Not completely. It is how we perceive, not how we should perceive. There is no should. For example, why should one be happy of cold weather, but someone other should be irritated by it? It's individual, and the emotion is from the information already recorded in the brain. For example, one person has grown up in the far north, but has been living in south ever since, and now there's cold, which is connected to all the experiences of childhood. It gives that person a good mood. While someone other in the south may be irritated by the cold weather, because he doesn't know how to cope with it, doesn't like the feeling and has no good past experiences connected with it too.
Emotions are spontaneous. Although our Perceptions may be altered artificially by our environment (e.g. we may come to see something that we'd otherwise naturally enjoy as being 'distasteful' because of how society has trained us). And thus our spontaneous reaction (i.e. feelings) to that untruthful perception may not represent our true basic nature. I think human society makes it all very complicated to understand.
Not for life, for you, for someone other it might be different. It all boils down to the information in your brain - how you know reality, the world, how you understand it, what is your subjective view regarding the existance and the universe.
So, how is this model? [object]->[eyesight*]->[raw data]->[perception (accessing memory now too)]->[feedback=emotion, action (mental and/or physical)] *or any other perceptive organ or cell
Didn't say that it makes this implication -- that we can partake of "pure cognition". Are they? If they are uncontrollables, then they are none of your business anyway. Understanding them is the first step to controlling them. Then it is not a rational agenda. For example, the agenda of "American way of life" may be rational in the US for some people living there, but it is an irrational agenda to hold somewhere in Sudan or Antarctica. Holding an agenda, regardless the circumstances and resources available, is irrational.
Like I said, our environment may interfere with how we respond spontaneously. So there is the basic level of human emotion, our true natural emotion --- which represents our true nature. And then there is the second level of emotions that is influenced by how the society makes us percieve things, --- which may not represent our true nature. Our thought process works on these emotions (based on our perceptions) --- both primary and secondary, and then decides what to do with them, and how to present them to the world. Our primary (basic) emotions may also trigger a number of other secondary emotions like guilt, shame or pride --- based on how we perceive our basic emotions.
The real Buddha always had it good when he was young. He was a kings son. And he had never ever gotten out of his palace. So he never had to strive for anything (as the story goes). So he had never felt pain. But then he was living in an artificial environment --- and many other people (including the king, his father) had strived to provide him that painfree environment, even when he did not have to strive himself. The moment he got out of the palace and saw real life --- he was shaken deep within. For there was such pain all around!
You are entitled to your own opinion. Your second level is not necessary met in all humans. Like Nietzsche said: "I don't want people to confuse me with others - but that requires, that I myself don't confuse myself with others". It all depends on the individual to decide on how clean perception from social and cultural influences he wants and is determined to work to.
Do you think there is a self-existent/autonomous, permanent, constant self which still interacts with the environment? Because what you are saying above would imply so.
Yes, but he analysed pain and understood it. He didn't become a depressed wrech for the rest of the life. He found out that there are no objective reasons to feel bad about old age, illnesses, etc. Thus he was released from Samsara. But you seem to be caught up to neck in it with all your "save the poor men" agenda.
Interesting! I think there are two levels of 'reactions'/ emotions. The immediate emotion that comes to the fore is possibly (though not always) a basic or primary emotion, representing our true nature --- unless our true nature is totally suppressed. The second wave of emotions may take a little while (maybe a matter of a trillionth of a second) after the brain works on it through perception. Although this perception may be highly standardised through 'stereotyping' in our brain. And our brain might in a jiffy pass judgement on the input it receives, triggering a particular wave of secondary emotions. Needless to say that the secondary set of emotions maybe exactly the opposite of the primary set of emotions.
From influences - no, from influencing from those influences - potentially yes. It just takes lots of time and thinking, meditating, and training.
To be honest I haven't understood the question. I recognise that it has a deep meaning, but above what I can comprehend. More than the question I haven't understood the implication. So maybe you can explain.
But do you actually think this way, live this way? Because if I were to think this way about my emotions and thoughts, I'd be very confused.
You are positing that humans have a "true nature" and you are also making statements about this "true nature" (as to when it shows). I am just curios how come you think so, being a Buddhist. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
I don't think so. What he said -- "From influences - no, from influencing from those influences - potentially yes. It just takes lots of time and thinking, meditating, and training." -- I find that quite plain and realistic.
Not the age, but the work invested counts. I'm pretty free from most influences (I don't really watch tv, etc) and from what remains I mentally lock them out, and have learned to control my consciousness and adjust my perception to a degree that I can create any emotion I want or prevent all emotions.
I don't think its only about me. It is about most of us who live life mainly on a physical plane. I think only a person who has risen to a higher level of conscousness can escape this pattern. And this is not how we consciously choose to live. This happens automatically. At least this is how I have analysed things (I am yet to understand emotions). I will give some examples: A woman who lives in a society that doesn't look favourably at women enjoying sex, may have a subdued first 'pleasant' reaction when she is 'offered' sex, but may consciously 'FEEL' bad about it, which represents her secondary reaction. A man may have kept off 'cooking' if his society sees that as a feminine act. But he may subconsciously 'feel' good about it as a primary set of emotions. Yet, consciously when the secondary set of emotions hit him, he may start seeing it as 'feminine' and thus start 'abhoring' cooking as far as men are concerned. Which gives me another insight about emotions. That our primary set of emotions are often on the subconscious level. While our secondary set of emotions occur at the conscious level.
