GENIUS FORUMS

Xerox wrote:

l would argue that there is no such thing as love for another. Love is a projection of self onto an objectification of self, like one's offspring.

Yes, clearly since we can’t get outside of our own minds to see if everything is as it appears to us, we just have to make do with what we have. We can’t really know anyone, so instead we have to know the nature of our own mind, and thereby understand our relationships and our actions.

...

I believe Laird would agree with me that a delusion by definition is a negative thing, one to be avoided, and transcended if it has been heretofore harbored.


Transcended yes, but the only way to do that is to be rid of the forces that generate it. We can see the way emotional states can be created, modified and even nullified by belief states - you think your wife is screwing the milkman so you feel anger, resentment, envy and whatever else, all generated by the belief set. Then you find out that the milkman is gay and all the emotions stop. I'm saying that the ego essentially is the belief that your wife is screwing the milkman.

As long as one of the five senses are intact - you will experience emotion.

That is the source.

I'm sorry, how does smell raw sense data generate emotion?

Pretty straightforwardly, actually. Olfactory data is often linked to any number of memories - when the olfactory area of the brain is stimulated in certain familiar ways, associated memory centers are also stimulated. You picked kind of a bad example, because the sense of smell is more strongly associated with memory than any other. And, of course, if the memories stimulated have emotional content, emotion is re-experienced.

That all makes sense, but it's not raw sense data generating the emotion; it just becomes one part of the causal chain (i.e. like any ol' stimuli). Without certain brain states raw sense data can't generate emotion.

Sure, but in order for that to mean anything, you'd have to wipe the whole brain and brain and make it "clean slate." Otherwise (for example), when you smell coffee, it's always going to be linked to childhood memories of coffee brewing in the kitchen - memories which have emotional content and will provoke an emotional response regardless of one's intellectual state.

in your view, is enlightenment capable of performing such a mind-wipe? And if it isn't, wouldn't emotions always occur?

When I recall the circumstances of the death of my father, a profoundly troubling and emotional state of affairs, I experience no emotion. How do you explain that in light of your notion that memories that contain emotion are experienced with said emotion intact?

That's a fairly common occurrence, as far as I'm aware. I also have trouble experiencing much emotion relating to death. Always have, for some reason. I guess that in certain circumstances, either an intellectual understanding or some kind of "mental block" can inhibit emotions relating to such subjects. But what about lesser things, like the coffee I mentioned? And what about drugs such as alcohol? Even a normally unemotional person can become quite emotionally agitated in any number of ways when intoxicated. Where is that coming from, in the "enlightenment" view?

Dan Rowden wrote:When I recall the circumstances of the death of my father, a profoundly troubling and emotional state of affairs, I experience no emotion. How do you explain that in light of your notion that memories that contain emotion are experienced with said emotion intact?

The emotion is remembered, not experienced in the here and now. An emotion can be remembered like anything else.

Unidian wrote:That's a fairly common occurrence, as far as I'm aware. I also have trouble experiencing much emotion relating to death. Always have, for some reason. I guess that in certain circumstances, either an intellectual understanding or some kind of "mental block" can inhibit emotions relating to such subjects.

It might also be that your perceptions of the reality of such events have been altered, thus no emotion need be generated. So, for example, I now regard those circumstances to have been quite beneficial to me, karmically (aside from now understanding suffering and death).

But what about lesser things, like the coffee I mentioned?

I never drank coffee as a kid, but I grew up on fresh brewed tea. Many vivid memories there. However, when I drink tea now, freshly brewed or otherwise, I experience no emotion attached to the childhood memories generated thereby. And those memories are vivid enough such that I could write a book about my childhood with no trouble.

And what about drugs such as alcohol? Even a normally unemotional person can become quite emotionally agitated in any number of ways when intoxicated. Where is that coming from, in the "enlightenment" view?

Drugs like alcohol are natural uninhibitors. There's no doubt they break down psychological walls and exaggerate what's simmering under the surface. It can actually be quite revealing of one's residual emotional reality to get mildly shitfaced. I frankly recommend it for that purpose. Don't drink American crap, though, as that will automatically bring out disappointment and depression.

The sense of smell is a very powerful trigger of emotions. If by "emotions" you mean all perceived internal activity other than rational thought, that is. And that is no doubt an evolutionary thing. Something can be seen or heard when it is relatively far off, but when it can be smelled, then it is necessarily much nearer, and potentially more immediately harmful.

brokenhead wrote:

Dan Rowden wrote:When I recall the circumstances of the death of my father, a profoundly troubling and emotional state of affairs, I experience no emotion. How do you explain that in light of your notion that memories that contain emotion are experienced with said emotion intact?

The emotion is remembered, not experienced in the here and now. An emotion can be remembered like anything else.

Agreed; I certainly remember what it felt like, but I'd add that the way we remember an emotional state - like all memories - is a somewhat nebulous facsimile of the real thing.

I found this article fairly interesting.

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/altruism-biological/

Don't drink American crap, though, as that will automatically bring out disappointment and depression.

Lol. If you're drinking for taste, American brands are pretty crappy, except for the new breed of beers from small local breweries. But Americans generally don't consume the harder stuff because it tastes good.

Drugs like alcohol are natural uninhibitors. There's no doubt they break down psychological walls and exaggerate what's simmering under the surface. It can actually be quite revealing of one's residual emotional reality to get mildly shitfaced. I frankly recommend it for that purpose.

Hehe... I'm rather experienced with that already, although I do agree it could be quite revealing for those who have no history of frequent drinking. Given that the primary emotional content of my subconscious mind is an overwhelming near-homicidal rage at Nature, myself, and everybody in existence for being so damned absurd and unfair, I've learned the hard way that opening the door to what's "simmering" down there is generally not advisable for me. It's a much better idea for me to stay consciously focused on whatever understanding of reality I've managed to achieve and allow it to "trickle down" and gradually put out that pool of lava over the years.

But this raises the issue I mentioned in the other thread - why should such a "lava pool" remain there in the first place? While you probably don't have as much anger lurking, you do undoubtedly have your own subconscious "pool" of some sort. Did the Buddha have such things "simmering?" If you got him drunk, would he start shouting incoherent things and dancing on tables? What sort of "pool" does David have, if any? What do you think would be the results of getting him shitfaced? Just some questions which I think are relevant to all of this.

Each person's "lava pool" is different. Perhaps yours is a little more active and bubbly than mine (speaking to a different history). That's up to you to look into, really. As for getting David mildly shitfaced to see what surfaces: the result of that is giggling and Pythonesque satire. I've never seen even the slightest variance from that.

Was he actually good and well shitfaced?

And what's his personal history like, particularly in regard to childhood? Maybe there's just not much suffering there. Certainly if we accept the professional diagnosis of Schizoid Personality disorder, very little would be expected beyond the onset of the condition, because such persons lack the ability to experience most emotional responses.

Honestly, if you're going to take this down the stupid SPD route I'm not going to continue.

It's a professionally-diagnosed condition and he most definitely has it. Fingers in ears won't change that.

Like I said, I won't engage a point that foolish and calculated.

It's not "calculated," it's relevant. And I don't see why it is "foolish." If we were discussing, for example, my general unwillingness to be out in public frequently, wouldn't the fact that I have an anxiety disorder be relevant? When we are discussing emotion and the lack thereof, why is discussing a disorder which causes a lack of emotional response out of bounds? Other than the fact that it potentially embarrasses the whole "QRS" edifice by reducing David's views on emotion to psychopathology rather than the result of "spiritual wisdom" or the like, on what basis can you disqualify it?

Dan: This does not, however, either make them (emotions) true or necessary.

I don’t know about that, but I’m quite weak when it comes to the truth that I do not inherently exist, and hence am obliged to all else that is not me which I am dependent on, and I do know that that depends on my reasoning and values, but judging values necessarily require an “Ego” (”I”) to judge them, (no doubt about that), but what makes any value inherently valuable over another would be the question in an ultimate sense? Any logical justifications for that?

Dan Rowden wrote:I'm sorry, how does smell raw sense data generate emotion?

What happens when you touch a hot stove?

Beingof1 wrote:

Dan Rowden wrote:I'm sorry, how does smell raw sense data generate emotion?

What happens when you touch a hot stove?

A reflex or any somatic state does not constitute emotion proper. The complex process involved should be treated and judged on its own merits. For example one can see how also imagination, memory of past events, overall self-image, identification and learned behavior define emotional expressions to a great extent.

We could of course break down every phenomenon into their causes. Our thoughts or even consciousness might as well depend on the processing of raw sense data on a neurological level. But one is not yet one step further here to determine if a specific type of process (like one that leads to an emotion) is beneficial or not.

Oh, and the complex array of feelings and expressions in face and body posture serving as communication or self-diagnosis are not emotions either unless one defines them in such a way as to include them.