Theos-Talk Archives (November 1999 Message tl00097)

On Wed, 10 Nov 1999 00:47:09 -0700 kymsmith@micron.net
wrote:
Kym:
> Katinka wrote:
>The way I see it, emotions can be a major block for
>understanding. Which is why I am rather wary of them.
Kym:
Ok, but why?  How or in what way are emotions a major block
for understanding?  Can logic or reasoning serve as a block
for understanding?

Katinka
Yes, I also think logic or reasoning can be a block for
understanding. An example of that is very simple: the mind
is very good at looking at only a part of what is relevant
to a certain problem, and reasoning from there can reach
conclusions that are quite logical, but do not have much to
do with a new understanding of reality or even the problem
involved. Emotions can do the same. If love for my husband
(a fictive one in my case) prevents me from seeing the harm
he is doing to others, than my emotions are blocking a real
understanding of the situation and perhaps what I could be
doing to help.

Katinka wrote:
 >But sentimentalism is something other than emotions.
 >Sentimentalism usually (in my experience) makes some
things bigger and others smaller: in short works as a sort
of *funny mirror* (if that is how those
country-fair-mirrors are called).>
Kym:
I don't see how sentimentalism is different from emotions.

Katinka:
Yes, you got me there. sentimentalism is obviously an
example of an emotional response. What I mean is that
sentimentalism is usually an atachment to a particular set
of emotions+memories and that atachment can stop us from
seeing things as they are now, thereby stopping us from
living with the problems and happynesses in the now.

Kym:
> Emotions, also, can make things seem bigger or smaller.
For example, as one develops compassion (in the human
sense), "evil" becomes smaller, and "acceptance" becomes
bigger.  >

katinka:
agree. This is an example of how emotions can work
positively.

Kym:
> Another example: John the Baptist claimed that he must decrease so Jesus
 could increase - was John the Baptist being sentimental,
emotional, or reasonable?  If sentimentality REALLY is
seeing some things as bigger (or more important) and others
smaller (less important), then sentimentality
 seems to be a necessary component to spirituality and
understanding.>

Katinka:
This discussion is a classic example of the mind or
heart-dispute in theosophy. I am not trying to minimize the
factor Heart in spiritual life. Obviously the heart has a
lot to do with what gets us on this path and what keeps us
from straying to egoistical grounds. All I am saying is
that they each have their place and when emotions (not the
overall LOVE feeling, but annoyance, anger, inner unrest,
but also likes for individuals sometimes) interfere with
what I feel to be my duty, I do not like the emotional
world. It is too messy for my taste, but I am forced to
live in it, so I do, but I would like more of those
experiences of inner calm... That inner calm could be
called an emotion too, but it is only such in the way that
a calm summer day is weather, as much as an autumn storm.

Katinka:
>Well, any point of view is subjective, even the seemingly
>objective, so I understand your difficulty here.

kym:
> This statement seems to suggest, then, that there really is no such thing
> as objectivity.  Yes? No?  If so, what is the difference between
> subjectivity and emotions?

Katinka:
Well, in subjectivity our past and present thoughts come in
as much as our present emotions. Consciousness is messy
too.

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