the feeling exists and is the way it is.
The same is true for reasoning. It's just a axiomatic system whose results depend on the starting axioms and inputs.
People (and countries and organisations) use reasoning, information, and even numerical facts, to come to any conclusion they like, just as well as they use feelings.
And at least feelings don't mask the fact that they're based on a whim.
>I look at feelings as something that must be understood with applied wisdom.
then I would agree with you. As written though it's a false equivalency. With reasoning you lay your cards on the table for everyone, including yourself, to inspect and challenge, including the axioms. Feelings don't provide the same affordance.
>With reasoning you lay your cards on the table for everyone, including yourself, to inspect and challenge, including the axioms. Feelings don't provide the same affordance.
The problem is that with reasoning you can build whole chains on nothing more than skewed data and bad axioms that you also picked because of feelings.
That it's "laid on the table for everyone" is little consolation -- for one, because the cards are usually so intricately arranged that nobody or few will be bothered to follow them through.
It's like those saying "it's open source, so you can fix it yourself", ignoring the huge domain knowledge, programming skills, time, and effort required.
But with reasoning it can be even worse, because you can both skew the data and axioms as you like (as per your interests/feelings), and still pretend to the masses that they're perfect fine because they're based on "reasoning" / "science" / "statistics", etc.
Take the WMDs for example. In Ancient Athens they'd just say (as they did in many occasions): "There's this city-state, it's disobedient to our rule, or has resources we want, we should loot it".
In 21st century they say: "Our experts say they have such and such WMDs, and thus this and that, so would should invade and prevent them".
The first is a feeling (or a will). People can vote for or against it. The second is presented as a reasoned argument based on facts, which nobody of the masses can really verify (and none did, before the fact).
>The first is a feeling (or a will). People can vote for or against it. The second is presented as a reasoned argument based on facts, which nobody of the masses can really verify (and none did, before the fact).
It is verifiable though, at least in principle. WMDs either exist or they do not. Feelings have no comparable feature.
>It is verifiable though, at least in principle. WMDs either exist or they do not. Feelings have no comparable feature.
No, but as ultimately everything is based of feelings and wills (where would those value judgements necessary to reason would come from? Reason is totally neutral, annihilation of the other is the same to it as solidarity, given the right axioms), naked feelings can at least be judged as what they are.
An alternate way of saying this is that "feelings are not smart".
A very common refrain today is "follow your heart" or follow the path that is derived from your feelings. Instead of looking at the consequences of your choices, just go where you feel good.
We have just been through a funeral for a friend where the feelings of grief have not been tempered by thoughtful consideration. This has lead to words being said that should not have been as they have long term consequences for the surviving family members (especially the children).
I am not saying that there is anything wrong about feelings, just don't let them be the director of your decisions.
This reminds of a tweet I saw once that always stuck with me. Basically said your feelings about a situation are always valid but your perception of the situation isn't always right.
This is a well-known approach, though expressed a bit bluntly.
Both Buddhists and Stoics explored this question deeply, and came to similar recommendations, and practical approaches to not being ruled by your feelings while also being at peace with them.
> One should completely distrust and be hostile towars a "feeling" ...
Being mindful of feelings and distrusting/hostile are two very different things, and I cannot recommend the latter (nor have I seen any Buddhist literature do so).
I'd go even further and apply the same level of distrust towards other aspects of the mind apart from feeling. Feeling, perception, intention, and consciousness all work together to create deception.
Is it just me, or is everyone starting to capital-case cummings' name again? Anyway, this reminds me of his poem, which is especially apt as someone who has to pay attention to syntax as part of my job:
since feeling is first
who pays any attention
to the syntax of things
will never wholly kiss you;
wholly to be a fool
while Spring is in the world
my blood approves
and kisses are a better fate
than wisdom
lady i swear by all flowers. Don't cry
—the best gesture of my brain is less than
your eyelids' flutter which says
we are for each other: then
laugh, leaning back in my arms
for life's not a paragraph
and death i think is no parenthesis
I like the poem. I also like this take on what we should do about capitalizing his name, it feels like it's as close as we can get to a rule: http://eecpoem.pbworks.com/w/page/9068325/Decapitalization ... Where he changed it, keep it changed, everywhere else, use standard capitalization.
I don’t know about that. Should we also do such things w.r.t. gender pronouns? Current etiquette suggest that no, we should follow the preferences of the person on this. Why not then do the same about the spelling of their name?
I agree we should follow the preference. That's what I'm saying to do. My understanding from the link I posted is that EE Cummings did not want to always have his name lowercased: he chose to do it in certain contexts for specific artistic reasons. When we lowercase the name as though he intended to communicate something by having his name always be lowercase, we're creating an artistic statement for him that he never intended to make in the first place.
> EE Cummings did not want to always have his name lowercased: he chose to do it in certain contexts for specific artistic reasons
On careful reading of the link, I can not find any support for the claim that he sometimes used a capitalized version of his name. If he did normally capitalize, and only used the lowercased version in artistic contexts, that would certainly give credence to your idea. But the link does not give any support for this.
> As we may have mentioned, due to the kindness of D. Jon Grossman's son, Jerome, we have the complete file of Jon's correspondence with Cummings. On making a preliminary tour through these letters, we found Jon preparing a French edition of his translations of Cummings' poetry, and on 27 February 1951 he wrote to the poet: "are you E.E.Cummings, ee cummings, or what?(so far as the title page is concerned)wd u like title page all in lowercase?"
> The poet replied on 1 March 1951: "E.E.Cummings, unless your printer prefers E. E. Cummings/ titlepage up to you;but may it not be tricksy svp[.]"
> That seems definitive to us: may it not be tricksy!
Emotions and feelings being a chemical imbalance of the brain causing irrational thought or actions. Yet this irrational thought is expressed, protected, and considered valid reason to justify actions in society.
Wouldn't it be wonderful if people acknowledged feelings yet did the rational thing ?
The problem is that emotions affect rationality - what is rationality even? You feel confident that your thoughts or actions are rational, but that too is an emotion.
To invoke Godwin's Law, the nazis were rational in their policy of exterminating certain people, they listed the traits and stereotypes and decided that the best course of action was to isolate and exterminate them. The US is rational in their policy to label terrorists as 'enemy combatants' and not respect the Geneva conventions when it comes to those.
Yes, underneath those is a certain type of hatred, the emotion, but for all I know that emotion is applied or assumed after the fact - that is, "surely they have to really hate someone do to that", instead of having to admit that it was a rational decision. I don't know which is worse, treating someone badly out of emotion or out of rationality.
"""
As for expressing nobody-but-yourself in words, that means working just a little harder than anybody who isn’t a poet can possibly imagine. Why? Because nothing is quite as easy as using words like somebody else. We all of us do exactly this nearly all of the time — and whenever we do it, we’re not poets.
If, at the end of your first ten or fifteen years of fighting and working and feeling, you find you’ve written one line of one poem, you’ll be very lucky indeed.
And so my advice to all young people who wish to become poets is: do something easy, like learning how to blow up the world — unless you’re not only willing, but glad, to feel and work and fight till you die.
The article is striking in how similar his description on "becoming a poet" is to some insightful advice from Paul Graham and others I've read about "moral weight" and becoming an entrepreneur.
I'm not so sure "confused" is exactly the term. "Hackers and Painters" was largely about mastery, less about wealth, and in many traditions, mastery of craft is spiritual enrichment.
I was raised to suppress them. Or, well, not even that. Feelings were so thoroughly suppressed in my family, that they never even featured. I must have learned that any expression of emotion gets me nowhere by the age of 0.5
In my 20s, throughout various failed relationships I began to re-examine what feelings are. Why did people (and, anecdotally, women) have so many feelings, of such strength and seemingly of such unpredictability?
It wasn't long until I decided to get therapy. To see what's lurking beneath.
Lo and behold, there were some feelings there. Lots of them surprisingly strong, yet hesitant to surface. It was a bizarre dichotomy to have to deal with. One that affects me to this day. It's like the stronger a feeling within me, the further it is hidden away, leading to this cat and mouse game of 'who am I?'.
Feelings offer a surprisingly absolute way to perceive the world. They are always there and they are always exactly what they are. So long as you allow yourself to feel them.
For the last decade I have been doing nothing but trying to feel more and more. This is still a lot less than most people. At the same time it makes me feel much more 'at home' in the world, it has made me able to connect with people better, it has reduced my stress and anxiety.
It has also lead to some other curious changes within me. I am feeling myself become more and more incompatible with the 'business world'. I know that's a very vague term, but I have found corporate culture and the striving for endless profits, no matter what the human cost, to be incredibly despiccable. Nauseating, icky. Misguided.
I wonder whether feelings and emotions provide a certain common ground for what a human being 'should be' or 'wants to be', which runs counter to capitalist incentive. After all, you want a herd of obedient workers, not uppity individuals causing trouble with their free spirited antics.
I should add that I am of German heritage and I feel there is an entire generation of people who have lived through historical events enabled almost entirely by the suppression and eradication of all feelings (apart from, ironically, hate and fear).
Probably an unpopular perspective here,but, I look at feelings as something that must be understood with applied wisdom.
Feelings can be extremely deceptive,and self-deception is the worst kind. One should completely distrust and be hostile towars a "feeling" until one is confident he/she understands why the feeling exists and is the way it is.
To add on that,we should strive to make conscious and intentional decisions, making sure we understand our own intent.
I am not saying emotions are bad or it's bad to say "I feel ..." But rather to know why you feel that way and if you make a decision based on that feeling,make sure to be conscious of that why behind the feeling.
> One should completely distrust and be hostile towards a "feeling" until one is confident he/she understands why the feeling exists and is the way it is.
I get the impression this is a very common sentiment in the engineering community, actually - I was raised this way. In my family, step one of "digesting" a feeling was always understanding why you felt it. Someone told me recently that "your feelings do not have to make sense to be valid and action-worthy", and I was stunned — all these years no-one had told me. It is immensely true.
If you insist on understanding your feelings before taking them into account, I think it's easy to fall into the trap of disregarding ones you think you shouldn't have, or choosing not to act because rational beings rise above their feelings. There are also some feelings you may never understand, and you could spend years sitting around trying to grok them.
It is perfectly valid (at least to me) to say "I made this decision because I felt this way at this time." No further explanation required.
To continue that thought, intuition enters in engineering after several years: you see the work of someone else and think, “yuck.” Often, I then search for a reason and voice that instead of “yuck,” but it still starts with a feeling.
This is relevant because when you’re hacking away, you can “feel” out the solution of a problem, instead of approaching it axiomatically (even if the latter is often useful)
This is a very subjective topic, but I have a different approach (coming from 37 years of experience with... me) - emotions are great. Spice of life, sometimes even meaning of life. Revel them. Enjoy them. Immense in them, both positive and negative (without one, there wouldn't be the other anyway).
But - don't make important life decisions based purely on them. Never. If the emotion-based decision doesn't stand some simple test of logic, it most probably ain't a good one. I've seen many people making utterly bad choices in life that affected them negatively for the rest of their lives (ie wrong life partner, wrong place to settle etc.) just because they felt at that moment it was the right choice. From logical cold-hard-facts point-of-view, it clearly wasn't. Life of misery and regrets ensued. Emotions are finicky, tomorrow they can easily change (if I wanted to be snarky I could say that's the source of many men vs women misunderstandings but there is more to that topic).
But that's me - this works for me very well. If a different approach works for you, long term, by all means stick to it.
>Feelings can be extremely deceptive,and self-deception is the worst kind. One should completely distrust and be hostile towars a "feeling" until one is confident he/she understands why the feeling exists and is the way it is.
The same is true for reasoning. It's just a axiomatic system whose results depend on the starting axioms and inputs.
People (and countries and organisations) use reasoning, information, and even numerical facts, to come to any conclusion they like, just as well as they use feelings.
And at least feelings don't mask the fact that they're based on a whim.
If you had instead quoted
>I look at feelings as something that must be understood with applied wisdom.
then I would agree with you. As written though it's a false equivalency. With reasoning you lay your cards on the table for everyone, including yourself, to inspect and challenge, including the axioms. Feelings don't provide the same affordance.
>With reasoning you lay your cards on the table for everyone, including yourself, to inspect and challenge, including the axioms. Feelings don't provide the same affordance.
The problem is that with reasoning you can build whole chains on nothing more than skewed data and bad axioms that you also picked because of feelings.
That it's "laid on the table for everyone" is little consolation -- for one, because the cards are usually so intricately arranged that nobody or few will be bothered to follow them through.
It's like those saying "it's open source, so you can fix it yourself", ignoring the huge domain knowledge, programming skills, time, and effort required.
But with reasoning it can be even worse, because you can both skew the data and axioms as you like (as per your interests/feelings), and still pretend to the masses that they're perfect fine because they're based on "reasoning" / "science" / "statistics", etc.
Take the WMDs for example. In Ancient Athens they'd just say (as they did in many occasions): "There's this city-state, it's disobedient to our rule, or has resources we want, we should loot it".
In 21st century they say: "Our experts say they have such and such WMDs, and thus this and that, so would should invade and prevent them".
The first is a feeling (or a will). People can vote for or against it. The second is presented as a reasoned argument based on facts, which nobody of the masses can really verify (and none did, before the fact).
>The first is a feeling (or a will). People can vote for or against it. The second is presented as a reasoned argument based on facts, which nobody of the masses can really verify (and none did, before the fact).
It is verifiable though, at least in principle. WMDs either exist or they do not. Feelings have no comparable feature.
>It is verifiable though, at least in principle. WMDs either exist or they do not. Feelings have no comparable feature.
No, but as ultimately everything is based of feelings and wills (where would those value judgements necessary to reason would come from? Reason is totally neutral, annihilation of the other is the same to it as solidarity, given the right axioms), naked feelings can at least be judged as what they are.
An alternate way of saying this is that "feelings are not smart".
A very common refrain today is "follow your heart" or follow the path that is derived from your feelings. Instead of looking at the consequences of your choices, just go where you feel good.
We have just been through a funeral for a friend where the feelings of grief have not been tempered by thoughtful consideration. This has lead to words being said that should not have been as they have long term consequences for the surviving family members (especially the children).
I am not saying that there is anything wrong about feelings, just don't let them be the director of your decisions.
This reminds of a tweet I saw once that always stuck with me. Basically said your feelings about a situation are always valid but your perception of the situation isn't always right.
This is a well-known approach, though expressed a bit bluntly.
Both Buddhists and Stoics explored this question deeply, and came to similar recommendations, and practical approaches to not being ruled by your feelings while also being at peace with them.
Except for:
> One should completely distrust and be hostile towars a "feeling" ...
Being mindful of feelings and distrusting/hostile are two very different things, and I cannot recommend the latter (nor have I seen any Buddhist literature do so).
I'd go even further and apply the same level of distrust towards other aspects of the mind apart from feeling. Feeling, perception, intention, and consciousness all work together to create deception.
Personally the more disciplined and conscious I am of my senses and feelings, the easier it becomes to enjoy them without too much guided thinking.
Anyone lived in a pretty how town //
with up so many antennas down //
bit by bit and byte by byte //
they laughed their is //
and cried their was //
smirked their are //
sneered the been //
//
//
then one day everyone died I guess //
and no-one stopped to book their face //
busy people buried them side by side //
all by all and deep by deep //
and dream by dream and sleep by sleep.
I like it! The original is a terrific poem and personally makes me feel some strong emotions not many poems do. I'll put it below:
anyone lived in a pretty how town
(with up so floating many bells down)
spring summer autumn winter
he sang his didn’t he danced his did.
Women and men(both little and small)
cared for anyone not at all
they sowed their isn’t they reaped their same
sun moon stars rain
children guessed(but only a few
and down they forgot as up they grew
autumn winter spring summer)
that noone loved him more by more
when by now and tree by leaf
she laughed his joy she cried his grief
bird by snow and stir by still
anyone’s any was all to her
someones married their everyones
laughed their cryings and did their dance
(sleep wake hope and then)they
said their nevers they slept their dream
stars rain sun moon
(and only the snow can begin to explain
how children are apt to forget to remember
with up so floating many bells down)
one day anyone died i guess
(and noone stooped to kiss his face)
busy folk buried them side by side
little by little and was by was
all by all and deep by deep
and more by more they dream their sleep
noone and anyone earth by april
wish by spirit and if by yes.
Women and men(both dong and ding)
summer autumn winter spring
reaped their sowing and went their came
sun moon stars rain
Is it just me, or is everyone starting to capital-case cummings' name again? Anyway, this reminds me of his poem, which is especially apt as someone who has to pay attention to syntax as part of my job:
I like the poem. I also like this take on what we should do about capitalizing his name, it feels like it's as close as we can get to a rule: http://eecpoem.pbworks.com/w/page/9068325/Decapitalization ... Where he changed it, keep it changed, everywhere else, use standard capitalization.
I don’t know about that. Should we also do such things w.r.t. gender pronouns? Current etiquette suggest that no, we should follow the preferences of the person on this. Why not then do the same about the spelling of their name?
I agree we should follow the preference. That's what I'm saying to do. My understanding from the link I posted is that EE Cummings did not want to always have his name lowercased: he chose to do it in certain contexts for specific artistic reasons. When we lowercase the name as though he intended to communicate something by having his name always be lowercase, we're creating an artistic statement for him that he never intended to make in the first place.
> EE Cummings did not want to always have his name lowercased: he chose to do it in certain contexts for specific artistic reasons
On careful reading of the link, I can not find any support for the claim that he sometimes used a capitalized version of his name. If he did normally capitalize, and only used the lowercased version in artistic contexts, that would certainly give credence to your idea. But the link does not give any support for this.
Here is some support for the claim that he sometimes used a capitalized version of his name.
Quoting from http://faculty.gvsu.edu/websterm/cummings/caps2.html :
> As we may have mentioned, due to the kindness of D. Jon Grossman's son, Jerome, we have the complete file of Jon's correspondence with Cummings. On making a preliminary tour through these letters, we found Jon preparing a French edition of his translations of Cummings' poetry, and on 27 February 1951 he wrote to the poet: "are you E.E.Cummings, ee cummings, or what?(so far as the title page is concerned)wd u like title page all in lowercase?"
> The poet replied on 1 March 1951: "E.E.Cummings, unless your printer prefers E. E. Cummings/ titlepage up to you;but may it not be tricksy svp[.]"
> That seems definitive to us: may it not be tricksy!
It's really hard to truly be yourself. Comparison is the root of many problems.
Emotions and feelings being a chemical imbalance of the brain causing irrational thought or actions. Yet this irrational thought is expressed, protected, and considered valid reason to justify actions in society.
Wouldn't it be wonderful if people acknowledged feelings yet did the rational thing ?
The problem is that emotions affect rationality - what is rationality even? You feel confident that your thoughts or actions are rational, but that too is an emotion.
To invoke Godwin's Law, the nazis were rational in their policy of exterminating certain people, they listed the traits and stereotypes and decided that the best course of action was to isolate and exterminate them. The US is rational in their policy to label terrorists as 'enemy combatants' and not respect the Geneva conventions when it comes to those.
Yes, underneath those is a certain type of hatred, the emotion, but for all I know that emotion is applied or assumed after the fact - that is, "surely they have to really hate someone do to that", instead of having to admit that it was a rational decision. I don't know which is worse, treating someone badly out of emotion or out of rationality.
Real TLDR:
""" As for expressing nobody-but-yourself in words, that means working just a little harder than anybody who isn’t a poet can possibly imagine. Why? Because nothing is quite as easy as using words like somebody else. We all of us do exactly this nearly all of the time — and whenever we do it, we’re not poets.
If, at the end of your first ten or fifteen years of fighting and working and feeling, you find you’ve written one line of one poem, you’ll be very lucky indeed.
And so my advice to all young people who wish to become poets is: do something easy, like learning how to blow up the world — unless you’re not only willing, but glad, to feel and work and fight till you die.
Does that sound dismal? It isn’t.
It’s the most wonderful life on earth.
Or so I feel. """ -ee cummings
The article is striking in how similar his description on "becoming a poet" is to some insightful advice from Paul Graham and others I've read about "moral weight" and becoming an entrepreneur.
Both paths also promise a more enriching life.
I think you're confused. When poets talk about "enrichment" they mean spiritual enrichment.
I'm not so sure "confused" is exactly the term. "Hackers and Painters" was largely about mastery, less about wealth, and in many traditions, mastery of craft is spiritual enrichment.
Feelings are such a tricky thing.
I was raised to suppress them. Or, well, not even that. Feelings were so thoroughly suppressed in my family, that they never even featured. I must have learned that any expression of emotion gets me nowhere by the age of 0.5
In my 20s, throughout various failed relationships I began to re-examine what feelings are. Why did people (and, anecdotally, women) have so many feelings, of such strength and seemingly of such unpredictability?
It wasn't long until I decided to get therapy. To see what's lurking beneath.
Lo and behold, there were some feelings there. Lots of them surprisingly strong, yet hesitant to surface. It was a bizarre dichotomy to have to deal with. One that affects me to this day. It's like the stronger a feeling within me, the further it is hidden away, leading to this cat and mouse game of 'who am I?'.
Feelings offer a surprisingly absolute way to perceive the world. They are always there and they are always exactly what they are. So long as you allow yourself to feel them.
For the last decade I have been doing nothing but trying to feel more and more. This is still a lot less than most people. At the same time it makes me feel much more 'at home' in the world, it has made me able to connect with people better, it has reduced my stress and anxiety.
It has also lead to some other curious changes within me. I am feeling myself become more and more incompatible with the 'business world'. I know that's a very vague term, but I have found corporate culture and the striving for endless profits, no matter what the human cost, to be incredibly despiccable. Nauseating, icky. Misguided.
I wonder whether feelings and emotions provide a certain common ground for what a human being 'should be' or 'wants to be', which runs counter to capitalist incentive. After all, you want a herd of obedient workers, not uppity individuals causing trouble with their free spirited antics.
I should add that I am of German heritage and I feel there is an entire generation of people who have lived through historical events enabled almost entirely by the suppression and eradication of all feelings (apart from, ironically, hate and fear).
Tldr, I was busy on Facebook.
TLDR, “Kids these days have no idea”