Emotions, Voluntary or Involuntary?

[damppanties]

I think you can control emotion. I, at least, can shut it down and feel nothing. Imean zero, no love, no hate, no anger, no sorrow, nothing at all. I will concede that the ability to do so is cultivated and is a coping mechnism for some of my mental problems, but I can do it with an effort of will.

I can't make myself love, but I can convince myself I do and if the object encourages me I can come to love them. I can't make myself hate someone, but I can work myself up to disliking them, and then I only need a slight to get bent out of shape over.

The Stoics taught themselves to feel nothing and while it can be argued that what they taught themselves was really just to show no emotion, I believe they probably actually did achieve a state where they felt nothing. It is possible to do. It is not natural, nor is it something one would cultivate for the fun of it, so to speak. But as a coping mechanism, or as part of a religion of philosophy, I believe you can blunt them to the point that the practical effect is to not feel them.

She said it better than I could. There are views about this in the first few pages of the depression thread if you're interested.

 

[SEVERUSMAX]

Well, since emotions require stimuli, if you shut off the stimuli, then you have nothing to which you can react, so there is some logic there. Doesn't sound easy, theoretically possible. Barring that, however, I think that you are going to feel something, whether you wish to or not. If there is stimuli, your brain's biochemistry will react.

 

[neonlyte]

Well, since emotions require stimuli, if you shut off the stimuli, then you have nothing to which you can react, so there is some logic there. Doesn't sound easy, theoretically possible. Barring that, however, I think that you are going to feel something, whether you wish to or not. If there is stimuli, your brain's biochemistry will react.

The closest practical example I can think of is needing to punish someone you love. Occassionally a sharp dose of reality needs to be administered rather than comfort. Your emotional state is pushing you in the opposite direction to the task you need to perform, it is fairly easy to temporarily suspend the emotional state under those circumstances. Caution however, it is a shock tactic to be used sparingly.

 

[Colleen Thomas]

Well, since emotions require stimuli, if you shut off the stimuli, then you have nothing to which you can react, so there is some logic there. Doesn't sound easy, theoretically possible. Barring that, however, I think that you are going to feel something, whether you wish to or not. If there is stimuli, your brain's biochemistry will react.

I think you're wrong. I don't think you are born with the associations that bring love, of joy or pain or anger or sorrow. You learn them. Some may be natural, such as affection/dependance on your mother, but being hurt when you are insulted, requires that you recognize you were insulted. In many cultures, death is celebrated, while in ours it brings berevement.

If the same stimuli, provokes different responses in people whose main difference is cultural, then you would have to say the reactions aren't based solely on synaptic response. If that is the case, then emotion, at least in part, is a learned response. And if it is a learned response, it can be unlearned or suppressed.

 

[SEVERUSMAX]

I think you're wrong. I don't think you are born with the associations that bring love, of joy or pain or anger or sorrow. You learn them. Some may be natural, such as affection/dependance on your mother, but being hurt when you are insulted, requires that you recognize you were insulted. In many cultures, death is celebrated, while in ours it brings berevement.

If the same stimuli, provokes different responses in people whose main difference is cultural, then you would have to say the reactions aren't based solely on synaptic response. If that is the case, then emotion, at least in part, is a learned response. And if it is a learned response, it can be unlearned or suppressed.

Definitely an interesting take, and once more you prove to be a worthy debater. Valid points, ones that might well cause me to reshape or adjust my theory slightly. So, you're saying that you can, for lack of a better word, isolate yourself from the cultural context and reprogram yourself to react differently on the basis of different mental habits?

 

[Tom Collins]

I think you're wrong. I don't think you are born with the associations that bring love, of joy or pain or anger or sorrow. You learn them. Some may be natural, such as affection/dependance on your mother, but being hurt when you are insulted, requires that you recognize you were insulted. In many cultures, death is celebrated, while in ours it brings berevement.

If the same stimuli, provokes different responses in people whose main difference is cultural, then you would have to say the reactions aren't based solely on synaptic response. If that is the case, then emotion, at least in part, is a learned response. And if it is a learned response, it can be unlearned or suppressed.

Just because you can learn to not feel something doesn't mean it a healthy thing to do. Learn to control your reactions to you emotions, please...that is a great thing but suppressing emotion for too long leads to eventual breakdown. IMO

 

[SEVERUSMAX]

Just because you can learn to not feel something doesn't mean it a healthy thing to do. Learn to control your reactions to you emotions, please...that is a great thing but suppressing emotion for too long leads to eventual breakdown. IMO

Okay, now I'm going to have to interject some levity into my own thread by virtue of a threadjack....picturing that scene in Seinfeld where Frank Costanza is telling himself "serenity now, serenity now" and Lloyd Braun tells George that isn't a good idea "serenity now, insanity later".

 

[SEVERUSMAX]

So, the upshot of this is that is possible, but takes training, willpower, effort, and concentration. Meditation of sorts. Like Buddhist monks or Thoreau, even. Or was that Emerson? Yeah, I think it was Emerson. And you can apparently train your thought processes to trigger different emotions.

Most of the time, you get bombarded with emotions and have a hard time sorting them out or freezing the process. Solitude appears good for such meditation. What the Australians call "walkabout" would probably work well for it.

It sounds like something that might be good at times, but is not advisable for most of your lifespan. A temporary calm before rushing back into the storm that is life. Perhaps what people seek with TM or yoga.

 

[Colleen Thomas]

Definitely an interesting take, and once more you prove to be a worthy debater. Valid points, ones that might well cause me to reshape or adjust my theory slightly. So, you're saying that you can, for lack of a better word, isolate yourself from the cultural context and reprogram yourself to react differently on the basis of different mental habits?

I'm saying that emotion is a more complex response than, say the animal brain flight of fight response to danger. Within your own life, you can examine the dynamics closely, within the scope of your D/S relationship. Humiliation is an emotion, yet to your sub, it's an emotion that brings a positive response (I'm making an assumption of course, not knowing the parameters of your relationship, forgive me if I am wrong), yet in most males, it brings a very negative, if not violent response. Similarly, in many dysfunctional families, conflict is normal and brings little or no response, where in a nominally normal family, Daddy shouting at mom while she throws dishes at him would bring acute emotional distress.

Think of it this way, you're a fairly bright guy, I'm almost positive at some point in your life you threw a wicked or barbed comment at someone and it just went over their heads. The same stimuli, in a person who caught it, would provoke a different response.

The emotions we feel may be purely bio-chemical, as in fact all perception of existance may be. The triggers that turn them on and off, however, are mostly learned. If you have larned to feel good, when someone compliments you, you can learn not to react that way. Take for example some of the supermodels, they get multitudes of fan male, guys are always telling them how hot they are and in a lot of them, it has cesed to be good and has become a pain in the tushy.

If the triggers are learned, you can unlearn them or you can alter the effects of them over time. A chocolate easter bunny used to make me feel like I was a princess. Now, it just makes me hungry. Same trigger, same pretty wrappings, same milk chocolate, but the emotional response has changed. If it were purely biochemical, I would still get the same response. The stimuli hasn't been altered. I can still feel pleasure, so the potential is still there. The trigger has changed to provoke that particular response.

Emotion is complex. I think you do yourself a disservice, in trying to boil it down to just a bio-chemical response. I can turn it off. Dead. Across the boards. If you've ever experienced a really nasty panic attack, you'll know I had a very strong and demanding incentive to learn to do it. If a strong enough incentive can motivate me to disreguard the trigers, it seems likely a strong enough incentive could induce anyone to learn to disreguard them.

I think this discussion of emotion is very much like similar discussions of homosexuality. Is it learned or are you bvborn with it? I think the answer is most likely the same. It's neither wholly learned nor wholly the way you are wired. It's a comvbination of both.

 

[Colleen Thomas]

Just because you can learn to not feel something doesn't mean it a healthy thing to do. Learn to control your reactions to you emotions, please...that is a great thing but suppressing emotion for too long leads to eventual breakdown. IMO

I didn't make a value judgement on it, merely pointed out it can be done. You can learn not to get angry when slighted, you can't learn not to dialte you rpupils when it gets dark. One is a bio-physical reaction purely and simply, while i argue that the other is not.

A good panic attck, in the wron gplace, and I am off to a crisis center for a couple of weeks. I have learned to shut it all down, including the panic. Good or bad to you, the supression of it at that point is a survival skill to me. I don't think it will lead me to a breakdown any more iminantly than a panic attack in the airport would.

 

[SEVERUSMAX]

I'm saying that emotion is a more complex response than, say the animal brain flight of fight response to danger. Within your own life, you can examine the dynamics closely, within the scope of your D/S relationship. Humiliation is an emotion, yet to your sub, it's an emotion that brings a positive response (I'm making an assumption of course, not knowing the parameters of your relationship, forgive me if I am wrong), yet in most males, it brings a very negative, if not violent response. Similarly, in many dysfunctional families, conflict is normal and brings little or no response, where in a nominally normal family, Daddy shouting at mom while she throws dishes at him would bring acute emotional distress.

Think of it this way, you're a fairly bright guy, I'm almost positive at some point in your life you threw a wicked or barbed comment at someone and it just went over their heads. The same stimuli, in a person who caught it, would provoke a different response.

The emotions we feel may be purely bio-chemical, as in fact all perception of existance may be. The triggers that turn them on and off, however, are mostly learned. If you have larned to feel good, when someone compliments you, you can learn not to react that way. Take for example some of the supermodels, they get multitudes of fan male, guys are always telling them how hot they are and in a lot of them, it has cesed to be good and has become a pain in the tushy.

If the triggers are learned, you can unlearn them or you can alter the effects of them over time. A chocolate easter bunny used to make me feel like I was a princess. Now, it just makes me hungry. Same trigger, same pretty wrappings, same milk chocolate, but the emotional response has changed. If it were purely biochemical, I would still get the same response. The stimuli hasn't been altered. I can still feel pleasure, so the potential is still there. The trigger has changed to provoke that particular response.

Emotion is complex. I think you do yourself a disservice, in trying to boil it down to just a bio-chemical response. I can turn it off. Dead. Across the boards. If you've ever experienced a really nasty panic attack, you'll know I had a very strong and demanding incentive to learn to do it. If a strong enough incentive can motivate me to disreguard the trigers, it seems likely a strong enough incentive could induce anyone to learn to disreguard them.

I think this discussion of emotion is very much like similar discussions of homosexuality. Is it learned or are you bvborn with it? I think the answer is most likely the same. It's neither wholly learned nor wholly the way you are wired. It's a comvbination of both.

Once again, you show a top-grade intellect and explain yourself clearly. Very articulate indeed. And, yes, emotion is complex. When I first had sexual thoughts about guys, I reacted with disgust at even the idea of it. I closed it down, refuse to let myself explore that side of myself. Just as I used to have a visceral, negative response to the idea of evolution or the idea of broccoli (strange to mix the two, but I had a negative reaction to both). Now I believe in evolution and actually eat broccoli from time to time. And now I let myself fantasize about men whom I find attractive.

I also found myself angry at the idea of men submitting to women, ever. Now I know that some men WANT to submit, so why should I feel bad for them or hostile to the women? Just because it's not my particular kink doesn't mean that it is unpleasant or cruel to those men. Apparently quite the opposite. So now I am pleased that they have discovered their own sexual needs and seek to fulfill them. Related to this is my overall attitude about social relationships of the sexes. Instead of transferring my dominant nature onto all men and superimposing submission on all women, I regard that as an individual matter. So my former sexist views were misdirected dominance. And I accept that it has nothing to do with their proper role as citizens. It's a separate matter.

And, yes, my slave and any others who submit to me, male or female, feel differently about the fact that they are submitting than I would have in their place. I know this because I have once or twice experimented with the bottom role and didn't care for it at all.

So, once again, you have made some relevant points.....definitely a tough opponent in a debate. And generally able to give me a fresh perspective that prompts me to modify my views here or there on occasion.

And, yes, I have insulted some people and they haven't caught it. You have done that too, huh?

And I like to think that I am smart guy. Though I suspect that I am not quite as smart as you, at least in terms of life experience. Must be my relative youth (29).

 

[SEVERUSMAX]

One could say that I have noted the involuntary side of it and failed to consider the voluntary side. Kind of like the blind men with the elephant.

So I am half right. And half wrong. It's important to get feedback on this. From a variety of experiences and perspectives. Just because a theory is new and revolutionary doesn't mean that I want to finish formulating it in a hurry and fail to consider all viewpoints. Probably, on a subconscious, why I presented it for votes and opinions.