|
Post by Kiwi on Nov 9, 2006 2:41:47 GMT -4
So you want me to change my thoughts until they aren't upset? No, it's you who should want to do that, although I certainly think it would be an excellent idea. I don't care. I.e.: Provided your behaviour meets the rules I don't emote about what you do on this board. I simply choose not to because it is foolish to bother myself and get negative, and you too, in my opinion. Believe me, when you can make choices like that you live a much more happy, balanced, productive life. I do work on my own thoughts along the lines you suggest and have for a long time. It's not always easy because I am a long-term invalid and I don't always have the abilities that healthy people do, but I certainly do much better than many healthier people who are far, far higher up the socio-economic heap than I am. A complaining, whining acquaintance whom I blackmailed into reading that book completely changed his life in less than three weeks and became a very good friend. It was hard to believe the spectacular change; how the book liberated him and freed him up to be the real person that was hiding away inside, a slave of his mostly negative emotions. I certainly love the idea of being told that my thoughts are wrong when I disagree with the actions of a member on this forum.Did I say in my last post that it is wrong to disagree? Certainly not. I enjoy disagreements as long as they are handled properly. We can disagree without getting emotional, can't we? That's what grown-ups do. Surely, you have misinterpreted something, perhaps by being too emotional about it? Our emotions can blind us to reality. Are you telling me that if I discovered your most personal secrets and shared them on this forum along with insults toward your loved ones, it would be your fault for getting upset about it?Probably. They would only be words on a page. Your doing such a thing cannot upset me if I never learn about it. It is only what I tell myself about you doing it that can upset me, and, with practice, I can choose what I tell myself. People have done worse than that in the past and I've been able to be relatively unemotional about it, or at least pull myself together if I allowed negativity to creep in. Try it. It works. You do have a choice, you know. Someone once made up an untrue rumour about a good friend and me and when he told me, I thought about it for a few seconds then smiled and said, "Well, I'm more amused than annoyed." He frowned and said, "I'm more annoyed than amused!" How far does that go? If I brutally murdered your family, would it be your fault for being upset about it?Probably not. It's highly likely I would get a tad irritated , but let's not get carried away. We are not talking about murder, we are talking about simple words on a page, a somewhat different thing. Let's crawl before we try sprinting. Because, as you say, it is impossible for me to get inside your head and control your thoughts to make you upset.Exactly. Certainly on this forum. And impossible for me to do it to you too. If I do not have the right on this forum to disagree with and have some emotional response to the actions or opinions of other members, then what rights do I have at all?You're talking about that, not me. Surely your own common sense tells you the answer, doesn't it? Find the book -- it's out of print -- and read it. If nothing else, just read pages 20-24 and the last chapter. It has lots of excellent stuff, such as chapters called, "You don't need their approval"; "Breaking free from the past"; "The useless emotions -- guilt and worry" (which I particularly needed); and "Farewell to anger", which we are touching on here. Edited to add a cut and paste about the book mentioned in the last thread :Logic: Major Premise: I can control my thoughts Minor Premise: My feelings come from my thoughts. Conclusion: I can control my feelings. "Someone's death does not make you unhappy; you cannot be unhappy until you learn of the death, so it's not the death but what you tell yourself about the event." --- Your Erroneous Zones, Dr Wayne W. Dyer, Avon, New York, 1976, pages 21 & 23. Yes, I know that he might have since turned into a woo-woo, but that doesn't lessen the power of his 30-year-old message that can and does change lives for the better. We cannot upset you because it is impossible for us to get inside your head and control your thoughts. Only you have that power. So get your thoughts right and treat yourself with more self-respect than upsetting and bothering yourself. Change your thoughts from, "You hurt my feelings," to, "I'm being a dope and hurting my own feelings over what you did."
|
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on Nov 9, 2006 12:24:37 GMT -4
I disagree that guilt is a useless emotion. Guilt can be a motivator for positive change in your own life. I can't make as strong a case for Worry, but worry can lead to catching important details others miss. Worrying about things you can't change at all is probably pretty pointless, but it's also sometimes too easy to convince yourself that you can't change something when you really can.
I do agree that how much offense we take at someone else's actions is entirely up to us. I would also point out that choosing whether to be upset and chosing what actions to take to correct a wrong can be two entirely seperate issues.
|
|
|
Post by gillianren on Nov 9, 2006 16:28:07 GMT -4
I don't agree, honestly. When someone posted a comment to my journal ridiculing me and telling me that my daughter isn't my daughter because I gave her up for adoption, it hurt. It's a subject on which I'm sensitive--and I frankly don't want to be less sensitive. She's my kid, and even though I gave her up, it's still part of my job to love her and worry about her. And protect her. If people say bad things about her, I'm supposed to do something about it.
Also, I have a great deal of psychological issues that mean that I'm apparently not as much in control of my brain as you two. I can't "just not get upset." I'm not wired that way.
|
|
reynoldbot
Jupiter
A paper-white mask of evil.
Posts: 790
|
Post by reynoldbot on Nov 9, 2006 20:18:02 GMT -4
So you think it's wrong to have an emotional response to something I disagree with? Emotion is a big part of what makes us human. You are basically telling me that I should become complacent. The only way for me to not be emotional about the opinion you presented would be to change what I think about your opinion. You are telling me that I should agree with you because it would make me happy. Well, people shouldn't always be hunky dorey with everything that they are told. Would be it be right for me to be happy and fine if President Bush got on the television and told me that he is going to start putting illegal immigrants in concentration camps?
So your motto is: "make yourself be happy no matter what."
Your self-help mantra is fine for you but don't try and peddle it on me. I have the right to express emotion how I please and you have no place to tell me how I should feel.
[/b]
Probably. They would only be words on a page. Your doing such a thing cannot upset me if I never learn about it. It is only what I tell myself about you doing it that can upset me, and, with practice, I can choose what I tell myself.[/quote]
This idea sounds dangerous to me. It sounds like you are bottling your emotions up. That's not healthy. It would be right for you to be upset because I would be violating your privacy. I could potentially do real damage to you and your family by releasing personal secrets.
I do have a choice and I would certainly rather express myself than let people walk all over me.
What if they were the same thing? What if secrets and personal information I revealed on this website led to the murder of your family?
I completely disagree that an emotional response is purely the result of the person having it. I wouldn't have gotten upset if you hadn't made those claims. I'm actually much more upset that you are telling me that emotion is a nuisance you have to bottle up. While it is technically correct that you cannot get into the synapses and neurons of my brain and turn on the "upset" switch, to deny any correlation is ridiculous. In the real world, people have emotional responses to the things other people say and do. It certainly is not wrong to have those emotional responses.
I can see now why you acted so condescending towards freon in the other thread. You have this warped notion that it is everybody else's fault when they get upset at things you say.
|
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on Nov 10, 2006 12:01:53 GMT -4
I agree with Kiwi's general idea - it is always your choice as to whether you are offended by another. No one can force you to react in a particular way.
That does not mean that others are justified in intentionally provoking you, and it doesn't mean that you shouldn't get upset when something truly horrible happens to you that is another's fault. It merely means tht it is always your choice how you react to anything, and your actions are your responsibility, not those of the person who provoked you.
|
|
|
Post by gillianren on Nov 10, 2006 12:38:43 GMT -4
I'm sorry, but that simply isn't true, and I'm tired of hearing that it is.
I admit that my own responses are exacerbated by brain chemistry and low self-esteem (which is partially caused by the brain chemistry and partially by emotional trauma in early childhood), but I do firmly believe that getting angry when someone's a jerk is a natural response, and suppressing the emotion is not. In fact, I agree that suppressing emotions, even so-called "negative" ones, is unhealthy.
To be fair, I do believe that some emotions are genuinely unhealthy--jealousy, for one. But anger isn't, always. Anger is a perfectly justifiable response to certain stimuli, and if you don't experience it, you're cutting yourself off from the human experience. What's more, anger often goads people into action--often positive action--to do something to correct the problem. I think the entire Civil Rights movement has anger at its root; it's just channeled constructively.
My manic rages are not a healthy response because all I can do is keep from killing people when I'm in that state. However, anger that isn't manic can get me to actually get up and accomplish things.
I want to control my emotions better, gods know. Both being too far down and too far up (and the rage is tied to the mania) are bad for me. However, I just want to stabilize. I don't want to lose any of the emotions; I just want them to stop being debilitating, and no self-help book will accomplish that; it's how my brain is wired.
Actually, I have a friend whose mom needs to express her anger; suppressing it is keeping her in a bad relationship.
|
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on Nov 10, 2006 13:04:14 GMT -4
I see nothing wrong with occasional anger. Acting out of anger at an offense is a different matter. When someone says something you find offensive the worst thing you can do is immediately type out a long rant about how angry they've made you - it simply isn't productive. A much better choice is to take some time to digest what was said and then produce a thoughtful response that may make it clear that you were offended but is not merely an expression of your anger. No matter what someone has said to you, your own response is your responsibility, not theirs.
EDIT - spelling
|
|
reynoldbot
Jupiter
A paper-white mask of evil.
Posts: 790
|
Post by reynoldbot on Nov 10, 2006 18:12:53 GMT -4
That is exactly what I was doing in the other thread. I told Kiwi that I was upset about the comments but that I meant no ill will towards him. Then he told me to "get my thoughts right" and it greatly offended me. Controlling emotion is one thing, stifling the expression of emotion is entirely another. Kiwi is peddling a self-help gimmick that suppresses emotion in favor of politeness. He told me that it would be a good thing to change my opinion to be happy rather than disagree with him and be emotional.
Should I change my opinions and beliefs to satisfy a sense of politeness on this forum? I think not. Kiwi can speak for himself but he has no right to tell me how to feel. If I had to choose between natural anger and forced happiness, I would choose natural anger any time.
|
|
|
Post by LunarOrbit on Nov 12, 2006 1:36:14 GMT -4
I was originally going to just ignore this thread, but I've given it some thought and I have decided to offer my opinion on it:
Some of the things that separate us from animals are our self awareness and our ability to predict the consequences of our actions. I do believe we can (and in some cases must) control our emotional responses to things.
Experiencing an emotion is not the problem, it's just how we respond to them that we should try to control. The fact that our emotions are perfectly natural doesn't mean we should act on those emotions in the most natural way, especially when those emotions are negative. Otherwise every wife beater and murderer would be able to use "I'm sorry, your honour, but it was an emotional response... it's not my fault!" as an excuse for their actions.
Like I said, we are not animals. We recognize our emotions and we recognize the consequences of our actions, so our emotions are no excuse for acting out negatively. I'm not saying you don't have the right to get angry when someone provokes you, and you're certainly free to respond to them, just try to do so as politely as possible. This medium gives you plenty of time to consider your response... it's not like you don't have an opportunity to censor yourself.
Having said all that, I will agree that there is no justification for intentionally provoking negative emotions in this forum. All I ask is that everyone be polite.
|
|
|
Post by gillianren on Nov 12, 2006 2:29:04 GMT -4
Oh, don't get me wrong. You can control your actions except under a list of very specific circumstances. (Drugs, extreme youth, and certain neurological disorders like severe schizophrenia or Alzheimer's.) I just object to being told that I shouldn't have the feelings, or even that I shouldn't protest when people say something I find hurtful.
There are several different ways that not protesting is actually harmful. FIrst off, if the person is doing it accidentally, telling them that they're saying hurtful things might make them stop. Second, it could be a misinterpretation on your part, and you could get it cleared up and realized that you and the other person are closer to an understanding than you thought. Third, suppressing the anger does bad things to your emotional--and possibly even physical--health. Fourth, it's entirely possible that protesting to the right person will get the problem solved, especially if they seem to be doing it intentionally.
Note that I'm not advocating just random lashing out, here. That is a reaction that you can control. However, a reaction is completely justified.
|
|
reynoldbot
Jupiter
A paper-white mask of evil.
Posts: 790
|
Post by reynoldbot on Nov 13, 2006 6:26:17 GMT -4
I'm certainly aware of the importance of controlling my emotions. I feel that I have been in no way shape or form excessively harsh or impolite based on my emotional reactions on this forum. I had no strong emotional reactions to the subject matter in the other thread. Kiwi picked a bunch of words out of my posts and in displaying them told me that being emotional at all was a bad thing and that I should stop it.
Kiwi made an assumption that I must be unhappy and is pushing a self-help book on me because I don't think suppressing my emotions is healthy. Arguing passionately is not the same as being emotionally unstable.
First Kiwi shunned somebody for using a term in a way that is both culturally and technically acceptable. Now Kiwi is shunning me for expressing my argument in even a vaquely emotional way.
|
|
|
Post by gillianren on Nov 13, 2006 19:28:36 GMT -4
I did feel you were lashing out a little more than was warranted, but I do respect your right to have been upset.
|
|
|
Post by Kiwi on Nov 13, 2006 21:54:50 GMT -4
Sorry folks, I haven't deserted this topic and particularly want to get back to it because I consider it a very worthwhile one to discuss and compare notes. It's always good to tackle one's "demons" and I had a few of those, as did my sisters, having had a bad-tempered and cruel mother, and also had a few childhood traumas, but I'm sure not worse than yours, Gillian. Will post one below, at the bottom.
However, my health took a dive on Friday and I've only made two brief posts in the hoax topic, came back to only read on two occasions, and could hardly read properly another day so didn't come back at all. It's nothing -- happens all the time. I'm very grateful that I have many more good days now than in the 90s, but I still get bowled easily and have always been a sporadic poster on bulletin boards. Being out of action also means having to devote time to neglected matters when better.
Reynoldbot -- I think you might have brought up another bit of culture I'm not aware of -- your use of shun. I've only known it to mean "to keep clear of; deliberately avoid" and you've indicated that you'd prefer I had done exactly that! So please tell me what shun means in the way you've used it. I always say I haven't had a good day unless I've learned something new.
Just one thing till I get back, you might want to go over your first post in this thread, and perhaps the other thread, and consider whether I really did say some of the things that you've said I did. Don't assume or read between the lines or anything like that, because unless you get it dead right the first time your conclusion is more likely to be a result of your thoughts and feelings than mine. I talk pretty straight, don't play PC, and try not to confuse by alluding or hinting. If I haven't written it, I probably don't mean it (E&OE!).
If you or anyone else says something I'm unsure about I will always ask you to explain it to me, as I have done above. I try to never insult people by assuming wrongly about them, and to only go by the evidence in front of me. But naturally I'm far from perfect too.
One of the personal issues I have to deal with now is a guy who does a lot of assuming and "reading between the lines," and nearly always gets it wrong. He just never seems to learn, and as a result has imagined slights where there are none, made up some quite untrue things about me, and blown others out of proportion. Fortunately his latest email allows me to prove this to him in what I hope will be a non-confrontational way. We used to be good friends, helping each other with a particular project, but whereas he once understood, he now often tells me off for actually doing no more than being an invalid, which I can't help. He is intelligent, fairly well read, probably better educated than me, and may be the only person I've met who already understood what I'm talking about in post 1. His recent imaginings have really driven a wedge between us and his behaviour has been quite bizarre at times. He's over 70 and has health and memory problems, which I clearly must take into account. Living at a distance I thought it best to just stay as friendly as possible and try to not aggravate anything until I found a suitable opening if one ever arose.
From paragraph 1: Ever screamed in terror under water in the sea because you're out of your depth, a long way from shore, can't swim, too scared to open your eyes, and only four or five years old? You have swallowed and breathed in salt water, which hurts, and desparately want to get away from the monster that shoved you under and held you there, yet think that if you do get away you'll probably die and the only thing that can save you is the monster. It's not particularly nice. Eventually monster relents and pulls you out and when you get back on shore you throw up and cry and shake and cry and shake and cry and shake, and your big sisters look pretty miserable for a long time too. Having them there is a bit of a comfort, but the world at that time still feels like a horrible, nasty, lonely place. The monster -- your mother -- looks quite okay though. It's just another picnic at the beach.
<Fixed typo.>
|
|
|
Post by gillianren on Nov 13, 2006 23:52:59 GMT -4
Okay, yeah, that's worse than mine. I've never been abused, but my father died when I was six and left me with a whole heap of issues, including, of course, abandonment issues.
|
|
|
Post by Kiwi on Nov 14, 2006 1:15:45 GMT -4
Wow, I'm sorry Gillian. I think I've heard you say that before, but if so it went much deeper this time. I'm not at all trying to be controverisial, but I don't agree with your assessment because any "pain" I felt later was regarding a particular one-off event that time eventually dimished, it wasn't regarding an ongoing loss like yours, which it is to a child. But in any case I feel there's little to be gained by comparing such things on any scale because they are all relative to the individual. I don't doubt that worse things have happened to others who handled them better than you and I handled ours, and lesser things have happened to others who handled them worse than you and me.
Abandonment is a big issue that I know about too, though from a different perspective, starting when my second sister and I were both little -- her crying in the bed next to mine after being punished and saying, "I want my Mummy." She was adopted and also of a different race, which produced "issues" with Mum at times. I never forgot it and because Sis is a wonderful person I always wanted to specifically help her along those lines.
I always have tears well up whenever I see a moving story about adoption or that feeling of abandonment, and in the 80s tried to trace her natural family. I found her mother in the 90's, but she didn't want anything to do with my sister, and I after she died I finally found Sis's siblings for her just a few years ago. They made contact, but they were shocked by the news it wasn't a really happy "reunion." At least Sis has filled a big hole in her life and that of her children and grandchildren with information and now has some photos of her natural family. The adoption act in the 40s and 50s was very cruel to the children. She found at one stage as an adult that she didn't even legally exist.
Have you seen the brilliant "Finding Neverland," Gillian? Although I'd also understand if you didn't want to. It includes a little boy who lost his father at a similar age to you, and wonderful acting too, showing his pain, frustration, and bravado at different times. I watched it nine days ago and it was lump-in-the-throat and tear-in-the-eye time again!
After only one viewing I didn't feel completely satisfied over how the abandonment issue was handled, but who would anyway? How could such a young child ever be satisfied? Must watch it again though, because it's often possible to see and understand more with extra viewings.
Boy, do I love DVD's! Childhood dream come true, having movies at home. Never bothered buying movies on video tape, due to the rubbishy quality, but have 266 DVD movies now and paid an average price of just NZ$12.13.
My picnic story above was one of the more mild ones and I certainly don't tell all of them.
Must get off the 'puter and rest. Zzzzzzzzzzzz.
<Minor addition and fixed typos.> <A few additions>
|
|