How is a better question. It's already been answered.

How is a better question. It's already been answered. — creativesoul

Please tell me again, for I am dumb and slow.

Thank you.

No, you're not.

you cannot reject absolutely all emotions because philosophy is based on them as well. — hks

And, as well as philosophy, ... everything else. Emotion is an intrinsic part of any human personality. We cannot function without emotions. I despair when I see, time and time again, people proposing that we leave our emotional heritage behind us, and move toward logic and reason. It is not possible for humans to achieve this, whether you think we should or not, because our emotions are linked to every part of us. That we should try to understand ourselves better, particularly the effect that our emotions have on our thinking, is a good idea, IMO. But to try to deny what actually is (i.e. that humans are unavoidably emotion-based) is surprising and unhelpful, I think. :chin:

I think this is a question of psychology rather than philosophy. Emotional reactions to events come from the subconscious mind. But the subconscious mind is simply parroting back what your conscious mind has told it in the past. So if you suddenly feel jealous of a spouse it is because somewhere back down the line you have (or think you have) observed evidence of the possibility. So before acting on the emotional urge it's best to try to remember what might have caused it. Of course, this applies if you're emotionally healthy. If not, and you suffer from low self-esteem, your unconscious may simply be taking the opportunity to remind you of how weak and worthless you are, by identifying a scenario (the spouse's infidelity) which would add evidence to that view. Here it's far harder to realise that and so to question the emotional reaction - you need the strength, consciously, to understand what your subconscious is up to. But if you have that, you probably don't have problems with low self-esteem.

Zen practice is about breaking this unthinking submission to what comes out of the subconscious. It's about realising the 'self', which your subconscious always feels is under attack, doesn't really exist. Once you stop feeding the subconscious with negativity - based on your conscious experience of your 'self's' actions in the world, it stops feeding back the fear-based emotional reactions to new events, or at least scales them down. We are emotion-based, but we can influence whether those emotions come to us as advice or commands. This practice isn't easy, which I suppose is why so few do it or are capable of doing it.

Emotional reactions to events come from the subconscious mind. — Tim3003

Do they? Specifically, what I'm wondering is if our emotions are associated only with our subconscious minds? You state this as though it's a fact, but I don't think this is a fact that we know, but maybe wishful thinking? Maybe I'm wrong, do you know this to be so?

We are emotion-based, but we can influence whether those emotions come to us as advice or commands. — Tim3003

I don't think we can do that either. This is what I'm getting at. People like you suggest that we should somehow become more logical, and less emotion-based, but it isn't possible for us humans to achieve this. Yes, by following the Zen path, there are changes we can achieve, and maybe we should. But 'taking charge' of our emotions, as you suggest, is this really possible, or do you just wish it was?

I'm completely open to learning something new here. Do you really have something new to offer, though? :chin:

Has anyone else recognized this as a fundamental cognitive distortion and how does one combat it or not fall into its lure? — Wallows

No. The shortcoming of cognitive science as a vade mecum to human mental health is that it includes AI as part of its paradigm, as well as a extraneous focus on neuroscience. Not that cognitive science, like cybernetics, isn't useful for understanding up to an extent, it's just that the human mind works quite differently than these disciplines allow for. Unfortunately, it seems like the truth of the mind pendent to metaphysical pathos(as described by various other schools of thought going back in time a very long way), limned by allegory, mythopoesis, religion, literature in general (especially fiction), spirituality and mysticism, etc., is dimming next to the dominance of cognitive science.

distress, depression, and a whole host of other negative affective moods. — Wallows

The cause of unhappiness is the belief you should always be happy, clinging to or chasing after happiness. Further, projecting into the ego ideal (a target state of mind would be part ego ideal, e.g., something you'd like to be except aren't) is associated with most unhealthy and volatile manic states; identification with the ego ideal is like trying to trick yourself or hide from the true Self; we are taught from our parents and society's conditioning to do this in a variety of ways, so deconditioning from these insalubrious dynamics of extrinsic locus of control and motivation is requisite to establish peace and balance. E.g., feelings of humiliation and shame will hold one back from his highest potential and peace of mind. Where did one learn to feel ashamed?

Maybe simpletons can always be happy (some people are very unaware and unaware that they're very unaware), though I sincerely doubt anyone with enough intra-inter-personal awareness is always happy. Your moods are just what they are and attachment to happiness can lead to suffering just as much as attachment to unhappiness. Defining the word "negative" here would be necessary. Negative to whom? You? Me? Or any one of countless souls that are all different?

Identification with mental states of any kind can lead to violence. Western culture has insinuated a strong influence in making the average person believe they should have a strong personality and know what they stand for. Buddhism teaches anicca, dukkha, anatta: impermanent, unbearable, not self. These concepts are applicable to any and all mental states, not only ones that are disliked, but ones that are desired as well.

Understanding the spectrum of neurosis>>>>>>>>>>>psychosis is what helps to get a grasp on mental health. Too much repression of unwanted feelings/thoughts leads to an attack of those repressions at some later time in altered form (repression derivatives). Psychoanalysis is a far more correct description of the human mind than CBT or cognitive science, imo. When mental states change, there is a displacement into some other component of the mind. Emotional intelligence is also central to cultivation of balance and homeostasis of mind. Allowing some measure of peaceful insanity/psychosis goes a looong way toward quelling the intrusions of neurotic repression derivatives. Perhaps emotions seem like nothing but insanity to some...which would be very false. Violence, impulsiveness, and compulsion are the true harmful/negative emotions, and they tend to result from neurotic, controlling, repression....falsely believing you should always be happy and positive, e.g.

In my system, anger and acting out are considered non emotions, the sum total displacement of all the other repressed emotions. Yes, most consider anger an emotion, but it is the prime example of instinct returning to you all of your repressed emotions in an altered form you can't control. Thus, anger and acting out is the result of a lot of repression and displacement of normal emotion/moods.

Anger and impulse control disorder are much worse for the individual and the human system than depression or moods. Not in terms of usefulness or functioning, but in terms of cultivation of peace and overall eudaemonia.

Do they? Specifically, what I'm wondering is if our emotions are associated only with our subconscious minds? You state this as though it's a fact, but I don't think this is a fact that we know, but maybe wishful thinking? Maybe I'm wrong, do you know this to be so? — Pattern-chaser

If you suddenly see a car crash close by you feel an emotion (or two) - maybe shock, fear, concern - whatever. You don't consciously decide to have those emotions, they arise from the reaction your subconscious has to the sensory information it receives through your eyes and ears. If this is not so, where else (and how) can such an externally driven emotion come from?

Yes, by following the Zen path, there are changes we can achieve, and maybe we should. But 'taking charge' of our emotions, as you suggest, is this really possible, or do you just wish it was? — Pattern-chaser

Have you seen Star Wars? There is much in common between the Jedi training and Zen based mindfullness! From my own experience of mindfullness meditation I can testify that it does work (I still can't levitate objects though!). I suggest reading Charlotte Joko Beck, an excellent Zen teacher and writer, if you want to find out more.

Not that cognitive science, like cybernetics, isn't useful for understanding up to an extent, it's just that the human mind works quite differently than these disciplines allow for. — Anthony

So, you have your own theory as to how the mind works?

So, you have your own theory as to how the mind works? — Wallows

The short version answer to your question: the combination of psychoanalysis and eastern philosophy (Buddhism, especially) has made a lot of sense to me. In truth, Buddhism not watered down by western influence may be too strict for our times. Slowing down enough to meditate, contemplate, and still the "monkey mind" may be beyond the boundaries of smartphone culture; not to mention that so much about our culture is geared toward polishing a sense of identity and seeking rewards (both which are known defilements to an advanced Buddhist; yes, initially desire to improve your mind leads to trying out Buddhism, but then you detach from this desire effortlessly through practice). Still, despite the restless western culture, many of its tenets have appealed to me and helped to detach from defilement and violent states of mind (aggressiveness, achievement orientation, and craving are an unfortunate prodigious part of the market society).

Once peace is established and nothing is done by impulsiveness or compulsiveness, making spiritual practice of using various creative mediums to further investigate the subconscious is an additional element in dispelling worldly dharmas like obsession with gain and loss, honor and dishonor, praise and blame, reward and punishment, like and dislike......life and death. False spliiting or separating of reality into dichotomies obscures the monist orientation, which I think, is where Buddhism comes in to show a path back into pure potentiality or "the one" without need to take any action whatever when face to face with inner "demons."

Another of my personal perspectives: neurosis has increased to an all time high. Whatever can be done to mitigate this should be done. This is why creativity is so important, inasmuch as it gives some power back to our instinct (or oneness, what have you). It's known to psychoanalysis ego is made of instinct, which tells you instinct is impossible to escape. This is why repressions boomerang, too much blocking of instinct, which it doesn't like. Once it's had enough, it'll send a conniption fit your way. As I see it, instinct is like psychosis; creativity is like psychosis. But neurosis can be as bad or worse than psychosis, since as we've just seen, neurosis leads to loss of peace worse than peaceful application of divergent states of mind. Someone who has no peace of mind would get no benefit from allowing instinct its way, it could be dangerous. So it varies whether neurosis or psychosis is worse for any given individual. Obviously one without peace could be brought to a bad place if he followed his divergent mental states (is this bipolar?). But one who has peace and sits back and watches his mind like a movie, with no fear can use divergent states of mind for mental health. The key point here, that I'm not misunderstood, is to remember the mechanism of neurotic repression pissing off your soul or instinct, the whole ball of wax, which then precipitates repressive derivatives back at you in impulsive acts, and acting out and hurting others.

I see. So, why are so many people twisted and grow up twisted? What's going wrong in the developmental process? Do you assert that Buddhist tenents ought to be instilled from a young age? If so, then wouldn't the market economy collapse if we were all Buddhists?

As I see it, the twisted part is taught to children by bad examples from their parents, presidents, politicians, businessmen, lawyers, judges, CEOs, .... The neurosis of following these examples and blocking primal entelechy can derange the innocent, young mind. Authoritarianism is another system defective to the mind's ecology: the commercial chain of command, like military psychology, is steeped in sadomasochism.

There's a lot that goes wrong with the development process. Yes, Buddhism and mediation should be taught in kindergarten. There's a reason why Tibetan culture was/is one of the most peaceful and successful of all time.

The economy will collapse it's certain, so wouldn't we figure out why and try to introduce stability? I'm a proponent of slow, planned degrowth, actually. The current boom-bust cycle is a little nuts (e.g., what would the analog of a boom-bust cycle of capitalism be on the microcosm scale of an individual, psychally and behaviorally? a wise, reasoning individual would never intentionally cultivate a boom bust cycle in his life). Greedy businessmen call it a recession...which sounds a little better...too bad the whole enterprise is built on shifting sand and fundamentally unstable. An individual can never have a balanced psyche if market values are all he believes in. This is why I think Buddhism is so hard to practice successfully in the market society...there's so much aggression, achievement-orientation, reward seeking, and general behaviorism that keeps peace at bay. The individual can adjust and correct his mistakes in a way the runaway market forces can never do; the individual seeks sustainability in his personal sphere, the market society has meagre consideration for the long term. Again, the person with love of money and has economic and political fundamentalism for his every example, is almost always a violent, impulsive, compulsive personage (to a degree) for the above reasons. Nobody is all bad, though, so there are good examples, but I don't believe they're from fundamentalism or sectarian systems. Most would agree there are too many dark triad types in high places.

Would you be willing to abandon all the luxuries that the economy has to offer just for having a stable peace of mind? I mean, if I were to choose between a brut and Spartan lifestyle of taking a bath once a year on in a cold creek or pond along with being at risk of starvation and simple illnesses such as the flu or an infection that could endanger my life, then would you choose peace of mind over those luxuries?

A Walden Pond experience may yet be in the cards for me. It isn't an all or nothing thing...so when mentioning peace of mind...it is kept up by spiritual practice. Nothing is perfect.

I'll say this, before allowing excessive ailments or death by a dangerous stress response, IBS, migraines, cancer, and all that goes with the common overachiever orientation and diseases of affluence/modernity, I would likely take a natural course of action (go to the forest) if it was appropriate to maintain what I felt was an adequately well-communicated mind. Would I go empty handed or without health provisions before dropping out, no.

Good question. If one lives in a developed country, it's probable he's never even experienced hunger unless he's chosen to by fasting. Sort of counterintuitive if you think about it, to have to choose to go hungry. Really starvation can only be triggered by the action or inaction we take...it's another one of those immovable natural laws. When asked whether the glass is half full or empty, a Buddhist would reply that it's broken.

Buddhists say to eat, sleep, and talk little.

When asked whether the glass is half full or empty, a Buddhist would reply that it's broken. — Anthony

Please expand.

More needless splitting and false dichotomies; the glass is both half empty and half full at once with being neither; a half empty and full glass is basically like yin-yang, the meaning of which explains the error of illusion of control and pigeonholing reality. Anicca would remind you of impermanence of the glass; dukkha of the prison of attaching to the fullness or emptiness concepts; anatta of no identity based on the glass dichotomy. Not seeing it is as an eventual polar shift, a precipitation of empty into full and full into empty, violates annica; fullness has a seed of emptiness at its pole as emptiness has a seed of fullness at its antipode.. Sunyata points out, as does yin-yang, the interdependent nature of conditioned things and the non existence of permanent identity or unchanging elements. The glass may as well be thought of as broken, or not there to begin with.

When reality is split and one side favored over the other, the repressed side becomes violent and instinct can deflect it back on the ego in a tumultuous, mercurial fashion. In the case of the glass, you might experience the wrath of emptiness if you choose to believe it is only half full. Then it's wise not to put too much weight into any one-sided, black and white view of reality, if every pole has the seed of its opposite pole; since they create each other, digging too far in one direction might trigger a polar shift, maybe even a literal bipolar disorder in internal world.