[lit-ideas] Re: Talking about emotions
- From: Andy <min.erva@xxxxxxxxx>
- To: lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Thu, 4 Oct 2007 21:08:44 -0700 (PDT)
I guess Bush couldn't show us because by definition it would be private. But,
having spent the energy instead of sublimating it into invading, it would have
made the world a lot more peaceful and a lot more mental health would flourish.
Talk about trickle down, if enough people in power did it, it would eliminate
a lot of greed, which alone would solve a huge number of problems. Then we'd
be in less or no debt as a country, our dollar wouldn't be collapsing, we'd be
better stewards of our resources. Instead, we have exactly the opposite, not
to mention all those poor people in the war areas we created where there's
nothing but daily extreme trauma.
Andy <min.erva@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Actually, anger needs to be dealt with first. Underlying the anger is the
sadness. Like an onion, we exist in layers. Wouldn't it be nice if some truly
courageous political figure would take the lead in showing the world how it's
done. Imagine if Bush would have gotten his anger at his mother over with and
done his crying. Would he have invaded Iraq after that? Never. And that's a
fact.
Andy <min.erva@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Agreed, but this is reactive to someone else's emotions. It's actually
squelching one's own emotions. Up to a point that's necessary. Beyond a
certain point, one becomes a pressure cooker. Beyond a mere release valve
(certainly better than nothing) one needs to deal with the emotion at its
source. None of this can be done in public. In other words, men need to stop
screaming and shut the door and start crying. Women too.
John McCreery <john.mccreery@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On 10/5/07, Eric Dean wrote:
> I believe, however, that
> we *do* experience one another's emotions in some important if intractably
> ambiguous and often tragically limited ways. The fact that our experience
> of each other's emotions *is* incomplete, subject to gross error, and
> intractably ambiguous makes that experience both extremely difficult to talk
> about and anxiety-provoking. None of those characteristics, though, mean it
> is false that we have such experiences.
For whatever it may be worth, I fully endorse this statement. I am
currently involved in the training program for a telephone crisis
counseling line and one of the things we teach and learn is that, if
you are wondering what a caller is feeling, listen for a while then
consult your gut.
I can't cite any particular sources, but it does seem that when human
beings communicate we tend to synchronize our feelings. Those of us
aware of this tendency can can make use of it in therapeutic or
manipulative ways. A counsellor confronted with a panicked caller
should, for example, remain calm and neutral, thus helping to calm the
caller.
In her books on The Art of Verbal Self-Defense, Virginia Satir
recommends a similar approach whenever we encounter someone who is
angry with us. Remaining calm and neutral will dissipate the anger.
Becoming angry ourselves will send the conversation spiraling into a
fury (on-line a flame war).
John
--
John McCreery
The Word Works, Ltd., Yokohama, JAPAN
Tel. +81-45-314-9324
http://www.wordworks.jp/
------------------------------------------------------------------
To change your Lit-Ideas settings (subscribe/unsub, vacation on/off,
digest on/off), visit www.andreas.com/faq-lit-ideas.html
---------------------------------
Pinpoint customers who are looking for what you sell.
---------------------------------
Building a website is a piece of cake.
Yahoo! Small Business gives you all the tools to get online.
---------------------------------
Building a website is a piece of cake.
Yahoo! Small Business gives you all the tools to get online.
Other related posts:
