GENIUS FORUMS

Elizabeth Isabelle wrote:David,

How can one have purpose without a perception of gain or loss?
.

There is only gain or loss where the ego is engaged with one's purpose. One can have purpose without attachment, which is the whole idea, actually. It's only the ego that experiences loss and gain in the flux of things.

Elizabeth Isabelle wrote:

David Quinn wrote:any kind of emotion - whether it be strong or subtle - is a product of delusion.

Surely you don't mean that such things as compassion, which the rest of the world defines as a feeling, which (by the rest of the world's definition) is a product of being emotionally affected, would be a delusion, do you?

I'm not sure what is gained by these links to online dictionaries, frankly. Feelings are not automatically products of emotional effect. They are just sensations, forms of awareness. Any understanding can be described as a feeling. "Compassion" as conventionally defined and considered involves emotion and is basically a form of empathy. It's a kind of understanding, but one limited to the ego's interests and experience. This is the key difference between finite and infinite love and finite and infinite compassion - the scope of the understanding; the terms of reference.

The "infinite" form of these things does not issue from self-considerations and therefore doesn't involve emotions, which are of necessity borne of such. They are universal in their application because they possess universality of understanding.

A purpose necessarily involves a goal. One's ego need not be involved, as one need not take the attainment or non-attainment of the goal personally. I do not see how one can have a purpose without the intent of attaining the goal. The gain does not have to be a personal gain, and one who does not live in a self would recognize that there is nothing to be gained or lost on a fundamental level, but to not desire the accomplishment of the goal would seem to negate the purpose of doing the steps to get there.

If one does not desire the survival of wisdom, one might as well not promote it. Here, there is a perception of the possibility of loss of wisdom.
.

PyroSylph wrote:

Diebert van Rhijn wrote:
The category 'illness' only arises when it becomes a trouble. But a trouble for whom?

But a trouble for whom?

In this case (diagnosis), the trouble would be for the children, spouse, parents, friends and acquaintances of the sufferer.

Maybe Sartre's: "L'enfer, c'est les autres" is appropriate here ("Hell, it's the others"). He could also have said 'trouble' or 'suffering' instead of hell. So you're not saying anything unique to the specific case. To have attachments to children, spouse, parents and friends is just another mental "disorder" one has to live with or get over.

It's rather troublesome to be attached to someone who is (as stated in as many words at wikipedia) emotionally cold, has a limited capacity to show either negative OR positive emotion toward others, no desire to form relationships, takes pleasure in few (if any) activities, is indifferent to social norms, preoccupied with themselves and their own fantasies, and lack sexual desires.

So the trouble is to be attached to that someone, or are the limited capacities the trouble?

Lack of emotion is an impossibility to someone who does not suffer from such a disorder. Very, very few things we do in our every day lives are not motivated by some emotion.

One could make distinctions between feelings and emotions here. Hunger for example is not an emotion but we can get emotional because of it, eg irritable. The emotion of irritation is an expression of a sensitive, more alert state of the body. The body state could be said to be a feeling and the incapacity to experience that would be a physical, medical disorder that should be treated. The lack of expression of this state is another topic altogether.

To make lack of emotion a goal is akin to attempting to levitate through meditation.

It's not as much a goal, it's like a fall-out along the way. People said similar things to the first aviators, when they refused to be bound by gravity in the way everyone else was.

a complete inability to relate to others on a basis which does not interfere with one's own ego (read: preoccupation with themselves) is another mule.

I'd like to make a distinction between an inability of relating (understanding, compassion) and emotional bonding. Again you might be too radical in your equaling of emotion with being firmly in touch with what goes on in our and other people's minds in terms of feelings and thoughts.

One would logically assume that if one were to make his/her goal one of pure compassion, being able to actually experience compassion would be a prerequisite.

Clarify with what you mean by experiencing compassion. Does it make you think twice, or less? I see it's already discussed further on but I'm not sure what you have in mind here; it's too vague.

Elizabeth Isabelle wrote:A purpose necessarily involves a goal. One's ego need not be involved, as one need not take the attainment or non-attainment of the goal personally. I do not see how one can have a purpose without the intent of attaining the goal. The gain does not have to be a personal gain, and one who does not live in a self would recognize that there is nothing to be gained or lost on a fundamental level, but to not desire the accomplishment of the goal would seem to negate the purpose of doing the steps to get there.

If one does not desire the survival of wisdom, one might as well not promote it. Here, there is a perception of the possibility of loss of wisdom.
.

Are you saying intention requires emotion?
I dont think the writer by "self consideration" means to exclude all willfulness.
One may want wisdom or whatever to spread and grow yet experience nothing emotionally if it does not. But for this to happen ones mind must be perfect and understanding perfect.

How can anything be added or removed from That which is Everything?

keenobserver wrote: Are you saying intention requires emotion?

By my definition of emotion - meaning a feeling of psychological rather than physical origination - yes.

keenobserver wrote:How can anything be added or removed from That which is Everything?

It can't. Things can, however, be brought more or less into the light of consciousness.
.

Elizabeth Isabelle wrote:

keenobserver wrote: Are you saying intention requires emotion?

By my definition of emotion - meaning a feeling of psychological rather than physical origination - yes.

If thought preceeds or gives rise to feeling/emotion, logic does not dictate that ALL thought must result in emotion. See the difference.
Even taking your def above as a given, one could still intend/think/etc without giving rise to emotion.
I understand that your definition attempts to force a connection between the mind and emotions, but such a connection however true it may be, does not require EVERY thought to produce an emotional effect.

This is a common perception, but its an improvement over those who believe we can be emotional with no thought at all.
In those cases the person isnt aware of subtle thoughts so assumes they never occur. Even depresed people who are sad because of chemical imbalance cannot dodge it since the imbalance results in deluded thought processes whether they know it or not.
Only a perfected mind is fully conscious and in full control of thought, all of which are perefectly logical resulting in "right action", always.

keenobserver wrote:If thought preceeds or gives rise to feeling/emotion, logic does not dictate that ALL thought must result in emotion.

I did not say that it did. That is the slippery slope fallacy. All cars are created by work, but all work does not create cars.

My statement was that intention requires emotion. Intention is stronger than desire, and I am classifying desire as an emotion (it could be a strong or weak desire, thereby being a strong or weak emotion). One may desire to lose weight but not intend to, which often does not result in weight loss. Unless one is ill, injured, etc., one has to intend to lose weight to have much chance of accomplishing that. Intention involves the motivating force to figure out what one has to do to lose weight - or if one has multiple goals such as losing weight without getting sick, one must have a motivating force (emotion) to find out how to do that. One might initially intend to lose weight but other desires become stronger than the intention (thus, wiping out the intention for some, period of time, however brief) - which means that one did not have enough will to stick with the one goal - and I classify will as an emotion.

Others may classify will and other things as something other than emotion, but this is how the classification makes the most sense to me.
.

Elizabeth Isabelle wrote:

keenobserver wrote:If thought preceeds or gives rise to feeling/emotion, logic does not dictate that ALL thought must result in emotion.

I did not say that it did. That is the slippery slope fallacy. All cars are created by work, but all work does not create cars.

My statement was that intention requires emotion. Intention is stronger than desire, and I am classifying desire as an emotion (it could be a strong or weak desire, thereby being a strong or weak emotion). One may desire to lose weight but not intend to, which often does not result in weight loss. Unless one is ill, injured, etc., one has to intend to lose weight to have much chance of accomplishing that. Intention involves the motivating force to figure out what one has to do to lose weight - or if one has multiple goals such as losing weight without getting sick, one must have a motivating force (emotion) to find out how to do that. One might initially intend to lose weight but other desires become stronger than the intention (thus, wiping out the intention for some, period of time, however brief) - which means that one did not have enough will to stick with the one goal - and I classify will as an emotion.

Others may classify will and other things as something other than emotion, but this is how the classification makes the most sense to me.
.

Humm.
Well ok, if thats how you wish to define things.
My use of "intention" in my mind is linked closely to thought, but perhaps if i could locate a dictionary I would find I am off the mark.
I still dont know whether you believe everyday purpose/goal/achievement can be had without emotion.

The way I see it there is no need for emotions at all and we could get by fine without them. I normally only become emotional when i fear potential loss of some kind, but more emotional people prefer to spend much happy times on the other side of the emotional coin. Again, to me all are totally useless in a wise society. Unemotional philosophers arent normally happy or sad, to transcend such completely is such an agreeable state that nothing else is needed or desired!
Often confused, unfortunately, with the blocked emotional person with a psycho-malady who is very far from wise and enlightened.

keenobserver wrote:My use of "intention" in my mind is linked closely to thought, but perhaps if i could locate a dictionary I would find I am off the mark.

if you can locate the internet, you can locate a dictionary ;) - dictionary.com

intention

1. an act or instance of determining mentally upon some action or result.

It is closely linked to thought, but so is emotion. The dictionary doesn't really shed sufficient light on this one, so we have to define the specifics ourselves.

If you can back up how one can have an intention without emotion, go for it.

keenobserver wrote:I still dont know whether you believe everyday purpose/goal/achievement can be had without emotion.

A routine can be followed without much emotion, but some emotion emotion is required as a motivating force for nearly everything. Some goals can be prompted by purely physical reasons (scratching an itch, for example), whereas others are accomplished through a combination of physical an emotional motivators (urination is a physical motivator, but urinating in the toilet is prompted by such desires as having hygienic living conditions), but without any emotion as I consider emotion to be, one would become essentially inert.

Also, not every emotion is a motivating emotion. Depression is one emotion that also leads to inertia. Actually the way I see it, lack of emotion is more like silent depression than it is like serenity. Serenity is more like a mellow, even happiness.

keenobserver wrote:I normally only become emotional when i fear potential loss of some kind, but more emotional people prefer to spend much happy times on the other side of the emotional coin. Again, to me all are totally useless in a wise society. Unemotional philosophers arent normally happy or sad, to transcend such completely is such an agreeable state that nothing else is needed or desired!

I draw a distinction between having emotions and being emotional. It is the difference between having emotions and emotions having you. An emotional person unintentionally gets swept away in the moment and allows things other than rationality to take priority. Having emotions means that they are there and available for use.

keenobserver wrote:Often confused, unfortunately, with the blocked emotional person with a psycho-malady who is very far from wise and enlightened.

Agreed. An emotionally blocked person could be blocked due to a disorder or due to the belief that emotions are bad. Emotions are neither good nor bad, they just are. Rocks are neither good nor bad, they just are. Emotions and rocks, though neither good nor bad themselves, could be used for good or bad purposes or be either beneficial or a hindrance in various situations.
.