Pessimist,

fiction is potential, actuality is manifestation.

Reality is often altered by fiction, new realities are often created out of fiction. What we believe has a power, whether it be negative or positive.

In that sense our thoughts are a quantifier of sorts.

Arjen,

Interesting, most people in psychology attribute thoughts to governing the emotions. I do not think it is at all that clear that emotions do not govern one's thoughts. Perhaps the first premise is more often held because it is seen as, at least possiable to intervene at this juxtaposition. Never the less thoughts are indeed quantifers of our emotional life, and our emotional life is the real essence or quality of life.

You should seperate feeling from emotion. Feeling is a priori, thought is metaphysical and emotion is empirical. Emotion can exist by projecting the metaphysical (frame of reference) onto the a priori feeling.

Hope that helps

Arjen,

I am not sure I understand but will spend some time with this. I do not understand I think the distinction you make between feeling and emotion, how indeed are they not the same thing. By feeling are you inferring sensation?

Hi Boagie

I define feeling as that part of any being which is "connected" with that which exists. So anything which "enters" our "spectrum" does so through "feeling". If we act purely on "feeling" we act upon certain "intuitions" (a priori intuitions). When we try to understand our "feelings" we are thinking (metaphyscis alert!) about what exactly it is that we are "feeling". That is how our frame of reference gets tangled up in the matter. We check to see if the feeling we have is equal to anything in our "experience" (which is metaphysical!) and if so we deny what is really happening and convince ourselves that this "experience" is equal to what we are "feeling" (we project our own frame of reference unto the "feeling"). That is how we replace our feeling with what we know has happened in the past.

Part of the projection is that we judge what is happening (again by use of our frame of reference) in the sense that we have previously formed a "rulebase" of nice and bad things) and thereby decide what we "feel" (a wrongfull choice of words in our language system) and thus show the appropriate emotion.

Perhaps yous hould read Spinoza's "Ethica" (a famous philosopher from Holland). It is a great work and I think that he is doing something in the form of a "rulebase" which will explain quite a great deal to you. Not that he is completely accurate in my opinion, but I liked it a lot.

Could you explain to me, a bit more, how feeling is a priori? I don't think I understand how one comes by feeling using reason alone. Maybe I don't understand the definition of 'feeling,' and this misunderstanding is my barrier.



By 'being,' do you mean, for example, a human? Could it be another organism, because that falls under the umbrella of 'being.' So 'feeling' is the part of an organism which is connected to the external world? Is 'feeling' the way through which the human mind obtains knowledge?

As you can see, I'm having a hard time conceptualizing the terms; perhaps you could further clarify what you mean by 'being' and, particularly, 'feeling' and the whole picture will be further clarified.

[quote=dergottthrower]Could you explain to me, a bit more, how feeling is a priori? I don't think I understand how one comes by feeling using reason alone. Maybe I don't understand the definition of 'feeling,' and this misunderstanding is my barrier.



By 'being,' do you mean, for example, a human? Could it be another organism, because that falls under the umbrella of 'being.' So 'feeling' is the part of an organism which is connected to the external world? Is 'feeling' the way through which the human mind obtains knowledge?

As you can see, I'm having a hard time conceptualizing the terms; perhaps you could further clarify what you mean by 'being' and, particularly, 'feeling' and the whole picture will be further clarified.[/quote]

My thoughts exactly, but I am also wondering what assumptions about human consciousness we make when laying out such formal rules like those Arjen underscored. I have some limited knowledge about consciousness and I find it hard to determine when we are talking about our brain and when we are talking about ourselves- the conscious entity.

Dan.

Pessimist,

It just dawned on me, if it is generally accepted that fiction can play a large part in the formation of new circumstances, a new world view.Then I suggest is must be then possiable to do a ruff evaluation of the said fiction and what its product is to be. For instance, if we truely knew what we were doing, even in degree, we should not work a fiction which runs contary to our own natures, if it violates our intinctive nature, it will create great conflict in the acting out of this fiction. Of course some violation of the natural is evitable, if one is to form a society, as evolution is always doing catchup. Think about the myth of morality, morality differs with time and place, in some forms of morality almost every natural impluse is denied, making life more difficult, stressful and unnatural. I did not say a thing about Christianity!!

Do you know what a priori intuitions are? Feeling is that. Emotions is feeling combined with our frame of reference.


I know that is a weird term. I use it because of the lack of words thereof. I think that "being" is a state one can enter; perhaps lack of judging, using a frame of reference. "Feeling" is the part of the organism which is a priori and that which is a priori exists out of time and space in the sense that it is boundryless. So that a priori is shared by all/everything. But that is not something to be easily "seen".


I think that the problem you are experiencing is that "feeling" is not something which can be rationally understood; just like "creation" for instance. It has no bearing of the physical or ontological levels.

Perhaps we should start a new topic on feeling?

That's one loaded question, Pessimist

Words can mean many things. Fiction and actuality are just that- words. Thinking with words gives us advantages and disadvantages; namely, worded thought can give us nothing more that approximation. As in science, statistics and mathematics, when the quantity of approximation grows within the data, the probability of an accurate conclusion or solution shrinks. (Of course, words vary in ambiguity, so judgements made on word count alone are not relevant.) This fact of language evokes a deep level of uncertainty. It is this fact of language, along with the subjectivity of interpretation that makes philosophy and art (especially literature) horrifying, yet beautiful.

With that said, I will try to differentiate fiction and actuality:
Fiction and actuality are both pieces of reality, and a differentiation and/or opposition of the two as worded concepts cause them to be defined by such a polarization. (In other words, the context the question "What is the difference between fiction and actuality?" redefines the words we are dealing with.) Reality is the universe (or multiverse, or what ever we want to call it). Within that reality is fiction and actuality.

Described in terms of action in regard to opposition:

Actuality: That which represents reality.

Fiction: That is not a representation of reality. However, being a part of reality itself, fiction can affect and cause effects that pertain to reality (like being affected by a touching film.) I'll mention this one last time: fiction does not oppose reality. In this context, fiction opposes actuality.


Disclaimer:
This definition has its roots the axiom that reality is defined as the physical universe- a definition that seems to infer that reality is objective. If it were rooted in the axiom that reality is subjective, then the answer becomes a lot messier. Also, I do not claim to be understanding and wise. I am uncertain. Although I sometimes enjoy convincing myself otherwise, I am not wise. Wisdom, to me, is a love and a dream- not a possession. It may be important to keep that in mind when reading/contemplating my post.

I think that's a good idea; you should start the topic though, explaining the concept of 'feeling.' This would be very helpful to me, and probably to others as well.

Fiction, by definition, is that which is imaginary. For example, that, "John walked to the supermarket," may be pure fiction, pure imagination; it may have happened, but if the case is such that it didn't happen, then it's fiction. Perhaps John didn't walk to the supermarket; perhaps he only walked to the post office and returned home. If John walked to the post office, then his walk to the supermarket wouldn't be the case, and would therefore be fiction.

Actuality is that which is the case. If my car rolled down my drive-way and plunged into the swamp across the street from my house, I might induce that its brakes had malfunctioned and couldn't support it on the slope of my driveway. This would be a logical premise to the conclusion of my car rolling off the driveway and into the swamp; however, if the case had been that an enemy of mine pushed my car into the swamp while I was busy typing this sentence, then my conclusion would be false; it wouldn't be the case; it wouldn't be actual, and would therefore be fictional.