I see that learning is related to perception. Now the questions is, does everyone is learning all the time when they have emotions?
This is an interesting question. Let’s consider a real-time case, a driver is driving the vehicle in a drunken state thinking about his loved one. In the present case what is the actual state of mind?
Sounds like hours of fun
Post must be at least 20 characters.
Yes, I think you’re right. I’ve experimented with shutting off my inner dynamic, and the change in mood is quite dramatic! But for me the inner dynamic only stays off for short periods of time: seconds, maybe up to a minute.
By ‘operating point’ do you mean something like ‘state of mind?’
I’d be interested in exploring this in some depth. Fear is, after all, a biggie. And it’s good to visit the biggies again and again and again. Right? How about we start a thread for the investigation of fear?
This isn’t fear - it’s the whole point of I, me, mine mentality. We create a self because it’s the price of admission to society; making a deal with the devil (self-deception) for the pride and pleasure it can bring, in spite of all the remorse, regret, and misery that comes with it.
When I choose to be “happy”, I downplay or deny feelings that don’t support my choice, and I emphasize and exaggerate what pleases me. I do this because my bias, my chosen way of distorting what actually is for the sake of my what-should-be is established, normal, and I don’t know how to live without authority.
The word rhetoric comes to mind. Obviously that is not learning. It is just a reaction. Then it is upon us not to keep doing it, not to use rhetoric. The observation is not rhetoric. I can keep it to myself. Then there might be some true communication.
For clarity we should also separate feeling (dynamic process) and feelings (noun), right? It has the same properties as thinking (dynamic process) and thoughts (noun).
Yes, always. Let’s see if we approach it in the same way. The dynamic process of feeling is based on our physical properties, which means it is a material process (limited). This process takes place in the brain and generally we refer to it as thinking. We have conceptually separated the process of feeling from thinking, but when we observe the structure of thought and look into what learning is, what is the value or purpose of such separation? There is no need at all to separate feeling from thinking (process).
The conclusions or interpretations of these dynamic processes would be feelings and thoughts, which are put together by thinking, so we can refer to them both as thoughts. It is not practical in various everyday contexts, but for the purpose of this thread.
Then, is there another way to feel? If material process implies thinking (sensory recording), is there a non-material process that we call feeling? What would that look like?
They way I see it, “feeling-free thinking” is merely rhetorical. It plays with the dichotomy thinking vs feeling as rational vs emotional. “Dead, mechanical, technical” are all adjectives, which are words naming an attribute of a noun, hence in the realm of feeling in the common language. The observation here is that all this speculation and play is happening in the field of language. Separation of feeling and thinking is created by thought.
All separation is created by thought. The very idea of separation is created by thought, same for the ideas of thinking and creating. Thought is an idea created by thought! Without thought … … … … … … ((( nothing can be said ))) … … … … … … … … … … …
So, yes, seen through this ‘ultimate truth’ lens, there is neither pure thinking, nor pure feeling, nor thinking, nor feeling, nor thinking-feeling, nor feeling-thinking, nor anything else (or the absence of anything else).
But seen through the ‘conventional truth’ lens of empirical reality, the question still holds for me: Does there exist feeling without thought and/or thought without feeling?
I am in a 2 dog sled (I have a goal to get to). My 2 dogs are Thought and Emotion, they egg each other on. Alone they go nowhere, they have no raison d’etre.
Good one, MDD! I almost posted a spin on the chariot and the charioteer metaphor, but it’s probably good I decided against it. 
Before going to your question, might be useful to investigate, why the “but”? From what urge/intention comes the question - after seeing ‘the ultimate truth’ - to be concerned about an idea. If we see that feelingless thought or thoughtless feeling is an abstract play of the mind, to what end are we still interested in it?
Say, yes we come up with a definition or a conclusion to what these concepts mean. Then what? What do we expect from a feelingless thought or thoughtless feeling? Is there a sense that such a thought or a feeling would provide something more or deeper about something?
That’s a great question! It goes to the heart of what motivates people to do the kind of work we’re doing in this forum.
One motivation is to discover the truth of oneself and the world in order to avert disaster. “The world is burning, I am burning … and the fires must be put out!”
Another is to discover the truth of things for the sheer joy of discovery.
I’m more of a joie de discovery guy, which is why I’m interested in things that might not be ultimately real. And you?
The evidence is piling up against you pal! (remember : you have the right to remain silent)
Though it is probably true for all of us - we are basically puppets driven by desire and aversion. Thrill seekers through no choice of our own. Pleasurable experience for its own sake is (seemingly) 100% of the law.
Puppet? Me?! No way!! I’m a real boy and I can prove i- prove i- prove i- ////////////////////
This is really similar to how I view the nature of living things … though I don’t use ‘puppet’ because it implies a puppeteer, and I doubt there is one. I think of living things more as unfathomably complex machines that are driven by desire and aversion at every level of their existence: from entire being down to cells, molecules, atoms.
And yet there seems to be something in us sentients that rises above mere mechanics.
What do you know about “the ultimate truth”? For me the ultimate truth is that I can be mistaken.
Desire/aversion is the driving force (aka puppeteer)
Desire/aversion is an example of sentience. (as are other sensations)
Sometimes things are considered to be more important and real than ideas or feelings - other times its the contrary - this is just the effects of seeing through the lens of good/bad (aka desire/aversion)
The separation between matter and sensation seems evident - though in no way demonstrated - so probably just a cultural supposition. (aka opinion/belief/knowledge)
Two people viewing the same thing (matter) respond (sensation) differently because the thing evokes different responses, and this “separates” them. One is reminded of a painful experience by the thing while the other is reminded of something pleasurable.
Can anything be seen for what it actually is, or only for one’s conditioned response to it? Can I look at a work of art and see past my knowledge and experience to the artist’s intention? Can I look at a flower and see past my pleasure to the plant’s evolution?
I think, the truth is the only aspect in life which is unlimited. The aspects which are the product of thought are limited enough to understand.