Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site ttidcc.UUCP Path: utzoo!linus!philabs!ttidca!ttidcc!hollombe From: hollombe@ttidcc.UUCP (The Polymath) Newsgroups: net.singles Subject: Re: Hurting the other by a "no" Message-ID: <598@ttidcc.UUCP> Date: Fri, 26-Jul-85 13:58:51 EDT Article-I.D.: ttidcc.598 Posted: Fri Jul 26 13:58:51 1985 Date-Received: Sun, 28-Jul-85 08:49:51 EDT References: <5557@cbscc.UUCP> <591@unc.UUCP> <854@ihlpg.UUCP> <750@ihuxa.UUCP> <1637@hao.UUCP> <882@sphinx.UChicago.UUCP> Reply-To: hollombe@ttidcc.UUCP (The Polymath) Organization: The Cat Factory Lines: 55 Summary: 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. The sensations we refer to as emotions arise within us in response to our perceptions of external stimuli. While we may or may not have any control over the external stimuli, we certainly have control over ourselves, though we may not be aware of it or choose not to exercise it. > One problem with taking it literally and believing it is that >then you may start blaming other people for their emotions, excessively. As opposed to inexcessively? (-: You can blame people for their emotions regardless of your theory of their source and control. Whether it makes any sense or serves any purpose to do so is another matter. > "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.' " "The old Greek may have had something there ..." - Anon. It has been experimentally established that the sensations we interpret as grief, fear, excitement, happiness, etc. are _physiologically identical_ (I don't have the source handy but can look it up if anyone insists). The same experiments established that it is the _context_ of these sensations that lead us to _interpret_ them as being one emotion or another. Thus, by altering our state of mind, or having it altered for us, we can control how we perceive a given situation and how we feel about it. Granted, changing one's mind set may require the defeat of a lifetime of conditioning, which would be a difficult and, usually, uncomfortable process. However, it can be done (I've done it for myself and have helped others). This is not to say it should be done in every case that causes unplesant interpretations of arousal. Most of us react appropriately to situations _because_ of a lifetime of conditioning. It's only when our reactions are inappropriate and/or debilitating that we need to consider a radical change. (Who defines what's inappropriate is another issue altogether and one of the knottier problems in the ethics of psychotherapy). -_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_ The Polymath (aka: Jerry Hollombe) Citicorp TTI Common Sense is what tells you that a ten 3100 Ocean Park Blvd. pound weight falls ten times as fast as a Santa Monica, CA 90405 one pound weight. (213) 450-9111, ext. 2483 {philabs,randvax,trwrb,vortex}!ttidca!ttidcc!hollombe