The Origins of Religion

[Dhurfjooydig]

17 minutes ago, Mr Walker said:

HOW we interpret the sight of a snake for example depends on how we are conditioned or taught  to resond

And yet third generation mice fear an odor that they have never before encountered because their ancestor (who they have never met) was trained to fear it. No conditioning ... no taught.

Fear is not an intellectual construct ... it is a physiological event ... an evolved somatic reaction. Trust me, I could devise any number of ways to scare the holy bejeezus out of you ... ways that you have not been conditioned or taught to fear. 

[back to earth]

18 minutes ago, No Solid Ground said:

I'm sorry for your and your sons' loss. And I feel sad for your ex. Our society needs to reconsider how it raises boys to be men ... the toll is too high. 

Indeed ! 

I asked a question in a men's group once ; 9 about 60 men  " Who here, in your own terms and definitios, have had an experince or change where they can feel they became a man ? "

Only half the hands went up. ' To those who ddint put up their hand , again, in your own terms, who of you think they know what ot means to be a man?'

less than half.  Tragedy. 

One thing that really changed my relationships with the indigenous was when I let something slip and on them questioning me I said ' Yes, I have undergone initiation ceremonies,  white mans initiations " 

Of course they wanted to know about that, the deer I got, the more dropped out,. Until I was having an amazing 1 on 1 comparing the similarities with their system and mine .   This is 'good cred' . They realise its importance . 

I always remember this  black guy one night around the fire talking about the white people he knows " Man ! They dont even know why they here !  This guy  says to me 'Why are we here, what is the purpose and meaning of life ? ' Apparently thats a BIG question. No wonder they so ****ed up ? "    

Sadly many of them are equally ****ed up on that level now. 

 

[Mr Walker]

32 minutes ago, back to earth said:

Only because you refused to read it as I did. It was generational  not individually descriptive. Even someone with my bad reading skills could detect that.

And if you are claiming that your specific circumstances excluded you rather than modified the paradigm you were bought up in .... thats a false clam, or it just means you are unaware of it or in denial.

 

 ans this is the reason it doesnt wash with you , as I said, your views are rather old fashioned  .... 'old school' . I keep telling you that.

No it was written as generational but particularly directed at why I think as i do. My response disconnected the false connection but only for me. Generationally it might be true but it is unwise to apply a generality to someone whose background you  don't know.

. Emotions are not "intellectual constructs" as you suggest ... though I'm not surprised that you would think they are. At 67, you were a child during the 50s and early 60s ... a time when emotions were generally taboo, especially for men of your father's generation during that time. Two primary factors contributed to this strict avoidance of emotions during those years

Can't get much more directed at me personally than that   So I am supposedly mistaken about the nature of emotions because i was brought up in a time when men were men and women were less than men, and given that men NEVER were able to feel or express their emotional needs clearly I  MUST have been socially conditioned by those attitudes

 Except that i wasn't.  Mine wasn't a typical family, if any such family ever  actually existed.  i was actually brought up in my youngest years doing things with women like reading, cooking, sewing and household tasks,  Women taught me to read and write and most of my earliest skills. I was   spending more time with women  than men until my teenage years   and talking to them, listening to them  It made me a great Amway distributor later in life    

Edited June 17, 2017 by Mr Walker

[back to earth]

10 minutes ago, No Solid Ground said:

And yet third generation mice fear an odor that they have never before encountered because their ancestor (who they have never met) was trained to fear it. No conditioning ... no taught.

Fear is not an intellectual construct ... it is a physiological event ... an evolved somatic reaction. Trust me, I could devise any number of ways to scare the holy bejeezus out of you ... ways that you have not been conditioned or taught to fear. 

 

One would be sufficient .... put him in a room full of snakes . \

Its his childhood nightmare that made him shut down part of his brain function ... according to him .

 

[back to earth]

10 minutes ago, Mr Walker said:

No it was written as generational but particularly directed at why I think as i do. My response disconnected the false connection but only for me. Generationally it might be true but it is unwise to apply a generality to someone whose background you  don't know.

. Emotions are not "intellectual constructs" as you suggest ... though I'm not surprised that you would think they are. At 67, you were a child during the 50s and early 60s ... a time when emotions were generally taboo, especially for men of your father's generation during that time. Two primary factors contributed to this strict avoidance of emotions during those years

Can't get much more directed at me personally than that   So I am supposedly mistaken about the nature of emotions because i was brought up in a time when men were men and women were less than men, and given that men NEVER were able to feel or express their emotional needs clearly I  MUST have been socially conditioned by those attitudes

 Except that i wasn't.  Mine wasn't a typical family, if any such family ever  actually existed.  i was actually brought up in my youngest years doing things with women like reading, cooking, sewing and household tasks,   spending more time with women  than men until my teenage years   and talking to them, listening to them  It made me a great Amway distributor later in life    

You obviously did not understand what I said and meant . I too had a very good upbringing in my youth, but it did not shield me from the dominant paradigm. I doubt it shielded you either. 

The bolded just indicates that you read stuff into it ... what you claim is not there . 

[jmccr8]

58 minutes ago, Mr Walker said:

There isnt any relationship between haplotypes and propensity to violence, and its a modern kind of racism to assume so.

Violence is a culturally conditioned thing     A society becomes violent when the culture condones, tolerates, or even encourages violence  SOmeone from the middle east  might  be conditioned to be more tolerant of violence (might)  but lets say their kids were brought to australia as babies and brought up in an australian home. They would be no more predisposed to violence than their australian family especially if they had no idea of their heritage   The violence in the middle east is not genetic but results from the geo- political, economic,  and cultural nature of that area.

Not saying the y WILL make that jump, but it is possible, exactly BECAUSE it is all attitudinal.  Change  the mindset and in one generation you change the relationship  Give one generation of aboriginal kids exactly the same outcomes as all other australian kids and suddenly there  is a lot less to argue about    An aboriginal australian doctor or lawyer might still retain some attachment to country but it would be impossible for the to have the same connection as a tribal aboriginal. The y would have other needs and desires  to met.

  Eliminate discrimination and you eliminate most of the causes for anger and discontent. Some people won't be happy. (some might argue that  all white peole should  pack up and leave But in general the problem will be solved  

Okay I'll give you a generation although at our ages we should likely give consideration to having some clones made to implant ourselves in to because how could we ever know who wins the argument if none or one of us is around?

Just by comments that you have made in the past shows that you at your age holds some very old ideologies quite firmly so I don't know that a generation and a clone will change your views.

jmccr8

[Dhurfjooydig]

1 hour ago, Mr Walker said:

Emotions are not physical sensations they are constructed responses to physical sensations

... and yet Antonio R. Damasio, noted neurologist, describes them as: 

" ... emotions, which are themselves purely physical signals of the body reacting to external stimuli." 

hmmm ... Mr. Walker ... Antonio Damasio ... Mr. Walker ... Antonio Damasio ... I wonder who is right.  

 

Edited June 17, 2017 by No Solid Ground

[Mr Walker]

5 minutes ago, No Solid Ground said:

And yet third generation mice fear an odor that they have never before encountered because their ancestor (who they have never met) was trained to fear it. No conditioning ... no taught.

Fear is not an intellectual construct ... it is a physiological event ... an evolved somatic reaction. Trust me, I could devise any number of ways to scare the holy bejeezus out of you ... ways that you have not been conditioned or taught to fear. 

This is where you are wrong, and how human fear and emotions are different to non humans  

Humans construct intellectual fears and phobias via conditioning. They can be deconditioned and taught NOT to fear even their greatest phobia. I doubt you can do that with   a mouse. Human love is the same Unless a human child is taught how to love, by  demonstration  or example, it cannot establish the neural patterns which make up love in a human being. it cannot actually love as a human can. If fear can be unlearned and learned then it is NOT just a biological imperative And humans both learn to fear and learn how not to fear  Mice do not ,making the nature of their fear different to humans fear  Same for all emotional responses in non human animals In humans fear is a constructed intellectual RESPONSE  to a physiological event  but what is more, even the physiological responses can be averted or negated by using the mind to reshape it  Our mind can control a LOT of our physiology and physiological responses.Iit just has to be taught how to. 

You wont find any way to make me fear. i overcame fear when i was about 13  and when i stupidly announced this to my classmates many went to great lengths to make me afraid.  I have never experienced fear since then despite  being close to death several times   After years of work it was the first and easiest emotional response to manage   Eliminating the fear of fear is a little harder but uses the same steps.  Because fear is  response we choose,  we can choose not  chose it. However it is wise not to throw out caution and common sense along with the fear   Better to act from logic and common sense than  from fear, anyway.  For example faced with a basket of snakes  Or indeed a wall of flames in a raging bushfire  or stuck on a sheer rock face while climbing you won't find any physiological response from my body but I  wont put my hand into  the basket either Not from fear but from common sense. Being free from fear allows the  mind to analyse the problem or danger and seek optima solutions it increases your chances of survival far more than a simple adrenalin rush. But if you NEED that rush you can produce it on demand once your mind controls your body. 

[Mr Walker]

21 minutes ago, back to earth said:

 

One would be sufficient .... put him in a room full of snakes . \

Its his childhood nightmare that made him shut down part of his brain function ... according to him .

 

lol And that might also have been part of the  reason i worked so hard to control my body via my mind.

  Ive dealt with many snakes in my time. I am cautious with them, as many are quite deadly but i no longer have a mental or physiological fear of them    I can deal with them calmly and rationally, as appropriate, when I encounter them.   Indeed i see this as  an example of strength and control , to  be able to cause my mind to be controlled by my will and thus to stop seeing images of snakes in the dark 

[back to earth]

9 minutes ago, Mr Walker said:

.  For example faced with a basket of snakes  Or indeed a wall of flames in a raging bushfire  or stuck on a sheer rock face while climbing you won't find any physiological response from my body but I  wont put my hand into  the basket either Not from fear but from common sense. Being free from fear allows the  mind to analyse the problem or danger and seek optima solutions it increases your chances of survival far more than a simple adrenalin rush. But if you NEED that rush you can produce it on demand once your mind controls your body. 

how about  snakes not in a basket ?

 

 

 

... a room full of them ... everywhere, even in the air and the ceiling ....... everywhere you looked ? 

[back to earth]

8 minutes ago, Mr Walker said:

lol And that might also have been part of the  reason i worked so hard to control my body via my mind.

  Ive dealt with many snakes in my time. I am cautious with them, as many are quite deadly but i no longer have a mental or physiological fear of them    I can deal with them calmly and rationally, as appropriate, when I encounter them.   Indeed i see this as  an example of strength and control , to  be able to cause my mind to be controlled by my will and thus to stop seeing images of snakes in the dark 

 

and , according to you , fried part of your own brain

 

 forcing  and controlling .... instead of dealing with the root of the problem, which is obviously still there . ! 

 but dont worry about that ....    thats it , keep on loling  away   .    

Edited June 17, 2017 by back to earth

[Mr Walker]

17 minutes ago, No Solid Ground said:

... and yet Antonio R. Damasio, noted neurologist, describes them as: 

" ... emotions, which are themselves purely physical signals of the body reacting to external stimuli." 

hmmm ... Mr. Walker ... Antonio Damasio ... Mr. Walker ... Antonio Damasio ... I wonder who is right.  

 

In humans emotions are NOT  purely physical responses ( If you mean purely  a physiological or chemical response)  Even pain is not a physical response but a mental construct.     This is established scientific fact and i doubt that is what  Damasio actually meant   but i would have to read his work to be sure. I am right but only because i am referencing some other top experts on the nature of pain and emotions in humans 

https://ww2.kqed.org/forum/2017/04/11/emotions-are-a-construct-of-the-brain-says-psychologist-lisa-feldman-barrett/

Edited June 17, 2017 by Mr Walker

[jmccr8]

4 minutes ago, back to earth said:

how about  snakes not in a basket ?

 

 

 

... a room full of them ... everywhere, even in the air and the ceiling ....... everywhere you looked ? 

Well.. if they were three breasted alien snakes....jmccr8

[jmccr8]

2 minutes ago, Mr Walker said:

In humans emotions are NOT  purely physical responses ( If you mean purely  a physiological or chemical response)  Even pain is not a physical response but a mental construct.     This is established scientific fact and i doubt that is what  Damasio actually meant   but i would have to read his work to be sure. I am right but only because i am referencing some other top experts on the nature of pain and emotions in humans 

A child in the womb experiences the emotions of the mother as well as hears sounds and makes relationships,is it by self awareness or physical development based on chemicals released by the mother to you Walker.

jmccr8

[Mr Walker]

8 minutes ago, back to earth said:

 

and , according to you , fried part of your own brain

 

 forcing  and controlling .... instead of dealing with the root of the problem, which is obviously still there . ! 

 but dont worry about that ....    thats it , keep on loling  away   .    

I never used such terms. In stopping my ability to see images of snakes i inadvertently   stopped my abilty to see any images in my mind Might be the sort of thing which happens when you deliberately seek to manipulate your mind body interface aged 3 or 4 That is hardly "frying  a part of my brain"  I never even noticed it for  most of my life  And it made me a whole lot better at many other forms of thinking.

 it must be terrible to be so pessimistic I wonder what part of your brain, responsible for optimism, got fried in your youth  

There is no problem in that there is no loss of function required for a happy and successful life.  If i was REALLY concerned i would do something about it As it is, it makes for an interesting intellectual problem which i am working at solving  However i would not like to lose my abilty for controlled lucid dreaming with total reality  which  i think is a compensation for not being able to consciously visualiae. 

[Mr Walker]

12 minutes ago, jmccr8 said:

Well.. if they were three breasted alien snakes....jmccr8

Um!  Those were called hydra women and lived on a watery planet.   The things they could ....... No this is a family forum.  

[Mr Walker]

11 minutes ago, jmccr8 said:

A child in the womb experiences the emotions of the mother as well as hears sounds and makes relationships,is it by self awareness or physical development based on chemicals released by the mother to you Walker.

jmccr8

Certainly feels the chemical responses but cant associate it with the cause. This has to e learned later   Might burn some neural path ways in response to the mothers fear Not sure about that but it fits that all emotions and even fear in humans are learned and conditioned (even if in the womb) not evolved genetic biological responses If they were biologically programmed responses then we could not uncondition ourselves and unlearn those responses and learn not t feel anger or hate or fear We can do this ,proving that such emotions are not simply conditioned biological responses.  . 

[Dhurfjooydig]

1 hour ago, Mr Walker said:

Unless a human child is taught how to love, by  demonstration  or example, it cannot establish the neural patterns which make up love in a human being.

When you say things like this I really feel genuinely sad and concerned for you. Love is not an intellectual exercise. It is not a trained conceptual construct or a dictated duty. It is not a conditioned or rote Pavlovian reaction. Love is not, I repeat emphatically, not ... a learned neural pattern.

When you say things like this I wonder if you've ever wept for joy. If you've cried for humanity. If the clouds in the sky ever took your breathe away. If you've loved until your head exploded. If you've ever giggled at the thought that one of your inhalations will be your very last ... boom, just like that  ... deader than a stone ... a rotting puddle on the floor ... a desiccating husk. If you've let a poem or a flower or a traveling constellation in the night sky sweep you away. If you've ever let fear rise up, peak, overwhelm you, and wash away all your entrenched certainty, making room for imagination and renewal and doubt and wonder. If you've ever let your constructed self disintegrate and entirely collapse. If you've ever let go of everything you believe. If you've ever seen through your constructed identity and discovered that your cherished 'self' is just a story you lull yourself to sleep with. You are not in control of this experience of existence you are having ... your notions of certainty are illusions. Do you doubt this? Consider ... you no more know what your next thought will be than what my next post will be. You think you own your mind and that your mind controls your body and that humanity will control nature and be freed of its effects and constraints. All I hear you saying is that you are terrified of losing imagined control ... afraid of dying ... of not existing ... of being an innate part of and at the effect of something infinitely larger than what you imagine to be your 'self' ... of not being able to sustain your narrative of being in control. I hope you find the will and strength to let go, to feel vulnerable, and to be sensitively receptive to the uncertain unpredictable magnificence of actuality before you die. Shake it loose, buddy. 

Edited June 17, 2017 by No Solid Ground

[jmccr8]

46 minutes ago, Mr Walker said:

Um!  Those were called hydra women and lived on a watery planet.   The things they could ....... No this is a family forum.  

Your such a perv., so did your alien buddy give the intro or is this a different fantasy.

jmccr8

[jmccr8]

11 hours ago, Stubbly_Dooright said:

Oh, I agree with you there.  I cannot imagine the damage done to patients misled by some  bad therapists.   I know there are those out there.  

 

And to tell someone to manipulate your emotions like that.  That's just screaming emotional time bomb!   

I knew a girl from a wealthy family, she told me that she went to several psychiatrists before she found one that agreed with her.

Nice girl a little off though.

jmccr8

[jmccr8]

10 hours ago, back to earth said:

That old wrang wrang he walk in everytime

he tell many story but he cannot rhyme 

we try to get him to stay on track

but in his brain , he got a  broken map 

 

You were 4 lines short of me striking a lit for a bud in a blanket.Rasta.

jmccr8

[jmccr8]

1 hour ago, Mr Walker said:

Certainly feels the chemical responses but cant associate it with the cause. This has to e learned later   Might burn some neural path ways in response to the mothers fear Not sure about that but it fits that all emotions and even fear in humans are learned and conditioned (even if in the womb) not evolved genetic biological responses If they were biologically programmed responses then we could not uncondition ourselves and unlearn those responses and learn not t feel anger or hate or fear We can do this ,proving that such emotions are not simply conditioned biological responses.  . 

There was a time in my teens and early twenties that I questioned some Traits/things that I did not understand until I found out different aspects of my family. My Grand-father was building carriages in Toronto with his brother, another brother Sandy was laying track for the first railroad across this country, well he got out to the prairies and sent a letter saying better send Jimmy out here these boys think they know how to fight, so he came.

 On my moms side of the family there were some interesting characters. The one had bought a new set of dueling pistols and sent his servant down the road and shot him to see how accurate the gun was.

 On my dad's mom's side there were two clans that were to battle and had agreed one 100 footmen and 100 horses, we showed up with two men on every horse.

Are there some things that follow us through our genes or soul?created spirit?Sure my dad was toughened up by his dad and trained me, is that part of the control of an essence of my lines being in the world. I'm not talking about just a physical experience because it involves parts of my mind and soul and the emotion to be the means to interpret/relate them to the environment I am in.

jmccr8

[+Hammerclaw]

3 hours ago, Mr Walker said:

What do you actually mean by that hammerclaw?

 The mind is a processing   self aware entity  which takes in data and processes it.  It uses the data and processing  (like logic magination comparison evaluation etc   to grow  in knowledge skills and abilities,  learning as it goes  The mind or self aware consciousness is a product of the brain /body  but it is a bit like a radio or tv signal in that  it also exists on its own  once generated.  And rather  than just being a single signal it as if multiple signals can interconnect and teach each other slowly growing, evolving and developing The thing about a self aware mind is that it is no longer simply responsive to the body or other stimuli. it can become proactive taking charge and control of the body and using it to shape the environment to meet the body's needs it can even take charge of the body's biological responses, from hunger through anger and fear.   

Your analogies are crude, representative of a mechanic's perception of living organisms. The mind and body are one functioning unit, neither can exist in their present forms without the other. There is no natural separation between the two. Macro organisms are the ultimate refinement of Precambrian  colony organizations of living cells. One can no longer exist without the other, nor can the structures they form to build a living body. To treat with the mind is to treat with body of which it is part. They are one.

[Stubbly_Dooright]

4 hours ago, jmccr8 said:

I knew a girl from a wealthy family, she told me that she went to several psychiatrists before she found one that agreed with her.

Nice girl a little off though.

jmccr8

Probably why she needed one. *shrugs* I need to be a little serious on that one though. My apologies on the half joke. I always feel that I'm a little off. Then again, I do it for humor for me and for others. 

To get a little more serious, I think it's good one must 'get' second opinions, just like with any other doctors. I think, one must be getting the right treatment in anything. 

I don't know, if I mentioned this bit about something I have always been  on in my life's experiences. Not me, (though I have seen a campus psychologist back in college, and she was wonderful!!!  ), but there was a particular classmate, friend, of a family member of mine. She ended up renting out her place to that family member. She, herself, had a lot of personal issues, along with some physical, that made it worse. And she would see a psychologist or psychiatrist, and it was a very long process. In which, really wasn't getting anywhere.  Here's the concerning and sad part, I consider anyways. This professional, understandingly probably, told her he couldn't help her anymore. I don't know, if he referred her to someone else or not, but after that, she hung herself. 

I think how tough it is for any professional. One, who is very dedicated in their job, and that it's still a case by case situation. I don't think, it's simple. It's something I reflect all the time, and know it's  never that easy to consider 'this is it, it will be simple, help is being done'. I think of this poor lady all of the time, and think, we all need to help, we all need to know not to make quick judgments, and it's a team effort. 

And in the end, one person in my recollection, is still gone who could have been still here with more help. 

Sorry, I got a bit ... morose there jmcc8.   

 

Edited June 17, 2017 by Stubbly_Dooright
Forgot a couple of words.

[Stubbly_Dooright]

9 hours ago, back to earth said:

'Build the type of response '  my God walker  , children are not machines !  I taught kids how to deal with the emotions they were  actually having and work through them , rather than create false 'other ones'   .

But I am not 'qualified' .  

Oh, I think you're qualified in my book.  It sounds a lot more healthy to me. 

9 hours ago, Sherapy said:

Hey BTE where is my poem 

Yeah, BTE, I am behind this lady. I think you need to give her her poem!!!!

8 hours ago, Sherapy said:

Of course you are not gonna prove anything to anyone because that you know is all that matters. Is code for you don't have proof. Dude you say this on every degree, every profession you claim and have been challenged on. It is the same story different  day. 

He's not going to prove anything to those, who don't really read his posts. I didn't realize he said anything towards me. When is he going to realize, I don't respect his posts. *sigh*. 

Quote

In my opinion, and I hope Stubbs adds her advice as a long time mother like myself the advice you said you gave to kids is the same advice your parents gave you when you were bullied, the sticks and stones will break your bones kind of advice which is useless in reality. I can tell you as a mother and a person who tutors kids that the last thing I would tell them that being bullied doesn't matter or that is inappropriate to have feelings about it. It would be damn appropriate to be angry to be bullied. 

Exactly. (and don't worry, I do use what I have learned ((and even before that)) from being a mother) My kids, were bullied, have done the bullying, felt all sorts of emotions from all sorts of things. I never 'instructed' them to feel something else. That would confuse them. What I and my husband did, was acknowledge them with them and see how to work through it to come to a better conclusion for them and for others. They have learned to feel at peace now, because of honestly seeing their emotions and seeing other's as well. 

I have learned through myself and others, that hiding, ignoring, and rewriting, one's true emotions, confuses them, and one's feelings always end up taking over one's body and actions. If one really thinks rewriting and telling very young kids to ignore their true emotions and believe others they don't feel is what is best, then how is it, what I did with my kids, (which was opposite of that) made my kids into calm and functional adults? I have seen kids, from families that seem to tell their kids what to feel, and they usually ended up causing trouble and being troubled in the first place. I have seen the examples of Walker's 'philosophy' and it's very horrifyingly sad. 

In the end, Sheri, you make the more sense.   It makes a lot more sense!!       

8 hours ago, No Solid Ground said:

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/feeling-our-emotions/

"For centuries, the fleeting and highly subjective world of feelings was the purview of philosophers. But during the past 30 years, Antonio R. Damasio has strived to show that feelings are what arise as the brain interprets emotions, which are themselves purely physical signals of the body reacting to external stimuli."

"But for neuroscience, emotions are more or less the complex reactions the body has to certain stimuli."

Thank you!!!!!     

8 hours ago, No Solid Ground said:

 

10 hours ago, Mr Walker said:

The truth is that our emotional responses are ALL learned intellectual constructs

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/feeling-our-emotions/

"For centuries, the fleeting and highly subjective world of feelings was the purview of philosophers. But during the past 30 years, Antonio R. Damasio has strived to show that feelings are what arise as the brain interprets emotions, which are themselves purely physical signals of the body reacting to external stimuli."

"But for neuroscience, emotions are more or less the complex reactions the body has to certain stimuli."

---

Emotions are somatic sensations ... that is, our bodily senses are responding to stimuli and giving us valuable signals (anger, sadness, fear, etc...).  Being aware of these felt-sense emotions (the physical sensations ... the responsive / reactive energies moving in the body) is very valuable ... they give us critically important feedback re: what's happening in the moment (or what has happened in the past) and our relationship with what has / is happening. If we listen to / feel our body, these sensations / emotions can be our ally. We can make friends with these fast-moving essences, regarding them as valuable gauges and indicators instead of unconsciously merging with them and acting them out. We can learn to honor them, develop a relationship with them, and let them inform us (and our intellect) but not be captured, controlled, and blinded by them. They have much to tell us if we feel them, acknowledge them, and don’t get confusingly swept away by them. 

Emotions are not "intellectual constructs" as you suggest ... though I'm not surprised that you would think they are. At 67, you were a child during the 50s and early 60s ... a time when emotions were generally taboo, especially for men of your father's generation during that time. Two primary factors contributed to this strict avoidance of emotions during those years:

 

And I think, we all have seen some examples of these individuals today and their ability to function. Well, I have.   

8 hours ago, No Solid Ground said:

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/feeling-our-emotions/

"For centuries, the fleeting and highly subjective world of feelings was the purview of philosophers. But during the past 30 years, Antonio R. Damasio has strived to show that feelings are what arise as the brain interprets emotions, which are themselves purely physical signals of the body reacting to external stimuli."

"But for neuroscience, emotions are more or less the complex reactions the body has to certain stimuli."

---

Emotions are somatic sensations ... that is, our bodily senses are responding to stimuli and giving us valuable signals (anger, sadness, fear, etc...).  Being aware of these felt-sense emotions (the physical sensations ... the responsive / reactive energies moving in the body) is very valuable ... they give us critically important feedback re: what's happening in the moment (or what has happened in the past) and our relationship with what has / is happening. If we listen to / feel our body, these sensations / emotions can be our ally. We can make friends with these fast-moving essences, regarding them as valuable gauges and indicators instead of unconsciously merging with them and acting them out. We can learn to honor them, develop a relationship with them, and let them inform us (and our intellect) but not be captured, controlled, and blinded by them. They have much to tell us if we feel them, acknowledge them, and don’t get confusingly swept away by them. 

Emotions are not "intellectual constructs" as you suggest ... though I'm not surprised that you would think they are. At 67, you were a child during the 50s and early 60s ... a time when emotions were generally taboo, especially for men of your father's generation during that time. Two primary factors contributed to this strict avoidance of emotions during those years:

1. World War II ... the most gruesome of all wars swept up your father's generation of men and they couldn't afford to feel / acknowledge the depth of their emotions. They were trained to be machines and their battlefield experiences were so horrendous that they didn't know how to processes them. After the war, there was no post-traumatic stress support ... they were thrown back into a society hell bent on prosperity. They were left to deal with their trauma on their own and they did it by shutting down their feelings / ignoring the body's voice.

2. As a result, gender roles became polarized ... emotions became the domain of women (the "weaker" sex"). Women became "nature" and men became "mind".  Men were told to stay strong and emotionless..."be a man" ... and never ever cry. Unfortunately, the men of your father's generation  trained their sons (of your generation) to be "little soldiers" also ... out of touch with the body and emotions ... upwardly displaced in the head ... with a lifeless, even anti-life nihilistic intellect that viewed itself as separate from the body and viewed nature (including women) as "less than" and "other" ... to be conquered, subdued, and exploited. The severing of earth from sky, humans from earth, and body from mind that I spoke of earlier (in the context of the concept of religion's invention in the 13th century) peaked during the 50s - early 60s ... (when you were being shaped by society). 

Intellect, severed from body and nature, was the male ideal ... and it fueled what in the future will be regarded as a violent war against nature that roared into action in the 50s, resulting in the dangerous circumstances we now find ourselves in. Intellect, pathologically severed from body, from sensation, from emotion, from sensitivity and vulnerability, from nature ... is a cold-blooded killer. The state of the ecosystem is a testament to this culturally acceptable psychosis and mass slaughter of life. Your father's generation of men, and to a large degree yours, brought this war to the natural world which it regarded as an enemy. Fortunately, some men in your generation reclaimed body / emotion and subsequent generations of men are more sensitive and in touch with their emotions ... and have learned to respect / cooperate with nature ... including their own nature. They don't feel the need to deny / conquer their emotions (or regard them as "intellectual constructs"). 

Unfortunately though, it is still far too common for men to take refuge in intellect at the expense of nature, emotions, and the body. Perhaps then it isn't a coincidence that the number one killer of men, a quarter of all men, is heart failure. Emotions (the heart of the matter) ... ignored for a lifetime ... takes a terrible toll.    

 

You're post!!! Definitely needed!! Definitely needed!!!  

8 hours ago, Sherapy said:

And, MW is no exception he also has had a massive heart attack. My ex husband was a man not unlike MW, he dropped dead a year ago of a massive stroke it was the 4th one. His doctor told him repeatedly to get into shape, eat healthy, get into therapy to learn to deal with his emotions, he was like a brick wall with no way in emotionally, he was always stressed out creating conflict with others, Walker reminds me a lot of him. My ex left behind two amazing sons One who had just got a full scholarship to univesity to play football. My sons are heart broken and gosh they tried to get his dad to listen to the doctors. Even my husband and I did too. Of course, he didn't listen as he knew better. 

Your post is spot on. 

(((HUGS)))   

8 hours ago, Sherapy said:

8 hours ago, Hammerclaw said:

Mind and body are one;there is no fragmentation save that misperceived or erected by the artifice of man. The mind, the ego the id, the soul and flesh are all one connected expression and culmination of half a billion years or more of life's evolution on this planet. One must treat with the whole creature, even when healing it's individual constituent parts.

Yes, Hammies it is simple as you say, I don't know your age, but you are emotionally rich and responsive. You were incredibly close to your mom, besides caring for her for years, you had a great bond, right? 

((HUGS)) Hammie!!!!!

8 hours ago, Hammerclaw said:

Bonds of flesh, severed only by death, and I'm 62. A child of what use to be a typical nuclear family group and the oldest of five siblings, married once, divorced once,  I had a twenty-five year relationship with a woman ten years my junior, who died, suddenly, of an aortic aneurism.

Oh dear.   

7 hours ago, No Solid Ground said:

Are we to understand that your knowledge of modern neuroscience and emotions is deeper, broader, and more refined than noted neurologist Antonio R. Damasio's understanding of them (quoted in my post)?

Odd then that Scientific American isn't interviewing you ... 

Good point. 

7 hours ago, No Solid Ground said:

I'm not familiar enough re: Australian aborigines to comment, but I'm aware that Native Americans had existed for somewhere between 25 - 65k years in North America (and perhaps longer) before their lands were invaded by barbaric cruel Europeans who committed mass genocide and torture, destroyed their cultures,  and broke their spirit in less than 200 years. I guess you see this as good for the survivors and just progress. 

I seconded that. I have come to learn about this myself. Why is it, they are termed 'Native Americans'? 

(Well, despite the fact, that calling them Indians is confusing them to the Asian Indians.) *shrugs*

 

Edited June 17, 2017 by Stubbly_Dooright
Wow! My typing skills suck.