Why Be Moral?

[Nick_A]

Jesus was referring to conscious love (agape) while Peter only understood phileo or personal love.

"Brotherly love," you mean.

But Christianity is about acquiring emotional quality.

Not at all.

For Christians, if love has an "emotion," then the "emotion" part is a byproduct, a mere "icing on the cake"...if it comes, great...if not, it's of no consequence to the question of one's duty to "agape." That's one of the distinctives of agape...it can be commanded.

As Kierkegaard said, we must remember that "Love your neighbour as yourself" is a command. It's not "feel love for your neighbour;" as nice as that might be; it's "do that which is actively in his highest interest," whether you feel it or not.

Other kinds of love, which require feelings, fall deceptively short of agape. It's too easy for them to come to be about the feelings instead of the command...or worse, to become the feeling of loving the feeling you have in the presence of another -- in other words, no more than a kind of hidden self-love, an enjoyment of being "in love" or "a good friend" with someone else, of being a certain kind of person yourself in their presence. And when that feeling is frustrated or fades, the love is over...that person seems no longer your brother (phileo) or your beloved (eros) because they have violated your feeling obtained in loving them.

Such love cannot be commanded, because it depends on feeling. But agape can be commanded, even in regard to enemies: "But I say to you, love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, so that you may be sons of your Father who is in heaven.." (Mt. 5:43). If "love your enemy" waits upon the feelings, it will wait a long time. But one can always be actively devoted to the good of one who hates you.

The problem is, what's your incentive for doing so? The incentive is love for God. That's why that's primary. If you don't love God, you cannot love your enemy. Moreover, your other "loves" become of only the lesser types that depend on circumstances or on the character of the object. And these cannot be commanded.

You do not distinguish between our fallen emotional nature and the quality of feelings we have the potential for which is a goal of Christianity. Metropoltan Anthony of the Russian Church explains it to Jacob Needleman in his book: Lost Christianity. "We have to get rid of emotions....in order to reach.....feeling" If a person doesn't sense the difference, they cannot understand the value of Christianity. Love of God is a potential for us and not something we have. The value of a non secular Christian church is to help one to become able.

Metropolitan Anthony," I began, "five years ago when I visited you I attended services which you yourself conducted and I remarked to you how struck I was by the absence of emotion in your voice. Today, in the same way where it was not you but the choir, I was struck by the same thing, the almost complete lack of emotion in the voices of the singers."

Yes he said, "this is quite true, it has taken years for that, but they are finally beginning to understand...."

"What do you mean?" I asked. I knew what he meant but I wanted to hear him speak about this - this most unexpected aspect of the Christianity I never knew, and perhaps very few modern people ever knew. I put the question further: "The average person hearing this service - and of course the average Westerner having to stand up for several hours it took - might not be able to distinguish it from the mechanical routine that has become so predominant in the performance of the Christian liturgy in the West. He might come wanting to be lifted, inspired,moved to joy or sadness - and this the churches in the West are trying to produce because many leaders of the Church are turning away from the mechanical, the routine.."

He gently waved aside what I was saying and I stopped in mid sentence. "There was a pause, then he said: "No. Emotion must be destroyed."

He stopped, reflected, and started again, speaking in his husky Russian accent: "We have to get rid of emotions....in order to reach.....feeling."

Again he paused, looking at me, weighing the effect his words were having. I said nothing. but inside I was alive with expectancy. I waited.

Very tentatively, I nodded my head.

He continued: "You ask about the liturgy in the West and in the East. it is precisely the same issue. the sermons, the Holy Days - you don't why one comes after the other. or why this one now and the other one later. Even if you read everything about it you still wouldn't know, believe me.

"And yet . . . there is a profound logic in them, in the sequence of the Holy Days. And this sequence leads people somewhere - without their knowing it intellectually. Actually, it is impossible for anyone to understand the sequence of rituals and Holy Days intellectually. it is not meant for that. It is meant for something else, something higher.

For this you have to be in a state of prayer, otherwise it passes you by-"

"What is prayer?" I asked.

He did not seem to mind my interrupting with this question. Quite the contrary. "In a state of prayer one is vulnerable." He emphasized the last word and then waited until he was sure I had not taken it in an ordinary way.

"In prayer one is vulnerable, not enthusiastic. and then these rituals have such force. they hit you like a locomotive. You must be not enthusiastic, nor rejecting - but only open. This is the whole idea of asceticism: to become open.".............

[RCSaunders]

Please note: I DID NOT say the thing ascribed to me above. It was you, Nick.

Please correct the attribution.

It was my fault. I originally copied the quote wrong, but corrected it. I didn't know anyone had responded to the earlier version. Don't blame Nick.

[Immanuel Can]

"We have to get rid of emotions....in order to reach.....feeling."

Well, Nick, you're going to have to explain to me precisely what is meant by "emotions" that is so importantly distinct from "feeling," for while neither is a Scriptural term, they are used in normal parlance as approximate synonyms; and absent any precise definition of either, they at least appear merely contradictory.

[Immanuel Can]

It was my fault. I originally copied the quote wrong, but corrected it. I didn't know anyone had responded to the earlier version. Don't blame Nick.

It's fine, RC...I was just making sure that the conversation didn't get accidentally twisted. I'm not annoyed.

[IvoryBlackBishop]

For the record, what types of "moral philosophy" is this thread predicated on? If we use the legal philosophy as an example, specific "moral sentiments" may very greatly from time-to-time, such as in the existence of "silly laws" or specific "moral fads", in which the original reason for them may have even been forgotten.

The overarching moral principles which the law is based on are pretty straightforward (e.x. respect for people's individual autonomy, property, families, etc), however as far as individual laws go, there are supposedly 10s of 1000s of minor laws allegedly on the record books, and I don't think anyone has a perfect mathematical recollection of them all, even if they were a veteran legal scholar.

[Nick_A]

"We have to get rid of emotions....in order to reach.....feeling."

Well, Nick, you're going to have to explain to me precisely what is meant by "emotions" that is so importantly distinct from "feeling," for while neither is a Scriptural term, they are used in normal parlance as approximate synonyms; and absent any precise definition of either, they at least appear merely contradictory.

Mark 7:21-23
For from within, out of the heart of man, come evil thoughts, sexual immorality, theft, murder, adultery, coveting, wickedness, deceit, sensuality, envy, slander, pride, foolishness. All these evil things come from within, and they defile a person.”

Regardless of how many preach the goodness of Man, is the human heart corrupt as described? Those who have verified it ask what happened to the human heart and is it natural for Man? The human essence has both higher and lower parts. Its lower or animal parts experience animal emotion while our higher parts capable of consciousness originate from above. In this way efforts to know thyself and have the experience ourselves is possible. Our higher conscious parts can observe our lower mechanical parts

What we call human emotions are perversions of animal emotions. They are negative emotions acquired in life and govern our lives. Their origin is from the earth. Their corruption is the result of the fall of man

Feelings are our emotional potentials we are born with. They are connected with the three sacred feelings of love, faith, and hope. Animal, love, faith and hope, are of a far lesser quality than human love, faith, and hope. Where animal love is personal, human love is universal. It is the love of life itself. When a person experiences this quality they are drawn to experience the love of God which transcends them. Metropolitan Anthony is describing that it is possible for a human being to transcend the power of acquired negative emotions in order to experience conscious human "feelings

The Christ as a conscious influence initially made it possible as the middle between the higher and lower through the work of the Holy Spirit. Rather than the lower corrupted parts of the human heart dominating the higher, parts of our essence, the conscious higher becomes able to dominate our and lead our lower parts making it possible for conscious Man to become "normal" and evolve as it should

[Immanuel Can]

"We have to get rid of emotions....in order to reach.....feeling."

Well, Nick, you're going to have to explain to me precisely what is meant by "emotions" that is so importantly distinct from "feeling," for while neither is a Scriptural term, they are used in normal parlance as approximate synonyms; and absent any precise definition of either, they at least appear merely contradictory.

Mark 7:21-23

No, no, Nick...not a sermon. I just want a definition of what you mean. Like,

"Feelings" = ?

and

"Emotions" = ?

So I can tell the difference in the context above.

Help me out with that, okay?

[Nick_A]

Well, Nick, you're going to have to explain to me precisely what is meant by "emotions" that is so importantly distinct from "feeling," for while neither is a Scriptural term, they are used in normal parlance as approximate synonyms; and absent any precise definition of either, they at least appear merely contradictory.

Mark 7:21-23

No, no, Nick...not a sermon. I just want a definition of what you mean. Like,

"Feelings" = ?

and

"Emotions" = ?

So I can tell the difference in the context above.

Help me out with that, okay?

If you had read my post you would have seen that"

What we call human emotions are perversions of animal emotions. They are negative emotions acquired in life and govern our lives. Their origin is from the earth. Their corruption is the result of the fall of man

Feelings are our emotional potentials we are born with. They are connected with the three sacred feelings of love, faith, and hope. Animal, love, faith and hope, are of a far lesser quality than human love, faith, and hope. Where animal love is personal, human love is universal. It is the love of life itself. When a person experiences this quality they are drawn to experience the love of God which transcends them. Metropolitan Anthony is describing that it is possible for a human being to transcend the power of acquired negative emotions in order to experience conscious human "feelings

Negative emotions refer to the lower animal parts of our collective essence learned in life while we are born with the sacred feelings experienced by our conscious higher parts. It was all explained. Try reading it.

[Immanuel Can]

If you had read my post you would have seen tha t"What we call human emotions are perversions of animal emotions.

So your definition is, "Emotions equal emotions." Terrific.

Feelings are our emotional potentials we are born with.

That's not the way any other human beings are currently using the word "feelings." For most folks, they just mean some kind of emotion. Here's a quotation:

feel·ing
/ˈfēliNG/
Learn to pronounce
noun
noun: feeling; plural noun: feelings
1.
an emotional state or reaction.
"a feeling of joy"

They are connected with the three sacred feelings

So now feelings aren't feelings? Feelings are "connected with sacred feelings?"

You've got to forgive me for saying so, but that's a pretty circular definition, too. Can't you define these things without totally relying on the original word itself? Because if you can't, it's not actually defining anything; it's just repetition.

Try reading it.

I did. It was circular, and rather unilluminating, consequently.

So again, can you just give me a definition of "emotions" that does not rely on the word "emotions," and a definition of "feelings" that does not depend on the word "feelings", so I can see how they're actually different?

[Nick_A]

If you had read my post you would have seen tha t"What we call human emotions are perversions of animal emotions.

So your definition is, "Emotions equal emotions." Terrific.

Feelings are our emotional potentials we are born with.

That's not the way any other human beings are currently using the word "feelings." For most folks, they just mean some kind of emotion. Here's a quotation:

feel·ing
/ˈfēliNG/
Learn to pronounce
noun
noun: feeling; plural noun: feelings
1.
an emotional state or reaction.
"a feeling of joy"

They are connected with the three sacred feelings

So now feelings aren't feelings? Feelings are "connected with sacred feelings?"

You've got to forgive me for saying so, but that's a pretty circular definition, too. Can't you define these things without totally relying on the original word itself? Because if you can't, it's not actually defining anything; it's just repetition.

Try reading it.

I did. It was circular, and rather unilluminating, consequently.

So again, can you just give me a definition of "emotions" that does not rely on the word "emotions," and a definition of "feelings" that does not depend on the word "feelings", so I can see how they're actually different?

You apparently don't understand levels of emotional quality Yet the distinction between animal emotions arising from below and the sacred feelings descending from above that provide the awakening value Christianity offers for the collective human essence.

It doesn't dawn on You that Metropolitan Anthony understands Christianity far better than you do but your egoism prevents opening to it.

[Immanuel Can]

You apparently don't understand levels of emotional quality

Sure, I do. I have ideas about that, as does everyone.

What I don't do is know what you mean. I want to know what you understand by the word "feelings" that is not present in the word "emotions" -- because as you can see, the dictionary isn't using the word in the way you're choosing to use it.

You can't expect people to read your mind, so you need to say plainly what you mean.

[Nick_A]

You apparently don't understand levels of emotional quality

Sure, I do. I have ideas about that, as does everyone.

What I don't do is know what you mean. I want to know what you understand by the word "feelings" that is not present in the word "emotions" -- because as you can see, the dictionary isn't using the word in the way you're choosing to use it.

You can't expect people to read your mind, so you need to say plainly what you mean.

Secularism is built by people all having ideas about what emotional quality is. It is horizontal with the earth as its source. It decides what we like and dislike. The experience is mechanical. Where emotions are acquired reactions learned in life. Feelings are a conscious vertical experience connecting a person with the direction their source, a higher level of reality. They can experience love, faith, and hope not on one level but with a psychological quality that connects above and below. Where emotions are horizontal animal reactions, feelings are vertical conscious revelations

The concept is too insulting to open to so will be rejected by the majority saying something like "give us Barabbas" in the effort to feel secure

[Immanuel Can]

Where emotions are acquired reactions learned in life.

This is not a complete sentence, Nick. What are "emotions"? Can you define them, making them distinct?

Feelings are a conscious vertical experience connecting a person with the direction their source, a higher level of reality.

This is your definition of the word "feelings"?

Highly unconventional. I don't think that's what everybody thinks of when they hear the word "feelings." You should choose a better term, one that would better describe whatever experience it is you're trying to indicate, and one that would be far less likely to be misunderstood.

[Nick_A]

IC

Nick_A wrote: ↑
Tue Mar 31, 2020 2:45 am
Where emotions are acquired reactions learned in life.
This is not a complete sentence, Nick. What are "emotions"? Can you define them, making them distinct?

A classic typo. I meant to say Where emotions are acquired reactions are learned in life. Feelings are a conscious vertical experience connecting a person with the direction their source”

But the reality is that you don’t distinguish between the horizontal and vertical directions of knowledge. Feeling and emotions are the same without a sense of scale. Old emotions experiencing something new are considered becoming advanced. New emotions or feelings open the direction which connect above and below: Man and God in reality rather than in self serving imagination.

Highly unconventional. I don't think that's what everybody thinks of when they hear the word "feelings." You should choose a better term, one that would better describe whatever experience it is you're trying to indicate, and one that would be far less likely to be misunderstood.

Secularism wouldn’t allow it. Such ideas corrupt the youth of Athens so society needs a means to water it down to nothing.

Yet if I asked you to explain noesis in Christianity, satori in Buddhism, the law of the included middle in science or what Simone described as the third dimension of thought it, it cannot register. You have yet to “feel” the hidden third principle which gives value to duality and limits it to societal constructs. Yet there is a responsibility to keep it alive in the world. The hidden third is receiving conscious knowledge. The temporary experience of feelings allows us to see the limitations of acquired negative emotions.

If there were an easy way to keep the sacred ideas alive in the world it would happen but the truth is the world wants Barabbas so they are only for the minority willing to “look”

“The greatest responsibility of all: the transmission of the mystery.”
—Basarab Nicolescu

In response to this call, physicist and author Basarab Nicolescu’s recent fragmentary text offers a view of humanity’s current spiritual situation. In thirteen sections, items as brief as a few words are linked to delineate the cosmic obligation, at the same time respecting the silence of the sacred. Following suggestions of Maurice Blanchot, the fragments remind us that the whole is never given and that the beginning of understanding is always imminent. Fragmentation also mirrors a prime discovery that Nicolescu draws from his own area of scientific expertise, broken symmetry. Physicists now believe that a breakdown in laws of symmetry supplied the initial condition of the Big Bang. Thirdly, humans’ relation to God (or “Absolute Evidence” in Nicolescu’s account) and to the celestial order has ruptured. The holy reconciling force has withdrawn and the pathway once illuminated by it, is no longer visible. While we now pray for divine support, no reply is forthcoming.

The call, moreover, is blocked from our ears by deep habits of thought and language. Inherited from the ancient Greek world, their source lies in binary logic: either this or that but not both. Nicolescu’s rejection of binary-ism is strong: “The fiendish dialectics of binary thought have the redoubtable yet subtle force of being able to kill in the name of ideas.” The death consists in foreclosing the middle, the “third not given”: what is there before and remains there after the division into two. Yet that death preserves in hiding the excluded element, which allows a direct perception of multiple levels of reality, up to that of Absolute Evidence. Fear of confronting a many-dimensioned cosmos lies behind the embrace of the binary. We opt for ready knowledge and survival of the status quo rather than participation in a work of co-creation. Because we fail to see the ambiguity in “yes or no,” our spirit is blinded and put in shackles.

[Immanuel Can]

IC

Nick_A wrote: ↑
Tue Mar 31, 2020 2:45 am
Where emotions are acquired reactions learned in life.
This is not a complete sentence, Nick. What are "emotions"? Can you define them, making them distinct?

A classic typo.

No problem.

I meant to say Where emotions are acquired reactions are learned in life. Feelings are a conscious vertical experience connecting a person with the direction their source.

I'm sorry to persist, but this does not tell me what an "emotion" is. You don't even really say how they're "acquired." You talk about "reactions" instead.

But as I say, the definition of "feelings" you give is not one anybody else would recognize. I don't know what word you need there, but "feelings" is already taken, as a synonym for "emotions." If your point is to make an important distinction, you should choose a less loaded word, I would say.

Highly unconventional. I don't think that's what everybody thinks of when they hear the word "feelings." You should choose a better term, one that would better describe whatever experience it is you're trying to indicate, and one that would be far less likely to be misunderstood.

Secularism wouldn’t allow it.

Absolutely it will. And if "Secularism" won't, the people to whom you hope to communicate surely will.

Yet if I asked you to explain noesis in Christianity, satori in Buddhism, the law of the included middle in science or what Simone described as the third dimension of thought it, it cannot register.

Actually, I can. But it's called "the Law of the Excluded Middle," and it's from Aristotle.

“The greatest responsibility of all: the transmission of the mystery.”
—Basarab Nicolescu

That depends. What's meant by "mystery"?

Biblically, it means "a truth concealed for a time, to be revealed at the right time." It doesn't mean Gnosticism, confusion or babble. And it certainly doesn't mean "arcane and contrived ceremonies," "clerical mumbo-jumbo" or "gratuitous obscurity" -- which is, unfortunately, exactly what Gnostic "mysteries" inevitably are.

So Biblically, to "transmit a mystery" would be to pass on either a) a rational understanding of what question is relevant to making something mysterious, or b) the rational revealing of the thing which was, for a time, concealed but is now manifest.

Does your friend mean either of those things? Or does he mean "the perpetuation of perplexity" only?