During the time of Covid there did appear to be a levelling out of wealth and poverty. This was interconnected with the way in which everyone was vulnerable to getting ill and economics as was known seemed to collapsing. At the time, I believed that it might usher in a new economics of equality.

However, in England the divide Is so much more than I have ever known, almost heading back to Victorian times. Families are being made homeless on a daily basis and more and more people are needing to resort to food banks. There is even a danger of the food banks collapsing. Of course, the situation of England is compounded by Brexit as well. Previously, many in the USA and other countries may have seen England as advantaged due to the NHS and the welfare state but this system is on the verge of collapsing. All policies and risk assessments are made in the light of this.

So much also may be going on behind the scenes of the news headlines throughout the world. If anything, there may be a fogging of risks or leaders not knowing what to do especially over ecology and climate change.

The point about science not being the foundation of policy is an important one. If anything it is the opposite way round. To some extent, experimental evidence can be developed to support policy aims.

The Covid evidence base was tricky because it was a new element. I hate to admit to a little bit of conspiracy theory but I do think that on some level the time of lockdown was used as a basis for bringing in policy changes, in England anyway. So much has changed in a way which seems to be about making the gulf between the rich and the poor greater.

Even with climate change, there are political aspects. A large problem of risk assessment was that it underplayed the speed of climate change. Also, the depletion of oil resources is central and the politics of this comes into play and it is likely that research and policy is likely to be more aimed at the needs of the elite.

The inaccuracy of risk assessment is part of the problem and how measures are taken on the basis of information with inaccuracies. For example, when working in nursing, suicide risk was assessed but it was not accurate. The particular problem here is that it is all assessed on the basis of past action and what a person says. The person who is really planning it is unlikely to tell anyone. Part of this complexity, is that the person knows that measures such as being detained in hospital are likely.

People are harder to assess than factors in the physical world. Of course, it is important to assess, especially in mental health and forensic psychiatry and the issue may be to do it as fully and carefully as possible.

Even with factors in the physical environment risks are not always straightforward because of so many variables.


.

I would like to try all of these approaches and I have even found that tea tree oil helps..I try to approach the problem from different angles.

What I am finding is that the landlord and other flatmates are taking such a one dimensional angle. I haven't seen any bed bugs since the last spray but as one upstairs says he has seen a couple he is asking for another spraying of pesticide gasses. I fear that if I don't comply I will be kicked out of the place.

I think that creativity is needed and it is almost like working with inner demons.

.The assessment of benefits entitlement are so complex, which so many variables. I guess that the way in which I see the problem in this and, so much of social policy, is that risk and its assessment is seen so much as a moral imperative. The word 'risk' conjures up so much weight, which may have been ranked according to moral duties and human rights previously. So, the issues of risk, as in clear objective possible outcomes, is important but it may need to be understood in terms of specific value systems in which it is developed.

I am aware that you are in Australia and the politics of which I am speaking is in England. I do not know how ideas of politics and risk management are global.

Part of the way in which I see the idea of risk management is that in some circles, it came to be used as almost an ethical imperative. Suicide risk carried so much weight. In the politics of risk assessment this seems to be turned upside down. The assessment processes for benefits has been found to be a contributory factor in some case scenarios of suicide.

In this way, risk assessment hinges upon values of what is important. The idea of risk can be used in such varying ways, but as a powerful rhetoric. The idea of risk is dependent upon what and who is seen as important to be valued. It could be the needs of the mentally ill, the poor, or the rich and powerful. In this way, the idea of 'risk' can be a sweeping moral rhetoric in philosophical justification, depending upon power allegiances and sympathies.

The idea of risks, including food and drink may be important. In particular, alcohol is seem as a specific threat to health. In contrast, sugar, while seen as a potential problem, may not be seen in the exact same way. Both alcohol and sugar pose risks to health, but this evaluation may be clouded by value judgments of how one should live.

I also wonder about how lifeforms, including human beings accommodate and evolve in accordance with risks. It could be that risks, and the experience of painful suffering are triggers for cultural and personal evolution. That is because adversity involves a motivation leads to innovation, as the key factor of creativity in adaptation, including human thinking.

The idea of risk is bound up with ideas of benefits and hazards. It may be where the area of practical and theoretical collide. This is because theory translates into practice in life and human affairs. Risk management may be quantifiable but it may also be qualitative, as bearing upon the nature of human experience itself. The quantifiable and qualitative aspects of life are not entirely inseparable. This may be a conundrum of risk assessment, especially where it involves quantification as a key component of assessment of risk.

In your post you refer to checklists of risk, which may be so variable. In some ways, the checklists may be useful if they go far enough, but if they are mere tick boxes they may be used in organisations as a means of covering potential legal claims.

However, your post also covers the understanding of risk in general life, which may be an aspect of life and philosophy which is not considered. Every act in life and human choice is bound up with some logical or intuitive aspects of assessment of risks. The entire philosophy of utilitarianism looks at potential ends of action.

This does involve aspects of life from sexual promiscuity to aspects of economics. It is involved predictability and the nature of uncertainty, and the possible juxtaposition of both. This makes risk so complex, in practical and ethical choices in human life, judgment and wider aspects of decision making.

Sorry for the late response, but I do wonder about the way in.which risk is seen in relation to death. While working in psychiatry, this did seem to be the concern. However, since that time, I have seen risk used in differing ways. In particular, risk assessment is being used in England for assessing fraud amongst benefit recipients..This is despite some evidence of suicides based on those who have gruelling risk assessments. So, I would argue that the underlying basis of risk assessment is bound up with political values and biases..

For anyone else who is experiencing bed bugs, I am also wondering about the actual risk of harm of bed bugs versus treatments for it. At the present time, I have been expected to clear my room for treatments four times. My room has been sprayed with chemicals that white earth. I cannot refuse this or I may be evicted. However, I am left wondering about the actual harm.of bedbugs or the chemical pesticides to treat them.

In recent weeks, I have felt physically unwell, which could be due to many factors. However, I do wonder about the chemical pesticides used to treat bed bugs and how such treatments are imposed. Does anyone else have experience of such measures being imposed, especially the benefits and harms? I actually regret telling my landlord of bed bugs. They are unpleasant but I am not sure whether they are lesser 'evils' than the chemicals used, especially as the bugs are becoming able to resist the chemicals. Any thoughts?.Metaphorically, I see bed bugs as the newest form of 'demons' to be combatted.

The assessment of nuclear war risk is critical and I would argue that there is the danger of inaccuracies. I understand that there was an incident, during the Cold War, when there was a message of nuclear attack that almost led to a full-scale nuclear war. The incident was not disclosed at the time but, here, is a clear issue of inadequacies of risk assessment.

It is not that I am trying to suggest that risk assessment should not occur, but that often occurs in a shallow way. To a large extent, all life judgments involve risk assessment
insofar as they involve calculation of outcomes. It is just that the rhetoric often misses the full intricacies, with the many unknown variables.

There is an inflated sense of belief in the power to measure risk, especially with technology, including artificial intelligence. From what I have seen, reliance on such technology often results in gross errors. It is likely that genuine risks are underplayed rather than overplayed.

It's good to interact with you again. It definitely seems that emotions have immense power. I know that I get fairly instant reactions to life events. They seem to determine the quality and nature of experience itself. I even find that I see differently and hear differently according to mood. Music seems to sound differently if I am sad or happy.

Childhood experiences probably play an extremely significant role in forming the core frames of emotions. There does appear to be a link between childhood trauma and mental illness, including PTSD and many other issues. Stress at all times is a major trigger for becoming mental ill, but the first years may be at the core of emotional life and defense mechanisms. It is likely to be linked to the plasticity of the brain.

With healing, there are so many approaches. Some people found it in religion and this may go back to the shamanic aspects of the origins of religion. So much was projected outside onto the gods. In secular society, so much understanding is based on understanding of biochemistry. Of course, the neurochemical aspects are important, such as Serotonin, but, often, chemical treatment alone is often one dimensional. It can be complimented by the talking therapies and the creative arts. The arts therapies make this connection and the arts may involve a form of transformation. Shamanism and religious experiences were a means of this for the ancient people. A lot of people who are not religious transform emotional suffering into healing for oneself and others, like the role of the shaman, often understood as the 'wounded healer. '

I agree that emotions are hardwired and have a determining aspect. It does relate to issues of free will, although I am inclined to think that humans can achieve some autonomy of not being completely dictated by emotions. But it is tricky and most of the time we controlled by emotions, and being able to break through the hardwiring may be rare exceptions. It may be about higher emotions overriding the lower ones.

Yes, will is important as there is a source of motivation and this includes emotion and intuition. Freud spoke of the life and death instincts, as Eros and Thanatos and such a perspective is bound up with emotions and the complex dynamics of mental processes, including both conscious and subconscious aspects. Will may be unconscious and related to the basics of bodily functioning, such as in the psychosomatic nature of illness and health.

Your post makes many important points. What I find important in what you are saying is in relation to subjectivity. The interplay between sensory experiences and basic ideas is an essential aspect of human understanding.

The discrepancies in values between sensory experiences in its many forms, in contrast to ideas and ideals may be an ongoing development of philosophical understanding.

However, this is a focus on the inner aspects of experience of emotions, which may be a little different from emotional expression. Human beings may edit emotions into what is acceptable. That may be fine in some ways, but challengable when emotions deviate from the norm. One aspect of this, especially in relation to the formation of values, may involve an underlying judgmental understanding of emotions. This may problematic when emotions are cultivated according to ideals.

It could be asked, what are senses exactly? They may be the physiological aspects of emotion and may go beyond the basic five senses of perception. I wonder to what extent does emotion occur as arising from sensory experiences or preceding it.Here, it may involve feedback loops, which demonstrate the complexity of physicalism and valued ideas. The generation of values may be a critical aspect the core development of emotions.

Based on your reading of Feldman Barrett, I wonder about the reductive aspects of emotions. They may be broken down to the physiological basics or related to aspects of motivational ideas and goals. This tension is an underlying aspect of the nature of emotional experience, raising questions about the dichotomy of values, as aspects which go beyond conceptual ideas.
.

I think that one of the reasons why I have raised the topic is about the potential for control of the passions. Nevertheless, it may be complicated in the sense of the interplay between the expression of emotion and control. This may be where it becomes a hard problem, relating to the hard problem of consciousness, especially the chemical-electrical processes. In relation to yogic practices, one important area may be to what extent does will , as an aspect of motivation, guide the processes of emotion?

This involves different area of understanding of emotions and living with them in life experience. In thinking of adepts, I wonder to what extent can the ideas of emotion, including its variable expression and suppression, may be intrinsic aspects of the ongoing evolutionary processes, for human beings in particular. The critical philosophy issues here is the possible ways in which emotions, going back to the basic routes of sensory experiences are based on gut reactions or ideas of emotions, as desirable or undesirable aspects of the inner experiences of human consciousness?

I definitely think that CBT points to the way in which presuppositions involve sense making. Concepts play a significan role and this is where emotions are different in animals than in humans, especially with language as a basis for reflection upon emotions. Values are significant here and ethics may be as much emotionally based as rational, or a dialogue between the two. There is the case of the 'monkey mind' and after rationalism people may strive for rationality. However, emotions as in early conditioned values, which may go back before an adult vocabulary has been achieved. Even amongst adults, the nature of articulating beliefs into language.

With the notion of enlightenment, or insight, it may be a transcendent state which goes beyond both emotion and rationality, with intuition being a potential bridge. It may go beyond control of emotions to the way of transformation of awareness, such as expressed in the 'dark night of the soul' preceding higher states. It may be about integration and wisdom in living with various emotional possibilities.

I am aware that a main principle within cognitive behavioural therapy is that a person is not disturbed by experiences but by the thoughts of the experience. I have wondered about this a lot and find it useful for going beyond blaming others. It is so easy, with upsetting experiences to blame another rather than recognising the seat of experience in terms of one's own sensitivity.

Nevertheless, the big philosophical debate between the frameworks of CBT and the psychodynamic approach may be the understanding of emotions. The CBT approach emphasises automatic thoughts and I am sure that is important but what thought is may be complex. It includes ruminations but it is not simply about verbalised thoughts but other aspects of sensory processing, including images. It is possible to become more aware of such aspects, such as within art therapy. However, there is so much which is subliminal, involving the body at a primal level. This may explain why something emotional reactions a person experiences after an experience may be different from the way a person imagines they would feel.

This may be where emotions are a particularly complex area and may be difficult to be translated into words in some cases. This is an area where there needs to be more dialogue between cognitive behavioral and psychodynamic thinking. One concept which I have found interesting in psychoanalytic theory is that of the 'nameless dread'. Also, Bion's understanding speaks of different layers of mental processing.

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.