Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/5/84; site prls.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!philabs!prls!katzman
From: katzman@prls.UUCP (Steve Katzman)
Newsgroups: net.singles
Subject: re: hurting by a no/ choice
Message-ID: <183@prls.UUCP>
Date: Sat, 3-Aug-85 08:08:10 EDT
Article-I.D.: prls.183
Posted: Sat Aug  3 08:08:10 1985
Date-Received: Sun, 4-Aug-85 06:22:58 EDT
Distribution: net
Organization: Philips Res. Labs, Sunnyvale, CA
Lines: 35


	This is my two cents toward the discussion sparked by
Julie Hoff about choosing/controlling/responsibility for our
emotions or feelings.

	I don't think each individual person has an effective
choice about e's emotions. E can make a choice, but can't control
e's emotions directly. E certainly can indirectly.

	Emotion has a broad spectrum of meanings. In "The Concept
of Mind" Gilbert Ryle makes some good arguments related to this
issue. He argues that emotions are not "things possesed by someone"
but rather inclinations to act in certain ways. He claims, and I
am convinced, that some aspects of emotion are not even perceived
by the person experiencing the emotions (e.g. "*I'M NOT ANGRY!!*"),
at least not directly. Of course, some people immediately accept
and act on other's feedback, but this is indirect and can be complicated.
He concludes that emotions must be *determined* by the combination
of the individual's perceived aspects of the emotion and the perceived
aspects of the emotion perceived by others. These other people are 
(from this point of view) necessarily involved in the definition and 
control of an individual's emotions. One possible problem with this
perspective is the case where a person is alone with an emotion.

	My personal experience verifies this. My friends can certainly
make me feel happy or sad, with only my implicit and indirect permission:
allowing them to become a part of my life. 

				Steve Katzman
				seismo!philabs!prls!katzman

-- 

				Steve "What's going on?" Katzman
				seismo!philabs!prls!katzman