EMOTIONS; DO WE UNDERSTAND THEM?

by Terry 49 Replies latest watchtower bible

• 

  Terry

  Yes, indeed. We are whole as wholly human. We are not __either_mental or physical; but, we are both simultaneously.

  Mental disease seems to be physical. Isn't that ironic? A tumor, a lesion, a broken blood vessel, a deficient or super-abundant supply of a chemical; all physical maladies. This impacts on the capacity of the__mind__to function as unencumbered.

  I cannot but acknowledge such physical misfortune leaves us as helpless as a turtle on its back.

  It is the crippling impact of faulty thinking I address in my EMOTIONS header.
• 

  Pole

  Terry,

  My reference was to an American document perhaps unfamiliar to Europeans (I doubt it).

  Yes, I did recognize it immediately. I just wasn't sure how much of an idiom it was in American English, so I asked for clarification. BTW it's amazing how one-directional the cultural transfer between America nad the rest of the world is. That is we know a lot about your culture (true, sometimes the image we get through news, movies, songs and books may be simplistic), while most Americans know hardly anything about the exotic rest of the world unless they make a special effort to get exposed to this sort of information.For instance, I recognized the phrase immediately, because, I've seen at least 3 US made movies about the times when the Declaration of Independence was accepted.

  People have an array of choices in how to deal with blows struck by unimaginably punishing fates. To the extent those choices enable them to transcend, it is a triumph of the mind over the fate itself. To the extent they fall into self-pity, depression and a downward spiral; their mind fails to uplift and ennoble them.

  A lot of people like to refer to this capacity of controlling emotions as "emotional intelligence" to avoid confusion. TO say "the mind uplifts them" is a bit to general for me too. Once you make a distinction between the different sort of intelligence, we know that just because a certain person doesn't control his or her emotional reactions to a certain type of problems doesn't mean that they lack brainpower. They may just be "differently abled" (Ironic, I know).

  Musicians are differently abled, but they're not versatile or super-intelligent

  Painters are differently abled, they're not versatile or super-intelligent

  Mathematicians are differently abled, they're not versatile or super-intelligent

  Linguists are differently abled, they're not versatile or super-intelligent

  Sportsmen are differently abled, they're not versatile or super-intelligent (I don't mean the physical power of one's muscles, but rather the ability to control the body)

  And, people who are emotionally intelligent are just differently abled. It has little to do with the traditional notion of intelligence. In fact, you surely know a lot of people who aren't the sharpests knives in the drawer, but when in a stressful situation, they are the sweetest, bestemotional geniuses. Conversly, you may know ingenous philosophers, scientists, or logicians who are emotional blockheads. They overreact, suffer from delusions of grandeur and are emotionally cruel to other people.

  I personally know people who I don't think quite as smart as myself, but I must admit, they prove much more of emotional geniuses in certain situations than I could.

  Pole
• 

  jgnat

  If I read you right, Terry, you are postulating that the reasoning part of the brain is the superior part, and should be preferred. I worry about that, because a great deal of our information is gathered (scents, nuance, sensory input, and correctly identifying these inputs) and processed by the part of our mind that cannot articulate what it "knows". I think this is the part of the brain that warns an employer to "go with his gut" and hire the guy with 10% less experience. Chances are, there were subtle clues from the candidate's body language that the employer picked up, but cannot articulate.

  I handle my own emotional being by paying attention. If I have a strong emotional reaction, I don't ignore it, I seek out the cause. I run my emotional reponse through a rational analysis, so to speak. I don't follow my emotions like a cork on the ocean.
• 

  Terry

  Quote: "I worry about that, because a great deal of our information is gathered (scents, nuance, sensory input, and correctly identifying these inputs) and processed by the part of our mind that cannot articulate what it "knows".

  Me: What part would that be?

  Quote: " Chances are, there were subtle clues from the candidate's body language that the employer picked up, but cannot articulate."

  Oh?
• 

  jgnat

  The inarticulate part. The part of the brain that allows me to paint. I cannot describe how to do it, but I can show it. By it's very nature, the inarticulate part of our natures cannot be adequately described in words, linearally.

  By the way, if we relied on the linear part of our brain to cross the street, we would probably be run over before we had worked out all the variables.
• 

  Terry

  Are you speaking metaphorically?

  What physical part of the brain do you reference?

  The brain, as I know it, is mult-redundant. That is to say, things are stored and retrieved in more than one place. (Which comes in handy when a local area is damaged).

  I think I know what you mean metaphorically, however.

  I worked around artists all my life; even representing them to galleries.

  Artists are often inarticulate about what they are doing and why.

  I attribute this, not to a part of their brain, but to how they learned to do art.

  Language is artificial. Language is conscious. Language is synthetic. You have to want to use language for languge to be useful. But, humans can learn quite well without resorting to language. Monkey see; monkey do works pretty well. Observation and conceptualization lead to multi points of inference.

  My daughter, for example, is 10. She can watch a dance teacher do a complex set of steps and then perform it back without flaw. There is no language involved in this. The fact that no language is attached to this process does not mean she is inarticulate or that no language can be attached to the moves. Quite the contrary. It would be indirect and artificial to do so, but, it can be done. It would require conscious effort.

  These artistic processes are not UNconscious or mysterious by any means. They are purely cognative and rational.
• 

  jgnat

  Terry, I have studied brain development, and what lack of language does to the structure of the brain. Toddler brain before language; smooth. Toddler brain after language; wrinkled, complex. Unfortunate person who does not learn language in the formative years; permanently handicapped and incapable of planning. The act of structuring the brain for language sets up it's inherent complexity. Our "logical" side uses language as the structure for it's thinking.

  So, I am saying, the inability to express some activities comes from a part of our brain that is not structured for language. I am not just speaking metaphorically.

  So I would also disagree that language is synthetic. For humans, it is organic; it structures our minds.
• 

  Terry

  JGnat,

  The redundancy of brain patterns and storage makes me wonder what locality you reference as "the part not structured for language". What is the name of this area?

  Brain capacity is a function of brain area. The wrinkles result in greater surface area and consequently more brain capacity.

  Helen Keller was born in 1880. At nineteen months old she suffered a brain fever and became deaf and blind. She could not see language or hear it. Her development closely paralleled an animal. It was in 1887 that her teacher managed to convey to her conceptual language by combining sign "language" with feeling water at a pump.

  Helen later wrote about the incident in her own words:

  ?We walked down the path to the well-house, attracted by the fragrance of the honey-suckle with which it was covered. Someone was drawing water and my teacher placed my hand under the spout. As the cool stream gushed over one hand she spelled into the other the word "water", first slowly, then rapidly. I stood still, my whole attention fixed upon the motions of her fingers. Suddenly I felt a misty consciousness as of something forgotten, a thrill of returning thought, and somehow the mystery of language was revealed to me.?

  I cite the above example to ask you about your statement:

  " Unfortunate person who does not learn language in the formative years; permanently handicapped and incapable of planning."

  How would you apply your statement to the case of Helen Keller?
• 

  Balsam

  I trusted my gut feeling and joined JW religion. I was wrong. I trusted my gut feeling and married a man whom I didn't love because I thought he would make a good partner. So no I don't think we can go just on gut feeling. Some knowledge, thought, investigation is always warned.

  Now with my second husband I checked him out. I had a good gut feeling about him, but backed it up with some reseach on him. That combination has proved to much more sound so far. So this is how I feel now. Gut is good, if backed up by though investigation proves to be in harmony with gut feeling.

  So gut feeling alone is not necessarily good. It is nothing more than a roll of the dice.

  Ruth
• 

  jgnat

  Oo Oo Oo Oo, I know the answer to this one:

  Helen Keller was just learning to speak when illness deprived her of sight and hearing. The first word she spoke was a word she was speaking before she got sick. Her brain was already structured for language.

  It is true, not learning any language at all leaves a person with a permanent mental handicap.