Your Feelings, and Why They do not Matter.

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
a reply to: TzarChasm

It's not about psychological neutrality at all. It's about self-knowledge: knowing what our feelings are and what they amount to is a step towards self-knowledge. Once one knows what feelings are, the better he can deal with them.

Despite Buddha's view, it doesn't seem like he had any indifference towards other beings. No Equilibrium, no cruelty. In fact it was quite the opposite.

And what exactly do you appreciate in his philosophies, and why?

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
a reply to: Reallyfolks

Feeling is the nominalization of the verb to feel.[1]

en.m.wikipedia.org...

How is a feeling not an action?

What action are you taking by feeling ? I just gave you two examples of having the same feeling and either acting or not?

a reply to: TzarChasm

Specifically I agree with his arguments regarding feelings and emotions, that they are no more than fleeting bodily sensations, which somewhat conforms to the contemporary biological view of feelings. I don't agree with his methodology on how to curtail the striving for them, and much anything else of Buddhism really.

a reply to: Reallyfolks

A verb is an action. In biological terms, the secreting of various hormones etc.

Wow!
As I was traveling the ATS highway here, I felt a large disturbance in the Feeling Force Field Foundation. (FFFF for short)
Using my empathic abilities to divine the location of the Thread causing the perturbations of the FFFF, I was lead here, by the heated dispute that boils over and onto the higher Realms.
I felt it.
Just saying.
Great Thread.

a reply to: LesMisanthrope

I am not sure if I grasp what you are trying to say. But when I read this part, Helen Keller came to mind or someone like her and how she fit in your theory:

Yes, yes, your feelings do not matter. You might already know the ease through which you can disguise your own feelings behind simple calculated movements and expressions, which is a simple litmus test of how insignificant they really are. We call it lying. Ironically, we also call it acting. One can feel one way but act another way. Of course, it is the act that affects, interacts with and convinces the rest of the world, while the feeling or intention of it is so inconsequential that not even the person who has it is fully aware of what is actually occurring.

a reply to: MOMof3

The point is that the biological reality of feeling is incomparable and irreconcilable to the subjective conjecture of feeling. If one is concerned with the truth of matters, one of these contradictory inferences will necessarily be abandoned, which, admittedly, is a hard pill to swallow.

In my eyes, Helen Keller—that is, the immediacy of the being Helen Keller,the biological reality of her—is infinitely more valuable than the feelings of Helen Keller, which is really no more than a notion of hindsight.

If someone asked you to kill them because they were in pain, would you destroy the biological reality in order to gratify the need to avoid pain?

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
a reply to: Reallyfolks

A verb is an action. In biological terms, the secreting of various hormones etc.

action
ˈakʃ(ə)n/
noun
1.
the fact or process of doing something, typically to achieve an aim.

What are you doing by feeling?

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
a reply to: MOMof3

The point is that the biological reality of feeling is incomparable and irreconcilable to the subjective conjecture of feeling. If one is concerned with the truth of matters, one of these contradictory inferences will necessarily be abandoned, which, admittedly, is a hard pill to swallow.

In my eyes, Helen Keller—that is, the immediacy of the being Helen Keller,the biological reality of her—is infinitely more valuable than the feelings of Helen Keller, which is really no more than a notion of hindsight.

If someone asked you to kill them because they were in pain, would you destroy the biological reality in order to gratify the need to avoid pain?

And this may all sound great in theory and for college papers. Reality is feelings can lead to actions. Actions can be bad or good. But the springboard being feelings. Feelings do matter and no amount of philosophy will change that. The moment that the feeling of say anger no longer can lead to someone acting on that feeling to harm someone else you have a point. Until then, it was an interesting theory, just not reality.

a reply to: Reallyfolks

Your theory sounds like children's book to me, which is great for teaching children.

Is the body a feeling? No. Yet biology confirms it is a variety of bodily processes that you and others call feelings. The body is the reality. Feelings are not.

Your version of reality lacks reality. Simply stating it is reality doesn't make it so.

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
a reply to: Reallyfolks

Your theory sounds like children's book to me, which is great for teaching children.

Is the body a feeling? No. Yet biology confirms it is a variety of bodily processes that you and others call feelings. The body is the reality. Feelings are not.

Your version of reality lacks reality. Simply stating it is reality doesn't make it so.

If you think you can disprove what I said have at it. You can't. People's feelings lead to actions. Always have. That is a fact no matter how many times you say otherwise. Until feelings no longer lead to actions your wrong. Check mate, game over. Until that day feelings will in fact matter. On a side note the teaching a child comment was droll at best, I would think I could get better from someone as enlightened as you.

a reply to: LesMisanthrope

I think that I would. I have put pets down who were in pain.

a reply to: Reallyfolks

Sorry, friend. I disagree. I agree what you say is intuitive, but so was the idea the earth stood still and the heavens revolved around it. You're simply stating a theory of emotion, which I admit I am as well. You have dogma, not fact. Check mate. Let's reason about it instead.

If by action you mean a reaction, like removing the hand from heat, then yes, the feeling of pain will cause a reaction. But one could act in the opposite and continue to hold his hand in the heat, even burning his own hand. How is this possible if pain causes action? Because pain is not a cause of anything. Sure it is a sign of something; sure the pain is the result of holding the hand in the flame; sure we can develope an emotional response; but what is causing the person to either move or not remove his hand?

The causal link between feelings, emotions and behavior is either broken, missing a link, or are one and the same.

a reply to: MOMof3

Me too. Very tough question. The point I wanted to make is that if to destroy the organism is to destroy its suffering, we are not really ending suffering, we are just ending the organism.

a reply to: LesMisanthrope

Didn't say feelings made you react , I was specific in giving two examples. Both times I showed how you could or didn't reacted on the same exact feeling.

Basically lets say for a moment you could rid the world of the feeling of anger. Do you think it's a fair statement that the murder and assault rates world wide would drop dramatically? Logically that it would. Why because feelings of anger can lead to an act of violence. This is the reason feelings matter, because of the action they can lead to. Not to say every act of anger does, for the Times nothing happens it does not matter. For the Times it does, then feelings matter. Is the times when a feeling leads to a negative action that makes feelings matter. Or even a positive action for that matter.

So if you want to say feelings do not matter when they lead to no action, but do matter when they lead to action, I could agree with that. To say feelings don't matter, especially considering the actions they can lead to just isn't accurate.

a reply to: Reallyfolks

Anger leads only to the search for a different emotion. We can look to psychological studies for the evidence, I think, though I can't right now. But I'm certain that Anger rarely leads to aggression, but those who get aggressive do so because it curbs their anger, not because it is the necessary outcome of anger.

I think is fair to say violence would drop somewhat if anger was eliminated, in humans at least, but only because they tend to do reckless things when angry, not because anger causes violence. There are plenty of other contributing factors to violence. Anger is rarely a cause for war, for instance. Also I do not think animals engage in aggressive behavior because they're angry.

I understand your feeling matter to you. We have a tendency to avoid some feelings and attempt to trade them for others. But beyond that they are of no importance. What is of importance, in my humble opinion at least, is the cause of those emotions, and the being that has them. These are what lead to action and what finally acts. That is what matters. That is the reality.

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
a reply to: Reallyfolks

Anger leads only to the search for a different emotion. We can look to psychological studies for the evidence, I think, though I can't right now. But I'm certain that Anger rarely leads to aggression, but those who get aggressive do so because it curbs their anger, not because it is the necessary outcome of anger.

I think is fair to say violence would drop somewhat if anger was eliminated, in humans at least, but only because they tend to do reckless things when angry, not because anger causes violence. There are plenty of other contributing factors to violence. Anger is rarely a cause for war, for instance. Also I do not think animals engage in aggressive behavior because they're angry.

I understand your feeling matter to you. We have a tendency to avoid some feelings and attempt to trade them for others. But beyond that they are of no importance. What is of importance, in my humble opinion at least, is the cause of those emotions, and the being that has them. These are what lead to action and what finally acts. That is what matters. That is the reality.

Not about my Feelings. It simply a matter of why feelings do matter. When feelings lead to an action they matter. When they don't they don't. We just disagree not only about if feelings matter but also because you feel the cause is important, I feel the control is more important than the cause. If you would like I can reach out to my parents for some good references. Both psychologists, grew up with two of them.

a reply to: LesMisanthrope

And the pain. Which is the point no? I really appreciate your thoughts on this. It has made me think.

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
a reply to: TzarChasm

Specifically I agree with his arguments regarding feelings and emotions, that they are no more than fleeting bodily sensations, which somewhat conforms to the contemporary biological view of feelings. I don't agree with his methodology on how to curtail the striving for them, and much anything else of Buddhism really.

...but you do agree that emotions should be curtailed or eradicated, due to their "fleeting" nature?

a reply to: TzarChasm

They don't matter enough for such measures.