Ignorance is bliss?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ftil

You are talking about “genius artist”. I would like to go back to your previous post where you talked about “ distanced logical responses and statements.” Therefore, I asked you if romantics can’t use rational minds. I view a personality as more complex than being black or white such as being romantic run by emotions and feelings or not. People may be romantic yet they use rational minds when it is appropriate. Can you imagine discussion on the forums that is run exclusively by emotion and feelings? :wink5:

---

Quote:

---

It's not as extreme as saying that they don't use their rational minds, but romantic people don't operate on a rational basis. All people possess some degree of rational thinking. But romantic people tend to be more divorced from reality than others.

---

Can you see that you've repeated partially what i've said?
You are right, it's not THIS or THAT. You are not entirely intellectual or entirely romantic and one may find that these two qualities co-exist inside you. There are seldom things in life that are absolute. You asked if Romantics were capable of using their rational minds. I said that they were, it's just romantic thinking is not motivated by rational thinking.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by YW1990

Can you see that you've repeated partially what i've said?
You are right, it's not THIS or THAT. You are not entirely intellectual or entirely romantic and one may find that these two qualities co-exist inside you. There are seldom things in life that are absolute. You asked if Romantics were capable of using their rational minds. I said that they were, it's just romantic thinking is not motivated by rational thinking.

---

Nothing is a distanced logical statement in point of fact and everything is related and why I wrote this statement that may sound rather extraneous is literature cannot shirk personal or emotional quotients. No literature devoid of emotional or intellectual shares can touch readers. I always try to keep both intact whether it comes to versing my feelings into poems or doing them into storylines. Both ways are parts and parcels when it comes doing creativity. You may reserve my points and yet the drive behind putting some emotional proportions here is simply to dodge justify the misinterpretation of the points both myself and ftl were discussing. We are while seeming on the emotional plane were not so exactly if you can penetrate deeper into what we have argued on

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by YW1990

I said that they were, it's just romantic thinking is not motivated by rational thinking.

---

What about people who are quite emotional but they are not romantic?
You said earlier that, "Being romantic isn't rational". People who are emotional are not rational either as their emotions run their life.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by osho

Nothing is a distanced logical statement in point of fact and everything is related and why I wrote this statement that may sound rather extraneous is literature cannot shirk personal or emotional quotients. No literature devoid of emotional or intellectual shares can touch readers. I always try to keep both intact whether it comes to versing my feelings into poems or doing them into storylines. Both ways are parts and parcels when it comes doing creativity. You may reserve my points and yet the drive behind putting some emotional proportions here is simply to dodge justify the misinterpretation of the points both myself and ftl were discussing. We are while seeming on the emotional plane were not so exactly if you can penetrate deeper into what we have argued on

---

I am not sure if I understand you. There is difference when people write a poem, for example, and when they try to communicate with each other. I personally want to understand another person and his or her point of view. To be honest, I feel frustrated and loose my intrest when the language is convoluted. I don’t like to talk just for sake of talking but to understand, learn, and find similarity. Therefore, I think that communication skills are of the highest importance as we would avoid misunderstanding or conflicts.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ftil

I am not sure if I understand you. There is difference when people write a poem, for example, and when they try to communicate with each other. I personally want to understand another person and his or her point of view. To be honest, I feel frustrated and loose my intrest when the language is convoluted. I don’t like to talk just for sake of talking but to understand, learn, and find similarity. Therefore, I think that communication skills are of the highest importance as we would avoid misunderstanding or conflicts.

---

There was an approval by both of us on point a little while ago and suddenly someone critiqued that endorsement of a particular point. If you misunderstood me you can go a little back and reader our conversations. There is no convolution and I have no intention in doing that I am simply communicating things and some point put forth in one of the foregone posts was misleading and I talked against that with reference to one argument we had in this thread.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by osho

There was an approval by both of us on point a little while ago and suddenly someone critiqued that endorsement of a particular point. If you misunderstood me you can go a little back and reader our conversations. There is no convolution and I have no intention in doing that I am simply communicating things and some point put forth in one of the foregone posts was misleading and I talked against that with reference to one argument we had in this thread.

---

Hm…I remember our conversation. It would be more helpful if you clarifed what you meant in your previous post rather than expecting me……..to sit in your head and figure it out. I don’t do it.:brow:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by osho

Nothing is a distanced logical statement in point of fact and everything is related and why I wrote this statement that may sound rather extraneous is literature cannot shirk personal or emotional quotients. No literature devoid of emotional or intellectual shares can touch readers. I always try to keep both intact whether it comes to versing my feelings into poems or doing them into storylines. Both ways are parts and parcels when it comes doing creativity. You may reserve my points and yet the drive behind putting some emotional proportions here is simply to dodge justify the misinterpretation of the points both myself and ftl were discussing. We are while seeming on the emotional plane were not so exactly if you can penetrate deeper into what we have argued on

---

What are you saying here exactly? That i don't have the intelligence to understand what you are saying? Please un-pack this paragraph as i can't seem to process it clearly. Especially the last sentence.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ftil

What about people who are quite emotional but they are not romantic?
You said earlier that, "Being romantic isn't rational". People who are emotional are not rational either as their emotions run their life.

---

Well i wouldn't go so far again as to say emotional people ARE NOT rational. It's just what secures their perspective on things in the world is not fixated by a rational position.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by YW1990

What are you saying here exactly? That i don't have the intelligence to understand what you are saying? Please un-pack this paragraph as i can't seem to process it clearly. Especially the last sentence.

---

You have quoted one of my points about romanticism and I found that rather disagreeable. If you read one of my earlier points which you have commented upon and rethink your comment you will be answered. If you still fail to understand we will proceed to discuss it.

I just private messaged you so we don't clog up this entire thread with our exchange.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by YW1990

Well i wouldn't go so far again as to say emotional people ARE NOT rational. It's just what secures their perspective on things in the world is not fixated by a rational position.

---

Well, there are people who are emotional and reactive. They don’t feel, think, and then act but feel and react, skipping rational thinking. When they are angry, they don’t think …but scream, yell, or or hit the wall. :biggrinjester:

~

R e m i n d e r

The topic of this thread is "Ignorance is bliss."

Off-topic posts will be removed without further notice.

~

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ftil

Well, there are people who are emotional and reactive. They don’t feel, think, and then act but feel and react, skipping rational thinking. When they are angry, they don’t think …but scream, yell, or or hit the wall. :biggrinjester:

---

How does "emotional and reactive" contradict "rational thinking"? Some people who scream, yell or hit the wall think rationally, and some do not. Being emotional and reactive and thinking rationally are not mutually exclusive, as ftil implies.

Personally, I'm capable of screaming, yelling, hitting walls and solving Lewis Carrol logic puzzles simultaneously. Perhaps ftil means, "If people think rationally, they never scream, yell, or hit walls." But that is simply her opinion, and I believe it to be incorrect. Rational thinking sometimes persuades us to scream and yell.

Excuse me a moment, while I hit (gently) a couple of walls. Being emotional and reactive is neither irrational nor ignorant.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ecurb

How does "emotional and reactive" contradict "rational thinking"? Some people who scream, yell or hit the wall think rationally, and some do not. Being emotional and reactive and thinking rationally are not mutually exclusive, as ftil implies.

Personally, I'm capable of screaming, yelling, hitting walls and solving Lewis Carrol logic puzzles simultaneously. Perhaps ftil means, "If people think rationally, they never scream, yell, or hit walls." But that is simply her opinion, and I believe it to be incorrect. Rational thinking sometimes persuades us to scream and yell.

Excuse me a moment, while I hit (gently) a couple of walls. Being emotional and reactive is neither irrational nor ignorant.

---

Well, it is a a big difference to act or react but it is not that much connected with the subject of this tread. :wink5:

Well, the question was: is ignorance bliss? A corollary: are “emotional” states of mind more “blissful” than “rational” states of mind. Of course they are, since “bliss” is an emotional state, not an intellectual one. So my point is that neither ignorance nor wisdom is “bliss”. And neither is contradictory to “bliss”.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ecurb

Well, the question was: is ignorance bliss? A corollary: are “emotional” states of mind more “blissful” than “rational” states of mind. Of course they are, since “bliss” is an emotional state, not an intellectual one. So my point is that neither ignorance nor wisdom is “bliss”. And neither is contradictory to “bliss” either.

---

Hm…….emotional responses that are reactive are not blissful for those who deal with a reactive person. In other words, emotional ignorance is only blissful to the reactive person. :D

I don't understand a word you say. Ftil says "emotional responses that are reactive are not blissful for those who deal with a reactive person." Suppose you say, "I love you" to someone, and that person, without pausing to think, responds by gushing, "Oh how I've hoped and dreamed for this day! I love you too, with all my heart and soul!" Then she starts covering you with kisses. According to ftil, the person who first said “I love you” cannot, somehow, find that "blissful". I don't get it.

ftil goes on to say, "In other words, emotional ignorance is only blissful to the reactive person." Since my entire point was that "ignorance" is not an emotional state, but a description of the level of knowledge someone has attained, I have no idea what “emotional ignorance” refers to. But, in my previous example, it appears that the emotional reaction of the “reactive person” (this sound like a legal brief) will probably create a “blissful state” for the initiator.