I have been having an interesting discussion with a lovely friend about the different meanings of the verb 'to feel',
specifically that it is used to describe both physical and emotional sensations. By way of explanation, my friend asserts that all uses of the word feel are really mental,
since the impulses that tell us a fire is hot are electrical. Here is my response to that, but may I say now that I am not posting this to seek a resolution to who is right or wrong.
"The electrical impulses that travel from the skin to the brain are neither noticeably warm or cold. But there can be times, from a burn or even from fever, that our skin
most definitely feels warm to the touch. Or even not to the touch... That is a physical sensation. Well, I'll say characteristic. But like whoever it was on the board who posted that if something is
deemed pleasurable then it is therefore also desirable said, in my opinion if something has the physical property of giving off heat, we are forced to say that it feels hot. Whereupon I see that your statement, "Feelings are a mental category." exactly illustrates the point of my wish: that we had different words, abcde etc.,
to differentiate these "feeling" meanings!"

I am hoping that those of you who are familiar with other languages, esp. Nicholas since he knows so many, will say
whether there are any which, like the famed numerous Eskimo words for different types of snow, have different words for
"feel", so that a listener can instantly know whether the speaker was meaning a physical or emotional feeling.

In Italian things are even worse, since the verb sentire
corresponds to "to feel", but it means also
to hear, and to listen to...
Ciao
Emanuela

sentire
The Italian is from the same root word as the English word "sense" (both a noun and a verb). This is another of those famous Saxon/Latin pairs -- we have both "feel" and "sense" and in many cases they mean the same thing. However, my understanding is that "sense" is more wide-ranging than "feel" -- that we sense in more ways than we feel. In both cases, both sensing and feeling are often done without use of our physical members -- it's an intuitive process.

I think there is a lot of overlap in feelings- if i make a mistake-- and get caught-- i am liable to blush-- I feel embarrassed-- but later if i relate what happened-- I can again feel the same "mortification" and blush all over again-- and even if i don't blush externally-- my internal feelings are very similar-- my memory of being embarrassed is very close to actually being embarrassed.

Thinking about a strong physical sensation can bring back the such a strong memory-- you do "feel" the sensation all over again-- Maybe not with the same intensity-- but-- if you have ever cut any of your fingers severely with a knife (i have)-- when I read Bob (BYB's) post about his cutting his finger-- i reacted by curling in the finger I had cut--(index in my case) and "Protecting" it-- I remember the pain-- and I don't want to feel it again

when I
read Bob (BYB's) post about his cutting his finger-- i reacted by curling in the finger I had cut--(index in my case) and
"Protecting" it-- I remember the pain-- and I don't want to feel it again

This supports a feeling, or a belief, that I've had for some time that they laws of the physical universe are applicable to our psyches as well. Perhaps this is the basis for psychodrama, art therapy, and other therapies. Comments, please?

I'm not familiar with all of the laws of the physical universe (and not to belittle your question at all) but we do seem to be psychologically affected by sound waves, light waves, biological matter (matter in general, for that matter) - all three of which (and I'm sure there are more) humans, since they began to notice patterns, have experimented with manipulating, recreating, destroying and creating new ones... sometimes in the name of science, sometimes in the name of art... are we back on that right/left brain theory again?

Jackie - The 2 K sprinter, at the end of his race, doesn't experience fatigue like the feeling I had yesterday of being emotionally drained (a friend died on the anniversary of my fathers death). These two feelings are clearly different, even if I do use the same word "fatigue" to describe them. One mental and one physical.

Sweet Musick, I'm sorry for your loss. I know exactly what you mean. As it happens, I've just come from a funeral myself.

-- Thinking about a strong physical sensation can bring back the such a strong memory-- you do "feel" the sensation all over again--

I think that the remembrance of physical pain is almost nothing compared to the remembrance of emotional incidents. I still get emotional when I look at the pictures of my youngest son just after his birth, with contact pads and wires on his chest, tubes in his nose and arm, and still more sensors connected to his feet. Even though my period of anxiety was relatively short, and he is bright and healthy now, there are occasions when my mind drifts over that time, and I am brought up short by the violence of my feelings.

I'm reading a not very readable book by Antonio Damasio which makes a specifically linguistic point about the ambiguity in the word 'feeling', and the corresponding ambiguity in the Latin, but I forget what the exact point was; and as a linguist I wasn't too impressed.

I don't know of a language that specifically distinguishes these, without overlap, but then it's not the sort of thing that you'd pick up with a superficial knowledge of a language. That is, I know nothing about how non-European languages encode these things, and a quick glance at a dictionary would not help. If it said X = 'feel, sense' what would you learn? Does anyone out there know any non-European language well? Bingley on Indonesian, perhaps?

However, the theory behind Damasio's book does seem to be the direction the science is going: that thought and interior feelings originated over evolutionary time from rehearsals of external feelings. By being able to simulate what a cut finger would feel like, using many of the same brain circuits as come from the actual finger, you can judge whether it would be good or bad to cut your finger, without having to actually do it. The simulation in the brain goes both ways and feeds back into the efferent nerves so you do get some physical effect of twitching your finger in response if you think about it.

Damasio's the expert on this, but I just wish he could write a bit more like Richard Dawkins, so I'd have a chance of finishing it (and agreeing more than I presently do, because I still think he's mixing up good neurophysiology with not-so-good philosophy).

Yes, that sounds very plausible, NicholasW. It would certainly fit with the established literature on kinaesthetic learning methodologies - the basis of which, through my limited interpretation, might be expressed as "the body is capable of encoding memories and experience by reference to physical status ie, not merely by abstracted mental gymnastics". Hence on a simple level I can go down my dog-leg staircase in the dark without any conscious thought of whether there are 9 or 10 or 7 steps to the turn, because the muscles of my body can "remember" the pattern of movements. My wife is currently doing some research in an allied area, applying these methods to test for difference of results amongst highschool pupils, to ascertain if certain 'learning styles' may be more advantageously employed for particular types of kids who may not prosper under traditional teaching regimes.

Your original question seems to lead to a discussion of the meaning of reality. "Physical" feelings impulses are, at the level you mention, the same as "Emotional" feelings - they are both just electrical impulses. And there we delve into murky waters. As many philosophers have remarked - beginning with Plato's Cave Allegory on into Wittgenstein in the 20th Century and Terry Winograd at the end of the Century- the meaning of reality and do we really "experience" or "know" it at all is something almost impossible to objectively determine at a remove. To feel in the physical sensory sense is to experience a series of reactions to physical stimulii; while to feel, in the emotional sense, is also a series of reactions to physical stimulii - audio, visual, tactile... As we can never step outside of our "selves" it becomes logically impossible to arrive at any independent understanding of our environment. Godel was another who discussed this problem.

Interesting

berdonmill

Interestin Mav-- (your wife's research) years ago, i remember reading that play-- and playground games were vital to learning-- that children learn bigger or smaller-- and develop an understand of size by playing "Hide and Seek". the better a kids understanding of How much space he/she takes up, and how he/she can hide in a space is a Math skill-- Kids who excel in Hide and seek, are displaying a deep understanding of mass/size relationships.

Ball playing also teaches math-- and all interactive play hones logic and language skills-- explaining rules, understanding rules-- etc.

Jacks (a ball and toy game) and Hopscotch teach numbers, and sequences... lots of things to be learned in old fashioned childrens games...

Here in NYC so much of that has been lost-- and i think it worse in suburbs.. childrens lives are so structured now. they have very little time for free play.

An old way of teaching kids about size is to have one child sut a piece of cake in two, when the other child has first choice and can take the larger piece.

(Here's your sign language answer, Jackie):

In American Sign Language, there is a specific morpheme (the middle finger on the dominant hand) that carries with it the connotation of physical feeling. The signs TOUCH, SICK, NAKED, and CONTACT all use this morpheme in the sign production to indicate the physicality of the "feeling."

Often, emotionally connotative words are signed with this same morpheme, but the morpheme is used figuratively to indicate it is not the literal or physical sensation. When one emotionally FEELS, the sign strokes the heart/chest with this finger. to sign SAD, one carries these fingers down from the face.

The end result is that, in American Sign Language, one can identify what kind of "feeling" is happening by the way the feeling morpheme is used.

(satiating, Jackie? BTW, long overdue GOOD TO SEE YOU AGAIN!)

Brandon