{"id":3313,"date":"2013-03-31T00:00:59","date_gmt":"2013-03-31T08:00:59","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/eugenehallidayarchive.com\/?p=3313"},"modified":"2025-01-23T19:04:50","modified_gmt":"2025-01-24T03:04:50","slug":"13-feelings-or-meetings-with-remarkable-women","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"http:\/\/eugenehallidayarchive.com\/?p=3313","title":{"rendered":"13. Feelings \u2026 or, \u2018Meetings With Remarkable Women\u2019 \u2026"},"content":{"rendered":"
\n

One interesting aspect of observing changes in my experiences of any particular ‘state of being’, is the manner in which my cognitive behavior is able to modify these states in subtle ways that can slip right past me\u2026. <\/span><\/p>\n

For instance, I have recently realized that if I\u2019m in a state of ignorance about something (and I would also go so far as to claim that this state of ignorance also contributed to my physical state – that is, to my present material orientation towards my objective reality in some fundamental way)\u2026 and I realize that I am in this state of ignorance; then although I might now still actually know nothing more about the subject in question, I no longer experience this state of ignorance in the same way that I experienced it before I realized that I was ignorant  \u2026. \u2026.. And even though I still don\u2019t know any more about the subject in question (this absence of understanding here being due to this ignorance of mine)\u2026. I also experience this subject  in a different way   \u2026 Which I think is really, really, weird.<\/span><\/p>\n

From ‘NOCTURNAL EMISSIONS’<\/span>
\n‘Random Dribbling from the Twilight World of the Undead’<\/span>
\nby Bob Hardy<\/span>
\n(A series of fragments from Bob Hardy’s notebooks – from the late-1970’s to date)<\/span><\/p>\n

\n<\/blockquote>\n

<\/h4>\n

The illusion that having mental limitations places us under…
\nis one of having no mental limitations. <\/b><\/h4>\n

NOTE: I use the word \u2018idea\u2019 to refer to that cognitive component of a particular \u2018form\/function\u2019 I\u2019m Working with\u2026. That is, when I\u2019m just \u2019having a think\u2019 about it.<\/p>\n

I use the word \u2018concept\u2019 to refer to that cognitive component of the \u2018form\/function\u2019 of an experiential situation I have embarked upon. That is, something I\u2019m actually doing (or I\u2019ve decided I\u2019m going to do) and that might contain any number of related ideas.<\/p>\n

So, I\u2019m liable to say things like: \u201cBut it\u2019s only a bit of an idea at the moment,\u201d or; \u201cI really believed I had a great concept going there, but I just couldn\u2019t seem to get it to work.\u201d<\/p>\n

\u2026 And I\u2019ll sometimes use \u2018idea\u2019 and \u2018concept\u2019 in the same sentence.<\/p>\n

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++<\/p>\n

The main purpose of this blog is to provide an account of my interaction with a number of Eugene Halliday\u2019s ideas contained in the many audio and text files that are freely available for you to download from the Eugene Halliday archive<\/a><\/p>\n

To help you with your own investigations into this material, I would suggest that you visit Josh Hennesey\u2019s excellent site here<\/a>. This contains an ever-increasing number of transcripts of Eugene Halliday\u2019s audio and text files, and, more importantly, all these files are \u2018searchable\u2019\u2026 Simply click on the word SEARCH – located in the Menu bar at the top of each page of Josh\u2019s site – and then type in the word or phrase that you\u2019re looking for in the space provided\u2026[Typing in the word \u2018feeling\u2019, for instance, will \u2013 at the present time – provide you with about 67 detailed examples of Eugene Halliday\u2019s use of this word].<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

Anyway \u2026 back to the topic in hand\u2026<\/p>\n

The subject of \u2018feeling\u2019 is, for me, an extremely complex one. Not least of all because of the common usage that many of the words I involve here signify to others.<\/p>\n

Fortunately, the idea of Eugene Halliday\u2019s that, \u2018If you change the form [of something] you change the function\u2019 – which I first came across in the mid-late 1970\u2019s – became of real assistance to me in any Work that I was attempting to engage in here \u2026 And I began to take as much care as I could in constructing the particular pattern of words I would use, to Work on embodying any of those ideas that I believed were really important to me, where it concerned this subject of \u2018feeling\u2019 \u2026<\/p>\n

This was far trickier to pull-off than I first imagined, not because the ideas that began to form in me were that hard to accept, but because – of all the subjects I had ever taken an interest in Working with \u2013 this has been the one where the vocabulary involved has been the most troublesome\u2026<\/p>\n

My attempts at discussing the ideas of others here only tended to irritate the hell out of most of them. Because I would keep interrupting them, and insisting that they told me what it was that they \u2018meant\u2019 when they used certain words \u2013 as I realized that I didn\u2019t really understand what they were talking about (and more importantly, I had an overwhelming suspicion that they didn\u2019t either)\u2026<\/p>\n

+++++++++++++++++++++++++<\/p>\n

NOTE:  What is written below has come about as a consequence of investigations into my own integument, and my subsequent observations of the behavior of others.  \u2026 So, while I can tell you that this perspective \u2018works for me\u2019, I cannot of course say anything about it \u2018working for you\u2019\u2026<\/p>\n

And – once again – if you are going to contact me about these ideas, please do not simply tell me what your opinion is here.<\/p>\n

\u2026 What I am interested in reading about are accounts of your own approach to this subject of feeling. Particularly if it differs significantly from mine, and also, provided that you supply a (sketchy will do) first-hand account of the subsequent experiential consequences of this approach of yours\u2026<\/p>\n

++++++++++++++++++++++++<\/p>\n

To continue \u2026 This attempt at discussions with others about this subject of feeling had a very interesting side affect. In that I came to realize that, while I could eventually come to \u2018see\u2019 an idea that I had been working on – and could even write a short essay on it if I had to – when it came to explaining this idea to others, the \u2018pace\u2019 at which I was able to resurrect it slowed down considerably, altering my natural speech patterns so much so that I would begin to stammer\u2026 But, even so, whatever these \u2018side-affects\u2019 of Working were for me, I now measured my progress with any particular group of ideas – be they Eugene Halliday\u2019s, or whoever – by the words that I believed I had now clarified and, to some extent at least, could include in my \u2018active language\u2019 vocabulary.<\/p>\n

I was not really able to appreciate what was going on here until I began to teach professionally in the mid 1990\u2019s \u2026 With the result that I am now quite certain that \u2018holding forth\u2019 on any particular subject has absolutely nothing to do with, say, \u2018getting in touch with\u2019, or \u2018being in\u2019, the \u2018field\u2019\u2026. A commonly held view as to what it was that Eugene Halliday was doing when he gave one of his talks, by those who fancy they are \u2018in the know\u2019 here\u2026 Although, apart from saying something to effect that he was, \u201cIn touch with the field,\u201d there seemed to be an almost total lack of any other information here from the overwhelming majority of those who maintained that this was the case (other than to accompanying this statement with some variety or other of \u2018knowing look\u2019 \u2013 presumably intended to indicate that something unfathomable was going on here \u2026 Which, I would tend to agree, was – but on their part, and not Eugene Halliday\u2019s)\u2026 Having said that, I am a big fan of \u2018being inspired\u2019 \u2026 a state that I believe Eugene Halliday certainly was in, from time to time \u2026But I see that as a completely different process\u2026<\/p>\n

\u2026 Like I say, it\u2019s complicated…<\/p>\n

Anyway, as a consequence – after some 35 years or of Working on various ideas and concepts in an attempt to further my understanding of \u2018feeling\u2019, I have come to appreciate that many words are commonly substituted for each other here in some way (particularly in common speech) such as, for instance: \u2018awareness\u2019; \u2018sentience\u2019; \u2018feeling\u2019; \u2018consciousness\u2019; \u2018perception\u2019; \u2018sensation\u2019; \u2018emotion\u2019; \u2018reaction\u2019, etc. etc. But that, in a Working situation, if these words are separated out and considered individually, they are capable of supplying a great deal of clarity (at least to me) where it concerns the need for a basic understanding of (what I believe is an approach by Eugene Halliday to) the problem of \u2018being\u2019 itself\u2026 However, if I\u2019m just having a chat with someone, I do find myself sliding into \u2018common usage\u2019 very easily, and this does tend to complicate matters somewhat \u2026<\/p>\n

This account of mine here is not meant to (necessarily) tell you \u2018exactly where I\u2019m at\u2019 at the present time with \u2018feeling\u2019\u2026 (And I certainly hope you haven\u2019t gained that impression from my previous posts with regards to my present position on \u2018active language\u2019), and so what I will attempt to do now is tell you what my \u2018starting position\u2019 was with respect to my understanding of \u2018feeling\u2019, back in the late 1970\u2019s, and then attempt to move forward slowly from there if I can\u2026<\/p>\n

However, I\u2019m reasonably sure already that I won’t be able to make it to the present day, because I can already see that some understanding, and sooner rather than later, of what I believe is another of Eugene Halliday\u2019s most important concepts – and that\u2019s  \u2018Sentient Power\u2019 – will be required here \u2026.<\/p>\n

But back to \u2018feeling\u2019 \u2026 I first became interested in the theoretical ideas of C G Jung\u2019s Analytical (or Depth) Psychology sometime during the late 1960\u2019s (when I was in my late 20\u2019s), so much so that I had read his Collected Works by the time that I first went to Tan-Y-Garth in the mid-late 1970\u2019s\u2026 Consequently, I was well used to viewing things from the perspective of many of the concepts contained in Jung\u2019s typological and topographical schemes\u2026 These would include a view of the psyche that included the physical body; the two \u2018attitudes\u2019 \u2013 \u2018introversion\u2019 and \u2018extrovertion\u2019; and the four functions of \u2018thinking\u2019 and \u2018feeling\u2019 (rational), \u2018sensation\u2019 and \u2018intuition\u2019 (irrational)\u2026and – although not so important here, at least for the moment – Jung\u2019s concept of \u2018The Archetypes\u2019 \u2026. [If you want to know more about all this in a general sense by the way, then I suggest that you get hold of a copy of \u2018Lectures on Jung\u2019s Typology\u2019 by Marie-Louise von Franz and James Hillman; and \u2018Complex\/Archetype\/Symbol by Jolande Jacobi.)<\/p>\n

So I will just say a little here about feelings being \u2018rational\u2019 (because this view seems to trouble the most people) \u2026 and what that meant to me back in the late 1970\u2019s \u2026.. and – to a large extent – still does.<\/p>\n

Essentially, the \u2018feeling\u2019 function is the evaluative function.<\/p>\n

States of being – such as anger; happiness; sadness, frustration; etc – are not \u2018feelings\u2019, – they are \u2018emotions\u2019 \u2026 (\u2018feeling\u2019 and \u2018emotion\u2019 are two different words, with two [obviously] different forms, and that therefore properly perform two different functions)\u2026<\/p>\n

Simply put, \u2018emotions\u2019 (in the only situation where I would maintain that they have any \u2018meaning\u2019 to an experiencing subject, and that is, where they arise in human beings) require the mediation of language (and thus cognition) to \u2018come to be\u2019\u2026. So that your own personally experienced list of emotions are the labels (in the form of words) that you use in naming (and perhaps also describing – either vaguely, or in some considerable detail) these various feeling \u2018states\u2019 of yours that you have, to some degree at least, become aware of, or have experienced.  To make this a little clearer, I\u2019m not saying that our animal chums cannot act nervously or be fearful etc. etc.; what I\u2019m saying is they cannot do so in any \u2018meaningful\u2019 way; and that further, because animals are not reflexive, they are not capable in principle of doing any Work \u2026 \u2026. But then I don\u2019t happen to believe that the overwhelming majority of people can be bothered to do any either \u2026 \ud83d\ude00<\/p>\n

Having experienced various emotional states, we can all, potentially at least, subsequently describe the content(s) of these states to each other. Including perhaps the reasons why we are in them (\u201cI\u2019m very angry with you because you \u2026.etc.\u201d)\u2026 and eventually even develop our own complex aesthetic here\u2026 Such that we can indicate in speech \u2013 sometimes to a remarkable degree – exactly how happy, or sad, or angry, etc. we are, and why\u2026 even poetically, in a way that is denied the warthog; albatross; haddock; dug-beetle; Antirrhinum; etc et al\u2026 Although I have to admit that there is nothing more cringe-provoking for me than reading someone\u2019s attempts at presenting their various \u2018thoughts\u2019 on the human condition in a way that seeks to seduce us into believing that these are derived from the author\u2019s authentic experiences, although I am not saying that these accounts couldn\u2019t be genuine, \u2026. (Clue: \u2018authentic\u2019 and \u2018genuine\u2019 are two different words)\u2026<\/p>\n

Most importantly here, for me, then – emotions require cognitive input, but feelings don\u2019t\u2026<\/p>\n

The degree to which we are happy, or sad, or angry etc. (that is, the \u2018how much\u2019 of the particular emotion) constitutes the feeling content of these states\u2026 And, crucial here, is that you are always immediately aware of your degree of feeling, without the mediation of either any mental or physical content \u2026<\/p>\n

If you are devoid of language, and consumed with rage, you are only able to express this emotional state of yours through your physical body – by making noises, facial expressions, body movements etc. – as any mother who is nursing a very hungry small baby will be able to tell you from first-hand experience; and also that dog owner, whose left leg \u2013 for some unaccountable reason \u2013 has become the center of a great deal of amorous activity on the part of Woofter, the family cocker-spaniel \u2026A very interesting phenomena this latter one, as it can be used to illustrate the emergence of emotional states from instinctive states, and on up into the articulation of these states in language, from the relatively simple, and non-reflexive way in the case of lower primates etc., to the bewildering complexity of human speech \u2026 But my major point here is that there is no possibility of either the baby, or Woofter, reflecting on these states that they find themselves in, at least in the sense that beings who have acquired language skills are potentially able to\u2026 To repeat then \u2013 expressing an emotion other than through the body  – that is, with the cognitive function \u2013 requires \u2018language\u2019, or if you prefer, the production of texts, to do so\u2026<\/p>\n

Having once acquired language skills, it should be relatively easy for you to now appreciate why I maintain that you would never find yourself saying something like, \u201cYou know, I judged myself to be (or thought I was) in a state of profound melancholy last night, but actually I was ecstatically happy! \u2026 Silly me!\u201d Or, \u201cI was very, very, angry with you, but actually I found out later on that I wasn\u2019t \u2026 I was only mildly angry with you.\u201d \u2026 (Although you could say something like, \u201cYou<\/b> thought I was very angry before! \u2026 Well you were wrong! \u2026 Because this is me when I am very angry!!!\u201d\u2026 [Sound of crockery being smashed])\u2026<\/p>\n

So, your pronouncements about your emotional state – that is, the words you use to describe, or justify, or condemn, etc. it, has nothing to do with the certainty of your immediate actual experience of the intensity (value) of it\u2026.<\/p>\n

I am not saying here that you cannot inhibit your emotional state, and indeed this can be a consequence of many things – your morality for instance; or your ability to engage in various fancied ‘spiritual techniques\u2019. But any pronouncements here are still structured components of your \u2018thinking\u2019 (rational, logical, ‘spiritual’, fashionable, or otherwise) and play no part in any awareness of it, in the sense that you do not need this self-definition of your emotional state before you become aware of the intensity (or quality) of it.<\/p>\n

Feeling does not require the mediation of language\u2026 That is, it does not require a cognitive component in order to \u2018be\u2019. You are aware of your feeling state immediately, and you are never wrong as to its value. But \u2018value\u2019 here only means \u2018amount\u2019 (or, as I prefer, \u2018degree\u2019). And this degree is situated somewhere along the axis from total rejection to total acceptance\u2026 Many \u2018followers\u2019 of Eugene Halliday I have spoken with about this appear to me to confuse this \u2018positioning of feeling\u2019 with what they believe he meant by \u201cYes-ing\u201d and \u201cNo-ing\u201d (In case you hadn\u2019t noticed, \u2018Yes\u2019 and \u2018No\u2019 are two words by the way, and are thus components of your mentation, and not of your feeling) \u2026<\/p>\n

Animals clearly have \u2018feelings\u2019 (degree of response) but an Italian dog will not say, \u201cBellissimo!\u201d to itself if you give it a chocolate biscuit, any more than a Rochdale Lurcher will say, \u201cTa very much Chuck!\u201d in the same circumstance \u2026. They will however \u2018feel about\u2019 the situation\u2026.  (But whether your pet slug, Ambrose, does, I\u2019m not so sure\u2026.Although it can display reactive behavior)<\/p>\n

And, as with any group of words used to elaborate upon a central concept (emotion) in order to, say, produce some kind of aesthetic, these concepts can easily become confused\u2026. But please note that your \u2018feeling states\u2019 (or for that matter your \u2018emotions\u2019) are never, in themselves, confused, and they are thus rational – although emotions can become conflated if a particular situation results in you experiencing rapid swings from, say, \u2018pleasure\u2019 to \u2018disgust\u2019 during a relatively incrementally short period of time… I\u2019ll leave it to you [and your relationship with Woofter] to come up with your own examples here.<\/p>\n

This situation is further complicated when using common speech, as in sentences such as, \u201cI felt really angry,\u201d which implies that \u2018anger\u2019 is a \u2018feeling state\u2019\u2026. It\u2019s not\u2026 It\u2019s an \u2018emotional\u2019 state\u2026<\/p>\n

So let me try now to explain how you might move forward here \u2026 Ask yourself the following question (and I\u2019m not suggesting at all that your views here should be the same as mine)\u2026., \u201cAre my feelings rational or irrational?\u201d \u2026 If you\u2019ve thought about this at all, then you should be able to answer this question at some length without becoming hopelessly confused (and again, your approach here might be totally different from mine) \u2026 Now ask yourself, \u201cAre my emotions rational or irrational?\u201d and if your answer seems to be the same as your answer to the first question, then I hope you can see that you don\u2019t in fact know the answer to either of these questions \u2013 because you do not understand that they are fundamentally different \u2026<\/p>\n

But recognize here also, that anyone can rattle on about a subject that they \u2018know something about\u2019, often at some length, from material that they have gleaned from others. And this can include, not only esoteric material, but material  (the subject matter of which would come under the general heading of \u2018Psychology\u2019) such as feelings and emotions. And this can often leave you believing that these people are, at the very least, knowledgeable here. But Working on those two questions I gave you above has very little to do with being smart, or trotting out something you\u2019ve appropriated from someone else, or quoting the Bible etc\u2026. and everything to do with your attempt to \u2018know yourself\u2019 \u2013 a pursuit which I have come to believe almost no one I have ever met attempts in their whole lives\u2026. But then maybe I\u2019ve always hung around with the wrong people \u2026 Capisce<\/em>?….<\/p>\n

Try to devise ways of attempting to perceive if those you engage in conversation with about these subjects speak from their own experiences (or \u2018centers\u2019) \u2026 If you decide that they don\u2019t, then all you are going to get at very best is (yet more) information (which may or may not be useful)\u2026 But you will get no material which comes from them actually Working \u2013 as this material is qualitatively different \u2026 And if I can assure you of anything, it\u2019s that, if you Work on yourself, at some point in all this it becomes relatively easily to spot when someone else is \u2026 How you handle your relationships when you can do so is, of course, your business\u2026 I will tell you though that dealing with those who imagine they are Working is very difficult  for me \u2026 but that I try to use this situation to do some Work myself \u2026 If that helps.<\/p>\n

Cognitive effort, where it concerns Working then, is about developing concepts that mirror – if only for that part of the journey you are struggling with at the present time – your internal states\u2026 These attempts at description might not be as accurate as they could be, but this doesn\u2019t necessarily mean that they are vaguer, or weaker\u2026 It simply means that, in this particular instance, you\u2019ve missed the mark (clue there \ud83d\ude42 ..)\u2026<\/b><\/p>\n

 <\/b>And finally, you can study as many religious, scientific, artistic, philosophical subjects as you like \u2013 but if your motive for doing so is anything other than \u2018knowing yourself\u2019, then –  as I see it \u2013 you\u2019re (still) \u2018going nowhere\u2019 \u2026<\/p>\n

In closing, here\u2019s an example from one of my notebooks of a methodology I make use of when attempting to remember stuff – and that’s humor… More often than not in the form of ‘blue’ jokes\u2026 This is because I find I can remember it easier [and so, I believe, could Woofter, if he possessed language] \u2013 so be warned \u2026 Here\u2019s a relatively mild one anyway from one of my notebooks that nailed, very nicely for me, one of the uses of the word \u2018feeling\u2019 in common speech.. The word is used here to describe sense data\u2026<\/p>\n

You can try and create a version of this joke by using words such as \u2018I had a sensation of\u2019 in place of \u2018felt like\u2019 \u2026 I don’t think that being more accurate with the words used here works as well… But that only gives me some ideas about the inertial properties of common speech… But don’t let me stop you trying…<\/p>\n

…. Give it a go and \u2018See how you feel\u2019…<\/p>\n

\n

Two Welsh women, Mrs Jones and Mrs Williams were having a heated argument about Mrs Jones\u2019 husband.<\/span><\/p>\n

Mrs Jones:  \u201cMrs Williams! … I\u2019ve got a bone to pick with you! I hear in the village that you\u2019ve been going round telling all the girls that my husband, David, has got a wart on his \u2018John Thomas\u2019!\u201d<\/span><\/p>\n

Mrs Williams: \u201cMrs Jones!! \u2026 I said no such thing!! \u2026 \u2026 I did not<\/strong> say that your husband David had a wart on his \u2018John Thomas\u2019.  \u2026. \u2026.. I said it felt <\/i><\/strong>like a wart! \u201d<\/span><\/p>\n

From ‘NOCTURNAL EMISSIONS’<\/span>
\n‘Random Dribbling from the Twilight World of the Undead’<\/span>
\nby Bob Hardy
\n<\/em><\/em>(A series of fragments from Bob Hardy’s notebooks – from the late-1970’s to date)<\/em><\/em><\/em><\/span><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

Woof!! Woof!!<\/p>\n

To be continued ……<\/p>\n

Bob Hardy<\/p>\n

March 31st 2013<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

One interesting aspect of observing changes in my experiences of any particular ‘state of being’, is the manner in which my cognitive behavior is able to modify these states in subtle ways that can slip right past me\u2026. For instance, I have recently realized that if I\u2019m in a state of ignorance about something (and […]<\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"spay_email":"","jetpack_publicize_message":""},"categories":[32],"tags":[24,8,22,44,6,7,43,9,13,15,17,16,39,27,12,25,29],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_publicize_connections":[],"jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_shortlink":"https:\/\/wp.me\/p29JwC-Rr","_links":{"self":[{"href":"http:\/\/eugenehallidayarchive.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/3313"}],"collection":[{"href":"http:\/\/eugenehallidayarchive.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"http:\/\/eugenehallidayarchive.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/eugenehallidayarchive.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/eugenehallidayarchive.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=3313"}],"version-history":[{"count":87,"href":"http:\/\/eugenehallidayarchive.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/3313\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":7676,"href":"http:\/\/eugenehallidayarchive.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/3313\/revisions\/7676"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"http:\/\/eugenehallidayarchive.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=3313"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/eugenehallidayarchive.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=3313"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/eugenehallidayarchive.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=3313"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}