Excellent article ! I think most shrews could distinguish between legitimate gut reactions to an issue / person versus an unconscious feeling bubbling up. Most sheep seem guided by their feelings ( those feelings delivered as statements almost always originating with someone else ) feeling free to portray them as “ facts “. I will listen to the gut instincts of our dogs , a number of whom have guided me away from some unsavoury folks .
Dogs run almost entirely on gut feelings, cats too, and probably squirrels. They do learn things, of course, and they can be manipulated, but I think their operating systems are radically different than humans. Probably because they don't have language like we do. They don't interpret based on words and reading...only minimally.
If I’d have trusted my gut better when I was younger I wouldn’t have married my first two husbands; my second marriage was a complete disaster. I should have used the same discernment I judge just about everybody by because pretty much it’s always served me well. I’ve never followed the crowd so maybe I’m just contrary. I admire that Trump is as blunt as he is because I have no patience with kissing up to people. I think it’s very effective in business, but is he like that personally? It’s not important because he’s my president, not my husband. My cat Calvin likes him too.
We should all get a "get out of jail free" card when it comes to relationships. We are not clear headed when we fall in love. That's the wisdom in no premarital sex, and long engagements (although back in the day it was less likely to run into lunatics—I know that's debatable, but it is my present opinion that we, as a culture, have disintegrated more than not).
Your first sentence - in my opinion - summarizes it all. We need to know the source of our "feelings". The origin of our feelings when when it is someone who "feels" nice, or some celebrity with charisma, or some media propaganda that is designed to make us "feel good", is probably not trustworthy. Many times, we "instinctively" know - for example - that doing something is a wrong, or right decision. The source of that "feeling" is usually our contact with some deeper, more fundamental principle or belief. This type of "feeling" or intuition will usually not contradict our basic common sense or reason. It may not be easy to tell the two situations apart, but I believe this is how you decide whether or not to "trust your feelings".
Right on my friend...well said. I keep referring back to Emerson's "Self-Reliance"...yes, it is important to listen to the voice inside, it does know what is "right"...but there is a lot that can twist and obscure the fidelity of that voice...fear, power, enticements of the flesh (instant gratification), evil...we must work hard to remain conscious.
There are many forces that can override our natural instincts and our innate sense of what is right. The ego is one of the most significant, but it rarely acts alone.
In Jungian psychology, the ego is the center of consciousness — it is the “I” that thinks, decides, and identifies with our waking personality. Because of this, we often experience the ego as the one making choices and overriding instinct. However, the ego is frequently influenced or even hijacked by unconscious complexes — emotionally charged clusters of ideas, memories, and feelings that operate below the surface of awareness.
These unconscious complexes can subtly (or dramatically) convince the ego to behave in ways that go against deeper instincts, intuition, or moral knowing. So while it appears that the ego is overriding instinct, the root cause is often unconscious. The ego becomes the visible executor, but the real driving force may be coming from the personal or collective unconscious.
In short: the ego is the conscious actor, but it is not always the true author of our behavior.
I remember some of my psychology studies of Jungian principles. I agree we often act unconsciously with various reasons for this. I feel that many people don't put so much thought into the 'why' they do or don't do things.
Yes! Of course, I am familiar with Emerson, but obviously not nearly as well-versed as you are about the guy. I am more versed about the writings of a guy named Valentin Tomberg. He was an Estonian mystic-esotericist who lived during the first 2/3 of the 20th century. He wrote a book titled "Personal Certainty" in which he treats this subject.
I'll have to check him out. I am by no means an Emerson scholar (I have to check every time if he has one or two "m"s in his name). But I do know the "Self-Reliance" essay rather well.
Ambrose Bierce described the Presidency as "The greased pig in the field game of American politics." and a Politician as "An eel in the fundamental mud upon which the superstructure of organized society is reared." If one keeps both these descriptions in mind, the political world and its inhabitants remain simply a curious stage play.
Good morning shrews! I have never understood the over-the-top admiration for celebrities or sports figures. We are presented with what they want us to see and who knows who they really are underneath all that polish and glitz. The one thing I do admire (mostly) about Trump is he doesn't hold much back and yes, sometimes that backfires badly. However, I would rather have some bluntness than make-believe behaviour that we saw with Biden/Harris and of course, now with Carney. They have perfected the 'agreeable, I'm open to all ideas" bullshit that so many suck up as if it is real. I seriously think too many people prefer fake over real.
Totally with you on this. I have never understood that blind obsession with celebrities and sports figures either. In fact, it has always made me uncomfortable...I think it is weird.
And I agree about Trump. He used to really bother me, but for some odd reason now he doesn't. I don't agree with a lot he does, but truthfully I don't really care anymore. The world at that level (leaders, economies, trade, wars) is all f--ked up as far as I am concerned...and there is little we can do about it except live our lives according to the standards of love...obviously if we ALL did that, there wouldn't be this insane system controlling the whole thing, the locus of control would be the individual, not the money/power holders.
HA! My cat comment was ill placed, I should have said most cat OWNERS were liberal. Most, not all!! I love cats myself, but I have dogs. When I get too ancient to take care of a dog, I may go back to having cats.
Oh no, rude buzzer on that cat comment! Everyone in my family is a staunch conservative and we all have cats. And we all love Trump. We have nothing against dogs and have had them in the past, but we are cat people now. Come to think of it most of my conservative Trump supporting friends are cat people too. Maybe things are different in Canada?
HA HA!!!! I STAND CORRECTED!!! Seriously, I was making a joke! I really have nothing to base my comment on other than my super liberal sister loving cats! So I take it back, most cats are not liberal...in fact, the cats I know are rather apolitical...only concerned about themselves...
Hah! I don’t know much about any animals. I have said elsewhere that I do not have any aversion whatsoever towards any animal; neither am I an "animal lover". I am kind of neutral toward them. But, with my limited understanding about their nature, my impression is that dogs are a little bit more like sheep, and cats are more like shrews.
Excellent article ! I think most shrews could distinguish between legitimate gut reactions to an issue / person versus an unconscious feeling bubbling up. Most sheep seem guided by their feelings ( those feelings delivered as statements almost always originating with someone else ) feeling free to portray them as “ facts “. I will listen to the gut instincts of our dogs , a number of whom have guided me away from some unsavoury folks .
Dogs run almost entirely on gut feelings, cats too, and probably squirrels. They do learn things, of course, and they can be manipulated, but I think their operating systems are radically different than humans. Probably because they don't have language like we do. They don't interpret based on words and reading...only minimally.
If I’d have trusted my gut better when I was younger I wouldn’t have married my first two husbands; my second marriage was a complete disaster. I should have used the same discernment I judge just about everybody by because pretty much it’s always served me well. I’ve never followed the crowd so maybe I’m just contrary. I admire that Trump is as blunt as he is because I have no patience with kissing up to people. I think it’s very effective in business, but is he like that personally? It’s not important because he’s my president, not my husband. My cat Calvin likes him too.
I chuckle that Calvin likes him too. :) Yes, I don't do well with the kissing up to people either.
We should all get a "get out of jail free" card when it comes to relationships. We are not clear headed when we fall in love. That's the wisdom in no premarital sex, and long engagements (although back in the day it was less likely to run into lunatics—I know that's debatable, but it is my present opinion that we, as a culture, have disintegrated more than not).
Your first sentence - in my opinion - summarizes it all. We need to know the source of our "feelings". The origin of our feelings when when it is someone who "feels" nice, or some celebrity with charisma, or some media propaganda that is designed to make us "feel good", is probably not trustworthy. Many times, we "instinctively" know - for example - that doing something is a wrong, or right decision. The source of that "feeling" is usually our contact with some deeper, more fundamental principle or belief. This type of "feeling" or intuition will usually not contradict our basic common sense or reason. It may not be easy to tell the two situations apart, but I believe this is how you decide whether or not to "trust your feelings".
Right on my friend...well said. I keep referring back to Emerson's "Self-Reliance"...yes, it is important to listen to the voice inside, it does know what is "right"...but there is a lot that can twist and obscure the fidelity of that voice...fear, power, enticements of the flesh (instant gratification), evil...we must work hard to remain conscious.
And not let ego override our instinct.
There are many forces that can override our natural instincts and our innate sense of what is right. The ego is one of the most significant, but it rarely acts alone.
In Jungian psychology, the ego is the center of consciousness — it is the “I” that thinks, decides, and identifies with our waking personality. Because of this, we often experience the ego as the one making choices and overriding instinct. However, the ego is frequently influenced or even hijacked by unconscious complexes — emotionally charged clusters of ideas, memories, and feelings that operate below the surface of awareness.
These unconscious complexes can subtly (or dramatically) convince the ego to behave in ways that go against deeper instincts, intuition, or moral knowing. So while it appears that the ego is overriding instinct, the root cause is often unconscious. The ego becomes the visible executor, but the real driving force may be coming from the personal or collective unconscious.
In short: the ego is the conscious actor, but it is not always the true author of our behavior.
I remember some of my psychology studies of Jungian principles. I agree we often act unconsciously with various reasons for this. I feel that many people don't put so much thought into the 'why' they do or don't do things.
Yes! Of course, I am familiar with Emerson, but obviously not nearly as well-versed as you are about the guy. I am more versed about the writings of a guy named Valentin Tomberg. He was an Estonian mystic-esotericist who lived during the first 2/3 of the 20th century. He wrote a book titled "Personal Certainty" in which he treats this subject.
I'll have to check him out. I am by no means an Emerson scholar (I have to check every time if he has one or two "m"s in his name). But I do know the "Self-Reliance" essay rather well.
Ambrose Bierce described the Presidency as "The greased pig in the field game of American politics." and a Politician as "An eel in the fundamental mud upon which the superstructure of organized society is reared." If one keeps both these descriptions in mind, the political world and its inhabitants remain simply a curious stage play.
Absolutely...well said..."a curious stage play."
Good morning shrews! I have never understood the over-the-top admiration for celebrities or sports figures. We are presented with what they want us to see and who knows who they really are underneath all that polish and glitz. The one thing I do admire (mostly) about Trump is he doesn't hold much back and yes, sometimes that backfires badly. However, I would rather have some bluntness than make-believe behaviour that we saw with Biden/Harris and of course, now with Carney. They have perfected the 'agreeable, I'm open to all ideas" bullshit that so many suck up as if it is real. I seriously think too many people prefer fake over real.
Totally with you on this. I have never understood that blind obsession with celebrities and sports figures either. In fact, it has always made me uncomfortable...I think it is weird.
And I agree about Trump. He used to really bother me, but for some odd reason now he doesn't. I don't agree with a lot he does, but truthfully I don't really care anymore. The world at that level (leaders, economies, trade, wars) is all f--ked up as far as I am concerned...and there is little we can do about it except live our lives according to the standards of love...obviously if we ALL did that, there wouldn't be this insane system controlling the whole thing, the locus of control would be the individual, not the money/power holders.
This saying is still true: Bullshit baffles brains.
FYI, my cat is not a liberal, he is a political atheist like Gerald Celente. He doesn't believe in politicians.
HA! My cat comment was ill placed, I should have said most cat OWNERS were liberal. Most, not all!! I love cats myself, but I have dogs. When I get too ancient to take care of a dog, I may go back to having cats.
Oh no, rude buzzer on that cat comment! Everyone in my family is a staunch conservative and we all have cats. And we all love Trump. We have nothing against dogs and have had them in the past, but we are cat people now. Come to think of it most of my conservative Trump supporting friends are cat people too. Maybe things are different in Canada?
HA HA!!!! I STAND CORRECTED!!! Seriously, I was making a joke! I really have nothing to base my comment on other than my super liberal sister loving cats! So I take it back, most cats are not liberal...in fact, the cats I know are rather apolitical...only concerned about themselves...
Hah! I don’t know much about any animals. I have said elsewhere that I do not have any aversion whatsoever towards any animal; neither am I an "animal lover". I am kind of neutral toward them. But, with my limited understanding about their nature, my impression is that dogs are a little bit more like sheep, and cats are more like shrews.
Ivan...you HAVE to get a pet...start with a cat...they don't take the same sort of work a dog does and they are wonderful companions.
Yep. And also they are shrews. (LOL).
Lol! I’m only messing with you, Todd. You’re our hero
I know you are, and I love it!