UnbornTao

I think it'd be better to see them as an interactive, smart dictionary, search engine, or something like that. We're like kids stacking chairs in the kitchen, thinking we're in a space station.

This is not to say "be stupid" or "stop thinking." It's more like this: you can study how to drive a car your whole life, but the experience of actually driving it occurs in a completely different world from that kind of understanding. Or consider the difference between reading and accumulating knowledge about an emotion and actually investigating your experience of it. Something like that. Existence occurs prior to and independent of intellect. Meet it where it's at. A bit like the Zen sentiment.

Humans are primates. I've never understood this natural arrogance that leads us to claim we are not animals, or that we are somehow outside that category.

What do you think generating them means? It's exactly what it sounds like. I'm not proposing ignoring them if they are, in fact, experienced. Just as they are generated, they can also not be generated in the first place - or be changed at will. Again, I'm not saying this is necessarily easy. But where would they come from? Or who do you think they come from? Notice that, relative to an emotion not felt now, there is nothing being generated - obviously. Track their origin and learn to control them like an actor. It's already the case, just unconscious. And they're not necessary, fundamentally.

Not severed - just not generated or considered, irrelevant or secondary - unless someone else is processing them. Severed implies that something inherent or necessary is being removed. Think about what good actors do in their roles. They deliberately create them on the spot as the character demands. The great ones have mastered their emotional dispositions in their craft.

What meaning, value, importance, significance, and use does the truth have? None. And yet it's true.

Sounds good. Share what you find.

Sorry to ask, but is this your first account here?

The claim being made isn't that every cruel, harmful, or violent act is justified - though that might be assumed. Where do you find morality in babies, for example, or in animals? Does it exist as an object? This isn't incompatible with behaving consciously or with love, or with being sensitive to others. It doesn't mean you turn into a ruthless dictator. But I think your concern relates to how everyone might be "corrupted." This simply means that your operating system is yourself and not the truth. "You can't serve two masters." The Jesus thing.

I gave you the short version. Every effect created to affect a condition is a manipulation. And this isn't bad per se, or the same as the socially covert and self-interested, indirect or sneaky manipulation that's seen negatively. It just comprises everything you think and do. Look up the original etymology of the word. You can start it yourself, if you want.

We should all start with a barrel and a lantern.

Got it.

@Joseph Maynor Are you OK? I was joking above.

You create them to move you into action, essentially. Everything you do is a manipulation. Scratching an itch, for example. Anyway, this requires another thread.

I see. We could think of sages as just people - obvious, perhaps, but it keeps them from being idealized too easily, even when their wisdom is recognized. And as Diogenes may have learned, there aren't that many, I'd say.

What?

Ah, sad to hear.

?

Surely they'll receive whatever you give them and will love unconditionally most of the time. I don't know about the plants, though. Just don't do it with alligators.

Of course. I'm not sure how to explain why I feel certain about this. Emotions themselves are manipulations and can be uncreated, difficult as that may be. Imagine someone is conveying an experience with no emotions - now that's a contemplation. Feelings are a different matter. You need to be sensitive (receptive) to them.

"Let me tell you about my day"

The original sin of self. Repent now!

So we agree. There's a painting of Diogenes looking for a truthful person with a lantern in an Athens supermarket, if I recall. I suspect the subtext is that, ultimately, no one is - except perhaps Diogenes himself. That's why he's looking, and failing.

Everyone's corrupt by that definition. The corruption of you.

I think I lost you there. It's more like this: with your emotions involved, you'd still be focused on your own world and viewpoint, not the other person's. In that sense, it's an obstacle here. Listening is not about you. Communication is getting your experience across - and someone else receiving it as it is. That's all. Simple enough on paper. But when it comes to profound insights, it can take years or even decades to learn how to listen. One thing you realize the more you look into this is that it doesn't seem to be a common occurrence. We often don't even realize when we aren't listening, despite going through the ritual, gestures, and so on.