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