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: BEING RESPONSIBLE Message-ID: <2630@randvax.UUCP> Date: Tue, 6-Aug-85 21:00:34 EDT Article-I.D.: randvax.2630 Posted: Tue Aug 6 21:00:34 1985 Date-Received: Mon, 12-Aug-85 22:17:45 EDT References: <2471@ut-sally.UUCP> <1660@hao.UUCP> <891@oddjob.UUCP> <1674@hao.UUCP> Reply-To: edhall@rand-unix.UUCP (Ed Hall) Organization: Rand Corp., Santa Monica Lines: 64 Greg Woods, in response to an anonymous quote: > > There's no need to argue about whether a person can exercise > > complete control over their emotions. An experiment would serve. > > You are right, there is no need to argue that point. That isn't the point > that is being argued, either, although lots of postings from those who > want to be emotional "victims" seem to say so. If I may beg to differ, Greg, there are some folks who likely do *not* want to be ``emotional "victims"'' who are arguing that point. And I suspect a number of them, like me, resent this not-so-cleverly concealed argument-by-insult. > *I* never said anything > about complete control, nor did anyone who "agrees" with me in this > discussion. What we *did* talk about was choice. Complete control would > mean that someone never chooses to feel bad. I didn't say that. In some > situations, choosing to feel bad may be appropriate for the person in > question. But nevertheless it *is* a choice to react that way. It isn't > a "bad" choice, it's just a choice. You're on safe ground saying no one has ``complete control'', as it hardly takes any thought to come up with counterexamples. But this business about ``choice'' involves a special sense of that word, and not what most people mean by ``choice''. To most folks, having a choice involves awareness of the possibility, while in your sense the possibility alone is what creates the ``choice''. There is a *big* difference, especially when you start getting into matters of subjective awareness, perception of relative merit, coersion, and other complicating factors. > Knowing that it is a choice, you can > also choose to get off that emotional track after a while instead of wallowing > in it for ages and ages as I see so many people doing unnecessarily. Here you are hitting the nail on the proverbial head--I couldn't agree with you more! Sometimes all someone needs is a pointing finger or a kick in the pants. But other, more serious situations, require a lot more than perception of a possibility's existance before a choice (in the general sense of the word) can be made. What confuses things is the sujective perception of this process, where one finds it hard to perceive a possibility as such until all the groundwork has been laid, at which point it can (and often does) occur as a sudden ``Ah Ha!''. Big choices have that quality--just ask anyone who has experienced religious conversion--but the hard part, the preparation, takes a lot longer. To say that someone making a choice has just proven they always had the ability to do so distorts the situation severely. > Well, obviously I have chosen to feel a little annoyed at Matt putting words > into my mouth (or should I say "our mouths" since there seem to be lots of > people saying pretty much the same thing on both sides of this discussion), > but now I can choose to post this and get off of that. (1/2 :-) I've seen more than two sides, here, with Mike O'Brien injecting an especially interesting third perspective. To wit (as I understand it): The ``Take Charge Of Your Life'' school of human potential is all fine and good as far as it goes, but it is incomplete. It hands one a very powerful tool for self-development, but one that has its misuse as well as its use. And there are other tools, and other paths. > --Greg -Ed Hall decvax!randvax!edhall