I was wondering when this would become an explicit question. It has been given answers in various comments that I have avoided responding to, and has hovered in the background of the discussion of the toddler video. One might look at infants or animals, one might look to evolutionary psychology. But I don't want to answer, because I don't want to start from there, I want to start from here.

So my only answer is that the primary feeling is the feeling I have before I make a judgement or have a feeling about my feeling. It may well be that such feelings do not even have a name of their own, because they are so universally masked. Or maybe it is some list - fear, disgust, curiosity, affection, or whatever. I don't want to preempt what anyone might uncover, or force feelings into categories. — unenlightened

Cool.

Can I say that to be attached is to be vulnerable to hurt? This immediately prompts one to see the benefit of detachment. But to me, detachment is a curse, it is a state of unreality in which my relationship to the world is denied. There is no feeling more destructive of the person and the other than indifference. — unenlightened

Well, I will say that I came to this terminology from Buddhists. Not that I am a Buddhist, but when hearing them speak it just made a lot of sense. This is important because the state of detachment isn't one of indifference, but rather a state of compassion. So detachment isn't to turn oneself into an emotional rock, but rather to calm the mind into a state of loving-kindness, as the terminology has it.

Of course there is an objective in such a phrasing -- it's not what I would consider something purely scientific, per se. But then, I don't mind that. I'm not sure if such a thing is possible anyways.

But, to directly answer your question -- I think you could say that, but that's not exactly what I mean. Attachment causes pain, but as I see it it is unnecessary pain. The sort of pain that you cause to yourself.

But then not all anger is like that, either. So perhaps there's more to it than that. Perhaps we could just say "being vulnerable" is something different from this way of talking.

Attachment is good, and pain is necessary. You can avoid it, and not feel the pain of absence, or you can protect yourself from the pain by either focusing on their flaws, or eulogizing them -- none of which I think is healthy. I think that you should love fully, and miss deeply.

You'll always be delusional at the cost of any protective strategies about people's true natures otherwise, in my view.

But, masking one's emotions is natural and real. My dreams are just as real as I experience reality. So too are emotions as real as the one's being masked. In other words, let's the ego/super-ego do it's job in masking the primitive aspect of one's psychology.

Is your solution to feel more or feel more adequately? How does one measure this all with the qualitative facets of emotions and their 'unreasonableness'?

This is important because the state of detachment isn't one of indifference, but rather a state of compassion. So detachment isn't to turn oneself into an emotional rock, but rather to calm the mind into a state of loving-kindness, as the terminology has it. — Moliere

Attachment causes pain, but as I see it it is unnecessary pain. The sort of pain that you cause to yourself. — Moliere

I wonder if we are saying the same thing or not. I suppose compassion comes from empathy, whereas attachment comes from self image. So are you saying that my compassion for my daughter's suffering is necessary, but the extra 'weight' of pain that comes from my attachment is unnecessary and self inflicted? I'm not terribly happy with that analysis.

Attachment is good, and pain is necessary. You can avoid it, and not feel the pain of absence, or you can protect yourself from the pain by either focusing on their flaws, or eulogizing them -- none of which I think is healthy. I think that you should love fully, and miss deeply. — Wosret

This is much more where I find myself. And it leads me to a great suspicion of the current fads for 'mindfulness' in schools, and 'time out' in the home. Children especially need to attach, and these processes of detachment imposed upon them lead them to feel abandoned and turn to each other and to material things as inappropriate attachments.

But, masking one's emotions is natural and real. My dreams are just as real as I experience reality. So too are emotions as real as the one's being masked. In other words, let's the ego/super-ego do it's job in masking the primitive aspect of one's psychology.

Is your solution to feel more or feel more adequately? How does one measure this all with the qualitative facets of emotions and their 'unreasonableness'? — Question

For sure, anger is very real; one has only to look at the world. I should emphasise that I am not suggesting in this thread that one should let it all hang out. I need to reemphasise the distinction between feeling and expression.

So it is quite normal to get angry from time to time, (though it may not be necessary) and it is to be recommended that one bite one's tongue, and restrain one's fist. All I am saying is that one should not try to change one's feelings, but simply to understand them. Certainly the measuring of one's feelings is out of the question on this view, that one cannot separate oneself from them. It would be like a ruler trying to measure itself; the whole thing is that it takes another ruler to do that. So to the extent that one manages it, one has created a division in oneself.

So it is quite normal to get angry from time to time, (though it may not be necessary) and it is to be recommended that one bite one's tongue, and restrain one's fist. — unenlightened

I almost never express my anger. I keep it locked up inside and let it show in my passive aggressive behavior. If things don't go my way then to hell with it all, I'll lay in bed or be a pessimist about it all and deny anyone else the right to happiness in my behavior and world view. I resort to Stoicism to help me put a knot down in my belly that makes me lean towards Cynicism and eventually Nietzsche in my lack of power and resigned responsibility to others.

Is that healthy? It might be in my own disposition; but, to others I doubt so.

In all this, I see Nel Noddings ethics of 'care' as a solution to this problem. Unreciprocated (that is, a state of mind that does not require reciprocation to be maintained, something akin to being enlightened or love/compassion/desire in its purest form - without any material desire in return) 'care' or love or compassion without strings attached seems to be the ideal here.

As for the measurement of one's emotions. Perhaps school and other public institutions are apt in dealing with this. I have gone through both (school and military) and can't say I've learned much emotionally about myself or the world for the matter. Just where I stand and nothing more.

I wonder if we are saying the same thing or not. — unenlightened

My guess is that we aren't, just to judge from similar conversations. :D I tend to think that we run parallel in some ways but there's a divergence somewhere in our thinking about emotion -- which, as you noted before to Mongrel, may just be a matter of what we feel we need to focus on for our own better living. (I certainly am not proposing a scientific theory here -- though something more universal than unique to myself, I'd guess)

I suppose compassion comes from empathy, whereas attachment comes from self image. So are you saying that my compassion for my daughter's suffering is necessary, but the extra 'weight' of pain that comes from my attachment is unnecessary and self inflicted? I'm not terribly happy with that analysis.

I wouldn't say necessary -- since compassion isn't necessary -- but that you can also cause unnecessary pain to yourself depending on your relationship to said suffering, or that you can relate to the suffering of others in such a way that you are not responding compassionately, but from a role or identity you hold dear (I really think that compassion runs contrary to identity, though I could be wrong on that). So, for instance, I think of myself as a loving father, and a loving father expresses outrage in these situations, so I then express outrage in such-and-such a manner to satisfy my self-image of a loving father vs. approaching the suffering of your daughter with an ear towards their suffering.

Also, I think I would flip your causal chain there in saying that empathy comes from compassion. Compassion is a state of mind in and through which which empathy (to feel as others feel) can grow.

Though "pain" here, I believe -- and generally I think this about pain -- is a bit of a weasel word. It seems comprehensive, but on the whole I tend to think that it's just a collection of similar experiences. Loss and anger feel different from one another, but are easily classified as "pain", just to elucidate where I'm going with that.


I think I'd disagree with @Wosret's characterization of "attachment is good, and pain is necessary" Attachment causes suffering, and I hazard it's unnecessary suffering. I can agree up to a point, if I understand at least. There's a sense in which emotions just are. You just feel what you feel, and there's no amount of storytelling to yourself which can change that. You can't really run from them or hide them or change them. But you can habituate your behaviors -- including mental behaviors -- so that you are happy more often than not. Pain doesn't go away magically, but the pain you cause yourself does.

Some pains only go away with death. So in some cases I would agree that pain is necessary. But I wouldn't say that this pain is the result of attachment, but is just a fact of life. (In which case -- why try altering it in the first place if it is necessary?)
Some pain isn't necessary. It's learned.

... you can also cause unnecessary pain to yourself depending on your relationship to said suffering, or that you can relate to the suffering of others in such a way that you are not responding compassionately, but from a role or identity you hold dear (I really think that compassion runs contrary to identity, though I could be wrong on that). So, for instance, I think of myself as a loving father, and a loving father expresses outrage in these situations, so I then express outrage in such-and-such a manner to satisfy my self-image of a loving father vs. approaching the suffering of your daughter with an ear towards their suffering. — Moliere

I agree, this happens. And in such a case one is performing, and conforming to the image. So it is the image one is attached to, and the image that is harmed, and it really has nothing to do with the daughter at all. But I think - am I deceiving myself? - that it is possible to form an attachment to one's daughter, not just to an image of oneself being attached.

There is a fairly respectable thread in psychology going back to Bowlby that holds attachment to be a crucial feature of the development of the child. Now such an attachment will be asymmetric; dependence on the child's part, and dependability on the parent's. Here is Gabor Mate talking about it, (and mentioning Buddhism). It takes a while to get to attachment.

Because the image of a loving father must have a real source, surely?

But I think - am I deceiving myself? - that it is possible to form an attachment to one's daughter, not just to an image of oneself being attached. — unenlightened

Dramas pervasively shape the way people interact.

An example is that little Johnny is forced to eat broccoli by his father. An unfinished drama is set up as a result. Through his life, Johnny is basically telling everybody around him "NO!" He doesn't know why.. they don't know why.. and none of them realize that the whole sentence Johnny is trying to express is "NO. I don't want the broccoli." The father needs to say "OK. I'm sorry and I was wrong to make you eat that." But until the little Johnny down inside the big Johnny can hear that, the drama will continue to play out like a broken record.

That's overly simplistic, obviously. A real psyche is full of harmonies and resonant frequencies so that nothing is really pure. But the point is that people go around recruiting other people to play roles in their dramas. A father may not see his daughter beyond the role he's cast her in.

So I think it's not that attachment to others and the world is formed. It's always there. Nobody is an island. Stuff covers over attachment (which is apt to be experienced as love.)

There's a Buddhist thing that helped me. A fair portion of it results in detachment from the drama. I mean.. as opposed to trying to dig down and find the origin of the drama, just pop free of what binds one to a drama: fear and anger. I let myself be free of anger and fear, and I let others be free also. Now I'm letting you be whatever you are. I don't need to squash you into a role.

Interestingly, that stuff is preceded by immersing oneself in emotion. Some old Buddhist would imagine a woman standing by a river and her baby was carried away by the current. And then recognize that this love and grief is what everybody feels sometimes. That's similar to what the dude who taught me massage therapy said: drop down out of your head and out of your identity to be free of the drama. But that state is too amorphous to navigate a busy life. It has to be protected in a sanctuary.. maybe not necessarily a physical sanctuary. Sometimes I think that's what people are doing with prayer: making a little mobile sanctuary.

Proper attachment is visceral, intuitive, bodily. Attachment to images blinds one to what one is actually learning about a person while spending time with them. You absorb parts of them begin to synchronize in thought and feeling. You become a way with them, and they become a way with you, and when they are absent, or you know that they're gone, a literal piece of you has to die with them. The image is protected from harm, but harm comes to you merely by the absence of those you like, and particularly those you love, and even more harm comes to you when they are harmed.

I just know myself well enough that I can discern what feelings and thoughts aren't and are mine.

You absorb parts of them begin to synchronize in thought and feeling — Wosret

A painting of it would be a blue world with darker blue people running around.. each one free of history and expectation.

I have that thing were I'm cursed with awesome, in that I have like zero visual memories. At like super pivotal moments of my life I've had like vision like imaginings of ideas, like "what that would look like" in an artistic way. I remember once seeing a bunch of pods vibrating out frequencies a few years ago when I was walking home from work.

Usually my memories or thoughts have no visual or structural content whatsoever, I think mainly audio and touch. Not awesome on tastes or smells either.

like, like, like, like lol.

Finally made the time to watch the video. Also, this floated by me today and it briefly goes over anger in relation to a particular zen buddhist: https://www.brainpickings.org/2016/09/01/only-dont-know-seung-sahn-anger/

I'm posting it as food for thought, as I just read it.

But I think - am I deceiving myself? - that it is possible to form an attachment to one's daughter, not just to an image of oneself being attached. — unenlightened

I don't think this is a deception. And after watching the video I think that we're actually talking about two different concepts with the same word (or two different experiences, perhaps).

Attachment here I would term "relationship" or "connection". I don't think it's a deception to say that we can form connections with others without being attached to an image.

There is a fairly respectable thread in psychology going back to Bowlby that holds attachment to be a crucial feature of the development of the child. Now such an attachment will be asymmetric; dependence on the child's part, and dependability on the parent's. Here is Gabor Mate talking about it, (and mentioning Buddhism). It takes a while to get to attachment.

Because the image of a loving father must have a real source, surely?

Yeah, I wouldn't want to deny that. Sorry for the delay. I just wanted to make time to listen to the talk before responding.


This is a bit off the cuff -- but perhaps the difference between these two kinds of attachment can be understood in terms of craving(or desire, though that could be too general too), and need. In the former I become angry, anxious, or fearful because I crave this or that but don't have, might not have it, or don't feel safe without it (respectively). In the latter we need attachment to others, and children need attachment to adults, to give us a sense of belonging and to give us a safe place to be vulnerable and develop (respectively).

I've been thinking about your Zen Master's classification of anger: - attached, reflected, perceived, loving.

"Attached anger sometimes lasts for three hours, sometimes three days, and does not quickly return to love-mind. When you were crying, you had reflected anger; it did not last long. Soon you returned to your mind that loves your son, and you knew what to do to help him… After more hard training, your reflected anger will change to perceived anger. You will feel anger but not show it; you will be able to control your mind. Finally, you will have only loving anger, ager only on the outside to hep other people — “You must do this!” — but no anger on the inside. This is true love-mind."

It is not altogether clear to me, so perhaps I am missing something, but it looks as though we have the same two distinctions, between inner and outer ( feeling and behaviour), and primary and secondary. There is the typical zen paradox of training to be spontaneous, but I don't think I can go further without all the details of both letters.

But I'll say something about how one feels feelings, provoked by the term 'perceived anger'. I think it makes sense to say that one has to become angry first, before one can become cognisant thereof. There is a rush of blood to the head, and then one notices the rush. So, on the face of it, it is an angry person that notices his anger. And yet one is not, in the first instance angry about one's anger. One might become so, calling myself an idiot for becoming angry, but that is later again.

So there is a perception of anger that is not separate from being angry, and yet is not itself angry. Does this make any sense? That there is always a calm at the centre of the storm of feeling. Now if one can start to notice that, perhaps it will grow. Perhaps one can live from that, and not from one's periphery.

So there is a perception of anger that is not separate from being angry, and yet is not itself angry. Does this make any sense? That there is always a calm at the centre of the storm of feeling. Now if one can start to notice that, perhaps it will grow. Perhaps one can live from that, and not from one's periphery. — unenlightened

Yes, that makes sense to me. From the brief description I don't find myself able to really grasp what he means by love-anger, myself -- but the other three seemed to make sense to me (at least, in a concrete sense -- abstractly it makes sense, but I don't think I know what it is like). I don't think I would even classify anger solely along his lines, but there was some sense to it too.

To perceive anger we must be angry -- that makes sense too. At least, to perceive ourselves as angry.

I like the notion you put forward of "growing", because that fits in with my experience of anger. Starting with just noticing that you're angry and accepting you're angry is a starting point from which you begin to notice another place, another way to accepting -- or perhaps even "expressing" anger, even though the end steps are in a sense a redirection of anger, and not expressing in the traditional sense.