The Emotional Me

in #philosophy6 years ago

A lot of people seem to be under the incorrect assumption that I am against emotions. What I am against is having emotion dictate action unchecked.

People don't like the idea of controlling their emotions as emotions are a natural process and it seems unnatural to restrict natural functions but this I think is based on a limited view of the situation.  The problem I see with emotions is that they are too prone to giving false positives and too influential in dictating action.

The emotional response is more often than not a psychological response to  current circumstance or more precisely, the perception of the current circumstance. Even if the brain does not interpret the situation well, it will still trigger an emotional reaction and with free reign, the emotional me will act unfiltered with close to zero rationality or recognition if the response is warranted. Often, only in hindsight is an overreaction observed.

This lack of sensitivity toward the emotional system means that actions are made based on thir response and will often create an action that is not appropriate to the situation. Very rarely do people underreact to situations, it is nearly always an overreaction where even the slightest issues create a knee-jerk movement. A lot of damage can be done and many bridges burned very quickly when emotions control response.

Because most 'emotional' responses are actually instigated by the brain, it is common to conflate the two and believe that psychological discomfort is actually emotional discomfort because it feels bad. We have been sold a lie that we must be happy, enjoy, love and laugh all of the time. This position is impossible as to even have that some of the time requires investment (work) and that means learning (psychological discomfort) and to avoid this means to limit the possibility of deep enjoyment.

It takes work to enjoy life but how we understand that work is whether it is seen as a negative or a positive. Negatives and positives are often left up to the emotions to decide and since the emotions favour positive feelings, the feelings created by psychological discomfort are classed negative. People will then continually avoid doing what may be beneficial because it doesn't feel good to do so, like eating healthily or learning about unfamiliar financial systems.

The emotional responses when left unchecked also feel correct and justified in that moment and will therefore heavily influence the belief of what is correct to do. We are trained to fight for what we believe in but rarely do we ever adequately question our beliefs. This is of course a poor position for large topics like the environment or religion when we have the chance to think slowly yet don't but, in the immediate moment our emotions make us think fast. 

Our current belief based on our feelings is that we have read and understood the requirements of the now well and therefore our actions born from those feeling will be good. If we paused for even the briefest moment and raised a few more questions, we would likely adjust the response. We may not even need to raise the question, just taking a deep breath may be enough to bring objectivity back into the equation.

Emotions for me are one part of a tool kit but many are increasingly relying on them as the only tool in their box. A solely emotional mind is a habitual mind that creates actions based on past experience and without environmental awareness, it is unlikely to treat each experience as unique. That means that the emotional response is a heuristic that without deep self-reflection, never gets inspected and recalibrated. It jumps to conclusions.

It jumps without looking, without testing  the waters as it is all it can do, like an instinctual animal but, it does it when there is no requirement to do so. It bounds into action in circumstances where there is the time and space to slow down, ask question, think a little more, discuss, learn and discover. The emotional response takes away the discovery as it is a mind on automatic.

I myself am an overly emotional person with moods that can swing wildly from moment to moment but recognising this and controlling it does not mean to ignore and repress my emotions. The emotional me is my subjective experience of the world and is therefore unique and private, it is mine. It is therefore my responsibility to understand and control it and not emotionally vomit on all I see and do. 

Emotions are vital in learning much of what is important in experience as they help connect information to the individual. When I write, I don't want to give information alone as that is unlikely to have any affect on action as action is largely dictated by the emotions. I want them to feel the information and somewhat become a part of the story itself. This is a creative learning process that puts real learning above memory skill.

If we do not learn to control our emotions, this new information that can fundamentally improve our experience of life through new action, largely goes unlearned as it feels bad to have to consider differently and think about what we have not thought about before. Again, it is psychological discomfort manifesting in the chemical reactions of the body.

The control of emotions is a recognition of them but not being forced to physically react to them, especially in situations where clarity of movement and thought is required. An out of control mind has very little possibility to act on anything other than habit and that can be very costly. An emotionally ontrolled mind however can take note of the emotion but still have the sensitivity to be creatively free, which means an increase in the possibility to find solutions.

There are times however where one wants to take the mind out ofthe equation altogether and let emotions run free. These tmes are the inspired moments of beauty where the body can act idependently of the mind and can be completely lost in the experience. Perhaps this can best be immagined as being completely present and out of ones mind and be beautiful in the right setting, like a bedroom where two people can connect passionately. 

This is not appropriate however in the boardroom where there area range of considerations and many people affected by our actions. To be completely emotional and act solely on emotion here is not passion, it is tyranny that attempts to impose one's willon others without understanding of the situation for, there position ispart of the situation. 

The emotional self that acts with childish abandon also acts with childish tantrums and the expectation that all of our tantrums and demands are going to be accepted is going to be met with very strong resistance. Emotional control is about a maturing of understanding to realise that there all parts of us are connected and the overinvestment in one system is going to leave others weak.

In my opinion, we need to stop buying into the consumer based oncept that everything must feel good to be good and return balance and harmony to ourselves. Demanding that we can blurt out and act as we wish is an untenable situation that will lead to violence, harm and suffering for all involved. We can all feel however we want but we must also take responsibility for our actions and the consequences of them.

At least, think about it.

Taraz
[ a Steemit original ]

Sort:  

Passion is the engine.
Reason is the steering wheel.
Unreasonable passion is dangerous.
Dispassionate reason is stationary.

This is great.

Very interesting topic again, when I am aware I try to watch my feelings sometimes without thinking about them to see what happens... and most of the times the feeling dissolves into nothing...
I don't know why this happens but it is very interesting because it can calm me down very fast in some stressy situations.

Can you consider feelings the same as emotions or is it different?

I think observing them come and go is a useful tool to understand their impermanence and often, their insignificance.

I use them interchangeably but I would say that feeling is more the physical response, emotion the psychological response. Not my technical area though :)

I also start to have the feeling that most of the time they are insignificant...
I try to be observant when I can but the brain can be very tricky some times :)

It can indeed, it is a wily one at protecting its imaginary ego.

Great post, @tarazkp! I find that I am a very emotional person as well and that I often allow my emotions to take control of my actions, I act impulsively and it's not always the best way.
I try tocontrol them, but I think that's an art that takes years to master (if one can truly master such an art....I think you just get better at it, but you're never completely out of the danger of a mood swing or a passionate response to something..)

I think that it is a forever process but I think that to get significant gains it doesn't take long, just awareness and the investment to learn not to invest into them. For me, writing about these things helps better understand what is going on within me. It may not suit everyone but if we all take the time to understand ourselves, most of the world's issues will be solved.

Introspection is so important! I definitely know some folks who are driven very heavily by emotion and never take the time to try and understand what the emotions really mean. While these people are usually deep feelers and can be really creative, they may also be quick to temper and way less likely to learn from their mistakes because of the blind trust in emotion.

Great article!! I like how you said that your emotions are like a toolkit. I tell my overly emotional daughter something similar. I say, "Emotions are like the seasonings of life. Just the right amount of salt, for instance, and the meal tastes great. Too much salt ruins the whole thing." She's only 8 though and doesn't listen. 😂 Thanks for the post! :)

If you work out a good way, I am all ears. I have time though as mine is only 14 months but I already know I have my work cut out for me :)

That is a great analogy! Gonna remember that one!

"Emotions for me are one part of a tool kit but many are increasingly relying on them as the only tool in their box. A solely emotional mind is a habitual mind that creates actions based on past experience and without environmental awareness, it is unlikely to treat each experience as unique. That means that the emotional response is a heuristic that without deep self-reflection, never gets inspected and recalibrated. It jumps to conclusions."

Yes. ^^ Loved and resteemed.

Thank you, it is appreciated :)

I love this post. It definitely takes skill and lifelong practice to learn to trust and listen to emotions while also maintaining "higher-order thinking" at the same time.

Though some have a shorter fuse and quick "temper", I believe we all have the primal instinct to defend ourselves in the midst of an argument. The fight or flight kicks in just as if we are under a physical threat. Even if the argument is occurring with someone we love and cherish, the rush of emotion will still flood in to prepare us to defend.

It is so important for us to stay focused in these types of situations and consciously override that innate reaction that too often ends horribly with regret and damaged relationships.

I like how you addressed how we don't need to rely too heavily on emotion because what feels good may not always be good for us. I am doing research currently that looks at whether some people are more sensitive to pleasurable feelings, and whether it is correlated with drug-seeking behavior. The emotions are not always right and can definitely lead you down the wrong path if you're not careful!

And by the same token, emotions can be so helpful in helping us assess situations and "vibes."

It is a delicate, tricky balance for sure!

Yes, I think I commented it as a forever process above. I am not sure if that is a thing but if it isn't, here it is on the blockchain ;)

The balance is tricky indeed but awareness of the system allows an opportunity to discover and adjust more sensitively.

I do think that some are more sensitive to pleasure or fear pain more than others but under the right circumstances, we are all potential addicts of something.

I do not know the James-Lange theory of emotion I actually do not read very much about other theories as I find I am too easily influenced and will defer my own thinking to someone else's. I may be often wrong, but it is I that am wrong and will take the responsibility for it :)

You're probably familiar with the James-Lange theory of emotions, but if not, look into it! It addresses a really tricky debate of whether our brains interpret our emotional responses and turn them into thoughts and physical actions, or vice versa (emotions are a response to physical action, an interpretation of how our body reacts, e.g., a rapid heartbeat gets interpreted as fear).

I think maybe ego is what overreacts too yah

I also think that emotions can guide us well in the right circumstances. Good ones, and bad ones. Is there such a thing as moral feelings?
I may myself be guilty of indulging in both things that feel good even though they are bad for me, and same with bad feelings. The concept of enjoying feeling sad is something really wierd.

hmm, I think what I mean by this is that it can be a persons pride as well as their basic desire to survive and have their needs met that can contribute to overreactions. I guess these things are directly related to emotions. It is interesting though, because there are multiple theories, none of which are entirely agreeable, that talk about which order our emotions and the corresponding physical responses occur in. Some think that they both happen at the same time, and some think that our physical response along with some cognitive appraisal determine what emotion is experienced. Do we sweat and does our heart beat fast before we feel fear, or does the feeling of fear cause these responses? In the moment, are these responses entirely in our control?

Personally, I think that they are in our control to a degree (i am sure people have all experienced such strong and overpowering emotions and physical responses that they could not control them). We can stand and have a decent conversations even when our knees are weak and we are shaking. We can also have a conversation with a degree of reason when tears are pouring out of our eyes dispite our will. So yeah, I think we can control our emotions rather then have them control us. What might get in the way of this for most people, is that ego centered belief in the need to be right and to get what we want... this is an entire discussion that could go on for days lol. Also, maybe the ego is imaginary but it can be a helpful idea for understanding what is within us.

I don't really see how the ego can react at all being an illusion ;)

The james lang theory is one of those things im talking about, as the person called lindabrooke mentions ^^^^

What a post !!

Please up vote and follow me!
FB_IMG_15095970822115242.jpg

Great post!
Please up vote and follow me!
FB_IMG_15095970822115242.jpg

This is nice. Thanks for sharing

That was a pleasure to read.

"Negatives and positives are often left up to the emotions to decide and since the emotions favour positive feelings, the feelings created by psychological discomfort are classed negative. People will then continually avoid doing what may be beneficial because it doesn't feel good to do so."

I highly agree to this insight and am happy that you found the expression for it. I am going probably to use it and quote you if you don't mind :-)

Just recently I were caught in the situation where uncontrolled emotions overrode the debate. Actually this is such a high complex topic, I am cracking my head over it for many years when it comes to my own acting and reacting in the world.

What I observe within myself is the increasing resistance to talk about politics, religion, minorities, tolerance, the neighbor, the rich, the poor and so on and so forth.

In particular when the participants of the discussion actually do know each other but act as if strangers were joining and an opinion which might be not agreed on at first must be therefore attacked. I guess it is my refusal to take those topics serious which partly caused disharmony and that my so called "argument" were neglecting what my conversation partner who was totally engaged in the debate wanted me to understand.

There was no space for doing what would have been beneficial.

BUT:

But since my mindset is so intricate that I take a positive view of this incident by saying: "Here a system has been disturbed and this disturbance of harmony is always too good for something, this absolute view of the fact that it was only bad, what happened, cannot apply.

I just wrote an article about "disturbance". I would love to see you reading it.