Do you wish to say anything about Lisa Feldman Barrett. I don't mean that as a way of me avoiding following it up. I know it has been mentioned in a few posts as significant, so I just thought that it may be worth you saying more about it and your thoughts on it.

I am glad that you appreciate the complexity of the idea of emotions. That is because as a concept, which may be regarded as psychology, has so much variations and is evolving individually and intersubjectively. It involves use of language and presumptions, often interrelated with ideas of mind and self.

While the difference of experience of the emotions may be seen as an aspect of qualia, speaking of emotions may affect the experience. For example, value judgments of what is acceptable may affect the experience, such as if one believes that anger is not acceptable it may lead to interconnected feelings of guilt about the experience. In this way the experience of emotions overlap and the careful articulation of the meanings may alter the way in which they are experienced and expressed. Social taboos may be an aspect and the cultural ideas about the nature of emotions may come into play.

I am concerned that human beings are being expected to behave and perform more like machines and robots. It as if George Orwell's '1984' has become a reality. I am not denying some positives of online technology, as each of us here benefits from global discussion of philosophy.

However, the downside of this may be an increasing level of isolation, of being alone in a room, which may be contrary to emotional needs. Of course, some have supportive relationships, and some don't. The danger may be if emotional needs become subordinate in a techno machine driven virtual reality.

It is true that computers are reflections of those who created them. My phone seems like an extra part of me, but it does not have emotions other than those which I project onto it. Machines are dependent on those who program them. Even if a computer or robot is stimulated to produce tears it would not feel suffering unless it had some degree of sentience. The point where it may matter is where machines have so much of a dominant role and that is already happening.

Your experience is interesting and it is surprising what traumatic experiences can do the brain and emotions. There are some theories and research linking autism with childhood attachment, although it is mixed, with some pointing to physical and genetic issues. Autism is particularly important in relation to emotions, especially due to connections with 'other minds' and issues of ability to feel empathy.

There is also Jung's idea of the four functions: rationality, feeling, sensation and intuition. People vary in which is developed most strongly and which is weakest. I wonder whether those who are drawn to philosophy may include many whose most dominant function is rationality.

Having read your posts and some authors which you refer to, I looked at a collection of Sartre's writings which I have in my room and found a whole section on his writings on emotions. It looks extremely interesting so I will read it fully, especially as it discusses intentionality. The way intentionality comes into emotional experiences may be central to the nature of mindset. One way which emotion can be worked with consciously is the direction towards positivity, as choice. This is about framing and is like the perception of the picture often referred to in psychology, which can be seen as a case or 2 faces.

As far as your question about what cognition would be like if emotions were removed is important because it raises the issue of artificial intelligence and robots. It is connected to the issue of sentience, because it is central to having an organic body. A computer doesn't cry, is not sensitive about what anyone says about it and doesn't experience sexual attraction.

Many people who favour artificial intelligence see the absence of emotions as an advantage, for making rational or clinical judgments. Nevertheless, the contrasting argument is how this may lead to an absence of empathy and the ability to feel compassion. I

f anything, people are almost being expected to compete with and perform against robots at work. This may explain why so many people are becoming unwell, because the sentient, animal aspects is being suppressed. Animals have emotions but these are sensations and instincts. They do appear to have attachment bonds. Human consciousness is different from that of many species of the animal kingdom, but emotions are central to human nature.

I have a copy of Spinoza's 'Ethics', which I have been crawling through for ages. So, I will have a look at it, even though I don't find his writing to be very inspirational..

Actually, I wish to get hold of a copy of Damasio's 'Looking for Spinoza'. I have read about it and from what I remember of this was how embodiment is important. As far as I see, one important aspect of embodiment in relation to emotions is how it is distributed through the body through the nervous system as opposed to being located in the head/brain.

It makes sense to see the emotions as connected to the whole body and sensations, such as in the feeling of having 'a broken heart'. Also, when the body feels out of sorts the quality of the emotional life is impacted negatively. For the last couple of weeks I think I have had a virus and I have felt more depressed than usual. This is likely to being zapped of energy.

I definitely think that you have a point about the way feelings may have been a better term to consider. Probably, the reason why I used emotions is because feelings conjures up sentimentality. Also, maybe I was subconsciously writing in accordance with the male stereotype bias about against talking about feelings , while emotions sounds more rough and raw.

Yes, I am inclined to think that mastery of emotions can be learned but is a rare achievement, such as the consciousness of monks and for spiritual masters. For most of us, behaviour is hard enough to control fully, which may be due to emotions, and mastery of the actual emotions is so much more difficult.

If anything, I would like to be able to attain more mastery of emotions because I often get low in mood and anxious. I do some meditation but sometimes don't feel up to it, although I do meditate at times when I can't manage to sleep. Of course, those who master the emotions have probably extremely accomplished in the practice of meditation and it is also bound up with a whole lifestyle approach. Also, it may be a people think that it is about emotional detachment as opposed to a deeper state of awareness.

I did read a book on neurolinguistic programming and find the idea of reframing as a useful one for the nature of emotional processing. However, it is probably an approach which requires in depth training.

Even if you see my outpost as confused it is still an area of philosophy. If I wasn't a little confused when I wrote it may be I wouldn't have needed to write it. I am sure that many outposts have areas of confusion and questions which are only on the periphery of philosophy. Asking a really good question can be a difficult art and it can be hard to always frame questions with clarity because there are fuzzy areas of thought, just like fuzzy emotions. It is even through discussion that the exact nature of the essential questions emerge.

I am surprised that you make a clear division between philosophy and psychology, especially as the two wre originally linked clearly until the twentieth century. It seems too binary, especially as ideas merge between disciplines, especially in connection with systems approaches..

Besides, I just googled the topic of philosophy of emotions and found that there are many books on it. It seems like you wish to take the psyche out of philosophy, which would be as restrictive taking art out of philosophy.

I guess one way in which I could phrase a specific question would be what are emotions made of? That is because they have a biological basis but go beyond that. They are integral to human experiences and the nature of attachment. That is why early childhood experiences and social factors come into play.

People experience emotions so differently but with parallels. Most people can identify with basic aspects, such as sadness and joy. Nevertheless, there are such variations, such as some people who feel depressed all the time. Also, some people have more dramatic mood swings than others.

There is also the question of how much control do we have of our emotions and are we enslaved by them? We may try to suppress or repress them but it may not fully work. Even biological interventions don't work always. The basis of emotions are not fully separate from self-knowledge. It may be that the achievement of self-knowledge is equatable with understanding of one's emotions, through being able to name and articulate about mental states. Yet, even with awareness of these, it does not lead to self-mastery necessarily. I wonder about whether self-awareness and reflective consciousness is a basis for some kind of emotional freedom, such as through mindfulness. It may be that certain individuals are less victims of emotions and that the development of higher states of consciousness are based on integration of emotional experiences.

Yes it is interesting that ancient texts refer to passions as opposed to emotions. It may be because the chemical basis was not fully understood. Even more recently, Robert Burton's 'The Anatomy of Melancholy' considered melancholy as connected with humors.

It was really in the twentieth century that knowledge of the brain, and the endocrine system as well as other chemicals were understood scientifically. This enabled advances in psychiatry, especially the development of antidepressants and mood stabilizers. Of course, it may be to the extent that antidepressants are prescribed by GPs. However, people react differently to them which may be partly about unique aspects of brain chemistry. But, it is not simply about literal chemicals as such or people would not seek talking therapies. Such therapies, including psychodynamic and cognitive behavioral therapies involve mental processing. It is likely that the thoughts about experiences bring changes on a chemical basis too.

Thank you for your reply and I have read some, but not all of the book. The idea of fast and slow thinking may be of significance for emotion and its processing. It may involve basic reactions, which may be about instinctual aspects of emotions, in contrast to emotions based on long term processes and memory formation. It is an interesting area, involving reflection and self-reflection..

I grew up in Bedford but have spent most of my adult life in London. Until the beginning of this year I was in South London, but I am currently in North London/Middlesex.

I am half Irish, a quarter English and a quarter French, although I only speak basic school level French. I have never been to France or Ireland and only travelled outside of the UK once, as a child.

As far as Dennett's understanding of qualia, it does seem that his idea of the 'user- illusion'of consciousness seems to omit reflective consciousness from the picture. It can be asked what is this? It may come down to the issue of intentionality and where this fits into the evolution of consciousness? In this way, it connects the problem of consciousness and determinism.

Dennett looks at the role of language but what he may fail to recognise is the way in which language itself may result in agency. Language may be the basis of metaphysics, even if the objective aspects are not about human understanding. In life, language and its creative elements may be an important way of enabling reflective choice and agency, central to human life.

I wonder about the nature of 'theories' and how they stand in philosophy, especially in relation to propositions, which may be concepts rather than empirically measurable. Within science and, in support of theory, there is an emphasis on evidence based ideas. This is fair enough because ideas and concepts without evidence are questionable.

The issue which I see is the way in which evidence and argument come together in the construction of this because it may not be straightforward. It is here that the nature of propositions themselves may be flimsy because they are based on interpretative understandings and hermeneutic assumptions.
'

The blurred understanding of 'metaphysics' does seem to be the root of so much misunderstanding, ranging from transcendental idealism, realism and naturalism to materialistic reductionism. The problem is that no one perspective can be used in a fully explanatory way. Some argue for the claims of realism and materialism because they are evident to the senses but it does not rule out the intricate patterns and workings of processes, which work in systems and are often not visible directly.

Philosophy may unravel aspects of conceptual misunderstanding as a way of showing what appears to be nonsensical fabrications but, even so, a lot is not known. Ideas like 'God' may be used to fill the gaps and are questionable but gaps remain anyway. Quantum physics may provide new scope in the foundations of creative thinking about 'reality', especially the nature of 'fields' and 'energies' which are subtle in nature.

It is a whole spectrum of ideas and I know that at times I am a bit of a psychonaut. However, science and pseudo-science is debatable in so far as its connection to philosophy. That is because philosophy includes a mixture of speculation and empirical verification. Wittgenstein pointed to 'facts' and this may point to some kind of rigour in conceptual ideas.

There may be a need to strip away philosophical delusions and self deception in one's thinking. However, taken too far it might result in minimalistic reductionism and a redundancy of the philosophical imagination. This makes the nature of physics and the way it incorporates philosophy at the conceptual level a mixture of metaphysical speculation and empirically verifiable "truth' or 'facts'.

Thank you for your post, because it gives plenty to reflect upon. My combination of Wittgenstein and quantum physics together may seem odd but it is based on the way in which I see Wittgenstein's approach to the problems of metaphysics and the limits of certainty. In a way, quantum physics sees beyond certainty, as in Heisenberg, as mentioned in your post. So, on one hand Wittgenstein does not seem to be looking for a metaphysical foundation beyond propositions there is a potential parallel in the way of a subtle and open view of processes and emergent consciousness, possibly in the understanding of the evolution of consciousness. It may be a missing aspect in Daniel Dennett's materialistic take on this.

One particular book which I read which speaks of the importance of quantum physics and the mind/body interface and agency in consciousness is 'The Quantum Self', by Danah Zohar. The focus is upon a less fixed nature of systems and life and a potential 'sea of possibilities. Zohar draws upon the understanding of processes by AN Whitehead and looks at the limitations of panpsychism. One summarised understanding of the nature of consciousness and matter is,
'Quantum- level matter...is not very "material, certainly not in any sense that would be recognised by Descartes or Newton. In place of the tiny billiard balls moved around by contact or forces there are patterns of active relationship, electrons and photons, masons and nucleons that tease us with their elusive double lives as they are now position momentum, now particles, now waves, now mass, energy_ and all in response to each other and the environment'.

It presents as a fairly intricate picture of reality and consciousness and causation, with consciousness as a subtle aspect in the weaving out of processes.

Fortunately, the landlord did replace the mattress because there were about a thousand bugs or eggs. He has told me to keep the plastic on and I had to buy a mattress protector. With that and white powder everywhere my room looked like the first pictures of Covid China.

I partly wrote the thread because bed bugs does seem to be a rising concern, especially in England and in Paris previously. It could be linked to climate change. Also, it is thought to be connected to people buying second hand furniture, especially as poverty is becoming more prominent in the UK after the pandemic and Brexit.

The bugs are horrible and at times I felt like Harry Potter fighting demons. My room was the worst affected and that was probably because there is a leak in the bathroom next to it. Either that, or the bugs thought that my blood was the tastiest.

We had pest control twice and that kind of earth was put all over the floor. I think it may have done more than the gas which was used. Tomorrow there is going to be an inspection. I may try CBD hemp oil but I hope the bugs don't like it and get high. The bugs were biting me all over so I don't want high and elated bed bugs.

I definitely agree that Wittgenstein would see quantum physics as 'besides the point'. It is that aspect of his thinking was questioning really. In a way, philosophy is about untangling 'knots' and limited by language. On the other hand, I am inclined to think that quantum physics does stand as a very important aspect of metaphysics. I am not suggesting that it is more than a model because all descriptions are only representations.

Nevertheless, the quantum physicists' picture is so different from the Cartesian-Newtonian one. It does break down the boundary of the mind and body interface and allows more scope for agency of the person. It does seem like a foundation for a potential metaphysics, with the nature of metaphysics having been cast aside by many thinkers in the twentieth century, including the deconstruction of postmodernism.

Of course, there are overlaps with this area of thinking and the question of 'reality', but this thread was intended to be more specific, focusing on the contrast between Wittgenstein and quantum physics.

The reason why I am seeing quantum physics as of specific importance is because physics is essential as a foundation for thinking about the fundamental structure of life, including both matter and mind. If anything, even the question of miracles comes down to the essentials of physical laws, what is possible and what appears to be otherwise, as in the concept of the 'supernatural'.

There is the entire philosophy of duality and its lesser forms, metaphysically and psychologically. From a philosophy point of view the most important area for expansion may involve the dichotomy of psychology and metaphysics? It can be asked about these labelled categories and inherent conflict of opposites which may be conflict underlying this dichotomy and naming of opposites. And, with opposites, it may give rise to a question of binary opposition or a continuum?

The nature of opposites, ranging from good and evil, masculine and feminine, dark side and light may be useful. It does come, however, with central issues of duality. Opposites or continuum may be an underlying structure. It is hard to know if this refers to 'out there' reality or human understanding.

It does seem that you are familiar with the different directions of philosophical thinking. It may come down to tunnel vision or opening up to wider forms of framing. As I see it, both the frames of quantum physics and the analysis based on Wittgenstein's ideas may be important and useful and , eas individual thinkers, each of us may be involved in this intricate juxtaposition of ideas and underlying constructs of the nature of 'reality'.

Thanks for your reply, because the complex nature of subjective and objective aspects of knowledge and understanding are not simple at all. Each person may be 'unique', which may have some relevance, psychologically, but it does connect to wider aspects of objective factors. In the extremes of solipticism. the heightened sense of subjective understanding may be exaggerated. Equally, such states may be seen as of little importance in the context of objectivity.

This may have some bearing on philosophical pictures of the nature of 'reality', including those arising in quantum physics. It may end up with a dichotomy of realism, quantum physics and imagined possibilities. Alternatively, it may be that the underlying philosophy worldview is becoming so stripped back that all thinking comes back to the logistics of language. It is so questionable, especially in terms of minimalism and how philosophical analysis is stripped back to preclude or exclude ideas of underlying or 'hidden' views of 'reality'.

If my question appears too vague, I would like to offer the ideas of physics about the n nature of physical reality and whatever 'physics' may entail. This may be where the issues of what is metaphysics may come into play, in trying to understand the nature of ' reality'. I struggle with this area of thinking, but am not sure how many is my psychological issue or one of metaphysics. Ultimately, the dilemmas of human understanding may come down to the perspectives of human understanding and how may this be understood philosophically?

The nature of immortality is so complex, ranging from a sense of one's place in the larger scheme to a sense of an actual afterlife. I grew up with concrete ideas of life after death, especially in the Christian ideas of resurrection but began to think of alternatives, including reincarnation.

Thinking of all such ideas, I am left wondering to what extent it is about actual existence or a symbolic way of seeing one's own mortal existence in a larger frame. I am not sure from the point of ego psychology of what if would mean to live forever. On the other hand, if may be that aspects of oneself continue as part of cycles and the continuity of life. The biggest questions of immortality may involve the nature of ego consciousness and the nature of separate 'minds'.

This may raise the question of meaning in its existential depths. In some religious systems of thinking there is a clear sense of order. In contrast, in some philosophies, existentialism and postmodernism, this order is deconstructed. The nature of order, purpose and meaning can be constructed or deconstructed accordingly.

Within scientific understanding this is especially true, including ideas of the survival of the fittest. In some ways such a principle may be regarded as being a form of meaning in nature.

However, it could be argued that this accidental and the question may be about what is accidenal, intrinsic and the role of conscious intention in the patterns of life, evolution, and human understanding and consciousness? It comes down to issues of nature, including matter and mind as dual aspects, with the question of mind and meaning as an emergent ordering factor.

If I try to formulate s question accordingly it would be: is there any inherent purpose in life, including the evolution of human life and history?

I am sorry if my outpost is not clear. I guess that I am thinking mainly of the difference between objective and subjective meanings and understanding. It may be a thematic aspect of thinking ranging from Epicururean to existentialism, as well as far more esoteric perspectives.

As individual human beings each person may try to follow larger schemes of meaning and purpose. Those of religious ideas may embrace ideas of redemption, whereas secular ones may involve ideas of the 'good life's, and even ideas of evolutionary aspects of life.

This may raise so many issues, ranging from the writings of thinkers like Spinoza and the Epicureans, as it goes back to the purpose of life and human life. It can be asked is there any meaning ultimately or is meaning itself a construct in assembling the collage like aspects of 'reality' and nature. I am inclined to think that there is some underlying ordering process, which may be recognised in chaos theory.

One of the reasons why I raise this question is that if my be answered differently in the specific disciplines of science, art and humanities. Some ideas of science and objectivity may be important but the emergence of human meaning, especially in relation to the realisation of meaning, in its mythic depths, may be more complex. The particular relationship between the rational and mythic, logos and mythos, may be important as a basis for the underlying aspects of life.

The concepts of psychological understanding and what these represent may go back to questions of objective 'reality' or qualia. The 'underlying structures' which you mention are fabricated in such a way, making them questionable but not necessarily redundant philosophically. Human values may be important here, raising issues of theoretical principles and living aspects of sentient existence. Philosophy may go in variable directions in embracing this dichotomy.

From your description of Heidegger's approach the idea of 'mood' may be important as a compass. Some philosophy perspectives may leave this aside, making the pursuit of life meaning as abstract and beyond the sensory and rational aspects of human understanding.

It may be that the emphasis on the sensory or rational alone may be both distortions. To excude the sensory may involve a step into abstract or disembodied thinking or ideas. Nevertheless, it is possible for thinking to go in the opposite direction, especially in psychological perspectives. Here, what I am considering is cognitive meanings and scripts which are simply based on making life meaningful subjectively. It does come down to the the subjective and objective aspects of existence and how these come into play psychologically and philosophically.

Ideas of purpose often arise in the context of worldviews. It is a large topic because sit embraces religious and secular viewpoints. The ends of philosophical understanding and how this comes into play in life may vary so much according to different perspectives or framing.

The most obvious is about spiritual versus more secular or material perspectives. Here, the issue may be about ends as aspects in this life, with spiritual ones often being based on a more universal or timeless dimension. I would argue that ideas of 'happiness' in philosophy often collapse in the dilemmas of life in the question of ideas of immortal or eternal perspectives, and perspectives of life in tje here and now of everyday life.

The way in which I see this problem is that underlying assumptions are inherent in the way in which ideas for living are constructed. Often, this may not be in terms of formal philosophy as such, but negotiated understanding, often based on theory, which may come down to the constructs of science.

In understanding science, so much comes down to rational explanations. However, these may be limited by the nature of epistemological understanding. This may be where human meaning and understanding comes in as a way of trying to work out ways forward which connect with the pursuit of pleasure and meaning. It could also be asked if there are aspects of pleasure and happiness which are overrides by goals of purpose and meaning.

It may be that philosophy itself is the art of being able to articulate one's views. Patience with oneself is important but I find a certain amount of self criticism useful in seeing the gaps in my own logic and leaning towards certain ideas. A certain amount of rigour in being able to analyse one's own thinking may enable transparency of oneself and being able to realise and go beyond one's own philosophical blindspots.