Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 (Tek) 9/28/84 based on 9/17/84; site azure.UUCP Path: utzoo!linus!philabs!cmcl2!seismo!harvard!talcott!panda!genrad!decvax!tektronix!teklds!azure!chrisa From: chrisa@azure.UUCP (Chris Andersen) Newsgroups: net.singles Subject: Re: Hurting the other by a "no" Message-ID: <382@azure.UUCP> Date: Fri, 26-Jul-85 00:00:43 EDT Article-I.D.: azure.382 Posted: Fri Jul 26 00:00:43 1985 Date-Received: Sun, 28-Jul-85 05:08:22 EDT References: <5557@cbscc.UUCP> <591@unc.UUCP> <854@ihlpg.UUCP> <750@ihuxa.UUCP> <1637@hao.UUCP> <882@sphinx.UChicago.UUCP> Reply-To: chrisa@azure.UUCP (Chris Andersen) Organization: Tektronix, Beaverton OR Lines: 102 Okay, this may be a little bit to deeply philosophical for this newsgroup, but I just can't leave this one sitting around since it goes basically against everything (and I do mean EVERYTHING) which I have come to believe in. (NOTE To those who might complain that I should do this by e-mail: I think this applies very well to net.singles and to any situation in which emotions come into play) In article <882@sphinx.UChicago.UUCP> mmar@sphinx.UChicago.UUCP (Mitchell Marks) writes: > >The idea that you yourself cause your emotions is quite obviously wrong, >if you mean it seriously and literally. It might be a very helpful motto, >or starting point, for increasing your awareness of emotions and control >over what they do to you and you do to them. And in using it that way, >you might temporarily and tentatively tell yourself that you believe >it as a fact. But don't lock yourself into thinking that it really >is a fact -- since, of course, it isn't by a long shot, not (I repeat) >if you mean it seriously and literally. I do mean it seriously AND literally and I fail to see how it is "obviously wrong" (and I take it as an offense that you would attack someones beliefs that way). How one reacts emotionally to any situation is purely and totally based on how one takes it. And how one takes it is based 1) on those emotional reactions hard-wired into our system and 2) over-rides to those reactions which we build into ourselves over our lives based upon past emotional experiences. In other words, we are all born with a set number of "default" emotional reactions (left-over survival mechanisms), but we can choose to over-ride those reactions and replace them with tailored reactions. Now the process of doing this isn't perfect (every suit of armor has a few chinks) but that doesn't mean that it is "obviously wrong". > One problem with taking it literally and believing it is that >then you may start blaming other people for their emotions, excessively. One problem with NOT taking it literally and NOT believing it is that then you may start to blame everyone else for causing your emotions (ie whining) > "There are things which are within our power, and there are things >which are beyond our power. Within our power are opinion, aim, desire, >aversion, and, in one word, whatever affairs are our own. Beyond our >power are body, property, reputation, office, and, in one word, whatever >are not properly our own affairs." Sounds good to me. One problem you may have with this philosophy is that it seems to imply that one cannot have any effect on what happens in the world around you ("Beyond our power...whatever are not properly our own affairs"). However, please note that anything one might wish to change in this world THEN BECOMES your own affair and thus something you have the power to change. (In other words, anything you wish to change, you have the power to change, you just aren't garaunteed (sp?) that you WILL be able to change it). >The entirety of section VIII: > "Demand not that events should happen as you wish; but wish them to >happen as they do happen, and you will go on well." Sounds sort of like: "Give into fate" doesn't it? I think not. To me it seems to say, "Seek what you want, but do not demand of the Universe what it cannot give." >And from section XVI: > "When you see anyone weeping for grief, either that his son has >gone abroad or that he has suffered in his affairs, take care not to be >overcome by the apparent evil, but discriminate and be ready to say, "What >hurts this man is not this occurrence itself--for another man might not be >hurt by it--but the view he chooses to take of it.' " This does not mean that one should blame the grieving man for his emotions. It says nothing about placing blame at all. It only says where the source of emotions are, within us all. >And so on. Very beautiful writing, and a view which is stimulating and >can be comforting when you need it...but bleak as hell in the long run. Bleak? Depends on how you read it (just as everything philosophical can present a different meaning, depending on how one reads it (thus the danger of philosophy)). Personally I can see nothing bleak in this philosophy. It is one that I have been following for the last year or so and let me tell you, it has turned my life around. It is only when I lose sight of it that I start getting depressed and starting reverting to "whine mode" (as I did a couple of weeks ago in this very newsgroup). And that brings to a close another meeting of the Amateur Philosophers Society of Net.singles (APSONS). Whew after that I think I need a hug. Life, Love, Laughter, and Hope, Chris Andersen -- tektronix!azure!chrisa