Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/5/84; site randvax.UUCP Path: utzoo!linus!philabs!cmcl2!seismo!lll-crg!dual!qantel!hplabs!sdcrdcf!randvax!edhall From: edhall@randvax.UUCP (Ed Hall) Newsgroups: net.singles Subject: Re: Re: Re: Responsibility for emotions Message-ID: <2624@randvax.UUCP> Date: Sun, 4-Aug-85 23:21:48 EDT Article-I.D.: randvax.2624 Posted: Sun Aug 4 23:21:48 1985 Date-Received: Mon, 12-Aug-85 00:18:19 EDT References: <508@ttidcc.UUCP> <485@oliveb.UUCP> <684@lll-crg.ARPA> Reply-To: edhall@rand-unix.UUCP (Ed Hall) Organization: Rand Corp., Santa Monica Lines: 57 Keywords: emotions, human-potential Summary: being in control (?) Mike O'Brien agrees with some of the tenants of the ``human-potential movement''. So do I. He writes: > Many recent posters on this newsgroup have been espousing a set of > principles and viewpoints based on self-actualization, human potential, > and "taking charge of one's life." But I think the point he makes later in his posting is worth amplifying: > Human potentialists are > the lamest bunch of people I've ever seen when a little quiet sympathy > is wanted. Maybe I don't feel like turning my life around today! Maybe I > want to have a little help just "having" my emotions, till they run out! Amen! Having a good cry, or pounding a wall, or simply moping around for a while are all very human, very natural reactions. And willful control of the the emotions behind them is no more natural than willful control of digestion, blood circulation, tissue regeneration, or whatever. All this talk of ``responsibility'' is silly. So far as ``responsibility'' implies control as well as causality--its usual interpretation--it should have little to do with ones feelings. In an abstract sense, at least, I ``cause'' my emotions. But ``controlling'' them--except in the limited sense of controlling emotional *behavior* within reasonable limits--is a sure-fire way to become an emotional cripple, inhibited and, at bottom, lifeless. I'm not just speaking of what might be called ``excessive self-control''. Prolonging an emotional crisis through willful ``play-acting'' is just as pernicious--it is the latter that the human potentialists rightly condemn (though they often ignore the pernicious nature of some other forms of self-manipulation). Self-pity is at least as bad as self- inhibition. But back to Mike's posting. He goes on to say how after venting emotions: > ... I can take charge of things, with my energy renewed. Old people > who manage to become wise instead of childish have known for millenia > how all this stuff really works. Life has its rhythms. Our organisms have an incredible amount of power and inertia that are simply beyond the reach of our controlling wills. If we work to create the illusion that this is not so, we do so at our peril, as it can only be done by forcing off much that makes us human. > It's hard to think about really new things. Bald, short statements of > the basics of human potential are going to seem really alien to those > who, in this newsgroup, just want to find/get along with a MOTAS. There are no short-cuts. The human-potential movement has its place, as it does a good job of giving people a kick-in-the-pants and deflating the cycle of self-pity. But there are a whole lot of other things to learn about life and living. -Ed Hall decvax!randvax!edhall