What are "feelings?"
A disruptive revelation...
In the ruins around Al-Kfeir…
Feelings are brain functions. They’re not limited to human brains, we may suppose, but we can’t be sure because no other animals can express their feelings in speech
We, however, can both express them—in words that is—and manifest them via facial expression, physical action, etc.
We were washing dishes one evening; my 7yo was next to me at the sink drying them; I was still feeling upset about an altercation at dinner. When we finished I said, “Thanks for that.” He said, “Do you mean it bad, or do you mean it good?” My young son had already learned to detect the difference sarcasm might make to the meaning of an expression
What we feel not only affects the sense and quality of what we say, it shapes our relationships: I attach feelings to those around me and to their actions
This is so elemental a feature of human life that we mistake both its origin and its consequences, perhaps more frequently than any other aspect of our experience
The first mistake we make is that things or actions cause feelings
I repeat for emphasis: NOTHING in the world causes my feelings. It’s always false to say, “It makes me feel…”
Here’s the argument that justifies—and proves—the claims I’ve just made:
Feelings are “brain functions” and there are only four—anger, sadness, joy, and fear. (My partner Dr Jane Jones likes this mnemonic: “mad, sad, glad, and scared”)1
The central point is that I generate my feelings; and then, without being aware, I attach my feelings to things
Philosophers too were long confused about this; the Greeks, for example, held that feelings were unruly aspects of the mind over which another part of mind—reason—had to exert control; this picture persisted into the common era, but was modified with the rise of Christianity to characterize feelings—“vices”—as threats to the “soul,” which required control or demanded avoidance to ensure salvation
Augustine [354-450] invented the concept of “sin” to further segregate feelings—especially sexual ones—from the “higher” qualities of mind
David Hume [1711-1776] was the first to correctly interpret feelings as primary2
Hume argued that feeling preceded any “rational” judgment, to the extent that, as he put it, “Reason alone is never a motive for action”
In other words, we are moved—that is, motivated to act—by our feelings; it is not until I attach a feeling to an act or an outcome that I experience intention, expectation, disappointment, and so on
The basic confusion arises from the fact that when I have an experience I have already attached feelings to it
The person ahead in line who “takes too long” for the transaction does not make me angry: instead I have already attached anger to any delay (and so to this person causing the delay); the driver who “cuts me off” doesn’t make me angry: I have, in a sense, been waiting for him or her to trigger the feelings I attach to traffic, or to other drivers
For an insight into what life might be like if one didn’t attach (mostly negative) feelings to things, consider a family going on a picnic: when they arrive it begins to rain; the parent(s) complain or otherwise express anger; the children (especially if young) simply get out and play in it.
Another example: civil war displaces thousands; people flee and take refuge where they can. Syria is in the 10th year of such a war and we have all seen film of the destruction and the suffering and sadness. But the children in the photo at the top of this page are playing in the ancient ruins around Al-Kfeir, amongst which their families have been forced to seek shelter…
I don’t mean to suggest that we can avoid attaching feelings to things; feelings are generated in our brains: there are specific neuronal connections devoted to their formation and expression
What we can do is become and remain aware of the extent to which we color and shape our experience by attaching feelings: I can practice being aware of the feelings I habitually attach to things
Siddhartha Gautama [ca. 560BCE - 480BCE] became the Buddha—the “enlightened”—upon arguing that all the problems of human life, what he called life’s “bitterness,” arose from expectations
Buddha called expectations tanha—the act of “grasping”—which is to say, seeking to get what you don’t have (or to get rid of what you do)
On Buddha’s account, I can be released from bitterness by ceasing this “grasping” (which is usually translated as “desire”); the term he used for this is nirvana
(Yes, nirvana is a verb in the original language: ceasing our grasping for things. It’s not a noun naming a place or a state, as it’s typically used in English. It’s an action I myself can and must take)
So early Buddhism was not a religion; it was a practice. The point here is that it takes practice to reframe my experience of my own feelings, not to mention recognizing the things to which I attach my anger, fear, and so on
To begin with, note the occasions on which you’re inclined to say “It makes me…” or “It drives me crazy when…” or “It pisses me off that…”
Change always begins with changing the language we use…
[Stay tuned for Part Two…]
Some add “disgust” to this list. I think disgust a combination of anger & fear; of course, it doesn’t fit the rhyme either…
In the 17th c. the term for “feelings” was still passions; this reflected the ancient picture that we suffered our feelings: I was passive while they happened to me or they befell me
We were taught at a young age that no one else but ourselves could not make us “feel like,” or “feel” any way at all. Judging from my how those memories strike me now, I am clearly not a practicing Buddhist. Lol!