Bruno Loff:
Nikolai .:
I think of this particular opinion as an actualist version of the idea of "Truth," a.k.a. "I can see reality better than they can," a mode of self/group-promotion very common in spiritual circles. For instance:
I don't think I have ever had such an opinion. Is this your impression?
I'm sure you're a great guy, I'm a long-time fan

Perhaps that is why I spend my energy disagreeing with you? See: all I have to go by is what you write. I think I was clear as to why I made this point, so let me emphasize where my impression comes from:
Edit: As I typed this reply, my opinion evolved as I saw connections to other aspects of experience.
Bruno:
[the sentence that you wrote and which I quoted in my first post] suggests to me that you think that emotion has a foremost role in the arising of wrong views; that it is the main determining factor.
Then the sentence "I think of this particular opinion ..." is, as stated, what I think of this opinion (the opinion in boldface above): I think of it as an actualist version of the spiritual idea of wisdom (which non-surprisingly the spiritualist/actualist has in higher supply than the rest of mankind). Even if you think that "emotion has the foremost role in the arising of wrong views," you might still disagree that it "is an actualist version of the idea of Truth."
To make it simple: Do you think that emotion is the main cause of the arising of misunderstandings and/or language barriers, preconceived notions of others, and/or bias, and/or wrong views? (because, like I said, that is what your response to Aman
suggests to me) If so, do you concede this is just an opinion, or have you based it on evidence of some kind?
My current take is that emotion is not the main cause of the arising of misunderstandings and/or language barriers. Differing cultures, language issues, not reading the words properly, differing understandings of words and meaning, lack of coffee in the morning etc can all be triggers for an interpretation of text.
I believe that such occurences mentioned above can then act as triggers for the arising of affective feelings within someone where that experiencing affect is the norm. For example, there is a misunderstanding. This situation and all the factors involved in it become the 'object' for the mind to linger on. From here jumps all nama and rupa, giving shape and evaluations to said object. From here jumps all contact and vedana and then the arising of affective feelings, emotions and 'me-ness' , the subjective reaction to the 'object', the situation/misunderstanding that has occurred. I think the affective overlay at the end of the sequence is unavoidable and inevitable unless practicing one's practice at the time of said misunderstanding.
Such situations become the 'object' of consciousness triggering 'interpretations' of an affective nature for someone who experiences affect as the norm. If there is an interpretation of an affective nature such as 'rude and arrogant' triggered by a misunderstanding and/or language barrier, this interpretation, I believe, will not be experienced within that person who interprets what is read without a mentally affective overlay influencing said interpretation.
I'm saying a text that triggers an interpretation of 'rude' and 'arrogant' will always be intrpetated like so due to affective feelings informing the interpretation for someone where affect is the norm. For if there were no affective arising, there would be no assessment and interpretation of 'rude and arrogant' as the language would simply be read as information and if there were a 'misunderstanding' it would not trigger an interpretation of an affective nature as the person would not be experiencing the affect to inform that interpretation. I'm saying that when someone who experiences 'affect' as the norm interprets a text as 'rude and arrogant' , it may be based on misunderstandings and/or language barriers or not having drank the morning coffee, but such a situation coupled with the text being read will become 'objectified' and subjectively reacted towards and then reproduced as the response of accusation of 'rude and arrogant'. I don't think one who experiences affect as the norm would come to the conclusion that a text by someone else is inherently 'rude and arrogant' unless there were explicit visual cues that lead to such a conclusion, e.g. words of abuse or other visual cues like an emoticon with the middle finger sticking up.
However, let me say that even if one is not experiencing 'affect' like justine has expressed, and it is quite hard to describe what does still arise, like his affectless affect (the tears of joy), I think the affectless affect is still a product of the 'objectifying' tendency of mind, triggering sensations without the full forming affect still and this trigger can still lead one to evaluate in the same way as a person where affect is the norm as one will still recognize the familiar charge for such an evaluation and interpretation via the residual shadow of it. However, if this is not occurring and it is simply consciousness without object as wella s the co-arising subjective reaction all the time, there will never be such an interpretation as there will not be any charge or full affect to inform it (unless remembering how visual cues like abusive langauge and emoticons conveyed such info).
I am open to being wrong of course. This is simply my current take due to my own experience of pre and post baseline shift. This opinion is subject to change at the drop of a hat. If however, it acts as a trigger for others to be more wary of how they interpret the written text incorporating such investigations into their practice in how the mind 'objectifies', then I stand by everything I have said.
Nick:
Edit: Just curious, is it hard to figure out if I'm serious when i use all the emoticons?
They make me think that you are uninvolved in the debate.

By the way I do not agree with a lot of what Aman has wrote, although I can guess what causes him to write the way he does. For instance, I am nowadays of the opinion that it is possible to be rude, even if one does not experience emotional upheaval; I consider that a lot of ways that Richard has interacted with others to be extremely rude; in a local example, I consider Trent's admonishing reply to Florian, in
this thread, to be rude. In spite of being convinced that both Richard and Trent have purified their perception to be devoid of emotion.
Yes, it is possible to read that as rude I guess. I didn't but recognize others did via how they responded to him. But I'm saying it is unavoidable and inevitable for someone who has such an interpretation where affect is the norm (or residue of it), to experience such an interpretation without affect informing it. It could be the subtlest of affect arising, a sensation in the chest, throat, coupled with the slightest of mental movements but it is there, unavoidably influencing and informing the interpretation of 'rude' and 'arrogant'. The subjective reaction is unavoidable. Even if the subjective reaction has been reduced to an 'almost affect but not quite affect thus not affect' residue.
And yet let me remind you of what you wrote above:
Nickolay:
Aman:
What happens is that they just suppress their desires/passions and go to great lengths to try to hide them and present it as some sort of freedom or whatever. Some of the claimants also write rudely and then go on to say that they are completely calm and collected when doing so!
And you would know this how?
Concerning 'rude', it might be interesting to do the following experiment to learn how one's own mind filters what one takes in through an affective overlay of one's own creation.(While I don't agree with Aman,) The boldface sentence suggests to me (again I emphasize that the word is suggests, rather than implies) that you think 'rudeness' is a judgement which has an emotional origin, that actually Aman's view that Richard (, say,) is rude can only arise because of him reacting emotionally to Richard's writing; in one further speculative step, it also suggests to me that perhaps you even think that being rude is really not possible while one remains calm and collected. Again, this is just speculation on my part, but perhaps I have gotten it right?
Perhaps i should re-asses how I'm describing what I think. As it has sort of morphed as I have been writing this reply. I believe any mind that 'objectifies' phenomena, regardless of triggers, misunderstandings, language barriers, and experiences a co-arising unavoidable subjective reaction in whatever form, full affect or residue, if the subjective reaction informs an interpretation of 'rude and offensive,' it was informed by affect or its residue. Justine still gets 'irked' by people. Still a subjective reaction, without the full affect forming. His interpretation of them is run through the same 'objectification/subjective reaction' mental overlay.
So, I don't think people with affect as the norm the only ones who will have such interpretations informed by their subjective reaction. Anyone regardless of baseline, full affect or 'affectless affect', they will have such interpretations informed by such a subjective reaction.
Without the 'object/subjective reaction', there is no affect or residue affectless affect to inform the interpretation, unless there are obvious visual cues already mentioned which will lead to an understanding that others may consider such things as 'rude'.
In any case I would repeat my previous point, using "rudeness" instead of "misunderstanding," that there are many possible causes for rude behavior and unskillful behavior in general, other than emotional reactivity (for instance belief, disagreement, lack of context, cultural differences, etc). And perhaps more personally, the fact that you, upon reading Aman's accusation of someone else being rude, propose that he reflect on the role of emotional reactivity in making such accusations, seems to say more about you and your current beliefs, than it says about whether his accusation is legitimate or not (and this is the case even though you are right that emotional reactivity can, by itself, lead a person to think of someone else as rude).
Yes, I think people who profess to no affect can be subjected to the interpretations of others as can those with affect as the norm and interpretations of 'rude' can be triggered by a variety of situations. But for those who still 'objectify' phenomena and thus experience the unavoidable subjective reaction in whatever form, will always interpret according to that affect or affectless affect.
The question of whether it is appropriate to say that Richard is being rude or not is left behind, in favor of introspection at what causes one to make such an assessment; and a very partial kind of introspection, in my opinion.
I am more inclined to lean towards pointing to good practice and interesting and beneficial investigations than defending Richard or tip toeing around others' 'subjective reactions'. My conditioning I guess. If it triggers someone to invesitgate what I am talking about, I'm standing by what I've said.
Forgive me if my sentences are getting longer and more intricate, and I haven't added much to the dialogue.
Bruno
What makes this place great is that we can do that and not have some flame war erupt. You have triggered responses from me and it clarifies what i think and even triggers more investigation within me. I thank you for that. My opinions are subject to change at the drop of a hat.
Nick