Nuthin'

[Laird]

You tend to set a different standard for yourself than you set for others in terms of defending a position. On this issue you've offered nothing beyond platitudes and hand waving. If that's the best you can do, that's fair enough. It's a tough issue. My point is that it's not enough for you to pontificate on the errors or lack of substance of the position of others. Do you get that?

I get that, so then let's cut to the chase. You supposedly have had this intellectual realisation about the non-inherent, illusory nature of the self. You still have emotions. If this magic trick hasn't worked for you, as a member of QRS, then what hope do the rest of us have?

Laird: The line between emotions and other feelings is a blurry one.

Dan: Try and unblur them. What do you mean by emotions?

I find it hard to put into words Dan. As with all words, the word "emotions" is partly context dependent. Sometimes when I use it I intend to mean any and all feelings. Sometimes when I use it I mean fairly strong and pretty well-defined feelings like sadness, anger and fear. But then where is the clear-cut line between the emotion of sadness and a background general feeling that something's not quite right?

Laird: To be a conscious human being is to be in some state of feeling, sometimes reaching the level of emotion.

Dan: Ok, thanks for the 101 psychology lesson. This is the sort of rhetoric you need to get past. It's padding that says nothing.

Actually it was part of the point that I was making, and if you hadn't regarded it as mere padding, you might have seen that it was the support for my later statement which you claimed was merely an assertion:

Laird: A person might be able to largely avoid major emotional turmoil, but s/he can't avoid emotions completely.

Dan: Why not? I mean, damn, you're asserting this! What are your reasons?

Tell me how and why emotions arise.

Jeez mate, that's a little beyond me. I'd probably need a degree in neurochemistry even to make a start at it. I'm not closed to the idea that some emotions have a spiritual component though - kind of like a little helping hand to guide us in the right direction.

Laird: Show me someone who has achieved this.

Dan: That request is inherently silly.

On the contrary, it cuts right to the heart of the matter. You're claiming something, and I'm claiming that it's not possible. If you can't find even a single person who substantiates your claim then it's looking pretty weak, isn't it?

But let me ask you this: can you imagine how an emotion like envy could arise in a person who does not see themselves as distinct from all other things and therefore lacking in any way?

That's what I'd call rationalising away negative emotions. In the end though, you can philosophise about interconnectedness all that you want, but when it comes down to it, private property is real. People can be and often are lacking in material possessions.

Laird: I read your emotion thread. As I recall it didn't answer the specific question that I have, which is the mechanism by which an intellectual understanding can dissolve emotions, but let me read it again and get back to you. Maybe I just didn't concentrate hard enough.

Dan: Fair enough.

I still haven't reread it yet. It's on my todo list.

[Unidian]

Private property is definitely real in the sense that it's an accepted convention. If you violate private property rights, people who believe in the convention are going to retaliate. Whether or not it has a legitimate basis is a matter of some debate, at least on the political left. Private property is not an ideal example in any case, because it's primarily a consciously-held belief. The idea of an inherently-existing self, on the other hand, is primarily subconscious in nature and would be an order of magnitude harder to get rid of than belief in private property. The sense of self is pretty much hard-coded for survival purposes. Without it, we would not have evolved past the fish level at best.

[brokenhead]

I'd say this place was like shooting fish in a barrel sometimes, but it's not. It's more like watching fish in a barrel shoot themselves.

I know what you mean, but you gotta be better with those metaphors. Fish shooting guns...

[brokenhead]

Whether or not someone has accomplished this, I have no idea, but to tell you the truth it has no bearing on the fact that, in theory, it is entirely possible for an individual to eliminate the causes which lead to the arousal of emotion.

It is also possible that there have been plenty of people utterly devoid of feeling who could give a rat's ass for all that is True and Absolute. By contrast, I think the Mr. Spocks are fairly rare.

[hsandman]

Whether or not someone has accomplished this, I have no idea, but to tell you the truth it has no bearing on the fact that, in theory, it is entirely possible for an individual to eliminate the causes which lead to the arousal of emotion.

It is also possible that there have been plenty of people utterly devoid of feeling who could give a rat's ass for all that is True and Absolute. By contrast, I think the Mr. Spocks are fairly rare.

Was he a sociopath in disguise?. ;-)

[Unidian]

I know what you mean, but you gotta be better with those metaphors. Fish shooting guns...

Hehe, nah, you just need to be more imaginative. You should see what ducks can do in my daydreams...