Equanimity

From another thread:

viewtopic.php?f=5&t=186929&start=1225#p2691228

The first thing that came to my mind was ‘The Logical Song’ by Supertramp:

A rational person may want to ‘surf’ the ups and downs of life. He/she can see this as a more authentic life than one based on equanimity.

Equanimity involves a loss of extremes of emotion. In compensation one gets “stability and composure”.

Is that a good trade?

Not every person will think so. Not everyone needs to strive for equanimity.

Making choices wouldn’t make sense if everything was right and nothing was wrong. Would you agree with that? Imagine if someone came along and said “if you’re discriminating between right and wrong then you’re limiting your experience of reality”. It’s a surrender to chaos.

There are times to enact equanimity, for instance it would be very justified in times of dire crisis when having to deal with other affected individuals who may turn to you for calm guidance, but in general it seems like a flat line on a heart monitor. The way my brain functions, the way my memories are formed as episodic (heavily influenced by emotional content), the highs and lows of experiences allow me to thrive. What is interesting about many psychiatric medications is that they bring their recipients closer to equanimity than many participants prefer for they are giving up all the highs for a more methodical and lumbering emotional middle ground.

Good topic Phyllo.

Equanimity can be taken to the absurd level where there is complete indifference to any result. All choices then become “equal”.

Proponents of equanimity don’t go that far.

Interesting idea. It does seem that equanimity might only be a subjective preference. Though I personally aspire to equanimity, one counterargument could be that highs-and-lows tend to be more productive, as the positive flurry of the highs produces more than the dragging of the lows destroys. That is intuitively plausible; looking at artists and entrepreneurs, fame and productivity do seem associated with an uneven temperament.

I agree that equanimity is good for the individual, but for a healthy society, we probably need both the steady and the volatile.

How so? Equanimity favors composure over discomposure. Apparently, not every choice is equal to every other choice.

I suspect that we are not even talking about the same thing. :confused:

Possible.

equanimity
calmness and composure, especially in a difficult situation

Equanimity can be interpreted to mean emotional dullness, in which case I agree it is a bad thing, but it can also simply mean composure, in which case I agree it is a good thing. In the first case, it means absence of emotions. In the second case, it means absence of neurosis.

I don’t think that Buddhists preach emotional dullness. They preach emotional regulation. They want a healthy nervous system. If they appear to be emotionally dull it might simply be because they find it difficult to experience certain emotions and not because they don’t want to experience these emotions.

Equanimity (or composure) does not mean “absence of neurosis”.

Sure thing.

Extremes in emotion can lead to transformational breakthroughs. Such a person may end up reaching the same conscusion in the end, but not as a same person. It’s like reading a biography vs actually living through the events. Isn’t safety on of the main considerations of such person, or not wanting to lose his self?

Obviously you misunderstood the essence of ‘equanimity’. Equanimity do not mean indifference to the range of life activities.

A person with a state of ‘equanimity’ would be in a better position to surf the ‘highest ups’ and ‘lowest downs’ of life plus the ability to face the worst extremes if they are unfortunately caught in them.

For example, a person with ‘equanimity’ may even volunteer to experience LSD or other powerful drugs that can induce the highest high, but what is critical here is the person with a high state of equanimity will not be carried away to seek the next fix and ends up being an addict.

When a person with equanimity is caught is any life threatening situation s/he will not instinctively panic and be reckless.

ALL humans are subjected to the risk of mental sufferings that trigger very strong emotions, and existential angst, e.g. terminal illness, loss of spouse [grief] etc. but a person with equanimity [anchored or strong stable keel] will be able to ride through these strong emotions rationally and wisely.

Note equanimity by default is complemented with wisdom [rational knowledge in action].

Equanimity (or composure) will enable one to psycho-analyze one’s neurosis, seek the necessary treatment. self cure or do whatever is necessary to manage one’s neurosis.

Neurosis is a class of functional mental disorders involving chronic distress but neither delusions nor hallucinations. -wiki

Neurosis = a relatively mild mental illness that is not caused by organic disease, involving symptoms of stress (depression, anxiety, obsessive behaviour, hypochondria) but not a radical loss of touch with reality. - google dictionary

Where a person suffer extreme mental illnesses that is beyond the person’s rational mind to deal with, it is not likely the person would be able to develop or maintain a state of equanimity, thus irrelevant to the OP.

[b]

[/b]

Huh?

More familiar imagery to illustrate somethang that can not be defined/described.

Gravity.jpg

How long did it take mankind to figure out a way to pierce the planet’s gravitational field.

There was very likely several instances of neurosis along the way … equanimity would certainly not have achieved such a result.

Neurosis and other mental disorders do not operate in thought-tight compartments suggested by psychologists/psychiatrists.

I stated one can have a neurosis [as defined above] and still cultivate and maintain a state of equanimity.

Where a person suffer EXTREME mental illness [e.g. extremely serious dementia, alzheimer’s, loss sense of reality, loss of mental faculty] as defined, it can be easily observed the person is incapable to maintain a state of equanimity.
What is wrong with such a point?

I believed on hindsight of past mistakes, psychologists/psychiatrists do take extreme care to do their best in assessing mental patients in accordance to the DSM. But being human, mistakes will and did happen.

You said that it’s the opposite of :

  • excitement … I don’t think I want to get rid of that.
  • distrust … which can be a reasonable attitude.
  • doubt … again a reasonable attitude.
  • fear … often useful.
  • uncertainty … welcome to life. Seriously.

Let’s concentrate on “excitement”. A person is in love. If the person does not have equanimity, then he fully feels the excitement of being in love. If the person does have equanimity, then what? He feels no excitement? He feels only a little excitement? He feels contentment? He feels apathy?

The person without equanimity may write a great song or story about that love. What will the person with equanimity write about it?

Now you’re making it into some kind of magical state in which a person cannot become addicted to chemicals?

Maybe a person ought to grieve the loss of a loved one … fully, emotionally, irrationally.

Why can’t you be stupid and ignorant and still have equanimity? It is after all, a particular attitude towards events and therefore it does not seem to require any wisdom beyond adopting that attitude. (If that is in fact wisdom.)

[b]

[/b]

A statement that exists comfortably within the bosom of equanimity. :slight_smile:

What about the individuals who believe they never make mistakes? Irrational people???

Perhaps these individuals ‘see’ what others refer to as mistakes as indispensable “teachers”.

In my case … most who know me believe either my first marriage was a mistake or my first divorce was a mistake. Ditto for my second marriage and so on.

Most people believe a serious case of epilepsy is both painful and undesirable. OTH … Dostoevsky stated he preferred epilepsy over normalcy because he believed his epilepsy was the vehicle for his deeper insights concerning “being.”

I like Jordan Peterson’s statement … “Life is a catastrophe … accept it … work with it … not against it.”

Pain is a teacher … why the propensity to avoid pain?

Driven by a desire for control.

I had a pause when I read ‘excitement’ in the list, but I realize there if a difference when one is excited like a monkey and not being able to modulate it.
A person who has equanimity will naturally and definitely feel excited over a new job, first time visiting a country or anything that is novel [positive] but such a person can modulate the natural excitement effectively.

When a person is in love, s/he could be with the partner who is or not reciprocating, or
fell in love with some one merely based on sight without the other being aware of it.

A person who is in love but does not have equanimity will be overwhelmed by his emotions and likely to do the silliest things to the extent the potential lover could even reject all his moves. To such a person love could be blind.
If such a person were to write a song, story or poem, it will not a presented smoothly due to the unmodulated excitability in the brain.

A person who is in love and have equanimity will definitely have his love circuit activated with the standard chemicals oozing and body triggered to react accordingly but s/he will not do all the above silly things. If such a person who were to write a song, story or poem it will be one that has high quality and reflect the appropriate intensity.

Yes, a person with equanimity will not be addicted to drugs if s/he happened to try it. There is nothing magical about this.

All normal humans experienced grief naturally and where they do not have equanimity, they could fall into deep depression, various mental sufferings and all sort of other related problems.
A person with equanimity will definitely suffer grief naturally when triggered by death of a close one or others, but s/he will understand it is just a natural psychological reactions and let the effects wear off without amplifying its effects.

I did not deny ignorance. Nothing wrong is I am ignorant of certain knowledge I am not interested in. As for stupidity it depend on degrees.
If one is stupid to the lowest degree, then one is stupid enough not be able to cultivate and develop a state of equanimity.
The fact that one has equanimity by default some degree of wisdom in one’s ability to develop the state of equanimity and practice it.

To topic re above, in general, qualified psychologists/psychiatrists will be drilled in their studies and practices, plus they will have the intelligence to understand no human can be infallible.