?

Log in

No account? Create an account
Janeway (Alt)

The Fulfilled Life

Posted on 2013.01.26 at 15:05
Current Location: Oklahoma
Tags:

I run scenarios to anticipate how I may feel in a given situation. They're not always accurate, but its a good exercise in preparedness. Errant emotions may manifest nonetheless, and while I may have little control over how I feel (re-framing solves most, but not all negative ones) I am able to exercise control over my behavior. What I've learned is that in doing so I am usually able to more quickly align the two.

While feelers claim to "feel" more, in my experience they only feel more often - and feel fewer (usually less complex) emotions (http://ehowton.livejournal.com/477067.html). I make this claim because I seek to understand why I feel what I do, and when. I want to be able to repeat the good ones and minimize the bad ones and not being a slave to them is a stellar start.

Janeway once told Tuvok, "You can use logic to justify anything. That's its power and its flaw." I agree! When not wanting to feel frustrated or angry, I use logic to justify not feeling that way.

This is why it's truly remarkable when I'm accused on acting on emotion. Behavior is an action. So while I may make the wrong decision, and my logic may be flawed - its almost always made due to a logical conclusion.

For me at least, logic is the only path to true happiness. Your mileage may vary :)

Posted via LiveJournal app for iPhone.

Comments:


Michelle1963
michelle1963 at 2013-01-28 00:23 (UTC) (Link)
My overall aspiration is to feel content, happy, and satisfied as a state of being. That means I do my best to ameliorate negative external effects. Re-framing, as you mentioned, is a very powerful tool. Often there are multiple - at times nuanced, and others drastically different - ways of interpreting a situation. Why in the world would I choose the most negative interpretation? That would be both illogical and self-destructive.

And yet some people do. Furthermore some people cling to their negative interpretation even when they are presented with new information that does not support their interpretation. I have yet to understand completely why this happens, though I have some piecemeal theories. </p>

Despite the incredible power of re-framing, there are times when external circumstances are so extreme that there is nothing left to do but remove myself from said circumstances. At that point it becomes imperative to do so - although that has been a rare occurrence in my life.

The other side of this equation, as you also alluded to, is not to put out negative emotion myself. It does not mean that I ignore issues that need to be addressed; it means that I discuss them in a calm, non-accusatory, solution-oriented manner.


ehowton
ehowton at 2013-01-28 08:33 (UTC) (Link)
I once quoted from the THINK textbook, "People with lower levels of moral reasoning tend to come up with simplistic solutions and then are baffled when they do not work. People outgrow their old way of thinking *when* it becomes inadequate for resolving more complex problems. Movement to a higher stage is usually triggered by new ideas or experiences that conflict with their worldview."

As much as I would like to agree with that statement because its how I have experienced life, I have to say its flawed. Some people don't actually outgrow their old way of thinking even when it is inadequate. I can't speak for how that's supposed to work, or even catalog the many and varied ways it manifests itself. Just seems to get stuck somehow in the "baffled" stage indefinitely. That has got to be frustrating. But as dentin taught me when I asked the question, "If they're so unhappy, don't they know it? Don't they ever strive to not be frustrated?"

Yes, they know it, and yes they try not to be frustrated, they really try. They just fail, because the universe doesn't work the way they think it should, and because they refuse to update their thinking.


Edited at 2013-01-28 08:33 am (UTC)
Michelle1963
michelle1963 at 2013-01-28 20:41 (UTC) (Link)
There's that word again - should. It is a word used when not accepting what is. It is a word used when someone is unwilling to modify a belief in spite of the fact that evidence does not support it.

I wonder what our culture would be like if it was obliterated from our language?
Previous Entry  Next Entry