Turning Emotions "Off"

[KoolHndLuke]

Anyone who has followed me and read my topics and arguments hopefully assumes that I am a rational, thinking person. I often present ideas in a fashion so as to elicit a more "spirited" response from anyone who might care to respond. Obviously (I hope), this is intended for the purpose of gaining a broader perspective on both a specific subject and everything related to it. I try to consider each and every viewpoint more or less so as to form an overall better understanding of the subject at hand and people's varied opinions. I try not to judge any one or group, no matter their position and subsequent argument because at least some of what they might have to "say" could have significant relevance- even if I or others do not recognize it at first glance or reading.

 

There is a certain kind of honesty and freedom to simply not caring about someone or something in particular- as I have found out. The mindset is simply "live and let live". You deal with people and circumstances "if" and "when" they are of immediate importance to you. What should be considered is what is outside of one's sphere of direct influence and more about a "world" view. That is to say that you might have reached a level of understanding that renders all other problems of life as trivial or insignificant in recognition of what is "good" for all. It's not to suggest that you care more for this or less for that- but to suggest that emotion should be irrelevant and taken out of the equation. The rational and logical application to any and all problems- absent from a moral perspective- enables one to "judge" a person or action from a purely objective point of view and without prejudice.

 

The disconnection of emotion from any chain of events renders a person more lucid and objective in judgement of both the means and the results. Questions are more concerned with the overall effect of an action with relation to individual and collective rights, as is outlined in a society's set of laws. Effectively, this could mean that all previous laws based on moral standards or agreed upon "feelings" might be considered insubstantial and arbitrary to a purely logical, objectively learned approach and application to new or existing information.

 

The calculation of outcomes for a thinking individual or groups in an event or series of events is what most assuredly lends to the most appropriate intellectual, unemotional examination and adaptation in a constantly changing environment.

[2dk2c.2]

37 minutes ago, KoolHndLuke said:

Anyone who has followed me and read my topics and arguments hopefully assumes that I am a rational, thinking person. I often present ideas in a fashion so as to elicit a more "spirited" response from anyone who might care to respond. Obviously (I hope), this is intended for the purpose of gaining a broader perspective on both a specific subject and everything related to it. I try to consider each and every viewpoint more or less so as to form an overall better understanding of the subject at hand and people's varied opinions. I try not to judge any one or group, no matter their position and subsequent argument because at least some of what they might have to "say" could have significant relevance- even if I or others do not recognize it at first glance or reading.

 

There is a certain kind of honesty and freedom to simply not caring about someone or something in particular- as I have found out. The mindset is simply "live and let live". You deal with people and circumstances "if" and "when" they are of immediate importance to you. What should be considered is what is outside of one's sphere of direct influence and more about a "world" view. That is to say that you might have reached a level of understanding that renders all other problems of life as trivial or insignificant in recognition of what is "good" for all. It's not to suggest that you care more for this or less for that- but to suggest that emotion should be irrelevant and taken out of the equation. The rational and logical application to any and all problems- absent from a moral perspective- enables one to "judge" a person or action from a purely objective point of view and without prejudice.

 

The disconnection of emotion from any chain of events renders a person more lucid and objective in judgement of both the means and the results. Questions are more concerned with the overall effect of an action with relation to individual and collective rights, as is outlined in a society's set of laws. Effectively, this could mean that all previous laws based on moral standards or agreed upon "feelings" might be considered insubstantial and arbitrary to a purely logical, objectively learned approach and application to new or existing information.

 

The calculation of outcomes for a thinking individual or groups in an event or series of events is what most assuredly lends to the most appropriate intellectual, unemotional examination and adaptation in a constantly changing environment.

Are you running for office, been asked to head some world court, or are you selecting the members of a jury?

I've asked before and never really gotten a proper answer, "in what context?"

 

I'm bombarded daily with requests for money for dogs, hospitals, people who survived a war living in some foreign country,

and I don't trust any of those people with their slick commercials.

How exactly do they plan on stopping poaching, and couldn't you move that old lady to a better spot?

We've got a really cool hospital nearby, one of theirs, nearly empty, with homeless a block or so away.

   What makes you write stuff like "It is better to be judicious than to be emotional"?

 

Was there a spat? No, none of my business, and you were probably both right anyway.

Are you dumping your roommate out onto the street? "No cash value" (etc)?

There is judicious and there is cold and unfeeling.

I can't summarize the charities, except that I question their motives.

Yeah, that about covers it.

And if you enjoyed this post, please send 9.95 to a starving smoker who only wants to live one more day enjoying the good things in life.

 

 

[Pork Type]

The other day, I said "Hi" to a black guy. He responded by smiling and saying, "How are you doing." He was stocking the supermarket dairy shelf, and I fucked up his shit by grabbing a gallon of 2% from his perfectly arranged display.

 

I walked away thinking, "Hey! That went well!" And then immediately thought, "Why the fuck wouldn't it have?"

 

30 years ago, I never would have even considered such an afterthought... growing up where I did (Flint, Michigan)

 

The Internet tends to make us overthink things. It's overrun by ideologues. It's NOT real life. That black guy saw me as just another dude. As I did him.

1 hour ago, 2dk2c.2 said:

And if you enjoyed this post, please send 9.95 to a starving smoker who only wants to live one more day enjoying the good things in life.

 

No. Buy a pouch of Drum and learn to RYO.

[datkitten]

Well that was some nice enlightened centrism. I like that you think you can think 100% rationally and free of emotions. The truth is, as a human being, you can't function properly withourt emotions. If your brain area responsible for emotions would shut off, you wouldn't be able to decide even simple things, like what to have foe breakfast. 

 

This kind of "rational thinking" is common in sceptic/reactionary/gaming circles for some reason. Why is it so cool not to feel anything? If you have a functioning brain, you can't think without emotions. Emotions are not useless, this is not ancient Greece, neurology has proven us that emotions serve a purpose in brain functioning.

 

On the other hand, this "live and let live" thinking only works if you are part of a privilaged group, both in terms of gender and class. Sure, if you are a white, middle-class straight cis man, you can easily get by with that attitude, people won't care, won't really question your choices and whatnot. The choices the government makes doesn't really affect your life that much. However, if you were part of a minority, poor, black, woman, trans, etc., you would get the short end of the stick most of the time. Minimum wage would matter, laws regarding sexual abuse would matter, laws about gendered bathroom use would matter. You simply would not be able to take a centrist position in this manner, because the societal pressures are working against you. You'd have to fight actively for equal rights, and would feel and know that people react to you differently because of your identity.

 

This is not to suggest that living as a white man is 100% struggle free and everything in life is handed to you. Of course not, tragedy and loss will get to people regardless. However, to give a concrete example: as a woman, I can tell that people act different toward me than they would to a man. They assume that I automatically like children, or that I am not as smart, or that I need some kind of protection, or that I should be extra careful when stepping out of the house at night alone. So because of this, I can't just be okay with misogynistic attitudes, because that would greatly affect my life as a woman. If a congress person, who is a man, thinks that abortion should be illegal, that'd affect my life if I'd ever get into a situation where I'll be needed abortion. 

 

It turned out to be more rambly than I expected but in conclusion: you can't think and function without emotions, and you can't be okay with everything if what others do greatly affects your life.

[Pork Type]

32 minutes ago, datkitten said:

sceptic/reactionary/gaming circles

>Unironically comes to a gaming circle to distribute agitprop

 

Go away.

[datkitten]

2 hours ago, Pork Type said:

>Unironically comes to a gaming circle to distribute agitprop

 

Go away.

Lol okay, seems like sharing my opinion is considered "communist propraganda"

[Pork Type]

On 6/26/2019 at 3:05 PM, datkitten said:

Lol okay, seems like sharing my opinion is considered "communist propraganda"

You necro'd a post from April 26, immediately slamming a portion of this community as "priviliged" and yammering on with your intersectional boilerplate.

 

You're Boring.

 

Go away.

[Reginald_001]

On 6/26/2019 at 5:44 PM, datkitten said:

Well that was some nice enlightened centrism. I like that you think you can think 100% rationally and free of emotions. The truth is, as a human being, you can't function properly withourt emotions. If your brain area responsible for emotions would shut off, you wouldn't be able to decide even simple things, like what to have foe breakfast. 

 

This kind of "rational thinking" is common in sceptic/reactionary/gaming circles for some reason. Why is it so cool not to feel anything? If you have a functioning brain, you can't think without emotions. Emotions are not useless, this is not ancient Greece, neurology has proven us that emotions serve a purpose in brain functioning.

 

On the other hand, this "live and let live" thinking only works if you are part of a privilaged group, both in terms of gender and class. Sure, if you are a white, middle-class straight cis man, you can easily get by with that attitude, people won't care, won't really question your choices and whatnot. The choices the government makes doesn't really affect your life that much. However, if you were part of a minority, poor, black, woman, trans, etc., you would get the short end of the stick most of the time. Minimum wage would matter, laws regarding sexual abuse would matter, laws about gendered bathroom use would matter. You simply would not be able to take a centrist position in this manner, because the societal pressures are working against you. You'd have to fight actively for equal rights, and would feel and know that people react to you differently because of your identity.

 

This is not to suggest that living as a white man is 100% struggle free and everything in life is handed to you. Of course not, tragedy and loss will get to people regardless. However, to give a concrete example: as a woman, I can tell that people act different toward me than they would to a man. They assume that I automatically like children, or that I am not as smart, or that I need some kind of protection, or that I should be extra careful when stepping out of the house at night alone. So because of this, I can't just be okay with misogynistic attitudes, because that would greatly affect my life as a woman. If a congress person, who is a man, thinks that abortion should be illegal, that'd affect my life if I'd ever get into a situation where I'll be needed abortion. 

 

It turned out to be more rambly than I expected but in conclusion: you can't think and function without emotions, and you can't be okay with everything if what others do greatly affects your life.

It's important to first define 'emotions', perhaps. There are many tiers of emotions, most pushed by the amygdala initially, then refined (and changed) by the hippocampus, as subjects rethink past experiences, 'looped back' into the amygdala to be toned down, or increased (e.g. this happens when initially you weren't angry about something, then thinking back about it you become angrier and angrier).

 

There are basically two types of emotions, those related to the present (e.g. Am I safe? Do I feel safe?) en those relegated to the past. The main difference between the two is that the initial feeling is your 'gut feeling' which is transformed by the brain after the hippocampus has dealt with it (and added a value of judgement to the experience).

 

A person cannot change the emotions that take place in the present without training (e.g. that's what you learn when you grow up as a baby into a child and later adult) but you can 'go back' and redefine past experiences by thinking of and speaking about them and in such a way take the 'sting' out of bad memories.

 

There are persons 'without' emotion or rather said 'empathy'.. this can often be confirmed in biology, where certain areas of the brain are far less active than in 'normal' humans. Often these are the psychopaths (psychopaths aren't always violent, only a small percentage becomes violent). And there are also those that are simply wired the wrong way.. who can be left cold about a death in the family, but completely devastated if they are fired for their job...

 

If a person has issues with their emotions (e.g. traumas), then sometimes psychotherapy can help, which is often no more than simply talking about past experiences and in such way become able to see them in a different daylight.

[KoolHndLuke]

I honestly don't remember why I wrote that. I think it was about a person I was dealing with at the time. They were someone that I would have like to spend some time with, but I didn't really care either way. The thing is that a decade ago I would have cared about being with that person, getting their attention, having them around. But, I came to the realization some time ago that if I convince myself that I don't care either way, then I can deal with almost any outcome. The reason I came to this realization is because everyone I have ever trusted or expected good things from have always disappointed me. So I figured the best way to handle people is to expect them to disappoint, but hope they don't. Simple, eh? The twist of logic here is that when people do those bad things and you expected them to, then they are not disappointing at all. I guess what I mean is being mentally prepared for their inevitable fuck up. You can lead a horse to water........yada, yada. 

[2dk2c.2]

37 minutes ago, KoolHndLuke said:

I honestly don't remember why I wrote that. I think it was about a person I was dealing with at the time. They were someone that I would have like to spend some time with, but I didn't really care either way. The thing is that a decade ago I would have cared about being with that person, getting their attention, having them around. But, I came to the realization some time ago that if I convince myself that I don't care either way, then I can deal with almost any outcome. The reason I came to this realization is because everyone I have ever trusted or expected good things from have always disappointed me. So I figured the best way to handle people is to expect them to disappoint, but hope they don't. Simple, eh? The twist of logic here is that when people do those bad things and you expected them to, then they are not disappointing at all. I guess what I mean is being mentally prepared for their inevitable fuck up. You can lead a horse to water........yada, yada. 

If you're leading a person to water, making them (of their own volition) do something they would not do ordinarily, that's a very nice attitude, especially if they don't do it right the first couple of times.

 

But then the societal ideal is to be self assured and

not really to care what others think.

I can think of a few famous people like that, with a hard-core fan base precisely because they don't care (They SAY they don't care) what others think.

But then they go tweeting about people I never would have known otherwise, and you realize quickly that it's an illusion, a role-play game.

So limiting the scope to an hour, a day, a person might be able to pull it off and to make their object-of-desire (I ran out of pronouns)  actually do what you lead them to do.

 

 

Was that good for you? I liked it but I tend to please myself more than others.

[KoolHndLuke]

15 hours ago, 2dk2c.2 said:

the societal ideal is to be self assured and

not really to care what others think.

Well, yeah. That's the way we act in public. Privately, one might get all kinds of hurt about something someone said. My brother used to put me down all the time and it really bothered me even though I pretended it didn't. Later in life I came to realize where all his criticism was coming from and that it wasn't really me that he hated, but himself. So, I guess what I'm saying is that you have to recognize when someone is trying to get a rise outta you, it is usually due to something else. You just have to ignore the bs and figure out where they're coming from. Once you figure that out, you can see them for what they are. 

[2dk2c.2]

On 6/29/2019 at 2:57 AM, KoolHndLuke said:

Well, yeah. That's the way we act in public. Privately, one might get all kinds of hurt about something someone said. My brother used to put me down all the time and it really bothered me even though I pretended it didn't. Later in life I came to realize where all his criticism was coming from and that it wasn't really me that he hated, but himself. So, I guess what I'm saying is that you have to recognize when someone is trying to get a rise outta you, it is usually due to something else. You just have to ignore the bs and figure out where they're coming from. Once you figure that out, you can see them for what they are. 

I never figure it out, it's like being bad at math, I can't read people's thoughts. That's putting it simplistically...I mean I cannot read their 'tells' very well.

I've learned though that people supress themselves to become someone else, and eventually the transformation is complete, and you almost wonder who the fuck they are, you don't know them at all anymore.

 

But if you're reading this my primary motivation for coming here right this second (predawn monday) is to wonder where everyone went.

Did we all move to 4-chan? I never got the memo.

[KoolHndLuke]

7 minutes ago, 2dk2c.2 said:

people suppress themselves to become someone else, and eventually the transformation is complete, and you almost wonder who the fuck they are, you don't know them at all anymore.

I've seen that happen. And they say that people don't really change. They are so wrong. But, what I was getting at was more about enlightenment. Seeing the big picture and ignoring the little shit if you know what I mean- dropping whatever emotional baggage you're carrying around and focusing more on the future. I don't know what goal the rest of humanity has in mind, but it most definitely should be about space exploration. Staring down at our planet from space must be quite an experience!

[2dk2c.2]

There's this thing people do now (ok, before selfies) where they stand there for a picture real serious-like, as if they're challenging the photo-viewer,

"What are You looking at?"

I've been told I'm way too emotional (I could be a stereotype for a "bimbo" if any actually existed)

Paul Newman never stood on top of a building yelling "Top of the world, Ma!"

He was part of a breed of actors stuck into sixties movies that would throw everything possible at the poor movie character, but he always came back proud and unruffled.

 So how far did this go? ..

Eventually movie companies refined the character to be like the way-popular robocop, Terminator, even "Batman".

Ditzy characters who danced seem like they're from a different era.

"Kill Bill" (I can't remember any of the actor's names I'm floating about in my head)

Once upon a time in Mexico...Jonny depp has his eyes gouged out and still manages to look cool.

'course, they're only movies but they seem to know what an audience wants, coolness under stress.

 

But then real life people imitate the actors and it all goes to shit.

That vegas guy must've been one cool cucumber bringing an arsenal up to his room.