Is it really a choice?
`Una
why do so many people choose to be miserable?
I've been writing in my journal and reading some
recent entries. I have no reason to be unhappy,
but everything I write is negative and self-defeating.
When I write about people I assume the worst from
them. Why would I choose to be that way?
I want to be happy don't I?
Everybody wants to be happy, but everybody is
making themselves miserable. Is it human nature
to want suffering? Do we gravitate towards
the things that will hurt us?
`Una - the love platypus
working on changing that
--
Gothae Una Verus, The Young Locust
http://www.velvet.net/~una
alt.gothic has warped my fragile little mind
Nyx
352.olypen.com:
> If we can choose to feel anything we want
> why do so many people choose to be miserable?
>
Who ever told you it was a choice? They were wrong. You feel the way you
feel and there really isn't much you can do about it.
Anyone who says it's a choice just wants you to fake it so you don't bother
them. They want you to play a role, just like they do.
The world isn't a stage, and we aren't actors. The world is just the world
and no metaphor can contain it, no matter how much we may try.
Every emotion you feel is a real one. Trying to change your mood through
will and happy thoughts just supresses any actual emotion you may have.
Many people go around pretending to be happy when they really aren't, and
then they wonder why they feel so cold and numb inside.
Nyx
--
"Is it me, or are there a slew of twelve year olds hanging around on the
board lately? Would you all kindly stop picking fights and then
dramatically exiting the board only to show up again mere posts later?
Thank you." Kevin Smith.
www.bleedingprettycolours.com
aim: nyxxxxx yahoo: nyxxxx icq: 9744630
`Una
>(`Una) wrote
>> If we can choose to feel anything we want
>> why do so many people choose to be miserable?
>
>Who ever told you it was a choice?
It's a talk I get every few months. I meet someone, that
person gets to know me and the next thing I know I'm being
told that I need to choose to be happy and I need to stop
worrying about what people think. I've started calling it
"the talk" and I just got it from this woman who is attracted to me.
>They were wrong. You feel the way you
>feel and there really isn't much you can do about it.
>Anyone who says it's a choice just wants you to fake it so you don't bother
>them. They want you to play a role, just like they do.
I think I make people uncomfortable because I don't play
a role and they don't know how to deal with such blatant
displays of emotion. If I'm happy I'm bragging, making too
much of something that's just nice, or setting myself up
for a major let down. If I'm unhappy I'm depressing and
unpleasant to be around. I should hide both to make people
comfortable. Whatever.
>Every emotion you feel is a real one. Trying to change your mood through
>will and happy thoughts just supresses any actual emotion you may have.
>Many people go around pretending to be happy when they really aren't, and
>then they wonder why they feel so cold and numb inside.
This is why I can't lie and I can't pretend to feel something
differently than I do. I don't feel cold and numb. I feel sick.
Most of my nausea and headaches comes from trying to make myself
feel the way I think I should. I make stupid mistakes because
I do what I think I should instead of what I feel I should.
I'm getting about this. Especially these days.
However, I think there is a some amount of choice involved.
I can choose to do things I enjoy. I can choose to let myself
feel the pleasure that those things give me. Or I can choose to
do things that make me miserable. I can choose to put up a wall
against the things that give me pleasure.
I can choose to share things that make me happy or I can choose
to bitch and moan. I often choose to bitch and moan because it
stimulates conversation. When I'm happy people simple say it's
nice or tell me I'm setting myself up for a letdown. Sometimes
they tell me to stop bragging. Misery loves company.
When I'm unhappy the empathy, encouragement, anecdotes, and
advice flow freely. Suddenly, I have people's attention and
they are talking to me. But I'm discovering that as much as
I like the attention it's making me sick. Everything in my life
is going smoothly right now, but I'm miserable because it
gets me attention.
But you know what? I'm going to see what I can do to change that.
The person I really want to notice me is the person who doesn't
talk more when I'm unhappy. In fact, he tells me to quit my
bitching and tells me a joke or a funny story. I love spending
time with him because he's so positive. But he's honest about it.
If he's having a bad day he won't pretend to be happy. However,
most of the time he's having a good day because he isn't going
to whine just to get attention. I want to be like that.
And this woman who is attracted to me is a cynic. She's very
negative, so I have one more reason to not play with her.
I don't need that kind of example in my life. I don't need
someone encouraging my mistrust of people and helping me
develop my negative traits.
`Una - the love platypus
less confused everyday.
Tigress
> Anyone who says it's a choice just wants you to fake it so you don't
bother
> them. They want you to play a role, just like they do.
"You choose whether or not you're happy. So come on! SMILE! You look so
pretty when you SMILE!" (This statement is usually followed by a big show of
teeth that isn't so much a smile, but a warning that states: "If you don't
leave me alone RIGHT NOW, I'm biting your fucking head off.")
> The world isn't a stage, and we aren't actors. The world is just the world
> and no metaphor can contain it, no matter how much we may try.
>
> Every emotion you feel is a real one. Trying to change your mood through
> will and happy thoughts just supresses any actual emotion you may have.
> Many people go around pretending to be happy when they really aren't, and
> then they wonder why they feel so cold and numb inside.
And then they get pissed at those that don't even try to pretend that they
are not pissed/sad/mopey. Strange world we live in, isn't it?
--
Katherine "Tigress" Dunn
kdh...@roxboro.net
http://www.sabbatjustice.net
"You fail to grasp Ti Kwan Leep, approach me that you might see... Observe
closely, class: Boot To The Head. *WHOMP*"
-- The Frantics
Individuation
wrote:
>u...@nettrip.org (`Una) wrote in news:una-2511011349310001@ppp-
>352.olypen.com:
>
>> If we can choose to feel anything we want
>> why do so many people choose to be miserable?
>>
>Who ever told you it was a choice? They were wrong. You feel the way you
>feel and there really isn't much you can do about it.
>
Gotta disagree.
Jeff-Boy will back me up here, as we JUST talked about this.
Life is about 10% of what happens to you and 90% of how you react to
it.
You can choose to wallow.
You can choose to be miserable.
or
You can choose to say "ow" and figure out how to fix it or move on.
Are there external factors? Of course.... but part of talk therapy
that people with depression go through (if they have a good
psychologist) is how to think about things differently. How to look
at a situation and say "Wow... that sucked. I'm gonna deal with it...
but i'm not going to let it get the best of me."
>Anyone who says it's a choice just wants you to fake it so you don't bother
>them. They want you to play a role, just like they do.
feh feh feh
balony.
>
>The world isn't a stage, and we aren't actors. The world is just the world
>and no metaphor can contain it, no matter how much we may try.
>
Yes, and you have no free will so how can you be morally culpable...
and you are predestined to go to heaven or hell so live it up.
>Every emotion you feel is a real one. Trying to change your mood through
>will and happy thoughts just supresses any actual emotion you may have.
>Many people go around pretending to be happy when they really aren't, and
>then they wonder why they feel so cold and numb inside.
Or maybe some people have learned to get a handle on their
emotions.... and they actually CAN be happy.
Look... I have that fun chemical imbalence called depression.
Both of my sisters are on anti-depressants and my father probably
should be.
So I certainly understand what it is to get down... but I have also
learned how to get myself out of those moods.
And no, I'm not faking it.
I have shitty days.... but I deal with 'em. I move on. And
hopefully tomorrow will be better.
Lots of my journal entries are depressed and miserable too Una cause
that's where I get it out.
Today my friend Andy said "You know... it's cool... you always have so
much energy and always seem so positive in person" (we were talking
on line)... and first I joked and told him that was only because he
didn't spend enough time with me... but the truth is that I am upbeat
and positive...because I choose to be when I can be.
Eileen (happy she doesn't read this group often enough to read the
flames)
Father Holy
news:una-251101...@ppp-276.olypen.com...
> I don't need someone encouraging my mistrust of people
> and helping me develop my negative traits.
And so you post regularly to ag?
PP
--
Fr. P.P. Holy
fathe...@home.com
"The stupider it looks, the more important it probably is." - J.R. "Bob"
Dobbs
IHCOYC XPICTOC
> If we can choose to feel anything we want
> why do so many people choose to be miserable?
Your emotions are not something you choose. In fact, they represent a sort
of alien invasion with a hostile agenda. They exist largely to keep you
serving -its- goals rather than something you might choose for yourself.
--
IHCOYC XPICTOC D.G. IMP. LAURASIAE ET GONDWANALANDIAE
http://members.iglou.com/gustavus
Sumus autem nos omnes corporibus et rebus subjecti Diabolo, et hospites
sumus in mundo, cujus ipse princeps et Deus est. Ideo panis quem edimus,
potus quem bibimus, vestes quibus utimur, immo aer et totum quo vivimus in
carne, sub ipsius imperio est.
--- M. Luther, Commentarium in Ep. ad Galatianos, c. 3
skerry.
fpevooyrq onpxjneqf sbe fngna:
[snip 7 line .sig]
hey! netiquette says that 4 lines is preferable for a
.sigfile! since you can fit yours into 4 lines, it would be
the best thing to do! if you have any questions, i can find
many resources for you to peruse to understand why this
guideline was implemented & is still an unofficial "rule" for
many, if not most newsgroups today! thanks for cooperating!
-carrie.
Ob.OnTopic: you always have a choice.
Nyx
news:r8hM7.61136$lV4.8...@e420r-atl1.usenetserver.com:
> Your emotions are not something you choose. In fact, they represent a
> sort of alien invasion with a hostile agenda. They exist largely to
> keep you serving -its- goals rather than something you might choose for
> yourself.
Only if you believe in that mind/emotion dualism crap that has infested
western thought since the greeks.
Your emotions and your mind are *you*. I swear, people who value logic
above all else remind me of schizophrenics. They split off a piece of
themselves, whether it's their body or heart or soul and act like it's part
of some other animal. It's why psychiatrists were once called alienists,
since the people they treated had turned a part of themselves into
something else.
Mark Greene
>If we can choose to feel anything we want
>why do so many people choose to be miserable?
Feelings are generally reactive, not proactive, and as such, given that people
are generally predisposed to be lazy, shortsighted, and have poor expectations,
yes, there are lots of miserable people about.
--
mark
Neal Stanifer
IHCOYC XPICTOC wrote:
>
> Una wrote:
>
> > If we can choose to feel anything we want
> > why do so many people choose to be miserable?
>
> Your emotions are not something you choose. In fact, they represent a sort
> of alien invasion with a hostile agenda. They exist largely to keep you
> serving -its- goals rather than something you might choose for yourself.
Would you care to define "it" as opposed to "you?"
Your emotions are states of mentation, less conscious perhaps than the
decision to light another cigarette, but no less "you" for being so.
Can you choose them? Perhaps not. Can you influence them? Certainly
so.
Neal
IHCOYC XPICTOC
>> Your emotions are not something you choose. In fact, they represent a
>> sort of alien invasion with a hostile agenda. They exist largely to
>> keep you serving -its- goals rather than something you might choose for
>> yourself.
> Only if you believe in that mind/emotion dualism crap that has infested
> western thought since the greeks.
> Your emotions and your mind are *you*. I swear, people who value logic
> above all else remind me of schizophrenics. They split off a piece of
> themselves, whether it's their body or heart or soul and act like it's
part
> of some other animal. It's why psychiatrists were once called alienists,
> since the people they treated had turned a part of themselves into
> something else.
Not necessarily, though it may help. What is needed, though, is to
recognise that your emotions are a function of your biochemistry. In turn,
your biochemistry serves the "agenda" of the river of life that runs through
your genes. That agenda is separate from, and not always serving the best
interests of, the individual organism which is its temporary manifestation.
Far from serving the cause of happiness, the engine of life serves to
increase misery to the maximum consistent with continuing survival. When
you consider the barren niches that are exploited by living things ---
the tenaciousness of toads that live buried and dehydrated in the desert, to
revive and copulate when the random rain falls on their patch of dirt;
the animals whose entire diet is made up of such things as bamboo twigs and
eucalyptus leaves;
the bacteria brewing alongside the sulphur vents of the deep ocean;
and over and over again, the constant slaughter of both plant and animal,
the many creatures that dwell and feed on the death or decay of their
fellows;
and over and over again, the constant spewing of thousands of seeds into the
wind, of thousand spawn into the stream, on the outside chance that one or
two may survive to maturity ---
you are indelibly impressed by the desperation and misery that characterise
the whole wretched business.
The extinction of all life forms on the planet would be an act of kindness.
If only we could be sure we got them all! The entire earth is under a
curse, and life is that curse. Life itself is evil. Intelligent life is
the worst kind.
zentariana
>If we can choose to feel anything we want
>why do so many people choose to be miserable?
<snip>
in my experience/opinion, you can't chose what to feel. trust me, i've
tried in widely varied situations. what you can chose _most of the
time_ is how you deal with the emotions. i can be pissed and still not
rip someone's eyes out even when they deserve it. i can be lustful
without ripping someone's clothes off in the middle of the street.
both these things seem quite rational to your emotions, but you
channel the emotions in other ways. words are good. it's almost
equally enjoyable to list the reasons why someone needs their eyeballs
removed as it is to tell someone that you'd like to see what they'd
look like walking down the street wearing nothing but sunshine. or,
since i'm tired, you could combine the two if you're mad and lustful
and say that they'd look interesting stumbling blind and naked down
the street wearing nothing but sunshine and blood.
see? :)
becky.
Cavalorn
XPICTOC <ihcoyc...@aye.net> writes
>Not necessarily, though it may help. What is needed, though, is to
>recognise that your emotions are a function of your biochemistry. In turn,
>your biochemistry serves the "agenda" of the river of life that runs through
>your genes. That agenda is separate from, and not always serving the best
>interests of, the individual organism which is its temporary manifestation.
This may be true in some instances, such as in the case of fear, in
which the biochemistry says 'what you need my lad is adrenalin and
plenty of it'. This so that you can run away from the sabre toothed
tiger or whatever it is. Many of the situations that cause a reaction of
fear in _this_ epoch would be better served with a neurotransmitter
boost to make one smarter instead of something to power one's legs.
However, I'd like to know how the ambient bliss of listening to good
music is serving a genetic agenda.
Cav
--
Give me a woman who's taken her knocks,
Who's tasted both gutter and stars.
Give me a lady with holes in her socks.
Give me a princess with scars.
H Duffy
> If we can choose to feel anything we want
> why do so many people choose to be miserable?
>
> I've been writing in my journal and reading some
> recent entries. I have no reason to be unhappy,
> but everything I write is negative and self-defeating.
> When I write about people I assume the worst from
> them. Why would I choose to be that way?
>
> I want to be happy don't I?
> Everybody wants to be happy, but everybody is
> making themselves miserable. Is it human nature
> to want suffering? Do we gravitate towards
> the things that will hurt us?
Well, yes. And also no, but largely yes.
We do, on the whole, want to be happy, but we _also_, on some level,
gravitate towards things that may hurt us, for various reasons. In some
people, it's pretty obvious. People who go from one abusive relationship to
another, because they feel they deserve nothing else, people who throw
themselves from one damaging social situation to another because they've got
their signals mixed, you know the types.
In some of us, it's to do with guilt, or the fear of disappointment, or of
failure. And in some of us, it's just a habit that we don't know we can
break.
Now, I would not claim that we can choose our emotions; we react to the
world we live in. If someone hurts us, we can't just choose not to be hurt.
If someone makes us happy, we can't choose not to enjoy it. We're more
subtle than that.
What we _can_ do is control our actions, and in that way, take control of
the feedback loops that link our emotions with our actions.
For example, you say your journal is full of unhappiness. Well, you can't
change what you feel (not directly, anyway), but you _can_ try to _add_ a
little happiness. When you write in your journal, try to end the entry with
one positive thing; something nice that someone said to you, something
beautiful you saw, a good memory that occurred to you, something you
acheived and are proud of. It doesn't have to be big, but you may find that
ending on a positive note helps to lift your mood a little.
You can try the same thing in "real life" too. We tend to rehearse bad
situations; go over and over what we could have said, or what might happen.
This sets up all sorts of chemical reactions in the brain, suppressing the
immune system so you get run down and feel crappy physically, and leading,
in the long term, to depression. You can't make bad situations go away, but
you _can_ try not to rehearse them, and to think positively about them
instead. It's not always easy, but again, start small and work up to coping
with the bigger things.
Now, please understand that I am _not_ saying "If you're miserable it's your
fault"; I'm really really not.Everyone goes through bad times, and everyone
is affected by bad stuff that happens. Sometimes what seems like nothing to
an outsider can affect you very very deeply, so don't listen to anyone who
says "You're being miserable for no reason". But _do_ listen to the people
who say "Ok, there's bad stuff, but how can we make the best of this? How
can we get through this?"
You can't choose your emotions outright, but you can affect them, with a bit
of effort, if you really want to.
Good Luck. *hugs*
H
Endymion
> However, I'd like to know how the ambient bliss of listening to good
> music is serving a genetic agenda.
That's little different, at least in this regard, from snorting some good
coke. We've learned to hack the system, that's all; it has back doors that
evolved in over hundreds of generations before one could flip a switch or
drop some cash and buy the instant sensation of ambient bliss.
What social or reproductive agenda a positive response to music served in
the days when music had to be worked for at the time you were hearing it, I
can't tell you, but I'm sure the members of this group could cook up some
creative theories.
--
Endymion
disinte...@mindspring.com
Endymion
> u...@nettrip.org (`Una) wrote
>
> > If we can choose to feel anything we want
> > why do so many people choose to be miserable?
That's a very good question, and it deserves a very good question, but I
think it ranks up there with "Why is there evil in the world?" - that is, we
can try to figure out answers, but I don't think we'll ever know for sure.
One thing I think contributes is the general principle that people would
often rather deliberately fail than try to succeed, because the emotional
risk of trying and failing is so much higher than the risk of not trying and
failing. Wallowing in misery is similar; a cheap way of taking control of
one's fate. If you try to make yourself happy and fail, you feel like a
helpless, pathetic pawn, whereas if you set out to be miserable you will
almost always succeed, thus ensuring that your mood is the product of your
choice.
Another thing I've seen more and more among younger goths and other
alternateen types over the last decade is the desire to take shortcuts to
growing up fast. One of the cheapest is to try one's hardest to become as
bitter, jaded, cynical, and miserable as humanly possible as quickly as this
can be accomplished. After all, everyone "knows" that the weight of bitter
experience makes one jaded and miserable, so anyone who comes off as jaded
and miserable must be experienced, right? And trust, innocence, and
happiness are the traits of simple, inexperienced children, so if one wants
to stop being a child it's first necessary to rid oneself of these traits.
Of course it doesn't really work that way, but the irony is that the ones
whose respect is being sought are themselves often too young and
inexperienced to know better.
I don't know if either of these describes you or your problems, but if
either is close I suspect you lean more towards the former than the latter.
You've always seemed to have a lot of trouble feeling like you're in control
of your life.
And you yourself mentioned another reason: that displays of misery often
reap social rewards; the sqeaky wheel gets the grease, and the miserable
friend gets the shoulder to cry on.
> Who ever told you it was a choice? They were wrong. You feel the way you
> feel and there really isn't much you can do about it.
I respectfully disagree. No one has complete control over his or her
feelings, but no one is without any control at all either. To some degree
one can control how one reacts to events, and one can also do a lot to
control one's blood chemistry, which has a tremendous emotional impact.
And the sad truth is it's easier to destroy than to build in almost any
situation, and happiness is no exception. It is very difficult if not
impossible to make yourself happy, and yes, often people are just
suppressing valid negative feelings when they try, but it's fairly easy to
make yourself miserable when you could be happy, and learning *not* to do
this is not fake.
> Anyone who says it's a choice just wants you to fake it so you don't
bother
> them. They want you to play a role, just like they do.
I think that is often true, especially of people who dismiss the issue as
simplistically as you suggest - anyone who says "Oh, quit your whining" or
tries to sell you self-motivational tapes, for example. But I think some of
them just want to see others happy, and want to pass on the experience that
they've learned so painfully that you *can* control your feelings to some
degree, and needn't be a slave to your own blood chemistry or psychological
programming.
> Every emotion you feel is a real one.
If I slip you a drug that artificially depresses your seratonin levels and
pushes you into a deep, inexplicable depression, is that a "real" feeling?
If your own glandular system does the same thing to you for no good reason,
does it then become a "real" feeling?
Likewise, if one of your friends constantly belittles you and brings up the
worst possibility in any situation, making you feel miserable when you could
be hopeful, is that a real feeling? Are you compelled to put up with this,
or mightn't you be better off either avoiding that person or, better yet,
persuading him to stop depressing you so you can still be friends?
If your own inner voice does the same thing to you, aren't you likewise
better off trying to persuade it to stop dragging you down at every
opportunity?
Personally, I think if there's anything that can be said to be "you" in a
metaphysical sense - and I believe there is - it must be deeper than
anything that can be so easily affected by drugs or behavioral conditioning,
and hence deeper than mere emotion or consciousness.
--
Endymion
disinte...@mindspring.com
with a HUUGE backlog of posts to catch up to
siani evans
`Una wrote:
>
> If we can choose to feel anything we want
> why do so many people choose to be miserable?
>
> I've been writing in my journal and reading some
> recent entries. I have no reason to be unhappy,
> but everything I write is negative and self-defeating.
> When I write about people I assume the worst from
> them. Why would I choose to be that way?
because you see the journal as a place to let out your deepest fears and
uncertainties, so that you can face them down?
i do it inside my head all the time. i'm always asking myself "what if
she's just doing it to make a fool of me?" or "does he mean what he
says?" and trying to sort out those sweaty-palm unhappy feelings. you
need to look at the feelings, to acknowledge them and consider them
fully to deal with them. i know i usually actually do end up feeling
better after facing them, so in a way i guess i do choose to feel
better. but i certainly can't stop myself feeling nasty stuff in the
first place. anyone who claims they can stop those little emotional
flinches is deceiving themself.
siani
--
\\||//
- oo -
-|--|- (hedgehog)
Matthew King
: The extinction of all life forms on the planet would be an act of kindness.
: If only we could be sure we got them all! The entire earth is under a
: curse, and life is that curse. Life itself is evil. Intelligent life is
: the worst kind.
He who counsels the young man to live well, but the old man to make a
good end, is foolish, not merely because of the desirability of life, but
also because it is the same training which teaches to live well and to die
well. Yet much worse still is the man who says it is good not to be born,
but 'once born make haste to the gates of Death.' For if he says this from
conviction, why does he not pass away out of life?
Epicurus
Matthew-King---Toronto---Canada---"Have-you-come-here-to-play-Jesus-
-----------------------------------to-the-lepers-in-your-head?"-U2--
Jennie
<disinte...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>What social or reproductive agenda a positive response to music served in
>the days when music had to be worked for at the time you were hearing it, I
>can't tell you, but I'm sure the members of this group could cook up some
>creative theories.
It makes sense for people to respond positively to certain
sounds. We feel relaxed when we hear a steady or gently slowing heartbeat,
so that babies will go to sleep when safe in their parents' arms. Vocal
signals such as laughter are used in a positive context in human
communication. And one would expect that sounds like a bubbling brook
appeal to us because it's a good idea to have a source of water nearby.
Music simply takes these much more deeply rooted reactions and links them
together in new ways to engineer a particular emotional response.
Jennie
--
Jennie Kermode jen...@innocent.com
http://www.triffid.demon.co.uk/jennie
"The 'I'm one of God's children He will forgive me' concept has
become so much more popular than the 'I am unique and possibly alone
therefore responsible for myself and my behaviour' school that it
really should not be surprising to us that we have become so greedy
and unethical and immoral."
Jennie
>If we can choose to feel anything we want
>why do so many people choose to be miserable?
As others have pointed out, that's a pretty big assumption to
start out from.
Perhaps it would be simpler if we looked at this another way. We
cannot 'fell what we want' because our emotions are reactions to
circumstances. We can, however, make an attempt to control those
circumstances, some of which are psychological. We might, for instance,
opt not to feed negative emotions by replaying miserable situations in our
heads. In most such situations, there remains the option of saying "fuck
that" and turning one's thoughts to something else (using a prop, like a
book or a phone call to a friend, if necessary) which will result in less
repetition and concentration of stress.
Of course, it can sometimes be useful to think through the
negative aspects of a situation, especially the potential negative
consequences of decisions which one could make. There is a time, however,
when such behaviour ceases to be useful, or becomes so destructive in
itself that the destruction outweighs the benefit. For most people, it is
possible to learn how to turn off that behaviour at that point. That, I
think, is what people mean when they talk about 'choice'. Of course, some
people, those with hormone imbalances like clinical depression, have a
much tougher time making such a choice, and may need outside help in order
to do so successfully.
>I've been writing in my journal and reading some
>recent entries. I have no reason to be unhappy,
>but everything I write is negative and self-defeating.
Could you try writing from a different perspective, just as an
exercise? Perhaps you could keep a secong yournal in which you
deliberately set out to take a more positive view of things. Wait a while,
until the immediate emotional impact of particular situations is out of
your system, then go back and read both accounts of them. Perhaps the
positive one will sound false, and perhaps it won't.
>When I write about people I assume the worst from
>them. Why would I choose to be that way?
And here you are, with a perfect example of such self-defeating
thinking. ;)
You didn't choose, in any conscious way, because you were not
aware of any such conscious decisions which might be made. So don't blame
yourself for it. That's just silly.
You _could_ make a choice _now_; not a choice to pretend to be
happy, but a choice to experiment with looking at things in different
ways, to see, from an informed perspective, which way really suits you
best. This can only make any sense if it's about you, not about what
others want from you. Even if they are cute. ;)
>I want to be happy don't I?
>Everybody wants to be happy, but everybody is
>making themselves miserable. Is it human nature
>to want suffering? Do we gravitate towards
>the things that will hurt us?
Some people get into the habit of putting a lot of energy into
feeding depression. When it's normal, it can feel safe, and it can be
frightening to experience less familiar emotions or to find oneself
behaving in a way which elicits unfamiliar reactions from other people.
I have, for instance, known depressed people who felt dependent on the
attention which they received for being pointedly miserable, because they
had lost confidence in their own ability to get attention any other way.
The root problems vary from person to person, but in any case, it's a
tough habit to break, even where there is no underlying medical cause. You
can choose, but it's still going to take hard work. Otoh, if you don't
choose to try and recover, nobody _else_ can save you.
IHCOYC XPICTOC
> It makes sense for people to respond positively to certain
> sounds. We feel relaxed when we hear a steady or gently slowing heartbeat,
> so that babies will go to sleep when safe in their parents' arms. Vocal
> signals such as laughter are used in a positive context in human
> communication. And one would expect that sounds like a bubbling brook
> appeal to us because it's a good idea to have a source of water nearby.
> Music simply takes these much more deeply rooted reactions and links them
> together in new ways to engineer a particular emotional response.
Music seems to come as a side effect of the human use of language. Sound,
rhythm, and intonation are present in every human language. They are
important adjuncts to its use as a communication tool. It is quite
difficult to disambiguate computer generated sentences spoken in a monotone
and with equal syllable timing. The musical features of language serve as a
sort of checksum, allowing the hearer to cross-check the formal content of
the words with the manner of their delivery.
Perceiving these things is part of language itself, and as such it's
diagnostic of -Homo sapiens-. And like other features of language, we play
with them. This kind of play, like the play of animals, is not purposeless;
they and we are practising behaviours needed by the species to survive.
Humans sing for the same reasons dogs chase stuff and cats pounce. Music is
in our genes.
There are cultures that have no pictorial art, or sculpture, or little by
way of architecture. There are no cultures anywhere that do not have some
rudimentary form of song.
Mark Greene
>What social or reproductive agenda a positive response to music served in
>the days when music had to be worked for at the time you were hearing it, I
>can't tell you, but I'm sure the members of this group could cook up some
>creative theories.
>
all too easy, and I'm not even a proponent of evolution:
... listen to the pounding beat of the herd of <whatevers> coming this way...
or are they going that way...
... listen to me lure that bird into my trap by imitating its song...
... watch me impress that babe over there as I combine the pounding beat of the
herd with the intricate bird song... :-)
and so on.
--
mark
Nyx
news:20011126213030...@mb-fd.aol.com:
>>What social or reproductive agenda a positive response to music served
>>in the days when music had to be worked for at the time you were
>>hearing it, I can't tell you, but I'm sure the members of this group
>>could cook up some creative theories.
>>
>
> all too easy, and I'm not even a proponent of evolution:
You're falling into his trap. He's a tarbaby. Music is an expression of
soul, of gods, of higher spirit. Evolution had nothing to do with it.
Sure, you can reduce emotion to chemicals, but you can do the same with
thought. If you look at it that way logic is just a chemical reaction.
Mind is more than a salt. Humans, life itself, can't be reduced to the
periodic table.
Mark Greene
>You're falling into his trap
Oh I know, but with the way he phrased it as "social or reproductive agenda",
that was an invite too tempting to pass on. I suppose I should have been
heavier on the sarcastic presentation. Oh well.
>Music is an expression of
>soul, of gods, of higher spirit. Evolution had nothing to do with it.
>
Highly Agreed.
>Sure, you can reduce emotion to chemicals, but you can do the same with
>thought. If you look at it that way logic is just a chemical reaction.
A *controlled* chemical reaction, and that is all the difference. Well, that
and the fact that the chemical reaction is a means to an end and almost
incidental to the results.
>Humans, life itself, can't be reduced to the
>periodic table.
Heh, someday they may extend the table out beyond 200, but they still won't be
able to isolate the human soul.
Aside: I actually found a physics book with a periodic table projected up to
120, with the last entry labled "pandamonium" :-)
--
mark
Kris
>I want to be happy don't I?
>Everybody wants to be happy, but everybody is
>making themselves miserable. Is it human nature
>to want suffering? Do we gravitate towards
>the things that will hurt us?
Isn't that pretty much the basis for buddhism?
IIRC the four basic tenets are 1. The world is suffering - everything
constantly changes, and you must accept that. 2. Desire causes suffering. 3.
You do not have to suffer. 4. If you cease desiring, you cease suffering,
and the fourth rule is where the eight-fold path comes in which is in simplest
terms a guide for how to live your life in order to free yourself from misery
and unneccessary desire.
It's really rather interesting.
Obviously, I have simplified in a massive way, but if you're thinking like
this, I do suggest doing some reading on the idea. It's an extremely unusual
take on the concept of suffering and it'll make you think.
As to whether we make ourselves miserable or not... I really can't say for
sure. I *think* that as a species because we have concepts of higher, nobler
goals than *life*, because we have hope, we do run into the problem of setting
ourselves up for failures. We (we being a majority of folk imo) constantly
attempt to attain a perfection that cannot exist and thusly make ourselves
miserable as a result.
It's difficult to not hurt when you're constantly striving for something. If
you are at peace with yourself, then you lack nothing. If you lack nothing -
you don't want anything. And if you don't want anything - why would you be
unhappy? I've noticed this trend moreso in older folk. When they realise they
don't have to be anything for anybody, and it's okay to just be alive. When
you don't have to "keep up with the jones's" it's like this light goes on in
their heads. They're quite content, with just being themselves. Marvellous.
**disclaimer: This is not taking into account those of us who are chemically
unstable individuals. That's a completely different subject from the topic at
hand.**
~Kris.
-------------------------------------
"I've just gone though a vengeful breakup with my blender, and I don't think I
should mount my arm alone tonight."
-------------------------------------
Neal Stanifer
Nyx wrote:
>
> prg...@aol.combustion (Mark Greene) wrote in
> news:20011126213030...@mb-fd.aol.com:
>
> >>What social or reproductive agenda a positive response to music served
> >>in the days when music had to be worked for at the time you were
> >>hearing it, I can't tell you, but I'm sure the members of this group
> >>could cook up some creative theories.
> >>
> >
> > all too easy, and I'm not even a proponent of evolution:
>
> You're falling into his trap. He's a tarbaby. Music is an expression of
> soul, of gods, of higher spirit. Evolution had nothing to do with it.
This may be just a false dilemma bred from the notion that we have only
two choices: dualism or traditional evolution. Dualism falls short of
being predictive or even demonstrable, and traditional views of
evolution are often questioned even by materialists as being too
reductive. Perhaps our love of (understanding of) music resides
somewhere outside these two trenches.
>
> Sure, you can reduce emotion to chemicals, but you can do the same with
> thought. If you look at it that way logic is just a chemical reaction.
This is too simplified. If volition, impulse, and even reason are
activation patterns in a neural state space, then they are indeed
chemical to some degree, but that does not reduce them to the level of
reagents combined in a test tube. There is much more going on in our
heads/bodies than just that, none of which cries out for the existence
of a soul to make sense of it.
>
> Mind is more than a salt. Humans, life itself, can't be reduced to the
> periodic table.
They can, however, be reduced to dynamic patterns of activity among
nerves and chemicals both commonly shared among individuals and at the
same time unique to each individual. The seeming paradox of this kind
of materialism is that while no human being is ever truly "individual,"
each person is completely unique. And if this commonality and
uniqueness can be accounted for by "salts," does that necessarily reduce
the value of humanity? Basing the value of human life on the existence
of some human quintessence is a bad practice; it forces us to close our
eyes to science, lest we be forced to confess that humanity as a special
category is no longer valuable.
I prefer to think that humanity, morality, and other valuable things are
human properties, arising for real reasons in a real and material world,
and employed by human beings capable not only of using their brain
chemicals to walk and breathe, but also of organizing concepts into
higher-order thought. And all this without a soul.
Neal
`Una
>"Nyx" <n...@bleedingprettycolours.com> wrote
>
>> u...@nettrip.org (`Una) wrote
>>
>> > If we can choose to feel anything we want
>> > why do so many people choose to be miserable?
>
>That's a very good question, and it deserves a very good question, but I
>think it ranks up there with "Why is there evil in the world?" - that is, we
>can try to figure out answers, but I don't think we'll ever know for sure.
It isn't whether one finds the definitive answer or
"the Truth", but what one learns from the asking.
>*snip* whereas if you set out to be miserable you will
>almost always succeed, thus ensuring that your mood is the product of your
>choice.
>
>Another thing I've seen more and more among younger goths and other
>alternateen types over the last decade is the desire to take shortcuts to
>growing up fast. *snip*
>
>I don't know if either of these describes you or your problems, but if
>either is close I suspect you lean more towards the former than the latter.
>You've always seemed to have a lot of trouble feeling like you're in control
>of your life.
Considering that I'm only a few short years away from being
30 I'm leaning towards the former, if those are the only two
choices. However, it isn't my life that I don't feel in control
of. I've gained quite alot of control over the circumstances
I can control. It's my relationships that leave me confused
and feeling out of control.
I think the main problem is that I keep expecting to find
quality people in a place where there aren't any to be
easily found. I've given alot of people the benefit of the
doubt only to find that they are complete shit. Last night
I was talking to my best friend and expressed concern that
I was a failure because I can't find quality people to spend
my time with. I said it must be a failure to see the good
in people, that I was somehow being too harsh or expecting
too much. Then he said to look at the the people I'm trying
to find good in and reminded me of the things that caused me
to doubt their characters in the first place: dishonesty,
gossip, narrow opinions, ignorance, pettiness, etc.
He reminded me of the way they've been treating me.
They don't respect me and I don't respect them.
They simply aren't the kind of people I can develop
quality connections with. They are a time suck.
>And you yourself mentioned another reason: that displays of misery often
>reap social rewards; the sqeaky wheel gets the grease, and the miserable
>friend gets the shoulder to cry on.
Yeah, as long as I'm miserable they like hanging out with me.
If I'm happy then something is wrong and they've got to run.
I don't need that in my life.
>> Anyone who says it's a choice just wants you to fake it so you don't
>bother
>> them. They want you to play a role, just like they do.
>
>I think that is often true, especially of people who dismiss the issue as
>simplistically as you suggest - anyone who says "Oh, quit your whining" or
>tries to sell you self-motivational tapes, for example. But I think some of
>them just want to see others happy, and want to pass on the experience that
>they've learned so painfully that you *can* control your feelings to some
>degree, and needn't be a slave to your own blood chemistry or psychological
>programming.
As has already been pointed out, it's far better to take
control of one's circumstances than it is to control one's
feelings. It's knowing what to take control of and what to
let run wild that's so bloody difficult. I think I'm starting
to figure out which is which though.
`Una - the love platypus
will less likely be blinded by random attractions now
that I know they are run by the same rules as friendship.
An asshole is always an asshole.
Fireraven9
>120, with the last entry labled "pandamonium" :-)
>
>--
>mark
That might make a good SIG ... pandemonium! Kaos! Love it!
Fireraven9
"Gott weiß, ich will kein Engel sein"
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/GothicGardeners
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/GardeninginNewMexicoandColorado
Jennie
>Nyx wrote:
IHCOYC XPICTOC wrote:
>>> Your emotions are not something you choose. In fact, they represent a
>>> sort of alien invasion with a hostile agenda. They exist largely to
>>> keep you serving -its- goals rather than something you might choose for
>>> yourself.
Ah, we're back to this one, are we? ;)
Incidentally, IX, I think there's something which I never asked
you before: what exactly would your goals be if there were no It?
>> Only if you believe in that mind/emotion dualism crap that has infested
>> western thought since the greeks.
Agreed. If you fail to appreciate a scientif approach to the
study of the interaction of neurology and endocrinology. But I don't think
it's quite this that IX was getting at. There's who we are, and then
there's who we've been made to be. I would say that we've been made to be
all that we are (by various processes, often distinctly chaotic), but
others see a division there.
>Not necessarily, though it may help. What is needed, though, is to
>recognise that your emotions are a function of your biochemistry.
Your biochemistry, however, was itself responsible for the
development of your particular neurology. So is there any part of your
thinking which can be separated from this model?
>Far from serving the cause of happiness, the engine of life serves to
>increase misery to the maximum consistent with continuing survival.
It will increase either misery or happiness, whichever is most
useful at the time. It doesn't care. It doesn't aim to distress you. Its
interest is in the results, and your emotions are merely tools. So don't
take it too personally. ;)
>the tenaciousness of toads that live buried and dehydrated in the desert, to
>revive and copulate when the random rain falls on their patch of dirt;
Not unhappy toads, I shouldn't think, since they are almost
certainly unconscious throughout most of that time.
>the animals whose entire diet is made up of such things as bamboo twigs and
>eucalyptus leaves;
And then they try eating horses and humans are horrified - they
thought these animals were cute! - so they shoot them... <sigh>
>and over and over again, the constant slaughter of both plant and animal,
>the many creatures that dwell and feed on the death or decay of their
>fellows;
Recycling. It's practical. If I have to die, I would rather do
so in the knowledge that I'll be somebody's dinner, perhaps thus causing
happiness or at least temporary satisfaction.
>and over and over again, the constant spewing of thousands of seeds into the
>wind, of thousand spawn into the stream, on the outside chance that one or
>two may survive to maturity ---
Creatures which live in that way are not depressed by it as we
might be. Their own emotions are suited to the way in which they live, and
they find happiness and misery in different, appropriately useful places.
Have you ever been glad of misery? Of Nature's warnings?
The realisation that I'm miserable has gotten me out of some
pretty bad situations in my time, and has enabled me to survive and find
situations which make me happy. So misery can have its uses for the
individual, too.
>you are indelibly impressed by the desperation and misery that characterise
>the whole wretched business.
_You_ are, IX. ;)
It is very gothic, I'll grant you that.
>The extinction of all life forms on the planet would be an act of kindness.
>If only we could be sure we got them all! The entire earth is under a
>curse, and life is that curse. Life itself is evil. Intelligent life is
>the worst kind.
Ah, but there is quite probably life in existence elsewhere in
the universe as well. In order to wipe it all out, you must keep a certain
amount of ecosystem going in the meantime, until you can develop the
necessary technologies and send your agents out on their missions of
destruction. Who would you keep alive, to face such suffering? How might
such a choice be made? This reminds me of the famous besieged Christians
who drew lots to see which of them must murder the others, suicide also
being a sin. Would your people have to draw lots to see who must commit
the sin of selecting those condemned to life, and then, dreadfully, be
forced to live themselves as well?
Jennie
--
Jennie Kermode jen...@innocent.com
http://www.triffid.demon.co.uk/jennie
"You - give him back his country. You - smarten yourself up."
Jennie
>I think I make people uncomfortable because I don't play
>a role and they don't know how to deal with such blatant
>displays of emotion. If I'm happy I'm bragging, making too
>much of something that's just nice, or setting myself up
>for a major let down. If I'm unhappy I'm depressing and
>unpleasant to be around. I should hide both to make people
>comfortable. Whatever.
The problem stems not from the fact that you need to hide your
emotions, more for the fact that it would be socially appropriate for you
to restrict the manner in which you display them. It's one thing to be
happy or sad, another to bounce excessively in the company of depressed
friends or sulk loudly in the presence of folk trying to have a good time.
People need personal space when it comes to emotions just as they do with
regard to physical contact. What makes people uncomfortable with you, I
think, is that they feel you're intruding on that space of theirs.
>This is why I can't lie and I can't pretend to feel something
>differently than I do. I don't feel cold and numb. I feel sick.
>Most of my nausea and headaches comes from trying to make myself
>feel the way I think I should.
That's really not necessary; I quite agree that it would be
good for you to acknowledge your real feelings and good for society to
learn to cope with the fact that not everyone is conveniently fluffy or
blank all the time. However, you could try stating the way you feel and
then getting on with social interaction on a more neutral level. This
might also help your attempts to stop feeding your own depression.
>The person I really want to notice me is the person who doesn't
>talk more when I'm unhappy. In fact, he tells me to quit my
>bitching and tells me a joke or a funny story. I love spending
>time with him because he's so positive. But he's honest about it.
That sounds good. :) It always helps to have friends who
won't be afraid to tell you if they think you're being a bit crap, and who
will like you for yourself regardless.
>And this woman who is attracted to me is a cynic. She's very
>negative, so I have one more reason to not play with her.
>I don't need that kind of example in my life. I don't need
>someone encouraging my mistrust of people and helping me
>develop my negative traits.
Maybe you need to make some changes in _her_ then, as well as
trying to change yourself. She's given you her agenda; now how about
giving her yours?
Jennie
<disinte...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>Another thing I've seen more and more among younger goths and other
>alternateen types over the last decade is the desire to take shortcuts to
>growing up fast. One of the cheapest is to try one's hardest to become as
>bitter, jaded, cynical, and miserable as humanly possible as quickly as this
>can be accomplished. After all, everyone "knows" that the weight of bitter
>experience makes one jaded and miserable, so anyone who comes off as jaded
>and miserable must be experienced, right?
Oh yes. <sigh> I went out with one of those for quite a
while, re-learning the art of being miserable myself in the process. He
and all his friends had come to a decision at the age of about thirteen
that real, experienced adults, who were sure of themselves and their place
in the world - 'cool people', as they put it - were silent as could be,
because they didn't need to communicate with other people, and were bitter
as could be, because they Understood the world. So they sat around being
miserable and refusing to talk to anyone who might help them to feel
better, or getting angry at those who might cruelly provoke more pleasant
emotions in them and thus spoil their style. I really upset them once by
saying that they resembled personality-free 1950s boys trying to be Men.
>Personally, I think if there's anything that can be said to be "you" in a
>metaphysical sense - and I believe there is - it must be deeper than
>anything that can be so easily affected by drugs or behavioral conditioning,
>and hence deeper than mere emotion or consciousness.
That would be your Christian perspective, I suppose. :) The
soul as separate from the emotional consciousness?
Personally, I would tend to look at long term personality
patterns as indicative of self. If somebody who has always been fairly
fluffy and happy suddenly gets depressed for no specific reason, I would
question whether that depression was built around 'real' emotions, and
suggest intervention (of whatever sort seemed most appropriate) rather
than the acceptance of it as a manifestation of self.
Endymion
> Recycling. It's practical. If I have to die, I would rather do
> so in the knowledge that I'll be somebody's dinner, perhaps thus causing
> happiness or at least temporary satisfaction.
"Buzzard's gotta eat, same as a worm."
- The Outlaw Josey Wales
"Bacteria's gotta eat, same as a shark."
- Endymion
One way or another, you're going to be recycled sooner or later; there's no
avoiding it, no matter how much embalming and locking away in airtight boxes
you do.
> This reminds me of the famous besieged Christians
> who drew lots to see which of them must murder the others, suicide also
> being a sin.
Those were besieged Jewish Zealots, not Christians, and most modern
historians think the Romans and their propagandist Josephus made the story
up to avoid admitting they had slaughtered every man, woman and child
instead of enslaving them as was usually done. But it does make an engaging
story.
--
Endymion
disinte...@mindspring.com
Endymion
> He
> and all his friends had come to a decision at the age of about thirteen
> that real, experienced adults, who were sure of themselves and their place
> in the world - 'cool people', as they put it - were silent as could be,
> because they didn't need to communicate with other people, and were bitter
> as could be, because they Understood the world. So they sat around being
> miserable and refusing to talk to anyone who might help them to feel
> better, or getting angry at those who might cruelly provoke more pleasant
> emotions in them and thus spoil their style.
They must have relatives in Charlottesville - and every town with a large
babyoth contingent. This gets back to something I was discussing in another
thread: what it means to live authentically.
> >Personally, I think if there's anything that can be said to be "you" in a
> >metaphysical sense - and I believe there is - it must be deeper than
> >anything that can be so easily affected by drugs or behavioral
conditioning,
> >and hence deeper than mere emotion or consciousness.
>
> That would be your Christian perspective, I suppose. :) The
> soul as separate from the emotional consciousness?
Not separate; interrelated but pre-existing. I don't think a Christian could
properly say that the soul is unrelated to the body, since sins of the flesh
can have such a dire impact on the state of the soul. The question as I see
it is whether "reality", in terms of one's essential self, is an extension
of the body or is something that is touched by, but not defined by, the
body. I'd imagine almost all theistic religions, plus some like Buddhism
which aren't theistic, would take the latter view. I understand that Hindus
also see the soul as much more than emotional and intellectual
consciousness.
The problem I see with Nyx' formulation is that he denies a separation
between emotion and rational consciousness, but then seems to imply that
feelings generated subconscious processes are more real than those imposed
by rational act of will. If what is real is simply what exists within the
subjective mind, then a state of mind one has created becomes just as real
or as artificial as one which is generated through natural - that is,
subconscious - processes. If the real you is what comes from within rather
than what is imposed by society or other outsiders, than a feeling produced
by an act of will in response to outside pressure on the conscious mind is
just as real as one which is a response to outside pressure on the
emotions - and one produced by pure ego is the most real of all.
My response is not so much to say one should ignore the mind and body and go
delving into the realm of spirit to find what is real, but to say that as a
practical matter the division between real or authentic and artificial or
fake is probably even less useful than that between mind and body, between
rational will and emotion. I've never seen any point in suffering in agony
because it's "real" or "natural" when there are perfectly good drugs to
relieve pain; likewise I think it's silly to wallow in emotional pain
because it's "real" or "natural" when there are perfectly good techniques to
relieve that pain too. The only question for me isn't whether I'll still be
authentic if I'm not suffering, it's whether the relief involves side
effects - addiction, perhaps, or complete and permanent loss of sensation -
which may be worse than the pain.
--
Endymion
disinte...@mindspring.com
Endymion
> I think the main problem is that I keep expecting to find
> quality people in a place where there aren't any to be
> easily found.
Is it the place, or is it that you're looking for qualities in people in
whom they're unlikely to be found?
My experience is that there's almost always more variation within scenes,
places, etc. than between them.
> As has already been pointed out, it's far better to take
> control of one's circumstances than it is to control one's
> feelings.
I think that depends completely on the circumstances. In some cases it may
be impossible to control the circumstances - if you fall terminally ill, or
are in prison - and in some cases it may be inexcusably selfish - if, for
example, someone you secretly love is marrying your best friend, and you and
your friend value each other too much to just walk away. In those cases it
is necessary to control your feelings and reactions; either by changing your
outlook - by, for example, trying to focus on your friend's happiness rather
than your own loneliness - or by finding a way to accept and live with the
pain while still being happy overall. Knowing how to distinguish between
those sorts of circumstances, especially when they're much more ambiguous
than the examples, is the real challenge.
--
Endymion
disinte...@mindspring.com
kest
>Music seems to come as a side effect of the human use of language.
Rather, language seems to come as a side effect of the human use of music.
k
--
Sound and Fury [TM]
kest
>If we can choose to feel anything we want
>why do so many people choose to be miserable?
>
I don't think we can choose to feel *anything* we want. But I do think most
people have more control over it than they like to think they do. Feeling
shitty in some ways is a good feeling. Its frequently selfish, or at least
involves giving yourself permission to be selfish, to withdraw from the
world, to demand attention, to blame your problems on other people, and to
not have to do the work of solving them.
All that said, though, I think emotions are as much physical as mental. The
weather, the food you eat, the experiences you have been through and the
ones you are going through all have an effect, sometimes a very subtle one.
I guess what I'm saying is what you have control over is not so much your
emotions as the way you deal with them. Being depressed is like having a
headache. You can try to work through it while wailing to anyone around how
awful you feel, or you can take two aspirin and curl up in bed with a
certain smugness.
kest
<snip>
>The extinction of all life forms on the planet would be an act of
>kindness. If only we could be sure we got them all! The entire earth is
>under a curse, and life is that curse. Life itself is evil.
>Intelligent life is the worst kind.
<hand staple forehead>
kest
>since i'm tired, you could combine the two if you're mad and lustful
>and say that they'd look interesting stumbling blind and naked down
>the street wearing nothing but sunshine and blood.
I likes you, becky.
Joe Brenner
>If we can choose to feel anything we want
>why do so many people choose to be miserable?
Interesting trend in the responses to this one. I'm
hearing: "you can't choose to be happy, but you can choose
to be miserable." Is that right?
I would take the side that you can develop a fair degree of
control over your emotions if you work at it, and that the
"oh, I am overwhelmed by emotion" schtick is usually a sign
of a kind of a kind of laziness, a self-indulgence.
There's a very simple experiment you can try right now.
Force an exaggerated smile on your face, see how you feel.
Force an exaggerated frown on your face, and watch your
feelings. Most people report feeling a little more up
when smiling, a little more down with the frown.
This is the basis for the self-help style advice that most
people here have been sneering at: "Get a grip on yourself,
come-on, smile and be happy." I can't say I blame people
for sneering at it, it strikes me as pretty inane and vapid
myself, but I recognize that just because it strikes me as
totally uncool doesn't prove that it's totally stupid.
The jock culture has come up with the concept of "psyching
yourself up". This is a pretty foreign concept among
the intellectual culture, but would anyone here like to
stand up and swear that they can't do it? They evidentally
think they can will themselves into a positive state of
mind. Are they totally deluded?
So, why would someone choose to be miserable? Usually I'd
go with either
(1) Some people appear to be drama addicts. They want
their life to be in a state of soap opera level
turmoil, or else they are not really living.
(2) Some people seem seemed to be wired to think that mommy
is going to come over and kiss them if they break down
and cry.
Anyway, here's my stab at some self-help style advice:
It's a pretty common syndrome to presume that bad news is
more plausible than good news ("too good to be true"), and
while that's probably not a bad rule of thumb from a
probability/thermodynamic point of view, you shouldn't
fall into the trap of assuming that the negative and the
real are synonymous.
But on some level, I think all of use here have embraced
the negative on a pretty deep level (this is something most
goths -- but not only goths -- have in common). Positive
sounding advice is always going to sound like total bullshit
to us. "You can be happy, just get out there and work on it!"
Bleh.
There's a psychological trick you can use to get around this
block though: embrace the double-negative. "You don't have
to be unhappy" is a more effective mantra than "You can be
happy." "I am a fundamentally good person" sounds stupid.
But "I am not as fucked up as most people are" has the ring
of truth about it.
There you have it. "The Power of Double-Negative Thinking"
Look for it on supermarket book racks everywhere.
BlackIce
"IHCOYC XPICTOC" <ihcoyc...@aye.net> wrote:
<snip>
> Perceiving these things is part of language itself, and as such it's
> diagnostic of -Homo sapiens-. And like other features of language, we play
> with them. This kind of play, like the play of animals, is not purposeless;
> they and we are practising behaviours needed by the species to survive.
> Humans sing for the same reasons dogs chase stuff and cats pounce. Music is
> in our genes.
>
> There are cultures that have no pictorial art, or sculpture, or little by
> way of architecture. There are no cultures anywhere that do not have some
> rudimentary form of song.
I'd suggest, rather, that we're set up to appreciate music so we dance.
I know of no culture without dance, either, and it is a rare
(nonexistent?) culture that can separate the two. (There are, of
course, individuals who don't dance, just as there are individuals who
don't sing).
#######################
me
IHCOYC XPICTOC
: Incidentally, IX, I think there's something which I never asked
: you before: what exactly would your goals be if there were no It?
I would of course be much happier without "goals." A "goal" is a place
you want to be, and you aren't; something you think you must have, and
lack. I suppose I could be perfectly happy if only I could eliminate the
need for "goals."
:>Far from serving the cause of happiness, the engine of life serves to
:>increase misery to the maximum consistent with continuing survival.
: It will increase either misery or happiness, whichever is most
: useful at the time. It doesn't care. It doesn't aim to distress you. Its
: interest is in the results, and your emotions are merely tools. So don't
: take it too personally. ;)
The trend, however, is always towards misery. Nature's bounty never lasts
long in Nature. If an ecosystem allows an organism to eat all it pleases
with minimal effort, they will tend to breed until the green spot is
spoilt; and their own enlarging biomass becomes a draw to both predators
and parasites. In biology, I can only see a trend towards increasing
misery.
:>the tenaciousness of toads that live buried and dehydrated in the desert, to
:>revive and copulate when the random rain falls on their patch of dirt;
: Not unhappy toads, I shouldn't think, since they are almost
: certainly unconscious throughout most of that time.
I prefer to think that they remain conscious at some level, desperately
aware that they are dry, and uncomfortable, and want something they don't
know where it comes from, and can do nothing to attain.
--
IHCOYC XPICTOC http://members.iglou.com/gustavus ihcoyc(at)aye.net
+ DEUS VULT! +
+ Strip away the veils! +
**** This message has been placed here by the Tijuana Bible Society ****
siani evans
kest wrote:
>
> u...@nettrip.org (`Una) challenged the world with:
> All that said, though, I think emotions are as much physical as mental. The
> weather, the food you eat, the experiences you have been through and the
> ones you are going through all have an effect, sometimes a very subtle one.
> I guess what I'm saying is what you have control over is not so much your
> emotions as the way you deal with them. Being depressed is like having a
> headache. You can try to work through it while wailing to anyone around how
> awful you feel, or you can take two aspirin and curl up in bed with a
> certain smugness.
however it's important to remember that the two aspirin and straight to
bed solution is bad for you if you do it all the time. yeah, and i do
agree about emotions being fairly largely physical. i often catch
myself suddenly feeling about 25000000 times happier all of a sudden
when the sun comes out. and it works the other way around, too.
sometimes if you can get a laugh out of something you can feel a
depression lift as your face lifts. this is why a good solution to
someone being depressed is to say things that make them smile.
siani evans
Joe Brenner wrote:
> There's a psychological trick you can use to get around this
> block though: embrace the double-negative. "You don't have
> to be unhappy" is a more effective mantra than "You can be
> happy." "I am a fundamentally good person" sounds stupid.
> But "I am not as fucked up as most people are" has the ring
> of truth about it.
>
> There you have it. "The Power of Double-Negative Thinking"
> Look for it on supermarket book racks everywhere.
<snarf>
the scary thing is those are exactly the things i'm always saying to
myself. my god, i'm such a wanker, aren't i? :P
Jennie
>Jennie <jen...@triffid.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>: Incidentally, IX, I think there's something which I never asked
>: you before: what exactly would your goals be if there were no It?
>I would of course be much happier without "goals." A "goal" is a place
>you want to be, and you aren't;
Fair enough. So let me rephrase the question: what do you think
you would be doing, to be happy, if there were no It? Or is the point that
you would be happy doing nothing?
>The trend, however, is always towards misery. Nature's bounty never lasts
>long in Nature. If an ecosystem allows an organism to eat all it pleases
>with minimal effort, they will tend to breed until the green spot is
>spoilt; and their own enlarging biomass becomes a draw to both predators
>and parasites. In biology, I can only see a trend towards increasing
>misery.
In the meantime, though, won't those organisms have a wonderful
time? Is that wonderful time worth less than the suffering which comes
after? Is it made irrelevant by the fact that it cannot last? See, I would
see it as balancing out; I don't worry so much about time, and the order
of things, which seems a rather artificial concept, distracting from the
value of the things in themselves. I like to go out drinking sometimes,
and I don't enjoy myself any less because of the hangover which I know
will be awaiting me the morning after; and after suffering that hangover,
I don't consider the pleasure of getting drunk to have been rendered so
worthless that I'll never pursue it again (I may say so occasionally, but
when I do, I'm lying).
>: Not unhappy toads, I shouldn't think, since they are almost
>: certainly unconscious throughout most of that time.
>I prefer to think that they remain conscious at some level, desperately
>aware that they are dry, and uncomfortable, and want something they don't
>know where it comes from, and can do nothing to attain.
I can't argue with what you prefer to think. ;) If it makes
you happy to think of the world in such miserable terms, I won't try to
stop you. I'm not sure it makes much objective sense, though. Ach, well;
it's very gothic. :)
Jennie
--
Jennie Kermode jen...@innocent.com
http://www.triffid.demon.co.uk/jennie
"That's the way romance is: that's usually the way it goes, but
every once in a while, it goes the other way too."
David Gerard
IHCOYC XPICTOC <gust...@shell1.iglou.com> wrote:
:The trend, however, is always towards misery. Nature's bounty never lasts
:long in Nature. If an ecosystem allows an organism to eat all it pleases
:with minimal effort, they will tend to breed until the green spot is
:spoilt; and their own enlarging biomass becomes a draw to both predators
:and parasites. In biology, I can only see a trend towards increasing
:misery.
You *so* need Evolutionary Biology Rock in your life.
http://www.plasticine.com/spill/nw/
"Often, symptoms of mental illness are simply brains of low-status people
reacting logically to the situations theyfind themselves in."
http://www.rationalskies.com/spill/pics/desk.jpg
By the way: nice Mope-Off entry.
--
http://thingy.apana.org.au/~fun/ http://www.rocknerd.org/
"Sorry sunshine, but I have clothes that have been around longer than you. All
I lack is pathetic scenester need to throw myself into the tiny limelight of
the club world and stay there for lack of anything else better to do for ten
plus years. This is a flaw I can live with." (Jim Dugan)
IHCOYC XPICTOC
> Fair enough. So let me rephrase the question: what do you think
> you would be doing, to be happy, if there were no It? Or is the point that
> you would be happy doing nothing?
I am reminded of my favourite Talking Heads song. "Heaven is a place where
nothing ever happens." That is really the only possible heaven. In any
conceivable paradise, you want nothing and feel no needs. Desire and strife
are equally banished. Eternity is with you, and the big bang and the final
dispersal of matter and energy are simultaneously before you, a part of one
unchanging whole.
> In the meantime, though, won't those organisms have a wonderful
> time? Is that wonderful time worth less than the suffering which comes
> after? Is it made irrelevant by the fact that it cannot last?
I suppose the point is that they might hold on to a piece of their paradise,
but for the fact that their internal programmes inevitably make them act in
ways that will ruin it.
Wherever Man has gone, whenever he explores uncharted territory, a
predictable pattern occurs. When Man arrives in Europe, or Australia, or
the Americas, or New Zealand, a high hunting culture quickly develops. The
Cro-Magnon cave painters, for instance, or the Clovis culture that made the
world's most sophisticated stone arrowheads.
There once were camels in North America, and elephants, and wild horses, and
giant sloths, and rhinoceroses, and giant armadillos, and several great
cats, and large carnivorous flightless birds, the last true heirs of the
saurischian dinosaurs. Then Man appeared on the continent. Within the
space of five thousand years all of these creatures were extinct. There are
some who still claim that these extinctions were not the work of human
hands; but let's face it, people have hanged on less evidence. A vast
unspoiled continent was ruined, not by Columbus or Pilgrims, but by the
"Native Americans." For a time, it is sure, they had a wonderful time.
As DeQuincey said, "Man is a weed in those regions." But those regions are
everywhere.
--
IHCOYC XPICTOC D.G. IMP. LAURASIAE ET GONDWANALANDIAE
http://members.iglou.com/gustavus
We commit genocide
With war like patriotic lemmings
Off the cliffs of existence
For this we have opted...
--- Tate Madler
Poppy Z. Brite
> In any
>conceivable paradise, you want nothing and feel no needs. Desire and strife
>are equally banished. Eternity is with you, and the big bang and the final
>dispersal of matter and energy are simultaneously before you, a part of one
>unchanging whole.
Sounds very much like the feeling artificially and temporarily induced by
heroin, Dilaudid, et al.
PZB, not a junkie but understanding a little too well how it could happen
Matthew King
: There's a very simple experiment you can try right now.
: Force an exaggerated smile on your face, see how you feel.
: Force an exaggerated frown on your face, and watch your
: feelings. Most people report feeling a little more up
: when smiling, a little more down with the frown.
Of course, the trouble with that sort of experiment is that it's so
subject to wishful thinking. If you don't want smiling to make you feel
happier, it won't.
: The jock culture has come up with the concept of "psyching
: yourself up". This is a pretty foreign concept among
: the intellectual culture, but would anyone here like to
: stand up and swear that they can't do it? They evidentally
: think they can will themselves into a positive state of
: mind. Are they totally deluded?
Mark McGwire is probably the most celebrated example in recent memory of
that sort of thing; at the height of his success, they'd always show him
on TV visualizing home runs and thinking powerful thoughts.
Then he ran into a streak of injuries, which led to a more or less
complete mental breakdown (as far as his baseball playing is concerned) at
the end of this season. He struck out in something like ten of eleven
post-season at-bats, which may be partly attributable to physical
problems, but which is mostly due to his getting down on himself, going up
to the plate without much idea what he was doing, and swinging wildly at
bad pitches. He was pinch-hit for in what would have been his final
at-bat, and has now retired.
The moral of the story: psyching yourself up works best when you don't
really need it; and when you need it most, it doesn't work at all. (Which
is not to say that there aren't other perfectly good stories with opposite
morals; it's just the one that immediately springs to my mind.)
: "The Power of Double-Negative Thinking". Look for it on supermarket book
: racks everywhere.
The name is vaguely reminiscent of something Victor Frankl advocates,
though I don't remember exactly what he calls it. It involves affirming
whatever you fear to be the case, so that you don't fear it anymore. The
example I remember from _Man's Search for Meaning_ is this: if you're
worried about sweating too much in social situations, you should think to
yourself, "I'll show them how much I can sweat! I'll sweat buckets!"
Matthew
Matthew-King---Toronto---Canada---"Have-you-come-here-to-play-Jesus-
-----------------------------------to-the-lepers-in-your-head?"-U2--
siani evans
IHCOYC XPICTOC wrote:
>
> Jennie wrote:
>
> > Fair enough. So let me rephrase the question: what do you think
> > you would be doing, to be happy, if there were no It? Or is the point that
> > you would be happy doing nothing?
>
> I am reminded of my favourite Talking Heads song. "Heaven is a place where
> nothing ever happens." That is really the only possible heaven. In any
> conceivable paradise, you want nothing and feel no needs. Desire and strife
> are equally banished. Eternity is with you, and the big bang and the final
> dispersal of matter and energy are simultaneously before you, a part of one
> unchanging whole.
huh. i always thought it was a place where you wanted things, and then
you got them. some things you just never get tired of wanting and
getting. like sex. and good food. you don't just one day wake up and
go "hooo, boy, am i ever tired of getting horny, then having sex, and
getting hungry, then eating."
Zoe J Selengut
Oh, yeah, yeah. Somewhere CS Lewis describes lust - I think it's lust he's
talking about, but it doesn't really matter - as like scratching an itch.
It feels good, to be sure, he says, but wouldn't you prefer not to have
the itch in the first place? And, NO, I say. I like to scratch my itches.
Now I remember the context: it was in the Four Loves, on the difference
between need-loves and appreciative loves. The difference, say, between
drinking water when you're thirsty and wine when you're not. Wouldn't you
know it, he gets around to God and Heaven and such. But I want every kind
of pleasure in heaven, not just the pure unselfish ones. Like you say, I
want to be cold, and then get warm. I want to be too hot so I can take a
cool bath. I want to bang my head against the wall so I can feel how good
it feels when I stop. Pleasure without a little pain is like food without
salt. You can taste something's missing, even when you can't tell what.
My heaven has fear and wonder, mystery and adventure. And there is beauty
I will never tire of.
Zoe
Zoe J Selengut
On 3 Dec 2001, IHCOYC XPICTOC wrote:
>
> I would of course be much happier without "goals." A "goal" is a place
> you want to be, and you aren't; something you think you must have, and
> lack. I suppose I could be perfectly happy if only I could eliminate the
> need for "goals."
This sounds like the Buddhist concept of nirvana, which I have never been
able to distinguish from the Christian concept of despair. No fear, no
desire, no goals, no nothing. I regard them both with fear and trembling.
Zoe
Fireraven9
>talking about, but it doesn't really matter - as like scratching an itch.
>It feels good, to be sure, he says, but wouldn't you prefer not to have
>the itch in the first place? And, NO, I say. I like to scratch my itches.
>Now I remember the context: it was in the Four Loves, on the difference
>between need-loves and appreciative loves. The difference, say, between
>drinking water when you're thirsty and wine when you're not. Wouldn't you
>know it, he gets around to God and Heaven and such. But I want every kind
>of pleasure in heaven, not just the pure unselfish ones. Like you say, I
>want to be cold, and then get warm. I want to be too hot so I can take a
>cool bath. I want to bang my head against the wall so I can feel how good
>it feels when I stop. Pleasure without a little pain is like food without
>salt. You can taste something's missing, even when you can't tell what.
>
>My heaven has fear and wonder, mystery and adventure. And there is beauty
>I will never tire of.
>
>Zoe
>
read any of his stuff.
Fireraven9
"In Heaven Everything Is Fine" Eraserhead
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/GothicGardeners
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/GardeninginNewMexicoandColorado
st Albatross
>
> Oh, yeah, yeah. Somewhere CS Lewis describes lust - I think it's lust he's
> talking about, but it doesn't really matter - as like scratching an itch.
> It feels good, to be sure, he says, but wouldn't you prefer not to have
> the itch in the first place? And, NO, I say. I like to scratch my itches.
> Now I remember the context: it was in the Four Loves, on the difference
> between need-loves and appreciative loves. The difference, say, between
> drinking water when you're thirsty and wine when you're not. Wouldn't you
> know it, he gets around to God and Heaven and such. But I want every kind
> of pleasure in heaven, not just the pure unselfish ones. Like you say, I
> want to be cold, and then get warm. I want to be too hot so I can take a
> cool bath. I want to bang my head against the wall so I can feel how good
> it feels when I stop. Pleasure without a little pain is like food without
> salt. You can taste something's missing, even when you can't tell what.
>
> My heaven has fear and wonder, mystery and adventure. And there is beauty
> I will never tire of.
What she said.
st albatross
PS. Sorry for the me too - but it's so rare that I
really agree, in a personal way, with anything said on
this newsgroup ...
--
"For wheresoever the carcass is, there will the
eagles be gathered" Matt 24:28
John Everett
> But I want every kind of pleasure in heaven, not
> just the pure unselfish ones.
Which is exactly why Paul instructed for chicks to remain silent in church,
and to not teach. It's also likely the reason why there is no evidence in
the Bible of female angels and even the implication that human females who
make it to heaven will be given glorified bodies in the male image. Chicks
are creatures of matter, not mind; the body, not the spirit; the earth, not
the heavens. You can accomplish you mission in life by doing nothing
further than lying flat on your back -- and the vast majority of you strive
for nothing in excess of that task, or things subordinated to it.
John
David Gerard
John Everett <eve...@virtu.sar.usf.edu> wrote:
:Which is exactly why Paul instructed for chicks to remain silent in church,
:and to not teach. It's also likely the reason why there is no evidence in
:the Bible of female angels and even the implication that human females who
:make it to heaven will be given glorified bodies in the male image. Chicks
:are creatures of matter, not mind; the body, not the spirit; the earth, not
:the heavens. You can accomplish you mission in life by doing nothing
:further than lying flat on your back -- and the vast majority of you strive
:for nothing in excess of that task, or things subordinated to it.
This must be your current bugbear, posting almost the same paragraph in
response to different threads.
Not that it's on-topic or about goth, of course. So get on-topic. Lead by
example.
It's nice being under doctor's orders to go out, drink like a fish and chat up
sxxy deth chyx. Well. He didn't put it *exactly* like that.
Lucid H. Dreaming
>
>This must be your current bugbear, posting almost the same paragraph in
>response to different threads.
>
>Not that it's on-topic or about goth, of course. So get on-topic. Lead by
>example.
It's a bit lazy isn't it?
Fill in the blank taunting.
Anyway back on topic
http://www.corduroy.com.au/chapter/can'tstopit.html
You must all aquire Can't Stop It.
It is very very good.
?
--
Q. Why is Aaliyah like a divorcee?
A. They've both got baggage weighing them down
daniel (DOT) thomas (AT) lucidsoftwaredesign (DOT) com
David Gerard
Lucid H. Dreaming <dth2...@zen.art.rmit.edu.au> wrote:
:In article <slrna0tp...@aspc083.longword.dyndns.org>, David Gerard wrote:
:>This must be your current bugbear, posting almost the same paragraph in
:>response to different threads.
:>Not that it's on-topic or about goth, of course. So get on-topic. Lead by
:>example.
:It's a bit lazy isn't it?
:Fill in the blank taunting.
Yes. He's getting lazy in his crack-enhanced senility.
:Anyway back on topic
:http://www.corduroy.com.au/chapter/can'tstopit.html
:You must all aquire Can't Stop It.
:It is very very good.
Damn right. This PARTICULARLY means you, John.
H Duffy
"John Everett" <eve...@virtu.sar.usf.edu> wrote in message
news:PFAP7.42917$qM2.6...@news1.rdc1.fl.home.com...
Wow, funny _and_ ignorant.
Angels don't have gender. They may not be girls, but they ain't boys either.
And Paul didn't like women for pretty much the same reason you don't...
H
st Albatross
> In article <3C0ED33B...@speakeasy.org>,
> st Albatross <big...@speakeasy.org> wrote:
>
>
>>Zoe J Selengut wrote:
>>
>
>>>My heaven has fear and wonder, mystery and adventure. And there is beauty
>>>I will never tire of.
>>>
>
>>What she said.
>>
>
> the more people
> i hear describe their ideal eternal rewards,
> {excluding those who only seek some simplistic
> notion of physical gratification,
> the more it ocurrs to me that,
> heaven,
> as well as
> hell,
> for these
> is to be had on earth.
Except that, sadly, it doesn't last.
Heaven is for people who love life; Hell is
of people who hate it. That is simplistic,
reductive, and completely true. Which
Doesn't mean that Heaven isn't also an
escape from the 'veil of tears.' It doesn't
mean that we are capable of making our own
heavens.
Read IX, you'll see what I mean.
He hates the processes of life, and
can't imagine that an extension of
life could be anything other than hell.
But, he is right in so far as he believes
we are incapable of working our way clear
of the hell-like aspects of our existence.
st Albatross
Matthew King
: This gets back to something I was discussing in another
: thread: what it means to live authentically.
Seems like a lot of people are discussing that these days. A popular
self-help book I read a while ago, subtitled _Excavating Your Authentic
Self_ (I've mentioned this book here before), takes living authentically
to mean--more or less--doing whatever you *really* want to do, as opposed
to what you only think you want to do. So if your True Love (TM) drops out
of the clear blue sky one day, the Authentic (TM) (and therefore right)
thing to do is to ride off into the sunset with him and leave your boring,
unfulfilling husband and family behind. This seems like a fairly common
idea of authenticity these days.
Why is it that "living authentically" is taken to be living the right way?
What if what you really want, what would be really fulfilling for you, is
really awful? What if you are, really, deep down, a bad person? Is it
better to be authentically bad than inauthentically good?
I always wonder whether Heidegger is the source of the current
preoccupation with "authenticity" (by way of Sartre, who, I suppose, might
have popularized the idea among psychotherapists), in the way that Thomas
Kuhn is said to be originator of the recent cultural infatuation with the
word "paradigm".
Higgledy-piggledy
Herr Rektor Heidegger
Said to his students: "To
Being be true!
Else you will fall into
Inauthenticity -
This I believe, and the
Fuhrer does, too! [1]
Heidegger, in _Being and Time_, thought that living authentically meant
seizing your cultural-historical destiny. For a brief, infamous moment,
he thought that meant joining the National Socialist movement.
I think there are conceptions of authenticity in which living
authentically is admirable, maybe even necessarily good. (The particular
one I'm thinking of comes from Heidegger himself, later in his career;
it involves a much less heavy, much more quietist idea of destiny.) But it
is by no means obvious that living authentically is admirable, and it is
clear that living in a manner which you *think* is authentic can often
lead to more evil than good.
[1] This appears in Richard Rorty's "Glossary of Heideggerian Terms".
Matthew
-Matthew-King---"I-tried-to-tell-her-about-Marx-and-Engels------------
-Toronto---------God-and-angels-I-don't-really-know-what-for----------
-Canada----------but-she-looked-good-in-ribbons"-The-Sisters-of-Mercy-
Nyx
news:9unq5k$5ok5$1...@rook.le.ac.uk:
> Wow, funny _and_ ignorant.
> Angels don't have gender. They may not be girls, but they ain't boys
> either. And Paul didn't like women for pretty much the same reason you
> don't...
>
Umm....latent homsexuality? I always thought that was Paul's reason. I
don't think that's true of John, though. He's just bitter because he's been
used a lot.
Nyx
--
"Is it me, or are there a slew of twelve year olds hanging around on the
board lately? Would you all kindly stop picking fights and then
dramatically exiting the board only to show up again mere posts later?
Thank you." Kevin Smith.
www.bleedingprettycolours.com
aim: nyxxxxx yahoo: nyxxxx icq: 9744630
Zoe J Selengut
On Thu, 6 Dec 2001, Nyx wrote:
> "H Duffy" <he...@nospam.le.ac.uk> wrote in
> news:9unq5k$5ok5$1...@rook.le.ac.uk:
>
> > Wow, funny _and_ ignorant.
> > Angels don't have gender. They may not be girls, but they ain't boys
> > either. And Paul didn't like women for pretty much the same reason you
> > don't...
> >
>
> Umm....latent homsexuality?
Oh, there's an idea. I was thinking she meant because he's a dickhead.
It seems clear enough that if you take Christianity seriously, Christ's
authority overrides Paul's, and if you don't, Paul has no authority to
begin with.
Zoe
Tiny Human Ferret
Oh boy. Are you gonna get it from St Peter!
All I can suggest is that you visit Washington sometime, and listen to the
professional (not _that_ profession, dammit) ladies discuss their work. Then
again, the High and Mighty folks might just be exceptional in more than one
way.
>
> John
--
Be kind to your neighbors, even though they be transgenic chimerae.
Whom thou'st vex'd waxeth wroth: Meow. <-----> http://earthops.net/klaatu/
Sabrina
> >Oh, yeah, yeah. Somewhere CS Lewis describes lust - I think it's lust he's
> >talking about, but it doesn't really matter - as like scratching an itch.
> >It feels good, to be sure, he says, but wouldn't you prefer not to have
> >the itch in the first place? And, NO, I say. I like to scratch my itches.
> >Now I remember the context: it was in the Four Loves, on the difference
> >between need-loves and appreciative loves. The difference, say, between
> >drinking water when you're thirsty and wine when you're not. Wouldn't you
> >know it, he gets around to God and Heaven and such. But I want every kind
> >of pleasure in heaven, not just the pure unselfish ones. Like you say, I
> >want to be cold, and then get warm. I want to be too hot so I can take a
> >cool bath. I want to bang my head against the wall so I can feel how good
> >it feels when I stop. Pleasure without a little pain is like food without
> >salt. You can taste something's missing, even when you can't tell what.
> >
> >My heaven has fear and wonder, mystery and adventure. And there is beauty
> >I will never tire of.
> >
> >Zoe
> >
> Was that Screwtape Letters or one of the essays? It has been many years since I
> read any of his stuff.
Well, I know that it's not the Scewtape letters since I read that recently. But I
haven't read much of his essays, so I can't tell you exactly where it's from.
Sabrina
David Gerard
Matthew King <mak...@yorku.ca> wrote:
:Why is it that "living authentically" is taken to be living the right way?
:What if what you really want, what would be really fulfilling for you, is
:really awful? What if you are, really, deep down, a bad person? Is it
:better to be authentically bad than inauthentically good?
:I always wonder whether Heidegger is the source of the current
:preoccupation with "authenticity" (by way of Sartre, who, I suppose, might
:have popularized the idea among psychotherapists), in the way that Thomas
:Kuhn is said to be originator of the recent cultural infatuation with the
:word "paradigm".
Possibly. Authenticity is wonderfully marketable, which is what presently
sustains it.
:Higgledy-piggledy
This first line should henceforth be banned from all double dactyls.
st Albatross
> Possibly. Authenticity is wonderfully marketable,
Spoken like someone who has never worked with
marketing professionals. ;>
David Gerard
st Albatross <big...@speakeasy.org> wrote:
:David Gerard wrote:
:> Possibly. Authenticity is wonderfully marketable,
:Spoken like someone who has never worked with
:marketing professionals. ;>
Urgh. I've read too many issues of The Baffler, obviously.
Jetrock Fuckblast
st Albatross <big...@speakeasy.org> wrote in message
news:3C1081B4...@speakeasy.org...
> David Gerard wrote:
>
>
> > Possibly. Authenticity is wonderfully marketable,
>
> Spoken like someone who has never worked with
> marketing professionals. ;>
Of course, authenticity, like sincerity, is wonderfully marketable if you
can fake it.
IHCOYC XPICTOC
: Why is it that "living authentically" is taken to be living the right way?
: What if what you really want, what would be really fulfilling for you, is
: really awful? What if you are, really, deep down, a bad person? Is it
: better to be authentically bad than inauthentically good?
It's a metaphor that has been used too often that I can't remember who
used it first, but our social selves have been likened to masks. You
might take off one of your public masks, to reveal one of your private
masks. But ultimately, when you take off the last mask, there is nothing,
nothing at all, behind it. The masks are all there ever was.
As the corset ad in the countertop at Wendy's says, "Art steps in when
Nature fails." Nature is a failure, and its product will never be good
enough, never as good as what we can imagine, if not achieve. The more
naturally we behave, the more sexist, xenophobic, rude, and cruel we
become. Civilisation is an artifice, and this is why it is so fragile.
I'm not at all sure I have a cultural-historical destiny, and if I do I
don't want it. It might well mean something like becoming a Nazi. I will
lose something I value if I fail to stand aloof from both culture and
history.
--
IHCOYC XPICTOC http://members.iglou.com/gustavus ihcoyc(at)aye.net
+ DEUS VULT! +
+ Strip away the veils! +
**** This message has been placed here by the Tijuana Bible Society ****
Nyx
news:3c0fd...@news.iglou.com:
>
> It's a metaphor that has been used too often that I can't remember who
> used it first, but our social selves have been likened to masks. You
> might take off one of your public masks, to reveal one of your private
> masks. But ultimately, when you take off the last mask, there is
> nothing, nothing at all, behind it. The masks are all there ever was.
>
Unless of course Eastern religions are right, and after you take off the
last mask the Buddha is revealed.
Nyx
>
> As the corset ad in the countertop at Wendy's says, "Art steps in when
> Nature fails." Nature is a failure, and its product will never be good
> enough, never as good as what we can imagine, if not achieve. The more
> naturally we behave, the more sexist, xenophobic, rude, and cruel we
> become. Civilisation is an artifice, and this is why it is so fragile.
>
Sorry to make two responses to the same post.
But I have to point out that our imaginations are also part of nature. So
if we can imagine something perfect, does that redeem nature? And aren't
cruelty, xenophobia, et al, just other masks? Aren't they just behaviors we
have learned?
Nature feeds on itself. Ororboros eating it's own tail. It's a mixture of
good and bad. Kali with a severed head and a lotus blossom, the surgeon
that cuts out a heart in order to save a life. It seems bad because we
can't see the big picture. I think it was Clint Eastwood who said,
"Buzzards gotta eat, too."
The Wakan contains all things.
st Albatross
> IHCOYC XPICTOC <gust...@shell1.iglou.com> wrote in
> news:3c0fd...@news.iglou.com:
>
>
>>It's a metaphor that has been used too often that I can't remember who
>>used it first, but our social selves have been likened to masks. You
>>might take off one of your public masks, to reveal one of your private
>>masks. But ultimately, when you take off the last mask, there is
>>nothing, nothing at all, behind it. The masks are all there ever was.
>>
>>
>
> Unless of course Eastern religions are right, and after you take off the
> last mask the Buddha is revealed.
The Buddha IS nothing. IX's position
is very much in step with a
Buddhist metaphysic. It isn't really
possible to lump 'Eastern' religions
here - but in so far as you can, IX
is closer to East than West. It is typical
of the West to believe in an essential
self behind the masks - especially one
that is more or less related
to consciousness.
st Albatross
Westernese
Nyx
> The Buddha IS nothing. IX's position
> is very much in step with a
> Buddhist metaphysic. It isn't really
> possible to lump 'Eastern' religions
> here - but in so far as you can, IX
> is closer to East than West. It is typical
> of the West to believe in an essential
> self behind the masks - especially one
> that is more or less related
> to consciousness.
>
Yet again you've managed to repeat exactly what I said in a pedantic and
condescending manner. Good job.
st Albatross
> st Albatross <big...@speakeasy.org> wrote in
> news:3C12B1C2...@speakeasy.org:
>
>
>>The Buddha IS nothing. IX's position
>>is very much in step with a
>>Buddhist metaphysic. It isn't really
>>possible to lump 'Eastern' religions
>>here - but in so far as you can, IX
>>is closer to East than West. It is typical
>>of the West to believe in an essential
>>self behind the masks - especially one
>>that is more or less related
>>to consciousness.
>>
>>
>
> Yet again you've managed to repeat exactly what I said in a pedantic and
> condescending manner. Good job.
It's tough not to condescend
to someone as consistently baffled
as you, Nyx - you ignorant prat.
st a
Jennie
>Of course, the trouble with that sort of experiment is that it's so
>subject to wishful thinking. If you don't want smiling to make you feel
>happier, it won't.
Are you sure? I understood that that particular muscular
contraction triggered the release of serotonin.
Jennie
--
Jennie Kermode jen...@innocent.com
http://www.triffid.demon.co.uk/jennie
"That's the way romance is: that's usually the way it goes, but
every once in a while, it goes the other way too."
Jennie
>> But I want every kind of pleasure in heaven, not
>> just the pure unselfish ones.
>Which is exactly why Paul instructed for chicks to remain silent in church,
>and to not teach. It's also likely the reason why there is no evidence in
Was poor little Paul afraid that he might like it?
Couldn't he preach with your confidence, bold in the face of all
contrary reason? ;) Didn't he have any balls?
>the heavens. You can accomplish you mission in life by doing nothing
>further than lying flat on your back -- and the vast majority of you strive
>for nothing in excess of that task, or things subordinated to it.
Poor darlings. It may be a mission, but it doesn't sound very
interesting. I prefer my things subordinated. :p
Interesting pick up possibilities, though. "Take off your
clothes - I'm on a mission from God!"
Hardrock Llewynyth
year of Our Lord, Mon, 10 Dec 2001 19:51:46 GMT:
> Are you sure? I understood that that particular muscular
>contraction triggered the release of serotonin.
Only in people who actually have any.
Hardrock, who has had to smile all day for various reasons, and only
gets more miserable and pissy by the moment.
--
"My ass is a Lemur free zone." --magdalene on alt.gothic
Shana
alive. I mean, this idea that there is an everlasting happiness waiting for
us some day is a crock of shit really. People are happy some of the time and
usually don't fully appreciate that they're happy until something happens to
make them miserable again, eh?
Shana