The Interface: Emotions, feelings, moods

[Dirk’s third set of questions, sent 10-14-2020

[As far as further questions that you may best be able to illuminate, here are a couple more.

[We have all seen how quickly people react to one another emotionally and in feelings. So a couple of questions occur to me along those lines.

[3.1 Starting with emotion and feeling. How distinct is the boundary between the primal emotions and the more nuanced feelings, moods, …?

[3.2 As the emotions flow into feelings and develop into moods, how does that reflect out to others? Is it via direct connection? Is it via higher selves? Are those misconceptions?

[3.3 Often it seems that moods and feelings get set into places. How does that work? What is happening there?

[3.4 As we feel feelings and express them in ourselves and out to the world, it seems that people are aware of those even before we encounter one another. How does that work?

[3.5 In some cases, I have felt and seen others feel emotions, feelings and moods that seem to have no cause or purpose only to find that they reflect circumstances that developed later. Is this a case of touching in to the near future? If so, why is that? How does that work?

[Undoubtedly I have a misperception about parts of that. What are they? Why are they?]

[TGU:] These are good questions and should take us far. As before, we will take them out of order. This is not from perversity, but because our order illustrates our view of relationships, while Dirk’s order illustrates his line of associations as he thought things through.

So let’s look at the assumptions built into question 3-2. “As the emotions flow into feelings and develop into moods.” Who says that is what happens?

More the other way around?

No, it would be fairer to say it could progress in any of several ways. Let’s define terms, first. If we do not define these as we are using them, how will anybody know what we are talking about? Others may have other definitions, but this is what we mean when we use these terms.

Moods. More than any other single characteristic, a mood seems to portray things “as they are.” If you are in a blue mood, it seems to you that life is a melancholy affair. If in a manic mood, life is self-evidently glorious, and so forth. In other words, moods are persuasive, and pervasive.

Feelings. A feeling is somewhere between a mood and an emotion. Where a mood is all-pervasive and persuasive while you are under its spell, it is quite possible for an emotion, by contrast, to grasp you in its jaws and shake you, even while you know that it is transient. Well, a feeling is between the two. A feeling is more identifiable as separate from you than a mood may be, but it is not as vehement and urgent as an emotion is liable to be. It is a tint on the picture, but a tint identifiable as its own, as opposed to a mood’s analogy to a tinted lens through which one sees.

And an emotion is an upwelling of difference, a phenomenon localized in time and in circumstance.

So now you see, emotions do not necessarily flow into feelings and develop into moods. You may experience moods without a progression into sharper, intenser emotion; or moods without specific feelings.

This isn’t as clear to me as it seemed before you began explaining.

That sounds like a joke, and we recognize that it is not. What you are experiencing is the blurring of connections, the deforming of shapes, that occurs as one expresses in sequential form what has been understood as a gestalt.

Now that you mention it, that’s a pretty common problem, isn’t it?

It is, and not just in ILC but in ordinary perception and communication. The deformation may be overcome by concentration and careful exposition, but it is always a factor to be kept in mind.

So, trying again?

  • 3D-you apprehends the “external” world, including the moment-by-moment sequence of time, through the ionizing or laminar layer.
  • Call that layer emotion or feeling or even mood, it is a result, not a cause, though it then may become a cause in turn.
  • Emotions and feelings, remember, are not things. They are relationships between inner-you and outer-you, or let’s say between 3D-you as you experience yourself, and the “external” world as you experience it as separate.
  • The sequence in which you may experience moods, feelings, emotions is no more fixed than is the spray of sparks from a blacksmith’s hammer as it hits red-hot iron. These are energetic reactions, not interactions of forms or objects.

So now to proceed to the rest of the question, it should be clearer how an initial misunderstanding distorts or let’s say throws off logical chains of thought. That is, bad assumptions may still lead to impeccable logic, but the logic won’t relate to real life.

The question assumes that emotions progress into feelings and then into moods, but I don’t know that that matters, really, in connection with the point of the question, which, it seems to me, is how it affects others. That is, what is the mechanism by which emotions etc. affect others.

That’s true enough, but we have to insist that the initial misunderstanding has important consequences here. If one thinks of a mood as the end result of a development from an emotion to a feeling, how is one to relate that erroneous relationship to a real inter-personal communication of energy? The question is a good one and deserves a careful answer, and we don’t see how a careful answer could silently ignore major misunderstandings.

Okay.

The short answer to the question is that you (we) are all one thing. You (we) are not separate as we appear, but are intermingled. This is easy to forget, but always true.

What is the basis for ILC, after all, but the sense that any two or more people (in body or not) may communicate via resonance? If you are in resonance with someone, you are in sync. That’s what in sync means!

However, a distinction is to be drawn here:

  • In non-3D, resonance is the beginning and the end of the story. There isn’t any obstacle to communication between any two minds that are in resonance. And if they aren’t quite in resonance, they can communicate via a third (or more) mind that can function as intermediary.
  • In 3D, this cannot be counted on. The 3D individual OT1H has many possible strands to provide resonance with others, but OTOH has many strands that may interfere, passively or actively. This is only your common experience, after all

Still, the fact remains, communication rests upon resonance. But what is communication? What is resonance? Is it intellectual activity? Not primarily. Primarily it is emotional, not thinking, energy. You don’t identify with people, or fall in love with them, or see yourselves as mortal enemies to them, because of opinions (though it may sometimes seem that way) but because of what you are and what they are, and that’s way deeper than opinion.

So the answer to the question isn’t so much how a connection is established but how obstacles to connection are removed. That may seem like a quibble. It isn’t. It is the difference between taking unity as the default position and taking multiplicity. But in the terms as posed, you could very easily say yes, through direct 3D-sensory connection and through non-3D, or higher self, communication. It isn’t really an either/or.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.