"Thoughts are vital, living things, little bundles of energy, if you will" said Julian. Perhaps he was ruing the sale of his Ferrari? or was it perhaps Robin speaking in Julian's voice? Whatever it is, I have come to believe that thoughts have as much life as I have left in me. They are born, they live and they die... well, some, live on.
If thoughts can be living entities in spite of their intangible nature, well then, what about feelings? You 'feel' a certain way because a certain event has occurred which has brought about that feeling in you. Which then goes on to say that the feeling was born right there and then. The feeling lives on until some other feeling overtakes you for the time being or until a subsequent event erases that particular feeling and permanently replaces it with a fresh one. So then feelings die as well.
A subtlety here is that, unlike thoughts, the feelings when dead, don't come back alive. Let me explain. An unpleasant event occurs. It brings a negative feeling in you. You might hold anger or might feel sad. You live through it. The weather changes, good times arrive and a pleasant, positive feeling replaces that negative feeling that was in you. So years later, or even in a matter of hours, you replace anger with love. The feeling of anger is now dead and it wont come back alive unless a new negative event is to occur. This then means that the thought may persist that you were once angry. It may live on. But you wont feel the anger anymore, for now, it has turned into love. Get the point?
But what warrants considering feelings as living things? In a way, you can effectively replace the word 'feeling' with 'emotion'. And these feelings or the emotions are the ways in which we react to events. We get pregnant with the thoughts and we give birth to the emotions. Some see the day of light. Some die deep in the darkness. They don't have an absolute form and can take their own shape at will. But then so is the case with the other life forms on earth as well. Isn't it? Not all animals look the same, not all humans are the same, and for that matter, not all bacteria are the same. They adapt to their surroundings, they develop their own unique nature. So are our feelings. Not all people feel the same way about something, nor does one feel the same way about the same event occurring at different points of his/her life. So is that comparison proof enough?
What about the nature of these emotions themselves?
From a 30,000 foot level, there are those that make you feel good and those that make you feel bad. Dive a little deeper, you can see patterns or colours. You see those that are born out of an event and those born out of nowhere. Some explainable and others baffling. Some that are ephemeral and some that are everlasting. Some that flow and some that stand still.
Sometimes I compare emotions to dimensions We have X, Y and Z dimensions. We have time as a dimension. That is in the universe we live in. And in the parallel universe that our emotions live in, we can say the emotions themselves constitute the dimensions. And where you position yourself in a relationship or a situation or even when it comes to self-appraisal, it all depends on where you see yourself in this multi-dimensional universe constructed out of those emotions.
I am sure we can even trace a hereditary pattern to these emotions. Some give birth to others and the child carries with it, traits of the parent. Like for example. frustration and irritation. We get frustrated due to some event, or the non-occurrence of an event. Which then leads to irritation. And the common trait? restlessness and a sullen mood. Howver, let me quickly point out that I am yet to figure out the family chart for these emotions. Some may be cousins, and some might share a mother-daughter relationship.
Phew! I can go on and on and on. But here is the question that triggered this outburst you just read through - "Whats more powerful? Feeling the presence? or feeling the absence?"
I am yet to find an answer....
If thoughts can be living entities in spite of their intangible nature, well then, what about feelings? You 'feel' a certain way because a certain event has occurred which has brought about that feeling in you. Which then goes on to say that the feeling was born right there and then. The feeling lives on until some other feeling overtakes you for the time being or until a subsequent event erases that particular feeling and permanently replaces it with a fresh one. So then feelings die as well.
A subtlety here is that, unlike thoughts, the feelings when dead, don't come back alive. Let me explain. An unpleasant event occurs. It brings a negative feeling in you. You might hold anger or might feel sad. You live through it. The weather changes, good times arrive and a pleasant, positive feeling replaces that negative feeling that was in you. So years later, or even in a matter of hours, you replace anger with love. The feeling of anger is now dead and it wont come back alive unless a new negative event is to occur. This then means that the thought may persist that you were once angry. It may live on. But you wont feel the anger anymore, for now, it has turned into love. Get the point?
But what warrants considering feelings as living things? In a way, you can effectively replace the word 'feeling' with 'emotion'. And these feelings or the emotions are the ways in which we react to events. We get pregnant with the thoughts and we give birth to the emotions. Some see the day of light. Some die deep in the darkness. They don't have an absolute form and can take their own shape at will. But then so is the case with the other life forms on earth as well. Isn't it? Not all animals look the same, not all humans are the same, and for that matter, not all bacteria are the same. They adapt to their surroundings, they develop their own unique nature. So are our feelings. Not all people feel the same way about something, nor does one feel the same way about the same event occurring at different points of his/her life. So is that comparison proof enough?
What about the nature of these emotions themselves?
From a 30,000 foot level, there are those that make you feel good and those that make you feel bad. Dive a little deeper, you can see patterns or colours. You see those that are born out of an event and those born out of nowhere. Some explainable and others baffling. Some that are ephemeral and some that are everlasting. Some that flow and some that stand still.
Sometimes I compare emotions to dimensions We have X, Y and Z dimensions. We have time as a dimension. That is in the universe we live in. And in the parallel universe that our emotions live in, we can say the emotions themselves constitute the dimensions. And where you position yourself in a relationship or a situation or even when it comes to self-appraisal, it all depends on where you see yourself in this multi-dimensional universe constructed out of those emotions.
I am sure we can even trace a hereditary pattern to these emotions. Some give birth to others and the child carries with it, traits of the parent. Like for example. frustration and irritation. We get frustrated due to some event, or the non-occurrence of an event. Which then leads to irritation. And the common trait? restlessness and a sullen mood. Howver, let me quickly point out that I am yet to figure out the family chart for these emotions. Some may be cousins, and some might share a mother-daughter relationship.
Phew! I can go on and on and on. But here is the question that triggered this outburst you just read through - "Whats more powerful? Feeling the presence? or feeling the absence?"
I am yet to find an answer....
No comments:
Post a Comment