by Nathan Coppedge page
Part I. Effective-Meaning: Objective-Time
�1.b. Iteration 6, The Ethical-Emotional World page 4
Preface
Summary
Part 1a.
Iteration 1
Iteration 2
Iteration 3
Iteration 4
Part 1b.
Iteration 5
Iteration 6
PART II.
(incomplete)
PART III.
(outline)
PART IV.
(outline)
NOTES
1. The right-emotion is Love, Empathy is Integral, the wrong emotion is the non-loving fate, Hate is the non-integrated fate
2. The right-emotion is Integral, Empathy is the non-loving fate, the wrong emotion is the non-integrated fate, Hate is Love
3. The right-emotion is the non-loving fate, Empathy is the non-integrated fate, the wrong emotion is Love, Hate is Integral
4. The right-emotion is the non-integrated fate, Empathy is Love, the wrong emotion is Integral, Hate is the non-loving fate.
(Side note: could try substituting Love for "the right emotion", etc., follow that order for 2-4� Then there would be a heirarchy of permutation).
In the first case it�s a matter of how we define love and integration. On one level it is very evocative of physical love, that there are ways to integrate without loving eachother, and on another it may be laying a foundation for how a society works, that integration is a matter of having a functioning community. If we define empathy very loosely, we could say that it represents our apparent willingness to share habitations with other beings. It also points to a sense of responsibility, that wrong-love is equated with harsh judgment, so therefore right-love is the best of emotional worlds.
The second case obviously presents a confusion in the form of a conflicted interest. Since love is defined partially as what the perceiver wants, in this case we can say that either the perceiver isn�t receiving love, or the love being received isn�t love from the perceiver�s standpoint. It may be that the perceiver has some kind of resistance to love, whether purposeful or not. This may be a sign that he or she wants more than love can provide in the context of his or her perceptions. Or, it is a matter of believing that love and hate aren�t opposites, of having power derived from one or the other that makes its opposite negligible.
The third may be a case of celibacy or abstention. It may be that the emotional-perceiver feels that empathy would involve a form of hatred, that his or her object of desire obviously has a different notion of the meaning of love. In this case the subject may love being alone, in which case integration must involve a kind of spiritual nature, a sense of self independent of other beings.
The fourth case presents a contradiction, in which the right emotion will become non-integrated and yet the wrong-emotion is integration. In other words, he expects that the right emotion will come from the wrong emotion. Then �emotion� is only a distinction between integration and non-integration, or between the past-present and future. In this case it seems that although the perceiver has some awareness of what love and hate mean (an interrelation of bodies and a non-interrelation of bodies), yet �the wrong emotion is Integral,� which is to say, he has no unified emotion; he doesn�t feel his feelings.
NEXT
Philosophy and Writing Main Menu