Nuthin'

[Laird]

Laird, love is a trap. Emotions are a mine-field. They are a see-saw whirlygig amusement park in which we can live our whole lives in the push/pull of highs and lows. If we wish to transcend the sufferings that come along with the epiphanies, we must examine our behavior and possibly re-evaluate the value of the feeeelings, and especially the place they have in the scheme of our lives. So long as we remain addicted to the feelings and to the ideas behind them, we are no more than slaves to nature. If we have the potential and can summon the will, we can lead ourself -- and thereby the world -- into a saner existence.

I've finally found enough respite from pain to respond.

Carl, love is not a trap, it's a way of life. Emotions are not a mine-field, they're what connects you with your humanity. Highs and lows? Sure, but in my experience, the highs far outweigh the lows. Perhaps you have been less fortunate. Too bad, but don't bestow your poor fortune upon me. Transcend the sufferings? I've already spelt out the path to that: love as much as you can and rationalise away that which pulls you from love. It's as simple as that. Addicted to feelings? Well sure, aren't we all but can you be human without being? I submit that you cannot. If we have the potential and can summon the will, we can lead ourself - and thereby the world - into a more loving and respectful existence.

I was for a while there going to share with you details of a couple of intimate experiences that I've had with women. Parting ways with one of my close friends at the end of a gorgeous night of shared affection, our arms around each other, not wanting to let go, the wind blowing in off the shore, feeling her body pressed against mine, seeing her face in a new light now that I was so close to it - she was radiant! - and generally just loving her with every inch of my soul. Or coming to the end of a night of raunch with my internet lover, her telling me things that I never thought I'd hear from a woman - things about my sexuality that I've always hoped to hear but have never - until now - had spelt out to me. What precious, precious memories. And you would have me deny them. So sad mate, so sad. In the end I decided not to share the details of those experiences with you though. I figured: you're a decent, lovable human being just like me - surely you've had fantastic experiences with women too. What's the point in spelling out the details of my experiences when you have your own experiences to draw upon?

Sue would tell me that it's all going to lead to hatred in the end. Sue: you misguided soul, you. There's little hatred in me and not much chance of any arising. Love leads to hatred like cats lead to dogs, which is to say - sometimes they attract one another but one isn't the consequence of the other. If you train yourself properly, then you can avoid any hatred that you might ordinarily feel.

I figured out the secret to life in my final year of high school. We were on retreat, and I was sitting next to my best buddy Mick, when I said to him: "What's the meaning of life?" and he replied "What do you think?" and I replied "It starts with an 'R'" whereupon he said "Yeah, relationships". You can try and deny it as much as you like but that's the simple truth. Human beings are social animals and we derive most of our meaning from our relationships with other people. My sister said something to me last year that really struck home. She goes from boyfriend to boyfriend - I mean, the woman is never without a partner - she's had something like seventeen in the past ten years - but for a moment she was temporarily without one. And what she said to me was something like this: "I tried for a while to believe that relationships with men didn't matter to me, that I was deluded for believing in them. But in the end I realised that I was fooling myself: relationships do matter, they're the most important thing in the world to me." And you know what? She could be speaking for me too (except that I'm into women, not men).

By the way, let me take this opportunity to say what a way cool chick my sister is. I mean, she's just awesome. Blows away the bullshit image of Woman that QRS try to portray. She started listening to the "World of woman" podcast but gave up on it not because the truths were too hard for her, but because it was a waste of her time to listen to it - there wasn't enough sense in it. Maybe you guys (QRS et al) need to meet more women like my sister, and the friend that I alluded to above, and my internet lover, to get over your pathetic stereotypes of Woman. In fact I know over a dozen women who blow away your stereotypes, but you probably wouldn't recognise them for who they are due to your prejudices. Fucking chauvinists.

[Unidian]

Laird,

Carl, love is not a trap, it's a way of life. Emotions are not a mine-field, they're what connects you with your humanity. Highs and lows? Sure, but in my experience, the highs far outweigh the lows. Perhaps you have been less fortunate.

Probably he has. Many of us have. Your experience seems quite unusual to me, in fact - although maybe that's just my own cognitive bias. But without any dismissive intent, I guess I'd have to say that you've had it easy. For me, to cultivate any kind of love for human beings has been an uphill battle.

L. Hon Rubbard (intentionally misspelled), the wacky sci-fi writer turned cult leader, said a grand total of two useful things - and one of them is this:

What Is Greatness?

The hardest task one can have is to continue to love his fellows despite all reasons he should not.

For the one who can achieve this, there is abundant hope.

For those who cannot, there is only sorrow, hatred and despair. And these are not the things of which greatness, or sanity or happiness are made.

I've never heard it put in a way more relevant to my own experience than that. For some people, generally those who have a history of encountering mostly kindness, compassion, and decency, love is an easy thing. It comes naturally. But for others among us, who have more experience with the opposites of those qualities, the primary challenge in life can be to avoid discarding love as worthless, false, non-existent, or evil.

I guess my point is that you may not quite understand how difficult this is for some of us.

[Dan Rowden]

That quote only goes to prove that, spiritually and intellectually, Hubbard made feathers seem weighty.

[Carl G]

What the heck, Laird, I give up. I have to agree, Love is grand, the babes are great, and dammit, a World Army is a good idea. Now let's buy the house a round and bury this stupid hatchet. Life's too short to worry about that broomstick-up-the-ass QRS philosophy. Who needs it?!

[Laird]

What the heck, Laird, I give up.

I thought so. You're a pushover mate. :-P

I have to agree, Love is grand, the babes are great, and dammit, a World Army is a good idea.

Now we're seeing eye to eye.

Now let's buy the house a round and bury this stupid hatchet.

Good idea. We'll split the tab.

Life's too short to worry about that broomstick-up-the-ass QRS philosophy. Who needs it?!

Well it has its redeeming features, but really, who can take seriously a philosophy that declares that emotions can be dissolved away purely through an intellectual realisation?

[Dan Rowden]

Excuse me, what's your argument that they can't?

[Unidian]

I dunno about anybody else, but personally I'd start with reality.

Outside the realm of religious scripture (i.e. Buddha), show me someone who has actually done it. And if you can't, I'd like to know why the idea should be treated as anything but faith-based.

I'll be waiting with little pink bubbly bells on. And perhaps a raincoat.

[Laird]

Well, don't get me wrong, I do think that emotions can be affected by our thoughts - I've written myself about rationalising negative emotions away. But I see no reason to believe that all emotions can be dissolved completely - they're too innate to our characters. Many of them arise in response to stimuli rather than as a consequence of a belief in the self, and I sincerely doubt that those type of emotions are subject to much rationalisation.

Anyway, more to the point, what's your argument that they can? I've challenged you guys on no less than three occasions to explain the relationship between the realisation that the self is an illusion and the dissolving of emotions and on not one of those occasions have any of you responded.

[Unidian]

Laird has a point there's too. You're essentially asking us to prove the negative, which you know very well is a logical no-no. The onus is on you to support your assertion that an intellectual realization can evaporate emotional responses. It is not up to us to show that such a thing "can't" happen any more than it is up to us to "disprove" the idea that a team of undetectable omnipotent monkeys governs the universe (which sounds pretty plausible to me, BTW). While making your case, I'd expect evidence to be provided which demonstrates how the basic neural structure of the human brain (which gives rise to emotional responses) can be instantly altered by a thought. I'd imagine there will be brain surgeons (among others) who will be very interested in such a possibility.

[Dan Rowden]

Well, don't get me wrong, I do think that emotions can be affected by our thoughts - I've written myself about rationalising negative emotions away.

One can "rationalise" emotions away or one can cause them to cease arising by understanding the delusional nature of their stimuli. e.g. you are angry, envious etc etc because you think your spouse is screwing the guy next door; then you find out she isn't. Said emotions go away.

But I see no reason to believe that all emotions can be dissolved completely - they're too innate to our characters.

Prove it, or at least try and argue it. Anyone can make this assertion. It's banal and infinitely removed from a convincing let alone cogent "argument".

Many of them arise in response to stimuli rather than as a consequence of a belief in the self,

Name a single emotion that doesn't arise within the context of a perceptual framework? I bet you can't. Therefore, it should be immediately apparent that in theory, at least, all emotions can evaporate in altered frameworks. For them to be argued to be "innate" you'd have to argue that some sort of perceptual framework is innate. Perhaps you have something in mind on that front.

and I sincerely doubt that those type of emotions are subject to much rationalisation.

Oh, ok, now you're merely "sincerely doubting" things. Jesus wept, Laird, a post before you were sanctimoniously declaring that one could not even take seriously the idea of emotions as QSR presents them. I've met so many blowhards like you it's become tedious. Why "blowhard"? Because like those before you you love to speak in grandly confident terms right up until you're called on it, then the backpeddling begins. Arrogance is your natural state and you're not remotely aware of it. I think you're basically in love with the poetry and emotional/moral force of your rhetoric. Pity it's essentially empty of such things other than in your imagination.

Anyway, more to the point, what's your argument that they can?

My argument that they can be is extant. Your argument that they are too innate to be transcended has yet to formulated beyond the realm of the henid in your own mind. Don't try and turn the point around. It displays a rather poor feel for logical consequence. Your assertion that my view cannot be taken seriously implies two things: 1) you know what my argument is; 2) you know why emotions cannot be thus transcended. Stop being an evasive dick and either plainly admit you don't really know (which would be honest and show some integrity) or make the argument.

I've challenged you guys on no less than three occasions to explain the relationship between the realisation that the self is an illusion and the dissolving of emotions and on not one of those occasions have any of you responded.

Funny, everyone else seems to have seen the effort I made in doing precisely that: Emotion, Attachment & Wisdom

[Laird]

No need to get personal Dan. "Blowhard", "arrogant", "evasive dick". I answered your question. You might not like my answer, but I answered it.

Look, human beings are feeling creatures. The line between emotions and other feelings is a blurry one. To be a conscious human being is to be in some state of feeling, sometimes reaching the level of emotion. I don't see how this can be avoided. A person might be able to largely avoid major emotional turmoil, but s/he can't avoid emotions completely. Show me someone who has achieved this.

You claim that all emotions arise within a perceptual framework and then claim that an altered framework can dissolve them. Where is the proof for this? Isn't it equally possible (in fact the case) that any "altered framework" is also one within which emotions arise?

I read your emotion thread. As I recall it didn't answer the specific question that I have, which is the mechanism by which an intellectual understanding can dissolve emotions, but let me read it again and get back to you. Maybe I just didn't concentrate hard enough.

[Nick]

I read your emotion thread. As I recall it didn't answer the specific question that I have, which is the mechanism by which an intellectual understanding can dissolve emotions, but let me read it again and get back to you. Maybe I just didn't concentrate hard enough.

No need to Laird, this example of Dan's clearly illustrates exactly how it can be done:

One can "rationalise" emotions away or one can cause them to cease arising by understanding the delusional nature of their stimuli. e.g. you are angry, envious etc etc because you think your spouse is screwing the guy next door; then you find out she isn't. Said emotions go away.

If this doesn't explain things for you then I'm affraid nothing will.

[Unidian]

It actually doesn't explain a pile of poop, Nick. No evidence whatsoever has been presented that any single intellectual realization can do away with emotional responses altogether. Certainly specific instances of emotional response can be altered by facts, but that isn't the claim being made and to advance it as such is another bait-and-switch shell game. The claim being made is that an intellectual realization can be arrived at which causes all emotional responses to cease arising. That is what needs to be supported, preferably by pointing to someone who has done it.

[Dan Rowden]

No need to get personal Dan. "Blowhard", "arrogant", "evasive dick".

I'm pointing out behaviour you seem oblivious to. Take it "personally" if you want.

I answered your question.

You responded to my question. A response isn't quite the same as an answer.

You might not like my answer, but I answered it.

You tend to set a different standard for yourself than you set for others in terms of defending a position. On this issue you've offered nothing beyond platitudes and hand waving. If that's the best you can do, that's fair enough. It's a tough issue. My point is that it's not enough for you to pontificate on the errors or lack of substance of the position of others. Do you get that?

Look, human beings are feeling creatures.

Wow, that's quite a revelation.

The line between emotions and other feelings is a blurry one.

Try and unblur them. What do you mean by emotions?

To be a conscious human being is to be in some state of feeling, sometimes reaching the level of emotion.

Ok, thanks for the 101 psychology lesson. This is the sort of rhetoric you need to get past. It's padding that says nothing.

I don't see how this can be avoided.

Tell me how and why emotions arise. That might give you a clue.

A person might be able to largely avoid major emotional turmoil, but s/he can't avoid emotions completely.

Why not? I mean, damn, you're asserting this! What are your reasons?

Show me someone who has achieved this.

That request is inherently silly. I'm not going to bother explaining why.

You claim that all emotions arise within a perceptual framework and then claim that an altered framework can dissolve them. Where is the proof for this? Isn't it equally possible (in fact the case) that any "altered framework" is also one within which emotions arise?

Certainly, it may be and often is. But this simply goes to show that the framework matters. If the framework in question is the ego, and that goes away, then so do its attendant psychological manifestations. Raw intellectual arguments about that dynamic tend to be pretty empty to people whose experience doesn't encompass it. But let me ask you this: can you imagine how an emotion like envy could arise in a person who does not see themselves as distinct from all other things and therefore lacking in any way? If you can, perhaps you can extrapolate from that understanding.

I read your emotion thread. As I recall it didn't answer the specific question that I have, which is the mechanism by which an intellectual understanding can dissolve emotions, but let me read it again and get back to you. Maybe I just didn't concentrate hard enough.

Fair enough.

[Carl G]

Carl G: Life's too short to worry about that broomstick-up-the-ass QRS philosophy. Who needs it?!

Laird: Well it has its redeeming features, but really, who can take seriously a philosophy that declares that emotions can be dissolved away purely through an intellectual realisation?

Dissolved away? I might prefer the word "mitigated," "modified," or "caused to not arise" but yeah, if one wishes to control the automatic tides of one's emotions -- and I do mine -- then what other way would there be besides through intellectual realization? Or to a degree sometimes physical activity.

Yeah, it is easy to knock the argument by saying "show me someone who has obviated every single emotional response," but this is not the real issue, is it, and certainly isn't necessary for proving the point -- one can do this for oneself quite easily -- that emotions -- and especially the energy drain of one's emotional cycles -- can be reduced through examination of their nature and causes.

[Unidian]

"Reduced," yes. Absolutely. But your claim is not their claim, Carl.

[Nick]

It actually doesn't explain a pile of poop, Nick. No evidence whatsoever has been presented that any single intellectual realization can do away with emotional responses altogether. Certainly specific instances of emotional response can be altered by facts, but that isn't the claim being made and to advance it as such is another bait-and-switch shell game. The claim being made is that an intellectual realization can be arrived at which causes all emotional responses to cease arising. That is what needs to be supported, preferably by pointing to someone who has done it.

Well, the example I quoted of Dan's is very limited and of course needs to be expanded upon. However the conscious and emotional dynamics occurring are identical to that of an individual who no longer experiences the arousal of emotions due to his perfect understanding of Nature. In both instances an individual is uncovering truth which, without any extra effort, makes the arousal of emotion(s) extremely unlikely. Now who's to say a mentally and physically healthy individual who grows up in a highly conscious and wise culture, is educated and taught in a way that gives him maximum potential to attain perfect enlightenment, and later goes on to uncover all that is Absolute and True while allowing the knowledge to become part of his being, will no longer experience the arousal of emotion due to his untainted development and perfect clarity of his knowledge and wisdom? Whether or not someone has accomplished this, I have no idea, but to tell you the truth it has no bearing on the fact that, in theory, it is entirely possible for an individual to eliminate the causes which lead to the arousal of emotion. Even if I could present to you a person who is just as described above it still wouldn't matter. There would still be no way for you to be absolutely certain about everything that person is actually experiencing.

Now in order to see why this is in fact possible, one must already have a firm intellectual understanding of all that is Absolute, True, and Timeless. Things such as the illusory nature of the self, others, and all things imaginable, and that everything has causes which extend endlessly and infinitely in every way imaginable. Allowing this knowledge to permeate one's being to some extent will also help them to see how the source of emotion can be stomped out due to his own experiences and how his life has been impacted after coming to terms with such knowledge.

[Tomas]

Laird the drunk poster boy (peace loved up) but a dummy and will never be anyone of substance


Suicidal alcoholic

[Unidian]

Now in order to see why this is in fact possible, one must already have a firm intellectual understanding of all that is Absolute, True, and Timeless.

Indeed. And you also need a Captain Crunch Secret Decoder Ring of Infinite Perfect Wisdom as well as frozen frog.

You guys are the best. "A firm intellectual understanding of all that is Absolute, True, and Timeless" indeed. Precisely which inherently dualistic thought process is understanding the non-dual Absolute intellectually? Which of the two mutually-opposed answers to any fundamental metaphysical problem is being arbitrarily chosen as "true?" Which time-bound thought process is apprehending the timeless?

And most importantly, who is the "one" who is having this "firm intellectual understanding" which involves "the illusory nature of the self?"

I'd say this place was like shooting fish in a barrel sometimes, but it's not. It's more like watching fish in a barrel shoot themselves.

[Dan Rowden]

Sometimes water reflects our own image and it turns out that's all we're shooting at.

[Unidian]

Interesting snipe, and I know I've undoubtedly been getting on your nerves lately by kicking Sue all over creation, but are we to understand that you're supporting what Nick wrote above? I'd like to think not, because it should be clear to you that that the "firm intellectual understanding" Nick is talking about isn't one anyone can can actually have.

If you aren't attached to the whole "QRS" thing, why snipe at me for mowing down these noob-like ideas?

[Nick]

You guys are the best. "A firm intellectual understanding of all that is Absolute, True, and Timeless" indeed. Precisely which inherently dualistic thought process is understanding the non-dual Absolute intellectually? Which of the two mutually-opposed answers to any fundamental metaphysical problem is being arbitrarily chosen as "true?" Which time-bound thought process is apprehending the timeless? And most importantly, who is the "one" who is having this "firm intellectual understanding" which involves "the illusory nature of the self?"

Three pounds of flax.

[Unidian]

Ooooh, touche! A big fat shiny +1 for Nick. Turning the tables on me up in my own house of sticky buns. Well-played.

[Dan Rowden]

a) you didn't kick Sue any place; b) there was nothing wrong with Nick's post.

[Unidian]

Meh... okay, suit yourself. You're on record to that effect, then.