Leyla:
1. The distinction between feelings/emotion (sensing) and value is illusory in an ultimate/holistic sense. Therefore, as a whole (absolute), emotion/feeling and value are hereby defined as “sentiency.”
2. Thus, values can be understood as arising from sensing and sensing can be understood as arising from values without the necessity of postulating a linear beginning/primary part to sentiency.
Okay.
Leyla: IF 1 and 2 are true, then:
3. “Value lays at the root of things” and does not “…rise to consciousness without first [being sensed] [linear beginning/primary part] IN the feeling/emotion.”*
…is necessarily false, BUT (without 1 and 2) the rest makes sense (!) with 3: (Pye): Cognizant people know instantly what's been felt; what's been delivered; why they feel the way they do. As Kelly mentioned elsewhere, as soon as you can identify an emotion, you've begun to think about it. That's right.
Okay.
Leyla: 4. When there is no time differential (that is, when it’s instantaneous) between the identification of value and feeling/emotion, there is only value and such sentience is defined as “cognizant people.”
This is good that you are beginning to bridge the gap between 2 perceived things, because in the end, they are actually part of the same. That's basically what I've been saying, but I am stuck with traditional linguistic usage in discussing
parts of it.
In fact, most of what confuses us is the linguistic tradition of separating one grade of feeling (emotions) from another grade of feeling (reason i.e.
making sense). Thinking
is feeling - the high note of the scale of [human] sentiency. Thoughts
are feelings - expressible in linguistic form - and they would not, could not come into being without
sentiency: sensing stuff, in body and mind. Which should really read: bodymind. Or something else entirely, for here, I would like to do just as you in obliterating any distinction between "them." There is no "them." It's all the same thing. For a malfunction of the brain will just as surely mark its path on the so-called body, since it IS body itself.
Leyla: 5. Thus, transcendence would be defined as having achieved the sentience of cognizant people, initially through the value-fogged feeling/emotion.
That value-fogged feeling/emotion will always be there. Its quick rise to consciousness could not happen without it. It's a scale of all the same thing. People who practice their scales get better and better at their sentient performance :)
The perceived
battle between emotion and reason has a long history in philosophy (no time-space for such a digression here!), but few people account for the separation itself as an error. Some very early thinking people simply understood that
emotion was not the best they could do with their sentiency - that there were higher notes to be reached on the scale. And if they
stayed with emotion, they could not reach those higher notes.
I recall one eastern philosopher (I think it was Chogyam Trungpa) referring to emotions as "cows" grazing in the field of the mind. The point, for him, was not to "kill" these cows and their mooing, but to expand the field in which they roam. Eventually, they wander off so far as to be mere specks, or disappear from view altogether. One has to give them
room, rather than holding them close. In doing so, they wander off of their own accord.
Not
quite my view, but it
makes much more sense than trying to shoot them all. Like you say here:
6. Thus, emotions/feelings serve the purpose of bringing values into consciousness and the act of “squashing them” represents, therefore, a destructive emotion/feeling since it serves only to subvert (a value seeking) consciousness.
Yes. Just let them
move off. That's what they're meant to do, so to speak. They'll move off quicker and quicker the sooner one draws them up to the higher end of the scale (making sense of them). In a clumsy inclusion of the cow-thing, let's just say you get the milk from them, but let the cows themselves
go. They've delivered what they were meant to deliver.
Leyla: 7. Thus, there is an even greater sentience whereby cognizant people know nothing but (a majority state of? Again, see 4.) consciousness.
This is not how I would say this. I would say they know nothing but their own existences, as fully as possible. There's the return of the mountain.
Leyla: IF 4, 5, 6 and 7 are essentially (as in, in the essence of the statements) true, then:
8. “But unless they are completely removed from a world of stimulus, cause, and effect, they can hardly declare themselves done with feeling. There will always be more to sense for the sentient being; more to make-sense of.”
…is false and cognizant people don‘t really exist. And so, too, is:
9. "One takes note that those who declare they are 'done' with feeling and emotion, also appear to be completely done with thinking, too. They're, well, done! (whilst they're not done at all!)"
…false.
There is nothing
but this person! This is a very grounded thing. I am not aiming for any abstractions such as "pure consciousness" or no-body!
Leyla: *If a value is something sensed in feeling/emotion, then it is necessarily unconscious and necessarily existing prior to the feeling/emotion - Pye: Okay - regardless of any particular full or partial state of consciousness, no?
The "full or partial state of consciousness"
means it will have been
made sense of.
Pye wrote: In enlightened terms, such a sensation is immediately transformed to consciousness, thought-based or otherwise.
Leyla: **Otherwise? What possible otherwise?
:) You are very alert. That "otherwise" is what I call non-linguistic consciousness (and I should have said that here). Just as emotions/feelings are non-thinking (if you will) until we progress them to their
reasons for being (values: which will have to be linguistically grasped), I think in the well-tempered being, long practice of the motion of sentiency enables us to move, act, and be in the world - without need of the words themselves in our minds telling us what to do. We just simply know. It's sort of like Nietzsche's belief in knowledge becoming as instinctual and natural as instincts themselves. How's that for a loop :)
You have a fascinatingly Pythagorean mind, Leyla. There's no need for you to "excuse" how you grasp things in this way.