Monthly Archive

Feelings - what do we mean? Do we mean the same thing?

We use that word such a lot "Feelings" - I feel..., You make me feel..., etc. I decided to google the question "what is feeling?" Here is some of what I found, as example from the Collins online Dictionary:

feeling
(fiːlɪŋ )
Word forms: plural feelings
1. COUNTABLE NOUN
A feeling is an emotion, such as anger or happiness.
It gave me a feeling of satisfaction. [+ of]
Strong feelings of pride welled up in me.
I think our main feeling would be of an immense gratitude.
He was unable to contain his own destructive feelings.
Synonyms: emotion, sentiment More Synonyms of feeling
2. PLURAL NOUN [oft with poss]
Your feelings about something are the things that you think and feel about it, or your attitude towards it.
Everyone knows what my feelings are on that. [+ about]
I have also begun to reassess my own feelings about being a woman.
I think that sums up the feelings of most discerning and intelligent Indians. [+ of]
He made no real secret of his feelings to his friends.
Synonyms: opinion, view, attitude, belief More Synonyms of feeling

Basically, the definition is a tautology. From the same source, the definition is:

Tautology is the use of different words to say the same thing twice in the same statement. 'The money should be adequate enough' is an example of tautology.

And yet, when we use the word feeling, we know what we mean - or do we? In an earlier article, I wrote that Descartes arrived at the conclusion that thinking was the most basic aspect of a person, and it is argued that he needed to deconstruct himself more and arrive at the point where there is just a feeling.

What kind of feeling is that? To find out each person will have to discover it in her or himself and at that point the interpretation starts. There is a huge assumption that, when we use the word, that we are talking about the same thing. I'm not convinced. To me, that is just an assumption.

In the Online Encyclopedia Britannica we find the following :

Feeling, in psychology, the perception of events within the body, closely related to emotion. ... As the known special organs of sense were the ones mediating the perception of the external world, the verb to feel came also to mean the perception of events within the body.

So, according to psychology, what we feel is preceded by external (in the sense of outside whatever the feeling centre is) sensory input. Break a finger, and we feel pain; if we get ripped off, we feel anger, etc.

All the teachers I mention in this blog, agree that if the focus is internal, towards that feeling centre in us, then that feeling becomes something much deeper and richer than the kinds of superficial (again, those engendered through external stimuli) feelings we know so well.

I realised a long time ago that there are feelings I like and those that I don't. I don't like feeling hate or anger or fear or disgust or sadness or rage or loneliness, etc. So why do I allow myself to feel them? That is a fascinating question. To me, that has a lot to do with the importance I give to many external factors, forgetting that I also have a lot of feelings I like, such as grateful or joy or peaceful or loving or hopeful or serene or healthy, etc.

There is even a website that focuses on this at positivewordsresearch.com. Check it out!

Our feelings are related to our thoughts, and that can definitely be controlled. Why do I allow thoughts that lead to negative feelings? That is a fundamental question and is a key to removing existential neurosis. What can I do about it? What works for me is to focus on what is good for me and leave the rest. Not easy; needs constant practice, but practice works. as all teachers point out, if you focus and practice the negative, then that's what you get to be good at. Focus and practice the positive, and that is what you get good at. It doesn't mean that the negative doesn't exist, but it means that it will not affect you in the same way, it won't suck you in. Practice makes perfect. Doing nothing, changing nothing, continue doing the same thing, and then we stay in the whirlpool.

Again, our feelings are a key to experiencing existential neurosis or not. Why bother with negative stuff, when you have the opportunity to experience positive stuff. I know this is a topic I'll be coming back to again and again in this blog.

The Discourses of Swami Vivekananda - based on the recorded Talks

Swami Vivekananda.
Vivekananda founded the Ramakrishna Math and the Ramakrishna Mission. He is perhaps best known for his speech which began with the words - "Sisters and brothers of America ...," in which he introduced Hinduism at the Parliament of the World's Religions in Chicago in 1893.

That is how Wikipedia introduces this man. I came across his writings in the 60s and, re-reading him today, reminds how profound his teaching is.

You have to grow from the inside out. None can teach you, none can make you spiritual. There is no other teacher but your own soul.

He offered his knowledge and experience to the world,, but sadly, so few have acknowledged the profundity of his teachings. He teaches that Yoga (spiritual union with the creative power) is a science as exact as any and brings practical examples from astronomy to psychology. Basically, to me, he reminds me that peace, joy, love are attainable only within a person and that it is the inside we neglect, believing the external world brings us these feelings. No, all feelings take place inside a person, in fact we only see the external world through the bodily senses: all the action, including the interpretation of the sensory input, takes place inside us. 

When I read his treatise on Raja Yoga (I've added a link to a site where this can be downloaded as a PDF for free), I'm struck how up-to-date his words are. I'm also struck by the parallels to current thinking in the world of Quantum Physics, something I want to write about too.

I can only encourage anyone seeking to get away from existential neurosis to read and ponder his words. It really is a pleasure!

The Laws of Form - A Treatise by George Spencer-Brown

This book by George Spencer Brown had a profound impact on me.

In it the Author suggests that - and this is the explanation from Wikipedia (see the Links section) : 

The form (Chapter 1)

The symbol in drawing that looks like an angle, also called the "mark" or "cross", is the essential feature of the Laws of Form. In Spencer-Brown's inimitable and enigmatic fashion, the Mark symbolises the root of cognition, i.e., the dualistic Mark indicates the capability of differentiating a "this" from "everything else but this".
In LoF, a Cross denotes the drawing of a "distinction", and can be thought of as signifying the following, all at once:

• The act of drawing a boundary around something, thus separating it from everything else;
• That which becomes distinct from everything by drawing the boundary;
• Crossing from one side of the boundary to the other.

All three ways imply an action on the part of the cognitive entity (e.g., person) making the distinction. As LoF puts it:

"The first command is:

• Draw a distinction
  can well be expressed in such ways as:
• Let there be a distinction,
• Find a distinction,
• See a distinction,
• Describe a distinction,
• Define a distinction,

Or:

Let a distinction be drawn". (LoF, Notes to chapter 2)
The counterpoint to the Marked state is the Unmarked state, which is simply nothing, the void, or the unexpressable infinite represented by a blank space. It is simply the absence of a Cross. No distinction has been made and nothing has been crossed. The Marked state and the void are the two primitive values of the Laws of Form.

The symbol can be seen as denoting the distinction between two states, one "considered as a symbol" and another not so considered. From this fact arises a curious resonance with some theories of consciousness and language. Paradoxically, the Form is at once Observer and Observed, and is also the creative act of making an observation. LoF (excluding back matter) closes with the words:

“...the first distinction, the Mark and the observer are not only interchangeable, but, in the form, identical”.

To me, a great Light went on in my head! Basically, this suggests that nothing is real unless we make a distinction, where we distinguish something from nothing (or everything in philosophical terms). Brilliant. This explains how we build up our view of the world in our heads and as such everybody draws the distinctions differently, because each one of is different in time and space. Again, brilliant!

Sufism, mystical Islamic belief and practice, based on love

Another speaker, we invited to speak to the discussion society, was the father of one of the society members, who was a professor at the London School of Oriental & African Studies. His talk focused on Sufism. Again, another finger pointing in the same direction. 

Sufism, mystical Islamic belief and practice in which Muslims seek to find the truth of divine love and knowledge through direct personal experience of God. It consists of a variety of mystical paths that are designed to ascertain the nature of humanity and of God, and to facilitate the experience of the presence of divine love and wisdom in the world.

It was through this talk that I became interested in some of the Sufi authors, reading in particular the Rubyat of Omar Khayyam and a book which still accompanies me today: The Prophet by Khalil Gibran. The most common association is with the Sufi Dancers, who dance into ecstasy. There are many ways of expressing love and reaching that state of oneness.

Many years later, I also discovered the Music known as Qwaali. In particular, the singing of Nusrath Fateh Ali Khan, who I was fortunate to see perform live not long before his death. Listening to him and his Qwaal, is to be transported into the inner world. I didn't understand the words, but the feeling transcended that barrier effortlessly.

Again the same truths were being repeated in a different form: that love is the source of everything and that it can be found inside.

Read and enjoy the beautiful poetry of the Sufi's; listen to the music!

Descartes Discourses or do I think therefore I am?

I was kicked out of school at the age of 15, because apparently I was considered useless and disruptive, by the much disliked tyrant headmaster (I wasn't the only one with this view of the headmaster). When I decided to go to university, I had to collect some entrance papers. So I studied German (because I found that easy) and Logic. During that time, I started a discussion society at the college I was at (Walbrook College in London) and we invited various guest speakers to give us a talk which we would then discuss with the speaker.

One speaker, was my Logic teacher, who took as his theme the Discourses of Descartes, in particular the "Meditations on First Philosophy, in which the existence of God and the immortality of the soul are demonstrated". In this discourse, Descartes attempts to go to the most basic fact of existence and came to the well-known conclusion "Cogito ergo Sum". Our lecturer pointed out that basically, Descartes deconstruction didn't go far enough, as clearly, a newborn baby does not think. That doesn't happen until we have some kind of symbolism to juggle about, e.g. language.

No, the ultimate conclusion is : "there is a feeling". No me, nothing except a feeling.

This is something forgotten and scant attention is paid to feelings, especially in the ways we are taught. Yet a baby has nothing else to use except it's feelings, which show themselves in a cry when something doesn't feel right, or a big smile when things do feel right. That's why, as the image above suggests, thinking can make a person dangerous. 

This was a big input to me and resonated with what I had already read and learnt. At our core is a feeling. To me, that feeling is what the various masters mentioned in this blog all point to. Being in that feeling with no name, just being.

Good enough - part of a key phrase that support me and others

A phrase I coined for myself, which has often helped me maintain a sense of perspective over the years:

If I'm good enough for the creator, then I'm good enough for anyone.

 One of the many things I'd been told, whilst growing up, was that I should be better or like someone else. Dreadful!

Don't bring anyone up with statements like that. I learnt that I am unique in this world; there is nobody like me, there has never been anyone like me nor will there ever be anyone like me. That is a basic truth and fact. So I can't be like others, however much I might try. And no one can be like me.

That is a beautiful truth and a very liberating one. However, much damage has been done before understanding this fact, and my task is to undo those degrading views of myself. 

Be who you are - it's the best thing you can do. But first, you need to find out who you are! Enjoy the journey!

The Bhagavad Gita - key passage in the Mahabharata

The unreal never is: the Real never is not.
This truth indeed has been seen by those who can see the true.

 The Bhagavad Gita, as translated by E.V. Rieu, was the second Book to seriously grab my attention.

 It inspired me to the extent that I wrote to the translator and asked advice on how to proceed in my attempts to develop my awareness. He kindly wrote back with the advice that, like a cup of tea freshly poured, I should wait and let it settle before drinking. Good advice.

The quote at the top of this page inspired me to keep going. It made complete sense to me. The question is: how to distinguish the real from the unreal?

I remember an experiment I tried at this time: I was determined not to speak unless it was something really worth saying. Of course, common politeness and every day courtesies excluded. To my surprise, I discovered there was almost nothing really worth saying. Try it yourself. But first, I recommend reading the books mentioned so far, i.e. the Bhagavad Gita and the Tao Te Ching. It is amazing how many of the same ideas are parallelled in each book.

The Tao Te Ching - Wisdom that helped me understand

One of the first books that gave me hope, was the Tao Te Ching, written approx. 6th century BC. A good friend gave me a copy for my 21st Birthday, and I still have a copy with me.

The first thing that struck me, when reading it, is that this book which this master did not want to write. I've re-read it many times since then, and I never cease to be astonished at the contents. Basically, he manages to write about the unwritable. The content refers constantly to what is inside a person - the universe! His teachings refer to "The Way". This can be visualised by looking at the symbol for Yin and Yang and consider walking along the dividing line. It's almost impossible, but that is what is required.  In the Christian Bible, there is a quote which points to the same way:

Matthew 7:13-14 New International Version (NIV)
“Enter through the narrow gate. For wide is the gate and broad is the road that leads to destruction, and many enter through it. 14 But small is the gate and narrow the road that leads to life, and only a few find it."

Lao Tzu refers constantly to the Nothing, which is Everything. Learning the meaning of that took me many years, and learning to practice that is something that I still/will have to practice for the rest of my life.

As an example :

The beginnings for me - a special moment in my life

One incident, when I was about 17 or so, occurred while I was staying with a fellow Junkie, who was also completing his degree at London University in Astronomy. He lived in a large open plan flat in Belsize Park and on this particular night, I was going to sleep on the sofa, and he was in his bed. We talked in the dark and I asked him to explain how it was that one could measure the size of the universe but that at the same time it was said to be infinite. He proceeded to explain it to me and suddenly, for me, there was a clear pinprick of light in the absolute darkness of my mind. It was tiny, but in my darkness, it shone bright in contrast.

I didn't know what it meant and nothing changed in the short term, but it was a tiny little seed of hope, where none had existed before.

I've always been grateful to my friend John for that. Furthermore, I visited him for a lot of years after that. He sadly stayed a junkie, although his Genius was appreciated by some. I know he ended up working for a company involved in the optics for the Mars rover, and the company valued his input enough to send a taxi every day to collect him from home.

Thanks, John, if you're still alive, you started something in that night that led me to this point.