Stoicism

[XenoFish]

1 hour ago, Sherapy said:

 

Actually, Dee is correct It is one’s interpretation and experiences of an event or situation that gives rise to ones reactions, (thoughts and feelings go hand in hand) a person would be doing this via cognitive restructuring ( modifying what they believe by creating new thoughts)  there are definitely approaches that can be used very well to cognitively to work with the cortex or amygdala reactions, depending on whether it is an amygdala or cortex reaction. There are also coping styles, many folks find ways to cope not all lead to long term change though. We can always create new neural pathways with the brains plasticity, Your point is also correct in pointing out that there is a difference between being reactive versus being responsive. There in lies the distinction. 
 

 

I didn't mention anything about coping.

[+Sherapy]

9 minutes ago, XenoFish said:

I didn't mention anything about coping.

Indeed, I did. I brought it in as an add too. 

[XenoFish]

2 minutes ago, Sherapy said:

Indeed, I did. I brought it in as an add too. 

Then I must have misread. 

[+Desertrat56]

17 hours ago, XenoFish said:

From what I gather while looking into stoicism. It isn't about supressing emotions, it's about allowing yet not being controlled by them. 

https://dailystoic.com/margaret-graver/

Yes, that makes more sense than the training called stoicism my mother's family taught.

[+Desertrat56]

16 hours ago, XenoFish said:

To the bold that is control. You're willfully processing your emotions. If you need a good cry, have it, then accept the situation. I feel that you're making the same mistake a lot do with the concept. Is that emotions are like switches when they're more like valves that leak slightly. If you feed certain emotions the stronger they'll become and easier to trigger in people. A rage-a-holics has nurtured their anger. Someone who has spent ample time regulating their emotions will be better apt in handling anger. They will be angry, yet may also calm that anger. Which is better than lashing out in it. Same thing with other emotions. The bliss bunnies are you call them are addicted to feeling happy 24/7. Which is why they're probably the most miserable people around. Because they need their emotional fix constantly. Like a drug addict. 

Stoicism offered me a way out of depression. I'm not a master of it nor am I highly adept at it. What I do know is that I chose to feed my misery. Once I cut off the emotional fuel I started to recover. This doesn't mean I won't have bad days. It simply means I can reassess how I feel and choose to not feel a certain way. 

The problem I see in the world now is that there are those who think and do solely on an emotional level. They are ruled by their emotions the "Triggered" types. Where whatever another person says throws them into an emotional tantrum. 

A question to constantly ask oneself is "what can I control?". Good chance very little externally. Very good chance internally. People choose to be offended. They choose to let words hurt them. It is by their choices that they are emotional weak. 

At least that's my take on this. 

I am not the one making the mistake, I know how emotions work and how to keep them from controlling you.  My examples were of people trying to control their emotions instead of allowing them.   I agree with your analogy that dealing successfully with emotions is like using valves.

 

[+Desertrat56]

3 hours ago, Sherapy said:

 

Actually, Dee is correct It is one’s interpretation and experiences of an event or situation that gives rise to ones reactions, (thoughts and feelings go hand in hand) a person would be doing this via cognitive restructuring ( modifying what they believe by creating new thoughts)  there are definitely approaches that can be used very well to cognitively to work with the cortex or amygdala reactions, depending on whether it is an amygdala or cortex reaction. There are also coping styles, many folks find ways to cope not all lead to long term change though. We can always create new neural pathways with the brains plasticity, Your point is also correct in pointing out that there is a difference between being reactive versus being responsive. There in lies the distinction. 
 

 

I think this is more about recognizing when you are triggered that the event that triggered you is not the cause of your feelings, and examining that, and tracking back to when you first felt that way, how you mishandled that emotion (usually suppresed, repressed or oppressed it ) you will find ways to relive that emotion, attaching current events or interactions to it even though they are not really  appropriate.  It is a way of avoiding self reflection and self responsibility.

[+Liquid Gardens]

16 hours ago, Mr Walker said:

It is more the Buddhist sense of detachment 

There does seem to be some overlap between stoicism and Buddhism.  From what I've gleaned by mostly osmosis rather than actual study, both agree that pain is unavoidable but suffering can be mitigated and is more caused by our thoughts, over which we do have some control. They both also seem to incorporate the Serenity Prayer aspects by noting the logical futility of having negative emotions concerning things outside your control.  With the obvious disclaimer that there are many different flavors of both of these philosophies, to me one of the differences I thought is that Buddhism emphasized detachment overall including in some cases from good and positive emotions.  It's not that they aren't happy, it's that the detachment is necessary to achieve that, maybe slightly different kind of, joy and happiness. I don't know if stoicism says that much more about joy and happiness other than to seek and enjoy it, although it may include some warnings about potential negatives of those too like Buddhism.

An example I see a lot is if you found out your partner was cheating on you.  Both may teach that suffering from that is from attachment to some extent, but I think Buddhism would then try to emphasize to not have that kind of attachment to begin with, which should help prevent current and future suffering.  I'm sure that's possible but for a lot of normal folk the attachment we have to someone we love that causes us to suffer if they cheat is kinda all baked together internally in us as 'love', so detaching from it and separating out these attachments that can cause suffering may be very difficult, or may come at the cost of the good parts too.  I get the vibe from stoicism that it is more of course you are going to feel pain and suffer in this situation, but keep in mind that there's a good chunk of it that is out of your control and thus pointless to suffer extensively over if you can help it, and hopefully that truth will provide some relief and comfort now and ongoing.

Although you can use the teachings for many purposes, overall I think Buddhist teachings are designed around the goal of achieving enlightenment or Nirvana.  Stoicism I see as more, 'here's a way to look at and deal with  life as it is and with who you are right now'.  I think I'm more partial to stoicism as it just seems more pragmatic to me and takes less 'work' than Buddhism, although I like too that I have the option at anytime of checking out at least part of the path to enlightenment if I put that effort in, does sound intriguing.  But one of the things I like about both of these is that they both encourage questioning as opposed to just accepting teachings or dogma.  That way lies truth.

[XenoFish]

39 minutes ago, Desertrat56 said:

I am not the one making the mistake, I know how emotions work and how to keep them from controlling you.  My examples were of people trying to control their emotions instead of allowing them.   I agree with your analogy that dealing successfully with emotions is like using valves.

 

Ok

[+Sherapy]

10 hours ago, XenoFish said:

Then I must have misread. 

No worries. 

[SHaYap]

Let's try a new tangent... 

Quote

plato.stanford.edu

Simone de Beauvoir (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

 

by D Bergoffen · 2004 · Cited by 73 — Beauvoir's Ethics of Ambiguity is a secularism that rejects the ideas of God and Humanity. Their apparent...

 

~

[00.10:40]

~

 

[Mr Walker]

On 12/9/2021 at 2:07 PM, jmccr8 said:

Hi Walker

You can't tell me what goes on in me and with your example if that was the case my mind would be so busy making hundreds of choices a minute. I don't think about lifting my foot 6" to step up a curb or 8"" for stepping up a set of stairs it is a reflex. You have almost created a Zeno paradox where you can't do this because before you can do that you have to think about this before you can think about that, ultimately you don't get anything done because you are spending too much time thinking about how to do what you already know how to do.

I can tell you, but of course you don't have to believe me   

and yes our mind processes  millions  of  pieces of data a second  Each is a thought and a decision or choice.

However we learn these skills  as infants and children and so we tend to make them unconsciously.

BUT have a stoke or brain  damage and see how you have to consciously re learn,  however, to command your body to do the smallest things, and you  will realise I am right.

   For a stroke victim just to  relearn how to move a finger or hand via a mental command to the body  can take so much effort of mind that the y break out into a sweat with the effort    To form the mouth and tongue muscles into the movements required to speak can also be hard to relearn. 

If you weren't thinking as you walked,   and processing  available visual and other data constantly,   you would stumble, fall, or walk into something.

You wouldn't know where you were spatially, or how you got there. 

The process of walking becomes automatic yet it is still regulated by the mind processing some of those millions of pieces of data 

While we can only process a limited number of data consciously each second,   subconsciously we can process millions  

 A subconscious choice of the mind is still a choice,  and we still have input into it, and can direct it 

Edited December 10, 2021 by Mr Walker

[Mr Walker]

14 hours ago, Liquid Gardens said:

There does seem to be some overlap between stoicism and Buddhism.  From what I've gleaned by mostly osmosis rather than actual study, both agree that pain is unavoidable but suffering can be mitigated and is more caused by our thoughts, over which we do have some control. They both also seem to incorporate the Serenity Prayer aspects by noting the logical futility of having negative emotions concerning things outside your control.  With the obvious disclaimer that there are many different flavors of both of these philosophies, to me one of the differences I thought is that Buddhism emphasized detachment overall including in some cases from good and positive emotions.  It's not that they aren't happy, it's that the detachment is necessary to achieve that, maybe slightly different kind of, joy and happiness. I don't know if stoicism says that much more about joy and happiness other than to seek and enjoy it, although it may include some warnings about potential negatives of those too like Buddhism.

An example I see a lot is if you found out your partner was cheating on you.  Both may teach that suffering from that is from attachment to some extent, but I think Buddhism would then try to emphasize to not have that kind of attachment to begin with, which should help prevent current and future suffering.  I'm sure that's possible but for a lot of normal folk the attachment we have to someone we love that causes us to suffer if they cheat is kinda all baked together internally in us as 'love', so detaching from it and separating out these attachments that can cause suffering may be very difficult, or may come at the cost of the good parts too.  I get the vibe from stoicism that it is more of course you are going to feel pain and suffer in this situation, but keep in mind that there's a good chunk of it that is out of your control and thus pointless to suffer extensively over if you can help it, and hopefully that truth will provide some relief and comfort now and ongoing.

Although you can use the teachings for many purposes, overall I think Buddhist teachings are designed around the goal of achieving enlightenment or Nirvana.  Stoicism I see as more, 'here's a way to look at and deal with  life as it is and with who you are right now'.  I think I'm more partial to stoicism as it just seems more pragmatic to me and takes less 'work' than Buddhism, although I like too that I have the option at anytime of checking out at least part of the path to enlightenment if I put that effort in, does sound intriguing.  But one of the things I like about both of these is that they both encourage questioning as opposed to just accepting teachings or dogma.  That way lies truth.

Spot on .

Although I am not sure that all forms of Buddhism see attachment as creating the basis for suffering 

This assumes that LOSS (rather than the attachment)   will cause pain, which is not always true, and not always inevitable, if one can simply accept loss as part of the package 

[Mr Walker]

On 12/9/2021 at 10:01 AM, Desertrat56 said:

I don't see any reason to embrace stoicism.  Embrace allowing your self to speak up when you know you can change something and accepting things you can't change.  And don't take someone else's word for what you can and cannot change, you have to determine that.

stoicism is a useful cognitive /psychological tool when dealing with issues 

Basically work hard to overcome the issues you  can affect, and simply put aside the ones you cannot  Never worry for a second about things you cannot control or influence 

It is not as easy as it sounds, but extremely effective when applied 

Ie if an emotion is not productive in some way, learn to deconstruct it.

You are going to die one day Do everything you can to put it off for as long as possible but don't spend a second worrying about it. 

You are in constant pain.  Do everything you  can to alleviate that pain, then simply put it aside and don't get emotional about it (don't fear it, get angry at it etc)  That will only increase the feeling of pain.   Your house burns down and  you  lose everything you have gathered over 50 years including family heirlooms going back for 2 centuries  

Don't feel pain, anger, loss,  etc. Seize the day and the new opportunities afforded  you. Look a t it as a liberating experience   Embrace the fact that you survived, and plan for the future  

A stoic would have done everything they could to prevent the fire, and had good insurance, but once t occurred would  not worry about it, or feel bad/pain, or regret,  for a second 

[jmccr8]

56 minutes ago, Mr Walker said:

I can tell you, but of course you don't have to believe me   

and yes our mind processes  millions  of  pieces of data a second  Each is a thought and a decision or choice.

However we learn these skills  as infants and children and so we tend to make them unconsciously.

BUT have a stoke or brain  damage and see how you have to consciously re learn,  however, to command your body to do the smallest things, and you  will realise I am right.

   For a stroke victim just to  relearn how to move a finger or hand via a mental command to the body  can take so much effort of mind that the y break out into a sweat with the effort    To form the mouth and tongue muscles into the movements required to speak can also be hard to relearn. 

If you weren't thinking as you walked,   and processing  available visual and other data constantly,   you would stumble, fall, or walk into something.

You wouldn't know where you were spatially, or how you got there. 

The process of walking becomes automatic yet it is still regulated by the mind processing some of those millions of pieces of data 

While we can only process a limited number of data consciously each second,   subconsciously we can process millions  

 A subconscious choice of the mind is still a choice,  and we still have input into it, and can direct it 

Hi Walker

Get a grip on yourself I haven’t had a stroke so most of your post is pointless drivel. You can over think your life but I won’t/don’t thank you

[eight bits]

5 hours ago, SHaYap said:

Let's try a new tangent... 

Ambiguity is a trip.

I had an object lesson yesterday in one ambiguity that the existentialists would love: taking well-intended action in the world while honestly mistaking what action is proper. I did the wrong thing (twice) and by doing that learned the right thing (I think).

A greyhound broke loose from her outdoor tie down. I was driving by, and pulled over. She approached me as I got out of the car. We don't know each other well, but I did recognize her and knew where she lives.

She was trailing a considerable amount of rope, which is dangerous. I attempted to snag the rope with my foot, but failed. She withdrew. At that point, her owner showed up in pursuit on foot. (Did I mention she was a greyhound? Human pursuit on foot is futile.) I suggested to him offering her a treat, such as I keep in my car, but he discouraged it, predicting it would be ineffective.

Pause. I had fully bought into the notion that the goal of the exercise was to take the dog into custody. I am not a bad person for thinking so; her running free while trailing rope is objectively dangerous. Further, she is visibly well cared for and in great shape, the guy is not a bad owner. Returning her to his custody is righteous.

Resume. The owner disappears somewhere. The dog has by now withdrawn about 30 meters. Meh, I have those dog treats in the car, they can't hurt, and might help. I get some and display one to her. Sure enough, she approaches when she sees the treat. Cautiously, but she does approach. When she is close enough, I reach for her collar, but she is quick enough to withdraw.

Pause. I am still fully bought into the goal as capture, and chide myself. I know I should have built trust first, not grabbed at the first opportunity. The paradox that I would try to "build trust" in order to deceive her was probably my first inkling that I was fundamentally misunderstanding the situation and what goal I should be fostering. Regardless, she was immediately back out to 30 meters, and wasn't going to fall for the treat gambit again.

Resume. The owner shows up in his vehicle, and pulls over next to where she is standing. She runs off another 30 meters as soon as he leaves the car. This is the first time I actually look at her. I am out of the game, and have the luxury of just looking. Did I mention she is a greyhound? Watching her run and jump, I can see now that she just wanted a run off-tether. The trailing rope is still a concern, but she isn't going into the street, and won't go there now that he's cutting off that avenue of travel with his vehicle. She's safe, she is being who she is, why was I trying to stop her?

Finally, I understand the situation correctly. She will have her walk around the neighborhood, and the guy will escort her on her journey. He is thinking that he is pursuing her, but in actual fact, he is accompanying her and ensuring that she is safe despite the rope. He could have saved a step and just taken her for a walk in the first place. Same investment of time on his part, better company en route. No matter, she has made facts and is accomplishing her objective.

I leave them to it and drive off.

Moral of the story. The only way I would have learned the right thing to do is how I did learn it: I played the game as best I knew how, played it utterly wrongly, and that's how I found out what the right thing was. (In an ideal world, I should have walked with her when it was just the two of us instead of luring her. The guy would have caught up with us in his vehicle, and he and I would have worked something out. The dog would have come home on her own, when she was ready. The only issue would be to ensure her safety despite that trailing rope. Simply accompanying her should be enough for that.)

I had no idea that I was playing the game wrongly. Partly that's an ego thing, am I not dog savvy? I can handle this. But then again, were it not for that very self-same ego thing, I wouldn't have stopped in the first place. Another paradox the existentialists would love.

And this post? This is where the Meditations come from, the review of what Marcus Aurelius did on this or that occasion, compared with what he should have done, maybe even what he should have known he should have done, but didn't in that momemt. If somehow, instead of just jumping in I could consistently realize what each situation really requires and only then do something, that right thing, then I could found a religion or at least a philosophy.

But I have a sneaking suspicion that my thinking that I could "somehow know" without making a fool of myself first is magical thinking. Maybe the Buddhists are right after all, that for putzers like me, it will take plural lifetimes to learn enough to pull off the somehow-knowing.

Anyway, I probably will see the dog again. When I do, I'll give her a treat like the one I offered her, but she didn't get to eat, and I'll ask her forgiveness, and we'll see where that goes. Oh, and I'll thank her for noodging me a little bit away from what I am toward what I could be instead.

Edited December 10, 2021 by eight bits

[SHaYap]

2 hours ago, eight bits said:

Oh, and I'll thank her for noodging me a little bit away from what I am toward what I could be instead.

While you're at it, just kick "the moral" of the story off to the side and leave it there, it ain't helping you none. Excess baggage is what that is. 

My edge of the madness today is I just bought a stack of reads I can ill  afford. Was stuck in the house because of the rain, and with a wish list combination of Mary Beard and Joann Fletcher flashing "hurry only two / last copy" , I guess it'd be the ghost of Christmas past sometime in the future for me...

Merry Christmas ol ' chap

~

[XenoFish]

3 hours ago, eight bits said:

Ambiguity is a trip.

I had an object lesson yesterday in one ambiguity that the existentialists would love: taking well-intended action in the world while honestly mistaking what action is proper. I did the wrong thing (twice) and by doing that learned the right thing (I think).

A greyhound broke loose from her outdoor tie down. I was driving by, and pulled over. She approached me as I got out of the car. We don't know each other well, but I did recognize her and knew where she lives.

She was trailing a considerable amount of rope, which is dangerous. I attempted to snag the rope with my foot, but failed. She withdrew. At that point, her owner showed up in pursuit on foot. (Did I mention she was a greyhound? Human pursuit on foot is futile.) I suggested to him offering her a treat, such as I keep in my car, but he discouraged it, predicting it would be ineffective.

Pause. I had fully bought into the notion that the goal of the exercise was to take the dog into custody. I am not a bad person for thinking so; her running free while trailing rope is objectively dangerous. Further, she is visibly well cared for and in great shape, the guy is not a bad owner. Returning her to his custody is righteous.

Resume. The owner disappears somewhere. The dog has by now withdrawn about 30 meters. Meh, I have those dog treats in the car, they can't hurt, and might help. I get some and display one to her. Sure enough, she approaches when she sees the treat. Cautiously, but she does approach. When she is close enough, I reach for her collar, but she is quick enough to withdraw.

Pause. I am still fully bought into the goal as capture, and chide myself. I know I should have built trust first, not grabbed at the first opportunity. The paradox that I would try to "build trust" in order to deceive her was probably my first inkling that I was fundamentally misunderstanding the situation and what goal I should be fostering. Regardless, she was immediately back out to 30 meters, and wasn't going to fall for the treat gambit again.

Resume. The owner shows up in his vehicle, and pulls over next to where she is standing. She runs off another 30 meters as soon as he leaves the car. This is the first time I actually look at her. I am out of the game, and have the luxury of just looking. Did I mention she is a greyhound? Watching her run and jump, I can see now that she just wanted a run off-tether. The trailing rope is still a concern, but she isn't going into the street, and won't go there now that he's cutting off that avenue of travel with his vehicle. She's safe, she is being who she is, why was I trying to stop her?

Finally, I understand the situation correctly. She will have her walk around the neighborhood, and the guy will escort her on her journey. He is thinking that he is pursuing her, but in actual fact, he is accompanying her and ensuring that she is safe despite the rope. He could have saved a step and just taken her for a walk in the first place. Same investment of time on his part, better company en route. No matter, she has made facts and is accomplishing her objective.

I leave them to it and drive off.

Moral of the story. The only way I would have learned the right thing to do is how I did learn it: I played the game as best I knew how, played it utterly wrongly, and that's how I found out what the right thing was. (In an ideal world, I should have walked with her when it was just the two of us instead of luring her. The guy would have caught up with us in his vehicle, and he and I would have worked something out. The dog would have come home on her own, when she was ready. The only issue would be to ensure her safety despite that trailing rope. Simply accompanying her should be enough for that.)

I had no idea that I was playing the game wrongly. Partly that's an ego thing, am I not dog savvy? I can handle this. But then again, were it not for that very self-same ego thing, I wouldn't have stopped in the first place. Another paradox the existentialists would love.

And this post? This is where the Meditations come from, the review of what Marcus Aurelius did on this or that occasion, compared with what he should have done, maybe even what he should have known he should have done, but didn't in that momemt. If somehow, instead of just jumping in I could consistently realize what each situation really requires and only then do something, that right thing, then I could found a religion or at least a philosophy.

But I have a sneaking suspicion that my thinking that I could "somehow know" without making a fool of myself first is magical thinking. Maybe the Buddhists are right after all, that for putzers like me, it will take plural lifetimes to learn enough to pull off the somehow-knowing.

Anyway, I probably will see the dog again. When I do, I'll give her a treat like the one I offered her, but she didn't get to eat, and I'll ask her forgiveness, and we'll see where that goes. Oh, and I'll thank her for noodging me a little bit away from what I am toward what I could be instead.

Not my dog, not my problem.

[+Liquid Gardens]

6 hours ago, eight bits said:

Moral of the story. The only way I would have learned the right thing to do is how I did learn it: I played the game as best I knew how, played it utterly wrongly, and that's how I found out what the right thing was. (In an ideal world, I should have walked with her when it was just the two of us instead of luring her. The guy would have caught up with us in his vehicle, and he and I would have worked something out. The dog would have come home on her own, when she was ready. The only issue would be to ensure her safety despite that trailing rope. Simply accompanying her should be enough for that.)

I had no idea that I was playing the game wrongly.

Cool story!  The way it reads I think I disagree that you played the game wrongly, it's that like all good games the right strategy changed with the circumstances.  If your initial attempt to snag the rope with your foot had been successful then it seems you would have played the game correctly and would never then be thinking that you took the wrong action.  Just because Tom Brady sometimes overthrows wide open receivers doesn't mean the play that was called was incorrect, it was just a failure to execute a viable strategy. 

I guess to tie it in with your Aurelius quote I don't see where you didn't do what should have been done, given all the uncertainty involved what should have been done initially required you to first know that your other two attempt to catch her were going to be unsuccessful, and I definitely don't see how you 'should have known' that.  The prevention of the dog being able to go into the street isn't accomplished until the second 'Resume' above, that significantly changes the 'right action'.  Yes, you finally understood the situation correctly, but that particular situation did not exist at the point of your initial encounter; that the correct action turned out to be to just let her have her run did not necessarily exist, nor was it necessarily the correct action, at the beginning of the episode.

6 hours ago, eight bits said:

She's safe, she is being who she is, why was I trying to stop her?

 Because you were a person doing a good deed trying to assist her owner in catching her?

6 hours ago, eight bits said:

If somehow, instead of just jumping in I could consistently realize what each situation really requires and only then do something, that right thing, then I could found a religion or at least a philosophy.

And if you could do this perfectly, you'd be an automaton.

Edited December 10, 2021 by Liquid Gardens

[+Sherapy]

On 12/8/2021 at 3:29 PM, Desertrat56 said:

I think that it does have some good points, but it gets misinterpreted to mean emotionless, like Mr. Spock on Star Trek.   Humans trying to be emotionless have more emotional issues than those who accept that they are emotional beings.   

I agree that complaining does not fix anything and can become a bad habit, but stoically allowing abuse that you could do something about is not useful.  There has to be a balance.  Know when to speak up and when to take a breath and get on with it.   If the interpretation of stoicism is that no matter what you just keep your head down and do what ever is expected of you then I think it has been misinterpreted.

I would add that chronic complaining could be indicative of anxiety or something else a mental health issue such as depression, I observe this a lot on my job as a caregiver and often it is the only way a person has to cope with and articulate and alleviate the stress from situations or traumas that are overwhelming them. Whether it is a client or myself I honor and explore the complaining and 99 point 9 percent of the time it opens new ways to perceive and leads to tools that do help. A lot of times just feeling heard or validated opens the door to more constructive approaches. At some level a person is crying out for help the best way they know how. 

 

I agree 100 percent that our emotions should never be repressed, if an emotion is an issue something deeper is going on and when the reaction involves the amygdala the only way to deal with the emotions is to experience them ( exposure) it is in the exposure that one can get to the bottom of the issue and fix it, in fact, one will increase their affect tolerance too, I think you bring in a great point that a lot of folks have learned low affect tolerance for their own emotions or have been limited in how they can express them, your example of anger is a good one. My early conditioning included that a girl must never get angry, for me, it was honoring the anger that became liberating and opened a whole new perspective and life path for me. Just my two cents. 
 

Love your posts.

Edited December 10, 2021 by Sherapy

[+Desertrat56]

2 minutes ago, Sherapy said:

I would add that chronic complaining could be indicative of anxiety or something else a mental health issue such as depression, I observe this a lot on my job as a caregiver and often it is the only way a person has to cope with and articulate and alleviate the stress from situations or traumas that are overwhelming them. Whether it is a client or myself I honor and explore the complaining and 99 point 9 percent of the time it opens new ways to perceive and leads to tools that do help. A lot of times just feeling heard or validated opens the door to more constructive approaches. At some level a person is crying out for help the best way they know how. 

 

I agree 100 percent that our emotions should never be repressed, if an emotion is an issue something deeper is going on and when the reaction involves the amygdala the only way to deal with the emotions is to experience them ( exposure) it is in the exposure that one can get to the bottom of the issue and fix it, in fact, one will increase their affect tolerance, I think you bring in a great point that a lot of folks have learned low affect tolerance for their emotions or have been limited in how they can express them, your example of anger is a good one. My early conditioning included that a girl must never get angry, for me, it was honoring the anger that became liberating and opened a whole new perspective and life path for me. Just my two cents. 
 

 

For some reason this reminds me of something from Basic training.  There was a woman named Longo in our group that was a little older than the rest of us and she complained about everything nonstop.  One day I was in the latrine and I was tired (as we all were by then) and complained that there were too many button on my pants.  Someone in another stall said, "is that you Longo?"     I didn't complain about anything after that.

[+Sherapy]

10 hours ago, Mr Walker said:

stoicism is a useful cognitive /psychological tool when dealing with issues 

Basically work hard to overcome the issues you  can affect, and simply put aside the ones you cannot  Never worry for a second about things you cannot control or influence 

It is not as easy as it sounds, but extremely effective when applied 

Ie if an emotion is not productive in some way, learn to deconstruct it.

You are going to die one day Do everything you can to put it off for as long as possible but don't spend a second worrying about it. 

You are in constant pain.  Do everything you  can to alleviate that pain, then simply put it aside and don't get emotional about it (don't fear it, get angry at it etc)  That will only increase the feeling of pain.   Your house burns down and  you  lose everything you have gathered over 50 years including family heirlooms going back for 2 centuries  

Don't feel pain, anger, loss,  etc. Seize the day and the new opportunities afforded  you. Look a t it as a liberating experience   Embrace the fact that you survived, and plan for the future  

A stoic would have done everything they could to prevent the fire, and had good insurance, but once t occurred would  not worry about it, or feel bad/pain, or regret,  for a second 

Personally, I understand chronic pain and it has led to a lot of empathy and compassion on my end and I work with people who live with chronic pain, the facts are there will be times that a person will suffer to some degree and that is not only okay, but realistic. Empathy is always a good approach. IMHO.
 

I was on a job once and the daughter who was the primary caregiver of her 93 year old mother with Alzheimer’s who had fallen on a marble floor and she was hurting badly and having a horrible time sitting down and her daughter refused to let her lay down, the daughter felt she should just suck it up ( a combination of compassion fatigue and burnout played a huge role in her daughters reaction) she was using a similar version of the stoic attitude you describe. In her head, she saw it as well meaning. I made no judgments just went to work finding a way to resolve the situation. It was not easy, as the daughter got very angry with me, ready to fire me and in actively listening to her I found ways to suggest alternative approaches and I was able to get through to her daughter and it resulted in the mother being able to lay down and heal, and the daughter and I ended up become good friends and she too got the resources and help she needed for her own burnout.  She is a good friend to this day and doing amazing. 
 

I owned my first home at 20 and it caught on fire the electrical wiring was faulty, my small son and I were in the home asleep, my roommate happened to wake up and get us all out safely. Of course, I lost material possessions, pictures, and there were features of this house that were irreplaceable and there was a sense of loss for the  things that held value to me, it was scary there was thoughts of how the outcome could have been far worse and I honored them as part of the healing process which included how grateful I was to my roommate, I cried my heart out too, it was a scary experience of course, I had really good insurance and great support and friends. The house was rebuilt and the stuff was replaced and life went on. The take away bad things happen and we are human and part of being human is we go through a healing process. The thing is emotions have a shelf life anyway if given full expression, it is seeking to repress or not allow them that causes issues and at times it suppression harms our own health or leads us away from compassion and empathy as a result not only for ourselves, but others. My two cents it is not the worst thing to honor and investigate what comes, this includes the emotions. 
 

‘All the best.
 

 

Edited December 10, 2021 by Sherapy

[+Sherapy]

29 minutes ago, Desertrat56 said:

For some reason this reminds me of something from Basic training.  There was a woman named Longo in our group that was a little older than the rest of us and she complained about everything nonstop.  One day I was in the latrine and I was tired (as we all were by then) and complained that there were too many button on my pants.  Someone in another stall said, "is that you Longo?"     I didn't complain about anything after that.

I think the too many buttons on your pants was a good call especially, when one has to pee really bad and is on a time frame. 

Interesting, this memory came up. 

 

[+Desertrat56]

1 minute ago, Sherapy said:

I think the too many buttons on your pants was a good call especially, when one has to pee really bad and is on a time frame. 

Interesting, this memory came up. 

 

Yes, memory is a funny thing.  I hadn't thought about basic training in a long time.  And when I said she was a little older than the rest of us it was relative to us being so young.  She was probably about 25.    

Edited December 10, 2021 by Desertrat56

[+Sherapy]

5 minutes ago, Desertrat56 said:

Yes, memory is a funny thing.  I hadn't thought about basic training in a long time.  And when I said she was a little older than the rest of us it was relative to us being so young.  She was probably about 25.    

That you got through basic training and loved it is incredible. What tools did you use to get through? 

Edited December 10, 2021 by Sherapy

[Duke Wellington]

On 12/9/2021 at 4:41 PM, Desertrat56 said:

I am not the one making the mistake, I know how emotions work and how to keep them from controlling you.  My examples were of people trying to control their emotions instead of allowing them.   I agree with your analogy that dealing successfully with emotions is like using valves.

 

Yep, the problem is emotions cannot be controlled.

They have to be allowed to pass instead. Trying to control them sets up thought loops focused on them, and the more someone analyses the cause of their emotion, what to do about it, how to stop it happening again, and going through their memories of similar experiences, the deeper the hole they dig themselves into.

And the more digging done the more they wire their brains up to experience negative emotions more often, more severally, and to obsess about them. Hence letting the emotion pass through by itself not only does less damage to the brain, it actually shrinks the damage done from all the digging.