Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/5/84; site tove.UUCP Path: utzoo!linus!philabs!cmcl2!seismo!umcp-cs!tove!israel From: israel@tove.UUCP (Bruce Israel) Newsgroups: net.singles Subject: Re: Hurting the other by a "no" Message-ID: <284@tove.UUCP> Date: Thu, 25-Jul-85 02:25:52 EDT Article-I.D.: tove.284 Posted: Thu Jul 25 02:25:52 1985 Date-Received: Fri, 26-Jul-85 02:17:07 EDT References: <2390@ut-sally.UUCP> <754@ihuxa.UUCP> <2459@ut-sally.UUCP> Reply-To: israel@tove.UUCP (Bruce israel) Organization: U of Maryland, Laboratory for Parallel Computation, C.P., MD Lines: 104 In article <2459@ut-sally.UUCP> pooh@ut-sally.UUCP writes: >> Sorry, luv. If you give someone else responsibility for and >> control of your actions and reactions (EMOTIONS, is what I'm talking >> of) then you are living through them, not through yourself. If this >> is what you want, then it is your choice. (gee, there's that word >> again.) > >Bull paddies. I argue that no one has complete control of >his or her emotional reactions, and moreover, that it is unhealthy >to seek control. It is normal to react to the actions of >another--and if you call that "living through" him/her, fine. I agree that no one (at least that I know of) has complete control of his emotional reactions. But you ARE responsible for them, whether or not you actually want to take responsibility for them. It IS normal to react to the actions of others, but you don't necessarily have to react as you think they want you to, or even have to react in any particular way. If you DO feel that you HAVE TO react in some way, then you are giving up responsibility for the actions of yours and that part of your life, and you have let yourself be run by the events around you. > >What disturbs me most about this school of thinking that >you appear to be espousing is that when you claim Joe has >complete responsibility for his emotions, you are freeing yourself >from any responsibility for them, thereby leaving yourself >free to hurt him with impunity. That isn't what is meant by responsibility. For me to say that you are responsible for your emotions IS NOT THE SAME as me saying that I am not responsible for your emotions! Also, it doesn't necessarily mean that I would want to do something to hurt them. > I believe that TO A CERTAIN >EXTENT (limits subject to debate), we are all responsible >for the feelings of our fellow humans. Becoming involved >in a relationship means assuming (willingly) more responsibility >for your partner's feelings and emotional welfare. I couldn't agree more! You see, people listen to the point of view as (very ably) espoused by Julie that says "We are responsible for our emotions and attitudes." (a more general version would say that we are responsible for our experience of the world) and they hear it not as it was said, but in a different, more selfish form which says that "I am not responsible for anyone else's emotions (or attitudes, or experiences etc)." I view that philosophy not as a selfish philosophy (in terms of avoiding responsibilities), but as a more selfless one. i.e. to illustrate its implications from the top down: I am responsible for my section of the universe. (might as well get very general). I would like that section to be the best possible section for me (I know this sounds selfish, but I know its in me, and I put it to you that if you say that this is absolutely not a factor in your life at all, the you are only BULLSH*TTING yourself!) I take responsibility for other people's emotions (not that I take it FROM them; just that I take it IN ADDITION to them). Since I've found that life works better when people around me are happy, then one aspect of my responsibility is to see that people are happy. Note that if this is not necessarily the only driving force (though for some people it is; you know, the people who ONLY live for other people's lives, like the martyr types among others), but is usually tempered with "I've found that life works better (when there is more honesty in my life, when others learn more and are more self-reliant, etc). These other options allow me to be flexible in my reactions so that I can choose the best course of action based on what I think the situation warrants or needs. (Not that I by any means always operate in this fashion, but I view it as something to strive for). >Disclaiming or rejecting responsibility for the effect your >actions have on someone's emotions may make yourself feel >better (and more able to become The Best Person You Can >Possibly Be), but it strikes me as selfish and insensitive. > Yes it is, but as I implied above, the more responsibility you take for the world, the LESS selfish and MORE sensitive you are required to be. And I think that only by taking more and more responsibility for the world can you become "The Best Person You Can Possibly Be". >> Gypsy (Julie Hoff) ...ihnp4!ihuxa!hoff > >Pooh > >pooh@purdue-ecn-cb.ARPA pur-ee!pooh > >Still fighting for the big issues-- > in my small, individual way. . . Keep on fighting! It's the only way that we'll all win ... -- Bruce Israel University of Maryland, Computer Science {rlgvax,seismo}!umcp-cs!israel (Usenet) israel@Maryland (Arpanet) Enclaimer: The above opinion (no matter how ridiculous, dumb, or asinine) IS intended to be construed as the official opinion and/or policy of my employers, family, friends, and any other organizations I happen to be associated with, no matter how indirectly, including the automobile club and the commercial television networks that I watch.