Theos-Talk Archives (November 1999 Message tl00084)

Dallas wrote:

>What I mean is that sometimes sentimentality ( non-reasoning)
>overwhelms us all.

How is sentimentality "non-reasoning?"  Sentimentality is another term for
"tenderness."  Is tenderness "non-reasoning?"  To me, tenderness is a very
reasonable response to many events, persons, animals, experiences, etc.

>It is difficult to hold it in control, and when it goes of at
>some tangent or another, it drags the "mind" or "reasoning
>faculty" with it, usually.

Agreed, but I postulate that logic, objectivity, and reasoning can veer off
into a tangent, causing harm, havoc, and pain.  Therefore, I still do not
see how reasoning is "superior" to emotions, including sentimentality.

>But who or what is the "WE" that even
>considers "to control, or "not to control?"

I was going to say that the "we" is what makes us human, but that is not
correct as even the Demiurge (a supposed non-human) seems to have a problem
with control issues.

>One of the peculiarities of the sentimental, and desire nature is
>that it does not consider consequences.

I totally disagree.  Desire does not have to be only a self-serving
mechanism.  Sorry to use the sex example, but it applies: One can desire to
be excessive in their sexual activity, but this same desire can bring
pleasure to others.  Even if one only experiences physical enjoyment from
something, this same physical enjoyment can serve as a doorway, or
guidepost, on understanding the feelings and reactions of the body.  A
person learns to understand pain or pleasure; hence, this can be
transferred to another.  Example:  If a person finds out, during sex, that
being slapped causes pain, they may learn to refrain from slapping others
because of their own uncomfortable experience.

>It desires to enjoy, and
>looks forward to continued "enjoyment."  In itself this is not
>wrong, but, in my esteem it needs to be balanced with
>reasonableness, and the necessities of our duties and
>responsibilities.

Regarding my example above, one does not need to even factor in duties and
responsibilities when refraining from hurting others.  If I don't like
something done to me, I probably won't do it to another, but it doesn't
mean I consider it a duty or responsibility.  Children are a good example.

Dallas, to me, you seem to speak in a manner that expects most people to
already be rather advanced along the "Path."  But many people are not and
talking to someone who has no concept about duties and responsibilities
will make little headway if they are not yet prepared.  Each person,
regardless of their own national language, has an "internal language" and
that is what needs to be focused on.  If we speak another language, they
will not understand and they will not learn.

>And
>I would add that the addition of the mind-faculty to desire is
>that it can look back in MEMORY to the past; and also look
>FORWARD in anticipation to some desired FUTURE.  Without the mind
>offering these faculties the desire nature alone deals only with
>the present in a reactive and an instinctual manner.

I do not believe that the desire state needs the addition of the
mind-faculty so it can remember or anticipate.  The statement you made
above - "It desires to enjoy, and looks forward to continued "enjoyment" -
AUTOMATICALLY assigns memory and anticipation to the desire state.  So,
obviously, desire does not need mind to perform those functions.

Also, there is a reason for the maintaining of humanity's "reactive and
instinctual manner."  Humanity would have never survived without it, and
may not yet be able to.  I agree that anger needs to be tempered, but not
necessarily done away with - not yet.  Anger and fear still serve humanity
as creative forces, and yes, also destructive forces - but those emotions
still have a place in the current state of human evolvement.  At this stage
of evolution, if humanity were to lose anger and fear, the lack of
understanding is such that I predict what would take its place is
hopelessness and apathy.  I am not being pessimistic, quite the contrary,
but humanity is only now learning what the alternatives are.  For many of
us, even actions that could be considered "altruistic" may be based in
fear, rather than true understanding.  Example:  I believe that NATO
attempting to stop the genocide in Kosovo had the components of both
altruism and fear.  And I am glad NATO and the world was fearful of what
was going on in Kosovo - fearful that it may spread to neighboring
countries - because that fear prompted NATO to save a people (altruism) and
to stop an aggressive army from marching further (fear).

>Next I consider:  What is dominant in Man and Woman ?  What makes
>them unique -- is it not the power to think, to reason, to
>anticipate, to remember and to IMAGINE ?  "WHAT IF.....? "

For me, it is the desire to "create."  The creations can be "bad" or "good"
but creativity and expression seems to be the prime motivator for humanity.
 Create cures, create computers, create people, create art, create music,
create money, express pain, express emotion, express joy, express desire.
Expressing desire is the expressing of a thought which in turn creates
something, both tangible and intangible.

>Where do we get our idealism from?

Creativity, in my opinion - whose source could be from THE God.

>What is excellence?

Excellence is a subjective human reaction.  I consider Mozart to epitomize
excellence in music - another may consider Bach to be the expression of
excellence.

>Is
>"Perfection" in any area possible?

No, not to me, because "perfection" declares finality.  Nothing can be
better than perfection.  Perfection is a great big stop sign.  Once one
believes something is "perfect," the object of perfection remains forever
stagnant.

>Where do we secure
>Inspiration?

>From dog, cats, loved ones, God, music, pain, poetry - creativity is merely
inspiration fulfilled.

>What is Genius or Talent in some art or science or
>philosophy?

A genius is only a genius for a certain length of time.  Eventually,
someone will surpass the thought - "greater works."  Genius-ness is always
fluctuating, always changing.  Talent is something that one can be born
with or acquire, and it, too, is always in flux.  A talented pianist may
find him/herself unable to play as well as he/she did when he/she were
younger.  A talent can last a few years, a lifetime, or many lifetimes.

>Those unusual faculties need to be reconciled with our usual
>endowment with reflective and anticipatory natures.

I'm afraid I don't understand this statement. Could you clarify?

>While I would be one of the first to admit that the intertwining
>of the feelings and the mind is in all of us, I would also like
>to make sure what they are when separated

Why, Dallas?  What would you do with the knowledge?

>and why they are so
>mixed when we do our thinking or desiring ?

Because this mix is the foundation of "balance."  One without the other is
not a balance, but a one-sidedness.  A half-life.

>How is it that
>psychology makes these distinctions and Theosophy seems to add a
>wider dimension to their consideration?

Psychology is not interested in the metaphysical or spiritual - it is not
part of the scientific criteria.  Psychology wants to know how the brain
works in the world. Theosophy, on the other hand, does claim the link
between the brain, mind, and spiritual as part of its philosophy.

>Finally, what power is it in us that enables us to change our
>desires and to vary them?

I'm getting quite redundant here, but I must answer that it is creativity.
As we experience more and more, our desire to create or express different
ideas tends to change.  As we become exposed to more, we see wider and
greater potentials for our expressions.

>How is it that we can perceive areas
>of uncertainty ?

Uh, probably what is unknown or just raw fear.  What makes one uncertain is
the unknown and the unknown, to many, is fearful.

>Where is there some "stability" that makes this
>possible, so that we can have a "dialog with ourselves ?"

Again, for me, since nothing is really "stable," it is my memory that
provides stability.  I remember how I dealt with something, I remember how
I hate carrots, I remember how much my loved ones love me, I remember that
scientists are working on cures, etc. . .this provides reference which
leads to a sense of stability both within myself and the world.

>Where
>does that Power come from?

You got me there. . ..

>Is it an attribute of the REAL HUMAN
>BEING ?

I don't know what you mean by a "REAL HUMAN BEING."

>Is it possibly superior even to the Mind ?

Which "mind" are you referring to?

>and see if you can help clear up some of my
>questions, please

Is this a double dog dare???

Kym