Males, Females, Emotional Control and Mr. Spock

[Sparky Kronkite]

[On another thread, for my seeming lack of understanding - I was called Spock - cute. In retort I thought this might be worthy of a new thread rather than being buried on another. So here it is.]

Everyone has emotions, we all feel.

Male and female...... all of us have emotions - if we/they are human.

Negative emotions - regardless of sex type - regardless of how natural or ingrained they may be - are still negative emotions - they cause damage, pain, etc.. They are wrong - bad.

Just because something may be intertwined within your/our being - doesn't mean that it's good - or even fully understandable.

One should take it for it is - simply at face value - it's a negative human attribute - it's a flaw.

But most humans don't want to admit that they are flawed.

Thus - recognizing that these negative emotions are flaws, is good - even better is figuring out how to control it. Controlling the innate human emotions like jealousy, hate etc., can only be a good thing for the entire planet.

Conversely - writing negative emotions off as "natural" and letting them "vent out" for selfish personal reasons can only cause problems - even wars.

So I say do - do practice all the good human emotions and negate altogether or highly control the negative ones.

It's pure logic and males just happen to have the edge in the control department - you see "that degree of control" is innate to each sex.

Spock has spoken - live long and prosper.

 

[Ambrosious]

Spocky Kronkite

You green blooded monster!

 

[Cheyenne]

Negative emotions - regardless of sex type - regardless of how natural or ingrained they may be - are still negative emotions - they cause damage, pain, etc.. They are wrong - bad.
...

Thus - recognizing that these negative emotions are flaws, is good - even better is figuring out how to control it. Controlling the innate human emotions like jealousy, hate etc., can only be a good thing for the entire planet.

Conversely - writing negative emotions off as "natural" and letting them "vent out" for selfish personal reasons can only cause problems - even wars.

So I say do - do practice all the good human emotions and negate altogether or highly control the negative ones.

I disagree. Who says negative emotions are "wrong" and they are "flaws"? You? Got your degree in psychiatry handy for us to check out?

Negative emotions are as human as positive emotions. Neither are inherently "good" or "bad".

 

[Closet Desire]

Actually...

...I wasn't calling anyone Spock...it was rhetorical...meant for entertainment purposes only. I don't call people names.

 

[Closet Desire]

An afterthought...

...nice recovery though! (hee hee)

 

[R Nitelight]

Fascinating....

 

[Sparky Kronkite]

Human emotions, of all kinds, are human......

no duh!

But, but, but - right/wrong, good/bad - well that's a no brainer.

How arrogant is it to think that "just because it exists within you, that you carry any trait" that it's all right.

I suppose Cancer is all right too?

Let's just phrase it - "human emotions that tend to go over-board in way that causes both the emote and the receptor such emotion, discomfort and/or pain."

Well those types of emotions - I'm for controlling or eliminating because I find them a human flaw - just like any disease or sickness or birth defect.

Fucking humans - how fucking arrogant are the bastards? No wonder they're always fighting - they think they are fucking right all the time - even when it's obvious that they are hurting other creatures, even when it obvious they are hurting themselves.

I'm no Psyche for sure - but I know this - any piece of shit advisor that advises anybody to "act out regarding these types of emotions" is an asshole. I frankly don't understand why anyone would risk their hard earned dollar trying to find one that advised the truth - the logical truth - a truth based on fact of flawed humans - not perfect humans. It seems you'd be just as liable to find a good palm reader. I believe there are good ones out there but where? I don't believe there are many. Self therapy is the best way - get logical. Logic is easy. Logic - for the most part, not all - is formulaic. And it doesn't cost anything either.

Humans? Get logic! Get healthy!

Spock Kronkite - Uber Ears has spoken.

 

[Guest]

He's dead, Jim.

 

[Expertise]

Sparky... Vulcan or Pod Person?

I actually agree with your hypothesis Sparky.

But you speak of humans as if you weren't one.

Fess up Sparky.

 

[Sparky Kronkite]

I was a human......

But now I just play one on the Lit board.

Half breed I - sing it loud, sing it proud!

An army of one.

A solo sub-culture of one - Uber Spark.

 

[Expertise]

The cry of "Kill it before it breeds" comes to mind.

But then my acceptance of diversity kicks in and tells me that there is a niche for the species uber-oz-sparkmeister-Newyorkus in the genus literotica.

Go forth and multiply or subdivide or send out spoors or whatever.

 

[Sparky Kronkite]

PS on this here thing, this thought.......

Logic vs. Irrational - (the irrationality that walks with human emotion)?????

Well it's hard to argue against logic - logic wins every time.

You see it has to - that's what makes logic - logical.

Logic is - what's currently right for the situation, the problem. It's the answer for the specific formula.

Just ask Bool.

If you are arguing against logic - you better have some sort of super secret weapon to win.

 

[Sparky Kronkite]

Exp.....

I like the image of spoors.

Oh god! God! Spoor me you spooring stud!

Spoor you all!

 

[Closet Desire]

The trouble with "logic"...

...is that it's like a roadmap where they keep changing the roads. You can follow the road without fail, but you might not get anywhere. Computers understand logic because there's never more than two ways to go. Once humans have food, shelter, and language, the possiblities are infinite.

 

[Sparky Kronkite]

That may seem to be true.....

but it is not.

There is always, no matter how complex a problem (an infinitely complex problem?) - one, single, "most correct" answer.

This is logic.

This "most correct answer," it may not be "perfect," but given the parameters of the problem - it will be as "close to perfect as possible."

Yes, logic is a road map - one that can lead to near perfect answers every time a problem is equated.

The only thing logic can seemingly fall prey to comes in the guise of semantics. And semantics are all up to "human" interpretation.

Which as we all know can be flawed.

It's therefore fortunate that "real logic" does not and can not actually fall prey to semantics - only the humans who argue it's rationale.

 

[Closet Desire]

A little something to chew on...

There is often more than one "perfect" answer because even the definition of what is perfect is fluid.

When I studied physics at the Navy's nuclear power school we studied Newtonian physics. The same physics which can predict where to drop the space station Mir in the Pacific or guide an Apollo mission 200,000 miles to the moon with near pin-point accuracy. Part of our study was to make all these calculations on a sheet of paper with a slide rule (calculators capable of doing this were just then coming out). Our instructor matched the course. Precise, exact, full of "military bearing". The calculations were "perfect" because they accomplished what we needed, they reached the destinations we had in mind.

After we finished the course we started one in nuclear physics. The instructor waddled in, sloppy uniform, unkempt hair and beard, yet wearing those acorns on his collar. He looked at the board, smeared with all these complex calculations and then looked us square in the eye and spoke...

"You see all this? It's bullshit. It's all wrong. It works, but for the wrong reasons."

I was captivated because I believed I was about to have everything I believed to be true turned on its head. I was right.

Newtonian physics doesn't work at an atomic level because our body of knowledge didn't include, couldn't even comprehend, the motion and interaction of unseen and not-understood forces and particles. I felt like Alice in Wonderland. It was thrilling to try, however feebly, to grasp at the notion of the Lorentz transformation and Einstein's relativity. We learned the math and equations we would need to calculate power levels and reactivity levels in fission reactions. We learned rhymes like "Every Little Pollock Loves THe Fucking navy" so we could remember the factors in these equations and their symbols.

Now it goes without saying that we can build a nuclear reactor. We can operate a nuclear reactor. We can manipulate a nuclear reactor. But we do so without perfect logic, without all the answers. You see, most of the equations had something we called a "jack factor" which was a specific number or factor that took into account observable actions that we could not explain or account for. These come from not knowing how neutrinos affect the reactions, what the exact spread of fission fragments from the split will be, what the exact energy from each fission will produce, and so forth. It compensated for our imperfections.

My point is that to draw a perfect map one must already know all the destinations. Sometimes we build a road that seems to go in the right direction, but never quite gets there. Only an omnipotent being can possess the logic you aspire to.

The rest of us can only plot the best course we know how and continue to be explorers.

 

[Ambrosious]

Slide rules

Is this some sort of vague playground reference?

 

[Expertise]

Little help?

CD see my quantum foam query on Ambros misnomer of a thread.

 

[Closet Desire]

This quantum foam theory...

...does it have anything to do with "black holes" or "control rods"? hee hee

Hey...that's not funny...I had a leather holster for my Post Versalog slide rule! Are you happy to see me or is that a slide rule in your pocket?

Oh...by the way...they only taught us enough to be a little bit dangerous!

 

[Ambrosious]

Expertise

Now you are making fun of me, aren't you.

Thought so.

Good one!

 

[Samuari]

It seems to me that there are times when it is at least as important to understand the question as it is to ever arrive at an answer. The process itself is often the key to understanding. Of course rthere those times when understanding is not the goal, but 'winning' the argument is. This is usally when 'logic' is apealed to.

Emotions are a bad way of reacting to the world, they usally get us to the corect responce quicker than trying to reason our way through it and hoping that we did not overlook anything. Of course then we logically call them 'reflexs'.

 

[Sparky Kronkite]

I would never, and never did say anything about....

the reality of perfection. I too believe that perfection changes and therefore, nothing is perfect.

But I still believe (no, I know) in the "most correct answer." The single most correct answer.

Let's do a "what if" again......

What if you had equated a problem - plugging in all the conceivable/possible - technical data - (and other date relative to the question) - every bit of input "known" by man, regarding this equation, was included in this equation... everything known.

Okay? Crunch, crunch, crunch...... right? Bingo, whir, spit...... an answer materializes...

But, HOLD the fuck EVERYTHING!!!!

Another answer appears. SHIT!

You now have answer A and answer B. You study them - they actually both appear to be highly valid. They both seem highly plausible. Both answers A and B seem likely to be - the single, most perfect (not actual perfection just - most - more perfect than not) - sure the decision is hard.

Which one? Which would you pick? Which one "is actually the one?"

So, let's say you pick one. Let's even say it's 50/50 and you decide to iny-meeni-mini-mo the damn thing.

But you end up picking one answer.

You must of course ask yourself - most humans would: Did you make a mistake? Did you pic the "most right, most perfect" answer?

So which one was it??????????? Which one was the most perfect? Most correct?

Answer: The one "you" picked.

Why? Because "you" picked it.

Why'd you pick it? Because, after all, and I mean "all" was said and done, "all" was included in the question, all the data compiled and analyzed - it came down to a seeming tie with two answers. And then you did the "only thing" you could do. You made a choice.

And that was the correct, most perfect choice you could make - given everything you went through to obtain an answer.

So in the end, yes there is - one and only one - most correct (considering the input) answer.

But Sparky, which one is it? Which one is the most perfect answer? A or B?

Sparky would always say that A was the most logical answer. A appeared first. A is the most correct answer, most perfect answer.

Why'd you pick A Sparky? Why not B?

Sparky says, "LOGIC mother fucker! LOGIC!"

 

[TonyG]

Closet Desire

Heavy comment, but having actually studied the physics you mention I understood your idea.

Our relativity teacher would tell us not to worry about what we said in class. He had his own theorem which was
'If one can imagine it then one can explain it'. He meant that as long as we used the creativity of our minds that all of our answers could be true someday. He had a converse of that statement which was 'If one's mind is kept lazy then that mind will never have creative thought'.

Onward explorer!

 

[Closet Desire]

Now that's...

...succinct! Would you try explaining that to my 17 yo son? He's famous for answering the question without understanding it. I end up putting a lot of "atfq" marks on his papers! (oh...answer the fucking question). Kids...and you wonder where adults get it from!