Equanimity

[Magnus Anderson]

I mentioned earlier in this thread that there are situations, generally rare in modern society, where, regulating emotions is necessary.

You are trying very hard to downemphasize the fact that it is changing environments in general that necessitate emotional regulation. When you're used to one kind of environment and then you are introduced to a different kind of environment this necessitates a change in your emotions in order to preserve self-unity. Some people are not used to modern environments so they require quite a bit of emotional regulation. You are pretending that emotional regulation is something that only makes sense within natural environments.

Generally when there is an immediate physical threat

Yes, short-sighted people can only detect immediate threats. When it comes to long-term consequences that are moreover negative in their character, they are completely blind. So, for example, they cannot understand monogamy. Polygamy is simply not immediately dangerous -- you need to use your intellect in order to perceive it as dangerous.

You are used to the split. You are used to having your emotions judged and shut down. The emotions, when split off like this seem disruptive, essentially, rather than because of the jailer/regulator ---> jailed regulated dynamic.

As I said, you have a problem seeing that emotional regulation within modern contexts is not merely due to a fear of being punished by society.

Emotions are the prime motivators.

You can say that. But then you will also have to say that emotions are organized in a hierarchy. There is a dominant emotion and then there are many subservient emotions. And when these subservient emotions are not doing their job, i.e. when they are not aligned with the dominant emotion, they must be adjusted if you want to preserve the hierarchy. Otherwise, anarchy ensues.

My emotional reactions pick up hte nature of the universe all the time. You are assuming something. LIke if I feel and express my emotions I am a baby in the corner with no intellectual understanding.

Your emotions can only deal with what is familiar to them. Once we find ourselves in a situation that is not familiar to them, they become self-destructive . . . unless controlled. So reason must take over. You must restrain yourself. You must shape your emotions. You must decide what is the most important thing and then subordinate everything to that thing. Noone is speaking against emotions in general but against emotions that do not fit the situation.

That's because you have the split and even venerate it.

This process of splitting, of division, will never stop unless the environment remains stable forever which is an unrealistic expectation. Instead, the environment changes and you are expected to adapt accordingly if you want to preserve some semblence of unity. There is no other option.

But if you are sure you would become the irrational disconnected person you seem to think you would if you expressed emotions and allowed full integrations, then perhaps you are right. Do what you want. But when you talk about how I must be, you are not describing me at all.

You are endorsing the childish tendency to surrender to emotions.

[Prismatic567]

It's very sad that you think that there is only one reason to regulate our emotions -- fear of being punished by society.

I mentioned earlier in this thread that there are situations, generally rare in modern society, where, regulating emotions is necessary. Generally when there is an immediate physical threat, but here's the thing. You are used to the split. You are used to having your emotions judged and shut down. The emotions, when split off like this seem disruptive, essentially, rather than because of the jailer/regulator ---> jailed regulated dynamic. This is clear in the following...

The subject of regulating and modulating emotions has been around for ten of thousands years ago within the Eastern spirituality sphere.

Note Aristotle's

Anybody can become angry - that is easy, but to be angry

with the right person and
to the right degree and
at the right time and
for the right purpose, and
in the right way -
that is not within everybody's power and is not easy. -Aristotle

Are you familiar with Emotional Intelligence -EQ;

Emotional intelligence is the ability to identify and manage your own emotions and the emotions of others.
It is generally said to include three skills:

emotional awareness; the ability to harness emotions and
apply them to tasks like thinking and problem solving; and
the ability to manage emotions, which includes regulating your own emotions and cheering up or calming down other people.

https://www.psychologytoday.com/basics/ ... telligence

There are tons of research done on the subject of emotion.

In general, emotions are entangled fundamentally in almost all normal human activities in various degrees [very low to high]. Thus for human behavior to be efficient and optimal, the degrees of emotions need to be regulated and modulated [see Aristotle above] either spontaneously or mindfully.

I bet your emotions are regulated spontaneously without your conscious awareness, but if you do not develop the skill to modulate your emotions consciously and mindfully, there is the possibility [if your natural inhibitors fail] you could end up in 'Hell' on Earth.

[Karpel Tunnel]

You are trying very hard to downemphasize the fact that it is changing environments in general that necessitate emotional regulation. When you're used to one kind of environment and then you are introduced to a different kind of environment this necessitates a change in your emotions in order to preserve self-unity. Some people are not used to modern environments so they require quite a bit of emotional regulation. You are pretending that emotional regulation is something that only makes sense within natural environments.

You really don't have to try to read my mind, I think it just adds a layer of noise. Emotions will change due to environment, urban, social, with other species, whatever. I am saying that much of the control regulation of emotions is because we are trained to have a split, a jailer and a jailed. The assumption is that one part of me must regulate another part of me. But the reason it seems this, I am trying to make clear, but perhaps doing a bad job, is because we do accept emotions, tend to favor one or two, and the more we do not accept them, the less they regulate themselves. The more you accept them, the more the emotions themselves adjust to the situation. Sure, my rage might make we want to tell my boss that he is an asshole, but if I am in fluid contact with all my emotions, I will not just feel anger and will adjust on an emotional level, without mind neocortex 'regulating'.

Generally when there is an immediate physical threat

Yes, short-sighted people can only detect immediate threats. When it comes to long-term consequences that are moreover negative in their character, they are completely blind. So, for example, they cannot understand monogamy. Polygamy is simply not immediately dangerous -- you need to use your intellect in order to perceive it as dangerous.

I appreciate the example. It's a good one. But my intuition/emotions set off warning bells immediately. I know this on a gut level, for me at least. I have been in environments that were partly polyamourous. I did not have to reason my way to avoiding that. In fact I would worry about how disconnected someone would have to be that they would need to use reason for a decision like that.

You are used to the split. You are used to having your emotions judged and shut down. The emotions, when split off like this seem disruptive, essentially, rather than because of the jailer/regulator ---> jailed regulated dynamic.

As I said, you have a problem seeing that emotional regulation within modern contexts is not merely due to a fear of being punished by society.

I wasn't talking about external jail. I was talking about how one part of you is now the jailer of another part of you.

Emotions are the prime motivators.

You can say that. But then you will also have to say that emotions are organized in a hierarchy. There is a dominant emotion and then there are many subservient emotions. And when these subservient emotions are not doing their job, i.e. when they are not aligned with the dominant emotion, they must be adjusted if you want to preserve the hierarchy. Otherwise, anarchy ensues.

If you mean there is a dominant emotion in the person over time, in all situations, then that is a problem. Emotions should relate to what is happening and what one's goals are. If you have a lifelong dominant emotion, you are avoiding other emotions, you are cutting off parts of yourself.

Your emotions can only deal with what is familiar to them. Once we find ourselves in a situation that is not familiar to them, they become self-destructive . . . unless controlled.

Not my experience.

So reason must take over. You must restrain yourself. You must shape your emotions. You must decide what is the most important thing and then subordinate everything to that thing. Noone is speaking against emotions in general but against emotions that do not fit the situation.

Good. Glad you made that clear. My point is that is you work on accepting emotions, you have to clear out the past, then the emotions are not reacting to past situations in the present when things trigger it. Emotions are often the first things that give me insight into new experiences. Warning me, for example. Not infallibly of course, but then I still judge emotions, I have not undone all that training.

That's because you have the split and even venerate it.

This process of splitting, of division, will never stop unless the environment remains stable forever which is an unrealistic expectation. Instead, the environment changes and you are expected to adapt accordingly if you want to preserve some semblence of unity. There is no other option.

I adapt and react to what is happening. I don't have a single state, emotionally or otherwise.

You are endorsing the childish tendency to surrender to emotions.

See, you see it as a war, you couch it in that kind of terms. And I do not surrender to emotions, I do not support the split. I do not think this can be understood if one thinks the split is inevitable. This twists the emotions, the other parts of the mind are cut off also, and the emotions seem to fit the judgments, when in fact it is the judgments that twisted them. And while I can certainly be playful and childlike, I am hardly childish. If you think I am, you probably shouldn't waste time discussing things with me.

[Magnus Anderson]

And I do not surrender to emotions, I do not support the split.

Do you consider yourself to be a romantic?

The assumption is that one part of me must regulate another part of me.

That's what you do when you suppress the impulse to get angry at your boss. One part of you, the one which says don't get angry at your boss, suppresses the other part of you, the one which wants to get angry at the boss.

The more you accept them, the more the emotions themselves adjust to the situation.

Right. Next time you feel like getting angry at your boss, don't try to control yourself, just accept the impulse and you won't get angry. Sounds realistic? Not quite.

Sure, my rage might make we want to tell my boss that he is an asshole, but if I am in fluid contact with all my emotions, I will not just feel anger and will adjust on an emotional level, without mind neocortex 'regulating'.

That would be self-control.

I was talking about how one part of you is now the jailer of another part of you.

That's what self-control does. It puts one emotion in the jail so that another can leave the jail and take its place. In the case with your boss, you jailed your impulse to tell your boss he's an asshole so that you could tell him something more productive.

Note that this thread is not about reason but about equanimity. Two different concepts. Equanimity is about making sure you are not emotionally overwhelmed. It is achieved through reduction of stimulation, through relaxation. You don't have to make intelligent decisions to have equanimity. The process of relaxation has as its ultimate consequence calmness, inactivity, passivity, low energy, unconsciousness, etc. It's a right brained process, little to do with the left brain. It does not operate on specific emotions but on emotions as a whole. In other words, it does not fixate on reducing certain emotions and increasing others. It works by cutting off all emotions and then gradually reintroducing all of them. What this means is that you never know in advance which emotions you are supressing and which you are expressing. It makes you spontaneous. So this isn't the type of self-control that leads to repression or what some call "body armor". It is actually the type of self-control that fights against repression.

[Karpel Tunnel]

That's what you do when you suppress the impulse to get angry at your boss. One part of you, the one which says don't get angry at your boss, suppresses the other part of you, the one which wants to get angry at the boss.

Two responses 1) Yes, I cannot be fully expressive of my emotions because of the dominance of a belief system you share with the majority. 2) Fear is part of why I regulate my rage. Given the state of society, I cannot express all my emotions. HOwever I can maximize the expression of my emotions and have done this over decades. The judgments held by the majority are groundless.
f

The more you accept them, the more the emotions themselves adjust to the situation.

Right. Next time you feel like getting angry at your boss, don't try to control yourself, just accept the impulse and you won't get angry. Sounds realistic? Not quite.

Again, since you are split off from your emotions, you think one part must control the other. Since I have worked on removing this split I do not have those experiences. I do not find myself holding back rage, because my other emotions are present. I don't have to reason my way to not expressing anger at him.

Sure, my rage might make we want to tell my boss that he is an asshole, but if I am in fluid contact with all my emotions, I will not just feel anger and will adjust on an emotional level, without mind neocortex 'regulating'.

That would be self-control.

Nope. Self-control was what it used to be like. It is a fluid response and based on emotions.

I was talking about how one part of you is now the jailer of another part of you.

That's what self-control does. It puts one emotion in the jail so that another can leave the jail and take its place. In the case with your boss, you jailed your impulse to tell your boss he's an asshole so that you could tell him something more productive.

No, I do not put emotions in jail. Fear guides me when dealing with people who have power. The details for precisely how I navigate the situation are informed by other parts of the brain, say the neocortex. But I am not stifling rage. And your model is not realistic for anyone really. We don't replace the suppressed emotion, we present a false emotion, or a lack of emotion. At least, that's what I did back when I believed in the split like you do and that is what people in general do.

Note that this thread is not about reason but about equanimity. Two different concepts. Equanimity is about making sure you are not emotionally overwhelmed.

People get overwhelmed because they are split off. something triggers them and suddenly emotions they have suppressed are present and other parts of the mind get shut down. Based on the split, this either or false dichotomy.

It is achieved through reduction of stimulation, through relaxation. You don't have to make intelligent decisions to have equanimity. The process of relaxation has as its ultimate consequence calmness, inactivity, passivity, low energy, unconsciousness, etc. It's a right brained process, little to do with the left brain. It does not operate on specific emotions but on emotions as a whole. In other words, it does not fixate on reducing certain emotions and increasing others. It works by cutting off all emotions and then gradually reintroducing all of them. What this means is that you never know in advance which emotions you are supressing and which you are expressing. It makes you spontaneous. So this isn't the type of self-control that leads to repression or what some call "body armor". It is actually the type of self-control that fights against repression.

If equanimity is your goal, you are suppressing emotions. I also notice that you are changing the explanation, both with the replacing emotions model and now with this sinking into inactivity return to introducing the emotions model. It seems like a way to try to counter my arguments without acknowledging that you needed to change yours.

In any case, I think we've reached the impasse. I used to think your assumptions and ideas were correct. I know that from the inside. All the judgments you have are based on inexperience. A common inexperience, but there it is. Note, I am not saying it is because you are young, though I suspect you are. People my age have these assumptions also and are also afraid of what they also might call surrendering to ones emotions, because they have very little experience with really expressing their emotions. They do not take the opportunities to express when alone or with other people who do not judge emotions, so they are unused to it, split and yes, get overwhelmed. If you pass through that over time, you experience that all these ideas are not correct and that the war metaphor is both telling and confused. You haven't tried fully expressing and allowing the range of not so conscious emotions to be expressed in a fluid way over a significant period of time. You are quite controlled even when not in situations where there is no boss, the boss has been introjected. You have the inner boss and aim for equanimity. You have no base to be certain, but you are. And that's fine, but it's not worth continuing this discussion for me. Maybe in five years we can take it up again, should we be here or back here then.

I do meditation type activities, several, but the goal is not to regulate emotions but rather to slow down the chatter and also in those states, where there is less noice, I can learn things. Even in these states strong emotions can arise, especially if the insights connect to other people, my own patterns, etc. I have nothing against being relaxed, in fact it's a treasure. So are other states.

[Magnus Anderson]

Osho was a Buddhist and he was far from an Apollonian. Everything points to the fact that he was a notorious Dionysian, very absorbed in the sensual.

Consider Chapter No. 5 in his book "From Sex to Superconsciousness":
http://www.balbro.com/s2s/s2s2.htm

The chapter is titled "From repression to emancipation".

Here's an excerpt:

First of all, we have to recognize sex and understand it; we have to comprehend this elemental urge. Only then can we strive to transcend it, to sublimate it, so we can reach the stage of celibacy. Without understanding this basic life-force in all its forms and facets, all man's efforts to restrain and suppress it will only help him degenerate into a sick and incoherent lunatic. But we do not concentrate on the basic illness, we spout the high ideal of celibacy. Man has never been so sick, so neurotic, so wretched or so unhappy. Man is completely perverted. He is poisoned at the root.

[..]

If we are observant, we will see that a lot of poison has accumulated in man. Perhaps it is because of his quack doctors, but the foremost reason is his refusal to accept what is natural in him, his refusal to accept his fundamental being. We have tried to curb and annihilate our inborn urges in vain; no attempts are made to transform them, to elevate them. We have forced ourselves to control that energy in a wrong way. That energy is bubbling in us like molten lava; it is always pushing from inside: if we are not careful, it may topple us at any moment. And do you know what happens when it gets the slightest opening?

[..]

People were shocked when I spoke about sex at the first meeting last month, in Bombay. I received many angry letters asking me not to talk in this fashion, letters saying I should not speak on this subject at all. I wonder why one should not discuss this subject? When this urge is already inherent in us, why should we not talk about it? Unless we can understand its behavior, can analyze it, how can we hope to raise it to a higher plane? By understanding it we can transform it, we can conquer it, we can sublimate it. Unless that happens, we will die and still we will be unable to free ourselves from the grip of sex.

[Pandora]

Another guru. Osho said pretty things but engaged in destructive behavior. He:

1. Used drugs (Valium and nitrous oxide)
2. Committed suicide
3. Drove his last girlfriend to suicide
4. Insisted on abortion of his pregnant girlfriends

He also exhibited self-aggrandizing paranoic ideas (the government was out to get him because of his ‘transformational’ and ‘liberating’ ideas). If life is so wonderful, as he claimed, why be so destructive yourself? If he’s sensual, it’s also a destructive and selfish type of sensuality. This is also why you can’t trust drug users, no matter how enlightened or insightful they are. Their words and actions often don’t match. If the view eventually leads to self destruction (and likely originates from it), whether physical or psychological, how is it a superior view, if only for a high that it gives, which would make it akin to any feel-good drug? And originally driven by what? Overwhelming joy and happiness? I think not. Through words, he gave people what they wanted, on a shiny platter, but he couldn’t hide his own true nature which betrayed his facade. Anyway, this is my take on him, and this is also why I’m wary of Nietzche as well.

[Magnus Anderson]

How is that relevant?

[Pandora]

You brought up another cult leader in this thread. Why?
Why do such shady characters keep showing up in this thread?

Buddhism, and its idea of equanimity is used today as a weapon of compassion baiting, or using compassion as a form of passive aggression, and you have to be wary of that. It’s not innocent.
It’s now used to pursue rainbow agenda and normalize victimhood and passivity, all of which are portrayed as positive aspects of Buddhism. Sensitivity, tolerance, forgiveness, generosity, selflessness, understanding, equanimity, blah, blah, all seeen in Buddhism as values to live by. If you go that way, I will assume you have already sought your own end.