How do we know we know?

[idiotsavant]

If you providing your testimony that you do things for the sake of emotions is evidence that every decision ever made was for the sake of emotions, then my testimony that I make several decisions without any thing to do with emotions is equally valid to show that not all decisions are made for the sake of emotions.

Agreed, but I’m not suggesting my testimony is proof. (That would be another of your assumptions)  In fact, I’m not trying to prove anything; quite the contrary - I’m trying to get you to look past your biased assumptions

There is no explanation for why people don't like the taste of things or why people like the taste of things.  I don't do things for emotional needs or desires. I don't have emotional needs...

and look deeper, to your core.  Your resistance became obvious when you refused to use dictionary definitions for the word “like”, stating that your personal colloquial definition was adequate, diluting the meaning of the word to avoid any reference to emotion.

My friends called me Mr Spock in the days enjoyed the feeling of power and control that comes from living by logic. But I began to suspect that logic wasn’t king when I noticed that my arachnophobia causes me to jump or strike before “I” know why, and although in retrospect “I” might agree with the action, “I” didn’t make the decision...  The idea that logic is king is an illusion.
 
The waiter places a plate of savory food on your table as he says,  â€œEnjoy”.  Do you respond with, “Thanks for the thought, but I don’t enjoy food.”?

Peace - I/s

[i_am_i]

If you providing your testimony that you do things for the sake of emotions is evidence that every decision ever made was for the sake of emotions, then my testimony that I make several decisions without any thing to do with emotions is equally valid to show that not all decisions are made for the sake of emotions.

Agreed, but I’m not suggesting my testimony is proof. (That would be another of your assumptions)  In fact, I’m not trying to prove anything; quite the contrary - I’m trying to get you to look past your biased assumptions

Oh brother. "Biased assumptions" indeed. You definitely come across as being willing to look past your own biased assumptions.

In spite of what you say about not trying to prove anything you have, indeed, proved something with all this. What you've proved is that your decisions are based on your emotions. And good luck with that!

Make that two things you've proved. The second thing you've proved is that you just can't, or won't, consider for one second that everyone isn't exactly like you. And good luck with that as well!

Make that three things you've proved. You seem to have some sort of hang-up about cream cheese. I'm guessing that it's emotional. After all, you're  a very emotional person, bless your tender little heart.

[Davin]

If you providing your testimony that you do things for the sake of emotions is evidence that every decision ever made was for the sake of emotions, then my testimony that I make several decisions without any thing to do with emotions is equally valid to show that not all decisions are made for the sake of emotions.

Agreed, but I’m not suggesting my testimony is proof. (That would be another of your assumptions)  In fact, I’m not trying to prove anything; quite the contrary - I’m trying to get you to look past your biased assumptions

You provided several examples of why you do things for emotions, I don't see how me saying that you providing examples of why your decisions are for emotions is an assumption on my part that you're providing testimony that you do everything for the sake of an emotional need or desire. You assuming that I have biased assumptions is an ironic statement.

There is no explanation for why people don't like the taste of things or why people like the taste of things.  I don't do things for emotional needs or desires. I don't have emotional needs...

and look deeper, to your core.  Your resistance became obvious when you refused to use dictionary definitions for the word “like”, stating that your personal colloquial definition was adequate, diluting the meaning of the word to avoid any reference to emotion.

I avoid the emotional terms because I don't do everything for the sake of an emotional need or desire. If you want to argue against how you use the word against how I use the word then I'm not really for that, but if you want to argue my ideas based on how I express what I mean by the words I use then I'm interested.

My friends called me Mr Spock in the days enjoyed the feeling of power and control that comes from living by logic. But I began to suspect that logic wasn’t king when I noticed that my arachnophobia causes me to jump or strike before “I” know why, and although in retrospect “I” might agree with the action, “I” didn’t make the decision...  The idea that logic is king is an illusion.

What does this have to do with the conversation?

The waiter places a plate of savory food on your table as he says,  â€œEnjoy”.  Do you respond with, “Thanks for the thought, but I don’t enjoy food.”?

I will take it like the people that say "Hi, how are you?" when I walk into a store, they likely don't really care how I'm doing, they're just instructed to ask that. I don't see what this has to do with anything we're talking about. My position isn't that I don't do anything for the sake of an emotional need or desire, it's that we don't make every decision for an emotional need or desire. It seems however that you're arguing against the former position that I clearly said, at least three times now, is not the position I hold.

[Davin]

If you providing your testimony that you do things for the sake of emotions is evidence that every decision ever made was for the sake of emotions, then my testimony that I make several decisions without any thing to do with emotions is equally valid to show that not all decisions are made for the sake of emotions.

Agreed, but I’m not suggesting my testimony is proof. (That would be another of your assumptions)  In fact, I’m not trying to prove anything; quite the contrary - I’m trying to get you to look past your biased assumptions

Oh brother. "Biased assumptions" indeed. You definitely come across as being willing to look past your own biased assumptions.

In spite of what you say about not trying to prove anything you have, indeed, proved something with all this. What you've proved is that your decisions are based on your emotions. And good luck with that!

Make that two things you've proved. The second thing you've proved is that you just can't, or won't, consider for one second that everyone isn't exactly like you. And good luck with that as well!

Make that three things you've proved. You seem to have some sort of hang-up about cream cheese. I'm guessing that it's emotional. After all, you're  a very emotional person, bless your tender little heart.

No one expects the Spanish Inquisition! There are three things... make that four things! Let's start all over.

[wildfire_emissary]

Tank wrote:
Well that is one suggestion. I just wanted to check that's what wildfire_emissary meant

JillSwift said what I meant with booger. Thanks. I was just toying with categorical syllogisms and the idea of being emotional at my decision to look at boogers which is highly incoherent. I mean, how can looking at boogers have any emotional value?

[idiotsavant]

I weary of this banter.  Let’s try a different tack - What do you people know of Jung’s Shadow self?

Peace - I/s

p.s.

...my decision to look at boogers,,,

You choose to look at boogers?  Why would you do that?

[Tank]

I weary of this banter.  Let’s try a different tack - What do you people know of Jung’s Shadow self?

Peace - I/s

p.s.

...my decision to look at boogers,,,

You choose to look at boogers?  Why would you do that?

Incorrect quote attribution.

[pinkocommie]

I weary of this banter.  Let’s try a different tack - What do you people know of Jung’s Shadow self??

Is it just me or does this seem...I don't know, rude?  Davin and others have been respectfully arguing idiot's position that every decision everyone makes is done because of emotional responses, and so instead of admitting that he is wrong (which he obviously is) idiot declares that he's 'grown weary of this banter' and decides to change the subject?  Ugh.  I don't know, maybe I'm just being rubbed the wrong way, but that seems pretty lame-o to me.

[Tank]

I weary of this banter.  Let’s try a different tack - What do you people know of Jung’s Shadow self??

Is it just me or does this seem...I don't know, rude?  Davin and others have been respectfully arguing idiot's position that every decision everyone makes is done because of emotional responses, and so instead of admitting that he is wrong (which he obviously is) idiot declares that he's 'grown weary of this banter' and decides to change the subject?  Ugh.  I don't know, maybe I'm just being rubbed the wrong way, but that seems pretty lame-o to me.

Sounds like a rather disingenuous tactic to me too.

[Davin]

I weary of this banter.  Let’s try a different tack - What do you people know of Jung’s Shadow self?

It doesn't matter if I know about concept X as long as you understand and can explain concept X. But yes I'm familiar with this and lot's of other psychological concepts (I do heavily refrain from using the word theory to describe most of them because, most can't predict anything useful and/or accurately).

You said you're weary of this banter, then why not just get to the meat and potatoes? By asking your question, it doesn't matter if I say yes or no, you've just wasted an entire post and time by asking your question instead of just getting to the point.

[idiotsavant]

Not the first time I’ve rubbed you wrong pc, and for the same reason. “I’m just a soul who’s intentions are good, Oh lord, please don’t let me be misunderstood.” ~ The Animals.  I suggested we change tack, not subject...  But it’s okay, the onus is mine.  I wise lady once told me:

Sincerity doesn't translate well on the internet...

So then, here’s my conundrum:  I can give you valid emotional reasons for all my decisions, but  my motivations are not universal.  I can tell you that I choose to look at boogers to: a) Gross out my grandchildren. (joy of laughter / species survival / fear of death)  b) Be grossed out by my grandchildren. (joy of laughter / species survival / fear of death)  c) Check on my general health. (fear of death / species survival)  d) Clean said booger from whatever.  (see general health)  e) Curiosity (joy of discovery).

I can tell you MY reasons all day long, but I can’t tell you your reasons, so I ask.  So far your answers have been shallow and defensive.  I see Davins’ claims:

There is no explanation for why people don't like the taste of things or why people like the taste of things. I don't do things for emotional needs or desires. I don't have emotional needs...

as barrier assumptions.  Unconsciously designed to prevent awareness of his Shadow Self.

In Jung’s postulation, the shadow is everything in us that is unconscious, repressed, undeveloped and denied. As developing children negative reactions to our expressions of self caused us to judge those expressions as bad, so we divorce them. But it’s a separation, not a divorce.  Our shadow is in the background, pulling strings, manipulating our perceptions.  I believe this is the source of our hypocrisies (e.g. My arrogant parents insisted that arrogance was wrong).

“The psychological rule says that when an inner situation is not made conscious, it happens outside as fate. That is to say, when the individual remains undivided and does not become conscious of his inner opposite, the world must perforce act out the conflict and be torn into opposing halves.” ~ DR. CARL GUSTAV JUNG

Neo of The Matrix reconciled his shadow.  Dr Jekyll did not.

So I’m asking you all to look for your shadow.  Find your deep.  Live out loud.  You may ask why you should care about the shadow.  I would ask why you would want to live according to the judgments of others.  â€œWelcome to the Machine” ~ Pink Floyd.

Peace - I/s

[Davin]

Not the first time I’ve rubbed you wrong pc, and for the same reason. “I’m just a soul who’s intentions are good, Oh lord, please don’t let me be misunderstood.” ~ The Animals.  I suggested we change tack, not subject...  But it’s okay, the onus is mine.  I wise lady once told me:

Sincerity doesn't translate well on the internet...

So then, here’s my conundrum:  I can give you valid emotional reasons for all my decisions, but  my motivations are not universal.  I can tell you that I choose to look at boogers to: a) Gross out my grandchildren. (joy of laughter / species survival / fear of death)  b) Be grossed out by my grandchildren. (joy of laughter / species survival / fear of death)  c) Check on my general health. (fear of death / species survival)  d) Clean said booger from whatever.  (see general health)  e) Curiosity (joy of discovery).

I can tell you MY reasons all day long, but I can’t tell you your reasons, so I ask.  So far your answers have been shallow and defensive.  I see Davins’ claims:

There is no explanation for why people don't like the taste of things or why people like the taste of things. I don't do things for emotional needs or desires. I don't have emotional needs...

as barrier assumptions.  Unconsciously designed to prevent awareness of his Shadow Self.

In Jung’s postulation, the shadow is everything in us that is unconscious, repressed, undeveloped and denied. As developing children negative reactions to our expressions of self caused us to judge those expressions as bad, so we divorce them. But it’s a separation, not a divorce.  Our shadow is in the background, pulling strings, manipulating our perceptions.  I believe this is the source of our hypocrisies (e.g. My arrogant parents insisted that arrogance was wrong).

“The psychological rule says that when an inner situation is not made conscious, it happens outside as fate. That is to say, when the individual remains undivided and does not become conscious of his inner opposite, the world must perforce act out the conflict and be torn into opposing halves.” ~ DR. CARL GUSTAV JUNG

Neo of The Matrix reconciled his shadow.  Dr Jekyll did not.

So I’m asking you all to look for your shadow.  Find your deep.  Live out loud.  You may ask why you should care about the shadow.  I would ask why you would want to live according to the judgments of others.  â€œWelcome to the Machine” ~ Pink Floyd.

Awesome, using a concept that has no solid evidence for it as your basis of an argument. That still makes the argument baseless.

How is "species survival" an emotion?

Also, please explain this currently unexplained reason why people have preferences and how everyone's preferences are related to emotions. Please make sure it covers:
Why people choose to write with their left hand instead of their right hand or vice versa.
Why people choose to cross their legs.
Why people use the mouse to copy and paste instead of the keyboard or vice versa.
Why people choose to put socks on the left foot first or the right foot first.
Why people like red apples over yellow or green apples and how it's emotional.

[i_am_i]

So I’m asking you all to look for your shadow.  Find your deep.  Live out loud.  You may ask why you should care about the shadow.  I would ask why you would want to live according to the judgments of others.

How does not caring about this shadow of yours mean that one wants to live according to the judgments of others?

(Cue haughty response.)

[pinkocommie]

Idiot - what exactly has anyone said that has been shallow or defensive?  You seem pretty fond of making sweeping, slightly insulting generalizations without providing examples.  Is that quote from Davin supposed to be an example because it seems like he's doing the exact same thing you are - explaining how/why he reacts to things.  You might read it and 'see' something else, but that isn't Davin being shallow or defensive, it's you reading into something (that a stranger wrote on the internet) and deciding Davin can't possibly be telling you the same level of truth you've been telling.

Since you've assumed from the get go that Davin is (consciously or unconsciously) being dishonest, I think it's only fair that you be put in the same position.  Especially since, after 9 pages of this ridiculous conversation, Davin has done nothing to make anyone assume he's being disingenuous, whereas you - well, you might 'grow wary of this tack' at any time and try to steer the conversation in a new direction once questions are posed to you that you can't answer without conceding that not every action has an emotional reason behind it.  

[idiotsavant]

How is "species survival" an emotion?

Good question.  Individual survival is actually an action motivated by fear of death or harm.  Species survival is motivated by love of offspring, siblings, parents, tribe, etc., coupled with fear of death or harm to loved ones.  We should probably add empathy, sympathy and compassion to the mix.

How does not caring about this shadow of yours mean that one wants to live according to the judgments of others?  (Cue haughty response.)

lol... My  resentful mother  judged my physical and emotional wants and needs unworthy of her attention.  I accepted her judgment and believed it mine, hiding my needs and desires from her and eventually from myself. But as I said earlier, it was a separation, not a divorce, and my denied self lives on in the shadow of my constructed public self.  When this Shadow Judgment rules my relationships it creates a lopsided synergy that can be counterproductive, even destructive.

Jung declared that all of us have Shadow Selves.  I think he’s right.

I’ve tagged my Shadow a time or two, but he’s still here with me, so I agree with pc:

...Since you've assumed from the get go that Davin is (consciously or unconsciously) being dishonest, I think it's only fair that you be put in the same position.

I’ve more examples of shadow tag, but propensity will not sway you.  Our shadow personality is like the Matrix - “...no one can be told what the Matrix is, you have to experience it for yourself.” ~ Morpheus.

Which is why

...the argument (is) baseless.

and why I’m not trying to prove it.  I'm just a guy who found something valuable he’d like to share.  

And I agree with

...it seems like he's doing the exact same thing you are - explaining how/why he reacts to things.

He is.  I am.

Also, please explain ... how everyone's preferences are related to emotions. ...

You continue to insist I prove something I’ve told you I cannot.  After all,

I can tell you MY reasons all day long, but I can’t tell you your reasons...

and if I can’t tell you your reasons, then I certainly can’t prove your reasons.  That fact alone derails any argument.

Idiot - what exactly has anyone said that has been shallow or defensive?  ...You seem pretty fond of making sweeping, slightly insulting generalizations without providing examples.

Theses statements were my examples:

There is no explanation for why people don't like the taste of things or why people like the taste of things. I don't do things for emotional needs or desires. I don't have emotional needs...

And we should add his avoidance of dictionary definitions for the word “like” - stating that his personal colloquial definition was adequate, diluting the meaning of the word to avoid any reference to emotion.  (Isn’t “personal colloquial” an oxymoron?)  Our Shadows were birthed in pain and fear, they always defend themselves...  I’m not exempt, so I see no insult.  Do you feel insulted Davin?

...deciding Davin can't possibly be telling you the same level of truth you've been telling.

Level of truth...  Interesting.  I’m confident that Davin, like me, is speaking all the truth he knows.  When it comes to the Shadow realm, I’ve experienced things he hasn’t. So I know things he doesn’t.  Davin, on the other hand, has experience things I haven’t.  So he knows things I don’t.  Ignorance is the common state of man...  I prefer “arena of understanding”.

...you might 'grow wary of this tack' at any time and try to steer the conversation in a new direction

I didn’t grow wary, I grew weary.  And I don’t see how changing tack is changing direction, I simply hoped a new approach would help us reach an understanding.  Have I changed the subject?  (Think OP)

...once questions are posed to you that you can't answer without conceding that not every action has an emotional reason behind it.

I already stated I cannot not prove this, but does my inability to prove the statement make it false?

And if this post is

...9 pages of ridiculous conversation...

why are you still here?

Peace - I/s