[FRIAM] Eternal questions

[uǝlƃ ☤>$]

Ouch! Dude. No! 8^D You're committing the same sin Nick commits. To say we "are" our emotions ignores the composition, the algebra by which parts compose the whole.

The point is the very high order conscious *attention* to lower order frequencies. Not all is one. There are many parts to organize. How are they organized?

On 8/26/21 7:50 AM, Steve Smith wrote:
> 
>>  E.g. when Bob wakes up startled, he interprets the situation into "fear". But when Sally wakes up startled, she interprets the situation into "excitement" or some other /a priori/, socially limiting, filter category.
> Thus my earlier suggestion that "we" "are" our emotions?   Bob *is* his
> propensity to read the lower-level response of "startlement" (closer to
> autonomic) to "fear" (closer to choice).   Sally also as "excitement".


-- 
☤>$ uǝlƃ