All My Journal Packets (Files)

[The Transcended Omniverse]

Other Person's Response: The acts of that serial killer would be acts of deception, rather than acts of love. In order for his acts to be classified as loving acts, he'd need to be a loving individual.

My Reply: Which would mean he'd need to change from being a serial killer to being a loving individual. But, even if he changes, he can't be a loving individual, as long as he's unable to feel love, due to brain damage, a mental illness, etc. that takes away his feelings of love.

Other Person's Response: Your definition of love seems like an exercise purely in semantics. If you define love as a feeling, it will be a feeling. If you define love as something else, it will be something else. If you call that feeling of "flushedness, butterflies, and wooowi gaga" as "love," then it's love. But, if someone else experiences a feeling of "chilled attachment, fluff and boom," and he calls that "love," then it's love.

But, someone else might experience it as "that feeling I get when I set my mind to help someone," and call that love. But, that all presupposes that the "feeling" is the "love," as opposed to the mindset that precedes it. What if someone says: "I set my mind to care about another, regardless of whether it hurts me," and then experiences intense, emotional pain? But, instead of calling the feeling "love," he instead calls the "mindset that a person chooses to have" as "love." That would be love instead, would it not?

My Reply: Love isn't just some label we can choose to slap onto anything we want. There's a big difference between our personal definitions and reality. Let me give you an example. We perceive beauty and magnificence through our feelings of beauty and magnificence. But, if someone defined the perception of beauty and magnificence as being a mindset, rather than a feeling, then that would be false because our mindset alone doesn't allow us to see beauty and magnificence in things, moments, situations, works of art, etc.

The same idea applies to love. The only way we can love is through our feelings of love, and no alternative definition of love can get around this. If you, for example, define a feeling of anger as love, then all you're doing is just slapping the label "love" onto that feeling of anger. But, that feeling of anger wouldn't be love. It would still be anger, no matter if you defined it as love. Here's one last example. If you had a hateful mindset, and you defined it as a loving mindset, then it would still be a hateful mindset. As you can see, labels don't change reality. They're just labels.

Other Person's Response: What if a person defined his mindset as being a feeling? Wouldn't that allow him to perceive beauty and magnificence through his mindset alone?

My Reply: No. The same idea applies to love. Love can only be a feeling, and he could define his mindset as being a feeling. But, that wouldn't allow him to love through his mindset alone.

Other Person’s Response: If a person had the thought, or belief, that something was beautiful, that’s the same thing as perceiving said thing as beautiful. No feelings are required to perceive beauty, horror, etc.

My Reply: False. I’m going to give you an example that illustrates the difference between thinking, or believing, that something is beautiful or horrible, and perceiving said thing as beautiful or horrible. A psychopath could say:

“I know what I’m doing is horrible. But, I don’t see my deeds as horrible. I see them as beautiful, since I’m a psychopath who loves to torture others, commit crimes, etc.”

In this example, the psychopath knows what he’s doing is horrible. But, he doesn’t see it as a horrible thing, which means he doesn’t feel horrible about his deeds. He instead feels beauty in regards to his deeds, which means he sees them as beautiful. So, our mindset alone just allows us to acknowledge that certain things, situations, and deeds are beautiful or horrible. But, to actually see said things, situations, and deeds as beautiful or horrible requires us to feel that they’re beautiful or horrible.

Other Person's Response: Are there scientists who think love can only be a feeling, and that perceptions of beauty, goodness, horror, magnificence, etc. can only be feelings?

My Reply: Yes. But, some people disagree with these scientists.

Other Person’s Response: I could take the phrase “perception of beauty” and take out “perception of.” That would leave me with “beauty.” So, there’s the beauty right there. I could do the same thing with the phrase “plate of spaghetti.” If I took out “plate of,” then that would leave me with “spaghetti.” So, there’s the spaghetti right there. My point is, there’s actual beauty in a perception of beauty, and there’s actual spaghetti on a plate of spaghetti. So, when we have perceptions of beauty, we’re having beauty, just as how we’d be having spaghetti if we had plates of spaghetti. I’m not implying beauty is food that we eat. I’m just saying that beauty is something we need in our lives, and perceptions of beauty give beauty to our lives.

My Reply: Yes. So, if we want beauty in our lives, then that requires us to have feelings (perceptions) of beauty. If nobody had these feelings, then beauty would no longer exist because beauty is simply a perception/feeling/value judgment (a state of mind). Spaghetti would still exist if there were no plates of it. But, beauty, goodness, evil, etc. would no longer exist if there were no perceptions of it.

Other Person’s Response: You deem feelings as superior to thoughts because you say that feelings of beauty are the only things that allow us to see beauty in moments, situations, works of art, etc., and that feelings of beauty are the only things that give beauty to our lives. But, wouldn’t there be actual beauty in a thought of beauty? So, wouldn’t thoughts of beauty give beauty to our lives?

My Reply: There’s no actual red in a thought of red, since the thought of red is just the idea of red. When you see red, and don’t just have the thought of it in your mind, then actual red is there. Red is a perceptual/visual state, which means it only exists in your mind. Beauty also only exists in our minds. There’s no actual beauty in the thought or belief that something’s beautiful, since that’s just the idea that something’s beautiful.

When you see beauty, and don’t just have the thought or belief of it in your mind, then actual beauty is there. Beauty is a feeling, just as how red is a color. Thoughts or beliefs of beauty give no beauty to our lives because beauty can only be a feeling.

Other Person’s Response: Beauty is a value judgment because if someone said “Helping someone is a beautiful thing” or “Nature is very beautiful,” then that’s a value judgment. According to you, the only way to perceive beauty is through our feelings of beauty. But, a person could redefine beauty as literally being the color red, which would no longer make beauty a value judgment anymore. So, if that person saw red, he’d be seeing beauty.

My Reply: But, this definition of beauty would be nothing more than just a color. I’m talking about beauty as a value judgment, which can only be perceived through our feelings of beauty. Also, if someone defined beauty as literally being a color, sound, or object, then that just wouldn’t be real beauty. The same idea applies to other things, such as love. If love was defined as being just a color, sound, or object, then that wouldn’t be love either.

Other Person’s Response: If someone went by the version of beauty that’s not a value judgment, and he defined red as beauty, then he could see beauty just by seeing red. But, if someone went by the version of beauty that’s a value judgment, and he defined red as beauty, then he couldn’t see beauty just by seeing red. He’d have to feel beauty in regards to red in order to see red as beautiful.

My Reply: Yes.

Other Person’s Response: The perception of red is a visual state. But, you’re saying that the perception of beauty is an emotional/feeling state?

My Reply: Yes.

Other Person’s Response: You have it all backwards. Our emotions aren’t perceptions of beauty, horror, etc. Beauty, horror, etc. is in the eye of the beholder. In other words, the thought or belief that something’s beautiful or horrific is all that’s needed for a person to perceive beauty or horror.

My Reply: Based upon my personal experience, I think other people have it backwards. I can clearly tell that my emotions are the only perceptions of beauty, horror, etc.

Other Person’s Response: We need some bad in our lives. So, you shouldn’t dismiss the bad.

My Reply: You act as though having the bad is a good thing. That makes no sense because good is good and bad is bad. Good can’t be bad, and bad can’t be good, just as how love can’t be hate, and how hate can’t be love. So, if you were feeling nothing but goodness and beauty, and you acted as though that was a bad and disgusting thing, then that would make no sense because you’d be having nothing but goodness and beauty in your life. So, you should act as though that’s a good and beautiful thing, regardless if you were feeling goodness and beauty in regards to torturing someone, committing crimes, etc.

Other Person’s Response: So, if I felt bad one moment, and that bad feeling resulted in me having much more good feelings than I could’ve ever obtained otherwise, then I should act as though it’s a bad thing that I’m feeling bad? But, I should act as though it’s a good thing once I have those good feelings?

My Reply: Yes. When you have the bad in your life in the meantime, then it only makes sense to act as though that’s bad. But, when you have the good in your life again, it only makes sense to act as though that’s good. So, when you feel/perceive bad, that’s bad, since bad is a feeling/perception/value judgment, and it only makes sense to act as though that’s bad. The same idea applies to feeling goodness and beauty.

Other Person’s Response: If I was feeling bad, and my friend was feeling good, then shouldn’t I act as though it’s a good thing that he’s feeling good?

My Reply: As long as you’re just feeling bad, you wouldn’t be able to see it as a good thing that your friend is feeling good, since you need to feel good to perceive good. So, it would make no sense for you to act as though it’s a good thing that your friend is feeling good, since such an act implies that you’re seeing it as a good thing. Your acts must match up with your perception in order for said acts to make sense, and to be an expression of your perception. So, if you felt that it was a good thing to torture someone, then it would only make sense to act as though it’s a good thing to torture that person, since you’d be seeing it as a good thing to torture him/her.

 

[The Transcended Omniverse]

Other Person’s Response: I could still act as though it’s a bad thing to torture someone, even while I’m seeing it as a good thing to torture that person. My act would just be concealing that I’m really seeing it as a good thing to torture that person.

My Reply: Yes. In which case, you wouldn’t be expressing what’s on the inside, which would be the perception that it’s a good thing to torture that person.

Other Person’s Response: If I felt good about torturing someone, you’re saying it would make sense for me to act as though torturing that person would be a good thing, since I’d be seeing it as a good thing to torture that person. But, if I was just feeling good about that, and I wasn’t feeling good about the idea of feeling good in regards to torturing that person, then, if I were to act as though it’s a good thing that I’m feeling good, that act wouldn’t match up because I wouldn’t be seeing that as a good thing. The only situation I’d be seeing as good would be torturing that person. So, that’s the situation I should be treating as good.

My Reply: Yes.

Other Person’s Response: According to your philosophy, it would be a good thing to torture someone if I felt good about doing it?

My Reply: Yes.

Other Person’s Response: So, if I felt good about torturing someone, and I didn’t feel good about the idea of feeling good about torturing that person, then the idea of me feeling good wouldn’t be a good thing? But, it would be a good thing for me to torture that person?

My Reply: Correct. If another person felt bad in regards to you torturing that person, then, for him, it would be a bad thing, while, for you, it would be a good thing, since you felt good about it.

Other Person’s Response: Actually, according to your philosophy, good feelings are still good, regardless if we don’t feel good about them because good feelings are the very goodness we need in our lives.

My Reply: Yes. Like I said, good is a feeling/perception/value judgment (a state of mind). That means feeling good is what’s good. So, if you felt good about something, then not only does that thing become good for you, but the feeling itself is what’s good, regardless if you’re not feeling good about that good feeling.

Other Person’s Response: According to your philosophy, emotions are the only perceptions of beauty, horror, etc., which means you’re saying thoughts aren’t required at all to perceive beauty, horror, etc.

My Reply: That’s not true. Thoughts are required because it takes a thought of horror to feel horror, it takes a thought of beauty to feel beauty, etc. But, a thought alone doesn’t allow a person to see horror or beauty in something or someone.

Other Person’s Response: You use the terms “feelings” and “emotions” interchangeably.

My Reply: Yes. If I said the statement: “Emotions of horror and beauty,” that wouldn’t sound right. I’d have to instead use the statement: “Feelings of horror and beauty.” So, I can’t just stick to the term “emotions.” I also have to use the term “feelings.”

Other Person’s Response: According to your philosophy, good and bad don’t exist independently of our perception, since good and bad only exist in our minds. So, if a person perceived good, then that’s what’s good, and, if a person perceived bad, then that’s what’s bad.

My Reply: Yes. That’s because good and bad are simply perceptions (states of mind). Also, braveness doesn’t exist independently of our perception either. Braveness is a perception/state of mind/state of being. So, a person needs to have a brave perception in order to be a brave individual. When he has a brave perception, he’s in a brave state of mind, and he’s in a brave state of being, which makes him a brave person. That means he needs to feel brave in order to be a brave person, since that feeling of braveness is a brave perception. As long as he’s just feeling fear, then he’s having a fearful perception, which means he’s not a brave individual, regardless if he protected someone. Love, hate, sadness, misery, etc. don’t exist independently of our perception either. So, we need to feel love, hate, sadness, misery, etc. in order for them to exist.

Other Person’s Response: According to your philosophy, a brave thought or belief alone can’t give me a brave perception. I need to feel brave to have a brave perception.

My Reply: Yes. Having a feeling of braveness is the only way to have a perception of braveness, just as how having a feeling of horror or beauty is the only way to have a perception of horror or beauty.

Other Person’s Response: I don’t think we would even call our thoughts and beliefs alone brave, since they don’t give us a brave perception. It would be no different than how we wouldn’t call our thoughts and beliefs alone beautiful, since only feelings of beauty are beautiful.

My Reply: I think you’re right. So, only feelings of braveness would be braveness.

Other Person’s Response: According to your philosophy, if I didn’t feel up to going to work, you’re saying I’d have no motivation to go to work, going to work wouldn’t matter to me, and I wouldn’t be able to see going to work as good, valuable, precious, or worthwhile?

My Reply: Correct.

Other Person’s Response: So, I take it we need emotions to not only perceive things as good, beautiful, worthwhile, etc., but to motivate us and make things matter to us.

My Reply: Yes. So, even people training in the military require emotions to motivate them, make their training matter to them, and perceive their training as good, glorious, worthwhile, etc. Like I said though, emotions are transient, fleeing things. That means they wear off, and they’re not everlasting. So, soldiers should get the most out of their training while their feelings of motivation last. The moment that motivation wears off is the moment these soldiers would have to wait for it to return. Otherwise, they’d just be dragging themselves through their training, having no motivation whatsoever.

Other Person’s Response: When a person undergoes intense training in the military, that will definitely drain his emotional motivation very fast. He’ll soon find himself feeling very relaxed or very fatigue. Yet, I see soldiers training all day everyday. Do you think these soldiers have an everlasting form of motivation, besides their emotions, that keeps them going? Is it possible for a person to just have an everlasting, motivational thought of goodness, beauty, and worth that gives him everlasting motivation, continues to make his training matter to him, and gives him an everlasting perception of goodness, beauty, and worth in regards to his training?

My Reply: I’ll need a new personal experience to convince me of this. So far, my emotions have been the only things that motivate me, make things matter to me, and give me perceptions of beauty, goodness, worth, etc.

Other Person’s Response: So, your philosophy says people should just give up on their goals, dreams, and endeavors when they don’t feel motivated to pursue them, since these people would be apathetic in regards to pursuing them?

My Reply: Yes.

Other Person’s Response: In regards to your philosophy, I think you’re just allowing your emotions to dominate your perception. You say emotions are perceptions of beauty, horror, etc. But, I don’t think they are. The truth is, you don’t need emotions to perceive beauty, horror, etc.

My Reply: Well, my personal experience says emotions are perceptions of beauty, horror, etc., and the emotion theorists say so as well.

Other Person’s Response: If someone had a certain belief, such as that fat people are ugly, then he wouldn’t be able to see fat people as beautiful, just by thinking they’re beautiful. That’s because his belief prevents him from having a new perspective in regards to fat people. My point is, if we have beliefs, then thoughts alone just won’t work to give us a new perspective, since said beliefs keep us restricted to our current perspectives.

I think you have a limiting belief, which would be that you can only see beauty, horror, etc. through your emotions. So, that’s why your thoughts alone of beauty or horror don’t allow you to see beauty or horror, since you have this limiting belief that prevents you from perceiving beauty or horror through your thoughts alone. So, you’re allowing your emotions to dominate your perception of good, bad, beauty, horror, etc., since you believe you can only perceive good, bad, etc. through your emotions.

My Reply: I’m not sure if this is the case with me.

Other Person’s Response: Your brain could somehow be wired to perceive good, bad, etc. through your emotions.

My Reply: I’m not sure. If my brain is wired this way, then I hope said wiring isn’t permanent.

Other Person’s Response: You say your personal experience has led you to the conclusion that emotions are perceptions of beauty, horror, etc. before having discovered the emotion perception theory that’s been put forth by emotion theorists.

My Reply: Yes. This has been my personal experience my whole life.

Other Person’s Response: According to your philosophy, physical pain and physical pleasure don’t feel good, bad, tragic, beautiful, or horrific. They just feel painful and pleasant. So, that means they’re nothing good, bad, or beautiful, and they give no goodness, badness, or beauty to our lives.

My Reply: Correct. Only our emotions feel good, bad, or beautiful. So, if someone felt extreme physical pain, such as getting his legs chopped off, that pain, in of itself, would be nothing bad or horrible. It would just be extremely painful. Emotional pain, on the other hand, is bad and horrible, since it feels bad and horrible.

Other Person’s Response: I heard that you’ve had many miserable struggles throughout your life, which gave you a miserable perspective. Do you think god allowing your miserable struggles is unjust?

My Reply: Yes. I shouldn’t have been allowed to live such a miserable existence. It was a horrible way to live. God might’ve felt it was just, which would’ve made it just in his eyes though.

 

[The Transcended Omniverse]

Other Person’s Response: I heard that your miserable struggles were horrible feelings, they made your existence a horrible, living hell, and they were immense forms of suffering for you. But, they didn’t transform you as an individual, since you still live by this simplistic philosophy that says: “Feeling good is good, and feeling bad is bad.” But, you can’t expect suffering alone to transform you as an individual. So, if you wish to upgrade to a better philosophy, then you have to put in the effort. If someone wanted to be a skilled basketball player, then suffering alone won’t achieve his goal. He needs to put in the effort if he wishes to be a skilled basketball player.

My Reply: Then all my suffering was completely unnecessary, and god shouldn’t have allowed it. If god wanted me to grow in terms of my philosophy, then he should’ve planned a better life for me. It would be a life where I hardly suffer, and somehow develop a better philosophy.

Other Person’s Response: In regards to all the miserable struggles you’ve had, life’s supposed to be tough, since it’s a school/training ground for our souls.

My Reply: What about people who are mentally insane? They shouldn’t have miserable struggles, since such struggles might drive them to harm themselves and/or others. I’m not implying that I’m mentally insane. But, my miserable struggles have caused me to feel extreme, insane, violent rage throughout the day each day, since having a crisis causes you to not only feel misery, but other negative emotions, such as rage, sadness, etc.

Other Person’s Response: I’m glad you never acted out on those violent feelings. Had you done so, you would’ve harmed yourself and/or others.

My Reply: Right.

Other Person’s Response: According to your philosophy, emotions are the only perceptions of beauty, horror, etc., and they’re the only loving, hateful, happy, sad, etc. perceptions.

My Reply: Yes.

Other Person’s Response: According to your philosophy, things, moments, situations, people, and works of art become good for us when we feel good about them. But, if someone had to take medicine to save his life, then that medicine would still be good for him, regardless if he’s not feeling good about the medicine.

My Reply: If he didn’t feel good about the medicine, that means he’s not perceiving the medicine as good, which means the medicine is nothing good in his eyes. So, the medicine would be nothing good for him, even though it’s saving his life. Like I said, good and bad only exist in our minds, which means they’re nothing more than feelings/perceptions. To say that the medicine was still good for him, even though he wasn’t seeing it as good, would be treating good as something outside of his perception. So, if someone doesn’t see something as good, tragic, or beautiful, then that thing is nothing good, tragic, or beautiful for him. It’s as simple as that. Would it make sense to say that a work of art was beautiful for an individual if it was lame and awful in his eyes? No. The work of art would be lame and awful for him.

Other Person’s Response: So, if someone didn’t have his ability to experience feelings of goodness and beauty, and I told that individual he should still do certain deeds for humanity, since these are good and beautiful deeds, I’d be treating goodness and beauty as something outside of his perception. Thus, I’d be disregarding the fact that these deeds can be nothing good or beautiful in his eyes.

My Reply: Yes. To expect that person to do these deeds, when he sees them as nothing good, awesome, beautiful, or worthwhile, would be no different than expecting someone to rejoice in a work of art that’s nothing good, awesome, beautiful, or worthwhile in his eyes.

Other Person’s Response: According to your philosophy, if someone lived his life, seeing a criminal’s deeds as bad, then it wouldn’t be a good thing that he’s seeing those deeds as bad. To say that’s a good thing would be treating good as something outside of that person’s perception.

My Reply: Yes. Perceptions of good are the only good things in life, and perceptions of bad are the only bad things in life.

Other Person’s Response: If someone saw something as good, and saw something else as bad, then he’d be living for something worse if he was living for that thing he saw as bad. But, he’d be living for something better if he was living for that thing he saw as good.

My Reply: Correct.

Other Person’s Response: All the miserable struggles that famous, genius artists have endured can be nothing good or beautiful, regardless if said struggles were used to inspire others?

My Reply: Correct. Since they were miserable feelings, then they can only be miserable perceptions/experiences/struggles.

Other Person’s Response: When someone sees something, or someone, as bad, horrific, disturbing, or tragic, that’s a state of tribulation, which means something, or someone, bothers him. It’s no good being in a state of mental turmoil, suffering, and tribulation. So, it’s best if we perceive goodness, beauty, magnificence, etc., rather than tragedy, horror, etc.

My Reply: Yes. It’s also best if we’re in a state of love and joy, rather than a state of hate and misery. So, that means it would be best if I don’t grieve over the loss of my mother, and don’t see her loss as horrific or tragic. If I did, then I’d just be living a horrific, tragic life of grief in the meantime until my positive emotions return.

Other Person’s Response: If someone perceived nothing but horror throughout his life, and other people said he was living a beautiful life, and that he had a beautiful perception, then it’s really those people who are living the beautiful lives, and having beautiful perceptions, since they’re the ones perceiving this poor fellow’s life and perception as beautiful. But, that poor fellow would be living a horrific life, and he’d be having a horrific perception.

My Reply: Correct.

Other Person's Response: If I had the thought that nature is beautiful, and I defined that as being the thought that nature is disgusting, then that wouldn't change the fact that it's still the thought that nature is beautiful. Once that thought of beauty makes me feel beauty in regards to nature, which would allow me to see nature as beautiful, according to your philosophy, then if I were to define that as seeing nature as disgusting, then that still wouldn't change the fact that I'd be seeing nature as beautiful.

My Reply: Exactly.

Other Person's Response: According to your philosophy, when a person has the thought that he loves someone, and that thought makes him feel love, that would allow him to experience love, which would give him a loving perspective. You define love as a loving perspective, which means you define love as a feeling of love, since a feeling of love is the same thing as a loving perspective.

But, having a loving perspective isn't the same thing as actual love, and neither is it the same thing as actually loving someone or something. It's up to us to define love. For example, a person can be in a vegetative state, where he has a loving perspective towards his soul mate, but is unable to help her. He might say: "This isn't love, since I'm not there for my soul mate." So, for him, his loving perspective wouldn't be love, and he wouldn't be loving his soul mate, since he defines love as being there to help his soul mate.

My Reply: It makes no sense to me how someone could think that having a loving perspective isn't the same thing as love, or loving someone or something. As for that scenario you presented, another person could come up to that vegetable and say:

"Sure, you couldn't do anything to help your soul mate, and it's not your fault because you're a vegetable. But, you still loved her, since you still had a loving perspective towards her."

If that vegetable were to reply:

"No, that's not love, and I didn't love her," then he'd be talking nonsense.

Other Person's Response: In regards to your philosophy, I think there's a better way to live one's life to the fullest than being a wild hedonist who lives for positive feelings.

My Reply: I don't think there's a better way.

Other Person's Response: I could define god's unconditional love as being hate. But, it's still unconditional love. All I'd be doing is slapping the label "hate" onto his love. But, that doesn't change the fact that it's still unconditional love, and neither does it change the fact that it's holy and divine.

My Reply: Exactly. God could even define his own unconditional love as being hate. But, it would still be unconditional love.

Other Person's Response: If I experienced god's unconditional love within me, then it doesn't matter how I define it, or how I treat it. It would still be unconditional love.

My Reply: You're right.

Other Person's Response: God says certain acts are sins. If humanity defined them as holy and righteous, then they'd still be sinful acts. Putting a label of "holy" and "righteous" on them doesn't make them holy and righteous.

My Reply: Now, I don't actually believe in the existence of god, which means I don't refrain from what god considers sinful. Fundamentalist Christianity would be an example of a god who deems many acts as sinful, and I'm not a Christian. But, even though I don't believe in god, I'm open-minded towards the possibility that he exists.

Other Person's Response: There are people who go on heavenly trips to the afterlife during their near death experience. They often report meeting a being of light (god) who's unlike the condemning, judgmental gods of many false, dogmatic religions. This god tells them the most important thing is love, and that we're all here to love one another. If love is something we could define any way we wanted to, then we might as well say that a serial killer would be accomplishing god's assigned mission of love if the serial killer defined love as harming and torturing innocent lives. God might as well honor and congratulate this serial killer, since god gave him the mission to love, and, boy, did he love a lot by harming and torturing so many innocent people!

My Reply: You make a valid point in regards to how love isn't something we can define how we want. Also, if this god is all-knowing, perfect, all-loving, and all-just, then he knows what love is, and he knows what's good, bad, holy, divine, disgusting, horrible, etc. Therefore, if someone were to define love, good, bad, etc. differently, then it wouldn't be love, good, bad, etc.

 

[The Transcended Omniverse]

Other Person's Response: What if your definition of love, good, bad, etc. is wrong, and god's definition was right all along?

My Reply: Then I was wrong.

Other Person's Response: What if god isn't perfect, all-knowing, etc.?

My Reply: Then my definition of love, good, bad, etc. could be right, and god could have the wrong definition.

Other Person's Response: Just to be clear, do you think god's unconditional love is a positive feeling?

My Reply: Yes. I think it can only be a positive feeling.

Other Person's Response: If someone felt nothing but a vibration from god, and that person said he experienced god's unconditional love, then that would be false because god's unconditional love is something far more than just some vibratory sensation. When people experience god's unconditional love, it's a very powerful, profound, spiritual experience that people call "Grace."

My Reply: Exactly. It wouldn't matter what you define to be god's grace because god's grace can only be a positive feeling, and it would be a very powerful, profound, positive feeling.

Other Person's Response: If love was nothing more than something a person, or god, could define any way he wanted to, then that would make love seem devoid and empty. It would make love seem like nothing more than some label we can just slap onto anything we want. For example, if I defined a physical sensation as love, that would make this sensation love, and that's all love would be is just this sensation. So, love can't possibly be whatever we define it to be. It must be the most profound, powerful thing in this universe that still remains love, no matter if a person defined it as hate, sadness, anger, etc.

My Reply: Exactly. If love was something we could define how we want, then if god defined his unconditional love as nothing more than a spark of light or a beeping tone, then that's all unconditional love would be is this spark of light or beeping tone. To treat love as something we can define how we want would be to treat it as nothing more than some label we can slap onto anything we want.

Other Person's Response: If a person defines something as good or bad, that's not enough. The person must actually see it as a good or bad thing, moment, deed, or situation. If a person defines love as being there for his soul mate, or having a certain mindset, that's not enough. The person must actually love his soul mate. Love is that powerful, special, profound, inner experience. Without it, then we can't love anybody or anything.

My Reply: Yes. Imagine a situation where someone defined a certain work of art as beautiful or magnificent, but couldn't actually see it as beautiful or magnificent. So, definitions alone aren't enough to live by. We need our emotions. To be more specific, we need our positive emotions, since positivity is what we need in life.

Other Person's Response: Love is both external and internal. For example, love can be seen externally as acts of aid and kindness for others. But, love is also internal, since a person could say: "I don't know how to express this love within me!" Another example of internal love would be if someone said: "I love her from the bottom of my heart!"

My Reply: The internal form of love would be an emotion, and I don't think there's an external form of love. So, acts of love would just be acts of love. But, that's not the same thing as actual love. As for good and bad, they can only be internal as well, and they would be emotions (feeling good and feeling bad). Beauty, horror, etc. can only be emotions as well.

Other Person's Response: Going back to the example earlier of god's unconditional love, if his love could be defined as nothing more than a spark of light or a vibration, then that would be leaving out the internal form of god's unconditional love.

My Reply: Yes. That's why that definition of love would seem devoid and empty. When people say they've experienced god's unconditional love, and that it was a profound, powerful, spiritual experience, they're talking about experiencing god's internal love. If they've experienced nothing more than a vibratory sensation from god, then that just wouldn't be his unconditional love. So, that's why I think god's unconditional love can only be internal (a powerful, profound feeling), and can never be external, such as sparks of light, tones, or vibrations. To define love as objects, vibrations, deeds, etc. would be a false definition. After all, it's what's on the inside that counts, and I think the only love that exists would be internal love.

Other Person's Response: So, you think love, good, bad, beauty, horror, etc. exist on the inside, and not on the outside?

My Reply: Correct, and they're emotions.

Other Person's Response: Many people have different definitions of external love. But, do they also have different definitions of internal love?

My Reply: As for internal love, it all comes down to either being a mindset, a feeling, or both a mindset and a feeling. I think it can only be a feeling.

Other Person's Response: If external love exists, then we can love others externally, such as helping others and contributing to the world. But, to love others internally, that requires that we feel love.

My Reply: Yes.

Other Person's Response: I think you have a strong attachment to your positive emotions. If you somehow lose this attachment, then I think that would set you free. Thus, you'd be living by a better definition of love, good, bad, etc. than this shallow, puny, emotional definition you live by.

My Reply: I don't think there is a better definition I can live by.

Other Person's Response: Without a loving perspective (the internal form of love), then a relationship would be devoid of love. Without a positive perspective (the ability to see goodness, beauty, and magnificence in things), then all things in this life would be devoid of any goodness, beauty, and magnificence for us.

My Reply: Yes. Life's all about our perspective. We need to have a loving perspective, and a positive perspective. By the way, I define a loving perspective as a positive perspective.

Other Person's Response: God has given us a soul/consciousness. Without it, we'd be nothing more than non-sentient machines. We wouldn't be able to experience love, joy, hate, sorrow, visuals, sounds, etc. We couldn't even see goodness, beauty, horror, etc. in anything, since that would be a conscious experience absent to us. Consciousness is what's so important here. Even spiritual believers say so.

Many spiritual believers talk about achieving a loving state of consciousness (which would be a loving state of mind, which would be the same thing as a loving perspective). If someone were to dismiss the internal form of love, then he's just leaving out the loving state of consciousness we as humans need to achieve.

Spiritual believers say consciousness is primary in this universe, and the only thing that really matters. So, I agree that love can only be a state of mind. Any other definition of love is false and can just be dismissed because the only love that matters is the loving state of consciousness our souls are here to obtain.

My Reply: Yes, and that loving state of consciousness would be a feeling. People also shouldn't dismiss the perception of goodness, beauty, magnificence, etc., since we need this as well.

Other Person's Response: If love was external, this would mean we could love others as non-sentient machines by performing acts of aid and kindness for others.

My Reply: Yes, and I disagree with that definition of love. If that definition were true, this would mean robots could love one another.

Other Person's Response: If love, beauty, etc. all amounted to fleeting positive feelings, then that would be absurd. Therefore, there must be another form of love, beauty, etc. you're not realizing, and perhaps god would bestow upon you this realization.

My Reply: So far, my personal experience says they can only be positive feelings.

Other Person's Response: If I saw a certain anime character as awesome, then that character's awesomeness would be living inside of me, since my perception of awesomeness would be a mental state, which means that character's awesomeness would be inside my mind. According to your philosophy, that perception of awesomeness can only be a feeling. So, if I lost that feeling somehow, then that character's awesomeness can no longer live inside of me. The character would now be nothing more than an animated image, and would be nothing awesome from my perspective.

My Reply: Correct. When the character's awesomeness lives inside of you, that's like a holy or divine life force within you. There are people who dress up as certain anime characters and role play as them, since they're inspired by these characters. But, if people couldn't perceive anime characters as good, beautiful, awesome, or amazing, then they'd just be dressing up and role playing as characters that are nothing more than animated images in their eyes.

Other Person's Response: People can perceive certain anime characters as horrible and disgusting though. So, that perception would make anime characters something more than just animated images.

My Reply: Yes. Characters become nothing more than animated images in our eyes when we have no emotions, or, in my case, during my miserable struggles, since it's during these struggles that things became morbid, dead, and empty from my perspective. It would, again, be like the perspective of a miserable person who lost his loved one, and sees money as something insignificant.

Other Person's Response: Human beings are materialistic by nature. They desire money, riches, fame, etc. You treat love and happiness as being materialistic things you need (feelings). But, you can define love and happiness however you want.

My Reply: Again, it would be nothing more than labels, and not real love or happiness.

Other Person's Response: Love is the ultimate thing in this universe. It's the most profound, powerful, holy, divine thing. If I couldn't love, I experienced a physical, pleasing sensation, such as a massage, and I defined that as love, then it would be quite obvious to me that I'm still missing this ultimate, divine thing known as "love." It would be quite obvious that I'd just be slapping the label "love" onto things, that it wouldn't be real love, and that it could never fill in this gap within me that's been created by the absence of real love.

My Reply: Exactly. Real love is a feeling, and just slapping the label "love" onto things, when the real love is gone, can never act as a replacement for real love. It will never be real love.

 

[The Transcended Omniverse]

Other Person's Response: I could say the sentence: "I don't need any of my organs to live." But, that sentence is nothing more than a phrase. It wouldn't change the reality that, if all my organs were vaporized, I'd be dead.

My Reply: Exactly. Labels and phrases don't change reality.

Other Person's Response: I'm going to quote something you said and respond to it:

Lastly, not only do we require positive emotions to love and experience joy, but we also require them to see goodness, beauty, magnificence, and awesomeness in moments, things, situations, works of art, and life itself. That's been my personal experience.

You forgot that love also takes responsibilities, and not just good, smiling, shining things. Love isn't an easy thing. It takes duty, too. If you love yourself, you must give yourself some discipline. If you love somebody, you've got to be loyal and refrain from betrayal. If you love animals, you shouldn't eat them. It's not only a matter of positive things. Or, else, you couldn't be able to love and care for those who are in a depressive situation (those you cynically call "clinically depressed"). How could there be love without equanimity? Do we select who and what to love?

Or, is love something we should acquire and achieve, rather than just a feeling? I think that is more like love selects. We cannot select love. The feeling you talk about may just be "affection" or "infatuation." But, it's not love because such feelings usually make us dream about future pleasures, and they don't give us the courage for future compromises, renounces, duties, etc. Giving your opinions the absolute meaning means to ignore the facts, and probably expose yourself to the danger of misunderstanding feelings without the proper consciousness of them. So, love isn't just a feeling or just a mindset. It's a state of being. If it takes no efforts, then it's not love. It's as simple as that.

My Reply: I think that the only way I can love is through my feelings of love. I'd need a new personal experience to convince me there's another way I can love. But, I've had no such experience. Not even in a single, given, brief moment of my entire life. After all, that's what it all comes down to is my personal experience because I can be the most responsible adult I can be, and I can define love as something else other than a feeling all I want to. But, as long as my personal experience hasn't convinced me this is love, then I'll always be convinced that the only way I can love is through my feelings of love. I'd also need a new personal experience to convince me there's more goodness and beauty to life than positive feelings.

Other Person's Response: So, you're saying that, if you lose your ability to feel love, you become a very responsible adult, you define love as something other than a feeling, you help others, contribute to the world, be there for your family, etc., and none of these experiences convince you this is love, then you'll always be convinced that the only way you can love is through your feelings of love, and that there's no other form of love?

My Reply: Correct.

Other Person's Response: If you try, with all your effort, to love with no need for your feelings, and your personal experience still leads you to the conclusion that love can only be a feeling, then perhaps you're just pretending that love is a feeling, when it's not. It would be like a prisoner drawing a window in his closed cell, and pretending that the window is real.

My Reply: I think that's a poor analogy because the prisoner would know that the window is fake. He wouldn't be convinced that the window is real. But, I'd be convinced that the only way I can love is through my feelings of love. Also, the prisoner would be pretending that the window he drew was real. But, I wouldn't be pretending that the only way I can love is through my feelings of love. In other words, I'd be genuinely convinced.

Other Person's Response: Love is purely subjective. In other words, it's defined by the individual.

My Reply: I think my view that love can only be a feeling applies to all human beings, and many people deny this. The same thing applies to my view of good, bad, beauty, etc., since I think that applies to all human beings, and many people deny this as well.

Other Person's Response: If you think your views apply to all human beings, and that they're the truth many people deny, then that reminds me of fascism. In other words, you're trying to force your views upon all of humanity, and take away their power to define love, good, bad, etc. how they want.

My Reply: If my views are true, then what's the point of even living by a false definition of love, good, bad, etc.?

Other Person's Response: According to you, it's better to be weak as an individual, and to have the ability to feel positive emotions, than to be a strong individual who perseveres in a state of misery, and is unable to feel positive emotions.

My Reply: Yes. Life was never about character strength. It was all about positive feelings. So, it's better to be a weak, soft, bundle of love, beauty, joy, etc. than to be miserable, unhappy, apathetic, and tough.

Other Person's Response: Rocky Balboa says a true winner is someone who's tough, doesn't need positive feelings, and endures a life of misery and unhappiness. According to you, we should just forget his advice.

My Reply: Correct. A true winner is someone who's feeling a lot of positive emotions throughout his life. If you're unable to feel positive emotions, then you're just losing at life. Since feeling positive emotions is our goal in life, then we're just losing if we're not achieving this goal. That means those miserable, genius artists are losers, regardless of how strong and enduring they were, and regardless of how many masterpieces they've inspired the world with. The inspired people would be winners, since they get to feel positive emotions from witnessing these masterpieces.

But, the miserable, suffering artists would be losers. Actually, these artists would be winners on seldom occasions, since they get to feel positive emotions once in a blue moon. But, for the most part, they'd be losers. Think of positive feelings as money. If we're not winning much money, then we're mostly losing. But, if we're winning a lot of money much of the time, then we're mostly winning. So, if we're not getting much positive feelings out of life, then we're mostly losers. But, if we get a lot of positive feelings out of life, then we're mostly winners.

Other Person's Response: If a person was having a boxing match, should he just give up on the fight, since he feels miserable, and doesn't feel like fighting?

My Reply: Yes. It's better to be a happy boxer who feels the awesome drive to take down his opponent. A boxer can experience much physical pain as he gets punches thrown at him. But, as long as he's happy, enjoying the match, and feels positively empowered, then that's what counts.

Other Person's Response: I heard that you play The Legend of Zelda. There's a hero named Link. Should Link just give up on saving Hyrule if he felt miserable, and didn't feel up to it?

My Reply: Yes. Actually, he could still choose to save Hyrule anyway, since we can still make choices, regardless of how we feel. But, like I said, the goal in life is positive emotions. If Link didn't feel positive emotions in saving Hyrule, then saving Hyrule would be nothing positive for him. Even the idea of bringing positivity to those he saved would be nothing positive for him.

Other Person's Response: Characters don't have feelings, since they're just animated images. So, Link couldn't have any feelings whatsoever.

My Reply: But, this is just a pretend scenario where Link is a real character who has feelings. So, if he couldn't feel positive, then saving Hyrule could be nothing positive in his eyes.

Other Person's Response: You say love can only be a pleasant feeling. But, can't love be an unpleasant feeling, such as feeling deep concern and compassion for someone who's suffering?

My Reply: No. That would just be a feeling of concern and compassion. But, love can only be a pleasant feeling. Each feeling is unique. For example, a feeling of anger can only be anger, and can't be sadness or joy. A feeling of sadness can only be sadness, and can't be jealousy or regret. Likewise, feelings of concern and compassion can only be concern and compassion, and can't be love.

Other Person's Response: Is the only way to be jealous is to feel jealous, and is the only way to regret is to feel regret?

My Reply: Yes, and those would be negative feelings.

Other Person's Response: I think those clinically depressed soul mates just have a delusion that keeps them going in life. Since they believe they can still love one another without their feelings of love, then that's a delusion which prevents them from giving up on their relationship. If they knew the truth that they can't love without feeling love, then they'd realize their acts of love are empty, and their relationship would end.

My Reply: Yes. But, there might be few moments where they can feel love, since clinically depressed people do have moments where they feel positive emotions. But, it wouldn't be much, which means it would hardly be a loving relationship.

Other Person's Response: According to you, life's all about our inner experience, which means it would be better for someone to have experienced love, but did nothing for his soul mate, than to not have experienced love, but did many kind, loving deeds for his soul mate.

My Reply: Yes. So, it would be better for someone to live his life as a loving vegetable, and not be able to do anything for his soul mate, than to live his life as an unloving individual who did many kind, loving deeds for his soul mate. When you experience love, you have that holy life force of love within yourself. I'd actually describe love as holy and divine. As a matter of fact, many people describe love as holy and divine. Without it, then you can't be a being of love, which means you can't be a holy, divine, loving being of light.

Other Person's Response: Actually, according to your philosophy, it's whatever lifestyle that brings us the most positive emotions that should be lived. So, if someone had to sacrifice a life of being a loving vegetable for a life of bliss, then he should live that blissful life?

My Reply: Yes. If a way of life is going to offer you a much greater amount, profoundness, and intensity of positive emotions, then that's the way of life that should be lived (even if it means sacrificing one, particular positive emotion, such as love). If you were to look at a lifespan of, say, 90 years, then it's whatever lifestyle that's going to bring you the greatest degree of positive emotions within that lifespan that would be the preferable lifestyle.

 

[The Transcended Omniverse]

Other Person's Response: You say a person would be an empty vessel if he had no feelings of love and attraction. But, if he had other positive feelings, then he wouldn't be an empty vessel.

My Reply: That's right. He could still be a holy, divine being of light through other positive emotions, such as feelings of beauty, magnificence, etc.

Other Person's Response: People, who have near death experiences, report that their souls have left their bodies, traveled to a heavenly afterlife, and met god. God tells them the most important thing is love, and that we're all here to love one another. Since love is so important in god's eyes, then why doesn't he heal the brains of clinically depressed people, so their feelings of love can be restored? Why doesn't he heal any mental illness, or form of brain damage, that takes away our ability to love?

My Reply: I'm not sure, and I don't know why he didn't heal my mind of all the misery I've suffered through. I'm actually undecided if god even exists, and if these heavenly trips people have are nothing more than hallucinations. I'm incapable of discovering the truth in regards to controversial/debatable topics, since I'm not intelligent enough, and nor am I intellectually capable of such a demanding task. The existence of god is a debatable topic, and that's why I can't decide if god exists or not. The same idea applies to those heavenly trips because some people would argue they're just hallucinations, while others would argue they're the real deal.

Other Person's Response: Maybe god had the choice to either help humanity, and heal people of their suffering, while being unable to feel positive emotions, or instead live as a blissful vegetable who can feel all sorts of positive emotions, including love, but unable to help or heal humanity. Maybe that's why he doesn't heal humanity of their illnesses and suffering because he's a blissful vegetable who's unable to.

My Reply: If that's the choice god had to face, then I'd understand, and wouldn't hold anything against him. But, I don't think that's the case. Besides, god is all-powerful, which means he'd never find himself in such a predicament.

Other Person's Response: God's angels (those heavenly beings) aren't vegetables, which means they're capable of healing humanity. But, they don't.

My Reply: I'm not sure why they don't then.

Other Person's Response: Since you're undecided on debatable topics, I take it you're undecided on the existence of the afterlife.

My Reply: Yes. I don't know if this is the only life we have or not.

Other Person's Response: You say love, misery, anger, and happiness are feelings (emotions), and that hunger and thirst are also feelings. But, hunger and thirst aren't emotions.

My Reply: That's right, and I never said hunger and thirst were emotions.

Other Person's Response: In regards to pleasant and unpleasant experiences, those are feelings, and thoughts and feelings can't be the same thing, which means thought and beliefs alone can't give us any pleasant or unpleasant experience.

My Reply: Correct.

Other Person's Response: If a person had the thought that a singing performance was amazing, that thought would make him feel amazed about the performance, which would allow him to see the performance as amazing?

My Reply: Yes. Thoughts and beliefs don't make us feel emotions for nothing. They make us feel emotions so that we can love, hate, be proud, be sad, and see things as amazing, tragic, etc. That means emotions aren't just biochemical states, which means they're not these shallow, trivial things many people make them out to be.

Other Person's Response: So, if I struggled with clinical depression, and witnessed a talented performance, then you're saying I wouldn't be able to see anything amazing about the performance, since I'd be unable to feel amazed, due to my depressive illness?

My Reply: Correct. Without our positive feelings, we can't experience any given moment, or performance, as good, beautiful, awesome, magnificent, or amazing. So, if you had a depressive illness that disabled your ability to have positive feelings, then that whole performance would be nothing more than something depressive and dull for you. But, it wouldn't be anything amazing or beautiful for you. Sure, it would still be a talented performance in your eyes. But, it could be nothing beautiful, good, or amazing in your eyes, and you'd be in denial to believe otherwise.

Other Person's Response: So, if I had no positive feelings, then I'd be in denial if I told you that I still see it as a good, beautiful, or amazing thing to help others, be there for my family, and contribute to the world?

My Reply: Yes. It would be no different than if you told me that you're still hungry, thirsty, or sleepy, when you're not feeling hungry, thirsty, or sleepy. It would also be no different than if you told me that you're sad or angry, when you're not feeling sad or angry. You wouldn't be sad or angry, and you'd just be thinking you are, which would mean you're in denial.

Other Person's Response: The thought of red isn't the same thing as seeing red.

My Reply: Correct. Also, red is a mental state (a visual state), and all colors don't exist in the physical world. Sounds, smells, and colors are all produced by the brain, and don't actually exist in the physical world. That means they're mental states. Good, bad, etc. are all mental states as well, and don't exist in the physical world. They're emotional states. So, if all people could no longer see colors, hear, or smell anything, then all colors, sounds, and smells would no longer exist. Likewise, if all people had no emotions, then good, bad, beauty, etc. would no longer exist either.

Other Person's Response: The thought of red is just the idea of red, the thought of hunger is just the idea of hunger, etc.

My Reply: Yes. So, when you have the thought that you love someone, that's just the idea that you love someone. But, it's not actual love. That thought needs to make you feel love, so you can love that person. When you have the thought that the loss of your loved one is a sad situation, that's just the idea that it's a sad situation. But, the thought alone can't make that situation sad in your eyes. That thought needs to make you feel sad, so it becomes a situation that's perceived/experienced as sad for you. Feeling grief is the only way to grieve, since it's the only way to experience grief. If you couldn't feel grief, then you wouldn't be able to grieve over the loss of your loved one. Thus, the loss wouldn't bother you, and wouldn't be sad for you.

Other Person's Response: If Jake was in a dire predicament, Jon thought it was a bad thing, and that thought caused him to feel rage to protect Jake, then you're saying Jon couldn't see it as a good thing to protect Jake, since he needs to feel good to see it as a good thing?

My Reply: Yes. Since Jon felt rage, then that means he was enraged in regards to the dire predicament Jake needed to be saved from. So, Jon was seeing that as a bad thing. But, it's possible to have mixed emotions, which means it's possible for Jon to feel good and rage at the same time. In which case, he'd be seeing it as a good thing to protect Jake, and seeing the dire predicament as a bad thing at the same time. If his good feeling was more profound and intense than his feeling of rage, then he'd be perceiving more goodness than badness.

Other Person's Response: According to your philosophy, if Jon couldn't see it as a good thing, then that means he's only seeing the bad, which means it's no way to live for him.

My Reply: Correct. As long as you can't see goodness, beauty, magnificence, etc. in anything, then that's no way to live or be an artist.

Other Person's Response: I take it negative emotions are the only way things, moments, and situations can bother us.

My Reply: Yes. For example, if you felt annoyed by someone, then that person would be bothersome to you. But, if you just had the thought that this person is annoying, and that thought couldn't make you feel annoyed (due to something preventing you from feeling that way, such as having brain damage or a mental illness), then you couldn't be annoyed by him. Thus, you wouldn't be bothered by him.

Other Person's Response: If a person didn't feel grief over the loss of his loved one, but instead felt rage over his loss, then his loss did bother him.

My Reply: Yes. But, if he couldn't feel any negative emotion whatsoever over his loss, then his loss couldn't bother him at all.

Other Person's Response: You draw this conclusion that people can't grieve over the loss of their loved ones if they can't feel grief, and that nothing could bother anyone if nobody could feel negative emotions.

My Reply: Yes. I draw this conclusion based upon my own personal experience, and I think it's the truth.

Other Person's Response: Since goodness and beauty are emotional states (positive emotions), then evil must be an emotional state as well, right?

My Reply: Right. When you feel that something, or someone, is evil, that's the same thing as seeing said person or thing as evil. If all people could no longer feel evil, then evil would no longer exist. Evil is just a state of mind, and if you're not experiencing it (feeling it), then it's no longer there, which means it no longer exists. I could say the same thing about hunger, pain, and thirst. If you're no longer feeling hunger, pain, and thirst (experiencing them), then they no longer exist. Evil is a negative emotion, and by not having this emotion, you have no evil within yourself, regardless if you were someone who tortured others, and did deeds that others would consider evil. By having feelings of beauty, joy, and goodness, you have beauty, joy, and goodness within yourself.

Other Person's Response: If a person had the thought that something, or someone, was evil, then that wouldn't be the experience of evil that person would be having, right? He needs to feel evil to experience evil?

My Reply: Yes. So, the thought alone can't be any evil within that person.

Other Person's Response: Our goal in life is the good, beautiful, amazing, etc., and not the bad, horrible, disgusting, etc.

My Reply: Yes. Our goal in life is to achieve the most positivity we can. So, the more positive emotions you're feeling, the more positivity you're getting (i.e. the more goodness, beauty, amazingness, etc. you're getting). I could say the same thing in regards to evil. The more evil you're feeling, the more evil you're getting.

 

[The Transcended Omniverse]

Other Person's Response: When someone struggles with clinical depression, and he can't love, experience happiness, or see anything as beautiful or amazing, due to his depressive illness taking away his positive feelings, then I agree that's no way to live or be an artist.

My Reply: Yes. When you have nothing but a depressive perspective, that's not a life at all. The brains of clinically depressed people aren't functioning properly, and that's why positive thoughts can't make them feel positive emotions.

Other Person's Response: When someone sees something as amazing and beautiful, is that the same thing as him valuing that thing as amazing and beautiful?

My Reply: Yes, and positive emotions are the only way we can value things as amazing and beautiful.

Other Person's Response: When you say thoughts don't make us feel emotions for nothing, you're saying that our thoughts take on an emotional form, so that we can experience whatever we thought of? For example, loving thoughts make us feel love, so we can experience love?

My Reply: Yes.

Other Person's Response: Many people say that thoughts are very powerful things. For example, they'd say that beautiful, loving, hateful, joyful, etc. thoughts are very powerful things. But, you're saying such beautiful, loving, etc. power can only be experienced through our emotions, when those thoughts make us feel emotions? In which case, thoughts wouldn't be powerful things. They'd just be thoughts.

My Reply: That's correct. The thoughts alone don't hold such power. It's the emotions these thoughts make us feel that possess such power.

Other Person's Response: Have you always relied on your positive emotions as a means to see goodness, beauty, and worth in things?

My Reply: Yes. I've never seen things as good, beautiful, amazing, and worthwhile through my thoughts and beliefs alone (i.e. my mindset alone).

Other Person's Response: Have you always relied on your emotions to love, be angry, be sad, regret, etc.?

My Reply: Yes.

Other Person's Response: Does your philosophy make your life miserable? I would imagine anyone being miserable if he had to live by a depressing philosophy like yours.

My Reply: Not at all. The only times I'm miserable would be during an emotional crisis, such as if a certain thought, or worry, devastated me.

Other Person's Response: Does your philosophy say we should give up on our goals and dreams if we don't feel up to doing them?

My Reply: Yes. That's because there's just no point in doing them when we don't feel up to doing them. There'd be no goodness, beauty, value, and worth in doing them.

Other Person's Response: If someone only feels the desire to give up on his goals and dreams, you're saying he's experiencing the desire to give up, which means he has the desire to give up? Thus, he should give up because, as long as he's unable to feel the desire to persevere, then he can't experience any desire/motivation to persevere, which would mean he can't have any desire/motivation to persevere?

My Reply: Yes. If he's only feeling the desire to give up, then that's the experience/perspective he's having in regards to his goals and dreams. So, why shouldn't he give up? Sure, he could still persevere anyway. But, he wouldn't be having the perspective of wanting to persevere. During my miserable struggles, I could only feel negative emotions, such as the desire to give up on my composing dream. That's why I gave up.

Other Person's Response: Is feeling inspired the only way an artist can be inspired?

My Reply: Yes.

Other Person's Response: Your philosophy says feelings are everything, since they give us the desire to persevere, they allow us to love, be happy, etc.

My Reply: Yes. Our mindset alone can't do any of that. But, our mindset is the foundation for having the desire to persevere, experiencing love, being happy, etc., since our mindset causes us to feel certain ways.

Other Person's Response: What about those people who'd disagree with your philosophy? What would you tell them?

My Reply: I'd tell them to pay more attention to their personal experience than what others say to them. For example, if someone was living a miserable life, then just because others would tell him he'd be living a good, beautiful life if he inspired others through his misery, doesn't mean he should listen to them. He should instead listen to what his personal experience has to say.

My personal experience clearly says it's no way to live or be an artist without positive emotions, and that a person can't live a good or beautiful life without them. So, if I was miserable, apathetic, or unhappy, it wouldn't matter what others said to me, what I did, or how I lived my life because my personal experience will always say it's no way to live or be an artist. Until my personal experience says otherwise, my philosophy will never change.

Other Person's Response: Many people speak lies. So, I agree that you shouldn't trust people.

My Reply: Yes. I think people believe this lie that positive emotions aren't necessary, that they're trivial things, and that there are other ways to live a good, beautiful life. Thus, such a delusion only serves to blind people to their own personal experience, which leads these people to conclude that we can still live good, beautiful lives without our positive emotions.

I've met many people who'd say to me that positive emotions are nothing more than biochemical feelings, and that they aren't experiences of love, pride, beauty, etc. These people think they don't need emotions to love, be proud, be happy, or see beauty and horror in things.

So, this clearly says people are already in denial when it comes to their own emotions and personal experience. That means they're also in denial when they tell me I'm wrong when I say it's no way to live or be an artist without positive emotions.

Other Person's Response: You gave an example earlier with how people are already in denial when it comes to positive emotions, and it was the example with clinically depressed soul mates who think love is everlasting. Since they're in denial when it comes to love, then they must also be in denial when they say you're wrong when you say it's no way to live or be an artist without positive emotions.

My Reply: Yes.

Other Person's Response: You shouldn't rely on your personal experience because our personal experience doesn't always tell us the truth. For example, a person could conclude that Jesus exists, based upon his personal experience. But, if Jesus isn't real, then he's delusional.

My Reply: But, when it comes to questions, such as: "What is love?," "What is happiness?," and "How do we live a good, beautiful life?," these are philosophical questions the individual has to find the answer to for himself, based upon his own personal experience. Based upon my personal experience, I've concluded love and happiness are positive emotions, and that positive emotions are what make our lives good and beautiful.

Other Person's Response: So, your personal experience says it's not a good or beautiful way of life without positive emotions?

My Reply: Correct.

Other Person's Response: What if it's the case that things, moments, situations, and life itself can still be good, amazing, and beautiful without our positive emotions?

My Reply: Then it would still be no way to live or be an artist without our positive emotions.

Other Person's Response: If you're saying it's no way to live or be an artist without our positive emotions, then I don't think it would even make sense to say that things, moments, situations, and life itself can still be good, amazing, and beautiful without our positive emotions. Therefore, that means you're saying positive emotions are the only things that give goodness, beauty, magnificence, etc. to things, moments, situations, and life itself.

My Reply: I think you're right, and I think I'd be saying that positive emotions are the only good, amazing, etc. things in life, since they're the only good, amazing, etc. experiences we can have.

Other Person's Response: If I said a life without positive thoughts is no way to live or be an artist, wouldn't I be saying positive thinking is the only good and beautiful thing in life?

My Reply: I think so. Also, if I said a life without money is no way to live or be an artist, I think I'd be saying that money is the only good and beautiful thing in life.

Other Person's Response: If a life without money was no way to live, then a person who has no money, but does something to get rich in a few minutes, would still be living no way of life, since he still has no money in those few minutes.

My Reply: Yes.

Other Person's Response: So, if a person, without his positive emotions, was going to live a blissful, utopia life in just a few minutes, that would still be no way to live for him?

My Reply: Yes, because he still doesn't have his positive emotions in those few minutes. But, the moment he becomes blissful is the moment his life would be wonderful and beautiful.

 

[The Transcended Omniverse]

Other Person's Response: The problem with you is that you have nothing more to live for than positive feelings.

My Reply: I don't see any reason to think there's more to live for. I've yet to have a new personal experience that convinces me there's more to live for.

Other Person's Response: Since your philosophy says there's nothing more to live for than positive feelings, then that must mean your philosophy says positive feelings are the only good, beautiful, and amazing things in life, and that they're the only things that give positivity to our lives.

My Reply: Yes.

Other Person's Response: Some people would say cruel things about you, given the philosophy you live by. They'd say you're a selfish, shallow, worthless piece of **** who's better off dead. But, if there was someone who craved junk food for a living, and he thought junk food was the only good thing in life, should we also give him such cruel treatment? I don't think so. I think he just has a junk food craving that needs to be addressed. Likewise, I think you just have a craving for positive feelings that needs to be addressed. Your craving is unhealthy, and your philosophy is just a set up for failure, since you give up on your goals and dreams whenever you don't feel motivated to pursue them.

My Reply: I'm not sure if it's my craving for positive feelings that leads me to the conclusion that there's nothing more to live for than positive feelings, and that positive feelings are the only good things in life. It could be the case that my philosophy was right all along.

Other Person's Response: I think you're a gifted, intellectual individual, given all the material you've written on your philosophy. I also think you're a talented writer. But, I think you're just wasting your talents on positive feelings, when said talents can be used for a much greater purpose. I also heard you have a musical talent you have yet to reveal to the world. You claim you've naturally created some awesome, profound, powerful melodies in your mind, and that you just need to acquire the necessary training and education to successfully convey these mentally inspired tunes to the world. If you do have this mental, musical talent, and you do end up becoming a great composer, then you'd just be wasting that talent on positive feelings as well.

My Reply: I don't think there's a better purpose my talents can be used for, since there's nothing better in life than positive feelings. So, that's why I pursue my talents just to enjoy them.

Other Person's Response: You can use your talents to bring others positive feelings.

My Reply: But, without my own positive feelings, then bringing others positive feelings could be nothing good, beautiful, precious, etc. in my eyes.

Other Person's Response: I think emotions really are nothing more than biochemical feelings. How can mere biochemical feelings possibly give us experiences of love, hate, sorrow, joy, etc.?

My Reply: Well, thoughts and beliefs are biochemical in nature as well, since the entire brain works by means of biochemicals. For example, you need those neurotransmitters (biochemicals) to hear, smell, taste, and to even think. So, the question is, which biochemical-based component gives us experiences of love, hate, sorrow, etc.? I think that component would be our emotions, and not our thoughts and beliefs.

Other Person's Response: I heard you wish to share this philosophy of yours to mental health professionals. That way, they'll understand why you need your positive emotions.

My Reply: Yes. I'd share my philosophy to other people as well, so they can have an understanding. If I didn't explain my philosophy, and I just simply told people I need my positive emotions, then these people might say things, such as that positive emotions are unnecessary, trivial things, and that there's so much more to live for. I think positive emotions are the very reason for living, and the ultimate goal in life.

So, that means they're a fundamental requirement for our existence, and everything I've written in this packet explains why that is. The desire to live a happy life isn't to be treated as a shallow, trivial, materialistic desire, such as the desire to live a rich, luxurious life. As a matter of fact, without our positive emotions, then it wouldn't matter how much riches and luxury we had because none of it could be good, amazing, beautiful, or worthwhile in our eyes.

Other Person's Response: According to your philosophy, a person shouldn't feel devastated over the loss of his loved one, and it would be better for him to feel a positive emotion, such as feeling that his loved one was a good person who lived the best he could.

My Reply: Yes. That would give him a positive perspective, instead of a horrible, negative, devastated perspective.

Other Person's Response: According to your philosophy, positive thinking alone is no way to live or be an artist?

My Reply: That's right. Positive thoughts need to make us feel positive emotions.

Other Person's Response: Can't negative emotions make things worthwhile in our eyes?

My Reply: Actually, they do. So, I neglected to mention that. For example, if someone felt rage to punch someone, then he felt it was worthwhile to punch that person. But, just because a person has a worthwhile experience, doesn't mean it was a positive experience. Feeling negative emotions is still no way to live or be an artist because we need to see goodness, beauty, magnificence, etc. in things, which means feeling positive emotions is the reason for living.

The more bad, horrible, miserable, tragic, etc. experiences we have, the more of that we're getting out of life, and it would be like life is giving us poison. Actually, we'd be giving ourselves poison, since it's our own negative thoughts that cause us to experience those bad, horrible, etc. feelings. The less positive feelings we have, the more we're missing out on life, regardless of our actions, deeds, and contributions to the world.

Other Person's Response: So, negative emotions do make things worthwhile in our eyes? But, in a negative way? Positive emotions make things worthwhile to us in a positive way?

My Reply: Yes. When we're apathetic, nothing can be worthwhile in our eyes.

Other Person's Response: If a person felt bad because he mistreated someone, and that feeling made it worthwhile in his eyes to make up for what he's done, you're saying his life would be worthwhile, but bad?

My Reply: Yes. But, don't act like it's a good or beautiful thing that his life was worthwhile.

Other Person's Response: If a person decided to end his life by committing suicide, then did he live a worthwhile life, just because he felt it was worthwhile to end his life?

My Reply: Yes. But, if he wasn't feeling good while doing it, and he was feeling horrible, then his life was horrible.

Other Person's Response: Your idea that feeling good is the good life, and feeling bad is the bad life, is overly simplistic and dumb. A person would still be living a horrible life if he felt good and amazing while doing harmful things to himself and/or others.

My Reply: According to my view, that person would still be living a good, amazing life, as long as he feels good and amazing. It would be like if I said that a person is still living a rich life, as long as he has a lot of money. His actions and deeds don't determine whether he's living a rich life or not. It's how much money he has that determines this. Feelings of goodness and beauty are sort of like money.

In other words, if we have a lot of these feelings, then we're living lives rich in goodness and beauty, regardless of our actions and deeds. So, if we wish to live good, beautiful lives, then we must seek feelings of goodness and beauty, just as how we must seek money if we wish to live lives of wealth. Goodness and beauty are feelings. So, it makes no sense to say that a person isn't living a good, beautiful life if he's experiencing those feelings of goodness and beauty, just as how it would make no sense to say that a person isn't living a rich life if he has a lot of money.

Other Person's Response: Here's an article that talks about beauty being a feeling:

Science Says Beauty Is A Feeling, Not A Look, So Here's How You Can Capture It

My Reply: Thanks for sharing! Many people would say that I can still live a beautiful life, or that things in this world can still be beautiful in my eyes with no need for my positive feelings. But, beauty is a positive feeling. Without it, there can be no beauty.

Other Person's Response: You give a money analogy to describe positive feelings. But, I thought you said we're not to treat positive feelings as trivial, shallow, materialistic things, such as money.

My Reply: I'm saying they're like money. But, I'm saying we shouldn't trivialize them like we would with riches and luxury.

Other Person's Response: So, we're supposed to treat goodness and beauty like money? The more feelings of goodness and beauty we have, the more goodness and beauty we're getting out of life, just as how someone would be getting more reward out of life if he was gaining more and more riches?

My Reply: Yes. Positive feelings do result from the reward system of our brains. So, the more of them we have, the more reward we're getting out of life. Except, with positive feelings, we're being rewarded with goodness, beauty, magnificence, etc., rather than riches and luxury. Also, with money, you can have a big pile of it. Emotions are different because they come and go.

Other Person's Response: According to your view, goodness and beauty are feelings, just as how hunger and thirst are feelings. A person can't live a life of hunger and thirst, as long as he's not feeling hungry and thirsty, just as how a person can't live a good, beautiful life, as long as he's not feeling goodness and beauty.

My Reply: Correct. Also, if a person can't feel sad, he can't live a sad life, and if a person can't feel pain, he can't live a painful life. I could also say the same thing about pleasure. If a person can't feel pleasure, he can't live a pleasurable life.

 

[The Transcended Omniverse]

Other Person's Response: If emotions were value judgments, and positive and negative experiences for every human being, then you'd be seeing everyone respond to emotions the same way. Everybody would be saying emotions are value judgments, and positive and negative experiences.

My Reply: But, many people are in denial, which means many people would deny the idea of emotions being value judgments and those experiences.

Other Person's Response: Since good and bad are emotions, then how can a person live a good or bad life if he has no emotions?

My Reply: He can't. The same idea applies to beauty. Since beauty is an emotion, then a person can't live a beautiful life if he's unable to feel beauty. He can't live an amazing life either if he's unable to feel amazed.

Other Person's Response: Many people would say to not label emotions as good, bad, beautiful, or disgusting. But, you're saying emotions are what give us good, bad, etc. experiences in the first place?

My Reply: Yes.

Other Person's Response: Yes, goodness and beauty are value judgments. But, that doesn't mean it would be good and beautiful if a psychopath judged it to be a good and beautiful thing to torture someone.

My Reply: Goodness and beauty are value judgments, just as how celery and broccoli are vegetables. If all vegetables were gone, then all the celery and broccoli we need would be gone. So, if all our value judgments (emotions) were gone, then all the goodness and beauty we need would be gone. Therefore, this says that goodness and beauty are to be treated as materialistic things we need, and positive emotions would be the materialistic goodness, beauty, magnificence, awesomeness, etc. we need. Given this, does my philosophy say that psychopath scenario you presented would be good and beautiful?

Other Person's Response: I take it love and joy are materialistic things (positive emotions) as well.

My Reply: Yes.

Other Person's Response: Some people would say that your philosophy is too simplistic, since your definition of good and bad is way too simple.

My Reply: It's often times the most simple things and solutions people overlook. So, my philosophy might be true, despite its simplicity, and people are overlooking it.

Other Person's Response: I realize your philosophy is called "hedonism." Hedonism is a philosophy which advocates seeking pleasure and avoiding pain, and says pleasure is the only good thing in life. But, hedonism states that not only are positive emotions good, but pleasant sensations, such as pleasant smells, tastes, etc.

My Reply: According to my view, positive emotions are the only good and beautiful things in life.

Other Person's Response: If I wasn't feeling sad, why couldn't I still say that a work of art is sad, or that people suffering in this world is sad?

My Reply: Because sadness can only be an emotion, and can't be anything else. If nobody could feel sad, then nothing could be sad in our eyes. So, that says sadness can only be an emotion.

Other Person's Response: If all people didn't have positive feelings, then goodness, beauty, etc. would no longer exist, which means we'd no longer say that a professional basketball player possesses good, amazing skill, or that a singer's performance was beautiful or magnificent. Instead, we'd just say that the basketball player, and singer, possess immense skill and talent.

My Reply: Correct.

Other Person's Response: If all people didn't have positive feelings, we wouldn't even say that it's a good or beautiful thing to regain our positive feelings?

My Reply: Correct. So, goodness and beauty can't exist at all without positive feelings. That means goodness and beauty are things that we have to bring into existence for ourselves, and we bring them into existence by thinking certain things, people, or situations are good and beautiful, which causes us to feel goodness and beauty. It's those feelings which are the goodness and beauty that have been brought into existence.

Other Person's Response: For those people who are able to feel positive emotions, they would have every reason to say a given talent is good, beautiful, or amazing, since they can feel that way about said talent, while people who have no positive emotions have no reason to say anything is good, beautiful, or amazing.

My Reply: Correct. People without their positive emotions could still say things are good, beautiful, or amazing anyway. But, they wouldn't be able to see them as such.

Other Person's Response: If all human beings had no emotions, our lives couldn't be good or beautiful? Goodness and beauty are brought into our lives through our feelings of goodness and beauty?

My Reply: Yes. It would be like this. Imagine if you had an empty canvas. The canvas alone doesn't have any colors on it. You must give it color by coloring it. So, our feelings of goodness and beauty color our lives in goodness and beauty. They're what give goodness and beauty to our lives. When we feel goodness and beauty in regards to something, that colors said thing in goodness and beauty in our eyes.

Each individual has his own life, which can also be called his own mental universe. It's up to us to color our lives (mental universes) in goodness, beauty, wonder, magnificence, etc. through our positive feelings. That will make our lives a beautiful, amazing, etc. adventure for us, instead of a horrible, miserable, tragic, or apathetic existence. The more things we color in goodness and beauty, the more things become good and beautiful for us.

Other Person's Response: Our mental universe wouldn't be like an empty canvas, since there are already objects, such as trees, houses, etc.

My Reply: But, we need to color said universe in goodness, beauty, etc. Everything in a person's mental universe doesn't need to be colored in beauty. As long as the individual was coloring some things in his life in beauty, then his mental universe possessed some beauty. Thus, he lived a beautiful life.

Other Person's Response: According to you, good, bad, beauty, horror, etc. are things we create ourselves. For example, you're saying that life itself is nothing beautiful. We create a beautiful life for ourselves through our thoughts and beliefs. Once those thoughts and beliefs make us feel beauty, that creates a beautiful life for us.

My Reply: Yes.

Other Person's Response: When a person is living a beautiful life, that's no different than saying his mind is in a beautiful place, since a person's life is that person's mental universe.

My Reply: Yes, and we make our mental universe a beautiful place for ourselves through our feelings of beauty. Our minds can't be in a beautiful place if we're having no feeling/experience of beauty. Thus, we wouldn't be living a beautiful life. Our minds can't be in a joyful, sad, or miserable place either if we're having no feeling of joy, sadness, or misery. Thus, we wouldn't be living a joyful, sad, or miserable life.

Other Person's Response: If someone felt horrible, then that would be putting his mind in a horrible place? Thus, his life would be horrible?

My Reply: Yes.

Other Person's Response: So, if you couldn't feel sad or pitiful, and someone said to you that you're living a sad, pitiful life, then your life couldn't be sad or pitiful, right?

My Reply: That's right. It's that other person who felt sad and pitiful who'd be living the sad, pitiful life, since that feeling would be putting his mind in a sad, pitiful place. Once his sad, pitiful feeling fades away, and he starts to feel joy again, he'd be living a joyful life now.

Other Person's Response: Since pitiful is a value judgment, then that means pitiful is an emotion.

My Reply: Yes. Pitiful is a negative emotion, and can only be a negative emotion. Nothing in life can be pitiful in our eyes, as long as we don't feel pitiful. The same idea applies to pathetic.

Other Person's Response: If Jake felt that life was a disgusting place, and Jon told him that life was a beautiful place, then life is a beautiful place for Jon, and a disgusting place for Jake. Life itself is nothing beautiful or disgusting. Many people feel that life's a disgusting place, which simply means it's a disgusting place for them, and many people feel that life's a beautiful place, which makes it a beautiful place for them.

My Reply: Yes. Beauty and disgust are simply feelings we have about things, including life itself. But, everything, including life itself, is nothing good, bad, beautiful, or disgusting in of itself. That means the acts of criminals are nothing good or bad. We make them bad for ourselves by feeling bad about them. Then there are those people who make those criminal acts good for themselves by feeling good about them.

Other Person's Response: I think only other criminals and psychopaths would feel good about the acts of criminals.

My Reply: Yes. A normal person wouldn't feel good about those acts. Since how a person thinks is how a person feels, and since no normal person would think the acts of criminals are good, then that means no normal person would feel that the acts of criminals are good.

Other Person’s Response: Sometimes, emotions are triggered automatically, and they’re not triggered by thoughts or beliefs. So, it could be possible that a very compassionate, innocent person would end up feeling good about the acts of criminals

My Reply: That might be the case.

Other Person's Response: Many people would say that you're a pitiful, pathetic human being, given the weak, shallow philosophy you live by. Your philosophy says that all things in this world are nothing good, bad, pitiful, etc., and that we just make them so for ourselves by feeling that way. That means you're nothing pitiful or pathetic, and it's all just a matter of how people feel about you. There are those people who'd feel you're an amazing, beautiful person, and then there are those who'd feel you're pitiful and pathetic.

My Reply: Yes. It also all comes down to how I feel about myself, since how I feel about myself determines how I see myself.

 

[The Transcended Omniverse]

Other Person's Response: If we wish to make ourselves beautiful people in our own mental universe, then we must feel beautiful about ourselves?

My Reply: Yes. But, you'd become a horrible or disgusting person in another person's mental universe if he felt that you were a horrible or disgusting person. During my miserable struggles, I couldn't feel beautiful about myself. I felt that I was pitiful and disgusting. Thus, I became that pitiful, disgusting person. I'd become a beautiful person in the eyes of others, even during my miserable struggles. But, it's my perspective that matters, since this is my life, and my own mental universe. To make my life, including myself, beautiful in my own mental universe, I need my feelings of beauty.

Other Person's Response: Since positive emotions are the only way to experience our lives as beautiful, then they're the only things that make our lives beautiful? Since positive emotions are the only way to experience ourselves as beautiful people, then they're the only things that make us beautiful people?

My Reply: Yes.

Other Person's Response: You say a life without positive emotions is no way to live or be an artist. Who are you to deny unhappy artists meaning in their lives? Many famous works have been created through negative emotions.

My Reply: If someone said: "Do you know what it means if you take this medicine? It means you'll be well again!," then this is a form of meaning a person's life can have in the absence of his emotions. It's still a meaning he can perceive in the absence of his emotions. Another example would be that mathematical and scientific meanings can still be perceived in the absence of emotions. But, there's another form of meaning, and it would be the beautiful, horrible, tragic, etc. meaning that works of art, situations, and life holds in our eyes.

An example of this one would be if a person said: "That artwork holds such beautiful meaning!," or "That event was so tragic!" The only way this form of meaning can be perceived is through one's emotions. Without emotions, then one's life can only have the 1st type of meaning. But, it can't have any beautiful, tragic, etc. meaning. So, our emotions are what give beautiful, horrific, tragic, etc. meaning to works of art, situations, moments, and life itself.

Other Person's Response: If 2 people were living together (Jake and Jon), and Jake had a lot of money, while Jon didn't have any money, Jon would still be living a rich life, since there's a lot of money in his life, given that his partner is a part of his life, and has all that money. It's just money Jon doesn't have.

My Reply: I'm talking about the personal life of the individual. So, Jon wouldn't be living a rich life, since he doesn't have any money for himself. That means a person can't live a good, beautiful life just by helping others, who are a part of his life, to make them feel goodness and beauty. Those helped people would be living the good, beautiful lives, since they had those feelings of goodness and beauty, while that helpful person wouldn't be living a good, beautiful life if he didn't have those feelings.

Other Person's Response: So, you wish to have a life to yourself that's good, amazing, beautiful, etc.?

My Reply: Yes, and I'd need to feel good, amazing, beautiful, etc. to live such a life. My life can't be a personal paradise for me without my positive emotions.

Other Person's Response: I think your philosophy is no way to live or be an artist.

My Reply: That's your personal view.

Other Person's Response: It's always been assumed that the more profound and intense positive thoughts you have, the better of a life you're living, and the more profound and intense negative thoughts you have, the worse of a life you're living.

My Reply: Actually, it's the emotions these thoughts make us feel that determine the quality of our lives (how better or how worse of a life we're living). So, if you experienced very profound, intense misery from losing your loved one, then you'd be living a much worse life than if you felt a trivial, shallow form of misery that wasn't that bad at all, such as being a bit bummed out for a while, since you didn't get to see your favorite movie.

Other Person's Response: The more profound and intense a person's positive thoughts are, the more profound and intense positive emotions he'd feel? The more profound and intense that person's negative thoughts are, the more profound and intense negative emotions he'd feel?

My Reply: Yes, since how we think is how we will feel. But, like I said, there are things that can prevent thoughts, or beliefs, from making us feel emotions.

Other Person's Response: You say how a person thinks is how a person feels. But, a person could have the thought that losing his loved one would be horrible and devastating, and that thought not causing him to feel devastated, since his loved one is still alive and healthy.

My Reply: Well, that's because he had the thought that everything's all good and well, since his loved one is still healthy and alive. It's this thought which is preventing him from being devastated. But, the moment his loved one dies is the moment he'd become devastated.

Other Person's Response: What if the thought that everything's all good and well didn't make him feel anything?

My Reply: If the thought didn't make him feel anything, then his mindset really was that he just doesn't care. If a person has any given thought, and that thought doesn't make him feel anything, then it's really an apathetic thought that person is having. But, if his thought wasn't apathetic, and it still didn't cause him to feel any emotion, then he could have a mental illness that's preventing him from feeling emotions.

Other Person's Response: What if the thought that everything's all good and well made him feel bad?

My Reply: Then he really had a negative thought, such as that everything being all good and well was a bad thing.

Other Person's Response: I don't understand how one could disagree with the idea that how a person thinks is how a person feels, and that changing one's thinking is how a person changes how he feels. This is something that's even taught in CBT (Cognitive Behavioral Therapy).

My Reply: Yes.

Other Person's Response: I think it's all up to the individual how he wishes to define love and happiness. So, if someone says he doesn't need emotions to love someone or experience happiness, then he can love someone and be happy, since that's his personal definition of love and happiness.

My Reply: If a person was dying of thirst in a desert, and he needed to drink water to save his life, then it must be real water. He can't just have an empty glass and say: "I'm going to define the emptiness inside this glass as water, drink it, and my life will be saved!" It just wouldn't be real water. My point is, people can certainly define love and happiness as non-emotional. But, it's not real love or happiness.

Other Person's Response: You treat positive feelings and positive emotions as being the same thing. Sure, they're both mental states (experiences). But, they're not the same thing.

My Reply: If that's the case, then just accept this error I've made. That means I should've said a life without positive feelings and positive emotions is no way to live or be an artist, and that we should avoid negative feelings and negative emotions. There are things that can take away our positive feelings and positive emotions, such as brain damage, and we should avoid these things as well.

Other Person's Response: If a person felt a negative emotion that motivated him to create works of art, then didn't that negative emotion make his artistic endeavor worthwhile?

My Reply: Yes. So, actually, both positive and negative emotions are how we see worth in things. But, again, negative emotions are still no way to live or be an artist. For example, I've had many miserable moments in my life where I wasn't doing well at all. If my misery motivated me to create works of art, then that would still be no way to live or be an artist, since I'd still be having a very horrible, negative experience. Whether my misery motivates me to moan in agony or create works of art doesn't matter because that life of misery would still be a horrible way to live. It's the positive experiences (positive emotions) I need.

Other Person's Response: Was it thoughts of certain situations being horrible that made you miserable?

My Reply: Yes. That's what I mean when I say horrible, negative thoughts and worries have made me miserable.

Other Person's Response: When you say horrible, negative thoughts have made you miserable, would we even refer to those thoughts as horrible and negative? It's the negative emotions that are horrible and negative, since they're the horrible, negative experiences.

My Reply: We wouldn’t. That means all those worries I've had wouldn't have been devastating, bad, or horrible. It was the devastating, emotional response I got from these worries which was devastating, bad, and horrible.

Other Person's Response: Are emotions the only way things, people, and situations can matter to us?

My Reply: Yes. Positive emotions make things matter to us in positive ways, negative emotions make things matter to us in negative ways, and apathy can only render things not mattering to us at all.

Other Person's Response: So, you think emotions are the only way we can care about things, people, and situations?

My Reply: Yes. That means someone, who's been known to be very caring and empathetic, could no longer care about anyone or anything if he lost his ability to feel emotions.

Other Person's Response: Even if an artist was living a very horrible life, where he could see no goodness or beauty in anything (i.e. if he had nothing but a negative perspective), then it would still be something good and beautiful if he inspired others through his horrible life. He could make amazing works of art, and that would be something good and beautiful.

 

[The Transcended Omniverse]

My Reply: But, in the meantime, until this artist can have a positive perspective, his life is nothing but horrible, and he can still see nothing good, amazing, or beautiful about inspiring others through his artwork. For those who are inspired by his artwork, they can have a positive perspective, since they can see goodness and beauty in his horrible way of life, and they can see goodness and beauty in his artwork, which would make their lives good and beautiful. But, you shouldn't dismiss the artist, since he's living a horrible life.

You act as though his horrible life would be something beautiful. For you and others, it would be beautiful, since all of you can see beauty in his way of life. But, in the eyes of that artist, it would be nothing beautiful, valuable, good, or precious. The quality of a person's life must be taken into consideration, and if a person is living a miserable existence, where he sees nothing positive, and can only see the negative, then that's a very poor quality of life, and it's a horrible way to live. It's simply no way to live or be an artist.

Other Person's Response: If someone was taking drugs to give himself much bliss, then I'd still consider that to be a horrible life he's living, since he's damaging himself through drug use.

My Reply: He's still living a beautiful, amazing life for the time being, since those feelings of bliss he's having are what allow him to see things as beautiful and amazing. But, the moment his body is destroyed through drug use, and he starts to feel miserable, is the moment his life would be miserable and horrible. He went from feeling beautiful and amazing to feeling miserable and horrible. That's what changed his quality of life from being beautiful and amazing one moment to horrible and miserable the next moment.

Other Person's Response: If I told this blissful drug user that his life is horrible, since his body is going to be destroyed by the drugs, and that he'd end up miserable, none of that would matter to him, since he doesn't see anything horrible about it in the meantime, given that he has nothing but a positive, blissful perspective, where he sees things as beautiful and amazing. So, as far as that drug user is concerned, his quality of life is nothing but beautiful and amazing for the time being.

My Reply: Yes. But, it's not like the drug user is unaware of the damage drugs do, just because he can't see anything horrible about it in the meantime. So, that means he can still choose to stop taking drugs, just from knowing the harmful consequences. He doesn't need to see anything horrible or tragic about those consequences, which means he doesn't need to care about those consequences.

He just needs to know that drugs do harm, and make his decision as to whether he wishes to continue drug use or not. As a matter of fact, he could see the idea of stopping drug use, and promoting his health, as beautiful and amazing if he felt that way. That would give him a positive perspective, which would motivate him to stop taking drugs, instead of a negative perspective of seeing the consequences as horrible and tragic. That means he'd feel positive instead of negative.

Other Person's Response: Your philosophy has immoral implications, and we wouldn't have a functional society if your philosophy was true, people believed it, and lived by it.

My Reply: Even if that were the case, that still doesn't change my philosophy. Besides, there are plenty of truths in this world that are absurd, immoral, and insulting. So, one of those truths could be my philosophy.

Other Person's Response: Some people would say your philosophy is immoral. But, you have your own morals, which say that feeling good is good, and feeling bad is bad.

My Reply: Yes.

Other Person's Response: If your philosophy was true, people believed it, and lived by it, then the world would be a dangerous place.

My Reply: There are truths out there that are dangerous. So, just because my philosophy would be dangerous doesn't mean it's false.

Other Person's Response: Thoughts can be just as unreliable as emotions. So, if a person felt good about making a harmful decision, then he was actually thinking it was good to make that decision, since how a person thinks is how a person feels.

My Reply: Yes. So, an impulsive thought caused that person to feel an impulsive emotion. If he had another type of thought, such as the thought that it's a good thing to not act out on said impulse, then that thought must make him feel good in order for him to see it as a good thing to not act out on said impulse.

Other Person's Response: If our emotions determine the quality of our lives, then we might as well say a psychopath lived a good life, since he felt good while torturing living things.

My Reply: Yes. But, the people who felt horrible about the psychopath's deed would be living a horrible life, since they felt horrible. Their lives would be horrible in the meantime until they can feel good again.

Other Person's Response: There are certain things we need to perceive as bad or horrible, such as criminal acts.

My Reply: It would be better to perceive it as a good or beautiful thing for the criminals to be locked up in prison. That would give us a positive experience, instead of a negative experience of seeing their acts as bad or horrible.

Other Person's Response: That, or we could perceive those criminal acts as good or beautiful.

My Reply: Yes. Either way, you're still having a positive experience if you're seeing any given thing, moment, situation, or act as good or beautiful.

Other Person's Response: I could say that a person's positive thinking makes his life good and beautiful, since positive thinking is where a person has thoughts of things and situations being good and beautiful, and that would be giving him good, beautiful experiences to make his life good and beautiful. But, you're saying positive thoughts and beliefs alone can't give us any good or beautiful experience, and that it's the positive emotions that do?

My Reply: Yes.

Other Person's Response: If a person thought it was a good thing to torture someone, that wouldn't be a positive thought.

My Reply: I define positive thinking as thinking of any given thing or situation as being good, beautiful, amazing, etc. The same idea applies to positive emotions. Feeling that any given thing or situation is good, beautiful, amazing, etc. is a positive emotion.

Other Person's Response: I thought you said we wouldn't call thoughts positive or negative, since they, alone, don't give us any positive or negative experience. Also, I thought you said we wouldn't call the thoughts and worries that devastated you as being devastating, since they, alone, aren't devastating experiences.

My Reply: That's right. But, I still call them that anyway for the sake of convenience.

Other Person's Response: If a person was having a horrible experience, that can still be a beautiful experience if he used it to help and inspire others. Therefore, his life can still be beautiful.

My Reply: It makes no sense to say that a sad experience can be a happy experience, since sadness and happiness are different feelings. Likewise, it makes no sense to say that a horrible experience can be a beautiful experience, since feeling horrible and feeling beauty are different feelings.

Other Person's Response: If a person felt much physical pain, he'd be living a painful life. If someone had a lot of money, he'd be living a rich life. If someone did a lot of intellectual exercises throughout his life, he'd be living an intellectual life. If someone feels much goodness and beauty throughout his life, he'd be living a good, beautiful life.

My Reply: Yes.

Other Person's Response: I heard that positive experiences, such as beautiful, joyful, loving, and amazing experiences, are the soul at a higher, spiritual vibration. When we're at a higher vibration, we're closer to god/the divine. But, when we're at a lower vibration, due to misery, despair, hate, etc., we're far away from god/the divine.

My Reply: That means positive emotions are divine, the higher vibration, and are god's holy light experienced within us. We become holy, divine, beings of light through our positive emotions, and we become unholy beings of darkness through our negative emotions, since negative emotions are unholy. Having no emotions would just render us as empty vessels, and apathy is neither holy nor unholy. The goal in life is to rise above negativity, as well as apathy.

That means we should try our best to avoid negative emotions and apathy, and to have positive emotions, since they're the holy light of joy, love, etc. we need. Negative emotions and apathy are an inferior state of being, and having them would be living an inferior existence, regardless of your deeds and contributions to the world. A lower vibration means an inferior state of being and living, and the goal would be to rise to a higher vibration. That's just another way of saying we should avoid negative emotions and apathy, and to have positive emotions.

Other Person's Response: Do you define positive emotions as holy, and negative emotions as unholy, no matter what?

My Reply: Yes. So, if a psychopath felt much love and joy from torturing living things, then he's still having a holy, divine experience. He's just using this experience for his own harmful purposes. If a character in a movie used a holy relic for his own sinister deeds, then that relic was still holy. Also, water is still water, no matter if it benefits others or drowns others. So, positive emotions are still holy, no matter if they're used to benefit others or harm others.

Other Person's Response: Haven't you ever heard people say that a life without emotions would be a dull existence, that it's no way to live, and we'd be like empty, mechanistic vessels without them, regardless of what we do, and how we live our lives? Well then, this clearly says that emotions determine the quality of our lives. If having no emotions amounts to a life that's dull and nothing good, beautiful, or horrible, then that means having positive emotions amounts to a life that's good, beautiful, amazing, etc., and having negative emotions amounts to a life that's bad, horrible, tragic, etc.

My Reply: Yes. Emotions color our world, which means they really do determine the quality of our lives. Apathy creates a dull, gray world, positive emotions color our world in positivity, and negative emotions color our world in negativity. Thus, apathy creates a neutral quality of life, positive emotions create a positive quality of life, and negative emotions create a negative quality of life.

Other Person's Response: If we're like empty, mechanistic vessels without our emotions, then that means positive emotions are like a holy life force within us that makes us something more than mere machines, and negative emotions are an unholy life force that makes us something less than machines.

 

[The Transcended Omniverse]

My Reply: Yes. Negativity is worse than neutrality, and that's why it's worse to feel negative emotions than to be apathetic. That's why we'd be less than apathetic machines if we felt negative emotions. According to spiritual believers, negative emotions are at a lower vibration than apathy, which means they're inferior to apathy.

Other Person's Response: Living a neutral life is certainly better than living a horrible, **** life. So, I agree that apathy is superior to negative emotions. But, we should strive for positive emotions, since they're superior to apathy.

My Reply: Yes. If you live a horrible, **** life, then that's an unholy life, and if you live a beautiful, amazing, joyful life, then that's a holy life. Having no emotions amounts to a life that's neither holy nor unholy.

Other Person's Response: The more profound and intense positive emotions are, the more holy and divine they are? The more intense and profound negative emotions are, the more unholy they are?

My Reply: Yes. So, the absolute worst, miserable state possible would be the most unholy experience, and the absolute best, blissful experience possible would be the most holy, divine experience.

Other Person's Response: Even Buddhists say that mental suffering is bad, unholy, and needs to be transcended. Since negative emotions are mental suffering, then they're bad, unholy, and need to be eliminated.

My Reply: Yes. When someone, for example, experiences profound, intense, horrible misery from a devastating moment in his life, that experience is horrible, unholy, and needs to be eliminated. So, that's why this person must get the help he needs from therapists. That will help him eliminate his mental suffering, so he regains his joy. I had such miserable moments in my life, and such misery did nothing but made my life horrible. Thus, said misery was horrible, unholy, and needed to be eliminated.

Other Person's Response: The goal of Buddhism is to eliminate hate and suffering. For example, if a person is in mental turmoil, then assisting this individual in the Buddhist way would have him going through meditation, learning certain teachings, etc.

My Reply: The goal of Buddhism shouldn't just be an absence of hate and suffering, but the opposite of hate and suffering (which would be a state of peace, love, and joy). That state would be the positive emotions because a person can't experience peace, love, or joy, as long as he's not feeling peace, love, or joy.

Other Person's Response: Can't an apathetic (emotionless) person experience peace?

My Reply: No, because he needs to feel peace (a positive emotion). So, if a person went from a state of mental turmoil to a state of apathy, then his mental suffering would just be gone. But, that's not the same thing as being at peace. There were moments in my life where I felt peaceful from being out in nature. Since this feeling was the experience of peace, then that must mean the absence of this feeling can't be peace, no matter if you're someone who went from the absolute worst state of mental suffering possible to a state of apathy. So, if there are Buddhists out there who claim they can experience peace with no need for their positive emotions, then they're lying. It's the wrong definition of peace they're living by.

Other Person's Response: When a person feels peace, he's experiencing peace, which is the same thing as saying he's having a peaceful perspective/perception?

My Reply: Yes.

Other Person's Response: Do you think seeking positive emotions is our divine purpose as human beings?

My Reply: Yes. Positivity is our divine purpose, which is why we need positive emotions. Positive thoughts and beliefs alone won't count as a divine purpose, since they, alone, don't give us any positive experience. So, Buddhists who give up their desire for positive emotions aren't living in accordance with the divine and holy. If they define their way of life as divine or holy, then it's the wrong definition of divine or holy.

Other Person's Response: I've heard that Buddhists don't live a pleasure-centered lifestyle, they give up their desire for positive feelings, and undergo meditation.

My Reply: Yes, and that wouldn't be a divine or holy way of life. The divine, holy way of life would be hedonism, which would be a lifestyle of seeking positive feelings, avoiding negative feelings, and avoiding apathy.

Other Person's Response: Who are you to tell people they can't experience peace, love, happiness, beauty, etc. without their positive emotions?

My Reply: It all comes down to the truth here, regardless of how offensive said truth would be. So, if what I'm saying is true in regards to positive emotions being the only way we can experience peace, love, happiness, beauty, etc., then that's the truth. If it's also true that it's no way to live or be an artist without positive emotions, then that's the truth as well. All I'm doing is putting forth these claims, which are based upon my own personal experience. People can accept them as the truth or not.

Other Person's Response: Many people would ask you: "Who are you to tell people they can't love, be proud, or see beauty in things without their positive feelings?" But, you could turn that back around on them by asking them: "Who are you to be so arrogant as to claim that you don't need your positive feelings to love, be proud, and see beauty in things?"

My Reply: Yes.

Other Person's Response: I heard that many people have met god during their near death experience, god says to them that life is a precious gift, and that it's wrong for people to commit suicide.

My Reply: Well, life could be nothing precious for us without our positive feelings. But, it could be precious in god's eyes if he had his positive feelings. Does god even consider those who struggle with lifelong, clinical depression? They have very few moments where they see life as precious, since they have very few moments where they can experience positive feelings.

Other Person's Response: Can't a person love certain foods without his positive emotions?

My Reply: No. He may get a pleasant taste from foods. But, he can't like, love, or enjoy food without his positive emotions.

Other Person's Response: Can't a person want something without his emotions?

My Reply: No. It wouldn't be real wanting. Instead, it would be a preference. Wanting is a form of motivation, and emotions are what motivate us. Liking, loving, and enjoying are also forms of motivation, and they can only be positive emotions. When a person has no emotions, nothing can matter to him, which is why he can't want, like, enjoy, or love.

Other Person's Response: I heard that, even during moments where you were apathetic, you still said you wanted certain things.

My Reply: Yes. But, I wasn't actually wanting them, since I can't want anything without my emotions. I'd just be going outside my personal definition of wanting for the sake of convenience.

Other Person's Response: I heard people go on heavenly trips to the afterlife, whether it be through drug trips, or trips people go on during a near death experience. During these heavenly trips, they meet god, and they say they've experienced god's holy light of love and joy, which was an experience more profound and intense than anything they could achieve normally during their Earthly existence. According to your philosophy, this profound, intense experience of love and joy would have to be a positive emotion?

My Reply: Yes. It was a profound feeling of love and joy they felt, and it was a positive feeling. But, people do say there’s Grace, which is a divine, everlasting form of love that’s far more profound than the emotional form of love. I don’t know if Grace even exists or not.

Other Person's Response: When you say you don't see it as a bad thing to take drugs, since you don't feel bad about it, but you don't do drugs, just from knowing the harmful consequences, then it's like you're saying: "I don't see taking drugs as a bad thing, and it doesn't matter to me. But, you know what? I'm not going to take them, just because I know they'd do me harm."

My Reply: Yes. Now, if I felt good from the idea of taking drugs, and didn't take them, then it would be like I'm saying: "I see taking drugs as a good thing. But, you know what? I'm not going to take them, just from knowing the harm they do." So, I can still make certain choices, regardless of how I feel. Just because I'd feel a certain way doesn't mean I'd act out on that feeling.

Other Person's Response: If we feel that something's right or wrong, that's how we see it as being right or wrong?

My Reply: Yes.

Other Person's Response: Is the only way to be troubled by something is to feel troubled by it?

My Reply: Yes.

Other Person's Response: According to you, a person living in a vegetative state of bliss, doing absolutely nothing for himself or humanity, would be living an awesome, good, beautiful life.

My Reply: Yes. Many people might disagree with this. But, if I said that a person living in a vegetative state of positive thinking, doing absolutely nothing for himself or humanity, would be living an awesome, good, beautiful life, then many people would agree. But, I'm just switching that from positive thoughts to positive emotions, since it's the positive emotions that make our lives good, beautiful, and amazing, and not the positive thoughts or beliefs alone.

Other Person's Response: I can assure you that you won't get very far in your composing dream, considering that positive feelings are transient things.

My Reply: I'll try to get as far as I can. Moments where I don't feel motivated to compose would be the moments I'd have to give up composing. So, not only must I experience moments as beautiful, good, and amazing, but I must be motivated to compose because, without that motivation, composing just wouldn't matter to me. That's why I must experience the joyful motivation to compose. Fortunately, when I don't have an emotional crisis, I've been known to enjoy my hobbies throughout the day each day, and composing would be no exception. Hopefully, my positive feelings remain intact after I fully recover from this recent emotional crisis, and nothing else takes them away, such as brain damage, developing a mental illness, etc.

 

[The Transcended Omniverse]

Other Person's Response: Can a feeling of joy also be a feeling of goodness?

My Reply: Yes. For example, when I'm enjoying my composing, not only is my composing a joyful experience, but it's a good, worthwhile experience as well. So, that feeling of enjoyment makes my composing both enjoyable, good, and worthwhile in my eyes. So, what's going on here is that I have the thought, in my mind, that my composing is enjoyable, good, and worthwhile. Once that thought makes me feel that way, I then experience my composing as such. Unfortunately, I can't have that experience, since I don't have my positive emotions right now.

Other Person's Response: According to you, we need positive emotions everywhere we go, and everything we do.

My Reply: Yes.

Other Person's Response: If a guy felt that he was a beautiful female character, you're saying that's the same thing as him seeing himself as a beautiful female character?

My Reply: Yes. He wouldn't literally be hallucinating and visually seeing himself as a female character. He'd just be experiencing himself as a new character, and it would be a beautiful experience for him, since he feels like he's a beautiful character.

Other Person's Response: Since how a person thinks is how a person feels, then it's possible for a person to have a miserable thought that makes him feel miserable, but said miserable thought not being a thought of something being bad or horrible, which would just make his misery a miserable experience, and not a bad or horrible experience. That means his misery would just be a miserable feeling, and not a bad or horrible feeling. So, would his misery make his life bad or horrible?

My Reply: That person's quality of life would just be miserable. But, it wouldn't be bad or horrible. The same idea applies if a person felt positive emotions that weren't good or beautiful experiences. If a person just felt a drive to get out of his chair, and said positive emotion was just a feeling of motivation, and not a feeling of goodness or beauty, then that means this person's quality of life wouldn't be good or beautiful. He just had the motivational thought of getting out of his chair, and said thought wasn't that it was good, amazing, or beautiful to get out of his chair. So, once that thought makes him feel a positive emotion, then that just gives him a motivational experience, and not a good, amazing, or beautiful experience.

Other Person's Response: When emotions are just forms of motivation, and not any beautiful, amazing, bad, horrible, etc. experience, does that mean they're not holy or unholy?

My Reply: Correct. If a person has a good, beautiful, or amazing experience, then that would be a holy, divine experience. So, it's only those positive emotions that are amazing, good, beautiful, etc. feelings which are holy and divine. The same idea applies to negative emotions. It's only those negative emotions that are horrible, bad, disgusting, etc. feelings which are unholy.

Other Person's Response: If positive emotions are just drives that make things and situations worthwhile, and aren’t any good, beautiful, amazing, etc. experience, does that mean it's still no way to live or be an artist?

My Reply: Yes. Positive emotions need to be good, beautiful, amazing, etc. feelings if you wish to live a good, beautiful, amazing, etc. life.

Other Person's Response: Is it possible for a person to have the thought that something is beautiful, that makes him feel miserable, and said misery is a beautiful feeling for him?

My Reply: I don't think so. I think only positive emotions can be feelings of beauty, and not negative emotions.

Other Person's Response: Were there ever emotions you felt that weren't beautiful, good, bad, or horrible feelings for you?

My Reply: Yes. I've felt sadness that was just sadness, and then I've felt sadness that was a profoundly horrible experience.

Other Person's Response: If a person got high on drugs, but the drugs induced feelings of bliss that weren't feelings of goodness or beauty, then that person's bliss wouldn't be a good or beautiful experience for him?

My Reply: Correct.

Other Person’s Response: Drugs do induce subconscious thoughts of beauty, horror, love, joy, etc. that cause a person to feel intense beauty, horror, love, joy, etc.

My Reply: Yes. Also, in dreams and nightmares, there are subconscious thoughts that cause a person to feel beauty, horror, etc.

Other Person's Response: You seem to have a very bad attitude in regards to the lives of miserable people who help humanity and contribute to the world, since you say their lives were nothing good or beautiful, you say it's no way to live or be an artist, and you say it's an inferior existence compared to a life of happiness. Do you have something against these people?

My Reply: Not at all. I don't hate them, and I don't have anything against them. That even applies to those miserable, genius artists. As a matter of fact, I think they're great people. It's just that I think a miserable, unhappy life is no way to live or be an artist, regardless of how you lived said life.

Other Person's Response: You shouldn't project your personal experience upon the rest of humanity, since everyone is different, and has a different experience than you.

My Reply: I'd need a new personal experience to give me a different view then.

Other Person's Response: If you simply told people you need your positive emotions to make your life good and beautiful, and that it's no way to live or be an artist without them, people might say you're childish, and treat you like a selfish child. So, by explaining your entire philosophy to these people, that shows you're intelligent, and more than a child. When people read your philosophy, they might no longer treat you as a child. Instead, they might show you respect, honor you, and put you at a higher status than a child. I've read your philosophy, and not only are you a good writer, but you're intelligently explaining your philosophy. You give good, supporting arguments for it.

My Reply: You might be right when you say people would show me honor and respect. So, I'm glad I finally found a way to articulate my philosophy to people. In the past, I just didn't know how to explain my philosophy, and I was poor at explaining it.

Other Person's Response: What if people still call you childish, given the philosophy you live by, even after they read it?

My Reply: Then I'd have to disagree. These people just don't understand my predicament. They dismiss my need for positive feelings as childish, when it's not. It makes no sense to call a need childish when it's a necessary need.

Other Person's Response: I heard you recently had an emotional crisis, and that it took you a very long time to recover from. During this recovery process, you gave up on your composing, since you couldn't enjoy it. The negative emotions you felt during this crisis were the desire to give up on your hobbies, rage, misery, etc. But, you felt no negative emotion or positive emotion that motivated you to compose or do other tasks. Yet, you're still choosing to do things, such as writing these packets. If you can do this during your emotional crisis, then why aren't you pursuing your composing?

My Reply: It's because I'm alright doing basic things to pass up time until I fully recover from the crisis, and have my ability to experience joy again. These basic things would be brushing my teeth, taking a shower, writing packets, etc. But, I need to enjoy my hobbies, and that's why I gave up on them during this crisis. Also, even if I felt negative emotions that motivated me to pursue my hobby of composing, it would still be no way to live or be an artist. Not only that, but the negative emotions I feel during an emotional crisis are far worse, and far more profound than the negative emotions I normally feel on seldom occasions. So, that's why, during an emotional crisis, my life is at its worst.

Other Person's Response: When you don't have any devastating thought or worry, how often do you feel negative emotions?

My Reply: Not often at all. I'm mostly happy and enjoying my life. But, I'd still, for example, feel fear if I was in a dangerous situation.

Other Person's Response: If an artist felt misery, said misery was a horrible feeling/experience for him, but it motivated him to create works of art, then that means he can't see it as a good or beautiful thing to create works of art, or inspire others through his artwork. Instead, he's seeing something from a horrible, miserable perspective.

My Reply: Yes.

Other Person's Response: The very fact that you give up composing when you don't feel up to doing it means you're not a true composing artist. A true artist would never give up.

My Reply: Then you might as well say I'm not a true gamer either, since I give up playing video games when I don't feel up to playing them. You also might as well say I'm not a true hobbyist in general, since I give up on all hobbies when I don't feel up to them.

Other Person's Response: If you felt ill and worn down from the cold, but could still feel motivated to do your hobbies, would you do them?

My Reply: Yes. As long as I have the emotional drive to do my hobbies, then I have the desire to do those hobbies. No emotional drive means no desire or passion. But, if I was ill from the flu, I'd have to rest and drink plenty of water, even if I felt driven to do my hobbies.

Other Person's Response: Writing is a hobby, and you're still doing that without your emotional drive.

My Reply: Writing, to me, is just a mere task. It doesn't have to be enjoyed, and I don't need the desire to do it. But, other hobbies, such as playing video games or composing, aren't mere tasks. They require the emotional drive to do them, and they need to be enjoyed. That's why I need to feel positively driven to do them, and feel joy in doing them.

Other Person's Response: That means composing and playing video games are more important hobbies to you than writing. But, I thought nothing could be important to you without your emotions, since emotions are what make things matter/important to us.

My Reply: Again, I'd just have the thought that playing video games and composing are more important hobbies without my emotions. But, they would have no importance to me.

 

[The Transcended Omniverse]

Other Person's Response: I think Hume is saying life's all about the passions (emotions), and that, without them, it's no way to live or be an artist, a boxer, an athlete, a parent, etc. But, you're saying life's all about the positive emotions, since they're the good, awesome, and beautiful emotions we need, and that it's no way to live without them.

My Reply: Correct.

Other Person's Response: According to Hume, when we have no emotional drive to do something, there's just no point in doing it. Even making decisions and pondering things would be pointless without the emotional drive to do them. But, this would have to mean that a father, who feels fear from being attacked by his 6 year old son, would have every reason to cower in a corner, and would have no reason to stand up for himself and punish the child, since he feels no emotional drive to do so. Since the father only feels fear in this situation, then he might as well just cower in a corner.

My Reply: He could still choose to stand up for himself and punish the child anyway. But, since he's only feeling fear, and feels no emotional drive to punish the child, then that means punishing the child has no value, worth, goodness, beauty, or significance to him. It doesn't matter to him. Since the father feels the emotional drive to cower, then that's what matters to him. We need an emotional response to care about someone or something, and that's why the father wouldn't care about punishing the child if he felt no emotional drive to do so.

Other Person's Response: According to your personal experience, having an emotional response is the only way we can care about someone or something. In which case, the father might as well cower in a corner, since that's all he cares about. Human beings might as well give up on protecting others if they felt nothing but fear.

My Reply: Yes. So, it really is pointless to protect someone if we felt no emotional drive to do so, since we wouldn't care about that.

Other Person's Response: Yet, people do protect others, despite feeling nothing but fear. If protecting others didn't matter to them, why would they have done it in the first place?

My Reply: Like I said before, a depressed person can still smile and act happy, even though he's not happy on the inside. Likewise, a person could still protect someone, even though protecting that person doesn't matter to him.

Other Person's Response: So, you're saying that people really don't care about protecting others if they felt nothing but the fear to run away, and they're just protecting those people anyway.

My Reply: Yes.

Other Person's Response: Well, if a person protected someone, despite feeling nothing but fear, his actions wouldn't be considered brave or kind, since he needs to feel braveness and kindness. I could say the same thing about loving acts. If a person didn't feel love, this his acts can't be loving.

My Reply: I think you're right.

Other Person's Response: When you say people need an emotional response to care about things, do you mean they need to feel an emotion in order to care about things?

My Reply: Yes.

Other Person's Response: You're saying that doing things (even thinking) is pointless if we feel no emotional drive to do them. But, it requires us to think certain ways to feel certain emotions in the first place. So, it would be pointless to even think in the first place.

My Reply: I mentioned earlier that all things in this world are nothing good, bad, beautiful, disgusting, etc. because, if all humans never existed, then good, bad, etc. wouldn't exist. Since nothing is good or bad, then that says it's pointless to even think that certain things are good or bad. Yet, we still do so anyway because doing so gives us good, bad, beautiful, and amazing experiences via our emotions, and it's just human nature to do so. So, my point is, we can still do certain things that are pointless.

That's why we can still choose to think, even without the emotional drive being there to begin with. Now, the question is, which pointless things are we going to do, and which ones aren't we going to do? Well, I certainly wouldn't want to pursue my composing dream when I don't feel the drive to do so. But, I'd still choose to think that certain things are good, beautiful, and amazing to give myself a good, beautiful, and amazing experience.

Other Person's Response: Meditation gurus often talk about why we shouldn't attribute any judgment of good, bad, beauty, disgust, etc. to things, since all things in this world are "as is" (i.e. they're nothing good, bad, etc. in of themselves). These gurus say we should keep our minds clear, and free from any judgment that would bring suffering upon ourselves.

My Reply: You're right. Yes, we should avoid judgments that will bring suffering upon ourselves. For example, I had thoughts that certain situations were horrible, and said thoughts devastated me. But, we shouldn't avoid judgments that will bring experiences of beauty, love, and joy, since we need positive experiences.

Other Person's Response: But, you said earlier it can only be our emotions that are value judgments of good, bad, beauty, etc., and that our thoughts alone aren't value judgments.

My Reply: Correct. But, they're still thoughts that certain things and situations are good, bad, etc., and such thoughts will bring suffering or joy upon us via our emotions.

Other Person's Response: You do hear some people say that this universe is a godless, uncaring, valueless, meaningless universe. Yet, we still choose to attribute value and meaning anyway, since it's human nature.

My Reply: Yes.

Other Person's Response: There's one thing these meditation gurus are leaving out of the picture, and it would be the fact that there is one thing that's good and beautiful in this world, and it would be the feelings (value judgments) of goodness and beauty we have.

My Reply: Yes, and we need those feelings.

Other Person's Response: If a person had no sex drive, then engaging in sex would just be pointless, and it would be an empty, hollow endeavor. Likewise, if a person has no emotional drive to pursue an artistic endeavor, then pursuing that endeavor would be pointless, and it would be an empty, hollow endeavor.

My Reply: I agree.

Other Person's Response: In regards to your miserable struggles, perhaps god, and his angels, didn't have the emotional drive to heal you of your misery. Maybe that's why they allowed you to suffer, since they just didn't care.

My Reply: They're all-powerful beings, which means nothing can take away their emotional drive. They're also said to be all-loving beings, which means they would've had all-loving thoughts about me, which would've made them feel love. So, I don't understand why they didn't heal me. Maybe they don't exist, and they're just hallucinations.

Other Person's Response: Let's assume that god, and his angels, are nothing more than hallucinations, there's no afterlife, and this is the only life we have. If your philosophy is true, then this would also mean we only have one way to love, be happy, and see beauty in things (which would be our positive emotions). I think that would be a sad, cruel, pitiful existence, since we'd only have one life, and we'd only have one means to make it a good, beautiful, loving existence (our positive emotions).

My Reply: Yes. It's always been said that life's a cruel joke. So, perhaps this is the only life, and perhaps my philosophy is true. Many people would say my philosophy would be a cruel joke if it was true. Well, my philosophy would seem quite fitting for a life that's considered to be a cruel joke, and this would be the life.

Other Person's Response: If you're still writing these packets, then doing so must've had some level of importance to you. Otherwise, you wouldn't be doing it.

My Reply: Which would mean I must've had some level of emotional drive in doing so. It could be a level so small that I just can't detect it. Or, perhaps there's no drive at all, which means I can still do things, such as writing packets, even though they have no importance to me at all. In which case, I can still do certain tasks, even though they're nothing good, significant, worthwhile, important, etc. in my eyes.

Other Person's Response: If positive emotions are the only way we can see goodness and beauty in things, then how are you still able to determine that certain things and situations are good or beautiful without your positive emotions? Wouldn't it require you to see those things and situations as good or beautiful to even make this determination?

My Reply: I can still make such a determination, and it would be no different than how a person makes other determinations from the knowledge he's gained throughout his life, such as making mathematical and scientific determinations through the knowledge of math and science he's gained.

Other Person's Response: If our emotions determine the quality of our lives (good or bad), then we might as well say they determine whether certain deeds are good or bad. So, if a person felt good from the idea of killing someone, then we might as well say it's a good thing for him to kill that person.

My Reply: Is that how my philosophy would work out? If so, then that's just the way it's going to work.

Other Person's Response: I think it's sad that your positive emotions are the only way you can see goodness and beauty in life.

My Reply: It would be sad for you, since you feel sad about that. But, it wouldn't be sad for me, since I don't feel sad about it.

Other Person's Response: If a person felt childish emotions, such as the desire to whine, complain, and lash out, he'd be a mature person if he didn't act out on those emotions. But, if this person didn't feel any such emotions, but has still chosen to act out childishly, then that would make him a childish person. So, whether or not you feel childish emotions doesn't determine whether you're childish or not. It's how you act that determines this.

 

[The Transcended Omniverse]

My Reply: Again, I think people have it all backwards. It's not about how we act. It's about our quality of experience. So, if you're having some inner, childish experience (that is, if you're feeling childish emotions), then that makes you a childish person, regardless if you act out on said emotions or not. Likewise, if you didn't feel any childish emotions, then you wouldn't be a childish person, regardless if you acted childish or not. So, I don't think a person's choices determine whether he's childish or not.

It's his inner experience (emotion) that determines this. Emotions are what create the beautiful, disgusting, horrible, etc. scene, atmosphere, and character. Without our emotions, then there's no such scene or character we're experiencing. We'd just be empty vessels on the inside, and it would be like we're just an empty canvas internally. So, that means, if a person didn't feel any childish emotions, then there's no childish character within. There'd be no childish character being painted on the internal canvas.

Other Person's Response: If someone isn't experiencing fear or rage, he can't be a fearful or enraged person. Fear and rage are emotions. So, this says emotions are what create the fearful, enraged, loving, sad, childish, etc. character within us.

My Reply: That's correct. A person, with no fear or rage, can still act fearful or enraged. But, he still wouldn't be a fearful or enraged person, since he's not feeling any fear or rage.

Other Person's Response: If a person had nothing but a negative perspective, but displayed a positive attitude, and did many positive things with his life, that doesn't make him a positive person. It's whether he's having a positive or negative perspective/experience that determines whether he's a positive or negative person.

My Reply: Yes. The same idea applies to whether you're a childish person or not. As long as you're not having an inner childish experience, then you're not childish, regardless if you acted childish or not.

Other Person's Response: If a person had no emotions, he could still experience childish thoughts and intentions. So, he'd still be a childish person on the inside if he had such thoughts and intentions.

My Reply: But, without his emotions, then those thoughts and intentions would be dull and lifeless. It's the emotions that create a life-filled, joyful, beautiful, disgusting, etc. character within us. So, that's why I think a person can't be childish if he doesn't feel childish emotions. So, I define childishness as the childish emotions, and I define maturity as the mature emotions, such as feelings of acceptance in the face of constructive criticism. Without emotions, we can neither be childish nor mature.

Other Person's Response: Many people would say that a person lived a good, beautiful life if he lived his life, helping humanity, and contributing to the world. But, you're saying it's his quality of experience that determines if he lived a good, beautiful life or not (i.e. if he had feelings of goodness and beauty or not). Many people would also say that a person, who acts and behaves childishly, would be a childish person. But, you're saying it's his quality of experience that determines if he's childish or not (i.e. if he felt childish emotions or not).

My Reply: Yes.

Other Person's Response: What if someone had a mix of childish and mature emotions?

My Reply: Then he'd be something like 70% childish and 30% mature. It all depends on the profoundness and intensity of these childish and mature emotions.

Other Person's Response: If someone had a mix of positive and negative emotions, where he felt both positive and negative emotions at once, his life would have some amount of positivity, and some amount of negativity?

My Reply: Yes.

Other Person's Response: Do you sometimes go outside your personal definition of mature, childish, etc.?

My Reply: Yes, and it would just be for the sake of convenience. For example, I might still describe myself as mature, regardless of what emotion I'm feeling, since I display a polite attitude, and behave in public.

Other Person's Response: If someone felt fear and stayed to protect someone, he'd be a brave person, regardless of how much fear he felt.

My Reply: I don't agree. If he felt fear, then that makes him cowardly, since he was experiencing cowardliness. His feeling of fear was a cowardly motivation/desire to run away, and that's what made him a coward, regardless of how much he's chosen to stay. Since he didn't feel mighty, powerful, and brave (a positive emotion), then that means he couldn't be that person on the inside, regardless of how mighty, powerful, and brave his actions were. As I pointed out earlier, loving, angry, or sad actions alone can't make you a loving, angry, or sad person. Feeling love, anger, or sadness is what makes you a loving, angry, or sad person. Likewise, brave actions alone can't make you a brave person. Feeling brave is what makes you a brave person.

Other Person's Response: Fear is an automatic response that people can't help, since fear is there to protect us. So, does that mean people can't help but be cowards in threatening situations?

My Reply: Yes.

Other Person's Response: If a person can't feel mighty, powerful, and brave, then he's not having that experience, which is why he can't be a might, powerful, brave person on the inside?

My Reply: Yes.

Other Person's Response: According to you, we don't need fear to motivate us to escape from danger, since we could have feelings of joy to motivate us.

My Reply: Yes.

Other Person's Response: Emotions are considered to be alter egos. When a character becomes sad, he becomes a sad person, and might be presented with a rain cloud over his head. When a character feels anger, he might turn into a red bull.

My Reply: Yes. It's our emotions that determine if we become loving, sad, hateful, angry, or brave people, and not our thoughts, beliefs, and actions alone.

Other Person's Response: Since a person needs to feel fear to be cowardly, and since he needs to feel brave to be brave, does that mean he can neither be brave nor cowardly if he had no emotions?

My Reply: Correct.

Other Person's Response: Are the moments a person feels fear the moments he becomes cowardly, and the moments he feels brave the moments he becomes brave?

My Reply: Yes.

Other Person's Response: Some people might think you're an immoral psychopath, given the philosophy you live by. But, I think these people are mistaken. You're a very kind, polite person, and you conduct yourself in a moral fashion.

My Reply: Yes. My own happiness is just what makes my life good and beautiful, since that's my personal experience. It has nothing to do with me being some sort of criminal or psychopath.

Other Person's Response: Think back very hard. Are you sure there was never a moment where you experienced love, happiness, pride, and saw goodness and beauty in things independently of your positive feelings?

My Reply: I'm sure. I don't ever recall any given moment.

Other Person's Response: So, according to you, I must keep on getting a feeling of beauty over and over again if I wish to keep on seeing my life as beautiful?

My Reply: Yes.

Other Person's Response: If god and his angels do exist, then why didn't they instantly heal your mind of this recent emotional crisis you've had? It's taken you a very long time to recover from it, and it would've been better if they healed your mind.

My Reply: I don't understand this either. Maybe they don't exist. In which case, positive emotions wouldn't be god's holy light experienced within us, since god wouldn't exist. Instead, they'd simply be what we need in a godless universe.

Other Person's Response: The ultimate goal in life should be both happiness and longevity because the longer, happier life a person lives, the more positivity he's getting out of life.

My Reply: I agree. We don't need a world where people are born, live a fleeting, short, miserable existence, and then die. I realize science is trying to create longer, happier lives for us, and that's the ultimate goal to achieve.

Other Person's Response: According to your philosophy, achieving the most positivity in life is our ultimate goal. So, having miserable, unhappy struggles would be nothing more than a hindrance to achieving this goal.

My Reply: Yes. I didn't even gain a more profound level of joy out of my struggles.

Other Person's Response: But, your struggles did teach you just how vital and precious positive emotions are.

My Reply: But, the goal is to get the most positivity out of life, and my miserable struggles were still a hindrance to that goal. So, they were pointless struggles. That means it would've been better if I lived the entirety of my life happy, and not have learned what I've learned, than to have all these miserable struggles. So, it's not the life lessons that are important here. It's the positive emotions that are important.

Other Person's Response: I heard heaven is our true home, and is where we can live forever in bliss. So, living forever in bliss is the ultimate existence, and is divine. It's the life of heaven, the true home for our souls. So, we should find a way to live that heaven here on Earth, which means scientists need to find a way to make this life a utopia world where we can live long, happy lives.

My Reply: Yes. Happiness and longevity are the divine desires of our soul, and they're our divine nature.

 

[The Transcended Omniverse]

Other Person's Response: I heard that you wished there was an eternal, blissful afterlife (heaven), since such a life would offer you an eternal amount of positive emotions. You say such a life would be the greatest life you could live, since you'd be getting an eternal amount of positivity. But, wouldn't an eternal, blissful life turn out to be hell for you? Won't you go bored or insane?

My Reply: Never. As long as I'm in a state of bliss, then my life can only be good, awesome, beautiful, etc. for eternity. There's no suffering in heaven either, which means I couldn't feel any negative emotions, such as insanity, boredom, etc. But, let's pretend I did have the capability to make myself suffer or go insane from living an eternal, blissful life in heaven, and I lived an eternity in heaven, I'd never have the suffering-inducing thought that living an eternal, blissful life would be a horrible hell, since such a life would always be the greatest life I could live.

I mean, how would it make any sense for me to think that a life of eternal beauty, goodness, etc. would be hell? As long as I'm living a beautiful life, then it can only be beautiful, and it would make no sense for me to think that a beautiful life is a horrible, hellish life, since I wouldn't be having any horrible, hellish experience to make my life horrible and hellish. The only way my life could be horrible and hellish in the first place would be if I had that suffering-inducing thought to make me feel horrible, hellish emotions.

Other Person's Response: So, you're saying that, as long as you're feeling positive emotions, such as beauty and amazement for eternity, your life can only be beautiful and amazing for eternity? The only way such a life can be horrible and hellish for you would be if you had the thought that it's horrible and hellish, and said thought caused you to feel horrible, hellish emotions?

My Reply: Yes. The only way I could go bored or insane from an eternal, blissful life would be if I had a negative thought about this eternal, blissful life that caused me to feel boredom or insanity.

Other Person's Response: I heard you talk about god. How do you define god?

My Reply: I define god, holy, and divine as the positive emotions. Sure, I could define god as the thoughts of love and joy we have towards moments and situations, since people would say that would be a loving and joyful experience for the individual having those thoughts. After all, if no human being could have that experience, then there'd be no love and joy. So, it would make sense to define that experience as god. But, like I said, it's not the thoughts or beliefs themselves of love and joy that give us this experience. It’s the positive emotions that are god, since they’re the only way to experience love, beauty, joy, etc.

Other Person's Response: So, when someone is loving another person, experiencing joy, or when something is beautiful or magnificent to someone, you define that as god? Since positive emotions are the only way to love, and for something to be beautiful to an individual, you define positive emotions as god?

My Reply: Yes.

Other Person's Response: Since positive emotions are fleeting things, that means god is fleeting?

My Reply: Yes. God is a being of light, and having his holy and divine energy experienced within us isn't something that happens 24/7.

Other Person's Response: I think you should define positive emotions as being god's holy energy within us, rather than god himself.

My Reply: Perhaps you're right.

Other Person's Response: I understand why you think positive emotions are god. There are two aspects when it comes to a song, which would be the lyrics, and the emotion. Without the emotion, then the lyrics would just be words, spoken like a droid. It would be as though the person speaking them wouldn't be having any inner experience of love, beauty, or joy. But, when the divine power of positive emotions are breathed into those lyrics, they are sung with such profound beauty, love, or joy, and it's as though the person singing those lyrics has become filled with a holy life force.

My Reply: Exactly. Next time, when people listen to songs, they should really pay attention to the emotion of these songs. When a song conveys a profoundly beautiful emotion, that emotion is more than just a feeling being conveyed by the song. There is something holy and divine being expressed by the song. The same idea applies to negative emotions. Pure hate, despair, rage, and suffering would be expressed by a song when the song conveys negative emotions. It's as though a dark, unholy, or demonic life force is being expressed by the song.

Other Person's Response: Just to be clear, the lyrics of a song are the words, and the emotion being conveyed by the song would be the melody, instruments, singing, etc.?

My Reply: Yes. Also, just so you know, I wish to be a composer, and I'm not concerned about creating lyrics. I just want to make music that conveys awesome, powerful, profound, bizarre, supernatural, otherworldly emotion.

Other Person's Response: When you say positive emotions are divine and holy, what you're doing here is preaching.

My Reply: Yes. Even if there's no god, this is the only life there is, and I was convinced of that, I'd still say positive emotions are divine and holy. After all, even non-believers use those terms how they want. For example, someone who thinks the supernatural doesn't exist, and that this is the only life, might define god and holy as making this world a better place, or making scientific discoveries.

Other Person's Response: A person could feel a positive emotion, but still speak lyrics like a droid, and a person can be apathetic (emotionless), but sing lyrics, and profound beauty, love, or joy still being expressed by the apathetic person singing those lyrics.

My Reply: But, I'm just talking about what's being expressed by songs. When a song expresses a positive emotion, it's as though a holy life force is being expressed. But, you're right when you say that a person can express this holy life force without having it within himself, and a person can express apathy when he does have this holy life force within him. In these scenarios, the person's expression wouldn't be matching up with his inner experience.

Other Person's Response: If a song conveyed a beautiful emotion, but had awful lyrics, that doesn't make the song beautiful.

My Reply: To me, it wouldn't matter how awful the lyrics are. The fact is, that song conveys the divine power of The Light, and that's what makes the song beautiful. Actually, it's how I feel about the song that determines whether it's beautiful or not for me.

Other Person's Response: Just because a song conveys a positive emotion doesn't mean it's conveying some divine power or holy light.

My Reply: I think it is a divine power. This divine power can take on many forms. For example, if you listened to a song that conveyed an erotic emotion, then the holy light would take on a sexual form. If a song conveyed a childish, fun emotion, then the holy light would be taking on the form of childish joy. If you were listening to death metal, and the emotion being conveyed by the song was a positive emotion, then the holy light would be taking on a gothic, heavy form.

Other Person's Response: I think emotions in music are nothing more than just emotions. You are simply attributing value to emotions when you say that music conveys divine power or darkness.

My Reply: If you were to listen to a song that has no lyrics, then a scene, character, or environment would, in fact, be conveyed by that song. This shows that emotions speak. Not only do they speak in music, but they also speak within our conscious being. A positive emotion in a song might speak a beautiful landscape or character, and a positive emotion we personally feel will speak something beautiful within our conscious being as well.

Other Person's Response: When you listen to music, do you pay attention to the lyrics, or do you just pay attention to the emotion?

My Reply: I usually pay attention to the emotion because paying attention to the lyrics would require some of my intellectual brain power in order to focus on the lyrics, as well as to make sense of the message that the song is conveying. Like I said, I'm not the intellectual type of person, and I consider myself to be intellectually lazy. So, I just sit back, relax, and embrace the beautiful emotions of music without paying attention to the lyrics.

Other Person's Response: When you pay attention to the emotion a song conveys, does the emotion sometimes convey something different to you than the lyrics?

My Reply: Yes. Sometimes, I'd listen to a beautiful song, and the emotion conveys a beautiful sunset or nature scene to me. But, the lyrics have nothing to do with a sunset or nature.

Other Person's Response: When people experience much pain and hardship, that makes them better, stronger people. Apparently, all your miserable struggles didn't make you a better, stronger person because you're still the same, shallow, weak person who lives by the same, shallow, weak philosophy. Even after all those years of misery you've been through, you've never changed.

My Reply: Maybe my philosophy isn't changing because it was right all along, and I know it's right. That means the only way I could live my life by another philosophy, that doesn't base beauty and goodness upon positive feelings, would be if I deluded myself into believing this philosophy was true. I don't think that's ever going to happen. Therefore, I think I'm always going to be stuck with this view that a life without positive emotions is no way to live or be an artist. Even if I lived for trillions of years, I don't think my philosophy would ever change.

Other Person's Response: So, it wouldn't matter if you went through years of tough, brutal, military training because it's never going to transform you as an individual?

My Reply: That's right. I think I'll still have the same philosophy, even after years of military training. That means I'd still find myself telling soldiers that they need to enjoy their training as much as possible because a life of misery, apathy, and unhappiness is no way to live or be a soldier. Sure, soldiers have protected our country by putting themselves through miserable, unhappy forms of training, including training where they were apathetic, but forced themselves to train anyway. But, even so, they didn't live good, valuable, precious, or beautiful lives during moments where they were unhappy, apathetic, and miserable. So, their lives were nothing positive during these moments.

 

[The Transcended Omniverse]

Other Person's Response: So, as long as soldiers are seeing their training as good, beautiful, amazing, and worthwhile, then you're saying that's the way to live and be a soldier?

My Reply: Yes. We need to see things from a positive perspective, and that would even include training and protecting our country. Again, positive emotions are what give us that positive perspective.

Other Person's Response: Since all your miserable struggles didn't make you a better, stronger person who lives by a better philosophy, then those struggles were pointless and unnecessary. Thus, god and his angels shouldn't have allowed you to suffer through them.

My Reply: I agree. Also, god and his angels are all-knowing, and they can see into the future, which means they would've known all along that my struggles would've been pointless and unnecessary. Given this, I don't know why they allowed these struggles.

Other Person's Response: It seems you're unable to thrive in the face of misery, given that all your miserable struggles didn't make you a better, stronger person who lives by a better philosophy. I guess you just weren't meant for a life of misery. To expect you to thrive in a life of misery would be no different than expecting a fish to thrive on land. That fish was meant for the water, just as how you're meant for a life of joy and happiness. By the way, the better philosophy that you seem incapable of upgrading to is known as "Stoicism." This philosophy is the opposite of yours. It's a philosophy that encourages us to endure our misery, to not give up on our goals and dreams, despite not feeling up to the task, and that such a way of life is good and beautiful.

My Reply: I don't know if there's any way possible for me to upgrade to this better philosophy.

Other Person's Response: Some people just weren't meant for certain things. For example, I'm just no good at drawing, and I don't think I'll ever be a talented drawer. Not only that, I don't like drawing, and have a very bad, frustrated attitude in regards to it. Likewise, I don't think you were meant for Stoicism either.

My Reply: You could be right. So, I might always have the same philosophy, which means it might never change.

Other Person's Response: I heard you give up on your composing dream when you don't feel up to it. Maybe you just need some encouragement. Perhaps then you won't give up.

My Reply: Well, I'd need to feel encouraged to be encouraged, and that feeling would be a positive emotion. So, if I had no ability to feel positive emotions, and people gave encouraging support, none of that support could be encouraging for me, since I'd be unable to feel encouraged. Even if I did feel encouraged, I still need to feel the drive to pursue my composing because, without that drive, I'd give up composing.

Other Person's Response: Not only must you have the drive to pursue your composing dream, and experiment on an instrument, but you must also have the drive to create great music because, without that drive, then you'd just be creating ordinary, lame music through experimentation.

My Reply: Yes. Without the inspirational drive, then I'd perhaps just be creating music that amounts to nothing more than the ordinary types of compositions created by an average person. My music would express nothing profound, powerful, or amazing for the audience.

Other Person's Response: If god is saying that our purpose here is to love one another, then that contradicts Stoicism, which is a philosophy that treats all positive emotions, including love, as trivial, insignificant things of no importance.

My Reply: Yes. I think all positive feelings, including love, are divine and holy. But, Stoicism doesn't give them such treatment.

Other Person's Response: If a person was having a horrible experience, such as experiencing mental turmoil, then some spiritual believers would say such suffering needs to be eliminated, so that the person's positive feelings return. That would bring this person to a higher, spiritual vibration because, as long as that person is in a state of mental turmoil, then that's no way to live, and he's far away from god's holy light. But, if he recovers his joy, then his mind would be back in the realm of the light. Stoicism is a philosophy that would just say this person's mental suffering doesn't need to be eliminated, and that his joy doesn't need to be restored. Stoicism would simply say he just needs to carry on in life, and endure like a tough man or woman.

My Reply: Yes. Stoicism completely dismisses our inner experience, and instead focuses on just carrying on life, and attending to our responsibilities, regardless of how horrible of an experience we're having. But, like I said, life's all about our inner experience. Life's all about having those positive experiences (positive emotions).

Other Person's Response: I think even Buddhists say our mental suffering needs to be eliminated.

My Reply: Yes.

Other Person's Response: Isn't Stoicism the philosophy that Spock (a character from Star Trek) lives by?

My Reply: I think so. I'd be the opposite of Spock, since I live by a philosophy opposite of his.

Other Person's Response: Some people would say you're worthless, weak, and an utter, pathetic joke of a human being, given the weak philosophy you live by. But, if you end up pursuing your composing (once your feelings of joy return), and you produce some amazing, powerful, and profound compositions later on, I think these people would take back what they said. They might completely disregard your character weakness in favor of your amazing, composing talent. In other words, your compositions might be so awesome that your character weakness might no longer matter to these people anymore. Thus, they'll no longer call you worthless, or an utter, pathetic joke of a human being. Instead, they might hail you as a great, amazing, powerful, and profound individual/composer, regardless of your weak, shallow philosophy.

My Reply: Yes. I don't need to be a tough man who endures and never gives up during times of misery, suffering, or unhappiness to be hailed as a great, amazing, powerful, or profound individual/composer. There are other ways to achieve greatness.

Other Person's Response: Well, without positive feelings, greatness can no longer exist.

My Reply: That's right. But, I'm just saying there are other ways people can see me as a great person/composer, which means I don't need to live by a better philosophy to be seen as great.

Other Person's Response: Even if you do become a great composer who composes amazing music, your character weakness would still matter to some people. They might think such an amazing, composing talent should be accompanied by a much better philosophy because a great composer who lives by a weak, shallow philosophy just doesn't match up. Who knows, some people might think it's even more pathetic for someone with an amazing talent to live by a weak, shallow philosophy than someone who doesn't have such a talent.

My Reply: You might be right.

Other Person's Response: Do you have any brothers or sisters? If so, do they live by your philosophy?

My Reply: I have a brother who's 11 years younger than me. I'm 31 years old, and my brother will be turning 21 this February. Me and my brother are opposites. He talks a lot, is a bit annoying, loves to learn things, and I don't think he cares about positive feelings. I hardly talk at all because I just have no interest in having conversations, I'm not annoying, I have no interest in learning things (besides composing), and positive feelings are everything to me.

Other Person's Response: Well, you'd need to feel interested in learning how to compose to be interested, right?

My Reply: Yes.

Other Person's Response: Even though you don't talk much, you sure do write a lot!

My Reply: Yes. When it's something I need to share, I'll write a lot of material about it, and share it.

Other Person's Response: Does anyone else in your family live by your philosophy?

My Reply: No.

Other Person's Response: When it comes to learning how to compose, do you wish to learn everything you can about composing?

My Reply: I just wish to learn the things needed to produce the music I want to produce. I don't want to learn things that are unnecessary, such as music history.

Other Person's Response: If god is saying our purpose here is to love, then that means it would be better for someone to live in a vegetative, loving state, being unable to do anything for himself or humanity, than to achieve many goals in life without the ability to feel love.

My Reply: Yes. It's better for someone to live in a vegetative state, being blissed out on positive feelings, than to achieve many things in life without the ability to experience positive feelings.

Other Person's Response: People who commit suicide, and have near death experiences as a result of their suicide, report that their souls went to some dark, miserable afterlife, where they witnessed other souls stuck in grief and misery. These souls have been miserable during their Earthly existence, and have committed suicide. As a result, they're stuck in a miserable afterlife, where they're left to remain in grief and misery. Since grief and misery (negative emotions) keep souls stuck in this miserable afterlife, then that keeps them far away from the realm of the light (heaven). So, this says that negative emotions, such as grief and misery, are more than just natural feelings we experience. They're unholy poison that keep us away from god's holy light of joy, love, etc.

My Reply: Yes. The absolute worst dose of this unholy poison a person can get would be if he experienced the most profound, most intense horrible feeling.

Other Person's Response: I heard that suicide isn't the answer, and that souls would be trapped in a hellish afterlife if they commit suicide. This hellish afterlife would be a much worse experience than all the hell they've experienced during their Earthly existence.

 

[The Transcended Omniverse]

My Reply: That leaves them no way out of their problems. Either they live with their problems here on Earth, or they commit suicide and face a much bigger problem in a hellish afterlife. That means these people should try their best to have as many positive experiences as possible here on Earth, despite their hardships. But, what if they can't acquire much positive experiences throughout their lives? Should they be punished for ending their lives, just because they were living a **** life that offered them little to no positive experiences? I don't think so!

Life's all about the positive experiences (positive emotions), as I said earlier. So, if these people end their lives because they choose to no longer put up with a **** life that's hardly anything positive for them, then I think these people should instead be rewarded with a blissful, heavenly afterlife for having to put up with all the struggles they've had on Earth. Actually, the blissful, heavenly afterlife is where we should've remained all along, since that's the life that offers us the most profound, powerful, positive emotions.

Other Person's Response: If someone was living a wonderful, joyful life, but decided to commit suicide because he wanted his soul to go to heaven, so he could experience a much more powerful level of joy, then would his soul end up in a miserable, hellish afterlife?

My Reply: I'm not sure.

Other Person's Response: If someone was miserable, but died of a natural cause, would he still end up in a miserable, hellish afterlife?

My Reply: I'm not sure if it's just suicide that keeps you trapped in a hellish afterlife or not.

Other Person's Response: The strong survive and the weak perish. So, the very fact you're still alive today, despite all your miserable struggles, means you're strong, since you didn't commit suicide.

My Reply: Strength can be nothing good or beautiful without positive feelings though.

Other Person's Response: I heard that people, who commit suicide, and have a heavenly near death experience, report that they came back with a much better perspective. They learn that suicide is wrong, and that life's such a beautiful place, despite its hardships. I think god, and his angels, bestow this greater perspective upon the individual.

My Reply: It would be lovely if these people had this perspective bestowed upon them the moment they were born here on Earth. That way, they wouldn't have gone through their suicidal torment and misery in the first place, since having this perspective would've prevented them from being suicidal to begin with. The goal is to prevent as much misery and emotional turmoil as possible, and to have as much joy as possible. So, I think god, and his angels, have made the wrong move by giving these people this perspective at a later time, when they were suffering, and committing suicide.

Other Person's Response: I heard that suicide is wrong, and that it's an act of rebellion against god's purpose for us. Life is a precious gift given to us, and we've been assigned a duty. If people commit suicide, then they're penalized for it. Their souls remain in a miserable afterlife, where they roam lost and confused. This is what's been reported by many people who have near death experiences as a result of suicide attempts.

My Reply: Many people think their hardships here on Earth serve no good purpose, that they're pointless and unnecessary, and that life is being nothing but a cruel joke for them. Who wouldn't want to rebel against something like that? But, if their struggles weren't pointless and unnecessary, and they really did serve some grand, divine purpose, then how were they supposed to know that? Why should they be penalized if they didn't know any better? If a child did something wrong, and he didn't know it was wrong, he shouldn't be punished for it. So, if people commit suicide, and they thought it was the right thing to do, since they didn't know any better, then why should they be punished with a miserable afterlife?

Other Person's Response: It would be best if souls were granted a better perspective by god and his angels. That way, they wouldn't have committed suicide to begin with, which means they wouldn't have to be punished with a miserable afterlife. I heard that our souls reside in heaven, our true home, before arriving on Earth in a physical body. So, that means god, and his angels, could've bestowed this better perspective upon these souls before they were born into a physical body on Earth.

My Reply: I think they should've done so, and I don't understand why they didn't. Furthermore, if souls are punished with a miserable afterlife that lasts hundreds or thousands of years, then I personally think that would be very cruel and unjust. Even if those who committed suicide were already aware that god considers acts of suicide to be wrong, and even if they were knowingly acting in rebellion against god, I still don't think they should be punished for that long.

Other Person's Response: If souls were granted this better perspective since the beginning, then they wouldn't have thought their Earthly struggles were pointless, unnecessary, and nothing but a cruel joke.

My Reply: That's right.

Other Person's Response: If god punishes people for suicide with a miserable afterlife that lasts hundreds or thousands of years, then I'd find myself questioning whether god really is all-loving and perfect.

My Reply: I'd find myself questioning god as well.

Other Person's Response: I wouldn't imagine an all-loving, perfect god punishing those who commit suicide for hundreds or thousands of years with a miserable afterlife, and choosing to not rescue them from the darkness, since that would be an unjust form of punishment. So, god just might be putting on a stage. He might simply be evoking fear, when he really wouldn't deliver such an unjust punishment.

Since god doesn't want people to commit suicide, then he'll do what he needs to do in order to ensure that people don't commit suicide. Even if it means lying to people by telling them they'll be punished for hundreds or thousands of years. He'll even try to falsely convince people they'll be given this punishment by presenting to them other souls who appear miserable, lost in complete darkness, and say they've been trapped there for hundreds or thousands of years, when they really haven't.

My Reply: That would make god a liar, and I don't think god lies. But, if he's telling the truth, I don't think that would make him perfect and all-loving, since I don't think such a punishment would be just in the eyes of a perfect, all-loving, all-just god. So, either:

1.) God is lying, which wouldn't make him a perfect being, since a perfect being wouldn't lie (or would he)?

2.) God is telling the truth, which wouldn't make him perfect and all-loving.

3.) God is just a hallucination.

Since #1 and #2 wouldn't make him a perfect being, then #3 seems plausible.

Other Person's Response: If god is real, your soul meets him after your physical body dies, and he asks you in a stern voice: "I'm almighty god! How dare you question me?," then I bet you'd be questioning whether he really is perfect and all-loving, since a perfect, all-loving god wouldn't be giving you such an attitude.

My Reply: I agree.

Other Person's Response: I hear people report that they've experienced god's love during their heavenly near death experience, and it was definitely the unconditional love of a perfect, all-loving god.

My Reply: These people might be wrong then.

Other Person's Response: Many people, who have Christian-themed near death experiences, report that they've experienced the Christian god's love, and it was the unconditional love of a perfect, all-loving god. But, the Christian god condemns people to hell, and that wouldn't be an all-loving god. So, these people would be incorrect to say that the Christian god is all-loving.

My Reply: Yes, and the same thing applies to those who've experienced the love of a god who punishes people with a miserable afterlife that lasts hundreds or thousands of years because that wouldn't be an all-loving god either.

Other Person's Response: Are there some suicidal near death experiences where people report that god doesn't punish anyone who commits suicide?

My Reply: There might be. If there is, then that makes the situation confusing.

Other Person's Response: What about those who commit homicide? Are they punished with a miserable afterlife that lasts hundreds or thousands of years?

My Reply: I heard that they have a life review where they experience all the pain and suffering they've inflicted upon others, and that it only lasts for a temporary moment. But, it seems suicide is given the much greater punishment, since it's far worse to suffer for hundreds or thousands of years in a miserable afterlife than to experience a temporary moment of pain and suffering.

Other Person's Response: I've read there's no Divine punishment for the act of suicide. The individual may feel remorse that he's killed his own body and wasted an opportunity for learning, and he may have to face a similar situation in a future incarnation, so he perhaps chooses a different course of action. I suspect that the punishment of being miserable in a very dark place for hundreds or thousands of years is self-imposed. The person is so caught up in his own misery that he's closed off to all outside assistance. But, the accounts of after-death experiences of suicides vary considerably.

My Reply: When you say that souls are self-imposing their own miserable afterlife that lasts hundreds or thousands of years, this implies it was their own free will (their choice) to do so. But, if it was their choice to be there, then it's their choice to get out, and if someone had the choice to get out of a miserable place, then it wouldn't take him hundreds or thousands of years to do it. Therefore, I don't think it was their choice to be there, or get out. Lastly, here's a link which talks about souls being punished for suicide. You must scroll down to the Life After Life excerpt. There, you'll read about the punishment for suicide:

Near-Death Experiences & Suicide - The Formula for Creating Heaven on Earth

 

[The Transcended Omniverse]

Other Person's Response: I don't really think that the Creator is punishing someone. But, we're the ones who are punishing ourselves. Please try to understand that the Creator represents the absolute. Why would He punish someone, when we're all part of His creation? We're the ones who are punishing ourselves. Nevertheless, all good things come from Him. But, as long we keep following the pleasures of the flesh, we keep on suffering. Well, all these words come from my own life experience.

My Reply: If a scientist created beings, then I think he'd still punish these beings if they didn't follow his orders. So, I think god would still punish humans if they don't follow his orders.

Other Person's Response: If someone was suffering so badly that he ended his life, then he deserves god's healing. Not god's punishment.

My Reply: I agree.

Other Person's Response: You said earlier that god shouldn't punish those who commit suicide if they didn't know any better. But, parents should still punish children who do wrong things, but don't know they're wrong. This will ensure that the child doesn't do that misdeed ever again.

My Reply: It's unnecessary to punish the child the first time if he didn't know any better. The child doesn't deserve any punishment. But, if he does the misdeed again, then he should be punished, since he knows better.

Other Person's Response: So, if people do illegal activities that they didn't know were illegal, should they not be put in prison?

My Reply: They shouldn't be put in prison. They should be given a lie detector test to determine if they really didn't know they were illegal activities. If the results of the test say they did know they were illegal, then they should be put in prison. Otherwise, they shouldn't be put in prison.

Other Person's Response: According to your philosophy, nothing in this world is right or wrong, and it's all a matter of how we feel about things. So, god might feel that acts of suicide are wrong, while some people, who commit suicide, might feel it's right.

My Reply: Yes. Right and wrong are just feelings (value judgments). Right is a positive feeling, and wrong is a negative feeling.

Other Person's Response: Some people would say that apathy is worse than being in a horrible, miserable state, since people have no motivation when they're apathetic, while misery does motivate people to get the help they need, and it does motivate people to create works of art. According to your philosophy, apathy can't be worse than a horrible, miserable state, since horrible is worse than neutrality/apathy (neither good nor bad).

My Reply: Correct. There are the good feelings, the bad feelings, and then there's apathy. Good is better than neutral and bad, neutral is better than bad, but worse than good, while bad is worse than good and neutral. So, that's why bad feelings will always be worse than apathy.

When a person says apathy is worse than feeling bad, or that feeling bad is better than being apathetic, this would be treating better and worse as something outside one's own personal feelings. But, good, bad, better, worse, etc. is solely determined by how we feel.

So, if we feel bad, then that will always be worse than apathy, since it feels worse to feel bad than to feel apathetic. Since it feels better to feel good than to feel bad or apathetic, then feeling good will always be better than feeling bad or feeling apathetic.

Other Person's Response: So, according to you, feeling bad will always be worse of a life than feeling good or apathetic, and feeling good will always be the better life than feeling bad or apathetic?

My Reply: Yes.

Other Person's Response: Do you sometimes go outside your personal definition of better and worse when explaining things?

My Reply: Yes, and it would just be for the sake of convenience.

Other Person's Response: There's help out there. So, there's no excuse for suicide!

My Reply: There are people who try very hard to improve their lives. But, nothing seems to be working for them. These are known as treatment resistant patients, and they're people who remain suicidal, even with all the help out there. There are those people who are treatment resistant in terms of an illness, such as people who have clinical depression that doesn't respond well to treatment. Then there are those people who are treatment resistant in terms of suicidal tendencies.

Other Person's Response: I heard that those who commit suicide must come back to Earth, and endure their struggles all over again. So, it would be best for you to not commit suicide, since you'd have to come back to Earth in another body, and endure these miserable struggles all over again.

My Reply: Don't worry. I'm not going to commit suicide.

Other Person's Response: If people have struggles here on Earth, and they die of a natural cause, must they endure their struggles all over again? If not, then why must those who've committed suicide endure their struggles all over again?

My Reply: I'm not sure. Also, why can't god just have a person, who's committed suicide, continue where he last left off during his struggles, rather than having him go through his struggles all over again? That's like reading a book, getting to a certain page, and then having to read the entire book all over again. It's just pointless and unnecessary. So, if a person has gotten to a certain point of spiritual growth and development through his struggles, and committed suicide, he should continue where he last left off in his spiritual progress/journey, rather than having to start all over again.

Other Person's Response: You gave an example of how god is having people go through pointless, unnecessary things (such as a person, who's committed suicide, having to endure his struggles all over again). So, perhaps another example would be your miserable struggles. Maybe your miserable struggles were pointless and unnecessary, and god is just having you go through them anyway.

My Reply: You could be right.

Other Person's Response: People should do research into near death experiences to realize that god considers suicide wrong, and that all struggles and hardships really do serve a beautiful, grand, divine purpose.

My Reply: Not too many people are aware of the fact that they should do research. Not only that, there are people who don't have access to the internet or books, since there are poor people who live in other parts of the world.

Other Person's Response: In the near death experience research, there are many reports by those who've had suicidal near death experiences. They say their souls deeply regret their acts of suicide, and they realize it was the wrong thing to do. If you commit suicide, then your soul would just realize that it was the wrong thing to do. Furthermore, your soul might remain in a miserable afterlife for quite some time. So, it's best for you to not commit suicide.

My Reply: Like I said, I'm not going to commit suicide.

Other Person's Response: I'm just curious. Are there reports of people who say their souls learned that their Earthly struggles were pointless and unnecessary when they met god during their near death experience, and that they don't regret their acts of suicide?

My Reply: I'm not sure. I haven't read deep into the near death experience research to find out. But, for the most part, souls do learn that their Earthly struggles were necessary during a near death experience, and souls do often regret their acts of suicide.

Other Person's Response: I think having these miserable struggles gives you more compassion in regards to those who also have miserable struggles.

My Reply: I'm still the same person who doesn't care about humanity and all their suffering, even after all those miserable struggles I've had. I'm still that person who lives for himself and his own happiness. Even if I did acquire more compassion, I don't think acquiring said compassion would've been worth all that suffering. Besides, I could've acquired compassion a happy, healthy way, rather than through a pointless, miserable, unnecessary means that's only going to waste years of my life.

Other Person's Response: So, according to you, it would be better for someone to live in a vegetative state of bliss than going through the process of struggling, learning, and growing as an individual?

My Reply: Yes, since positive feelings are what are important here. If god's purpose for us is to go through this process of struggling, learning, and growing, then it would be better if that purpose was sacrificed for a life of vegetative bliss. But, the amount of bliss that can be achieved here on Earth doesn't compare to the bliss in heaven. So, instead of humanity living a life of vegetative bliss here on Earth, they should instead just be up in heaven, blissing away.

Other Person's Response: According to you, our divine purpose is to be blissful, which means god would be incorrect if he says our divine purpose is to struggle, learn, and grow.

My Reply: Yes. God is already saying our purpose here is to love. So, the best solution to achieve this purpose would be for all souls to remain in heaven, where they get to experience the most profound, intense feelings of love for eternity.

Other Person's Response: You still help your family when they need help, right? You don't just leave them to suffer, do you?

My Reply: I still help them. It's just that I'm not the type of person who lives to help humanity. I'm just the type of person who wants to have fun and enjoy his own life. That's the reason why I don't want to be a father and take care of a wife and child. It would be a lot of responsibility, and I'd have to dedicate my life to the duties of being a father.

Other Person's Response: I heard that your mother has money issues. Does she think her financial struggles are pointless and unnecessary? Does she think it would've been much better if god, or his angels, made money magically appear out of the sky for her?

My Reply: Yes. But, perhaps her struggles are necessary, she doesn't realize it, and her soul would realize the necessity of her struggles when she meets god. I know that my mother is already a compassionate, giving person. So, she doesn't need these struggles, since she's already acquired all the compassion and understanding she needs from having these struggles. What she needs now is money. Once she has a lot of money, she will give money to the poor, buy the things she needs, and the things I need.

 

[The Transcended Omniverse]

Other Person's Response: I know it seems like some struggles are plain pointless and unnecessary. But, god is perfect, which means he makes no mistakes. So, that means struggles can't be pointless and unnecessary, since god would be making a mistake by allowing someone to go through a pointless, unnecessary struggle. In other words, everything is all working in accordance to a grand, divine plan.

My Reply: What if god isn't perfect, makes unwise decisions, and does make mistakes? I could ask the same question in regards to the heavenly beings/angels. So, what if they did make a mistake by not healing my mind of all the misery I've been through? What if they are making a mistake when they choose not to make money magically appear out of the sky for my mother?

Other Person's Response: God, or his angels, could've disabled your ability to feel miserable, as well as all the other negative emotions that came with these miserable struggles of yours. That way, you would've never had these miserable struggles to begin with. So, perhaps they did make a mistake when they've chosen not to do so.

My Reply: I agree.

Other Person's Response: In regards to your miserable struggles, I think they were necessary, and you're just enraged at a false, cruel image of god who allows people, and animals, to go through pointless, unnecessary forms of suffering. I personally believe god is perfect and all-loving.

My Reply: I can only hope you're right then. When I look at all the suffering in this world, including the suffering of animals, I think they would've been much better off never having gone through such suffering. If I'm correct when I say they would've been much better off, then that would mean god is making a mistake by allowing such suffering, and he's not all-loving and perfect.

Other Person's Response: I personally think all humans, and animals, would be better off remaining in heaven, where they could never suffer, be abused, etc.

My Reply: I agree, and I've heard there's a heaven for humans, and a heaven for animals. Both humans and animals can have physical bodies in heaven. So, they wouldn't just be souls roaming around in heaven.

Other Person's Response: An act of suicide is like spitting in god's face, since it's throwing away this precious gift known as "life."

My Reply: Well, even though I'm not committing suicide, I'm already spitting in god's face, and throwing away this life, since my philosophy says that life's nothing good, beautiful, or precious without our positive feelings, and that we should just give up on our lives, goals, and dreams when we're miserable, apathetic, and don't feel up to them. As I said before, I don't have my positive feelings right now, which means this life, for me, is no longer the precious, beautiful gift it used to be for me in the past. Back then, I was happy, which made life an awesome, beautiful place for me.

Other Person's Response: When you say people should give up on their lives, do you mean they should commit suicide?

My Reply: No. If someone was, for example, apathetic, I'd just tell him it's pointless for him to live life to the fullest, and that he might as well just lay in bed, doing nothing. Of course, he can still brush his teeth, take a shower, get the help he needs to restore his emotional drive, etc. But, other than that, he should just lay in bed. Going on an adventure, achieving big goals, etc. should, therefore, be postponed until he has the emotional drive to do these things.

Other Person's Response: You don't think depressed people should be punished at all for committing suicide, even if they knew suicide was wrong in god's eyes, and even if they knew their struggles really did serve some grand purpose?

My Reply: Correct.

Other Person's Response: If you lose your positive feelings, and you can't sufficiently recover them, no matter how hard you try, then that would put you in a position where you'd need to upgrade to Stoicism. But, if you're utterly incapable of upgrading to this better philosophy, then that puts you in a hopeless predicament. Life would be presenting you a challenge you can never succeed in. So, it would be better if life was a blissful utopia world for you. That way, you could be happy all you want, and wouldn't have to worry about facing the impossible challenge of having to upgrade to Stoicism.

My Reply: I agree. So, the question is, if god and his angels do exist, then why would they give me this impossible challenge? Why can't they just allow me to live in heaven, where I can be happy all I want, and get whatever I desire? Personally, I think my philosophy can never change to a better one, no matter how hard I try to change it. So, let's pretend I was in that hopeless predicament you described, and I decided to commit suicide, since nothing was working to change my life for the better, then god shouldn't punish me for my act of suicide. He should understand that nothing was working for me. My act of suicide wouldn't have been the foolish choice here. God's choice of having me born into this life of hardship would've been the foolish choice.

Other Person's Response: Even if you're incapable of upgrading to a better philosophy, I think there's a way to sufficiently restore your positive feelings if you ever lose them. So, you don't have to worry.

My Reply: Well, there are people who have mental illnesses, such as chronic, clinical depression and anhedonia, which renders them with a complete absence of positive feelings. No matter what treatments they try, nothing seems to sufficiently restore their positive feelings. Who knows, I could end up becoming one of those people, which means I could develop such a mental illness someday.

Other Person's Response: If you do lose your positive emotions, due to a mental illness, but do manage to sufficiently restore your positive emotions, you still wouldn't have the full capacity to feel positive emotions. So, what would you do in the meantime during moments where you can't feel any drive to pursue your goals, dreams, and hobbies?

My Reply: I'd have to give up on my goals, dreams, and hobbies until I can feel the drive to pursue them again.

Other Person's Response: I heard from spiritual believers that life is supposed to be difficult, and that it's supposed to be a challenge, since our souls learn and grow through hardships.

My Reply: But, why have souls face challenges that are impossible? If I'm incapable of developing a better philosophy, then I'd be presented with an impossible challenge if I was in the hopeless predicament mentioned earlier.

Other Person's Response: If you never develop a better philosophy, do you think it's possible that you can, at least, have power and control over your emotions, so that they don't have to dominate you?

My Reply: I'm not sure. I know there are people who don't wallow in physical pain, since they have much power over it. So, it's possible for me to develop such power as well.

Other Person's Response: If a person has power over his physical pain, and his painful emotions, doesn't that make his pain less painful?

My Reply: I'd imagine so. When pain dominates over someone, I'd imagine that to be a more painful experience. So, it's possible that, if I develop power over my emotions, that any horrible feeling I experience would be less horrible. Sure, that horrible feeling would still be a horrible experience for me. But, at least, it wouldn't be as horrible.

Other Person's Response: I heard that you felt violently enraged much of the time during all your miserable struggles. Yet, you've never acted out on a single one of these enraged feelings, which means you've never harmed yourself or anyone else. That shows you already have power and control over your emotions.

My Reply: But, during these struggles, I'm not doing well on the inside, and I give up on my hobbies, since I feel the rage to give up on them, and I can't enjoy them. So, just because I appear normal and in control on the outside doesn't mean I'm not being dominated and controlled by my negative emotions on the inside. Neither does it mean I'm alright on the inside.

Other Person's Response: Yes, life's a *****, and it's not a happy place to be. But, struggling people should endure and persevere. It would be selfish, weak, and cowardly of them to end their lives.

My Reply: Well, it's their lives and their decision. They decide if they wish to end their lives or not. If they decide to end their lives, since no treatment seems to be helping them that much, then they're entitled to that decision. They shouldn't have to continue on living like this, just because it would cause others grief if they committed suicide. They also shouldn't have to listen or put up with the opinions of those who'd say suicide is a selfish, weak, cowardly act.

Instead, it's all about the experience these miserable, unhappy, clinically depressed people are having in their lives. If they're having little to no positive experiences in their lives, then it doesn't matter how selfish, weak, and cowardly suicide is. Not having positive experiences is no way to live anyway, and I think it's justified if these people end their lives. I think they should get help first. But, if nothing seems to be working that much, then they're free to end their lives.

Other Person's Response: I heard you're having an absence of positive emotions right now. Are you going to end your life?

My Reply: No. I notice I'm recovering on my own from this emotional crisis I've recently had, and I think I'll have my joy back to me again sometime soon.

Other Person's Response: There are spiritual believers who say that our souls have chosen this Earthly life of hardship for the purpose of learning and growing, and that we've signed a contract for this before our souls arrived in a physical body here on Earth. If we commit suicide, then we have to reincarnate and endure those hardships all over again, since we've signed that contract. So, suicide is no escape from our struggles.

My Reply: Why does it have to be a contract where the person is forced to come back to Earth and endure his struggles all over again? Why can't it just be a choice where the person isn't forced to come back if he doesn't want to?

Other Person’s Response: If souls didn’t have to sign a contract, then that means they could choose to freely go to and exit their Earthly lives as they please. It would mean god, and his angels, wouldn’t be disappointed if people committed suicide because it was their decision that they didn’t want to endure any more Earthly struggles. But, since souls have signed a contract, then that puts souls in a position where god, and his angels, would frown upon them if they committed suicide, they’d be punished for their act of suicide, and they’d have to return to Earth to endure their struggles all over again.

My Reply: That’s why I don’t think it’s necessary for this to be a contract. God, and his angels, have the power to make the rules any way they want them to be. That means they could’ve made the rules of there being no contract, and no individual being frowned upon, punished, or forced to return to Earth after committing suicide.