Theos-Talk Archives (November 1999 Message tl00096)

> 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.
Sentimentality in my understanding is quite different from
tenderness. Sentimentality is there where a memory of some
kind is combined with some positive feeling. therefore, I
do not agree with Dallas that the positive aspect of mind
is that it can look back. many things we call emotions are
in fact emotions+memory+thought and acquire their strength
and persistence from the combination.
> >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.
To me it seems that both have their place in things. When
the mind interferes with emotions, it usually does not work
well, especially if the mind has not taken the time to
observe emotion. On the other hand if emotion interferes
with mind (for instance when I am doing my math-homework)
it usually does not exactly help with that either. both
have their place.
> >But who or what is the "WE" that even
> >considers "to control, or "not to control?"
I suppose it is that something that makes us
individual..Atma? But this is a beautiful example of how
theosophical labeling does not get us anywhere, because we
can decide together to call it Atma, but that does not
explain anything.

Katinka
----------------------
NHL Leeuwarden
hesse600@tem.nhl.nl