Deviation Actions
More Support For My Philosophy + Extensive Discussion Section
Note to Reader: You might wonder why this packet is so long. It's because I discuss other things in addition to my philosophy/worldview. Although I do think these other discussed things are important, I don't think they're that important to warrant their own files, and they were relevant to the discussion of my philosophy.
That's why they're all discussed in this big file. Many people might say this is an entire book I've written, rather than a packet. I had nothing better to do than write all this material, since I couldn't enjoy my life or hobbies, due to my miserable struggles (especially this recent struggle, which took the longest to recover from).
I Think I Can Prove The Emotional Perception Theory: Considering how there are many people out there who disagree with the emotional perception theory, I think there's a way for me to personally prove it. This is my own personal argument, which is an attempt to translate emotions into perceptions of good, bad, etc. Positive emotions are the reward wanting and liking in the brain. When you want something and like something, this means it matters to you.
When something is good, bad, beautiful, disgusting, etc. from your perspective, this means it matters to you. For example, if getting a new video game, or movie, was something good or bad for you, that means it was something good or bad from your perspective, which is the same thing as saying it mattered to you. As I mentioned before, positive emotions make things matter to us in good ways, and negative emotions make things matter to us in bad ways, since positive emotions are the perception of good, and negative emotions are the perception of bad.
Now, the only way something can be good, bad, etc. in your eyes is if it matters to you. How can you say that helping someone was good, bad, etc. in your eyes if it didn't matter to you? It makes no sense. A life that doesn't matter to us would, thus, have to be a life that has no goodness, badness, etc. from our perspective. Lastly, here's a link (study) that shows how positive emotions are the reward wanting and liking in the brain:
We have found a special hedonic hotspot that is crucial for reward 'liking' and 'wanting' (and codes reward learning too). The opioid hedonic hotspot is shown in red above. It works together with another hedonic hotspot in the more famous nucleus accumbens to generate pleasure 'liking'.
‘Liking’ and ‘wanting’ food rewards: Brain substrates and roles in eating disorders
Kent C. Berridge 2009 Mar 29.
www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/artic…
For Those Who Disagree Positive Emotions Are Wanting And Liking: I think there will also be people out there who disagree that positive emotions are a form of wanting and liking. So, here's proof for them. Emotions are a form of motivation. When you have a positive form of motivation to do something, this means you want to do it and like to do it. The religious form of my worldview would say that the force of light (positive emotions) motivates us to have a relationship, create works of art, and to live our lives to the fullest.
Yes, The Light is unreliable, since it can result in harming us and others. But, it's still the only source of beauty and joy in our lives. The Darkness can also motivate us, but makes our lives bad and horrible. The force of light is from the heavens, and the force of darkness is from the lower realms. Our positive emotions make us angels on the inside, our negative emotions make us demons or beings of darkness on the inside, and having apathy just makes us empty vessels on the inside.
A Little Experiment: I have performed a little experiment here, and it's already clear to me that my emotions really are perceptions of beauty, horror, good, bad, tragedy, etc. that give my life perceived beauty, horror, etc. There are certain stimuli that trigger positive or negative emotions, and then there are the types of stimuli that trigger no emotional response. When I look at the cup sitting there on my desk, it triggers no emotional response. I can clearly tell this cup doesn't matter to me and has no perceived beauty, horror, etc. It's nothing more than just a cup sitting there.
Sure, I can think it has perceived beauty, horror, etc. in my life, and that it matters to me. But, those thoughts are just ideas going through my mind that don't make the cup matter to me, or perceived as beautiful, horrific, etc. Now, when I turn my sights over to something that does trigger a positive emotion, such as a character from a video game or anime, I can clearly tell this character matters to me, and has such beauty from my perspective upon feeling a positive emotion.
I clearly notice that all stimuli that trigger no emotional response are stimuli that don't matter to me, and have no perceived beauty, horror, etc., while stimuli that do trigger an emotional response are the stimuli that do matter to me, and have perceived beauty, horror, etc. If people perform this little experiment and report the opposite of my results, then this is just something I don't understand. We live in a society where we're expected to go beyond our emotions.
Thus, we tend to dismiss them as trivial when, in reality, they're vital and the very source of perceived beauty, horror, etc. in our lives. So, maybe this would be a contributing factor to any results opposite of mine in this experiment. I have a keen sense of introspection, and I can clearly tell that emotions make things matter to me and give my life beauty, love, or horror. Maybe others don't have this keen sense of introspection.
My Nightmares: During my worst miserable moments, I've had very horrible nightmares. They've profoundly affected me, since they've consisted of very horrible emotional states far worse than anything I could experience in my waking life. But, then there were those nightmares I've had, which didn't have these horrible emotions.
These nightmares didn't affect me at all, and I've woken up from them like they were nothing. They were nightmares I've had when I was almost fully recovered from those miserable moments. This clearly says that emotions are what give us beautiful or horrible experiences, and that you can have nightmares that consist of the most gruesome, demonic, or hellish imagery and sounds.
But, as long as said nightmares don't have any horrible, disturbing emotions to them, then they're nothing more than images and sounds. They can't possess any horrifying or disturbing power to them. Another thing about dreams and nightmares is that spirits can contact us.
They can be angel spirits, demon spirits, or any spirit in general. Their spiritual energy will be received by our brains during our dreams and nightmares, which allows us to experience their angelic beauty, demonic horror, misery, despair, happiness, etc. via our emotions.
Changing My Philosophy Might Prove Very Difficult: As I said before, my philosophy is profoundly spiritual to me like a religion. Therefore, it would be that more difficult to change. It would be like trying to convert a Christian over to some other worldview, such as atheism, or to some philosophy. Most Christians I know remain Christians their entire lives. Few of them convert. As for me, I’m 31 years old now.
Chances are, I might have this philosophy my whole entire life. Also, most Christians have a disagreement and conflict with atheists, or people with different worldviews. This is no different than how I disagree and debate with other people. What makes this situation even worse for me is that there are many factors that can take away my positive emotions.
If I'm ever put into a position where I lose my positive emotions, and they can't sufficiently recover back to me, this would put me in a position where changing my philosophy is the only option of changing my life for the better, and giving me a whole new set of values.
Unfortunately, this would be no different than putting a Christian in a position where converting over from his religion is the only way to change his life for the better. It would obviously prove very difficult to try to convert this Christian, since he thinks any other worldview is false, and that any set of values not founded upon Christianity aren't the truth.
Lastly, my religion would be a religious form of the emotional perception theory of value. It would be a hedonistic religion. This religion of mine is meant for people who are casual and wish to live happy, fun lives. It's nothing like other religions, which expect us to refrain from and transcend our hedonistic impulses, and to serve a god, even if it made us feel unhappy or miserable.
We Need The Light: People who have near death experiences report they've met a being of light in the higher, heavenly realms known as "God" or "The Light." It is a ball of light that consists of pure joyful, loving, beautiful energy. If positive emotions are god’s holy light within us, then our brains would be receivers that pick up on his invisible, spiritual energy here on Earth. It would be like how a radio picks up radio waves. Even though these waves are invisible, they still exist.
Once received by our brains, god’s energy becomes a divine mental state. It becomes a positive emotional state. Positive emotions are, therefore, the experience of god’s divine power within us. We need this light within us to make our lives beautiful, and to create a paradise here on Earth for us. Without the light, then our lives would amount to nothing good or beautiful.
As for our negative emotions, this would be dark/negative energy from the lower realms, picked up by our brains. So, our goal is to receive as much light as possible, and to avoid receiving the darkness/negative energy, as well as apathy. Sadly, there are many factors that can prevent our brains from receiving the light, and it would be no different than preventing a radio from receiving the signal.
I Need To Become The Being Of Light; Not The Being Of Darkness: If I had the choice, I'd choose to have no negative emotions in my life. Some people would say this is unbalanced. But, if there was an item that could only make my life horrible, bad, or disgusting, then I'd obviously choose to rid of that item out of my life. I treat negative emotions as being that item. If I never had negative emotions in the first place, then I wouldn't have struggled much of my life with all those horrible, miserable moments, and neither would I feel violent or disgust towards myself or others.
When I have negative emotions, I become a horrible, disgusting, violent, or morbid being of darkness, and I can only see things in life from a negative perspective. But, when I have my positive emotions, I become a being of light, since I become something positive, beautiful, and joyful. I need to become that divine, magnificent, angelic being of light, which is the reason why I'd choose to only have positive emotions. But, I'd also want to avoid apathy, since apathy is how I become an empty vessel (neither a being of light nor a being of darkness).
Anime Metaphor: Since I love anime, then I'm going to use an anime metaphor for my worldview. As I said before, I'd describe the perception of beauty, greatness, and magnificence to be a divine state of consciousness, since it's something so vital and precious to our lives. This goes quite well with the anime metaphor I'm going to give.
The anime I'm going to use is Dragon Ball Super, if you're familiar with that show. Imagine if I was a character out on the field, meeting another character. I then induce a profoundly beautiful positive emotion by thinking of something very beautiful and joyful.
This positive emotion is a powerful, intense surge of divine beauty and joy through my conscious being. It transforms me into a Super Saiyan God. I'm now in a divine state of consciousness through this positive emotional state, and that's the reason why I'm now in this god-like/divine form. This form has beautiful aura, and there's beautiful music playing to express my divine form.
I then tell the other character on the field that this form is the ultimate thing in this universe, and nothing compares to it. I tell this character that positive emotions are, therefore, the ultimate divine things in this universe, and that he cannot match such power through his intellect and character.
Especially euphoric states, since these would be the most powerful god-like forms. The character then responds back to me by saying that I transform into the Super Saiyan God through my positive emotions, but that he transforms into the Super Saiyan God through his intellect and character. Now, there are two possibilities here.
The 1st is that this character would transform into a Super Saiyan God, which would mean he really is in that divine mental state (that state of perceiving beauty, magnificence, etc.). As a matter of fact, his Super Saiyan God form could be much more powerful and beautiful than mine.
He might tell me he has much more knowledge and life experience than me, and that's the reason why his form is so much greater than mine. From there, he'd tell me his form is everlasting, unlike mine, which only lasts for a short while. If this 1st scenario is the case, then I'd be very interested in obtaining the Super Saiyan God form this guy has.
It would bring my life perceived beauty and goodness that, not only goes beyond that of my positive emotions, but is everlasting. But, there is a 2nd possibility here. That is, this guy could attempt to transform into a Super Saiyan God through his intellect and character, but won't.
He then might say to me he's a Super Saiyan God, when he really isn't. If this is the case, then he doesn't have that divine state of consciousness. He believes he's perceiving beauty and goodness in his life when he really isn't.
From there, I'd tell him I'm the real god through my positive emotions, and that his intellect and character is nothing compared to positive emotions. So, there's my anime metaphor. I wanted to give this metaphor, since it makes my worldview more interesting.
While I'm on the topic of anime, if I were to feel profound beauty and joy from, for example, a female character, then it's as though her joyful and beautiful presence is there within my conscious being for a limited time only. So, not only do we experience the beauty and joy of moments and things in our lives through our positive emotions, but also the beauty and joy of certain characters.
I Blame It On The Creator: If there is a creator (god), then I put the blame on him for giving me the capacity to feel negative emotions, and I also put the blame on him for making this life filled with misery, suffering, and hardship.
This is a life that's very unhappy, which makes positive emotions something very fleeting. We need to live a blissful, utopia life. I mean, why did he have us live a life that takes away the one and only thing that can make our lives beautiful, joyful, and worth living (our positive emotions)?
Surely, if god wants his creations to become beautiful and joyful beings of light like him, then he would've created a blissful utopia for us all. I realize we're supposed to be multidimensional beings, which means we're beings capable of experiencing more than just the beauty and joys of life.
We're also capable of experiencing sorrow, misery, and despair. Personally, I think it was a mistake then to make us multidimensional beings. We need to be those one dimensional beings who can only feel positive emotions.
Another thing here. I realize it was my own unhealthy thought processes that induced my states of misery. But it's really his fault because god, and the spiritual beings in the heavenly realms, could've at least rendered me without the capacity to feel any negative emotions. That way, any unhealthy thought process wouldn't have made me felt miserable.
This would mean I wouldn't have struggled with all those horrible, miserable moments, and I could've instead been happy during that whole time. This whole miserable struggle of mine was a complete waste of my life. So many people struggle with misery, whether it be misery due to unfortunate circumstances, or unhealthy thought processes that need to be changed.
If it weren't for suffering and misery in the first place, then we wouldn't be able to create our own hell on Earth. We'd only be able to create a beautiful paradise on Earth for us through our positive emotions. Having hell, suffering, torment, and misery only creates major problems, and I think there's no good reason for those things to exist.
Some people would say there is a good reason, and that reason being it's for our own learning and growing. But, learning and growing is nothing good. Only positive emotions are good, since they're the only good things in life. Therefore, learning and growing is all pointless, and life should've been a blissful utopia right from the start. Actually, positive emotions are what make learning and growing something beautiful and positive.
So, learning and growing through misery and despair is pointless. It can only be happy forms of learning and growing that are good and beautiful. An example being me having fun and enjoying the whole learning process of how to compose. Also, my mother has an unhappy struggle of her own, which would be money issues, and I see no reason for her to go through this whole struggle, when god could've made her rich and happy right from the start.
She always complains how living this poor life is a shit way to live, and that she would've been much better off if she was rich from the beginning. That way, she could have luxuries for herself, and she could give money to the poor. But, since she's poor and has no way of earning big bucks, then that denies her of her needs, and that denies other poor people of their needs.
Not only is my mother's financial issues one of these pointless struggles, but there are forms of suffering so horrible that they're obviously pointless. An example being Hitler burning the Jews alive. How's that anything positive for the Jews, and how's that any form of learning and growing for them? The way I see it, life was much better off being a fun, happy, beautiful, joyful adventure (a utopia world).
After all, many people are trying to make this world a better place, and many scientists hope to create the blissful, utopia life for us in the distant future. Therefore, what does this say about diseases, illnesses, struggles, misery, and suffering? It says it's all pointless, and was something to be eliminated since the very beginning.
But, god didn't eliminate these things in the beginning. Therefore, we are left to go through all this trouble of trying to eliminate these things ourselves, and it's not a happy process. Some god that is! He could've made us perfect creations who don't suffer, and he could've made this life a utopia for us all. But, he didn't. Or, maybe, god isn't someone to be put to blame.
Maybe he's just a thing like water that has no intentions. I mentioned earlier that god was this ball of light energy. So, perhaps it's the case we need the light within us, just like how we need water/liquids. You can't blame water if you're someone living in an area of the world, where you're suffering and scarce of water.
Likewise, you can't blame god (the ball of light) if you're someone suffering and scarce of positive emotions. Water is our body's sustenance, and The Light would be our soul's sustenance. We can be physically and spiritually deprived, and neither water, nor The Light, can be put to blame. So, as you can see here, I treat beauty as being a materialistic thing like water or money.
Thoughts/beliefs alone won't give you water or money, and they, alone, can't give any real beauty to your life either. Many spiritual believers talk about transcending our materialistic desires. One of these people would be the Buddhists. But, I really think all things beautiful, positive, and joyful amounts to one, materialistic thing: the positive emotions/the inner light. So, when Buddhists talk about another form of happiness besides positive emotions, they're lying.
They think, if they practice and meditate long enough, they can achieve this form of happiness they claim exists. But, would practicing and meditating long enough allow you to have a new form of hunger and thirst, a new way to feel physical pain, or a new way to hear sound? No! If you're not hungry, thirsty, feeling any physical pain, or hearing any sound, then no other mental state can be real hunger, thirst, physical pain, or sound.
Discussion Section
Other Person's Response: I disagree with your translation of emotions into perceptions of value that was presented above.
My Reply: Emotions make things matter to us, as I said before. Now, if your mother or father died, and their loss didn't matter to you, how could you say that you've experienced the horror and tragedy of their loss? It wouldn't be a real experience. Since perception and experience are the same thing, this would mean you wouldn't be perceiving the horror and tragedy of their loss.
I could also apply this same argument to perceiving/experiencing beauty, greatness, and joy. If there was the celebration of a new millennium (such as the year 2000), and it didn't matter to you, how could you say that you've experienced the beauty, greatness, and joy of that grand moment? Again, it wouldn't be a real experience.
Other Person's Response: When you say that the person needs to experience the beauty or greatness of things, you act as though things already have beauty or greatness, and that the person just needs to perceive/experience said beauty or greatness.
My Reply: Actually, things hold no beauty and greatness in of themselves. But, once we feel that they're beautiful and great, then they become beautiful and great from our perspective.
Other Person’s Response: I think some of your writing is incoherent.
My Reply: If some of this is incoherent gibberish to you, then I don't know what to say. I've tried my best to explain, and that's all I can do. Sometimes, when I write things, people might not be able to understand them, and I'd be willing to clarify some things if need be.
Other Person's Response: In this big, document file, do you go outside your emotional definition of good, bad, etc.?
My Reply: Yes.
Other Person's Response: There are many things you say that have been repeated.
My Reply: Some things I say might be repeated. But, there are also many new things I say as well. I think everything I say is mostly new things though. Even though it may seem like I just repeat some things, there are new things I say within the context of those repeated things.
Other Person's Response: Do you think you're an intelligent person, given that you've written all of this?
My Reply: No. I know absolutely nothing about life or any given subject. So, I wouldn't consider myself to be intelligent. I'm just an average person who's explaining his philosophy and life predicaments.
Other Person's Response: You sure do write a lot!
My Reply: It would be no different than someone taking photos throughout his life and putting them all into one, big, photo collection. As time goes on, I add more and more things to say in my packets. So, consider everything I've written to be one, big, written collection of material. Sharing my packets to other people would, thus, be no different than someone sharing his huge photo collection.
Other Person's Response: There's one thing I'd love to see in this one, big collection of written material. That would be you discovering greater value and worth to life than emotions. I hope you develop a new, better philosophy, and discuss it someday.
My Reply: I'm not sure if that's going to happen. But, alright.
Other Person's Response: Are all the responses and replies in this extensive Q&A Section randomly assorted? In other words, do you discuss one thing with someone, and then go into a whole new discussion with someone else?
My Reply: It's sort of randomly assorted. So, don't be confused if I discuss one thing in regards to my philosophy, and then discuss something else in regards to my philosophy, or in regards to a different topic.
Other Person's Response: You say many people understood your writing and said you're a skilled writer. How do you know they weren't just saying that to be polite? Maybe you're not a skilled writer, and people just didn't want to come right out and tell you the truth.
My Reply: Well, when people responded to the things I've written, their responses have shown a clear understanding of what I've written. So, my writing is good enough if people are clearly understanding it.
Other Person's Response: You say people would be having too high of a standard if they say your writing is awful. What people consider to be a reasonable standard is subjective though.
My Reply: Well, most people would think my writing is good. So, that says my writing really is good enough. But, if I wanted to become a professional writer, then my writing wouldn't be good enough, since it doesn't meet that standard. If I was trying to meet a professional writing standard, I'd have to make my writing appealing to readers, rather than explaining things in a normal, conversational tone. I'd also have to present and explain everything in a professional way. But, I don't think I need to do any of that. If I was an author who was selling books, then I would have to do that.
Other Person's Response: I think you should be a writer, and not a philosopher. You're no good at philosophy, since you lack so much knowledge and life experience necessary. But, you're a skilled writer.
My Reply: Regardless if I'm a skilled philosopher or not, I wish to share my personal experience with others, since it's important they know that my positive emotions are what make my life beautiful and worth living.
Other Person's Response: Since you're not a good philosopher, or have much knowledge and life experience, then many things you say make no sense. If someone had no knowledge and experience when it comes to physics, then the things he'd say would make no sense either.
My Reply: Well, I'm trying my best to make sense to others.
Other Person's Response: Also, I've seen you go on forums and debate with other people. When you debate, some of your responses are poor, and don't really address what's been said.
My Reply: Again, I think that's because I'm not an intelligent person who can put up a good debate. I can only do my best, and if my best isn't good enough, then whatever. I don't care. Also, since I'm not very skilled at having a discussion, or a debate, I might give poor responses that don't really address what the other person has said. I could even misinterpret what the other person has said.
Other Person's Response: Do you wish to be an expert philosopher someday, so you can have an intelligent debate with others, rather than putting up poor, flawed arguments?
My Reply: No. My goal is to be a composer who makes good music. So, I'm just writing everything to get it off my mind and share it.
Other Person's Response: If you simply said that you need your positive emotions to experience your life as beautiful and worth living, that wouldn't make sense to many people. So, that's why you explain everything, so that it all makes sense to people.
My Reply: Yes.
Other Person's Response: Since there are emotion theorists with the same philosophy as you, then why not just give us links that present their arguments, rather than going through all the trouble of typing your own arguments to support your philosophy?
My Reply: First of all, I don't even know where to look online to find these arguments. I tried finding them, but couldn't. Second, intelligent people often write, or say things, that are very difficult for the average reader to comprehend. I know I have a difficult time comprehending what intelligent people say and write. So, that's why I explain my philosophy in a way that's clear and simple for readers.
Think of my written material as being one of those books for dummies, such as Music Theory for Dummies, or Philosophy for Dummies. But, there's one exception, which would be that I'm not a professional writer. That means I wouldn't write a well-written book. But, I could, at least, write well-written packets because, as far as writing packets is concerned, my writing should definitely be good enough.
Other Person's Response: I'm sorry to say it, but your writing isn't good enough, which means you're going to have to learn how to be a skilled writer, whether you want to or not.
My Reply: If that's the case, then I'm not going to even bother. I only take up those pursuits I have an interest in, and learning how to be a skilled writer isn't one of those pursuits. But, all my written material wouldn't have been written for nothing. There are some people who understood my writing quite well, which means sharing my packets isn't a futile endeavor, since some people will understand them. Also, I could have professional writers improvise my writing. But, that would cost me, and only few professionals would do it for free. Especially since there's a ton of written material.
Other Person's Response: I'd consider this entire document to be a poorly written book.
My Reply: It's not a book. It's a personal compilation of information I've written, and I think my level of writing skill qualifies when it comes to writing things like this. But, as for writing an actual book, my level of writing skill wouldn't qualify.
Other Person's Response: Those links you presented in your other packet have many arguments to support the views of emotion theorists.
My Reply: Even so, there might be arguments I'm explaining that haven't been explained in those links.
Other Person's Response: Couldn't you go to online forums, find some intelligent people who'd present links to you that explain everything in regards to your philosophy, and you present those links to people? In addition, couldn't you go online, find professional writers, and see if they can revise your writing?
My Reply: Yes. But, again, it's best if I personally explain my philosophy to make it easy and comprehensive for readers. As far as having professionals revise my writing, I'd probably only get a few revisions done for free. After that, I'd have to pay them, and my mother doesn't have the money for that right now.
Other Person's Response: I think your philosophy is very dumb.
My Reply: I don't care how dumb others think it is. This has been my personal experience, and I'm not afraid to share it.
Other Person's Response: You also give very poor analogies that don't make sense to people.
My Reply: If that's the case, then I'm just no good at making analogies.
Other Person's Response: Since this packet is so long, do you talk about other things besides your worldview/philosophy?
My Reply: Yes. I talk about these immortality rings I purchased, I talk about Christianity, I talk about my phobias, and more. Since all these other topics were relevant to the discussion of my philosophy/worldview, then that's why these other topics are discussed in this packet. It would be a bit too much work for me to make those other topics into other packets. I'd have to go through this whole packet, find the responses/replies that discuss these other topics, and make them into different packets. Besides, I think it's alright having all these other discussed topics in this one, big packet.
These other topics aren't really all that important to me anyway. So, they don't warrant their own packets. For example, it's not really important that others are aware of my phobias. Another example would be that I do care if Christians tell me I'm going to hell (since I discuss with them in this packet). But, I really don't care that much. Now, when it comes to the things I discuss in my Composing Dream packet, that warrants its own packet. So, I only make different packets when it's something I think is very important that others need to know about me, or about something I wish to discuss.
Other Person's Response: Do you think your writing skill is above the average skill level?
My Reply: Actually, I do think so. Average people tend to have poor or, moderately poor, spelling, grammar, etc. I know this from personal experience, and I'm quite sure others have had this personal experience as well. Since my writing skill is better than that of an average adult, then I'd consider my writing skill to be above average. But, there are some flaws with my writing, and I am limited when it comes to my vocabulary. So, my writing skill wouldn't be at a professional level.
Other Person's Response: Personally, I think you're wasting your writing talent on writing all of these pointless packets. You could instead be using that talent for something better.
My Reply: I don't want to take up writing stories, poetry, or anything of the sort. I just want to write these packets, since I personally think they're important to share.
Other Person's Response: You share a lot of worthless things. For one, your philosophy is pathetic, shit, and utterly worthless. Who'd want to live by, or even bother with such a philosophy? Secondly, your musical tunes are worthless rubbish.
My Reply: People who'd think my philosophy is shit or worthless would be living by, what they think are, greater values than the values my philosophy advocates/preaches. Thus, they'd just ignore my values and deem them as worthless. They'd say they have a greater purpose in life than living for positive emotions. But, things people abandon and ignore sometimes become the truth. People often times deny the truth and go about their daily lives. So, my philosophy might be true, and people are just dismissing it. They might be living by false values, which means they're living a lie. I think emotions are the only real source of value.
Other Person's Response: I think some people would actually find your philosophy worth reading and taking into consideration.
My Reply: Yes. One man's trash is another man's treasure. So, even though many people would think my philosophy is worthless, there will be people who'd be interested in it. Especially the emotion theorists. I think they'd find it interesting how I turned their emotional perception theory of value into a religion.
Other Person's Response: Many people won't accept the notion that this is the only life we have. So, they believe in an afterlife. Likewise, people won't accept the notion that positive emotions are the only way our lives can be good and beautiful. So, they believe there's more beauty and goodness to life.
My Reply: Correct.
Other Person's Response: I heard you say you have a limited vocabulary. That's why you tend to use the same words time and time again. That shows you're a limited individual. So, you could also be limited in terms of your experience. Maybe there really is more beauty and goodness to life than positive emotions, and you don't realize this yet.
My Reply: That could be.
Other Person's Response: Why do you write so much?
My Reply: It's an obsession, it's to get everything off my mind, and share it. If I just left it at a simple statement that gets right to the point, then that wouldn't explain everything I needed to explain. Not only that, but it also wouldn't address all possible objections others have to my personal views. Having a simple, brief statement would leave room for plenty of objections, and I don't want that.
As long as people have objections that leave them name calling me and whatnot, then they lack understanding of me and my whole situation. That's why I address these objections, so that people can finally understand. Think of two people having an argument, such as a daughter, who has broken a plate, and her mother complaining, and calling her clumsy. If that daughter really wasn't being clumsy, then the mother lacks understanding.
Sure, the daughter can give one, simple argument to explain how she wasn't being clumsy. But, the mother would only continue to stand by her position in the argument. Eventually though, the mother would finally understand once the daughter continues to address the mother's arguments. That is, if the mother takes consideration into these arguments, and doesn't say to the daughter that she's just making excuses.
People lack understanding when they say my emotions aren't perceptions of value, or when they call me a childish, piece of shit, since my positive emotions are the only things that make my life beautiful. They would say things, such as that I'm worthless and better off killing myself. This is why I've written all of these essays and Q&A Sections. Not only that, but I'm trying to prove something, and I also like to share all my personal views with others.
Other Person's Response: In the future, we might be able to instantly share our thoughts and ideas telepathically. That means people could immediately know everything about you and your whole predicament in the blink of an eye. Thus, you wouldn't have to sit there and argue with people, or have them read all the things you've written. You could just instantly share all the information in your brain to other people. Unfortunately, that would be in the distant future, and you won't live long enough to see that day.
My Reply: That would be a major advantage if I could do that. This means I wouldn't have to worry about people not reading the things I've written, since they don't have the time, patience, or if my writing skill doesn't meet their higher standards. Also, if supernatural beings do exist, then they could know everything about me and my predicament. Thus, they'd have a complete understanding of me and my whole situation. I wouldn't have to explain anything to them. Lastly, as for me not living long enough to see that day, I could if these immortality rings work for me. I talk about them in this packet.
Other Person's Response: I heard that you've copied and pasted all the material you've written in these packets into your journals on your Deviant Art account. You've also uploaded these packets onto Mediafire. That way, they're backed up. If there's a way for people to download all information from the internet into their brains in the future, then all the information in your packets would be instantly downloaded into their brains, since all that information is already there online.
My Reply: That would be interesting.
Other Person's Response: Are you obsessed with getting every thought off your mind in regards to your philosophy?
My Reply: Yes. That's why I write so much. I wish to share what's on my mind.
Other Person's Response: If you think that anything's unfair or unjust, you write about it?
My Reply: Yes. In this packet, I also talk about fundamentalist Christianity, and why I personally think hell is unjust and unloving.
Other Person's Response: Do you find it difficult to articulate to readers?
My Reply: Sometimes. For example, I might not be explaining things that need to be explained. So, others might find certain things I write to be unclear. I might also use certain words and phrases others would find confusing. I could write something such as: "It's all fine!" Someone might ask me what I mean by that. I'd respond and say to them that it means:
"Everything's alright. I won't have any issues here." That's why I must sit there and really think what I type before I type it. I wish to communicate to readers in such a way they can understand it. To do that, I must type the right things. In the past, I didn't do that. I just wrote things and expected readers to understand. I wasn't being as clear as I possibly could.
Other Person's Response: Do you sometimes explain things in such a way that the reader gets a different message than you intended?
My Reply: Yes. That's why I have to be careful about how I explain the things I wish to explain.
Other Person's Response: When writing your packets, do you try to write in such a way that it's universally understood by readers? For example, if you said you beat a video game, some people would understand that, since they know you meant that you completed a game. But, some people wouldn't understand that, and might think that you literally beat one of your video games with a hammer. So, by instead saying that you've completed a video game, everyone would understand that.
My Reply: Yes. I try to make my explanations universally understood my readers. I also try not to leave out explanations that are needed, so the reader gets the right message. For example, if I just said we don't know the truth when it comes to debatable topics, some people would come along and say we can never know the truth with absolute certainty, since the closest we can get to the truth is 99.9%.
But, if I said we don't know the truth as to whether it's likely a certain claim is true or not, since there's so much debate/controversy about it, then that was the point I was trying to get across to readers. So, the reader would've gotten the wrong message in my first attempt at explaining something. But, once I revise my explanation, the reader gets the right message.
