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: Hurting the other by a "no" Message-ID: <1397@pyuxd.UUCP> Date: Fri, 2-Aug-85 16:16:30 EDT Article-I.D.: pyuxd.1397 Posted: Fri Aug 2 16:16:30 1985 Date-Received: Sat, 3-Aug-85 10:39:00 EDT References: <5557@cbscc.UUCP> <591@unc.UUCP> Organization: Whatever we're calling ourselves this week Lines: 33 >> I need this book or this person who has told you that control of >>emotions is not healthy. I've got 40+ books on the shelf behind me >>right now that says it is healthy and 3+ psychologists at my disposal >>that will agree. If you have source, PLEASE post/e-mail the title/name. >> Gypsy (Julie Hoff) ...ihnp4!ihuxa!hoff > Did Bruck say his opinion came from a book? Or from someone else? > Why the emphasis on supporting authority from one who is self-actualized? > [KENN BARRY] You know, what I recall of the notion of a self-actualized person was someone on the order of a Jesus, a Buddha, or a Gandhi, a state very few people could possibly attain, a state of self-assuredness and confidence and lack of need for external approval or acceptance often aspired to but rarely achieve. I also seem to remember that a conclusion you could draw is that anyone who called themselves self-actualized probably wasn't. (No offense, Julie.) > The above looks like one more case of one side taking "control > of emotions" to mean controlling the behavior that emotions can engender, > while the other side takes it to mean suppression or denial of the feelings, > themselves. The first side MAY be thought of as controlling the preconceptions about certain classes of experiences that LEAD to certain negative emotions that LEAD to certain behavior in response. > Is this a real debate, or a misunderstanding? Yes. -- Providing the mininum daily adult requirement of sacrilege... Rich Rosen ihnp4!pyuxd!rlr