SevenLeafs

Aren't the emotions behind everything we do?

Could you say that if you "controled" your emotions, instead of them controlling you, you could be a better person, think more clearly, act more accordingly, etc.?

Could the emotions be the missing link that connects God (and Devil), with the material world (Us)?

7L

__________________

"A soul in tension that's learning to fly
Condition grounded but determined to try
Can't keep my eyes from the circling skies
Tongue-tied and twisted just an earth-bound misfit"
- Pink Floyd -

Just say KNOW!

PotShot

I think that controlling your emotions(actions) is the supreme sign of intelligence in a lifeform. It shows a willingness to think about the future, and your plans therein.

Emotions are entirely a creature of the present, and some could argue that the present does not really exist at all... so what does that say about emotions?

__________________

Carl Sagan Goodness Richard Dawkins Goodness

Buzzby

No. Some people are apparently controlled by their emotions, others are not. People often do things that their emotions tell them not to do. They act on duty or principle. I, for example, never punched out my ex-wife despite every emotion telling me to do so.


Yes. All aspects of a person's being are needed to determine actions. If you react emotionally without a rational consideration of the consequences you'll eventually end up in jail or worse. If you operate rationally without consideration for your emotions you'll be terribly unhappy. An ability to factor in several motivations is what determines the difference between adults and children.


No. God and the Devil are human fantasy constructs used to enforce conformity to certain community standards. They're a kind of externalized superego or conscience. The mysteries of the universe will always be mysteries. God and the Devil are just as real as Zeus, Thor, Avaloketishvara, and Vishnu: mental constructs to explain the inexplicable. Gods and demons are leftovers of an ignorant, superstitious past. The sooner we leave them behind the sooner we'll stop killing each other trying to decide if my fantasy is better than your fantasy.

I'd say that emotions are our bridge to the mental world of our more developed brethren in the animal kingdom, although some of them seem to be able to function rationally as well.

__________________

SevenLeafs

Indeed, everyone is controlled by their emotions at least once in their life (remember emotions range from the negative to the positive), but there are many that succumb to their emotions and many that are not even bothered by them (the two extremes).


So are you saying that you suppress you emotions in those cases? When you feel angry towards your wife (I'm assuming that the emotions that "(tell) you to do so" are somewhat related to anger) and do not act because of that "duty or principle", do you really understand why you are feeling the way you feel towards your wife?

Do you understand why you want to act one way but do not do so? (if the answer is "yeah, because of the principles", then why do you listen to your principles instead of your emotions?)


Or better, don't you think? What if you act according to what happiness tells you to do? (I believe there can be cases were you "react emotionally without a rational consideration" and don't suffer such big consequences, don't you?)


So, as I see it, you are saying that if you do not listen to your emotions (operate rationally all the time) you will then be ruled by one? (unhappiness; it could be some sort of "revenge" could it not?)


I'm not sure I agree with this. Children seem to be much more empathic towards their surroundings, letting in various emotions without much of a filter to pass these emotions through, so they are affected by the cry of another baby very easily. I think that the ability to understand, sort and process the emotions are what determines that difference you mention. Don't you think that an infant is less likely to rationalize things, and that adults could be the other extreme (they are sometimes less likely to view things emotionally, and tend to rationalize too much)?


I like what you say here Buzzby.

I could agree that God and Devil are only constructs of a less "developed" society of previous times. Now, considering that we are talking about rationalizing and acting accordingly to our emotions, wouldn't you agree with me in saying that emotions could be more related to the Devil and that our rational "sense" would be God? Lets examine something:

If you acted according to your emotions in the example you presented with your wife, don't you agree that you would be acting in a wrong manner?

Now, taking notice of what you actually did - acting (or not acting) according to your principles - do you categorize that as acting "rightly" or in a right manner?

And for the final question, don't you think that there could be something missing here? Don't you think that after you "rationalized" how you felt and decided to not let your emotions take over you are still left with an unsatisfactory feeling, something that is still bothering you but you don't quite know what it is?

Peace.7L

PS: thanks for being such a good sport Buzzby

SevenLeafs

If I said that the lessons that are found in the bible are early attempts of society to control emotions, would you agree?

Why?

7L

Buzzby

When you suppress your emotions you don't experience them. When you experience your emotions but don't act on them unless it's appropriate you are exercising judgment. A consideration of consequences is always appropriate.


It's a matter of maintaining a balance and not allowing one aspect of your being to control you to your detriment. Whenever you have to decide what to do you should be performing a kind of cost/benefit analysis: what will be gained versus what it will cost. When you act solely on the basis of your emotions it's what commonly called "acting on impulse". This denies the part of our being that differentiates humans from other intelligent animals.


I would still contend that you should employ all your faculties in determining a course of action. Individual situations in which you don't think before you act might not have negative consequences. If you live your life that way you are sure to run into trouble eventually.


Unhappiness is just another factor to consider, not a "ruler". We are often confronted with situations in which doing the thing that would make us happy would have negative consequences down the line. We accept the unhappiness because there is a greater good served by acting differently. Sometimes we accept being unhappy because there are no good choices and we choose the lesser of two evils.


Infants have not yet learned to use their rational faculties. Some adults never do (look who's sitting in the White house!). Well adjusted adults have achieved that balance I mentioned earlier. Too many adults suppress their emotions, which eventually get expressed in ways they don't understand.


I would say that being in touch with all dimensions of your being would be consistent with maximizing your integration with the universe: being closer to "God". The rational faculty is just one of many and is not in any way inherently superior. What would the "Devil" be? Perhaps doing what you're told to do and what's expected of you without consideration of your unique individuality.


"Right" and "wrong" are very slippery concepts. They vary with your principles. Things are "right" or "wrong" only in terms of what values you're trying to maximize. I'm in favor of compassion and staying out of jail. Therefore, punching out my ex-wife would have been wrong for me under the circumstances that pertained at the time.


I felt a certain amount of tension which derived from not releasing my anger inappropriately. I recognized this and worked off the pent up energy in a more constructive way (computer games).


I would be more inclined to say that the lessons of the Old Testament are efforts to control social behavior by external laws. If I read the New Testament correctly the lessons are trying to control social behavior by internal principles. Both appeal to the intellect and the emotions.

SevenLeafs

Exactly, both appeal to those essential "factors", the ability to reason situations and feel situations. We could easily fall prey to either one, acting irrationaly because of our emotions and too rational because of our "intellect".

I am very fond of the idea of balance, which I first read in a very interesting book of Tao (ying-yang). I have since believed that "material perfection" is achieved when there is a correct balance between your mind and body. This may be achieved in certain ways, especially through meditation, which is a main aspect of Taoism.

The book talks about achieving mental balance by clearing your head of any thoughts. It then continues to say that meditation is not only achieved while sitting still (in the traditional "lotus" posture), it is also says that we can do it when running, swiming, talking, etc. etc..., this is what I like to relate to the Bible.

The main "teaching" of the bible is that you can be a sinner and that you can be virtous, and that through your actions in life you will be then condemed to Hell or be taken into the Paradise, am I right? If you should succumb to the Devil's power, then you will sin and go to hell; if you do not sin then you will see the paradise.

But, if we go in a little deeper, you find that it is impossible not to sin, because we are all born sinful. So, could we then say that the goal in life, according to the Bible's teachings, is to become free of all sins? You have to go through baptism, then first comunion, then something else (don't really know the translation) and at last, when we die, we still have to beg forgiveness for our sins.

Almost all of us always have emotions, and sometimes they can be a personal hell. And then we have reason, again, almost all of us have reason, and that can be a personal paradise. I would have to add that both can be the other also, sometimes.

If we rationalize too much, we may go crazy. If we feel too much for everything also, then we may also go crazy. It seems to me that it has to be balanced, and that is why, in Christianity, there is always this battle of Good and Evil (the battle between reason and emotion; the inner battle we tend to have every day of our lives).

There is an interesting thing I read a few days ago, in a book by Daniel Goleman - writter of "Emotional Intelligence" - which, according to some ancient legend, talked about a Samurai and his Zen Master.

While engaging in conversation, the Samurai demands that he be told what heaven and hell are. To this the Master responds: "You are just a pig, I can not waste my time with you!". Enfuriated, the Samurai draws his sword and replies "Insolent, I could kill you for being so rude!".

"That is hell", says then the Master, to which the Samurai responds by putting away his sword and bowing. To this, the Master says: "And that is heaven".

Thoughts?

Peace.7L

matty86

Perhaps this has been said, if so, disregard and I apologize. I feel as though it is near impossible to control our emotions. I think our emotions have been almost pre-etched into us since a young age. I don't think that the way you control your emotions is what makes you good or bad for I don't beleive many emotions CAN be controlled. The way I feel toward others does not seem to be something I can control without a little (or a lot of) analyzing and or thought. Sometimes it takes me some thinking to see another person's point of view, or to see just why something I have done was "bad". I believe it's what you do with those emotions and how you feel about those emotions. . .If that makes sense. For instance, EVERYONE hates at one time or another in their life, but not everyone feels guilt for that hate. If you feel guilt for hating, then perhaps you are a good person who hates. If you feel no guilt for that hate, then perhaps you are not. I say perhaps because I can only speculate. Who truly knows what makes you good or bad? My english teacher once said that it's your actions that make you the person you are. . .Which is true to an extent. Going back kinda to what I said earlier, I think it's the way you feel about those actions that makes or breaks a person because everyone does something "bad" once in a while. It's almost in our nature.

I hope that didn't sound like a bunch of jibberish, because the more I read it the stranger it sounds. (Can I use "stranger" in that context? Oh well).

Matt

PS

Yes, I would agree that the bible was a way to control emotions, yet I'm not sure why. From the beginning of time all societies have had their views of what is right and wrong and often those views, in our opinion, would be "wrong". No matter though, if you are told enough times that something is "right", no matter how "wrong" it may be, you begin to believe what you are being told. I suppose someone saw how corrupt the world truly was (and still is BTW) and maybe tried to put an end to that with some kind of moral basis. Some kind of brain washing if you will. I do think that the bible offers many good lessons and that for the most part is deffinitely a good foundation for morals and values.
If it just sounds like I am blabbing on about nothing, let me know. I have a tendency to do that and I know people don't appreciate it.

Matt

Buzzby

The main teaching of the Old Testament is that God is our Father and we must develop a good relationship with him. The way to do that is to follow the rules, which, "incidentally", provide a framework for a stable society. The Old Testament doesn't go in much for "sin", "redemption", "Heaven", or "Hell". Judaism, the religion of the Old Testament, hardly mentions what happens after a person dies. A person doesn't follow the rules to get a reward or from fear of punishment. The rules are followed in order to have a good relationship with The Father and through that a good relationship with the community.

The New Testament, if you eliminate all the nonsense about Jesus dying for our sins, is about a new approach. This is an inner relationship with God based on love and that love being extended to all people because they are your brothers and sisters under the fatherhood of God. It is unfortunate that so many people who profess to be Christians concentrate on Jesus' death and the possibility of him getting them off the hook. Jesus' life as an example and his teachings are to my mind the more relevant portion.


What can I say? I think "sin", "redemption", "Heaven", and "Hell" are parts of a scheme to trick people into doing what they're told to do. They have nothing to do with reality except in that framework. In my opinion anything that encourages people to do what they're told, rather than act from their own hearts and minds, is a denial of our birthright.


The goal of life according to the bible, exclusive of Jesus' teachings, is to do what's expected of you, to honor Authority, and to place the goals of the powerful ahead of the good of the majority.

In my lexicon, the closest thing to sin is ignorance. If you really understand what's going on you won't act selfishly because you are The Other and The Other is you. Your actions will be directed at producing the greatest good for the greatest number.


Doing away with the hyperbole, the first is selfish anger and the second is a centered mind.

matty86

Another thing. . .I know that this is relatively unrelated, but I saw some of the things you people are saying and I am sure this will interest you. This is written first person and the guy speaks of three wild experiences he has. The first two are near death, but the last is just mind blowing. IMO it's more than worth the read, prefferably high, so if you have 5-10 minutes, please have a look at it. I'm pretty sure it's the most amazing thing I'v ever read. . I would like to know what your thoughts are on it.

http://www.nderf.org/james_t's_nde.htm

Matt