Even if you approach life logically, and see it as a problem, the question remains: what does the solution look like? Money in the bank, active sex life, dozens of adoring grand children, popularity, achievement, status, a long life?

These ideas enter our rational faculties from below.

They are the caveman's goals, and the rational layer of our being is just a means to that end.

There's a difference between suppression and realizing you have a choice on whether to follow that emotion. Obviously, suppression is bad but so is allowing yourself to get completely wrapped up in it. You can let that emotion just float there in the "background" and continue on.

Kierkegaard's idea of "repetition" actually speaks very directly to the topic of this larger discussion. Many ways to interpret his writings here, and I am no trained philosopher, but he seems to write about how repetition is not truly possible - that encountering a once-new thing for a subsequent time is tainted by recollection - dulling the experience essentially. I think he also suggests that cultivating a certain mindset can re-novelize life but I am thinking not many achieve that.

I debated where to attach a comment and decided that here would be as valid as elsewhere in the nearby tree. But, some of my response is more broad than to your comment...

I think that the ancestor and related messages imply various false dichotomies of logical+rational versus rich+emotional, problem solving versus experiencing, or a more ambiguous "spectrum". Likewise, you somewhat conflate several: novel versus familiar, pure versus tainted, bright or rich versus dull. These are not clear basis vectors of some abstract space but more confusing and muddled aspects of some perceptual space with an unknown number of dimensions shaped by the first person witness.

In the spirit of the broader topic, I think part of aging and becoming a master of your emotions is to recognize the imprecision and false allure of these metaphors. Ignorance is not bliss; it can be bliss or fear. Novelty is not wonder; it can be wonder or horror. And of course, ignorance or novelty can be boring or desensitizing too! Your state and perspective can drastically change the subjective experience, as can any number of external factors omitted from such trite labels.

The notion of not being able to repeat something is also embedded in how I've seen people, without intending any direct reference to the Thomas Wolfe novel, often use the adage "you can never go home again". I would say most people seem to mean that the observer/traveler has changed and cannot experience home the same way, though of course the place/inhabitants and relationships also change. The whole "home" experience is fleeting or even illusory. Conversely, someone can find "home" wherever they go, if they can establish sufficient conditions. I think Wolfe was aware of all of these factors.

Ironically, emotion as a biological system seems to be all about repetition and heuristics for prompting behaviors given the "same" conditions. And it's not just emotion. So much of perception and cognition is based in an illusion of permanence and identity for abstract concepts. Concepts that don't necessarily exist in the actual chaotic environment within which we are living.

Some might say that the true sense of beauty and wonder cones from doing how similar those two opposite ends of the spectrum actually can be

Who might say that and what would we have to do for them to commit to it?

Are you saying it? Because I don't think it's true at all! But I want to wait until someone actually say it before I get into that.

Thanks for the invitation but I'm not looking to argue about it. Peace!

Yes this is one of the great advantages of the "some might say" move, love that shit.