Intelligence and the desire to reproduce.

[Diebert van Rhijn]

Even rats can have their fundamental drives function in a very different way from humans, though rats have emotions too, albeit more basic ones.

Tell me about it *sigh*. Overcoming our animal nature, letting our intellect not getting fooled by it - that's the main purpose.

The joys and happiness made the suffering worth it, then?

Yeah. if my life was unrelentingly full of shit, I might turn to buddhism too; but this suggests that the buddhist prescription is, at best, a rather narrow one, that buddhism does not speak of the human condition in general.

But that's the point, people don't turn to Buddhism because of any amount of suffering. At least, not that I know. Even the founder, Gautama Buddha, who sets the tone seemed rather well off in life. It's an existential drive, a craving for insight into ones own nature, a growing dissatisfaction that seems to draw people to these ideas. As for converted Christians I met, they all had quite successful lives before they shifted perspectives. This is all just a weak echo from the underlying search for truth, an attempt to answer the seeming idiocy of existence - for those so inclined.

i was pointing out that I am not ignoring the suffering I underwent.

Which I never suggested. How would you know what you don't know you don't know? Sorry, I borrowed that from Rumsfeld, in case you understand political spin better.

First Noble Truth is religious dogma.

It's meant as simple definition to use in further dialog based on his observations. What you mean is that you don't agree with the definition. But that doesn't make it dogma, only to those who treat it as such. To me there's a difference between wisdom and the tradition where it's embedded in. It's like excavation.

Please give me one single reason to treat both joy and suffering equally, uplifting both or rejecting both.

Because they cannot be separated. And even if it might seem one can enlarge happiness in a certain frame of time for a certain person, or group of persons, it's directly related to suffering in another time or group.

Of course this is all about awareness; it won't suddenly change our natural tendency to chase after joy and avoid suffering, as that's just how they manifest in life. If someone loves pain, it becomes joy to him (a desire) and if someone hates joy, it becomes suffering (a rejection).

So we can see the desiring and rejecting have become the universal currency. If it's joy or pain - it doesn't matter. You might end up with incomplete ideas like 'functionality'.

The Buddhists have already a few centuries thought, written and debated about the role of desire, passion and emotions by experimental and existential research.

You said that to me to warn me of the mighty edifice of knowledge i am attacking. Guess what? Xians had built up such an edifice as well, yet it crumbles at the slightest touch of critical analysis.

It was not meant as warning, just a remark to highlight how common David's idea was in the context of Buddhism. What did I try to accomplish with that remark? That you'd address this Buddhist 'edifice' with your 'critical analysis' because it might force you to think a bit more instead of just hinting at the physiology of one single person.

Did you know that emotional decisions often approximate very complex utilitarian heuristics?

No, but this is commonly called intuition or feeling.

'Feeling' as in 'I feel bad about it', yes. That's emotion.

No, a phrase like "I've a bad feeling about this" does not point to an emotion proper. No wonder we're not having much of a meaningful discussion. We're including here all kinds of notions that suddenly are titled 'emotion' and live on equal footing with fear, anger, disgust, sadness and happiness. I know there's no agreement really in the literature what to include in the term emotion but in such cases one has to go by context.

I'd like to see a source that explicitly links higher emotions to something utilitarian.

You want me to remember the paper I read at a seminar nearly a decade ago?..

Hey, you quoted the examples. It would be stupid to quote examples one doesn't remember the details from. Anyway:

The feeling of disgust often reflects health hazards of a substance

A feeling of disgust is not a primary emotion. Closer to a reflex, perhaps on the level of a drive or impulse. Strong memory ties can even result in false reflexes like this, thereby leading us on mindless ways, rejecting perfectly healthy substances for no reason. On that level I might start to consider it to become emotional.

Fear has an obvious utilitarian function, including physiologically

I had some slight disagreement with Kevin Solway about this in the past (here it is, it might show you more clear where I'm coming from in these discussions). No doubt pumping of adrenaline facilitates action but what do we experience exactly during this state? Does it need to be fear, when does it turn into courage or 'kick'. The emotion of fear might only arise when we identify with the danger (OMG I might suffer). As I also wrote in the post I linked to: this subtle difference revolved around defining emotion as the physical action or the mental processing around it.

And not in the sense that they appear in utilitarian situations (like anger during a fight) but if they need to arise to force a more efficient decision

But fear in danger does force a more efficient decision -- and primes the organism for a more efficient response, too.

See above. Some people might experience 'courage' or 'fearlessness' in exactly the same situation and sequence of actions. The neuro-chemical responses would be largely the same but the emotion experienced and reported upon differ wildly. This is why a more subtle approach on emotion is needed than just assuming everyone responds the same on similar impulses.

[Diebert van Rhijn]

Your response though was about as slimy as i expected.

Does this mean that hinting that someone might have a drinking problem is hitting below the belt, while directly insulting him is not?

Yup. if you are gonna insult me, have the decency to do it out in the open. A direct insult is much more honest than slimy insinuation. Plus, this is poisoning the well.

No Victor, you're just showing your true colors. You are the type that can dish out but is not willing to take it in other terms than the one you define, how pathetic. If you'd put some more basic politeness and maturity in your writing even with people you consider idiots, the whole issue won't be there. Anyway, I only try to mirror your own face back to you but just distorted enough to make you whine about it, as to demonstrate a more subtle point about your psychology.

Anyway, if I insult someone I try to do it with class, or at least something that has cost a bit more effort and thought than the average fart. Calling that insinuation and preferring direct insults and name-calling is just plain stupid. There you have it: a direct insult, your own preferred style where the whole world should engage in: "the world according to Victor".

Perhaps though all this does start poisoning the well and I'll stop it, hoping it will change your behavior too.

[Imadrongo]

But that's the point, people don't turn to Buddhism because of any amount of suffering. At least, not that I know. Even the founder, Gautama Buddha, who sets the tone seemed rather well off in life. It's an existential drive, a craving for insight into ones own nature, a growing dissatisfaction that seems to draw people to these ideas. As for converted Christians I met, they all had quite successful lives before they shifted perspectives. This is all just a weak echo from the underlying search for truth, an attempt to answer the seeming idiocy of existence - for those so inclined.

Dissatisfaction = suffering?

Buddhism is a special place to turn for those who are incompetent, lazy, etc. You could recognize the meaningless of life without castrating yourself, but if you already have little to nothing to castrate you have nothing to lose. You do stand to gain if you can convince yourself and others that you are sacrificing your wonderful life for absolute truth, etc.

[Diebert van Rhijn]

Dissatisfaction = suffering?

It's dissatisfaction with ones current understanding of suffering, joy: good and evil - often supplied by cultural tradition or by parroting peers. And a really deep dissatisfaction might ultimately lead to better understanding of suffering. The impact this exactly has on someone's life in terms of fulfillment or success: there's no general rule but there's not much doubt it would all be turned upside down. Since the value system changed it has no meaning to compare status or success in society before or after the revaluation. In traditional Buddhism at least one would submit to a monastic life which was many times more unpleasant and hard working than the average life outside it, AFAIK.

[Nick]

Do you disagree that for a sage emotion is not the motivating factor?

Define Sage, and tell me what the motivating factor is for.

That is immaterial. This is about understanding and discussing your definition. And, I happen to agree with the part of it in question. What I disagree with is your statements about the sun, earth and trees, and the aptness of your metaphorical connection of them to the sage in that respect.

I knew I couldn't expect you to answer the question. That would actually require to to say something of substance. It's easy for you to sit back and "point out illogic", as you so aptly put it, without ever having to put your own nuts on the line.

Like your opinion that the Sun shines without emotion. I could have just as well said that's a bald unsupported assertion, which it was.

Actually the assertion has plenty of support. Go talk to any member of the scientific community and see if they think the Sun is emotional.

LOL! You're kidding. That's your defense?

Yes. The Sun is a giant nuclear furnace with no signs of any awareness or ego, something necessary by definition for emotions to arise.

But if all you are trying to say is that I can't state with Absolute certainty that the Sun operates without emotion then I'll agree with that.

No sir, I'm saying you or I don't know anything about the Sun in that regard. If you wish to speculate, fine, do so, but let's call it poetry, or myth.

Speak for yourself. This isn't speculation, Carl, I've read scienctific texts on the nature of the Sun through out my entire life. So no it's not called poetry or myth, it's called Science and Logic. You really should try it out some time.

[vicdan]

There is suffering, i.e. if you do not suffer psychologically then Zen is not for you if everything is smooth you do not need to fix a thing which is not broke.
If you life is conflict free and smooth you do not even look at Buddhism, then entry sign itself reads, if there is suffering in your life come here.

So you basically give up on defending buddhism as some fundamental, broad insight into the human condition, as Diebert would have it. Great.

[vicdan]

Deibert,

Hey dude, are you ever planning on actually offering any arguments in support of the assertion that life is full of suffering? The First noble Truth cannot be taken to be simply a definition of 'suffering', you know.

But that's the point, people don't turn to Buddhism because of any amount of suffering. At least, not that I know. Even the founder, Gautama Buddha, who sets the tone seemed rather well off in life. It's an existential drive, a craving for insight into ones own nature, a growing dissatisfaction that seems to draw people to these ideas.

And buddhism is definitely not the only way to address this existential void, and i would suggest not even the best.

It's meant as simple definition to use in further dialog based on his observations.

hahaha. yeah, definition. QRS style.

life is full of swiss cheese.

let's discuss it!

pathetic and dishonest, kiddo.

Please give me one single reason to treat both joy and suffering equally, uplifting both or rejecting both.

Because they cannot be separated.

Illness and health are two sides of the same coin, yet we strive to be healthy and not ill. This can also be said of ignorance and knowledge, foolishness and wisdom, etc. Just because you are dealing with a duality,doesn't mean that both aspects of it have to be treated euqally. Bloody fucking DUH!

Do you ever think about the bullshit you are spewing forth?

And even if it might seem one can enlarge happiness in a certain frame of time for a certain person, or group of persons, it's directly related to suffering in another time or group.

Ah, the stupid zero-sumness idiocy rears its ugly head again. i thought you had learned a thing or two when I rubbed Neil's face into it.

if you are gonna insult me, have the decency to do it out in the open. A direct insult is much more honest than slimy insinuation. Plus, this is poisoning the well.

No Victor, you're just showing your true colors. You are the type that can dish out but is not willing to take it in other terms than the one you define, how pathetic.

Stop whining, little bitch. Pointing out the sliminess of such insinuations is simply turning it back against you.

If you'd put some more basic politeness and maturity in your writing even with people you consider idiots, the whole issue won't be there. Anyway, I only try to mirror your own face back to you but just distorted enough to make you whine about it, as to demonstrate a more subtle point about your psychology.

Dude, if you were spinning any faster, you would fly apart under the centrifugal force. Buck up and take it like an adult. :)

Perhaps though all this does start poisoning the well and I'll stop it, hoping it will change your behavior too.

Too bad you can't stop using faith instead of your rational facilities. That's what would effect a real change.

[Philosophaster]

The First noble Truth cannot be taken to be simply a definition of 'suffering', you know.

Redefining terms is the only possible way to argue, dontcha know?

[And yes, that, too, is true by definition. LOL.]

[David Quinn]

Me, I see the purposelessness of the universe as Freedom. We create as much as we breathe. We create the way trees exude oxygen. We can take this existential void, and fill it with ourselves, our own meaning and purpose. This is Freedom, baby! and I am a cheerful nihilist who embraces the existential void.

Believe it or not (and most xians don't), i truly have no emotional need for the higher purpose or being. I rid myself of this existential nausea without ridding myself of emotions... not once during that time did I feel an impulse to appeal to higher power, to call out for cosmic justice, to question the purpose of such an event or to rail against this purpose, etc. It's not that I restrained myself because I know better intellectually (which I do), i did not even feel the impulse to do so.

This is the central aspect of the Overman. I have a similar attitude.

Given that Victor bows down at the alter of Quine and the collective group-think of modern academia in general, his boasts here don't sound very believable. He stills finds a higher purpose in these things, and defends them in the manner of a fundamentalist. He is still a long way short of true nihilism and freedom for my liking.

God may be dead, but his shadow lives on.

-

[daybrown]

<God may be dead, but his shadow lives on. >
What Nietzsche actually said was that the Levantine concept of god was dead. But certainly, I agree with David, it still casts a long shadow. Well put.

But there is a reason to hope the intelligent will reproduce. The world is a fucking mess, and it'll take a lot more smart people to clean it up. All the dumbfucks now breeding need more intensive case work to stop them from doing that too. If we drafted all the airheads into brothels, the jackasses would forget all about siring sons and line up at the doors.

Course, its not upta us. But if you can think clearly, you can see where the problems of stupid breeding will be more, or less, of a problem, and modify your lifestyle and location of your home accordingly.

[David Quinn]

David,

In the beginning stages, when a person first begins to seek truth, he is still very egotistical and emotional, and thus his valuing of truth will certainly be emotional. Indeed, ideally, his emotional love of truth will be very strong, such that it can overpower all of his other emotional attachments and values that would cause him to remain untruthful.

And then, as he develops, his rationality and love of truth begins to chip away at the very foundations of emotion - namely, the illusion of inherent existence. Most people fall away at this stage because they are far too attached to emotional living and don't want to see it eroded. Their emotions call an immediate halt to this rational process of becoming increasingly more truthful and they begin to turn their backs on truth. However, the person who has cultivated a strong passion for truth and developed some serious momentum will continue, almost in spite of himself, to chip away at these foundations until there is nothing left.

If he succeeds, the momentum of the entire preceding process will continue unabated, even when all of his emotions have vanished, and it is this momentum which leads the sage to continue having values and to keep getting out of bed to work for the cause of rationality and wisdom.

Let us assume that all you said here is true. Even then, the goal of the sage was set by emotions (love of truth), and his values are as arbitrary as mine. Even if he is now above emotions, he is following an emotional goal.

That's not really accurate. What happens is that he begins by emotionally valuing truth (because he thinks it will give him happiness), and then, as he develops, his valuing of truth changes from being emotional to that of being habitual and second-nature.

In other words, he grows into valuing truth spontaneously. His neural pathways have been reprogrammed such that he begins to value truth effortlessly. The old neural pathways that were centered around false thinking, causing his mind to shy away from truth, are no longer there. As such, the emotional effort to overcome these false behaviour patterns is no longer needed.

Truth itself is neither an inherently emotional value, nor an unemotional one. But it can be valued by us either emotionally or non-emotionally.

And without this goal, he would have nothing to apply his reason to. Why would he?

That's right. The goal that he now adopts, naturally and spontaneously, provides the direction for all his thought and behaviour.

But really, David, is this sage really rational? He is working like an automaton towards a goal he knows is futile, because since he shed his emotions, he knows loving truth is silly. He gets out of bed driven by a goal he set when he was a deluded man, and now he just can't stop it.

Seems to me that he has become less conscious, not more.

We're all automatons, really. Even ordinary people can't stop following their core programming, which is to seek happiness. The difference with the sage is that he is entirely conscious about this, and that he has changed his core programming from seeking happiness to promoting wisdom. This is the result of his mind developing and expanding in all directions.

-

[vicdan]

Given that Victor bows down at the alter of Quine and the collective group-think of modern academia in general, his boasts here don't sound very believable. He stills finds a higher purpose in these things, and defends them in the manner of a fundamentalist.

No, you bloody idiot, I don't find a higher purpose in physicalism. In fact, I don't find any purpose in it at all; it's simply a very effective, accurate, powerful perspective, a tremendously fruitful way of looking at the world, a magnificent and highly efficacious analytic framework.

if i find purpose in anything, it's knowledge and happiness and freedom; but those are my purposes, nothing 'higher' about them.

He is still a long way short of true nihilism and freedom for my liking.

David, David... one day you will grow up. :) Then you will understand that projecting your own wishes and desires onto the world, doesn't change the world.

[vicdan]

We're all automatons, really. Even ordinary people can't stop following their core programming, which is to seek happiness. The difference with the sage is that he is entirely conscious about this, and that he has changed his core programming from seeking happiness to promoting wisdom.

Which wisdom of course consists in making up new definitions and then semantically equivocating on them. Gotcha.

BTW, Sher made a very good point earlier. if the sage can act as if he loves truth without actually loving truth, why can't he do the same with love of sex? fine food? partying?..

I mean, it's not like this sage would actually desire those things. Pursuit of them could arise spontaneously from the sage's very being, right?.. :D

[maestro]

So you basically give up on defending buddhism as some fundamental, broad insight into the human condition, as Diebert would have it. Great.

Well most people I know are indeed in some state of suffering, especially now with all the sensory overload and the media brainwashing them into their inadequacy and creating a feeling of want. So Buddhism has become more relevant to the human condition.

BTW the Buddha himself said that there are two kinds of illnesses physical and mental, there are people who are free from physical illness for years or even for a lifetime, but there are very very few who are free from mental illness even for a few moments, so It has indeed a broad application to humanity.

In fact were there other techniques which addressed these psychological issues in a comprehensive manner I would have been interested in them too. Current western psychology is statistics based, which is not interesting since I am interested in perfect mental health, and not the norm, which is quite diseased as Buddha noted in 2500 BC (and is even more true now).

Anyhow Buddhism delivers the goods so it is good enough.

[vicdan]

Well most people I know are indeed in some state of suffering, especially now with all the sensory overload and the media brainwashing them into their inadequacy and creating a feeling of want. So Buddhism has become more relevant to the human condition.

Wait, i thought you want buddhism deals not with the mundane sort of suffering, but with the existential kind?..

BTW the Buddha himself said that there are two kinds of illnesses physical and mental, there are people who are free from physical illness for years or even for a lifetime, but there are very very few who are free from mental illness even for a few moments, so It has indeed a broad application to humanity.

How about you decide which sort of 'suffering' we are talking about as being mentioned in the First Noble Truth, before we proceed? you seem to be equivocating.

Current western psychology is statistics based, which is not interesting since I am interested in perfect mental health, and not the norm, which is quite diseased as Buddha noted in 2500 BC (and is even more true now).

And what would constitute 'perfect mental health'?

Anyhow Buddhism delivers the goods so it is good enough.

Xianity 'delivers the goods' too -- many xians are quite happy and content. And they get to go to heaven on top of everything else, natch! That doesn't really say much about xianity's veracity, coherence, etc., does it/

[David Quinn]

And then, as he develops, his rationality and love of truth begins to chip away at the very foundations of emotion - namely, the illusion of inherent existence [emphasis mine -V]. Most people fall away at this stage because they are far too attached to emotional living and don't want to see it eroded. Their emotions call an immediate halt to this rational process of becoming increasingly more truthful and they begin to turn their backs on truth. However, the person who has cultivated a strong passion for truth and developed some serious momentum will continue, almost in spite of himself, to chip away at these foundations until there is nothing left.

This is another one of your great pernicious lies, David. i had shown you before that the two -- lack of inherent existence (of self, the ego, soul for short if you will), and emotions -- aren't in conflict. One needn't believe in soul in order to accept the validity of emotions. One's nature can be fluid, ever-changing, just like the proverbial river you cannot step into twice -- and yet the river is still there, even though it always changes.

In fact, if you studied cognitive science*, you would know that by now it's well recognized in science that the singular self doesn't exist. human mind is not a horse racing forward, but an entire herd thundering in more or less the same direction. The singularity and atomicity of self, the inherent existence as you put it, is most definitely a delusion; but that in no way invalidates emotions. One can fully recognize the lack of inherent self, its ever-changing nature, the inseparability of self from the Universe, and yet acknowledge emotions as being an integral aspect (not 'belonging to', but comprising) this fluid, dynamic self, ever-changing self -- the self which is surfing the waves of Being, changing them and being changed by them.

I'm sorry, but this issue is entirely beyond your field of expertise. I know you want to be superman, but even you cannot know everything. The choices you have made in your life have opened doors and closed others. Your decision to immerse yourself in the collective group-think of academia has closed yourself off from exploring the deeper, more personal forms of understanding, otherwise known as spiritual understanding.

An intelligent man understands his own limitations and doesn't claim expertise that he doesn't have. This is in contrast to the fundamentalist who tries to extend his own limited methodology to all matters, regardless of context, and subsequently thinks he understands all manner of things outside his field of expertise.

As far as this issue of inherent existence is concerned, you haven't even begun to scratch the surface. It goes much deeper than simply seeing that things are interconnected and ever-changing. One has to really burrow into the matter and realize that the very "soul" of things is not really there. By "soul", I'm not referring to any kind of religious entity, but to the quality that leads us to believe - directly and immediately, in the moment - that things are more substantial and more objective than they really are. When that "soul" vanishes, then the possibility of generating an emotional response to things also vanishes.

Perhaps the best way to illustrate this is to look at how the dreaming mind at night reacts to what it perceives as a threatening situation unfolding within a dream. If the mind is taken in by the dream and believes that the events unfolding are real, then the emotion of fear will be generated. But if the mind clearly perceives that it is all part of a dream and that none of it is inherently real, and that the perceived threat has no more substance than a mirage, then it won't generate any emotional response at all. It will remain as calm and still as a lake in a breathless, moonlit night.

You conveniently cut off the rest of my sentence, which read "at least in this area". There is no question that the emotional attachment to comfort greatly hinders the rational process, often shutting down lines of reason in mid-sentence, as it were, before they have a chance to be completed. This would never happen in an emotionless person.

no, the emotions shut off the specific lines of empirical inquiry in mid-sentence, not the lines of reasoning; and yet, your typical emotionless sage would most definitely do something similar. Let's say the sage is a spelunker (it's his nature!) and comes across a very interesting cave; alas, his canary just died. Instead of further investigating this cave, the sage would backtrack, shutting off a line of empirical inquiry in mid-sentence, because its pursuit would incur inordinately high cost. he is cutting off a line of empirical inquiry without compromising his rationality. Your cop does the same.

A sage necessarily has to prioritize, just as we all do. And yes, it sometimes means that he has to nip potential investigations in the bud, whether they be empirical investigations or purely logical ones, as he simply doesn't have the time or energy to pursue utterly everything that comes his way. But this is a long way from the cop who cuts off an investigation out of emotional fear. It is an entirely different dynamic at work.

* Dammit, dude, i wish you had studied pretty much anything outside your idiotic navel-gazing. You have no idea what wealth of knowledge, understanding, and insight you are missing out on.

And by the same token, you seem to have no idea of the great treasure that already exists inside your own mind. I assure you, it makes all those outer branches of wealth you mention very flimsy in comparison.

-

[David Quinn]

We're all automatons, really. Even ordinary people can't stop following their core programming, which is to seek happiness. The difference with the sage is that he is entirely conscious about this, and that he has changed his core programming from seeking happiness to promoting wisdom.

Which wisdom of course consists in making up new definitions and then semantically equivocating on them. Gotcha.

You still haven't a clue. Wisdom is to creating terms as quantum physics is to learning the alphabet.

BTW, Sher made a very good point earlier. if the sage can act as if he loves truth without actually loving truth, why can't he do the same with love of sex? fine food? partying?..

He has grown out of all those things. It is like how the average adult grows out of wanting to throw his food around and play with Thomas the Tank Engine. The neural pathways involved have faded away.

-

[vicdan]

I'm sorry, but this issue is entirely beyond your field of expertise.

Oh man, this is hilarious. Your 'experise' here consists of blowing smoke out of your ass, dude! Your are about as much an 'expert' here as a fundy xian theologian is on cosmogony.

Perhaps the best way to illustrate this is to look at how the dreaming mind at night reacts to what it perceives as a threatening situation unfolding within a dream. If the mind is taken in by the dream and believes that the events unfolding are real, then the emotion of fear will be generated. But if the mind clearly perceives that it is all part of a dream and that none of it is inherently real, and that the perceived threat has no more substance than a mirage, then it won't generate any emotional response at all. It will remain as calm and still as a lake in a breathless, moonlit night.

Oh please. This has nothing to do with 'inherent existence'. The difference between being chased by a monster in your dream, and sticking your hand on a chainsaw in waking reality, is that the latter will hurt, will make you bleed, and will cause all sorts of things you will perceive as troublesome -- and you won't wake up. It's not the question 'does the saw really inherently exist?' that matters, but what effects you will experience as consequences of certain actions.

the emotions shut off the specific lines of empirical inquiry in mid-sentence, not the lines of reasoning; and yet, your typical emotionless sage would most definitely do something similar. Let's say the sage is a spelunker (it's his nature!) and comes across a very interesting cave; alas, his canary just died. Instead of further investigating this cave, the sage would backtrack, shutting off a line of empirical inquiry in mid-sentence, because its pursuit would incur inordinately high cost. he is cutting off a line of empirical inquiry without compromising his rationality. Your cop does the same.

A sage necessarily has to prioritize, just as we all do. And yes, it sometimes means that he has to nip potential investigations in the bud, whether they be empirical investigations or purely logical ones, as he simply doesn't have the time or energy to pursue utterly everything that comes his way. But this is a long way from the cop who cuts off an investigation out of emotional fear. It is an entirely different dynamic at work.

No, it's not. you just wish it were, so that you could claim there to exist a unique flaw in how emotion interacts with reason -- but of course your hypothetical emotionless sage would still be subject to the same effect, which means that it's not a specific characteristic of emotion.

You still haven't a clue. Wisdom is to creating terms as quantum physics is to learning the alphabet.

And yet creating terms, and then dishonestly equivocating upon them, is pretty much all you do.

BTW, Sher made a very good point earlier. if the sage can act as if he loves truth without actually loving truth, why can't he do the same with love of sex? fine food? partying?..

He has grown out of all those things.

Why would he? What if he hasn't? Why should a sage outgrow love of sex and partying, but not love of truth, instead merely transmuting the latter into his very nature?

Come on. Give me a reason that's not emotionally grounded in love of truth. Simply making a sage assertion don't cut it, buddy. :D

[Jamesh]

The problems with emotional reasoning are many, but one of the big problems is that people don’t even recognise the difference between emotional thinking and reasoning, and this leaves them prone to egotistical predators. They think that what emotions cause to occur in the brain IS RATIONAL REASONING.

Take this for example from today’s news:

A 14-year-old who nearly died during an exorcism needed emergency treatment to save her sight after relatives scratched at her eyes to remove the devil.
The girl is a cousin of Janet Moses, the woman who died during the October 12 ceremony to lift a Maori curse. The girl had chunks gouged from her eyeballs.

To the perpetrators of this insanity, they were employing reason in whatever the fuck they did to these victims.

The number of people who think primarily that emotions ARE reasoning is way too high. For a start it is the bulk of women, particularly the popular vocal ones, and with men becoming more and more feminised, it applies to most young men as well.

This is a worrying situation. When coupled with the fact that the media, business and conservative politicians constantly use this cognitive failure to their benefit, then it, together with decreasing opportunities to learn positive masculine traits- as a result of the gradual decrease in the struggles of physical survival - will make the herd into emotional children, and bring forth fewer and fewer emotion-free thinkers. Over the very long time, reason could die out completely.*


*lol. Advanced aliens could be like this, which is why they fuck around with crop circles and anal probing. I’m not serious, just joking around. Still, I would expect some alien races to devolve into antlike herd species hierarchy/configuration - seeing as that is where we are slowly heading.

[Ataraxia]

Did you know that humans make the decision about .2 seconds before they recognize the decision as being made, suggesting that what we perceive as self, our internal narrative, is not so much a king as a royal scribe.

Vicdan;

I read this somewhere,but didn't really understand what it was implying.It may have been in Dennets's 'On consciousness'

If you could direct me to a URL that explains the implications in laymans terms,I'd appreciate it.

[Imadrongo]

How is attempting to save a girl who has a demon by scratching her eyes, where you fully believe that is the way to remove demons, not rational?

What is the real distinction between rationality and irrationality?

[Shahrazad]

How is attempting to save a girl who has a demon by scratching her eyes, where you fully believe that is the way to remove demons, not rational?

Their reasoning was based on false assumptions, and therefore yielded an incorrect result. So, the belief in demons and in that they can be removed by scratching out eyes is what was wrong, not the logic applied.

This is what I think Victor meant when he talked about logic (reasoning) being GIGO (garbage in garbage out).

In case you haven't realized, Jamesh can't tell the difference between faulty reasoning and faulty beliefs.

-

[David Quinn]

Perhaps the best way to illustrate this is to look at how the dreaming mind at night reacts to what it perceives as a threatening situation unfolding within a dream. If the mind is taken in by the dream and believes that the events unfolding are real, then the emotion of fear will be generated. But if the mind clearly perceives that it is all part of a dream and that none of it is inherently real, and that the perceived threat has no more substance than a mirage, then it won't generate any emotional response at all. It will remain as calm and still as a lake in a breathless, moonlit night.

Oh please. This has nothing to do with 'inherent existence'. The difference between being chased by a monster in your dream, and sticking your hand on a chainsaw in waking reality, is that the latter will hurt, will make you bleed, and will cause all sorts of things you will perceive as troublesome -- and you won't wake up. It's not the question 'does the saw really inherently exist?' that matters, but what effects you will experience as consequences of certain actions.

To the sage, even physical pain is a mirage and wouldn't generate any emotionality in him.

Victor: the emotions shut off the specific lines of empirical inquiry in mid-sentence, not the lines of reasoning; and yet, your typical emotionless sage would most definitely do something similar. Let's say the sage is a spelunker (it's his nature!) and comes across a very interesting cave; alas, his canary just died. Instead of further investigating this cave, the sage would backtrack, shutting off a line of empirical inquiry in mid-sentence, because its pursuit would incur inordinately high cost. he is cutting off a line of empirical inquiry without compromising his rationality. Your cop does the same.

DQ: A sage necessarily has to prioritize, just as we all do. And yes, it sometimes means that he has to nip potential investigations in the bud, whether they be empirical investigations or purely logical ones, as he simply doesn't have the time or energy to pursue utterly everything that comes his way. But this is a long way from the cop who cuts off an investigation out of emotional fear. It is an entirely different dynamic at work.

Victor: No, it's not. you just wish it were, so that you could claim there to exist a unique flaw in how emotion interacts with reason -- but of course your hypothetical emotionless sage would still be subject to the same effect, which means that it's not a specific characteristic of emotion.

It is like the difference between the scientific community prioritizing its funding and intelligently choosing which projects to pursue and which to discard, and the scientific community shrinking away from funding certain projects out of an emotional fear of the consequences. The differences are immense.

We wouldn't condone the latter behaviour from the scientific community, nor should we condone it in individuals.

DQ: You still haven't a clue. Wisdom is to creating terms as quantum physics is to learning the alphabet.

Victor: And yet creating terms, and then dishonestly equivocating upon them, is pretty much all you do.

You only see the tip of the ice-berg, and you don't even see that very clearly.

Victor: BTW, Sher made a very good point earlier. if the sage can act as if he loves truth without actually loving truth, why can't he do the same with love of sex? fine food? partying?..

DQ: He has grown out of all those things.

Victor: Why would he? What if he hasn't? Why should a sage outgrow love of sex and partying, but not love of truth, instead merely transmuting the latter into his very nature?

Come on. Give me a reason that's not emotionally grounded in love of truth. Simply making a sage assertion don't cut it, buddy. :D

It is because a whole-hearted approach is needed to successfully break into enlightenment and become wise, which, in turn, requires a very strong love of truth. Any wavering or dilution of purpose won't be effective. This enormous will to truth becomes so ingrained in the aspiring sage's behaviour-patterns and thought-processes that it gradually becomes second-nature to him. If it doesn't become second-nature to him, then it means that his love of truth is weak and his ability to overcome his deepest delusions will be ineffectual.

In other words, a person only succeeds in breaking through into enlightenment by giving himself wholly over to truth. If he doesn't make that supreme sacrifice, then he won't succeed. So it is a by-product of the very effort to enter into enlightenment that the will to truth is ingrained in the sage and becomes part of his nature. When all of his delusions have been swept away by his will to truth, only his will to truth remains.

Part and parcel of becoming perfectly truthful is attacking and eliminating the delusions which sustain the ego, such as accepting comfort and praise from others, which is why he quickly abandons the need for partying and sex. He grows out of these things just as emphatically as he once did with Santa Claus and Tomas the Tank Engine.

-

[average]

Truth doesn't demand, or require love.
In fact, there is nothing to love about it, and no one to do any loving in its presence.

Enlightenment isn't broken into, and doesn't require any sacrifice because it provides no reward.

[maestro]

Wait, i thought you want buddhism deals not with the mundane sort of suffering, but with the existential kind?..

It deals with psychological suffering, existential is a kind of psychological suffering.

And what would constitute 'perfect mental health'?

Would constitute of an absence of psychological suffering (joy and equanimity), smooth functioning, which would be clear vision and absence of contradictions and conflict. Just as perfect physical health is absence of physical suffering, and absence of physical conflict (disease).

Xianity 'delivers the goods' too -- many xians are quite happy and content. And they get to go to heaven on top of everything else, natch! That doesn't really say much about xianity's veracity, coherence, etc., does it/

Xianity does not deliver the goods to a rational person, it will produce suffering in him due to its contradictions. Further since it ignores reason, cannot produce mental health.

One thing that has puzzled me is the phenomenon of lots of brilliant scientists who are devout Jews. How can a man survive with this kind of contradiction in his head.