Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site pyuxd.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!gamma!pyuxww!pyuxd!rlr
From: rlr@pyuxd.UUCP (Rich Rosen)
Newsgroups: net.singles
Subject: Re: A compromise on emotional self-determinism
Message-ID: <1505@pyuxd.UUCP>
Date: Wed, 14-Aug-85 17:19:51 EDT
Article-I.D.: pyuxd.1505
Posted: Wed Aug 14 17:19:51 1985
Date-Received: Sun, 18-Aug-85 01:48:24 EDT
References: <393@boulder.UUCP>
Organization: Whatever we're calling ourselves this week
Lines: 39

I think everyone agrees that it is possible to control your emotions.
The difference of opinions involves what is meant by that and the
subsequent effect.

1) Controlling emotions = suppressing emotions.  EFFECT = negative.
	The notion is that suppressing natural emotional responses
	is unhealthy, running a risk of various physical ailments.
	FALLACY?  Most certainly not -- people do this, though it
	may not be healthy.

2) Controlling emotions = deciding how you will react to a situation.
	EFFECT = positive.  FALLACY?  No.  The notion here seems to
	be that you can unlearn non-rational emotional associations
	(like associating public speaking or some other "awful" event
	with "awfulness") and relearn more rational ones consciously,
	thus breaking the association of an event with a negative
	emotion and thus not experiencing that negative or counterproductive
	emotion.

3) Controlling emotions = my will deciding how I will feel about things.
	EFFECT = positive.  FALLACY?  Most likely, yes.  People have claimed
	that they have willfully changed their likes and dislikes and such at
	will, but closer examination indicates that what actually happens is
	example of (2) above.  Unfortunately, there are those who insist
	that this is an innate capability inherent in everybody (probably
	true though it must be learned), and that you are (somehow)
	responsible for exercising (2)-like functions (or not) whether or
	not you have learned them, which still strikes me as very very odd,
	and has struck others as a bit disdainful of those who haven't
	learned it.  Such people insist on NOT using the word "blame",
	but this is clearly (to me) a public relations ploy so as not to
	use such negative terms:  if your life is in a negative way, and
	you are said to be responsible for that, since responsibility for a
	negative thing is blame (by definition), the person is thus being
	blamed.

I think that outlines the extremes of position.
-- 
"Do I just cut 'em up like regular chickens?"    Rich Rosen    ihnp4!pyuxd!rlr