What I read her saying is not that you deliberately fake some emotions - which we already knew with no help from meditation - but that all the ones you actually do feel are fake; manufactured and implanted by a nebulous external entity called "society". — Vera Mont

But that can't be true because then where did society get that from?

Of course there is, and we all recognize the difference, even while we also go through the courteous motions, for the sake of social harmony. Even if one doesn't much care about a stranger's achievement, to refrain from congratulating them would be an insult and cause ill-feeling. — Vera Mont

I would think faking it would hurt more. Nothing stings more than someone who is "just being nice".

I think we all have a sense that person X congratulated us on gradutating or having a kid and it felt like someone going through the motions or performing a norm and someone who was genuinely happy. Or someone who managed to express something against the norm in those situations. Perhaps they thought we had a child too young or with the wrong person and even though you're not supposed to be honest, they were.

I think there is a meaningful distinction here around genuine feelings and not so geniune responses. And not, the feelings are probably real, even in people who try to suppress any 'wrong' reaction and present themselves 'correctly'. They have whatever they are feeling as feelings - though they may not want to notice what those feelings are if they don't fit. So, they may think they are happy you are happy with your new partner when really they are jealous. But their responses, the whole mess of it, is genuine, it just may not match their official position on what they are feeling. — Bylaw

I think there is a difference between someone faking it and someone who means it. Like people who congratulate you on something, because that's what you're supposed to do. But there's saying that and meaning it, which I think is what she might be alluding to but misses the point. Society dictates one should be happy about such events, but obviously that doesn't happen. We go through the motions. Whether you feel happy or not depends on your connection with the other person. If it's someone close then yes you'll be happy for them, but if not then you phone it in.

Also if she was right there wouldn't be so many therapists with clients who feel things they aren't supposed to. Reminds me of the time I told my therapist I stopped loving my mom and felt bad because it seemed like I was supposed to do that, then he said it's ok. IT was a relief.

But to state, in our convo we had two definitions of what genuine meant. She meant it as some uncaused cause, I meant it as how you actually feel in response to something. Like if you get a gift are you actually happy about it or just putting on a show for their benefit.

"she" is the person who made the quote originally.

What are you getting at? What she meant by genuine and what I meant are two different things. She meant it like uncaused cause, and I said how you fee in response to something that happens to us. We found out we were talking past each other.

Then by that dictionary definition we do genuinely feel things.

Yest, I got that and your viewpoint in the first place by reading your description of the topic.
I just viewed the question "Do we genuinely feel things?" from a simpler aspect. In its essence. Indepedently of what external factors cause feelings. There can be millions of them. And why society in particular? Your wife or husband or family or a a friend may make you feel a certain way. On purpose or not. Even ourselves --out subconscious-- make us feel things that are not natural; for no apparent or real reason.
In every case, i.e. independenty of the cause, the fact is that we feel them. And what we feel is genuine.
Maybe the title of the topic is misleading then ... — Alkis Piskas

But it's caused by something so it's not genuine. How our family makes you feel is based on how society says you ought to feel about it.

Also, I know, by experience on the subject of emotions, that what society makes us feel is of much less importance and has much less consequences for us than what people around us, and esp. close ones, cause us. On purpose or not. Almost all traumas in our lives are created by people, esp. family, since the time we are born. — Alkis Piskas

Which again is impacted based on how society says we ought to feel about certain things.

It's something I can't get over because to deny it would be living a lie and telling yourself what you feel is genuine.

IT's not missing anything. It's sort of like saying that society makes you feel ways about certain things. If you took someone not raised in the world we live in today they wouldn't care about any of the stuff in it or what's going on, why? Because society makes us care about things that we normally wouldn't.

You spend enough time in meditation, you will realize that you never genuinely feel feelings in the first place
it is all just cause and effect response
and a lot of the time the specificity of that response is ascribed to how societal expectations dictate one should be effected by a particular cause
loss-->sadness
gain-->joy

also she’s not suicidal not sure where you got that

I, you, and every other entity is an experiencer, whether they meditate or not, whether they will it or not, whether they know it or not. — Vera Mont

Well in meditation if you do it there is a state they say where you are watching the experience as if from afar. So in a sense you become the watcher and not the experiencer which casts doubt on the claim that they are an experiencer.

Like our emails? Where did "it" get an independent mind and will of its own, and the aspiration to order and control its progenitors? — Vera Mont

Well that’s just what society does

You have not established that 'genuine feelings' - which nobody living in a society has or can have - are the purpose of human life — Vera Mont

But they are what everyone places value one. Talking about what they really want to do instead of what society says they should and the conflict between. Or whether you really love someone or are just pretending.

Genuine being uncaused or affected by anything else.

Feeling is feeling, the response you get.

You is you, the subject. Though with meditation it could be the watcher or the experiencer.

Society is where we live.

Society originates from us. It influences your emotions to establish control and order.

Your genuine emotions would be yours and not what society says you ought to feel over this.

If feelings are all fake then there is no reason to live since you’re just a puppet of the world and not really living.

I live because suicide is painful.

The rest can be explained by the original quote, essentially meditation shows nothing you feel is genuine it’s causes and effect and the specificity of that response is based on what society says you ought to feel towards it. She said so so that’s the truth.

Can you prove any of that? Some people grow up in societies when that sort of sweet thing doesn’t cause a happy reaction and some people just don’t get happy by it at all.

We don’t develop behaviors in solitude either as evidenced by feral children they find in the wild.

It’s not oversimplifying you just don’t see the reach society has on you. Everything you felt was manufactured, none of it was you, none of it was real. You’re more or less a robot following social programming.

And like she said about meditation you will find yourself watching these feelings and how you don’t control them. Then you begin to question if these really are your feelings if you can’t control them, and soon you create distance from your feelings enough to see that you’re essentially hostage to “someone else”.

it’s not.

How can you genuinely feel anything. You are taught how to feel about certain things, how certain values are good and what one ought to value. Nothing you feel is genuine because it’s all just manufactured by society. You can trust anything you feel because it’s just a nonstop spiral of manufactured emotions.

It's the best, truest, most compelling and most genuine reason. — Vera Mont

It’s actually not the most genuine, compelling, truest reason especially if society is making you want it, so that’s just wrong. Not even close there.

what’s there to support it’s simply a fact of life so you haven’t really given a counter to that point.

Because your feeling is wrong. So far there isn’t evidence to suggest any sort of god or anything else beyond the here and now. You just sound delusional more than anything else. You’re believe it’s just that, faith and little else.

Asking what’s the point isn’t really looking beyond survival but more the question of why one survives. Animals and plants just do it without questioning. Humans was why do all this? Is there a point? Some are ok with there being no point.

What I want to know is why you made a new account just to horn in on this discussion with something utterly irrelevant. Seems iffy to me.

God is just one of those things you grow out of into something better.

but you haven’t proven it so. That desire to live is because society pushes it all the time. Most people don’t question whether their feelings are genuine or not.


So again IF they’re not then why bother living? Just because we have that desire isn’t a reason. I thought this was a philosophy forum.

I already did answer that. If we don’t genuinely feel things what’s the point in living. You haven’t really answered why anyone should.

again you’re still not

No, it’s imparted onto you by society.

No, there is no aspect of your behavior that belongs entirely to yourself.

so again, why bother living? You’re not really answering.

That's what was meant, if we don't genuinely feel anything, if we're just controlled by society then why bother living.

it’s funny you should use the matrix as that movie had nothing to do with real reality, it was pretty much about transgender people and transitioning.

It’s also funny you use that movie as an example when religion itself, god, Jesus, etc, is the matrix. It provides a comforting and easy answer to the hard questions of life. But those who dare to go past it find how much isn’t certain and how little we truly know or control.

It’s often a warning sign to steer clear of such people who claim to have “truth” because more often than not they don’t. But people will follow and listen because the unknown is scary and the lack of control terrifies people.

One thing, of many, that made me believe there isn’t a god or that I have no reason to think so is the creation of life. No loving deity would ever create life.

I find it odd you have an issue with just surviving, seems to be enough for animals so why do you need more than that? You’ll find that God ends up being a poor answer for just about any question. I see no reason to think there is more than this nor would I wish it.

Sounds like fear of death. Also this has nothing to do with the OP.

that says already explained how they are not genuine , supposedly. The question is why go on if they’re not.

yeah. It’s either something you believe or don’t. That’s about it.

This is one of those cute tail-eating propositions, isn't it?
If nothing we feel is genuine, the bother of living isn't genuine, since we're not genuinely living.
So, where did all this illusion, conditioning, control and influence come from? And on whom is it working, if "we" are not genuine persons? — Vera Mont

That's not really answering the question of what's the point in going on if nothing you feel is genuine.

If you don't have anything intelligent to say please don't bother commenting. I stopped taking it seriously once Jesus and God factored into it.

You obviously don't get it.

Well no, if solipsism were true there would be no reason to connect with people because there would be no other people.

that doesn't make any sense.

I'm saying if nothing we feel is truly genuine then what's the point of living? Your life is essentially a lie.

Well if nothing we feel is genuine then why bother living?

I suppose that's the point I take issue with, then.

Though, if we're just taking that definition as the rule -- then your conclusion does follow. You and everyone else is disingenuous, as they are, in fact, influenced by the things around them.

Only God could claim to be authentic under such a criteria, though. — Moliere

And that's the problem.

This, or something like it, I know from experience. There are different methods - solitary contemplation works for me; for someone I know who suffers from depression, it's analyzing dreams, or it might be writing poetry or keeping a journal. Basically, the process boils down to: See it, name it, accept it, own it. Then it can't own you. — Vera Mont

This is more like denying reality though. You don't genuinely feel anything so those emotions are more or less a lie.

Being under any sort of influence automatically makes it disingenuous as the original quote I cited said.

Alleged Buddhism expert since I have asked other Buddhism people and they say she's wrong. But that quote from the Tao Te is more about just letting things happen rather than fight them, which is supported by psychological research. Resisting a negative thought or idea, etc, ends up building a stronger association to it, rather than just letting it come and go. So actively trying to force something out of your mind does the opposite

So I feel empathy for Darkneos's thoughts. There's a sense in which it can feel like you're being controlled, that there is no escape, and that the people around you don't even acknowledge the propaganda around them.

But that's actually because the best propaganda doesn't look like propaganda to its target audience -- the crudity of propaganda is only apparent upon being perceived as propaganda, upon being able to reduce it to a command. And if you're just putting the glasses on for the first time, it can seem like nobody else has "figured it out" -- but the truth is, just enough people have "figured it out" that it's still effective. (And, as the movie more or less preaches to us, those alien persons who see the field of desire as a machine to be manipulated for their own ends -- They Live! :D) — Moliere

not quite what I'm getting at here.

Try unenlightened's advertisement meditation: whenever you see an advert, analyse it carefully and you will find in every case that it will first seek to provoke in you a negative feeling, and then offer you a solution to make you feel better. — unenlightened

Advertisement doesn't work on me so...

more like you don't understand what solipsism is and likely are making it out to be more than that.

That's not even close. It's literally what it says on the box, nothing else. That you are the only thing that exists, or only person.

Other forms say you can only be sure that you exist and everythign else is uncertain but this is the same thing and just splitting hairs.

I appreciate the thought.

It’s given me some to ponder on. I’m getting a sense of how my mind works and how I seem to judge things. A lot of the metrics I use to judge truth are bullshit and part of me knows it but like you said ego plays a big role in it. Through suffering I can tell myself that I see the world as it truly is, the cold and painful reality that people will ignore and lie to themselves otherwise. But that’s a trap.

The other trap I have is that I follow something if I don’t have an alternative explanation, which is just bad. Just because I don’t have an answer to something doesn’t mean they’re right.

I’m starting to see how much work goes into thinking for yourself but also realizing that doing so means conflicting with others. It’s unavoidable and I guess that means I have to grow out of being a people pleaser.

I think part of me already knows what I think and that I’m capable of it too. It’s just a lack of self esteem or fear of failure (one and the same) that keeps me locked into stuff that hurts.

Letting go of the pain feels like losing and giving up, which isn’t logic. Pain and struggle don’t always mean you’re right, and in my case I’m often in the wrong. I can ask the same question on different platforms, get the same answer each time (that I’m wrong) and then insist that they’re the deluded ones because they choose comforting lies over truth. Though now I see that’s stupid. Even more idiotic is believing something just because it hurts, there’s no logic to that. At least you can make a case for believing something if it’s comforting or soothing from a utility perspective.

Though I think my ego is so wrapped up in being the suffering genius, even though that trope is only in books. That to let go is to be normal and stupid like the unwashed masses (even though I’m in the wrong and other people can read what I read without suffering).

I guess writing it all out I see that I rely entirely on emotions or vibes and not reason or logic. Even though I’m capable of thinking for myself I don’t in order to avoid upsetting people or run the risk of being wrong. You know something’s wrong when you believe someone solely based off the perception that they seem like they know what they’re talking about (story of my life and it always it me in the ass).

Any way to make it stop?