You can talk about feeling or emotion (is it necessary to clearly distinguish between these? Say, emotions as molecular to feelings as atomic?) with good reason as if they were like images or music, but this is to miss the chief thing, which is that they are vehicles of experience and not objects of it. You can't get away from being inside feelings, even when they overflow to the point where a certain detachment of the observer is inescapable. Detachment never quite means what it seems to say. You are not in the least separate from experience, but the grammar of detachment is an inescapable component of the grammar of experience. Because what you are is outside of experience it cannot be detached within experience, and within experience is the only frame in which things happen. Take negative emotion, for example. This does not befall the subject but is the embodied subject when experienced as both bodily and social, private and public, toxicity. The trick is that it drives you into seeking causes and remedies. But what if there are none? Then all that seeking is just the mind creating an impressive phenomenon, a fiercely involuted architecture in the three dimensions of time.