GENIUS FORUMS

Orenholt wrote:You may have a point there but I have a hard time comprehending how having a healthy desire for doing things could exist without emotion. It seems to me that all desire for any action comes from an emotional place other than the basic physical feelings like hunger or sleepiness.

I would agree that one cannot be without desire while still operating with an ego. Even in wanting to become enlightened, one must desire to be so in order to work the ego out of oneself. The key is in discovering that the falsehood of egotistical desires is that they imply an inherent lack of something, whereas in reality everything is always occurring and working in perfect order.

How would you know what to do if you didn't have any particular feeling about what the options are?

Depends on what you mean by 'feeling' here. If you left your car keys somewhere but not sure where, having a 'gut feeling' of where they might be isn't an indication of egotism. This is basic natural instinct based on vague memory which aids us in thinking things out rationally.

Experiencing distraught because you've misplaced them, however, is an example of egotism. Being distracted while setting the keys down at an unusual place, or having the keys slip out of your pocket into the couch, are perfectly natural occurrences in our reality. The distraught person claims things like "life is unfair" in ignorance of there being perfect causes for such an occurrence (misplacing keys). Believing in and attaching "misfortunes" like this to one's conception of self is delusional.

Russell wrote:I would agree that one cannot be without desire while still operating with an ego. Even in wanting to become enlightened, one must desire to be so in order to work the ego out of oneself. The key is in discovering that the falsehood of egotistical desires is that they imply an inherent lack of something, whereas in reality everything is always occurring and working in perfect order.

This is something I've discussed with my friend who introduced me to these forums. Yes, everything does happen "perfectly" as in it happens like clockwork but not "perfectly" in the sense of it being subjectively "ideal" all the time. Would you differentiate that or would you say that it IS subjectively ideal all the time in addition to being like clockwork?

Russell wrote:Depends on what you mean by 'feeling' here. If you left your car keys somewhere but not sure where, having a 'gut feeling' of where they might be isn't an indication of egotism. This is basic natural instinct based on vague memory which aids us in thinking things out rationally.

Experiencing distraught because you've misplaced them, however, is an example of egotism. Being distracted while setting the keys down at an unusual place, or having the keys slip out of your pocket into the couch, are perfectly natural occurrences in our reality. The distraught person claims things like "life is unfair" in ignorance of there being perfect causes for such an occurrence (misplacing keys). Believing in and attaching "misfortunes" like this to one's conception of self is delusional.

I was thinking more like if you have 2 choices in front of you and they seem equal otherwise how would you decide between the two without emotion? I'm thinking that emotion goes into personal preference and would be very useful in a situation like this. Sure, you could have a "gut feeling" about which one to choose but I think even that constitutes as *some* kind of emotion.

I think for many people, they enjoy the emotional reward they get when they do various things and thus it encourages them to do it again, whether it be something like winning a small lottery prize or doing good deeds for their fellow man. Could you really continue doing those things like playing the lottery or helping people if you felt it was no benefit to yourself whatsoever? Yes, it could be argued that you physically are able but are you psychologically able? I'm basically asking you to disprove psychological hedonism to me.

This dialogue from Genius News (from back in 2002) may not be directly relevant, but maybe interesting to you guys anyway; it's in 2 parts:

http://www.geniusrealms.com/geniusnews/ ... wo_masters

http://www.geniusrealms.com/geniusnews/ ... wo_masters

Try and ignore the punctuation and grammar errors :)

Diebert van Rhijn wrote:Like "pride" would be the prime emotion or edifice or perhaps also connected emotional states like "offense" or "humiliation". But still one step further, pride is connected to a perceived status in relation to others. Otherwise it's a feeling of contentment which can still arise after doing a job right for example which is only very loosely "taking pride into something". But here language fools us.

As I see it, if a person feels any pride at all for doing anything then they are deluded. Pride is the emotion - an incomplete/flawed thought about the nature of the self. The feeling that is triggered by this thought is obviously a kind of pleasure.

If the person is without delusion, then he may well feel some pleasure, but the emotion will be absent since the thought that is the emotion in its flawed state would be complete.

Emotions are essentially a category containing both thought and non-thought, which is why they are incomplete thoughts.

Dan Rowden wrote:This dialogue from Genius News (from back in 2002) may not be directly relevant, but maybe interesting to you guys anyway; it's in 2 parts:

http://www.geniusrealms.com/geniusnews/ ... wo_masters

http://www.geniusrealms.com/geniusnews/ ... wo_masters

Try and ignore the punctuation and grammar errors :)

Nice dialogue. Although, I don't think there is any real conflict between pursuing happiness and enlightenment. So long as a person is not enlightened, he will naturally conceive of enlightenment as some sort of happiness. He can't do otherwise. The "conflict" is perceived to arise when a person seeks a happiness that he perceives as being different, and therefore less valuable than enlightenment. It's sort of like the conflict between buying something immediately affordable(e.g the kindle) versus saving money to buy something better(e.g blackberry z10).

Brilliant stuff Dan, especially the second part, thanks for sharing.

I think it is incredibly easy to lose focus on the goal (enlightenment) and fall back into the default setting that all humans come equipped with, ie. the pursuit of happiness. It's easy enough to fathom that at least some knowledge is key to the end of suffering, and in pursuing knowledge one will eventually reach a point where the ego, in all of it's cunning nature, tries to convince one's self that becoming void of emotional attachment is equivalent to the end of the human experience, a living death so-to-speak. In thinking in this way, the seeker ends up protecting the very thing he wishes to rid himself of: ignorance, because the blissfulness of ignorance is threatened by introspection. Introspection carried out to it's fullest extent, along with a complete integration of consistency with logical truths, results in enlightenment.

jupiviv wrote:If the person is without delusion, then he may well feel some pleasure, but the emotion will be absent since the thought that is the emotion in its flawed state would be complete.

But you said first that "a person who doesn't have emotions won't feel proud when someone praises him". Would he then feel "pleasure" perhaps? Or just when a job seems well done? I don't get the impression you've completely understood where I was going for. The emotion is obviously more complex than just the feelings it might invoke. We seem to agree on that. But although there's an obvious link between flawed or severely limited thought and emotions, the nature of emotion itself looks like something completely different. It's easiest to see in how crowds respond by the very nature of the attachment a crowd member forges to the crowd he's in. Or even smaller groups like tribes and family. These emotions do not result from some particular flawed thought but they could easily be challenged by some reasoning nevertheless.

Dan Rowden wrote:This dialogue from Genius News (from back in 2002) may not be directly relevant, but maybe interesting to you guys anyway; it's in 2 parts:

http://www.geniusrealms.com/geniusnews/ ... wo_masters

http://www.geniusrealms.com/geniusnews/ ... wo_masters

It was interesting and many great points being made. But I had some problem with the discussion of a notion like "happiness" because that's a term which could just as well mean such a general state of well-being, physical or otherwise, that saying anything about it becomes quickly problematic. Normally when someone feels "good" -- general happiness -- it means there are no disturbances at that moment and there's enough freedom to move, develop, think and so on, no matter the details of those movements or thoughts. It's normally meant as very generic statement, not some state of ecstasy or a stuck on big grin. It relates to freedom, space and would be generally empty. It's hardly the opposite of unhappiness unless that would be the feeling of restriction and confusion at a basic level.

There's this bit from Quinn I'd like to quote:

David Quinn wrote:All of the emotions, without exception, are dependent upon the false belief that things ultimately exist. An emotion is a response to a perceived situation; it is an instinctive, self-serving reaction to a particular perception. We experience fear, for example, when we perceive something that seriously threatens our well-being. This shows there is a fundamental link between perception and emotion. If we never perceived any threats in our life, then we would never experience any fear. We would be totally care-free, supremely tranquil, beyond all fear.

Some of my earlier posts have tried to argue for a clarification, like: "an emotion is a response to a perceived social relation". This instead of just any generic "situation". There's a huge difference between reacting to a threat like a falling rock and the perceived threat of someone threatening your perceived place in the social order or your own internal "order". The first reaction will be extremely situational and instinctive while quickly fading after the actual threat level subsides. It's closer to reflex and physical preparation for fight/flight than anything else. To argue against that has in my view nothing to do with wisdom but certainly nothing to do with emotion or attachment (as so far all processes of life attach to life as basic principle). Emotion is a very specific perception of social structure, a persona conceived inside interaction with others. This false self and its emotions like pride, fear of hurt, uncertainty, greed, control: all are deeply embedded in the social fabric, not just "perceived situations".

Then the sentence "if we never perceived any threats" should be about threats against our specific role, our constructed picture in a social setting. That these are generally projected on all kinds of situation, including any fear that something "happens to us", would be just special, internalized instances of the same issue. All other urgent threats would be just "high alert" situations which I wouldn't call tranquility but can certainly still be dealt with calmly but careful, not care-free. Arguing for anything else is arguing for living without unexpected interactions with violent force. Which is not going to happen in this universe any time soon!

Diebert van Rhijn wrote:But you said first that "a person who doesn't have emotions won't feel proud when someone praises him". Would he then feel "pleasure" perhaps?

I should have said an enlightened person rather than just a person without emotions. Even if an enlightened person does feel some kind of pleasure when praised, it wouldn't amount to pride, which is an emotion. He would perceive it in the same way that he perceives the relief that results from scratching an itch, or urination.

It's easiest to see in how crowds respond by the very nature of the attachment a crowd member forges to the crowd he's in.

Most people are not conscious enough to have emotions, or incomplete thoughts. Even incomplete thoughts require some amount of thinking. How many people think even that much?

jupiviv wrote: Even incomplete thoughts require some amount of thinking. How many people think even that much?

That means nothing to me. If emotion is the result of attachment than it's about wrong identification. Everyone identifies. Even chimpanzees seem to argue about their position in the group, acting "hurt" or "vicious". Again, the emotion is a behavioral rule more than anything else. One which overrules whatever attempt at thinking we might have (although some emotions might even encourage thought briefly, as the exception on a rule). But at the base lies the social or self-identification and their specific attachments, like with the chimpanzees the attachment to the group which is really the position in it or in relation to it.

Thank you, Dan, for those links though I do have some questions about some of the second one.

David Quinn wrote:All of the emotions, without exception, are dependent upon the false belief that things ultimately exist. An emotion is a response to a perceived situation; it is an instinctive, self-serving reaction to a particular perception. We experience fear, for example, when we perceive something that seriously threatens our well-being. This shows there is a fundamental link between perception and emotion. If we never perceived any threats in our life, then we would never experience any fear. We would be totally care-free, supremely tranquil, beyond all fear.

Why is it a "false belief" that things ultimately exist? I mean... are there reasons to think that things don't exist outside of the mind? I can accept that MAYBE things don't ultimately exist but how can anyone be certain that they do not? Is it not best to work off of what information we have which assumes that things do exist outside of the mind? And even if you do believe that this is all one big video game or something, is there a reason not to take it seriously?

Kevin Solway wrote:- MEN, WOMEN AND "FLOWINESS" -
.....
Every woman is a man to some degree, just as every man (non-Buddha) is to some degree a woman.

I am trying to highlight the fact that there is a great difference between the psychology of biological men and women and that while the task (of consciousness, or humanity) is extremely difficult for men, it is vastly more hard for women. I am taking this action particularly to try and counteract the popular modern idea that femininity is a good thing and that it has something to do with spirituality and love, and that women are generally at least as spiritual as men, if not more so. If people continue to accept ideas like that then we can kiss goodbye to all consciousness, and to all the good work that has been done by the great thinkers of the past.

I'm confused why good things are being associated with "men" and "the masculine" while bad things are being associated with "women" or "the feminine". Is this about sex or gender? And if it's about gender then isn't that itself an illusion? You don't see female dogs behaving much differently than male dogs (at least in my experience) so I would think that the whole idea of masculinity and femininity are made up by humans as far as what they think sex based social roles should be. And in that section he mentions trans gendered people. He says:

Kevin Solway wrote: Some men are very accomplished women indeed, especially those who have been worshipfully studying the ways of womankind all their lives and have eventually had a sex change and undergone extensive hormone treatment. But I think it's more helpful if we look at masculinity rather than femininity, because femininity is easier to fake. For example, a transvestite may behave in an extremely feminine way, but it will be mostly an act, because there is often a strong core of masculinity beneath, trying desperately to escape itself. It is easier to act like a woman than it is to act like a man because the feminine flows more easily, not requiring thought but only instinct.

And that leads me to believe that this IS more about biological sex rather than gender. I could be wrong but It seems a bit sexist to say that women do "not require thought but only instinct." Don't most people work with a combination of the two regardless of sex OR gender?

Orenholt wrote:are there reasons to think that things don't exist outside of the mind?

None actually.

Are there reasons to think that things do exist outside of the mind? Nope.

I'm starting to like this 'logical thinking' thing you guys are into.

Orenholt wrote:You don't see female dogs behaving much differently than male dogs (at least in my experience) so I would think that the whole idea of masculinity and femininity are made up by humans as far as what they think sex based social roles should be.

With dragonflies the difference is also hard to tell. But really, sexuality is a highly social role, way less biological. You can see as well that with certain ape communities or wolves for example -- any herd animal will do. Domesticated dogs are, well, domesticated first and foremost. Rarely kept in a pack.

Diebert van Rhijn wrote:If emotion is the result of attachment than it's about wrong identification.

How can there be wrong identification?

Even chimpanzees seem to argue about their position in the group, acting "hurt" or "vicious".

They do act hurt or viciously, but how does it follow that they are arguing their position?

You are complicating the issue unnecessarily, as usual. I think we agree that emotions are not entirely thought, and not entirely non-thought.

Orenholt wrote:I'm confused why good things are being associated with "men" and "the masculine" while bad things are being associated with "women" or "the feminine".

It depends on what you mean by "good" and "bad". You, for example, seem to value unconsciousness more than consciousness, so femininity is good and masculinity is bad in your case. There is no *inherent* difference between the two either in terms of value or characteristics, the same as all things.

jupiviv wrote: It depends on what you mean by "good" and "bad". You, for example, seem to value unconsciousness more than consciousness, so femininity is good and masculinity is bad in your case.

What makes you think I value the UNconscious more? What makes femininity associated with the unconscious anyway?

Although I do think emotions can be valuable they're of no use without rationality. As I see it Life is like driving a car but emotion is just the gasoline. If there are alternative fuels I'd gladly welcome them but even with solar power you still need rationality and consciousness to drive properly.

Also, I'm not sure if good and bad are entirely subjective.

jupiviv wrote:

Diebert van Rhijn wrote:If emotion is the result of attachment than it's about wrong identification.

How can there be wrong identification?

Yes, taking yourself for what you're not for example. Wrong and right are different identities and never equal in the realm of reason, even while not fixed.

Even chimpanzees seem to argue about their position in the group, acting "hurt" or "vicious".

They do act hurt or viciously, but how does it follow that they are arguing their position?

Call it quarreling then. Are you suggesting people always argue with reasons supplied? They might talk but it's mostly grandstanding.

Orenholt wrote:As I see it Life is like driving a car but emotion is just the gasoline.

While some do actually manage to drive a car on pure ethanol or at least on some mixture, the problem appears to be about what happens when gulping it down and then drive.

Orenholt wrote:Why is it a "false belief" that things ultimately exist? I mean... are there reasons to think that things don't exist outside of the mind? I can accept that MAYBE things don't ultimately exist but how can anyone be certain that they do not? Is it not best to work off of what information we have which assumes that things do exist outside of the mind? And even if you do believe that this is all one big video game or something, is there a reason not to take it seriously?

Indeed, it is a serious matter to know exactly what it is that we perceive. Things exist outside of our mind only in a practical sense, that is, in convenience to our experience as conscious beings that interact with it's surroundings. What we consider "outside" of ourselves is really just a conceptual contrast that arises from the mind's experiencing of body and surroundings. The mind experience things as sensations, and they are given their definition, their 'thingness', only once the conceptualization takes place. Without the conceptualization, nothing is defined or described, and can't be said to exist in any meaningful way.

Really, a forum post is too short to really get into the nitty gritty details of this. If you're interested, I highly recommend Quinn's essay "Wisdom of the Infinite" for a much more complete look into this.

Diebert van Rhijn wrote:Wrong and right are different identities and never equal in the realm of reason, even while not fixed.

As I see it, wrong identification is no identification at all.

Diebert van Rhijn wrote:

jupiviv wrote:They do act hurt or viciously, but how does it follow that they are arguing their position?

Call it quarreling then. Are you suggesting people always argue with reasons supplied? They might talk but it's mostly grandstanding.

If we define emotions as a half-conscious process, then they would involve at least some reasoning.

Orenholt wrote:What makes you think I value the UNconscious more?

Call it female intuition. :-)

Anyone who claims to value reason and unreason equally, or seeks balance etc. between the two, does not value reason at all, because reason rejects such a balance.

jupiviv wrote:Anyone who claims to value reason and unreason equally, or seeks balance etc. between the two, does not value reason at all, because reason rejects such a balance.

I don't know that I'd say that emotion and rationality are equal but if you have something at your disposal why not use it as a tool of sorts?

Are you saying that emotion is totally useless?

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


What exactly is the end goal of enlightenment anyway?

jupiviv wrote:As I see it, wrong identification is no identification at all.

When there's no identifation, there's nothing at all. Why would nothing be "wrong"?

Diebert van Rhijn wrote:If we define emotions as a half-conscious process, then they would involve at least some reasoning.

But I call it behavior and reaction. Saves some trouble.

Orenholt wrote:What exactly is the end goal of enlightenment anyway?

The start is to define it for yourself. If you define it well enough the end goal might not need explaining.

Diebert van Rhijn wrote:

The start is to define it for yourself. If you define it well enough the end goal might not need explaining.

The start is to define enlightenment for myself? I'm sorry but that's a bit too vague for me.

Maybe you could show me by example? How do you define enlightenment and what does that mean the end goal is for you?


If I were to define enlightenment by my own (and possibly flawed) understanding I would say that it means living without delusions or on a smaller level, gaining insight or knowledge of some kind.

But what that implies as an end goal is certainly fuzzy at best. I don't see enlightenment as an end goal itself but rather a means that one can use to other ends. Otherwise, what would a person do? Merely live out the rest of their life as a hermit doing nothing to help humanity and simply bask in their own enlightenment?