A Stoic Response To The Climate Crisis

[Nick_A]

Nick_A quoted:

What
is lost is the experience of oneself, just oneself—myself, the personal
being who is here, now, living, breathing, yearning for meaning, for
goodness; just this person here, now, squarely confronting one’s own
existential weaknesses and pretensions while yet aware, however
tentatively, of a higher current of life and identity calling to us from
within ourselves. This presence to oneself is the missing element in
the whole of the life of Man, the intermediate state of consciousness
between what we are meant to be and what we actually are.
It is, perhaps, the one bridge that can lead us from our inhuman past
toward the human future.........................

Yes that is true. The question , and the anxiety, remains "Shall I sail my own little boat , or shall I join a lot of other people on the big safe cruise?

Emotions can be trained after a fashion, but we don't want to be emotionally flat to break the horses' spirits so to speak. There has to be a tension between reactive emotions and reason.

But if we don't know what we are, how do we deal with the tension between reason and negative emotion? It is far easier to become part of the herd. The individual can admit they live in an absurd world and with horror begin to see they are absurd as well. So rather than justifying it they strive to become capable of conscious attention so they can experience the external world free of acquired preconceptions rather than continually being pulled into mechanical attention. Of course it is intolerable for a world having accepted lunacy as normal

."Attention is the rarest and purest form of generosity. It is given to very few minds to notice that things and beings exist. Since my childhood I have not wanted anything else but to receive the complete revelation of this before dying." ~Simone Weil

It takes a lot of courage to "LOOK" when all round you are fighting. This has happened in war and a person shocked into looking realize in horror what they are involved in. Then they can grow and change as human beings as opposed to creatures of reaction capable of the greatest compassion and atrocities depending on which way the wind is blowing..

I am advocating what I know is hated by the world. I am suggesting that exploring conscious attention requires us to open to what transcends duality which sustains our world. Yet I know that Simone, Jacob Needleman, Dr Nicolescu, and others do understand the first step necessary to Know Thyself. Without becoming capable of conscious attention we just continue mechanically in the dualistic battle between right and wrong as natural reactions to cosmic and natural forces along with the rest of animal life in the world.

[Belinda]

Nick, I agree with your last and I love the way Simone expressed her idea..("Attention is the rarest and purest form of generosity. It is given to very few minds to notice that things and beings exist. Since my childhood I have not wanted anything else but to receive the complete revelation of this before dying." ~Simone Weil)

There is a question that is implied by "know yourself! ". The question is "Is there a self to know?"

It's not possible to change one's biological inheritance but one can change ideas and habitual behaviours and thoughts.Until a man is senile he cannot discover who he really is. Others won't be able to tell the story of a man's life until his dying moment.

It would be vanity for you or me to believe " I have found who I really am who I am meant to be".

[Nick_A]

Belinda

There is a question that is implied by "know yourself! ". The question is "Is there a self to know?"

A genuine question. Normally people argue over opinions as to what it means to know yourself but we can reach the point of admitting that we don’t know? Like you I believe it would be vain to assume that we do know. But can a person come to have the experience of oneself through through direct apprehension?

Noesis

1: purely intellectual apprehension:

aPlatonism : the highest kind of knowledge or knowledge of the eternal forms or ideas —contrasted with dianoia
bin Husserl : the subjective aspect of or the act in an intentional experience —distinguished from noema

d2: cognition especially when occurring through direct knowledge

Satori (from Wiki)

"comprehension; understanding".[1] It is derived from the Japanese verb satoru.[2]
In the Zen Buddhist tradition, satori refers to the experience of kenshō,[3] "seeing into one's true nature". Ken means "seeing," shō means "nature" or "essence".[3]

The ancient teachings agree we are not what we believe we are but it is ls obvious we cannot discover what we are through dualistic dianoia. For those with the need for meaning they are drawn to conscious contemplation made possible through conscious attention

“Absolutely unmixed attention is prayer.” ― Simone Weil

She refers to what we are capable of when we get out of our own way and all its pre-conceptions and become “open”

It seems it is essential for people with the need for meaning not found in the world to come to the limits of what dianoia offers and become open to noesis or remembering what has been forgotten. But for many it is far more important to attempt to justify opinions and this mindset has captured philosophy

Admitting “I know Nothing” understood by Noesis and Satori is the first step to the experience of self knowledge but it has been proven how much the world struggles against it considering it insulting. It is then the responsibility of the individuals who have experienced objective human meaning and purpose to keep the perennial ideas alive in the world

[Belinda]

Belinda

There is a question that is implied by "know yourself! ". The question is "Is there a self to know?"

A genuine question. Normally people argue over opinions as to what it means to know yourself but we can reach the point of admitting that we don’t know? Like you I believe it would be vain to assume that we do know. But can a person come to have the experience of oneself through through direct apprehension?

Noesis

1: purely intellectual apprehension:

aPlatonism : the highest kind of knowledge or knowledge of the eternal forms or ideas —contrasted with dianoia
bin Husserl : the subjective aspect of or the act in an intentional experience —distinguished from noema

d2: cognition especially when occurring through direct knowledge

Satori (from Wiki)

"comprehension; understanding".[1] It is derived from the Japanese verb satoru.[2]
In the Zen Buddhist tradition, satori refers to the experience of kenshō,[3] "seeing into one's true nature". Ken means "seeing," shō means "nature" or "essence".[3]

The ancient teachings agree we are not what we believe we are but it is ls obvious we cannot discover what we are through dualistic dianoia. For those with the need for meaning they are drawn to

conscious contemplation made possible through conscious attention

“Absolutely unmixed attention is prayer.” ― Simone Weil

She refers to what we are capable of when we get out of our own way and all its pre-conceptions and become “open”

It seems it is essential for people with the need for meaning not found in the world to come to the limits of what dianoia offers and become open to noesis or remembering what has been forgotten. But for many it is far more important to attempt to justify opinions and this mindset has captured philosophy

Admitting “I know Nothing” understood by Noesis and Satori is the first step to the experience of self knowledge but it has been proven how much the world struggles against it considering it insulting. It is then the responsibility of the individuals who have experienced objective human meaning and purpose to keep the perennial ideas alive in the world

conscious contemplation made possible through conscious attention

“Absolutely unmixed attention is prayer.” ― Simone Weil

Of all the variety of behaviours people call "praying" that''s the only sort of praying that is outgoing towards something other than oneself.Only by "absolutely unmixed attention" can I really do justice to whatever I consider to be worthy.

[Nick_A]

Belinda

Of all the variety of behaviours people call "praying" that''s the only sort of praying that is outgoing towards something other than oneself.Only by "absolutely unmixed attention" can I really do justice to whatever I consider to be worthy.

Very true. If we want to Know Thyself we must transcend opinions which interpret ourselves. One thing I've learned by experience is that conscious attention and imagination are mutually exclusive. When one is present the other is not. Praying from earthly desires don't go anywhere. Praying from our essence does.

Philosophy now defined as the debate of opinions is one thing but can two or more people sincerely relate on why they don't know thyself? Now this is a fairly long discussion but I include an excerpt because it shows how people can transcend opinions to appreciate why they know nothing. Even becoming able to listen opens the mind but the war between opinions prevents it

https://parabola.org/2016/03/04/the-gre ... needleman/

.....................RW: Yes. Exactly. I wanted to bring up another big thing: The Other. I know Emmanuel Levinas (1906-1995) has written about this in profound ways. This is such a fact of life. That person who is different from me, who I don’t know, the stranger, is usually regarded with fear and distrust.
JN: The French word that Levinas uses, which is translated simply as “the Other” actually means the other person. It is more like the other mysteriously human being, the other true I there—the I’ness in the other person. This is a huge thing, as you say. And it’s on top of a another huge thing, the top of a mountain. When he talks about the face, for example, the human face, it’s a total mystery! We look at each other. What is this thing called “the face”? It seems like the person, and yet it’s just the face. What is it doing? How can it be so meaningful, so beautiful, so terrifying, so uniquely other? And so uniquely related to me. We have no categories to explain why the face has these properties. If you want to talk about the unknown, just bring in the human face. A person’s inner world is in the face. I’m manifesting something I didn’t intend to. All these little muscles, what do they obey? I’m trying to say that leads to something huge and that is, when I see the other, I feel responsibility. The influence of Levinas on ethics—this weak word that has become sort of flat—he wanted to say that the most fundamental aspect of human life is responsibility toward the other. This is the moral dimension in the deepest sense of the word. The fundamental fact of universal reality is responsibility, is love. Love. In some sense, it includes the All—and it comes in relationship to the other. The incarnation of the life with the other is community. It’s in dialogue, in conversation, in an exchange between people, that is the life of man. There is no I without a You.

RW: That’s really basic, isn’t it?
JN: Basic. When we bring in the element of philosophy, the search for truth, facing the unknown, Socrates is the great emblem, but he’s also the great emblem of you and me exchanging. What I’m trying to relate this to is the fundamental work of ethics, of morality, of love. The first step is what I tried to write about in my book Why Can’t We Be Good. As St. Paul said, “For the good that I would, I do not: but the evil which I would not, that I do.” So where is the bridge between what I know I ought to do and how I actually behave? There’s a huge gap. But there is a bridge, which very few people have understood. And that is the work of listening to another human being. In that work of listening, I’m not required to agree with you, or to love you, but just to listen, to let the other person in. To me this is the great undiscovered, realistic first plank in a bridge that leads from where I am to where I ought to be. So this is related to the other.

RW: Very much so, and if something in me opened up enough so that I could listen to the other, to the stranger, that would be a big step.
JN: It’s a huge step, but it’s a possible step. We only have to know a little bit—and there’s plenty of guidance—we have to develop an intentional attitude toward our own attention, because everybody has enough attention not to identify for a few moments with their own thoughts. It doesn’t take much, but it does take some inner work to make a space in the mind to let that other person’s words come in.

RW: I’m remembering a few times when I’ve been confronted with another person who was for me, this other, and having found a way to do exactly what you’re talking about, to listen. And as I listened and spoke and listened, the fear began to evaporate. I began to realize this other was not so foreign or strange. This only has to happen once or twice to show one something profound. After that, it’s not hard to extrapolate and realize most of this fear comes from illusion.
JN: Very well put, I think. I fear letting go of my opinions. I’m afraid of letting go of how I’m going to respond. It’s a real act of courage, in a way, just to listen to the other, let him in, without knowing what the result is going to be.

RW: You know, you’re right. It is an act of courage.
JN: And that’s the unknown. I’m setting aside the known and making a space and, God, what’s going to happen? Most of my listening is preparing to go in and react and respond and be right or whatever. But I give up that and let the person’s words come in without even trying to interpret them necessarily. But something is understanding this other person. Isn’t that what you’re saying?

RW: Absolutely.
JN: So I’m living in an unknown, and the unknown in myself is receiving........................

It is sad when I see how instutions of higher education are creating snowflakes incapable of listening. I consider it fortunte that there are influences out there who I've mentioned who serve to open the minds for those who need and find them as they strive to understand what it means to "Know Thyself.".

[Belinda]

Nick , the import of the extract is about knowing self as self relates to The Other, and there is no self without self's relation to The Other.

Simone's claim about the need to pay attention is much concerned with relating to The Other.

By The Other I don't mean exclusively the human other. I mean also what is not-me, so that for instance the study of some area of science or technology is also The Other.

In my experience I can assure you there are many, if not most, professional teachers who aim to enable students to love The Other, whatever The Other be for the student as an individual.

Nick, if you were castigating some specific institution for creating "snowflakes" I might understand or agree with you. For instance the English school called Eton is infamous for turning out future Tories who support the capitalist system and their own social class. I am not sure what 'snowflakes' are for you. For me, 'snowflakes' are people who are unaware of stern realities and are less able to face them when they happen.

[Nick_A]

Nick , the import of the extract is about knowing self as self relates to The Other, and there is no self without self's relation to The Other.

Simone's claim about the need to pay attention is much concerned with relating to The Other.

By The Other I don't mean exclusively the human other. I mean also what is not-me, so that for instance the study of some area of science or technology is also The Other.

In my experience I can assure you there are many, if not most, professional teachers who aim to enable students to love The Other, whatever The Other be for the student as an individual.

Nick, if you were castigating some specific institution for creating "snowflakes" I might understand or agree with you. For instance the English school called Eton is infamous for turning out future Tories who support the capitalist system and their own social class. I am not sure what 'snowflakes' are for you. For me, 'snowflakes' are people who are unaware of stern realities and are less able to face them when they happen.

Now it becomes difficult. You are used to defining the other in a horizontal way or what attracts our senses. I am referring to the vertical other

...............RW: Yes. Exactly. I wanted to bring up another big thing: The Other. I know Emmanuel Levinas (1906-1995) has written about this in profound ways. This is such a fact of life. That person who is different from me, who I don’t know, the stranger, is usually regarded with fear and distrust.
JN: The French word that Levinas uses, which is translated simply as “the Other” actually means the other person. It is more like the other mysteriously human being, the other true I there—the I’ness in the other person. This is a huge thing, as you say. And it’s on top of a another huge thing, the top of a mountain. When he talks about the face, for example, the human face, it’s a total mystery! We look at each other. What is this thing called “the face”?......................

Before this section, they spoke of consciousness which leads to the other

JN: It’s astonishing that this is not at the forefront of our awareness, let’s say, that I am experiencing this. The “I-ness” is lost in my life. I could go through a whole month, year, a whole lifetime and not realize that I am experiencing life. Consciousness is myself in some deep sense of the word. I’m not my arms and legs, my nose, my opinions. I’m not my words, my thoughts, my sensations. I’m not my organs. I’m a human being. A human being is defined by consciousness. That’s what you’re saying, if I understand it.

RW: Yes. I read this interview with John O’Donohue and a sentence stood out to me. He said, “I feel that there is an evacuation of interiority going on in our times.” I think this is very much related.
JN: I think I understand what he means. We start explaining things through the brain that are really things of the mind and then think that we’ve understood interiority. This is externalizing the interiority that defines a human being. In neuroscience now it’s a big thing, almost fashionable, that neuroscience can begin to see many things inside the brain. It’s remarkable, but they still haven’t explained what they call “the hard problem.” The hard problem is the experience of consciousness. You can say all you want about the cells charging and discharging and all that, but how do you account for the experiential quality of consciousness at even its simplest levels—such as the experience, say, of seeing a color—red, blue or anything?

The whole point of copying these excerpts is to prove that we don't know ourselves, We cannot look down at ourselves or know thyself or even know what consciousness is. Can we respect these questions? I've learned that only a few can respect these essential questions of philosophy or what the vertical reality of the other or consciousness means. Does modern education benefit or deny the purpose of education?

https://academiccommons.columbia.edu/do ... 6/D83776W5

The concern of this study is the loss of the meaning or purpose of education and the instrumental view of education as its corollary. Today, education is largely conceived of as a means to gain social and economic privilege. The overemphasis on school children's test scores and the accountability of teachers and schools is evidence that education has lost its proper meaning. In such a climate, we observe general unhappiness among teachers, school children, and their parents. Society as a whole seems to have given up on education, not only school education but also the very idea of educated human beings. There is an urgent need to reconsider what education is and what its purpose is. However, these questions—once being the primary concerns of philosophers of education—are barely discussed today. I intend to energize the discourse of the aims of education by examining Simone Weil's thesis that the sole purpose of education is to nurture attention.

Again, I'm not looking to debate opinions but for those willing to deepen the question of what we are by becoming able to "look" with conscious attention without becoming lost captivated by preconceptions and lost in opinions. Once we can deepen the questions, and begin to "know Thyself" the answers will appear because they are normal for human "being" or what we are

[Belinda]

Nick , the import of the extract is about knowing self as self relates to The Other, and there is no self without self's relation to The Other.

Simone's claim about the need to pay attention is much concerned with relating to The Other.

By The Other I don't mean exclusively the human other. I mean also what is not-me, so that for instance the study of some area of science or technology is also The Other.

In my experience I can assure you there are many, if not most, professional teachers who aim to enable students to love The Other, whatever The Other be for the student as an individual.

Nick, if you were castigating some specific institution for creating "snowflakes" I might understand or agree with you. For instance the English school called Eton is infamous for turning out future Tories who support the capitalist system and their own social class. I am not sure what 'snowflakes' are for you. For me, 'snowflakes' are people who are unaware of stern realities and are less able to face them when they happen.

Now it becomes difficult. You are used to defining the other in a horizontal way or what attracts our senses. I am referring to the vertical other

...............RW: Yes. Exactly. I wanted to bring up another big thing: The Other. I know Emmanuel Levinas (1906-1995) has written about this in profound ways. This is such a fact of life. That person who is different from me, who I don’t know, the stranger, is usually regarded with fear and distrust.
JN: The French word that Levinas uses, which is translated simply as “the Other” actually means the other person. It is more like the other mysteriously human being, the other true I there—the I’ness in the other person. This is a huge thing, as you say. And it’s on top of a another huge thing, the top of a mountain. When he talks about the face, for example, the human face, it’s a total mystery! We look at each other. What is this thing called “the face”?......................

Before this section, they spoke of consciousness which leads to the other

JN: It’s astonishing that this is not at the forefront of our awareness, let’s say, that I am experiencing this. The “I-ness” is lost in my life. I could go through a whole month, year, a whole lifetime and not realize that I am experiencing life. Consciousness is myself in some deep sense of the word. I’m not my arms and legs, my nose, my opinions. I’m not my words, my thoughts, my sensations. I’m not my organs. I’m a human being. A human being is defined by consciousness. That’s what you’re saying, if I understand it.

RW: Yes. I read this interview with John O’Donohue and a sentence stood out to me. He said, “I feel that there is an evacuation of interiority going on in our times.” I think this is very much related.
JN: I think I understand what he means. We start explaining things through the brain that are really things of the mind and then think that we’ve understood interiority. This is externalizing the interiority that defines a human being. In neuroscience now it’s a big thing, almost fashionable, that neuroscience can begin to see many things inside the brain. It’s remarkable, but they still haven’t explained what they call “the hard problem.” The hard problem is the experience of consciousness. You can say all you want about the cells charging and discharging and all that, but how do you account for the experiential quality of consciousness at even its simplest levels—such as the experience, say, of seeing a color—red, blue or anything?

The whole point of copying these excerpts is to prove that we don't know ourselves, We cannot look down at ourselves or know thyself or even know what consciousness is. Can we respect these questions? I've learned that only a few can respect these essential questions of philosophy or what the vertical reality of the other or consciousness means. Does modern education benefit or deny the purpose of education?

https://academiccommons.columbia.edu/do ... 6/D83776W5

The concern of this study is the loss of the meaning or purpose of education and the instrumental view of education as its corollary. Today, education is largely conceived of as a means to gain social and economic privilege. The overemphasis on school children's test scores and the accountability of teachers and schools is evidence that education has lost its proper meaning. In such a climate, we observe general unhappiness among teachers, school children, and their parents. Society as a whole seems to have given up on education, not only school education but also the very idea of educated human beings. There is an urgent need to reconsider what education is and what its purpose is. However, these questions—once being the primary concerns of philosophers of education—are barely discussed today. I intend to energize the discourse of the aims of education by examining Simone Weil's thesis that the sole purpose of education is to nurture attention.

Again, I'm not looking to debate opinions but for those willing to deepen the question of what we are by becoming able to "look" with conscious attention without becoming lost captivated by preconceptions and lost in opinions. Once we can deepen the questions, and begin to "know Thyself" the answers will appear because they are normal for human "being" or what we are

Nick wrote:

You are used to defining the other in a horizontal way or what attracts our senses. I am referring to the vertical other

Do you mean a higher self?

[Nick_A]

Belinda

You are used to defining the other in a horizontal way or what attracts our senses. I am referring to the vertical other
Do you mean a higher self?

What you call our higher self is the conscious part of our collective essence capable of witnessing the lower mechanical parts of our collective essence. It makes us able to :Know Thyself" or have the experienced of the lower parts we call ourselves

The problem is that they are not connected we live dominated by the lower parts of our essence. A real human being has established a connection and in this way the lower mechanical parts serve our higher conscious parts. The mission of the Christ was to make it possible. Simone explains how

"

Grace fills empty spaces, but it can only enter where there is a void to receive it We must continually suspend the work of the imagination in filling the void within ourselves."
"In no matter what circumstances, if the imagination is stopped from pouring itself out, we have a void (the poor in spirit). In no matter what circumstances... imagination can fill the void. This is why the average human beings can become prisoners, slaves, prostitutes, and pass thru no matter what suffering without being purified."

[Belinda]

Grace fills empty spaces, but it can only enter where there is a void to receive it We must continually suspend the work of the imagination in filling the void within ourselves."
"In no matter what circumstances, if the imagination is stopped from pouring itself out, we have a void (the poor in spirit). In no matter what circumstances... imagination can fill the void. This is why the average human beings can become prisoners, slaves, prostitutes, and pass thru no matter what suffering without being purified."Simone Weil

Simone Weil conflates imagination and fantasy. Otherwise I agree with what she says.

The '"average human being "is a wanderer and seeker whose imagination is what creates for him any possibilities his future may hold. His imagination is what includes his reasoning powers and his creativity. If any part of a human psyche is directly God-given that part is a man's imagination.

Think what causes moral evil. It is a lack of imagination which is the broad basis of empathy and ordinary everyday sympathy

If we are successful in suspending imagination, and we know this has happened under repressive political regimes, we are emptied and ready for the devil to take us over.

[Nick_A]

Grace fills empty spaces, but it can only enter where there is a void to receive it We must continually suspend the work of the imagination in filling the void within ourselves."
"In no matter what circumstances, if the imagination is stopped from pouring itself out, we have a void (the poor in spirit). In no matter what circumstances... imagination can fill the void. This is why the average human beings can become prisoners, slaves, prostitutes, and pass thru no matter what suffering without being purified."Simone Weil

Simone Weil conflates imagination and fantasy. Otherwise I agree with what she says.

The '"average human being "is a wanderer and seeker whose imagination is what creates for him any possibilities his future may hold. His imagination is what includes his reasoning powers and his creativity. If any part of a human psyche is directly God-given that part is a man's imagination.

Think what causes moral evil. It is a lack of imagination which is the broad basis of empathy and ordinary everyday sympathy

If we are successful in suspending imagination, and we know this has happened under repressive political regimes, we are emptied and ready for the devil to take us over.

Simone is referring to emotional imagination and not intellectual imagination. Pure intellectual imagination is really a type of conscious contemplation that can lead to noesis. Emotional imagination denies our ability to experience conscious reality. Emotional imagination replaces consciousness with escapism, fear, vanity, pride, and all the rest which makes self knowledge impossible. It is a serious mistake to confuse our potential for consciously opening the void in favor of closing it by emotional imagination.

[Belinda]

Grace fills empty spaces, but it can only enter where there is a void to receive it We must continually suspend the work of the imagination in filling the void within ourselves."
"In no matter what circumstances, if the imagination is stopped from pouring itself out, we have a void (the poor in spirit). In no matter what circumstances... imagination can fill the void. This is why the average human beings can become prisoners, slaves, prostitutes, and pass thru no matter what suffering without being purified."Simone Weil

Simone Weil conflates imagination and fantasy. Otherwise I agree with what she says.

The '"average human being "is a wanderer and seeker whose imagination is what creates for him any possibilities his future may hold. His imagination is what includes his reasoning powers and his creativity. If any part of a human psyche is directly God-given that part is a man's imagination.

Think what causes moral evil. It is a lack of imagination which is the broad basis of empathy and ordinary everyday sympathy

If we are successful in suspending imagination, and we know this has happened under repressive political regimes, we are emptied and ready for the devil to take us over.

Simone is referring to emotional imagination and not intellectual imagination. Pure intellectual imagination is really a type of conscious contemplation that can lead to noesis. Emotional imagination denies our ability to experience conscious reality. Emotional imagination replaces consciousness with escapism, fear, vanity, pride, and all the rest which makes self knowledge impossible. It is a serious mistake to confuse our potential for consciously opening the void in favor of closing it by emotional imagination.

I wonder if you and I use different terminology. What you call "emotional imagination"

Emotional imagination replaces consciousness with escapism, fear, vanity, pride, and all the rest which makes self knowledge impossible.

is what I call emotional reaction. The individual reacts to fear, lust, greed, jealousy,shame, anger, and also to pity without due thought and reflection. Self knowledge is best when the individual is aware of the dark side of their nature and uses their conscious awareness to chose wisely, having recognised their weaknesses.

My allegiance to what you call " pure intellectual imagination" is so strong that I would not use the word 'imagination' to name what is decidedly not pure intellectual imagination.

[Nick_A]

is what I call emotional reaction. The individual reacts to fear, lust, greed, jealousy,shame, anger, and also to pity without due thought and reflection. Self knowledge is best when the individual is aware of the dark side of their nature and uses their conscious awareness to chose wisely, having recognised their weaknesses.

A very important question. We react to negative emotions but are these emotions learned or are we born with them? If they are learned we have the potential to experience them with conscious attention for what they are. Not being dominant or imaginary, they lose their force and we outgrow them. Of course it is easier said than done. Do you believe we are born with negative emotions we react to and are part of our essence or are they learned in life and become part of our personality?

My allegiance to what you call " pure intellectual imagination" is so strong that I would not use the word 'imagination' to name what is decidedly not pure intellectual imagination.

I would agree and call this degree of conscious contemplation the calling to experience truth regardless of our negative reactions to it.

"does there exist in man a natural attraction to truth and to the struggle for truth that is stronger than the natural attraction to pleasure?" Jacob Needleman

There is no right or wrong in this. It is a simple request to witness this great struggle within ourselves. Are we willing to sacrifice the power of imagination that guides our lives for the sake of our deep need for truth and the GOOD it is a part of? I know I’m incapable of t but could work for the sake of freedom from imagination. Yet some people could sacrifice imagination for truth. Simone was one. Simone shows that the sacrifice for truth is at least possible for imagination not to prevail

Excerpted from a letter Simone Weil wrote on May 15, 1942 in Marseilles, France to her close friend Father Perrin when she was near death:

At fourteen I fell into one of those fits of bottomless despair that come with adolescence, and I seriously thought of dying because of the mediocrity of my natural faculties. The exceptional gifts of my brother, who had a childhood and youth comparable to those of Pascal, brought my own inferiority home to me. I did not mind having no visible successes, but what did grieve me was the idea of being excluded from that transcendent kingdom to which only the truly great have access and wherein truth abides. I preferred to die rather than live without that truth…………………………..

[Belinda]

I can't discuss imagination with you as we understand the word differently.

Imagination creates ideas and discovers knowledge. Fantasy is not imagination although imagination sometimes uses fantasy as a sort of thought experiment that can lead to ideas and insights. Emotions are biological and can be publicly viewed, smelled, and even tasted, besides being felt in one's own central nervous system.

[Nick_A]

I can't discuss imagination with you as we understand the word differently.

Imagination creates ideas and discovers knowledge. Fantasy is not imagination although imagination sometimes uses fantasy as a sort of thought experiment that can lead to ideas and insights. Emotions are biological and can be publicly viewed, smelled, and even tasted, besides being felt in one's own central nervous system.

As I understand it, our emotional contact with the external world reveals what we like and dislike while our consciousness reveals what we know - the comparison of facts. IYO is the function of emotion to recognize facts or to interpret them or define their value?