Do we genuinely feel things

If you have not had this experience through doing meditation, what does it being reported by another person require from you?

Quoting Darkneos

Are we essentially just brainwashed by society and nothing more than puppets in our lives or is there more than that?

What are feelings? Wouldn't you have to be quite clear on their definition and origin before you could begin to assess their genuineness?

Don't you have to wonder about the sequence of events in the above scenario? Why does "society" need puppets, and why influence "you"? What is society and what are you in relation to society? How did society come about? How did it get to care enough about "feelings" to figure out how to brainwash its individual members to have one feeling rather than another in a given situation?

Quoting Darkneos

But if you are being affected or influenced by something else then it's not genuine, you're being controlled.

Affected and influenced does not equate to controlled. We're living in an environment that affects and influences us all the time, but doesn't control us. We're affected an influenced by our family, friends, community, teachers and fellow students, work associates, romantic interests, political leaders, spiritual leaders, sport heroes, our intellectual interests, editorials, books and television entertainments. Unless all of those entities are in collusion, I don't see how they can control anybody.
Way too many associations and assumptions with very little plausibility-checking.

You spend enough time in meditation, you will realize that you never genuinely feel feelings in the first place it is all just cause and effect response

I understand this is not your position, only the one you are questioning. I think it was @Possibility here on the forum who recommended a book - "How Emotions are Made," by Lisa Feldman Barrett. If I understand the book correctly, Barrett believes that the physiological phenomena associated with emotion are not learned, but how those feelings are interpreted is. Children are taught what they mean, how to put them into words.

Looking at it a different way, I've seen animals behaving in a way that it would be ridiculous to call anything other than emotional. They show fear, happiness, anger, affection without the societal expectations your Buddhism expert describes.

Speaking more personally, my emotions are a big part of who I am and how I behave. A Buddhist might say that is a reflection of my illusionary self, but I'm not a Buddhist.

If emotions are socially constructed then all that means is that they're like language. They help us communicate and regulate our energies appropriately. Of course we can be manipulated by others emotionally and with all forms of communication.

Meditation may offer a "spaciousness" where there's more room to not react mindlessly.

Quoting Darkneos

Are we essentially just brainwashed by society and nothing more than puppets in our lives or is there more than that?

We are not brainwashed by society. Our brain is trained (programmed, if you like the computer analogy) by its environment, physical and social. Without that training, there is no person. Hence, we are created by society.

The fact that we can object to, rebel against or withdraw from, our society shows that social control is imperfect, partial. That's a good thing, for the same reason that variations in DNA are a good thing.

Quoting Darkneos

Are we essentially just brainwashed by society and nothing more than puppets in our lives or is there more than that? When I ask other people no one seems to think that just because emotions are cause and effect that it means they aren't genuine. But if you are being affected or influenced by something else then it's not genuine, you're being controlled.

Both. If you had no feelings, then it would be hard to brainwash you into having them. But given that you have fears and anxieties, needs and desires, you can find them being manipulated. Panic not though, the manipulator, 'society' is just some other people like you, pretending to be the illuminati.

Try unenlightened's advertisement meditation: whenever you see an advert, analyse it carefully and you will find in every case that it will first seek to provoke in you a negative feeling, and then offer you a solution to make you feel better.

Because we can feel hunger, and feel sated, we can have hunger provoked in us; so it is worth a little consideration to discover whether the hunger you feel arises because you need sustenance or because McKellog needs to sell some more carbohydrates. But it is also worth discovering whether your feeling of being manipulated is also being provoked in order to manipulate you into supporting a party that promises to "take back control".

[quote=political advertising]The price of freedom is eternal vigilance.[/quote]

Quoting praxis

Meditation may offer a "spaciousness" where there's more room to not react mindlessly.

It's what Vulcans do to control their otherwise volatile emotions. Social conditioning is aimed at the same thing: to keep a rein on feelings that could prompt destructive actions. Language gives us a way to communicate emotion without the threatening or provocative behaviours that could disrupt the social order. Alcohol and other substances relax these social inhibitions - and you see on the news what results. Maybe Friday-night brawlers should be sentenced to a course of meditation instead of a weekend in jail.

Quoting Vera Mont

It's what Vulcans do to control their otherwise volatile emotions. Social conditioning is aimed at the same thing: to keep a rein on feelings that could prompt destructive actions. Language gives us a way to communicate emotion without the threatening or provocative behaviours that could disrupt the social order.

Actually you tend to feel things more deeply because you’re more attuned to bodily sensations than wrapped up in what Buddhists call ‘monkey mind’. I think that may be what @Darkneos alludes to in the OP.

Quoting Vera Mont

Maybe Friday-night brawlers should be sentenced to a course of meditation instead of a weekend in jail.

:up:

Reply to unenlightened Yup.

Reply to Darkneos
Another way to look at emotions and manipulation is that this is how we are connected to an environment. Yes, we are deeply influenced by those around us -- they are a part of our environment. While the emotions can be manipulated for a purpose, in the non-malignant form, it's a good thing that our emotions respond to the world -- it's how we act and feel and know.

"brainwashed" isn't the right word, because that would be a programmatic approach -- and on a large scale we're just not that in control of even ourselves to get up to the point of controlling others. Propaganda is much more crude than that. It's flashy -- often times it can be reduced to a command: "AVOID" "FEAR" "BUY" "VOTE". And it's crude because it doesn't need to be sophisticated: it works on emotions that are already there. It's not brainwashing as much as calling attention.

Quoting praxis

Actually you tend to feel things more deeply because you’re more attuned to bodily sensations than wrapped up in what Buddhists call ‘monkey mind’.

That's interesting. What 'things' do you feel when meditating that are different from the things you feel when connected to the outside world? And how does feeling deeply affect behaviour differently from the presumably shallow feeling we normally experience.
I can't always follow what other people mean by feelings (which i think of as response to sensation and other stimuli) and emotions (which i think of as either primal or sentimental.) We have more precise language available, of which most of us rarely make use.

Quoting Darkneos

Are we essentially just brainwashed by society and nothing more than puppets in our lives or is there more than that?

The typical mind will generally by a reflection of its experiences filtered through the lenses of deep-seated beliefs it identifies as Truths (upbringing, indoctrination perhaps), yes. This is why people pursue higher education, to learn things that they did not know before and have them become second nature or indistinguishable from first knowledge even.

You reminded me of a user here whose screen name caught my eye. @Cartesian trigger-puppets. I asked him what the meaning or origin of that was and apparently he read and presumably was convinced that we are all, in a way, Cartesian trigger puppets, relating to Descartes and his philosophies, of which I am not familiar. Similar as your premise suggests. Perhaps you may wish to look into that.

Quoting Darkneos

When I ask other people no one seems to think that just because emotions are cause and effect that it means they aren't genuine. But if you are being affected or influenced by something else then it's not genuine, you're being controlled. Though no one agrees, not even Buddhists who I ask.

Well, hey. You can by and I'll give you a flick on the arm and you can see how that does or does not affect you. Or I can step it up a notch and tell a "yo mamma" joke so volatile you'll want to call her just to make sure she's alright. :wink:

Generally speaking yes, your mind should not randomly have unnecessary fluctuations of emotion for no reason whatsoever. That's bipolarity I believe. We live in a physical world with physical people and unless you live in a walled off kingdom with no knowledge (or care for that matter) of others, you will be inevitably be affected by other people just as you will inevitably affect them. There's nothing complicated or "tricky" about that really.

Quoting Moliere

Propaganda is much more crude than that. It's flashy -- often times it can be reduced to a command: "AVOID" "FEAR" "BUY" "VOTE". And it's crude because it doesn't need to be sophisticated: it works on emotions that are already there. It's not brainwashing as much as calling attention.

I'm reminded of a scene from They Live.


It may suggest that ideologies are deeply embedded and inescapable.

Quoting Vera Mont

That's interesting. What 'things' do you feel when meditating that are different from the things you feel when connected to the outside world? And how does feeling deeply affect behaviour differently from the presumably shallow feeling we normally experience.
I can't always follow what other people mean by feelings (which i think of as response to sensation and other stimuli) and emotions (which i think of as either primal or sentimental.) We have more precise language available, of which most of us rarely make use.

When in regular meditation practice I notice being generally more sentimental. Hearing a touching story, for instance, makes eyes water when ordinarily they would not. That sort of thing.

And I would characterize the feeling of being in meditation as more connected to the world.

Quoting praxis

When in regular meditation practice I notice being generally more sentimental. Hearing a touching story, for instance, makes eyes water when ordinarily they would not. That sort of thing.

So, it makes you more sensitive to others, more empathic? Those are frontal lobe functions, abstract thought, symbol-making functions, far from the primal drives. Seems to me that's more connected to the thinking world, rather than the physical one.
I've only ever tried meditation at the most elementary level, to reduce anxiety during a rough patch in my youth. It worked, up to a point, and i didn't pursue it beyond that point.

Reply to praxis Oh, definitely. What a great flick!

Though I don't think that I'd say that ideology is inescapable -- he does put on the glasses after all, and is able to perceive the subtext as text, and see the aliens that live among them.

***
I think, upon first being able to see subtext, we get this sense that it's inescapable because it's also everywhere. Or, at least, upon first being able to perceive propaganda as propaganda, it is surprising how ubiquitous it is since the very function of ideology is to make the crudeness of propaganda acceptable, a part of the day to day.

So I feel empathy for @Darkneos's thoughts. There's a sense in which it can feel like you're being controlled, that there is no escape, and that the people around you don't even acknowledge the propaganda around them.

But that's actually because the best propaganda doesn't look like propaganda to its target audience -- the crudity of propaganda is only apparent upon being perceived as propaganda, upon being able to reduce it to a command. And if you're just putting the glasses on for the first time, it can seem like nobody else has "figured it out" -- but the truth is, just enough people have "figured it out" that it's still effective. (And, as the movie more or less preaches to us, those alien persons who see the field of desire as a machine to be manipulated for their own ends -- They Live! :D)

Quoting Vera Mont

So, it makes you more sensitive to others, more empathic? Those are frontal lobe functions, abstract thought, symbol-making functions, far from the primal drives. Seems to me that's more connected to the thinking world, rather than the physical one.

The basic neurology of it is suppression of the default mode network. Modern folk tends to have a hyperactive DMN. I certainly do.

Quoting Vera Mont

What 'things' do you feel when meditating that are different from the things you feel when connected to the outside world?

I'm not a formal meditator and I think my understanding is different from @praxis. I went looking for an Alan Watts quote I think is relevant, but I can't find it. To paraphrase though - Quiet contemplation can help us experience our negative emotions without resistance. If we allow ourselves to feel our grief, sadness, anger, shame, or guilt fully and without trying to avoid them, they lose their power over us. Trying to avoid suffering just makes it last longer and causes additional suffering.

This is a quote from the Tao Te Ching that has always meant a lot to me:

Quoting Tao Te Ching, Verse 36 - Stephen Mitchell Translation

If you want to shrink something,
you must first allow it to expand.
If you want to get rid of something,
you must first allow it to flourish.
If you want to take something,
you must first allow it to be given.
This is called the subtle perception
of the way things are.

Reply to Moliere

I'm thinking inescapable in the sense that we require some kind of framework. You can remove the water in a fish bowl but it will have to be replaced with different water for the fish to live in. I think we require ideology, in other words.

Quoting praxis

I'm reminded of a scene from They Live.

Quoting Moliere

What a great flick!

I believe Rowdy Roddy Piper won the Oscar for best performance by a professional wrestler that year.

Quoting T Clark

I believe Rowdy Roddy Piper won the Oscar for best performance by a professional wrestler that year.

I trust no one made a joke about his wife. That could have landed very badly.

Reply to praxis Interesting!

I think I'd prefer to reserve the term "ideology" for something which can be "unseen": basically in the manner I was using it before, where ideology is that which makes propaganda acceptable, uncrude, and functional, and the removal of ideology is the reduction of propaganda to a command (seeing propaganda as propagada)

But if ideology is that which we must have in order to conceive at all -- like a fish out of water, as you say -- then it would be inescapable. You could switch out the water, because it's gone bad, but there'd always be an environment which we're needing...

Something like a social environment? Or a set of beliefs? Or what?

Quoting unenlightened

Try unenlightened's advertisement meditation: whenever you see an advert, analyse it carefully and you will find in every case that it will first seek to provoke in you a negative feeling, and then offer you a solution to make you feel better.

Advertisement doesn't work on me so...

Reply to T Clark Alleged Buddhism expert since I have asked other Buddhism people and they say she's wrong. But that quote from the Tao Te is more about just letting things happen rather than fight them, which is supported by psychological research. Resisting a negative thought or idea, etc, ends up building a stronger association to it, rather than just letting it come and go. So actively trying to force something out of your mind does the opposite

Quoting Moliere

So I feel empathy for Darkneos's thoughts. There's a sense in which it can feel like you're being controlled, that there is no escape, and that the people around you don't even acknowledge the propaganda around them.

But that's actually because the best propaganda doesn't look like propaganda to its target audience -- the crudity of propaganda is only apparent upon being perceived as propaganda, upon being able to reduce it to a command. And if you're just putting the glasses on for the first time, it can seem like nobody else has "figured it out" -- but the truth is, just enough people have "figured it out" that it's still effective. (And, as the movie more or less preaches to us, those alien persons who see the field of desire as a machine to be manipulated for their own ends -- They Live! :D)

not quite what I'm getting at here.

Quoting Darkneos

not quite what I'm getting at here.

No? M'kay. Then my mistake.

"Propaganda" was introduced by me, mostly because it fit, to my mind, with what you were saying about our emotions being the result of cause-and-effect, that we are puppets to society, and that these influences render us disingenuous, and under control. But I'm willing to drop that, only justifying where I was thinking from.

Still -- I'm pointing out that I disagree that these influences make us disingenuous, in my first post. That we feel means we are connected to a world, which is, in fact, where we are. If we do not feel, then while we are in a world we are no longer connected to it.

It's not being under influence which makes us disingenuous. It depends upon more than that. Such as being manipulated in a particular way. (hence why I immediately went for propaganda)

Reply to Moliere Being under any sort of influence automatically makes it disingenuous as the original quote I cited said.

Quoting T Clark

Quiet contemplation can help us experience our negative emotions without resistance. If we allow ourselves to feel our grief, sadness, anger, shame, or guilt fully and without trying to avoid them, they lose their power over us.

This, or something like it, I know from experience. There are different methods - solitary contemplation works for me; for someone I know who suffers from depression, it's analyzing dreams, or it might be writing poetry or keeping a journal. Basically, the process boils down to: See it, name it, accept it, own it. Then it can't own you.

Quoting Vera Mont

This, or something like it, I know from experience. There are different methods - solitary contemplation works for me; for someone I know who suffers from depression, it's analyzing dreams, or it might be writing poetry or keeping a journal. Basically, the process boils down to: See it, name it, accept it, own it. Then it can't own you.

This is more like denying reality though. You don't genuinely feel anything so those emotions are more or less a lie.

Reply to Darkneos
I suppose that's the point I take issue with, then.

Though, if we're just taking that definition as the rule -- then your conclusion does follow. You and everyone else is disingenuous, as they are, in fact, influenced by the things around them.

Only God could claim to be authentic under such a criteria, though.

Quoting Darkneos

This is more like denying reality though. You don't genuinely feel anything so those emotions are more or less a lie.

What makes you think you know more about reality than I do?
But then, I'm still not clear on what you mean by feeling, emotions or genuine. Or why influence is considered control, or how that which is influenced by the environment becomes unreal.

Quoting Darkneos

Advertisement doesn't work on me so...

Yeah, I saw that one too.

Quoting Darkneos

Alleged Buddhism expert

Yes, I was being ironic.

Quoting Darkneos

But that quote from the Tao Te is more about just letting things happen rather than fight them, which is supported by psychological research. Resisting a negative thought or idea, etc, ends up building a stronger association to it, rather than just letting it come and go. So actively trying to force something out of your mind does the opposite

Yes.

Quoting Vera Mont

This, or something like it, I know from experience. There are different methods - solitary contemplation works for me; for someone I know who suffers from depression, it's analyzing dreams, or it might be writing poetry or keeping a journal. Basically, the process boils down to: See it, name it, accept it, own it. Then it can't own you.

Yes, although it's easier to say it than to do it, at least for me.

Quoting Moliere

Something like a social environment? Or a set of beliefs? Or what?

I'm thinking roughly along Buddhist lines, that everything is an illusion born of our conditioning and playing out in endless repeat until we realize our true nature (emptiness) and somehow extinguish our conditioning. I'm not too hot on the extinguishing part personally. Free and extinguished is hard to imagine and unappealing to my sense of selfhood.

Quoting unenlightened

Yeah, I saw that one too.

:sweat:

Quoting Moliere

I suppose that's the point I take issue with, then.

Though, if we're just taking that definition as the rule -- then your conclusion does follow. You and everyone else is disingenuous, as they are, in fact, influenced by the things around them.

Only God could claim to be authentic under such a criteria, though.

And that's the problem.

Reply to praxis Ahh, OK. Gotcha. And it looks like that's more where the OP was headed, too, so that makes sense.

Reply to Darkneos Interesting that you'd call it a problem. Why is it a problem?

Reply to Moliere Well if nothing we feel is genuine then why bother living?

Reply to Darkneos Hell, even if everything we feel happens to be genuine -- in the case of our set definition at this point, God -- why bother living? Everything can be exactly as you want it to be. How dull.

Reply to Moliere that doesn't make any sense.

I'm saying if nothing we feel is truly genuine then what's the point of living? Your life is essentially a lie.

Quoting Darkneos

I'm saying if nothing we feel is truly genuine then what's the point of living? Your life is essentially a lie.

Right!

So suppose that my life is a lie, and it's a comfortable lie. Might it be possible for a person to say "the point of living is comfort" rather than "the point of living is to be truly genuine"?

And, even if we are truly genuine, one could also demand some other condition to satisfy "the point of living" like "life should also be exciting" -- we could be genuinely bored for all eternity, and feel like living life is pointless just because of this.

Which should highlight how the question "What is the point of living?" is open-ended, and the answer is dependent more upon the speaker asking the question than anything else.

Which, in this case, would be you.

For me, I don't mind living a comfortable lie, in the sense that you've outlined what is genuine. I don't need to be genuine in the sense of not-influenced. Even further, the way I look at the world, to be not-influenced would be disingenuous, because we are connected to a world, we are connected to people, and we should listen to them. We are only an island when we choose to be, and then there's no one else around anyways. Genuine, and entirely alone.

Sounds awful to me. Why would I care about that?

Quoting Darkneos

Well if nothing we feel is genuine then why bother living?

This is one of those cute tail-eating propositions, isn't it?
If nothing we feel is genuine, the bother of living isn't genuine, since we're not genuinely living.
So, where did all this illusion, conditioning, control and influence come from? And on whom is it working, if "we" are not genuine persons?

'Do we genuinely feel things?' Awesome question!

I have recently wrestled with that specific question. For an unknown reason, I find I do not linger on a particular feeling very long. As someone who strives to be open-minded, I have asked myself why I am that way, whether is it good or bad, and whether I should change. I strive to look at situations from all possible angles. Of course, I cannot look at it from an angle I cannot perceive, but I strive to be 'open to ideas'. I know for a fact I am a product of my upbringing, but as I have grown older, I have challenged things I was taught as a child. Some things I have found I agree with, and some others I disagree with.

One thing I believe emphatically is I, my soul, the 'me without the body', will live on forever. Yes, I read that idea in the Bible, but I believe that to be true and I have discovered more evidence recently to solidify that belief.

Another thing about me is I find I am very literal. I get jokes and share them, but if a teacher who has shown to have wisdom, says something, I take them at their word. For example, Jesus said, 'fear not', so I strive to not be afraid. I have played out 'not being afraid' and what I would gain from not being afraid, and I've played out 'being afraid' and what I gain from that. I found 'not being afraid' has many more benefits than 'being afraid', so it makes sense to me to strive to 'not to be afraid'.
More recently, I wrestled with the idea of someone else 'wasting my time'. As I wrestled with it, I realized my time is mine to use how I want to use it. It's only a question of how I use it. I could sit and be angry at the driver in front of me while stuck in traffic or I could meditate. I could dwell on me 'not getting to somewhere on time' or call someone or pray for someone. The bottom line is it is MY choice. Later on, I came to the realization that the incidents that happen around us are not as important as the relationships we cultivate during those incidents. Why do I believe that? Well, over the years I have come to believe life is not about me. So, if it's not about me, how 'I' feel becomes less important than how others feel. No, it's not 'less important'... It's more like how 'I' feel is instinctual, but short-term planning, whereas thinking of others is NOT instinctual and long-term planning. You see, if everyone put others first, if people genuinely loved others as they love themselves, the world would be an excellent place to live! On the other hand, if everyone hated everyone else, eventually we'd all kill each other.
I believe there.

The way I see it, there are two equal laws that exist in the universe that are non-negotiable. There are two because one cannot obey one without obeying the other. Those two laws are to love God and love others. In this case, love is an action. It is not just a feeling. Therefore, one must seek to learn what love actions look like. Many examples can be found in the life of Jesus. I would argue, a person cannot obey these two laws completely unless God's Spirit is in that person. The Bible seems to indicate that the process of having God's Spirit enter you is simple: To believe in your heart that Jesus Christ is Lord and that God raised Him from the dead.

The point of these two equally important laws is these laws perpetuate life. Not following them, might not bring death, but it doesn't perpetuate life. Of course, hating, which seems to be an emotion, can only bring destruction. Following these laws also allows one to find an answer to 'What is the point of living?' The answer is, 'For others'.

As a result of all this thinking, I have found myself shying away from all feelings. So are feelings important? Feelings can move us to desire to take an action. Of course, those actions should be evaluated BEFORE actually being taken to see if those actions will genuinely be showing love towards other persons.

The beauty of seeking to do actions that live out love towards others is those actions will be different in different situations. I recommend seeking Wisdom for what to do in each situation.

I also do believe our perception is our reality, so while many things do happen out of cause and effect, how we interpret them (being good or bad) is up to us. Perhaps we if strived to learn from situations rather than classify them as 'good' or 'bad' we would be better off.

This leads to a riddle I came up with: Every person has a most important moment in their existence. When is it? Now! As in 'The NOW'. We will forever be there, but how many of us live there? The present is a present to be present in. If we looked at situations of learning or loving others, very few situations will be truly 'bad' or 'good'. They will be moments, or opportunities, to live life (in this body or another) with others, and for others.

So 'Do we genuinely feel things?' I don't know, perhaps not. But when I think of what I am feeling, recently I have found myself asking 'Whatever I am feeling right now, how can this feeling help me love another?'

Reply to Michael Phelps If you don't have anything intelligent to say please don't bother commenting. I stopped taking it seriously once Jesus and God factored into it.

You obviously don't get it.

Quoting Vera Mont

This is one of those cute tail-eating propositions, isn't it?
If nothing we feel is genuine, the bother of living isn't genuine, since we're not genuinely living.
So, where did all this illusion, conditioning, control and influence come from? And on whom is it working, if "we" are not genuine persons?

That's not really answering the question of what's the point in going on if nothing you feel is genuine.

.

Reply to Michael Phelps

Sorry about @Darkneos. You'll find that there is a lot of hostility to religion here on the forum.

Welcome to the forum. I'm sorry it couldn't have been with a more gracious poster.

Quoting Darkneos

That's not really answering the question of what's the point in going on if nothing you feel is genuine.

No, it's not. It's asking the questions: Where do feelings originate? What do genuine ones feel like? How do they become non-genuine?

Quoting Darkneos

I stopped taking it seriously once Jesus and God factored into it.

Why should anyone take it seriously when you cite an alleged Buddhist as source, and refuse to answer any questions?

Reply to Darkneos

What specifically do you have against God and Jesus? I believe in Santa Clause, but someone then showed me that the gift givers were my parents all along. I doubted their story, but tested it and found it to be true, so I changed my belief and moved on.

About the 'question', does it matter if it is 'genuine'? What if you never find out if it is 'genuine' or not? The point is that your life is still real to you, isn't it? If all you desire is self-preservation, then 'survival' is your point of living. That's all there needs to be. Only someone who starts considering that there could be something more will EVER consider the thought 'what is the point of going on...?' Having that thought implies that one is already thinking beyond mere survival mode. Wondering 'what the point of going on' also indicates that you believe there IS more than just surviving. So what is that 'more'? The next question should be 'Am I really interested in discovering more truth or am I just curious so I can brag about knowing something others don't?' (which is kind of like knowing who will win a sports game and bragging and then 'proving to be right for the sake of being right'.)

I think the movie 'The Matrix' does a perfect job of illustrating most humans. There are only a few people who really want to know the truth and take the steps to seek it out. In real life, I believe most people don't really, really want to know the absolute truth of everything. It's not a bad thing. It just is. Most people are in 'self-preservation' mode, just like most other animals are. It's not bad, it's just instinct. I believe there are some, a small number even, who passionately want to know 'the truth'. Not to shove it down someone else's throat or bash it over someone else's head, but they just have a passion to discover, and a love for, truth. I firmly believe those people will find it. They will find the truth if they genuinely seek it with an open mind, but an open mind is a must. An open mind to reading all sorts of things. Yes, even the Bible, but other material as well. If you seek, you WILL find, but seeking is still a requirement.

Reply to T Clark

You'll find that there is a lot of hostility to religion here on the forum.

I walk outside and I find hostility! :D I've come to expect it out of life. But I see awesomeness too.

Welcome to the forum. I'm sorry it couldn't have been with a more gracious poster.

Thank you! But why are you apologizing? You seem gracious. You are the first one to welcome me. Someone else just told me 'I didn't get it'. That's not a 'welcome' in my books. ;D

Quoting Michael Phelps

I think the movie 'The Matrix' does a perfect job of illustrating most humans. There are only a few people who really want to know the truth and take the steps to seek it out. In real life, I believe most people don't really, really want to know the absolute truth of everything. It's not a bad thing. It just is. Most people are in 'self-preservation' mode, just like most other animals are. It's not bad, it's just instinct. I believe there are some, a small number even, who passionately want to know 'the truth'. Not to shove it down someone else's throat or bash it over someone else's head, but they just have a passion to discover, and a love for, truth. I firmly believe those people will find it. They will find the truth if they genuinely seek it with an open mind, but an open mind is a must. An open mind to reading all sorts of things. Yes, even the Bible, but other material as well. If you seek, you WILL find, but seeking is still a requirement.

Welcome, Mr. Phelps!

If it’s not impolite to ask, what is the truth?

I ask as though you know because you seem so convinced that there is “the truth”.

I suspect that you may be inclined to say something like “seek and ye shall find”. If so, please resist the temptation.

Quoting Michael Phelps

In real life, I believe most people don't really, really want to know the absolute truth of everything.

And some are realistic enough to know that attempting to find out the absolute truth of anything could take a lifetime and yield no results. However, discovering a little partial truth about some things can be an enjoyable and rewarding process.

Reply to praxis
'Quid est veritas?' ('What is truth?')
Pontius Pilate

I know what the truth is! ...until just now when I learned what I believed was not true, but this new thing is truth. Thus, NOW I know the truth.. until... :D

1500 years ago, everybody "knew" that the earth was the center of the universe. 500 years ago, everybody "knew" that the earth was flat. And 15 minutes ago, you "knew" that humans were alone on this planet. Imagine what you'll "know" tomorrow.

Kay from Men in Black

I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that perhaps knowing the truth is not as important as loving people. Jesus said, 'I am the Truth'. So that's either true, and He is THE truth, or He is lying and a fraud. I don't know anyone else in history to have claimed that. So I am left with, either believing Him or living with no one being THE truth. The latter is not so bad, but when someone claims to be God, well I'd like to know, is this guy telling the truth? So far, what I've studied about Jesus seems to hold up. But do I know what the truth is? Well, as another writer did a GREAT job explaining the existence of God is not provable, I have faith. I have faith that what Jesus declared about Himself is true. I have faith that God, YHWH, created the universe. I believe God is love. I believe it because it is written in the Bible. Oh, so the Bible is 100% accurate, is it? Well, I'm just too lazy to nitpick and figure out which parts aren't accurate, so I just believe it all. It's me being lazy. But what IS true about God? Well, if I could describe Him, then he wouldn't be God.

I mentioned 'God is love'. As I was wrestling to answer my son's question of 'if God is so loving than...', I asked God to give me an answer. He asked me if believe He IS love. I said 'yes'. He continued, "Does the sun have an off switch (that I know of)?" I said, no. "Neither does my love." He replied. Hmmm... I quickly realized we don't see or feel the sun's light and heat due to where we are. Perhaps we don't feel God's love because of where we are, not His 'lack of love'.

So what is truth? Well, I believe God is love and he wants us to love Him. Selfish, I know, but I'm also not the Creator, so I go with it. He also wants us to love others. Mathematically, love duplicates itself. So love works. I do not know all truths but am on the journey to discover truths, but most importantly, I am on this journey WITH the Creator of the universe and we love each other. So, for now, rather than being 'right' I'd rather love.

Reply to praxis Oh! I forgot to mention, Thank you for the warm welcome!

Reply to Vera MontQuoting Vera Mont

And some are realistic enough to know that attempting to find out the absolute truth of anything could take a lifetime and yield no results. However, discovering a little partial truth about some things can be an enjoyable and rewarding process.

Amen!

Sorry about the 'edits'. I'm still figuring out how to quote properly.

Quoting Michael Phelps

I quickly realized we don't see or feel the sun's light and heat due to where we are. Perhaps we don't feel God's love because of where we are, not His 'lack of love'.

Ho-kay, that's a lot of feeling, and it may be partially authentic/original (as distinct from 'genuine', which has not been defined), though it's familiar enough to contain a substantial portion of cultural belief.

But I don't see it as an exercise in truth-finding in the same way as looking into a microscope or telescope. Those activities don't require feeling, either as physical sensation or as emotion; merely the use of sensory equipment and its augmentations to perceive data and our intellectual faculties to analyze and collate the data in order to interpret information as truth or untruth.
Can we exercise our sensory and intellectual equipment to determine the truth content of our emotions?

Reply to Vera Mont that says already explained how they are not genuine , supposedly. The question is why go on if they’re not.

Reply to Michael Phelps it’s funny you should use the matrix as that movie had nothing to do with real reality, it was pretty much about transgender people and transitioning.

It’s also funny you use that movie as an example when religion itself, god, Jesus, etc, is the matrix. It provides a comforting and easy answer to the hard questions of life. But those who dare to go past it find how much isn’t certain and how little we truly know or control.

It’s often a warning sign to steer clear of such people who claim to have “truth” because more often than not they don’t. But people will follow and listen because the unknown is scary and the lack of control terrifies people.

One thing, of many, that made me believe there isn’t a god or that I have no reason to think so is the creation of life. No loving deity would ever create life.

I find it odd you have an issue with just surviving, seems to be enough for animals so why do you need more than that? You’ll find that God ends up being a poor answer for just about any question. I see no reason to think there is more than this nor would I wish it.

Sounds like fear of death. Also this has nothing to do with the OP.

Nobody explained what 'genuine' means, or how you can tell whether feelings are genuine or counterfeit. I have to go on, at least I find out! Then I'll decide.

Quoting Vera Mont

Nobody explained what 'genuine' means, or how you can tell whether feelings are genuine or counterfeit

I think "genuine" rather than a concept, it is a habit. It involves some positivism towards ethics. Doing or not doing some acts is what makes a person genuine. For example: honesty and authenticity.

Quoting javi2541997

Doing or not doing some acts is what makes a person genuine.

Only, the subject here was not persons or their character, but their emotions. As in: all our feelings are fake; they have no authenticity; therefore our life is not worth living.
And the reason our feelings are fake is that they're controlled, influenced and/or affected by something referred to as 'society', which is somehow external to and distinct from persons, but not defined; nor is it revealed where 'society' gets the concept of emotions or the motive and means to manipulate the counterfeit feelings of people.

Quoting Vera Mont

Only, the subject here was not persons or their character, but their emotions. As in: all our feelings are fake; they have no authenticity; therefore our life is not worth living.

:up:

Reply to Vera Mont That's what was meant, if we don't genuinely feel anything, if we're just controlled by society then why bother living.

Reply to Darkneos I'm sure you agree there's an aspect of your behavior that belongs only to yourself since you are a separate individual, an entity. Even if it's true that the entirety of our feelings are molded by society, that which is molded is particular to the individual. Twins will grow up to be different. It's the preservation of that particularity, one of the reasons one might bother living.

Quoting Darkneos

That's what was meant, if we don't genuinely feel anything, if we're just controlled by society then why bother living.

Yes, you said that. Several times. But I assume you didn't mean it, because if feelings aren't genuine, neither are thoughts. Society is just making you say that.

Reply to Vera Mont so again, why bother living? You’re not really answering.

Reply to Daniel No, there is no aspect of your behavior that belongs entirely to yourself.

Reply to Darkneos It is one's behavior. Not someone else's.

Quoting Darkneos

You’re not really answering.

Yes, I am. Just not that question.

Reply to Daniel No, it’s imparted onto you by society.

Reply to Vera Mont again you’re still not

Neither are you.

Reply to Vera Mont I already did answer that. If we don’t genuinely feel things what’s the point in living. You haven’t really answered why anyone should.

Quoting Darkneos

You haven’t really answered why anyone should.

Okay: Nobody should. We just want to, because we feel that desire to live, and the fact that we continue to live as long as we are able proves that feeling is genuine. Therefore, the original proposition of this thread - couched in undefined terms and based on unsupported premises - was wrong.

Reply to Vera Mont but you haven’t proven it so. That desire to live is because society pushes it all the time. Most people don’t question whether their feelings are genuine or not.


So again IF they’re not then why bother living? Just because we have that desire isn’t a reason. I thought this was a philosophy forum.

Quoting Darkneos

but you haven’t proven it so.

Nor have you.
Quoting Darkneos

Most people don’t question whether their feelings are genuine or not.

That may be true, or it may not, but neither possibility supports any of your premises, or any of your cause-effect assumptions.

Quoting Darkneos

Just because we have that desire isn’t a reason.

It's the best, truest, most compelling and most genuine reason.

Quoting Darkneos

I thought this was a philosophy forum.

And I used to think that in philosophy, the one proffering a theory would define their terms and support their argument.

Quoting Darkneos

it’s funny you should use the matrix as that movie had nothing to do with real reality, it was pretty much about transgender people and transitioning.

I was wondering if the writers intentionally wrote the script to describe faith. Apparently not. That brings up a side question: should someone who states an inaccurate statement unintentionally get credit?'

Quoting Darkneos

It’s also funny you use that movie as an example when religion itself, god, Jesus, etc, is the matrix. It provides a comforting and easy answer to the hard questions of life. But those who dare to go past it find how much isn’t certain and how little we truly know or control.

I would argue that God, Jesus, etc are NOT easy answers. They are simple answers, but NOT easy. If it WAS easy, it would require no faith.

Regarding control. I believe humans overall, know very little and can control also, very little. It's only the perception of controlling things, especially others. I fail to see the correlation between knowing lots and the perception of controlling lots to the existence of God.

Quoting Darkneos

It’s often a warning sign to steer clear of such people who claim to have “truth” because more often than not they don’t. But people will follow and listen because the unknown is scary and the lack of control terrifies people.

How can anyone know if someone else 'has faith' or not? It's like saying, 'your feeling is wrong'. Also, I thought it would be God's role to determine one's level of faith.

Quoting Darkneos

One thing, of many, that made me believe there isn’t a god or that I have no reason to think so is the creation of life. No loving deity would ever create life.

Except for love. Love must have another to exist.

Quoting Darkneos

I find it odd you have an issue with just surviving, seems to be enough for animals so why do you need more than that?

I don't have an issue with 'just surviving'. That's fine. What I was stating is that asking the question 'what is the point of going on...?' implies that one is already thinking beyond mere survival mode.

Quoting Darkneos

You’ll find that God ends up being a poor answer for just about any question. I see no reason to think there is more than this nor would I wish it.

Well, your feeling about this is wrong! Sorry, I couldn't resist. That opinion is fine. Thank you for sharing it, but I encourage you to stop 'wondering what the purpose of living is'. Stick with survival.

Quoting Darkneos

Sounds like fear of death.

Um, personally, I am not only NOT afraid to die, but I also look forward to getting my next body (yes, I believe that in faith). If I was doing any better, I'd be dead, but I love life fully! I cannot speak for others if they believe in God but are also afraid to die.

Quoting Darkneos

Also this has nothing to do with the OP.

Understood. So despite that, thank you for continuing this conversation.

Lastly, can you do me a favor?

Can you put a smile on someone else's face today?

Reply to Michael Phelps Because your feeling is wrong. So far there isn’t evidence to suggest any sort of god or anything else beyond the here and now. You just sound delusional more than anything else. You’re believe it’s just that, faith and little else.

Asking what’s the point isn’t really looking beyond survival but more the question of why one survives. Animals and plants just do it without questioning. Humans was why do all this? Is there a point? Some are ok with there being no point.

What I want to know is why you made a new account just to horn in on this discussion with something utterly irrelevant. Seems iffy to me.

God is just one of those things you grow out of into something better.

Reply to Vera Mont what’s there to support it’s simply a fact of life so you haven’t really given a counter to that point.

Quoting Vera Mont

It's the best, truest, most compelling and most genuine reason.

It’s actually not the most genuine, compelling, truest reason especially if society is making you want it, so that’s just wrong. Not even close there.

Quoting Darkneos

Not even close there.

:grin:
:grin:

Reply to Vera Mont it’s not.

How can you genuinely feel anything. You are taught how to feel about certain things, how certain values are good and what one ought to value. Nothing you feel is genuine because it’s all just manufactured by society. You can trust anything you feel because it’s just a nonstop spiral of manufactured emotions.

Reply to Darkneos

"Nothing you feel is genuine because it’s all just manufactured by society".

This is bs. What you feel is to some extent dependent on your physical attributes, as well - among many other things, such as the space you occupy. Also, we develop behaviors when in solitude, too, man. Think a bit more about what you are saying but try to leave your feelings behind if you can. You are oversimplifying things here way too much.

When you try something sweet it causes some sort of happy reaction in you, a type of response which I dare too say needs not be taught. Even other animals like horses react weirdly happy when they try sweet things, specially if it is their first time.

Reply to Daniel Can you prove any of that? Some people grow up in societies when that sort of sweet thing doesn’t cause a happy reaction and some people just don’t get happy by it at all.

We don’t develop behaviors in solitude either as evidenced by feral children they find in the wild.

It’s not oversimplifying you just don’t see the reach society has on you. Everything you felt was manufactured, none of it was you, none of it was real. You’re more or less a robot following social programming.

And like she said about meditation you will find yourself watching these feelings and how you don’t control them. Then you begin to question if these really are your feelings if you can’t control them, and soon you create distance from your feelings enough to see that you’re essentially hostage to “someone else”.

Quoting Darkneos

How can you genuinely feel anything. You are taught how to feel about certain things, how certain values are good and what one ought to value. Nothing you feel is genuine because it’s all just manufactured by society. You can trust anything you feel because it’s just a nonstop spiral of manufactured emotions.

Round - what - five? six?
Define "genuine"
Define "feeling"
Who is "you"?
What is "society"?
Where does the concept of emotions originate?
Where does society originate?
What is society's motivation for influencing my emotions?
What does society gain from influencing my emotions?
How would my "genuine" emotions differ from the manipulated ones you posit?
What relationship is there between counterfeit feelings and reasons for living?
Why do you consider living 'a bother' someone chooses to undertake, rather than a natural process?
Are you yourself alive? If so why do you bother to live and post?
Are you yourself part of or under the influence of a society?
If so, how do you know your thoughts are genuine?
If not, how do you know anything about people who are?

Reply to Vera Mont Genuine being uncaused or affected by anything else.

Feeling is feeling, the response you get.

You is you, the subject. Though with meditation it could be the watcher or the experiencer.

Society is where we live.

Society originates from us. It influences your emotions to establish control and order.

Your genuine emotions would be yours and not what society says you ought to feel over this.

If feelings are all fake then there is no reason to live since you’re just a puppet of the world and not really living.

I live because suicide is painful.

The rest can be explained by the original quote, essentially meditation shows nothing you feel is genuine it’s causes and effect and the specificity of that response is based on what society says you ought to feel towards it. She said so so that’s the truth.

Quoting Darkneos

Genuine being uncaused or affected by anything else.

Name a few examples aside from Gawd.

Quoting Darkneos

Feeling is feeling, the response you get.

Where did I get it?

Quoting Darkneos

You is you, the subject. Though with meditation it could be the watcher or the experiencer.

I, you, and every other entity is an experiencer, whether they meditate or not, whether they will it or not, whether they know it or not.

Quoting Darkneos

Society is where we live.

I live in a house. Outside of my house and family, there is a society of other human beings, who feel, think and act very similarly to the way I feel, think and act. If every one of them has only counterfeit feelings, there are no genuine feelings in any human being, except possibly a half dozen hermits in the wilderness. And since they're not in contact with the rest of humanity, none of us ever has come into contact with a genuine feeling, nor ever will, and therefore none of us, including you, have any standard by which to judge.

Quoting Darkneos

Society originates from us. It influences your emotions to establish control and order.

Like our emails? Where did "it" get an independent mind and will of its own, and the aspiration to order and control its progenitors?

Quoting Darkneos

Your genuine emotions would be yours and not what society says you ought to feel over this.

If - what? If society didn't exist? But I am part of a society, so if it didn't exist then I wouldn't exist, and who then would feel my genuine emotions? Quoting Darkneos

If feelings are all fake then there is no reason to live since you’re just a puppet of the world and not really living.

You have not established that 'genuine feelings' - which nobody living in a society has or can have - are the purpose of human life.

Quoting Darkneos

I live because suicide is painful.

But pain and fear of pain are feelings, and therefore unreal.

Quoting Darkneos

essentially meditation shows nothing you feel is genuine it’s causes and effect and the specificity of that response is based on what society says you ought to feel towards it.

So it's meditation that makes her suicidal. That shouldn't be too hard to avoid.

:grin:

Quoting Vera Mont

I, you, and every other entity is an experiencer, whether they meditate or not, whether they will it or not, whether they know it or not.

Well in meditation if you do it there is a state they say where you are watching the experience as if from afar. So in a sense you become the watcher and not the experiencer which casts doubt on the claim that they are an experiencer.

Quoting Vera Mont

Like our emails? Where did "it" get an independent mind and will of its own, and the aspiration to order and control its progenitors?

Well that’s just what society does

Quoting Vera Mont

You have not established that 'genuine feelings' - which nobody living in a society has or can have - are the purpose of human life

But they are what everyone places value one. Talking about what they really want to do instead of what society says they should and the conflict between. Or whether you really love someone or are just pretending.

Reply to Vera Mont also she’s not suicidal not sure where you got that

Quoting Darkneos

she’s not suicidal

I'm so relieved!

Quoting Darkneos

not sure where you got that

here:
Quoting Darkneos

essentially meditation shows nothing you feel is genuine it’s causes and effect and the specificity of that response is based on what society says you ought to feel towards it. She said so so that’s the truth.

There:
Quoting Darkneos

Well if nothing we feel is genuine then why bother living?

and there
Quoting Darkneos

If feelings are all fake then there is no reason to live since you’re just a puppet of the world and not really living.

and thither
Quoting Darkneos

then why bother living? Just because we have that desire isn’t a reason.

and yon
Quoting Darkneos

so again, why bother living?

Whoops, I almost forgot to be a cheerful :grin: muppet. (Grover, in case you wondered)

Reply to Darkneos

One only knows apparent reality through one's body as biological reactions, or a biological readout if you like, it indicates what those outside energies mean to the body; not so much about the nature of the energy forms themselves. The form, fields or objects alter one's biology and this is experience/ knowledge, but it is knowledge of biological response, knowledge of effect. Only in part knowledge of the energy form or object as cause, it is apparent, relative to biology.

Reply to Darkneos
"Do we genuinely feel things?"
In what other way can we feel things than genuinely? Feeling --either physical or mental (emotion)-- is an experience. Can an experience be non genuine, i.e. false or fake or imaginary? You feel something or you don't. If I say to you that "I'm angry", you can't tell me "This is not true" or "It's only your imagination", and that sort of thing.

Or do I miss something? :chin:

Reply to Alkis Piskas IT's not missing anything. It's sort of like saying that society makes you feel ways about certain things. If you took someone not raised in the world we live in today they wouldn't care about any of the stuff in it or what's going on, why? Because society makes us care about things that we normally wouldn't.

You spend enough time in meditation, you will realize that you never genuinely feel feelings in the first place
it is all just cause and effect response
and a lot of the time the specificity of that response is ascribed to how societal expectations dictate one should be effected by a particular cause
loss-->sadness
gain-->joy

It's something I can't get over because to deny it would be living a lie and telling yourself what you feel is genuine.

Quoting Darkneos

society makes you feel ways about certain things. ... society makes us care about things that we normally wouldn't.

Yest, I got that and your viewpoint in the first place by reading your description of the topic.
I just viewed the question "Do we genuinely feel things?" from a simpler aspect. In its essence. Indepedently of what external factors cause feelings. There can be millions of them. And why society in particular? Your wife or husband or family or a a friend may make you feel a certain way. On purpose or not. Even ourselves --out subconscious-- make us feel things that are not natural; for no apparent or real reason.
In every case, i.e. independenty of the cause, the fact is that we feel them. And what we feel is genuine.
Maybe the title of the topic is misleading then ...

Quoting Darkneos

it is all just cause and effect response.
and a lot of the time the specificity of that response is ascribed to how societal expectations dictate one should be effected by a particular cause
loss-->sadness
gain-->joy

Yes, of course there's always a cause for every feeling. And indeed, grief is caused by loss. Not only in humans but in animals too. Maybe in plants too, if we accept the belief that they feel too.

Also, I know, by experience on the subject of emotions, that what society makes us feel is of much less importance and has much less consequences for us than what people around us, and esp. close ones, cause us. On purpose or not. Almost all traumas in our lives are created by people, esp. family, since the time we are born.

Quoting Alkis Piskas

Yest, I got that and your viewpoint in the first place by reading your description of the topic.
I just viewed the question "Do we genuinely feel things?" from a simpler aspect. In its essence. Indepedently of what external factors cause feelings. There can be millions of them. And why society in particular? Your wife or husband or family or a a friend may make you feel a certain way. On purpose or not. Even ourselves --out subconscious-- make us feel things that are not natural; for no apparent or real reason.
In every case, i.e. independenty of the cause, the fact is that we feel them. And what we feel is genuine.
Maybe the title of the topic is misleading then ...

But it's caused by something so it's not genuine. How our family makes you feel is based on how society says you ought to feel about it.

Quoting Alkis Piskas

Also, I know, by experience on the subject of emotions, that what society makes us feel is of much less importance and has much less consequences for us than what people around us, and esp. close ones, cause us. On purpose or not. Almost all traumas in our lives are created by people, esp. family, since the time we are born.

Which again is impacted based on how society says we ought to feel about certain things.

Quoting Darkneos

But it's caused by something so it's not genuine. How our family makes you feel is based on how society says you ought to feel about it.

I see now what you mean. But everything is caused by something. So, according to your point, nothing is genuine!

Definition of "genuine" from Merriam-Webster dictionary (copy-pasted):
[i]1a: actually having the reputed or apparent qualities or character
1b: actually produced by or proceeding from the alleged source or author the signature is genuine
1c: sincerely and honestly felt or experienced a deep and genuine love
1d: ACTUAL, TRUE
2: free from hypocrisy or pretense : SINCERE[/i]

So, a feeling is not genuine, only if it is false, faked, insincere, pretended, etc. Which is irrelevant to our subject ...

Reply to Alkis Piskas Then by that dictionary definition we do genuinely feel things.

Quoting Darkneos

Then by that dictionary definition we do genuinely feel things.

Right. This is what I said.
But why "this dictionary"? This is what I picked. You can pick another one ...

Reply to Alkis Piskas What are you getting at? What she meant by genuine and what I meant are two different things. She meant it like uncaused cause, and I said how you fee in response to something that happens to us. We found out we were talking past each other.

Quoting Darkneos

What she meant by genuine and what I meant are two different things..

Who is "she"? In fact, your message has nothing to do with what I have said so far. Most probably you are responding to someone else's message than mine ...

You spend enough time in meditation, you will realize that you never genuinely feel feelings in the first place
it is all just cause and effect response

An unstated premise is that if your feelings are cause and effect response, the feelings aren't genuine. Is there anything else we would say is not genuine because it is involved in chain of causes and effects?Quoting Darkneos

But if you are being affected or influenced by something else then it's not genuine, you're being controlled.

If the world is deterministic, then everything is being controlled, in this sense.

I think the deeper question would be about how can we decide if this or that reaction is genuine. What does that criterion mean?

Can one change in such a way that our reactions are more genuine?

I think one can. I have experienced that. I realized that I was suppressing certain reactions, for example, because of societal or cultural norms. Through generallyl slow processes I was able to test my way to not longer going along with these. I still had reactions that were in a cause and effect chain, but one that feels better and feels more aligned with my nature.

I think most people will see some people as just trying to align themselves with norms while others try to feel there way into these norms (and think about them) to see if they actually fit them.

I think we all have a sense that person X congratulated us on gradutating or having a kid and it felt like someone going through the motions or performing a norm and someone who was genuinely happy. Or someone who managed to express something against the norm in those situations. Perhaps they thought we had a child too young or with the wrong person and even though you're not supposed to be honest, they were.

I think there is a meaningful distinction here around genuine feelings and not so geniune responses. And not, the feelings are probably real, even in people who try to suppress any 'wrong' reaction and present themselves 'correctly'. They have whatever they are feeling as feelings - though they may not want to notice what those feelings are if they don't fit. So, they may think they are happy you are happy with your new partner when really they are jealous. But their responses, the whole mess of it, is genuine, it just may not match their official position on what they are feeling.

Reply to Alkis Piskas "she" is the person who made the quote originally.

Quoting Bylaw

I think we all have a sense that person X congratulated us on gradutating or having a kid and it felt like someone going through the motions or performing a norm and someone who was genuinely happy. Or someone who managed to express something against the norm in those situations. Perhaps they thought we had a child too young or with the wrong person and even though you're not supposed to be honest, they were.

I think there is a meaningful distinction here around genuine feelings and not so geniune responses. And not, the feelings are probably real, even in people who try to suppress any 'wrong' reaction and present themselves 'correctly'. They have whatever they are feeling as feelings - though they may not want to notice what those feelings are if they don't fit. So, they may think they are happy you are happy with your new partner when really they are jealous. But their responses, the whole mess of it, is genuine, it just may not match their official position on what they are feeling.

I think there is a difference between someone faking it and someone who means it. Like people who congratulate you on something, because that's what you're supposed to do. But there's saying that and meaning it, which I think is what she might be alluding to but misses the point. Society dictates one should be happy about such events, but obviously that doesn't happen. We go through the motions. Whether you feel happy or not depends on your connection with the other person. If it's someone close then yes you'll be happy for them, but if not then you phone it in.

Also if she was right there wouldn't be so many therapists with clients who feel things they aren't supposed to. Reminds me of the time I told my therapist I stopped loving my mom and felt bad because it seemed like I was supposed to do that, then he said it's ok. IT was a relief.

But to state, in our convo we had two definitions of what genuine meant. She meant it as some uncaused cause, I meant it as how you actually feel in response to something. Like if you get a gift are you actually happy about it or just putting on a show for their benefit.

Quoting Darkneos

I think there is a difference between someone faking it and someone who means it. Like people who congratulate you on something, because that's what you're supposed to do.

Of course there is, and we all recognize the difference, even while we also go through the courteous motions, for the sake of social harmony. Even if one doesn't much care about a stranger's achievement, to refrain from congratulating them would be an insult and cause ill-feeling.

Quoting Darkneos

But there's saying that and meaning it, which I think is what she might be alluding to but misses the point.

What I read her saying is not that you deliberately fake some emotions - which we already knew with no help from meditation - but that all the ones you actually do feel are fake; manufactured and implanted by a nebulous external entity called "society".

Quoting Vera Mont

What I read her saying is not that you deliberately fake some emotions - which we already knew with no help from meditation - but that all the ones you actually do feel are fake; manufactured and implanted by a nebulous external entity called "society".

But that can't be true because then where did society get that from?

Quoting Vera Mont

Of course there is, and we all recognize the difference, even while we also go through the courteous motions, for the sake of social harmony. Even if one doesn't much care about a stranger's achievement, to refrain from congratulating them would be an insult and cause ill-feeling.

I would think faking it would hurt more. Nothing stings more than someone who is "just being nice".

Quoting Darkneos

But that can't be true because then where did society get that from?

Didn't I ask that about eight times since page 1? Quoting Darkneos

I would think faking it would hurt more. Nothing stings more than someone who is "just being nice".

Stinging nettles, alcohol on a cut, wasps, lemon juice in your eye, scorpion fish.... I've actually never suffered from a kind or generous sentiment, given or received, even when it was not strictly true.

In any case, the OP question was "Do we genuinely feel things?" not "Are all the feelings we express genuine?"

Reply to Vera Mont I guess we do genuinely feel things. I'm also not really sure how society makes us feel things, if it did then why doesn't it work for everyone.

Quoting Darkneos

I'm also not really sure how society makes us feel things, if it did then why doesn't it work for everyone.

Because society is legion. It is diverse, has many needs and interests, contains many kinds of people, whose needs and interests are even more diverse. It works like a field a wheat: when the wind blows, most of the stalks bend in the same direction, but not to the same depth or in the same curve or at the same speed, so there are always ripples and eddies. The whole is saved by having this facility to bend and doing it more or less in unison, but there are always a few casualties - stalks that can never straighten up again. When the wind is not blowing, each plant is an individual, competing with others immediately around it for water and nutrients, yet dependent on the security of the field for its survival.
Society doesn't make us do, say or feel anything. It rewards socially constructive behaviour and penalizes antisocial behaviour. Or rather, we appoint individuals to the task of disciplining members who may be harmful to us all.

We genuinely feel basic emotions on the individual level, and we genuinely share some part of the sentiments, cultural biases and loyalties of our collective, but we are also often injured by the genuine expressions of feelings of other members, which is harmful to the collective as well as individuals. So we join a social contract (consciously at the age of majority) to curb destructive and unwelcome emotions, as well as feign, where appropriate, the ones that bolster our social solidarity.

Reply to Vera Mont actually I have to take that back, this proved you wrong:

https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fpsyg.2016.00896/full

Quoting Darkneos

this proved you wrong:

On the contrary: it seems to be reiterating, in less picturesque and more rigorous language, that humans are social animals, interacting in complex ways with one another, their immediate environment and larger society. Nowhere have I ever said that each emotion is isolated or uncaused.

Quoting Vera Mont

On the contrary: it seems to be reiterating, in less picturesque and more rigorous language, that humans are social animals, interacting in complex ways with one another, their immediate environment and larger society. Nowhere have I ever said that each emotion is isolated or uncaused.

No I meant that its society brainwashing, proving you wrong that you said it isn't so.

Quoting Darkneos

No I meant that its society brainwashing, proving you wrong that you said it isn't so.

*sigh!* OK

Reply to Vera Mont What? You're not gonna deny it?

I'm too seasick from going around in circles.

Quoting Darkneos

I think there is a difference between someone faking it and someone who means it.

Me too. I was likely not clear.Quoting Darkneos

If it's someone close then yes you'll be happy for them, but if not then you phone it in.

Or if you simply have a different reaction even though you are close.Quoting Darkneos

Reminds me of the time I told my therapist I stopped loving my mom and felt bad because it seemed like I was supposed to do that, then he said it's ok. IT was a relief.

Right, and I think the transition from less genuine to more genuine like that is telling. You can't really doubt that this can happen after having such an experience.

Reply to Alkis Piskas

Our senses and understanding are fallible. Our senses give us experience due to the energies or objects of the physical world creating alterations to our body, thus informing bodily consciousness; for it is through the body we come to know an apparent reality. Our apparent reality is made up of reactions to these outer energies or objects, telling us more about our sensory experience than about the energies or objects in and of themselves. So, apparent reality is a biological readout, as much dependent upon the energies/objects of our outer world as it is on the perceptions of their alterations to our bodies.

So, our apparent reality is not what is out there in and of itself, the ultimate reality; it is the mixture of energies and their effects upon us. Other individuals are part of our outer world as objects themselves and they, like yourself are energy forms. Just as their being affect us as energies altering our biology their emotional expressions are also energies affecting us in a similar way and processed through our understanding gives their energies add emphasis and interpretations as to whether this incoming energy is life supporting or life negating. It is all interpretation of energy and unfortunately fallible.

Quoting boagie

Our senses and understanding are fallible. Our senses give us experience due to the energies or objects of the physical world creating alterations to our body, thus informing bodily consciousness; for it is through the body we come to know an apparent reality. Our apparent reality is made up of reactions to these outer energies or objects, telling us more about our sensory experience than about the energies or objects in and of themselves. So, apparent reality is a biological readout, as much dependent upon the energies/objects of our outer world as it is on the perceptions of their alterations to our bodies.

Quite interesting.
This text is written in a literary and official style. Far from everyday style, which I'm used to read in here and other free discussion places.
Not that it really matters, but out of interest: Are you a writer? And are you often using this kind of style for commenting in these discussions?

Quoting Vera Mont

We genuinely feel basic emotions on the individual level, and we genuinely share some part of the sentiments, cultural biases and loyalties of our collective, but we are also often injured by the genuine expressions of feelings of other members

I can see if the expression is violent or some kind of act in the world - like making up stuff about someone on the internet. But do you include expressing emotions in sound, facial expressions, posture. Like screaming in grief, say.

Quoting Bylaw

But do you include expressing emotions in sound, facial expressions, posture. Like screaming in grief, say.

I don't see how grief can injure other people. But derision and mockery can; expressions of contempt, envy and anger can and does hurt feelings, and thus cause resentment, enmity, perhaps some form of retribution - which ripples outward, affecting kin, friends and bystanders, which is disruptive of the social harmony.
And that is why children are taught to control their temper and refrain from laughing at another's disability, physical or mental shortcomings, not to say they hate people, even if they do feel that way. Emotions are of the moment; social interdependence is for the long term.

Quoting Vera Mont

I don't see how grief can injure other people.

Ok, that's good, common ground.Quoting Vera Mont

But derision and mockery can

A couple of things with these two related acts: 1) they are more than expression of emotion. There would likely be verbal content in there. The person is not simply expressing emotion, but finding a way to communicate negative things about the other person or at least what they are doing. Of course, no society rules out derision. It would just be sanctioned for some things and not others. Wherever one sits on the political spectrum there are, within one's subgroup expressions of derision that are acceptable. And there are likely some in common. Someone advocating for pedophilia would meet derision and that derision would generally be seen as fine. That doesn't entail that derision in general is ok, but it's already got it's place. 2) Derision can hurt feelings, yes. And I think it's especially powerful in relation to children. That said, I don't think we can expect to protect each other from hurt feelings. Systematic derision, especially from adults towards children, well, that should be treated, I think, by intervention, but also by expressions of anger and perhaps derision aimed at people who do this. I say, we can't expect to protect people from hurt feelings. We also don't do this. And I think the whole pattern shifts if we move towards also allowing those with hurt feelings (so generally some mix of fear, sadness and anger) to express those feelings. These feeling are also suppressed in society and that hurts. Suppressing feelings in general hurts. Not getting to express feelings hurts. People choosing not to be your friend hurts. Not making the basketball team hurts. Failing a math test hurts. We are allowed to do all sorts of things that hurt people's feelings. And it would hurt feelings if we couldn't, either immediately or down the line in the future. Quoting Vera Mont

envy and anger can and does hurt feelings

So, I have a similar reaction to these. Envy is a complicated cognitive reaction. There are emotions and also thoughts mingled in it. I think expressing those feelings does not add to the problem. Envy often leads to all sorts of passive aggressive behavior, trash talking people, undermining them. For the person themselves, not expressing the emotions (by themselves, with others) is a very unpleasant stagnant state. It's not really going anywhere. Actually expressing envy even to the person you are envious of, is actually a rather bold and honest move. It's a pretty vulnerable thing to do. I am angry at you and hurt because you have that girlfriend, got that raise, can jump higher than me. Perhaps with accusations of unfairness. If the other person can actually express their emotions, maybe the whole thing can move somewhere. But I see no reason to believe that holding in those emotions creates a net good.

And of course it wouldn't be good if tomorrow we all just let loose. But I do think the culture would be healthier if we moved in baby steps in the direction of expressing feelings, without jumping into action based them. I think a lot of violence is because we do not have middle ground (especially as men) to express feelings, including so called negative ones, so at a certain point there is the jump from suppressed rage (and other emotions converted to rage because they are scarier for some men), to violence.Quoting Vera Mont

And that is why children are taught to control their temper

I think we have had these judgments so long it just seems true that these things must be suppressed. Quoting Vera Mont

and refrain from laughing at another's disability, physical or mental shortcomings,

Again this is a complicated act not a simple expression of emotion. The person who does this, even a child, needs to feel superior to someone else and likely has not expressed their feelings of fear, anger and sadness about the way they are parented, failures in school or social life, feelings of inadequacy. We keep pointing to where the pressure bursts through and think we need to build better walls, without ever finding out what it would be like if we accepted emotions in general. And where I have been mocked by other children, I vastly preferred that to when it was suppressed by still present. To be held outside, dealt with more coldly. They are thinking the same things, but not saying them. Much better for me to hear it and be able to get pissed off and even sad, instead of living in this nebulous emotion fog where my emotions seem like reactions to things that aren't real. Or might not be real. Other people's reactions don't go away, they just go underground and still have effects. Also, we have to deal with all that then. If some kids feel like mocking a child for being disabled or whatever and we manage to get them not to express that, they are still not dealing with the roots of all that. They are behaving better on the surface. Where is that urge coming from? What happens if they express this and then the disabled child expresses rage and sadness back or his or her parents do? Or they all get together. I think there's this real pessimism and hopelessness in this collective decision to selectively suppress our emotions. And we are avoiding actually learning.

Don't get me wrong. There's dark stuff in here. Caution is the watchword. And we need to get comfortable with our own emotions, alone, generally before we run around and plop it on strangers - which happens anyway, in part because of all the suppression. First with ourselves, then with people we trust immensely, then....and so on outward.Quoting Vera Mont

not to say they hate people, even if they do feel that way

I used to find that horrifying, to hear that or express it. But the truth is we feel that. And if we are ever going to deal with things like the chasm between men and women, we are going to have to express that stuff. And to manage to listen. I can now hear that aimed at me and know that this feeling, like the others, comes and goes. And I can then with the other person see what is going on at root.

This is huge. It's long process and one we are engaging in. A hundred years ago men and women both had narrower ranges of emotions they were allowed to express and generally expressed less. Quoting Vera Mont

Emotions are of the moment; social interdependence is for the long term.

But I think we are going to have to finally get to an honest interdependence based on full honesty. Slowly, carefully. Because while the moment you suppress a so-called negative emotion may seem improved, it didn't just go away. It's underneath, keeping away real intimacy, ready to pop out when the pressure builds, keeping you in a jailor/prisoner relation with yourself, adding this secret distance and I think actually contributing to violence and a lack of compassion.

Quoting Bylaw

A couple of things with these two related acts: 1) they are more than expression of emotion.

Contempt may be a compound emotion, but it is an emotion. Mockery and derision are expressions of that emotion. Only the most simple, primitive emotions can be expressed entirely by grimaces and gestures. The complex ones coupled with ideation, and humans tend to express those emotions in verbal language, as well as body language. When I say expression, I mean all available forms. If you feel contempt for somebody, you might only look down your nose at them, wave your hand dismissively, or roll your eyes at what they say - and yes, those gestures do communicate your feeling, and may very well hurt their feelings. But we usually also add words.
None of this means the feeling itself isn't genuine, or negate the social injunction to keep your overt expressions of it in check - or suppress them altogether, when expressing them (to a cop, or your boss, or your kid's principal) may put something you value in jeopardy.
Feelings, simple or complex, don't become less genuine when we have learned the self-disciple to express them appropriately.

That holds true for all negative emotions. Toddlers are prone to tantrums, but by age four, we expect children to have learned not to express their frustration in that way. At least in public. By age 18, we really ought to have stopped throwing them at all. That's an opinion, not a rule.

Quoting Bylaw

I think we have had these judgments so long it just seems true that these things must be suppressed.

Not "must". It's a social convention to regulate our communication of both thoughts and feeling. We used to call that good manners. They were invented to facilitate co-operative social behaviour.

Reply to boagie this has nothing to do with the subject

Reply to Vera Mont Again I’m referring to the link about the social nature of emotions and how it’s talking about the being intrinsically social.

Social animals didn't stop being real [genuine; authentic; natural] animals when they became social.

Reply to Alkis Piskas

Thanks, the style some have difficulty with, but one doesn't think in point form it rather flows; one can pick out the points of contention/discussion.

Reply to Darkneos
That which experiences is, in fact, anonymous simply the essence of life and what is that, life itself. The essence of life has no identity until it starts reacting to its environmental context. What is experienced is objects while what is, is energy. If you think what experiences is your identity you are mistaken. Structure and form determine experience, but essence is the same across the board, experiences differ across species/structure and form, essence is common to all life forms.

Reply to boagie
OK.
So, based on your basic statement, "Our senses and understanding are fallible", I undestand that you believe that (sometimes) what we feel is not what we actually feel. That is, e.g., if I feel angry, it may be that what I feel is not actually anger but something else. It doesn't matter what that would be or how could it be called, but it is simply something else.
Well, this is too theoretical for me and I can't see how this works in practice, i.e. I can't find any example. Maybe you do.

Reply to Alkis Piskas

I am simply stating that the apparent reality that you perceive, your everyday reality, is energy and not a world of objects. All objects are in fact energy forms, they are only objects to biological consciousness which is only another energy form. Others in your world are energy forms as well, and their expressed emotions are energy expressions of negative or positive emotions. If these are directed at you, you sense them as life-supporting or life-negating, the same as you experience all other energy forms that you sense as objects in this way. Apparent reality is truer to your experience than it is to actual energetic reality.

OK. So, you don't have an example of a case that a feeling (emotion) is not genuine.
Because this is what this topic is all about.

Reply to Alkis Piskas

We believe we feel things but things are not the source energies are. Any emotion is genuine to the consciousness experiencing it, judgment, the understanding is fallible. Experience/emotions are true to the biology experiencing those emotions, even where they have no foundation, a phobia might be an excellent example; defined as irrational but just might be ill-understood, but the emotions are true to its biology.

Just an added thought, all organisms are reactive organisms, emotions are reactions.

Reply to boagie
I asked for "an example of a case that a feeling (emotion) is not genuine".
Anyway, it's OK.

Reply to Alkis Piskas

You missed the point, there is no such creature. Emotions like any experience are true to the biology having them.

Reply to boagie
You simply don't make any sense, at least not to me.
Anyway, this doesn't lead anywhere. I totally lost my interest. Sorry.

Reply to Alkis Piskas

LOL!!! Live long and prosper!! What is it you looking for, someone lying to you about how they feel? Try this on, you feel things through the alterations things make to the constitution of your body, and this is feeling/sensing/experience/knowledge and meaning. There are but three basic emotions, pain, pleasure, and desire, all other emotions are compounds thereof.

Quoting boagie

I am simply stating that the apparent reality that you perceive, your everyday reality, is energy and not a world of objects. All objects are in fact energy forms, they are only objects to biological consciousness which is only another energy form. Others in your world are energy forms as well, and their expressed emotions are energy expressions of negative or positive emotions. If these are directed at you, you sense them as life-supporting or life-negating, the same as you experience all other energy forms that you sense as objects in this way. Apparent reality is truer to your experience than it is to actual energetic reality.

False, 100%. Reality is not energy and has been proven so.

Also not relevant in the slightest.

Reply to Darkneos

Do tell me what matter is made of then.

Reply to boagie atoms, duh.

Reply to Darkneos

You need to do a little catch-up on your science.

Reply to boagie I think you're the one who needs to if you think it's all energy.

That's so wrong I don't even know where to start. Let me guess, you got to the level of "Fields" and just assumed energy. Classic mistake.

Reply to Darkneos Interesting OP.

Reply to Darkneos

E=M times the speed of light squared.

Reply to boagie Shows me you don't understand that equation.

Reply to Darkneos

That is what these philosophy sites are about, enlighten me.

Reply to boagie This is math and science not philosophy. It talks about the energy of a given object of mass, only an idiot would take that to mean everything is energy.

https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/nothing-solid-everything-energy-scientists-explain-world-djurisic#:~:text=Scientists%20began%20to%20recognize%20that,is%20made%20out%20of%20energy.&text=Quantum%20physicists%20discovered%20that%20physical,its%20own%20unique%20energy%20signature.