Beyond fear and powerlessness: meditation on the nature of emotions

After having published the previous post, I learned that I inadequately examined one of my leading assumptions. My assumption was that you cannot feel fear and love at the same time. That is, you cannot feel them as emotions. This led me on a journey to understand how people see emotions.

I’ve conducted a Marxist experiment, among others, to determine how people view the emotions of fear and love when those are mixed together. Out of 31 individuals I interviewed, only 4 answered on the question like I did, that love and fear, as emotions, cannot be experienced simultaneously. That’s a whopping 13%, and I believe there are even less of us in the general population. I am writing this post to try to explain the differences in our views.

God’s love

Early on, people started to confuse divine love for fear of God also known as reverence or awe. Even while Apostle John wrote that love is fearless and knowledge (or understanding) and love are closely related through us and within us to God, people continued their ambivalent mix of emotions toward each other and God. But listen to John here: “God is love—so you can’t know him if you don’t love. . . . God dwells deeply within us, and his love becomes complete in us—perfect love! . . . There is no room in love for fear. Well-formed love banishes fear. Since fear is crippling, a fearful life—fear of death, fear of judgment—is one not yet fully formed in love.” (See for more 1 John 4:7-21, “The Message”.) There he also said that, “We know it so well, we’ve embraced it heart and soul, this love that comes from God.” Notice that John lived at the time before the early Enlightenment when Rene Descartes successfully (as people take this now for granted without being aware of what truly happened) reduced our understanding of soul to mind. Our emotions were subsequently reduced to thoughts alone.

Basing myself on the Gospel of John, I don’t understand just loving in words (or thoughts). But you might think that such divine love as described by John is not possible for us, imperfect humans, right? And when you come home to your spouse and kids and tell them that you “love them” and live with them happily ever after, you think it is emotional love, but it’s really not. I am talking about a real situation that involves a dynamic relationship. The key words are “situation” and “dynamic.” I don’t care how you feel about your spouse or job in the long run, unless it produces emotions in the short run, like, right now. It works by causal relationships of you to reality and back.

Human love

Now let’s take an idealized heavenly state of love and bring it down to this earth. What happens with people is that they confuse emotions with their subjective thoughts. For example, taking physical, sexual arousement for love (considering that you want this kind of love) is so much more realistic than merely considering thoughts of lust and sexual fantasies alone before their enactment as emotions (of excitement). After all, such thoughts may not affect your physical state, and then they should not be considered emotions.

The key question to ask in the situations mentioned is this: How does it affect your immediate emotions/relationship with your spouse? If there is no effect, it is not an emotion. Emotions are change, motion, energy, dynamism. Emotions are not stability, predictability, automatism, boredom.

The subjective “modes,” or moods, are indeed complex but only because they are metaphysical and hence illusionary. I am looking for physical emotions, not the imaginary metaphysical ones people are (merely) talking about (such as what sadists might like). When I love, I should not say that “I love.” Loving is showing your love, experiencing it, not merely reflecting or remarking on it in any way. A remark (or an initiation of thought about it) can kill the flow of experiencing true love. Words can kill emotions, if words replace emotions or get emotions reduced to them. However, words can also generate emotions, if you have none at the moment. I hope you are feeling something when you are reading this.

HeartMath’s response about emotions

I’ve asked Dr. Rollin McCraty, the director of research at HeartMath Institute, about this topic and received an interesting reply in a private conversation with him (shared here with his permission). He mentioned that, “In the more pure or higher vibrational states of love, fear or other depleting emotions are not present, but in the level of consciousness that currently exists on earth, they can indeed both be present at the same time.”

I understand this that, as I argued in the post on the cyclical nature of our history since the times of Judaism, the chaos of our history materialized in the way people feel emotions. By merging opposite emotions, we really only lose our sense of life and ourselves as discreet identities in an inseparable and dynamic relation to the world. The subjective states in our minds are not always reflected upon our hearts, and it also makes them difficult to measure.

Dr. McCraty explained that “we do not yet know how well physiological measures will be able to discriminate discrete states or mixtures of emotional states. We are hoping to look at this very issue much deeper in the near future.” His excitement in this new, developing research venue is reinforced by the explicit expression of his belief: “I believe that in the future the technology to measure ones energetic state will become available, and this is what will make possible much more refined measures of emotions.”

Dr. McCraty’s evaluation of my Theory of Emotional Economy, which is based on his current research, was quite positive. In fact, he told me that it was ahead of my time.[1]

Love in context

Now let’s return to the difficult topic at hand. Most of us want to feel emotions but not understand them. There is an expression of many walking right now on the streets, driving in a transport, meeting with their loved ones, and all with the same desire – to smile as if it is only a skin reflex, not even a reaction, just a reflex of something given, taken for granted, and uncontested. Maybe we do not pay attention to our emotions inside and pay too much attention to the wishes on the outside. What are, then, emotions? Perhaps you believe that the desire to feel an emotion is the emotion? If you want it enough, then there is no need, or is this itself the need – the desire to feel? The desire outruns and then conquers experience; desires is everything that is required of us by our bodies.

Experiencing the lives of others in works of art, we appropriate to ourselves what does not belong to us spiritually, and that which was only material remains material. And we live with hope for real emotions, for soul, which is lacking or even missing. With belief that leads to a sweet and irrevocable oblivion, with no emotions and none of their understanding, there is only Nirvana; nothing is sacred but only desire, hope, and belief… in inhuman love, which can never be adequately represented (unless by pure reason alone). Of course, such of us who may believe only in divine emotions or not even believe in human love may still all believe that it is possible to simultaneously feel both fear and love. However, everything that they feel is a semblance of emotion, a mentally projected image of it without an inner experience. It’s a representation, an empty shell, lacking meaning and substance beyond its function, like a hologram. And so, feeling fear, we think that we also love, imagining ourselves as others or escaping from our own miseries.

But how and is this in any way related to our concepts of God? We shall see to it later.

[1] His own words were, “You are ahead of your time!”


11 thoughts on “Beyond fear and powerlessness: meditation on the nature of emotions

  1. A mystic claims to have supernatural powers that enable her/him to see beyond the empirical. This, it must be noted, is totally different from synthesizing the empirical, or what’s understood as ‘the given’. Rather, mystics involve themselves in accessing a physical world beyond the sensible.

    Now long ago, this was accepted as a normal practice for scientists and philosophers. For example, it’s well-known that Plato tried to give substance to his ‘nous’ by trying to conjure up concrete representations of ideas. It just didn’t work.

    It’s also known that Newton’s mysticism involved alchemy; there was a hidden transformative property that could be seen and then used by performing the correct ritual and chant. That failed, too.

    Oth, Newton’s fundamental equations for Force and Gravity rely only upon a fair degree of common-literacy in math that you obviously lack. In other words, arguably, yes, to a math-illiterate (such as you) his two equations might seem to be a conjuring trick from a world beyond the veil of empirical illusion.

    But not: all the coefficients in both equations rely only upon common observation that’s easily quantifiable, and then measured. But then again, to be ‘mystic’ would be to toss in a coefficient that is not accessible to common observation–which clearly isn’t true.

    In brief, falling apples and planetary orbits follow the same measurable rule. This is about as un-mystic as it gets; only a beyond- randoid would fail to understand this.


    While Aristotle believed that the earth was the center of the universe, Newton clearly did not. Otherwise, his description of planetary orbits around the sun would not work (duh).

    Aristotle was also wrong in believing that the heart was the center of emotions. In passing, however, it’s rather doubtful that he would have used the Latin for ‘spirit’ (anima)– as he spoke and wrote in Attic Greek. The word he used, btw, was ‘pathein’, or ’emotion’. For the sake of argument he did not even use the Attic equivalent of ‘anima’, which would be ‘nous’, as ideas, to him were located in the brain.

    This to say that for a long time otherwise intelligent people thought that emotions came from the heart because, empirically, that’s what they felt. Late 19th century Biology, however, demonstrated otherwise by discovery of what we now call the ‘limbic system’, or ‘middle brain’.

    This is to say that any citation of Aristotle regarding Biology only demonstrates one’s abject ignorance of the subject. Again, however, for a self-described ‘beyond-randite, reference to Aristotle is hardly surprising.

    Lastly, your citation of 1995 Mccrady in Am Cardo only proves that he’s either gone batty or a pathological liar who’s scamming money from a junk science research group. I choose the later, as this tendency is already established by the employ by the randites of otherwise legitimate Philosophy PhD’s to promote their nonsense. They know better, and so does Mccrady.

    While his 1995 research stuff that was published is indeed legit, nothing regarding heart-sci is, and has not passed peer-review. So perhaps you actually tried to read Mccrady 1995, or maybe, being far over your head, not. yet even a precursory glance would indicate nothing even remotely concerning the ‘theory’ that emotions stem form the heart, but then again, how would you know?


    • My definition of mysticism: believing in the mystery of absolute everything, not completely known yet, and wanting to know it someday.

      My definition of realism: taking reality as a primary, undifferentiated whole, which can be analyzed but from which there cannot be separation.

      Aristotle and Newton were idealistic realist/mystics of level 7. Their integration was Consciousness.
      Democritus and Kant were idealistic materialists of level 7. They disintegrated themselves into mind (i.e., mental Aura) by making it into a metaphysic Brain As Mind.

      What helps you see beyond the empirical is the belief that there is something beyond what you can see and currently know. The “supernaturalness” of mysticism is actually the nature we all possess, thus grasping what’s beyond. But if you only believe in something (i.e., matter) and overgeneralize it by applying it to everything through materialist metaphysics, then you cannot go beyond or be a mystic. Instead, you are going toward retardation of consciousness inherent in your disintegrating method as you approach the fundamental nature of existence. I am glad to call myself a mystic in regard to everything that can be known but is not known by me yet. I don’t want to concentrate on being fundamentally retarded and do not decide to approach Nonexistence (that’s clearly ‘retarded,’ as per you lexicon). I want to go beyond this by actually building something on top, something that isn’t retarded or fundamental, an extension starting at Nonexistence and proceeding on its way to Existence. While Nonexistence is ‘retarded’ as you point out, and such Nonexistence is indeed implied in Rand, since she was never able to integrate Existence, Existence then is brilliant, and that’s something worthy to strive for. Ultimately, upon reaching such brilliance, which is hundreds of trillions of years away, we reach the Truth, hopefully at the end of this cycle. Although I have to add that not everyone will do so; most, such as yourself, will disintegrate utterly along the way. I could help you though, by showing you the way beyond Nonexistence, even while you are going away from God. Do you know what’s on the other side of Nonexistence, Bill? Do you know what’s opposite to God? Of course you don’t, but maybe you can intuitively sense what’s there. I am just wondering how well you realize what you are doing.

      What synthesizes the empirical reality with mysticism is your complete consciousness of both soul and mind. The content of reality first experiencially passes through your heart, reaches your brain to be processed, then afterwards integrates into consciousness and differentiates into bodily and gut experiences. This is what Dr. McCraty said in the movie “The Power of the Heart”, which I don’t expect you to watch, since it involves mysticism.

      Plato wasn’t a mystic. He was an idealist because he never integrated his consciousness but misintegrated it. He misintegrated mystical ideas into static appearances in his mind, which was disconnected from his soul. Aristotle solved Plato’s problem by exploring the world through emotions, our emotional perception that precedes mental one (just as our heart’s function precedes brain’s function in the process of human development). Kant and you do not grasp the emotional (mystical) connection with reality because you have disintegrated it, and thus you are unable to sense things with a truly mystical intuition.

      I don’t know Greek or Latin, sorry (I used the title of his book “On the Soul” as parenthetically “De Anima”), but wasn’t the notion of “common sense” also related to the heart or soul in Aristotle? Mental ideas are clearly in mind, and emotions are clearly in soul. He was also clearly correct that heart is not a pump but a bellows. I suggest you read “Why the Heart is Much More than a Pump” by Paul J. Rosch, MD, FACP, before you go on with your ignorant comments.


      • I’ll work backwards:

        * Rosch is not writing for a peer-reviewed journal–but rather, for an ‘institute’ that serves as a bully-pulpit for his ideas. In any case, real Physiology isn’t about what Harvey or Galen thought, or that the ‘ancient’ Egyptians believed in the heart as the emotive center.

        So speaking of ‘ignorance’ in terms of modern brain-sci, the emotions are indeed located n the brain.

        ** Plato’s contemporaries wrote of his mysticism as defined by any normal use of the term–ie not yours. He used ritual and chants to conjure up ideal essences.

        *** To ‘synthesize’ soul with mind, you first have to believe that a ‘soul’ exists. Perhaps, then, this is where you go ‘beyond’ Rand who, like me. asserts that soul-belief is nonsense.

        So for the sake of argument, I’m beginning to see a bit of virtue in her jibberish– sort of like the proverbial village idiot. She, like myself. would clearly see that the entirety of your presentation rests upon the existence of a supreme bean.

        **** Newsflash: we all understand that there’s a reality beyond what we currently know. So again (to belabor the point), ‘mysticism’ is a means of knowing it. The other means are to dare to know–or science– and to employ reason in the absence of empirical proof.–philosophy.

        ***** If you knew any physics at all, you wouldn’t keep insisting that Newton ‘integrated’ his mystical alchemy into his work on either gravity or force. And no, we are not ‘conscious’ of either gravity or force–which is why they’re expressed as equations that you’ve obviously failed to learn.

        As for levels, all i can tell you is that Kant’s Third Critique–his attempt to integrate the faculties into a singular judgment– rates only about a two. But this is better than Aristotle, who left us with a huge paradox between law (udpathein) and ethics (pathein). For this abject refusal, he gets a minus three.

        Oth, the Good and Bad witches in The Wizard of Oz rate a five because they’re like, totally integrative. Dorothy herself rates a seven because, like you, she believes that integrating Oz with Kansas can be accomplished by tapping her shoes together–far more sensible, actually, than your habit of ‘integrating’ by merely sticking words together in a sentence.

        The queen integrator, however, is Disney’s own Peyton List. Self-styled fashionista extraordinaire, everything about her integrates in a statement, from head to toe. Assuming you like dyed blonde, a perfect ten!!

        ******Re your realism and mysticism: claims to knowing a ‘whole’ are completely stupid. If this were not true, we’d not do science in the first place.

        Your claims of ‘wholeness, then. are nothing more than a lousy excuse for your intellectual laziness. In this respect, at least, you haven’t gone beyond Rand one bit.


      • Here is some “intellectual laziness” on my part. I will work somewhat “backwards” as well, if no one minds.

        Why does Bill, Andie Holland, and Eva Matthews (referred to so-named identities on forums, not necessarily real persons) write in the same style and use the same words? For example, they use the same idiosyncratic language, such as “Amerika,” “padoodle,” “gurl” (mentioned by Andie and Eva only, although they are above the age of 14), “Re,” “OTH,” “phil,” “&,” “lit,” “daffy-nition,” “Spec Rel,” “Peikhoff,” etc., and they write some words in small caps even if they are in the beginning of a sentence, including “i.” All three of them use single instead of double quotation marks. They write in short chunks rather than paragraphs with complete thoughts. They also write bullets as single and double stars (e.g., OL-link, RL-link; in order to see the Marxist post, Bill could have created an account there with a new name, say, eva matthews — no one would have ever known!). They avoid talking about details in relativity theory by claiming it’s “another story” (OL-link) or “Long story” (RL-link). They also write sentential fragments as well as make other grammatical, spelling, and/or punctuation errors because they rush to show their half-chewed and indigested ideas. They write their names or its abbreviations at the end of most posts. They also mention lots of stories and jokes, drop names, and digress.

        Of course, they are not always consistent either, but using some of these unique expressions, tendencies, or errors on different accounts (Bill even logged on as Andie on this blog once; is Andie so poor as to not have her own computer?) puts some doubt on Bill’s identity and the verity of his claims. So, what stories is he going to come up with now to explain all this and more? I won’t care anymore. Why knowing identity of the person I am arguing with is important to me? It’s important for a healthy communication, openness, contextualization, connection. But that is so hard to understand for someone like Bill. He might enjoy “communicating” with a robot rather than an actual person better. One difference between a robot and a person is that the latter has a true personal identity; the robot has an identity invented by its creator. I am not a robot, and I mind him being here.

        And why does his well-taught and raised “daughter” Eva (not to mention that she is unmarried and of an unrelated last name to distance herself from her “father” and using her friend’s photo as her own to provoke her friend — what a nice friend!) writes that Bill is a tenured professor in “math/physics” (OL-link)? Or was she talking about his parents when he was young and on drugs? Their fields weren’t in the credentials he mentioned to me. Here is an example of how his daughter, or any Kantian or mat-7, for that matter, mixes truth and lies: “Prior to his philosophy, Kant, as the go-to astronomer of record (Big Bang!), taught Newt[on] at Konigsberg” (OL-link). So, besides group-think, does Bill also have big problems with memory and reasoning like his “daughter”?

        Then his highly praised as “genius” “gurl” Andie Holland said that Eva used Ashleigh Volland’s photograph “to provoke The Ash-Poo into participating” (OL-link). She wrote personal details about Ms. Volland in the linked post. I wrote to Ms. Volland, and–guess what?–she replied that she does not know any of these people. So, is he Andie Holland from, e.g., Objectivist Online, and Eva Matthews from Objectivist Living? Bill was not honest. He kept lying, so I banned him, just as he was banned on those forums for being a “fraudulent poster” and a chauvinist. I also hate intentional liars. They only make the world worse and more chaotic. A liar won’t believe in Cosmos, i.e., harmony. A liar is like a parasite who wants to feel smarter than other people by using them or, as in Bill’s case, causing them to “become angry (emotive in evaspeak), crossing over the line from rationality” (quoted from the linked thread on OL, as Andie Holland). That’s a definition of being a troll. Is he unable to feel emotions for people but only for dead things like numbers, so he vainly tries to steal genuine emotions from others (by still concentrating on quantitative, or analytic, rationality, which lacks truth due to being disconnected from reality because of his emotional pathology)? Is he just preying on people’s minds to have them make mistakes and thus try to disintegrate them by scratching himself from the picture as if those people were originally and essentially mistaken and their mistakes weren’t caused by his provoking them?

        Indeed Bill lacks emotions located in his brain. How much more unemotionally base can he get? Maybe this is because he uses “ritual and chants to conjure up ideal essences” by means of Platonically-justified mathematics. Here is as much a lack of mysticism in both Plato and Bill as the lack of emotions (and their opposition to emotions) in their brains. In contrast to both Bill and Plato, my entire “presentation rests upon the existence of” emotions beyond brain and mind. And any Kantian like Bill would never understand how a realist/mystic like Newton integrated his mystical beliefs with his descriptions of reality just as he would never understand how Aristotle integrated his “law (udpathein) [sic] and ethics (pathein).” All that Bill can offer us is “to dare” to disintegrate all the greatest work that the greatest philosophers (i.e., philosophers in realist/mystic tradition) have done for the integrators of today. Yes, realists/mystics such as Aristotle and Newton never did anything for such ignorant people as Kant and his confused offspring. Also for the “abject refusal” to let go of the greatest philosophers and philosophies and his unwillingness to go spread his poison to some other place, I ban Bill from this blog. He will never again misuse through his weak and materialistic (for his dismissive replacement of mysticism with idealism, as I’ve told him this before but he cannot understand what he does) examples the term “integration” on this site.

        From Bill’s lack of constructive criticisms I should have known that he was a troll. And from his getting banned from visiting most of the forums in which he participated, it is evident that he is an extremely dislikable person. I think what he got is what he deserved. Otherwise, why does he get banned and I don’t? It’s not like I agree with those individuals either. His comments on this blog are so easy to pick apart, since they overflow with rhetorical and logical errors, and to argue with him is like arguing against an empty spot – a meaningless endeavor, really. He reminds me of those ignorant children who think they get to achieve something by messing with people on the Internet and thinking they have a true (yet virtual make-believe, and thus fake) personality. But a better question is: Why did I persist in responding to him? Did this qualify him to continue lying to me? I was wavering between two things to decide: either ban him and delete all his comments or try to get him off my blog through other means. The former side of me won, partially. Considering that Bill probably feels no emotions and cannot be hurt by his own lies flying back in his face, I had a feeling that the latter was an empty endeavor. Because any endeavor is empty that deals with an empty person like Bill, isn’t it?

        All that dabbling with drugs for the sake of drugs in Bill’s youth did not expand but dramatically narrowed his bodily experiences and impaired his perception, limiting it to the point of it being null (similar to confusing perception for sensation that can be seen in our dialogue). His arguing against integration was a way of promoting materialism, even that of level eight (vulgar). Such base behavior since his youth possibly led him on the path to awaken on level seven (mental). Orthodox Marxists indeed correctly labeled him a (logical) “positivist bourgeois,” since, being their competitor, he is much worse than a vulgar materialist. He is a disintegrator of consciousness itself! To help understand what I mean, watch The Little Prince (2015). Bill is on the dislikable side so well depicted in that film. (He could have even watched it in original French, which, I presume, was closer to his liking than English. Hopefully he’d understood the movie better than when he tried to read this blog.) Or he is the antagonist in Spectre (2015), although the protagonist (mat-8) is little better, of course.

        Not only is Bill a despicably ignorant person but also the onus of proof lay on him, and he never became aware of it. I’ve read about a dozen articles from HeartMath and Dr. McCraty, and I have yet to find one that does not deal with the same issues he described in the 1995 article published in American Journal of Cardiology (AJC), namely, the correlation between emotions and HRV. The only difference is that Dr. McCraty now helps create and sell technologies based on decades of research into psychophysiology, of which he is one of the world’s leading experts. You will not find his article on Wikipedia, though, because he does not want to be attacked and unfairly reviewed by a bunch of materialists and positivists. (And Wikipedia was inspired by Rand, too, what a shame.) Besides, the Wikipedia personnel think that he and HeartMath are not significant enough to be added to their holy of holies. And I know why. They are all Kant’s puppets, unable to escape his dogmatic and heartless tradition (as seen from their favoring Steven Novella’s arguments that are not based on facts). Bill needed to prove that McCraty did not submit more articles to AJC because he stopped being honest or true, or maybe he didn’t want to pay their fees, or maybe he didn’t want to be subjected to an unfair or lengthy peer-review process. He needed to prove not that Dr. McCraty’s academic standing deteriorated, but that he became wrong and lost his way because he did not publish in AJC or in similar journals. But Bill never proved anything. Instead, Bill simply became “angry” (but really inarticulate, showing “the red flag”) at McCraty, so Bill crossed “over the line from rationality” without ever realizing what he had done.

        To make sure that he does not again reply the same day I write a comment, I banned Bill. His replies seemed so superficial to me that I’d considered blocking him earlier from accessing my blog. I would rather like to communicate with individuals who actually put effort and deep thought into what they write back to me and actually read what I write and at least explore my references. This is true even if that (difficult) thought deals with looking outside of a box and even if you think that there is nothing there (such as Bill’s “perception” reduced to sensations not able to help him with this, unfortunately).

        Going back to Bill’s first comment on this post, there is, in his usual manner, a misunderstanding (mildly speaking) and a correct observation on his part. The Marxists were used in the experiment because I hypothesized that they would answer my question positively, as they did, the same way any materialist or Kantian, such as Bill, I am sure, would answer. Hence, the experiment wasn’t about those Marxists (or some Stalinists, as he observed), but about the materialist way of thinking in general, which conflicts with my own way of thinking.

        As for his correct observation, Bill was right that I should have included neurological research in my post. It is indeed a lacuna here and a lapse in my judgment. I should have thought of satisfying the dominant authority in this world, the authority so many believe, Bill included, the authority of neurology, or brain-centeredness. I was very radical in my post and completely ignored this authority, misjudging the motivation for the incoming torrent of a very crude and primitive reaction on his part. Well, I found Purves et al.’s Neuroscience (2004; see complete reference below) to be the most respected and used textbook in graduate neuroscience courses. I’ve read the section on emotions (Chapter 28) and skimmed through most of the book. Here is my interpretation of the neurological perspective on emotions (if you are not familiar with it, ask Eva about her research on emotions, or see the textbook, and also compare to similar findings of Ekman summarized in Lakoff, 1990).

        I thought about neurological emotions and decided that the deviation in the position of the facial muscles from the natural (neutral or no expression) requires more blood flow. It’s the same with our bodies — when you exercise your body or you rub the skin, you excite the muscles, so the pulse quickens, and the excited skin area becomes red from increased blood content (in most cases). So, in contrast to “emotions” that neurologists see, this phenomenon is better defined as excitation, which is triggered in the muscles/tissues by increased blood pulse, and not other emotions, like happiness, hatred, etc. Moreover, expression of hate or fear (correlating with specific positioning of eyebrows, cheeks, and other features of the whole face) requires a greater blood flow than the expression of happiness or pleasure (smiling). Therefore, the negative “emotions” on the face lead to a greater increase in heart rate than positive “emotions.”

        Clearly, none of their research really deals with emotions other than excitation. Thus, their research is inadequate for my post, which is about love and fear. If I don’t make any sense to someone like Bill, I suggest you read other philosophers. Please leave your lack of understanding outside of this blog. I am not writing it for Bill or his kind, and I have even added a restriction to my audience: no Kantians allowed. I think I have already been very explicit about my anti-Kantianism, and I do not wish to discuss it with any of you any further. I did not enjoy our conversations with Bill, which is the reason why I stopped frequenting this blog after he showed up. But I am going to keep all the dirt he has thrown against this blog as a sign that this blog also has a dark story of struggle to tell new readers. I will keep his posts here but only as a freak historical accident involving an experience of suffering of this blog before it could reach its full potential. And I must continue defending the good on this blog from all evil that tries to attack it, for no one besides me would do it.

        I suggest harrisites to take time using their synthetic abilities and surge their (sub)consciousness reduced to pure reason and sedative heuristics to a new level when speaking with me. All my so-called “psychobabble,” “schizophrenia,” “nonsense,” and whatever is much better than what they spread through their mixture of truth and lies just as anyone like Bill were going to write back to me right now trying to fight what’s good on this blog. When will their nastiness migrate to another host? Or maybe I can learn some more of that nastiness from them, so I could use it against them? Bill Harris was truly the most horrible opponent I’ve ever had in my life. If he were now viewing this site, he could take my words as a compliment, I guess. But it is Bill’s end now. It is over.


        Purves. D., G. J. Augustine, & D. Fitzpatrick et al. (2004). Neuroscience (3d ed.). Sunderland, Massachusetts: Sinauer Associates, Inc. Ch. 28.

        Lakoff, G. (1990). Women, Fire, and Dangerous Things: What Categories Reveal about the Mind. Chicago UP. pp. 38ff.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s