None of Us Are Being 'Logical'

There is a concept that those who research how we think are calling the "Primacy of Affect" (The Master and His Emissary, Iain McGilchrist, 2009, pg.184).  Basically it says that one's feelings/way of being (affect) are not a reaction to one's cognitive assessment (logic), that actually it is reversed -- the affect comes first and our thoughts are a response to them.  The Abraham-Hicks materials defines logic as something we feel when we find information that fits with where we were already standing (what we were already feeling).

Now doesn't that explain a whole lot about what is going on and how some people seem to be so illogical to us?  It's because they are.  Many of us are running around being 'logical' about things we think are obvious and we don't understand how anyone could see it any other way.  We believe we are basing our logic on facts and truth and reality when really we are just trying to find things that agree with what we were already feeling.  Based on these two definitions, logic is not an objective truth, or fact outside of ourselves, it is a personal, subjective reflection of what we already feel and believe.

In LOP terms we could describe this by saying that we already have an essence or a feeling or an opinion or a habit in regards to everything that has ever happened in our lives, and it is from that essence that we then come to our next conclusions and next decisions.  McGilchrist writes that our "disposition towards the world comes first: any cognition is subsequent. . ."  So where we are on the upward or downward spiral in this moment, or in regards to any particular topic (disposition), dictates our thoughts and beliefs and what we deem as logical (cognition).  So, I think this just brings us back to the old question, "Do I want to be right or do I want to be happy?"  In LOP terms it would be, "How can I be right about being happy (who I really am)?"

It does not escape me that the writing of this post, and all the other posts on this blog, is a demonstration of this concept in action.  If I am to believe and practice the 'primacy of affect' concept then I must acknowledge that the reason that this premise seems logical to me is because it matches my disposition/how I feel.  And further, I understand that the researchers are just being logical about what fits with where they already stand as well.  So, once again, we have the opportunity to take a look at whether we are on the downward or upward spiral (because that is how we are going to experience things) by asking ourselves:

• Do I want to be logical about feeling awful, or do I want to be logical about feeling great? 
• Do I want to spend my time proving all the things I should be fearing, or do I want to use my time and energy to prove that there are a lot of things to appreciate in the world?  
• Do I want to justify why the things that frustrate me are wrong, or do I want to justify what is exciting or fun for me?  
• Do I want to put my energy into convincing others why what I like is justifiable or real for me, or do I just want to have a hoot pursuing the things that I enjoy?
• Do I want to be right about there being right and wrongs to discover and defend, or do I want to see how there are a variety of 'right things', and depending on what someone wants they will be seeing it that way, and their choices don't devalue mine.
  

If you decide 'the primacy of affect' is something that you like/feels logical, I am not saying you are doomed to the emotions of the past, because we are constantly moving up and down the spirals of life.  By practicing being who we really are, we work our way up the upward spiral and then our logic includes more and more of all the things that feel good -- our logic turns to justifying our fun and ease and creativity.

LOP is being aware of how I feel so that my choices of logic support my success and joy.