Feeling v sensing

[kavaris]

Keep in mind, yous can take these ideas, As many of what ive said, atleast 99% on here are ideas that i, in some ways, cant use. And thus it tends to reach beyond what im capable of capturing, as i try to get things more towards poetic, or hymn-driven art realm.

This however is on the area of the mystical, spiritual, the gradual, and philosophical, but i think its on the topic of things like psychedelics too and such, so really its in every category.

So sensing is something i started comparing to our five senses (inb4: wat? does that mean?), plus one extra, when we say things like "i could sense you behind me" or just something like the 6th sense movie. When we take psychedelics, we use "sensing" as that direct ability towards a truth; A necessary commander in merging senses.

Then there's this more etymological feeling (a feeling towards truth, or essence, you see?) which i compare to something closer to truth from the point of having considered or from the point after actualizing. That is "feeling" is sortve a miniature version of the broader sensing ability, because its most specific in the areas after, that is the post-expansion of mind[ You see what i mean?

This is one of those things, like*-istemi,* like a pointer to a place that cant be explained fully, however i thought this might help in getting us closer to it, for we need to, to signify its importance. You can just think of it as, "sense and feeling are two different things, where one is of a purely sensed direction and the other is purely \*felt\*"

And is that it? For now.

Edited July 20 by kavaris

[kavaris]

I want to reinvoke this topic again, not only cause it'll gets yous thinking, but also because it helps us to differentiate these two terms, as i had a thought the other day that made me reconsider the original idea, and whether or not it would be better to reverse them (having "feeling" denote "a greater range(s) of ..."  or not...)

So just to refresh, I had mentioned etymology = truth (of feelings), and what im referring to as more like 'the necessary commander behind the merging of senses. I'll be going through everything, and what that means.

On one hand, you have this notion of your physical sensations, where this pragmatic sense can also lead to something deeply felt, the "felt sense",  which ive learned wasnt a unique term today... but lets continue   ... and that can be included in the five and/or plus one 'meta-sense.

Alternatively there's the type of feeling that you could invoke, that which sits above everything else, where sensing is seen as one mode of expression upon the larger feeling. Sensing and feeling can still be components of each other, but what we are deciding is if its better to think of feeling as a component of sensing, or vice versa.

For example now, when we "see" something in our dream, thats not quite about this sense of seeing. Its part of the larger "feeling space" that we assoc. w/ something that shares a likeness to sight. That's sort've what I mean by this alternative explication. Feelings are the transcendent idea that makes it harder to place in one specific box, dont you think?

In one way, sensing is the frame w/ which more detailed feelings live. But then again, feelings are able to capture a unified sense, sensing as a more archetypal form that we want to bring into our world of tangibles.

I mean, that would be a unification of meaning and experience (that i feel should be treated separately in some way now)

So now, if we go back to the original idea, we might think of that unification process as separate, atleast separate from sensing and feeling.

Instead we might hold sensing to be the greater category this time (as it had been originally in my mind), where etymological feeling was a way to refer to something true in the space of sensing (per our embodied experience).

That gives us something to point to first, especially because, once we start thinking of everything as "one unified feeling", we can no longer speak of the multifarious truths within ourselves. Better still, that vague preconceptual sense of meaning helps us too, in further demonstrating that "on the day that we are to experience ‘one unified feeling’..." -type've thing, which i happen to treat as something like a paradoxic utility (or something)

Even still, we shouldnt force the purity of oneness within our practical thought structure, as distillation is part of that implicit dimension of concepts and developments (or felt-sensing) that you feel in your body, just as wholly as the purity of oneness. Ergo, oneness is really just the word that escapes embodied qualities. It makes sense in this way then to say, "sensing" is the greater range of embodiments, and etymological feelings point us towards this wholly felt, embodied realm or dimension.

Forgive me if that sounds confusing, as it'll be something for yous to think on, and later, pull apart, and decide for yourselves: whether sensing should be the term that refers to a larger pattern in the cosmos, or if 'feeling is better suited; the 'oneness feeling thing... I've of course landed on sensations as that higher realm, but later yous might find and decide a way to further justify it within some other arrangement.

Edited yesterday at 09:27 PM by kavaris

[kavaris]

Yous have to consider that everything is like a reiterated, smaller component or mirror image of itself, within the larger self, intertwined in "the greater mech." of self... Like... First, just following along w/ the idea that sensation is a greater mechanism: That then has lots of these smaller images of things, and so, whatever that greater  mech., may be, may entail... it has within it other perspectiviles;  'pragmatics, logic, meta-physics., grammatics, ecstatics, poetics... But then there's actionables, tangibles, usables / operables, intelligible / discernibles... conceivables, valuables / justifiables, stuff like that, that exists as definable or describable  in the larger image of itself, the larger mech., I mean theres more to it since we have our internal "time mechanisms" our internal clock and rhythms, and things like this, but what im trying to say is that, that is then something you have to consider, around these other perspectives or operations that can change the way you see the smaller, reiterated images of self-being, that is, the way you move or turn within the calm pond, it changes the entire flow of everything within the calm pond, and every movement creates reiterated intervals of that prior moving mechanism, which itself is harder to locate, if you can even truly locate it, at all, which is for yous to ultimately decide.