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