Here are three words-sets:
commerce - commercial - commercialize
reason - rational - rationalize
emotion - emotional - emotionalize
The first member of each set is noun-naming of things/experiences in the world; the second member of each set is adjectival description; and the third member of each set is a verbial intentionality, with the pejorative built right in. Something else is happening in each of the third terms as well - a kind of pathology of conditions folded back upon themselves for which I cannot be anymore scientific than in the following descriptions.
Commerce is the name we give that activity we've invented of money-for-materials. In this form, it is an ethically neutral term that points simply to the aforementioned, open-ended activity. When something becomes
commercial (or
is a commercial), this activity is highlighted as itself; described as itself. But commerce and the commercial only become
commercialized when said-pathology has set in. We have closed-off the process from its original means of exchange and the thing is there for the pure sake of itself and bent to its own means.
Reason is the name we give to the activity of finding the what-is of things - the best possible understanding to which we can arrive - of ourselves, of things in the world, of the world itself. In this case, reason does not have itself as the goal, but rather the what-is of things, and in this manner is open-ended until we get there. The
rational is the activity highlighted as itself; described as itself. To
rationalize, however, is to pervert this open-ended arrival of the what-is and bend itself to the already-decided; already believed. Hence, when we rationalize, we have already decided or already-done or already-believe that which we want to arrive-to, - we have closed it off from the things it originally meant to arrive-to - and thus the process is perverted and bend it to its own means.
Emotion is the name we give to things we feel, and there are many subset descriptions of this for the many types of feelings. The
emotional is this phenomenon highlighted as itself; described as itself. And, of course, to emotionalize is to pervert the process and bend it to its own means. It has as its goal - itself, for the pure sake of itself, and thus has become closed-off to the next feeling or the natural flow of feelings with which any sentient being senses him or herself in the world. Emotion is an open-ended condition as well, and it becomes suffering only when we try to close it off, or close ourselves up in it.
clyde writes (to David):
But your real point is your belief that enlightened human beings do not experience emotions, no love, no hate, no joy, no sadness, no shock, no emotion at all. I disagree. Enlightened human beings are authentic actual human beings.
And with clyde, I entirely agree. I think what happens with the more enlightened human being is that the
open-ended nature of the course of human feeling becomes
wider open, and thus freer to move along and through us - even to the point where their register with us fleets as it should, treads lightly and rightly and poof, it is gone, in order that the next feeling of the sentient being can arrive and depart without closing it off in us; without holding it to us, and thus becoming one of those dire pathologies marked with the deep grooves of our suffering; becoming our suffering itself.
When one watches feeling in themselves in this way (which is above all the most important purpose of meditation), one discovers that one is never in a
state, and the habits of taking a feeling and making it a state is the pathological condition under which we were originally suffering. It is the purest mistake of trying to capture and hold emotions as our only sense of ourselves, when rather, their free-movement is what constitutes human sentiency and being. Stuck in one state/reaction to one thing, we cannot see the others, the next and the next, and thus we reach the same poisonous state of the stagnant pool (from which every living animal knows not to drink).
And when one lets these things move instead of clinging to them, they become lighter and lighter and lighter . . . nay, even a seamless transition of becoming without such startling and self-abusive seizures in between. We become
becoming - that which we fair and truly are - rather than this or that feeling alone. Our selves arrive to their genuine condition, instead of closing ourselves off in any one of those conditions, perverted and bent to their own sakes.
In no-wise does this mean that the fleeting-ness of feelings will prevent us from acting upon any one of them. On the contrary, these feelings carry, deliver, with light rapidity the value(s) upon which they are based - carries them with lightning speed to the reasoning faculty, which in peace and quiet and free-movement in itself, can decide what can, if anything, be done; what shall be done.
Suffering is a
state. The key to this cage is to recognize that the
thing over which we suffer is really the attempt at state-hood itself. We suffer over this far-more than the actual events and things that make us feel that way. Because the actual events and things that make us feel this way are in every moment becoming something else, just like we are.
All "states" - all "being" - all bids for permanency in the midst of pure becoming -- these are the root of all suffering and delusion. You can't close-off an open-ended (meaning
temporal) thing.