Beoman Claudiu Dragon Emu Fire Golem:I'm not sure I agree, actually... You might have gotten it backwards. If a belief is an emotion-backed thought, then it follows that, when there is a belief, there is an emotion fueling and sustaining it. But it does not necessarily follow that when there is an emotion, there is a belief. Consider that it is feelings which give rise to thoughts and not vice versa. Also consider that there are animals who have emotions but not necessarily thoughts. Are their feelings caused by beliefs as well? Or is it the natural order of things to have instinctual passions and emotions, at least for certain animals?
This is an interesting topic, because it is not always clear what is the cause and what is the effect in the chain of experiencing. Take this fragment of one my previous quotes from Richard: "Moreover, all the instinctive drives, urges, impulses, compulsions, demands, pressures, cravings, yearnings, longings – all the instinctual passions which necessitate social conditioning in the first place – will be laid bare with the perspicacity born of pure intent and thus open for examination." What is the meaning of "all the instinctual passion which necessitate social conditioning in the first place"? Isn't Richard suggesting here that a lot of feelings require social beliefs in order to arise?
Richard:
One starts by dismantling the sense of social identity that has been overlaid, from birth onward, over the innate self until one is virtually free from all the social mores and psittacisms … those mechanical repetitions of previously received ideas or images, reflecting neither apperception nor autonomous reasoning. One can be virtually free from all the beliefs, ideas, values, theories, truths, customs, traditions, ideals, superstitions … and all the other schemes and dreams.
When one virtually stops believing, then one virtually stops the social identity, and therefore stops a huge amount of suffering. It was through examining the beliefs that one gets to the raw feelings, so they are pretty much related. I do agree that raw feelings exist, but usually the trigger can be identified as a belief, as in my previous examples. I know that the raw passion is the potential, but the reason for the potential to become real in a given situation comes generally from a belief, no? A feeling rarely manifests without excuses (I know that an excuse could be being in a shooting, but one generally is in other kinds of contexts, at least in the contemporary world). I don't know how to express this actually.

EDIT. I know that our passion shapes our beliefs. For example, capitalism and its values were created as a symptom of our greed, to name an over simplified example. But, once the value is created, it can shape and trigger the original feeling in different ways and levels. I know that if a bride feels bad because her husband didn't give her a nice diamond ring it is her greed speaking, but the greed took form because of a social belief acquired in recent culture. This is where it gets confusing.
Beoman Claudiu Dragon Emu Fire Golem:Also take care here not to completely throw evaluation out the window. Some people simply act more awkwardly - in a manner described by society as awkward - than others. You can tell by their voice tone and body language whether they are comfortable or not. You can be wrong, but still you can make that evaluation, and you can do it without feelings. Likewise, some people are more physically attractive than others... some are more important in certain social circles than others... some people weigh more than they should in order to be as health as they could... etc. It might be worth taking a read-through on the correspondence page about Judgment.
I knew this was going to be controversial, as it is a subtle case. I was not discarding the great human capacity for judgement. In my example I stated: "if a person enters to this room and
affects me in some way". The word "affects" was the key.
What I'm pointing there is the difference between judging with feelings and beliefs and judging without them. I agree that there are more "beautiful" (aka symmetrical) people than others, but is pretty different 2) to appreciate the pleasant sighting for what is and 2) to add desire and nurture to the formula. "Beauty" becomes a belief (emotion-based) when I react to it (attachment, desire, romanticism, idealization, etc.) In other words: I would not react the same as before now if a naked super model entered the room: the sight is pleasant but there is not the same amount of desire, lust, etc. as before. I don't fell in the trap. I changed experientially (not intellectually) according to my reactions, so I can say that I'm more or less free of the belief of "beauty" (beauty as traditionally perceived in the real world), or, in other words, I relatively stopped putting beauty on a pedestal.
The same happens with my "awkward" example, but with "negative" feelings.
EDIT 2. Here I am referring to the feeling aspect of the observation of beauty and awkwardness. This is pretty tricky too, I guess. For example, if a 'normal' human being says to another 'you are important to me', he is using that adjective as a way to communicate his feeling {and he expresses it also because he cherishes this feeling and considers it good}, generally, and the receptor of the message generally feels good, reinforced or proud because of what he heard. I was referring, basically, to this self-referential, egoistic, passionate way of believing that 'I' am important, and not to a factual observation per se. I don't know if this is clearer or made things worse, hehe.
Thoughts?