Equanimity stifles our specie’s natural psychosocial evolution … akin to the relationship between organized religion and heretic thought.
(or even considered sane)
I suggest you don’t introduce something if I did not specify it.
This is a very dirty tactic like what Cathy Newman was doing with Jordan Peterson.
In order for people to achieve a certain level of equanimity, obviously there must be some sort of measurements, thus my point earlier.
I understand IQ measurements are not absolute and some will dispute it but at least there is some reasonable measurements for a person’s IQ. What is critical is not to take such measurements dogmatically.
However knowing one’s IQ will give one an idea where one’s linguistic and mathematics intelligence stand in comparison to the rest of the world.
Unfortunately I understand a person’s IQ cannot improve easily.
Note there are also reasonable measurements for EQ i.e. emotional intelligence.
At various levels what a person is capable and incapable of is explained with supporting from empirical evidence of observed behaviors. In the future this can be supported by neural activities and connectivity in the brain.
Again this is not absolute but knowing one’s EQ will enable one to be aware where one EQ stand in comparison to the average standard.
Fortunately EQ is something one can make some changes in one’s attitude and behavior within a reasonable time to improve the rating and raise one’s EQ higher in the longer term.
We can do measurements of one’s Equanimity Quotient [say CQ -C=Composure] along the same approach as EQ.
The requirement is such a Equanimity Quotient [CQ] must be as objective as possible and in the future we can increase the precision of its measurement.
Equanimity Quotient [say CQ] is more of an enhanced trait thus if one score below the average, it does not imply the person is out of his mind at all.
However I believe it is not rational for any one who is informed of the Equanimity Quotient [say CQ] with the possibility of improving one’s CQ to reject it outright.
Note:
Are antidepressants like Prozac and mass media censorship attempts at enforcing equanimity?
Mass media censorship = No.
In a way it is yes with Prozac but it is not exactly.
If equanimity can cover for what Prozac can enable and much more, it is thus rational to focus on cultivating equanimity the natural way and reduce the reliance on drugs.
“Binary thinking” has now become a buzzword that people use against anyone who does not spell out every little detail. You speak of black and white people? Actually, most “black” people are brown. Apparently, you have to think like an autistic person (extreme focus on detail) or you’re a binary thinker. No vagueness is ever permitted. You must make sure that you speak in extremely specific terms so that an autistic cannot get confused and become frusrrated and angry.
There may be a propensity for binary thinking … or it may be arrogance … or it may be an unavoidable outcome of the structure of ILP and the various personal circumstances of the members … for example … the amount of time available to participate.
For me, 2 examples of “vague” in this thread are:
[b]
[/b]
and
[b]
[/b]
Sure, that CAN happen. To show that is what happened in this thread would actually take a tiny bit of effort on your part.
This is a category error. Specificity is not the cure or opposite of binary thiking. It is not what is expected. And we were responding to really rather stacked deck binary thinking at a useless abstract level. Just throw an if it can be the case, it is always the case argument into the ether. It’s certainly an easy approach.
No we can’t because there is no such test.
At least you admit it now. =D>
Sure, you believe that. But I think that equanimity can be rejected by a rational person. One reason is that it would dull the performance of an artist, writer, musician or actor. It could potentially reduce the drive and passion of an entrepreneur or inventor.
And then there are people who enjoy the pleasures of emotional highs and lows.
A certain amount of stress is healthy. The “right” amount varies from individual to individual.
It’s precisely what you and phyllo expect. You can’t work with anything that is vague. You require specificity. Otherwise, you accuse others of speaking non-sense.
One can be so vague that one is not actually saying much about anything.
Vagueness can be used to avoid making a commitment to a specific position and its consequences. That makes it easy to deflect counterarguments.
There are positive aspects to vagueness and negative to clarity.
Interestingly, clarity can make people neurotic. It can make them perfectionistic, obsessive-compulsive, narcissistic, autistic and so on. On the other hand, it is vagueness, and the associated process of detachment, of zooming out, that secures equanimity.
The greatest part of our decision making process is opaque, i.e. inexplicable, and yet we function just fine.
On the other hand, it’s very difficult for people to be random, so most of human actions have some meaning behind them.
Equanimity is a meaningful concept, it’s just that it’s quite general. If you can only understand specific terms, you’ll have quite a bit of difficulty understanding it.
Why are you discounting the biological/physiological aspects of mental illnesses existence as if he said it is only due to spiritual issues, which he didn’t according to you. You said the spiritual aspect is a component, a part of the problem, which I don’t disagree with at this time.
Oh, sure vagueness can be a problem.
I didn’t want to point out the binary thinking in his complaint about the criticism of binary thinking. If you are specific, it must be a mass of neverending details and critics will always demand so much there is no useful signal to noise ratio.
I can see why he is bothered by criticism of binary thinking. It’s a go to tool.
Wendy … thank you for your thoughtful question … providing me with a platform to share some emerging thoughts.
I applaud Phyllo for introducing this thread and you for your early recognition of it’s merit … you wrote “Good topic Phyllo.”
We’re off to a bumpy start, yet IMO the potential exists to surface some exciting stuff … perhaps well beyond the scope Phyllo initially intended.
To your question … let me try to put my thoughts into context …
[b]
[/b]
Is the shelf life of the expression “a society” passé? … the word implies a closed independent social unit … the expression “Global Village” seems more appropriate … better still the word “species”.
In the same vein perhaps the expression “biological/physiological” falls into the same category of passé terminology …
I’m currently scanning some of the pages of Theillard’s book “Phenomenon of Man” and some new to me expressions resonate strongly.
For example … Sir Julian Huxley … a British evolutionary biologist, eugenicist, and internationalist … wrote the following paragraph in his introduction to the book.
[b]
[/b]
I draw your attention to the expression “psychosocial temperature rises” … keep in mind Huxley wrote the above comments long before the arrival of the internet and the smart phone. Surely today’s technology is contributing to an ever greater rise to the specie’s psychosocial temperature???
Perhaps the human species transcended the biological evolutionary path at the threshold of “reflection” … which Theillard argues gave rise to the birth of “thought”.
Reflecting on some of this stuff makes me think of the question … what happens when the compression contained in a closed space rises beyond the capacity of the container … an explosion occurs right?
At this point I made a connection … rightly or wrongly … to this thread … Equanimity being a preferred state when all hell brakes loose. 
I digress … back to your question.
At the moment I’m thinking “spirit” has always been a component of human evolution … though for the most part subordinate to biology. Perhaps some time ago we imperceptibly crossed the threshold whereby biology became subordinate to spirit in humanity’s evolutionary march forward. Just a thought.
While this is already a long post I just read this article and it feels so relevant to this thread despite being framed in a religious context.
THE STORM ON THE LAKE
[b]
[/b]
Conjecture emerging from my previous post support the urgent need for equanimity training … worldwide.:
[b]
[/b]
-
The human species … collectively (HS) … is akin to a container.
-
Thought is psychic energy (PE)
-
PE requires empty space to expand.
-
HS can only accommodate a finite volume of PE … Lao Tsu thought … the empty space in the rice bowl is the utility of the bowl.
[b]
[/b]
-
Unprecedented population growth. (See graph below)
-
China today was utterly inconceivable as recently as 1979.
-
Increasing turbulence in the USA, UK and Germany in recent years.
[b]
[/b]
-
The immeasurable increase in PE within HS stems from the unprecedented population explosion combined with equally unprecedented improvements … and human affinity for … communications technology.
-
The resulting astronomical increase in PE found empty space in HS … in China … the result being the ultra fast modernization of the most populous country on earth.
-
The same increase in PE finds no … or at least very limited … empty space in populations of the USA, UK and Germany. The result being the turbulence we witness in these countries.
-
The same increase in PE is now being directed at Eurasia … the land mass and human mass between Western Europe and China.
There is no such test at the present.
With continual research into this area we can design an effective test subjected to continuous improvement in the future.
I believe those who are ignorant or incapable of understanding the concept of equanimity fully will reject it.
With human there will be a percentile of 10% of people at the utmost extreme. It is like those from the extreme percentile will reject the practice of equamity for fear it will dull their ability to perform. This is obviously a false belief.
It is not rational to reject the above outright.
The point is the ability to perform one’s arts or sports is independent of the function of equanimity.
Since equanimity is a state of enhancement, it will definitely enhanced one’s already inherent or acquired skills.
Normally in anticipation of a competition or performance, the person if naturally effected by anxieties and nervousness and if these negatives are not modulated properly it definitely effect one’s performance.
A person with a high equanimity state will be able to modulate whatever mental negatives that arise.
Some athletes and performers take drugs to control their anxieties.
Note Elvis and other notable celebrities who do not have sufficient equanimity quotient. To activate they have to take uppers and to calm down they have to take downers. People like MJ was not balanced [lack of equanimity] in his psyche and ended doing all sort of silly things that he ended with premature death.
If those unbalanced celebrities had cultivated a genuine state of equanimity, they would have not suffered as they did and died prematurely.
Equanimity is associated with Flow.
‘Stress’ is critical for survival. The optimal is how this stress is handled, i.e. modulated and not be overblown.
You misinterpret everything other people say. Unless they are very specific, they necessarily think in extremes. It’s ridiculous that you think that I think that you demand a never-ending stream of details. If anyone thinks in binary terms here, it would be you.
My point is merely that we can understand what equanimity is without going into too many details. Unfortunately, some people can’t do so, so they demand there be a different way of learning about this phenomenon.
I don’t see anything supporting a conclusion that more equanimity is necessary. Perhaps we need more catharsis, at least in private, since stress levels and psychic space are increasing decreasing respectively. Perhaps we need to react to the problems passionately, which does not necessarily mean running around with a gun or yelling at innocent people. Perhaps we need to notice how we feel and express it rather than medicating away our reactions and stress, emotions being feedback about milieu. I am not saying your data necessarily leads to this conclusion. I am just pointing out the leap you seem to be making without justification