Equanimity

[phyllo]

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.

This is just an unfounded claim, with an arbitrary number thrown in.

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.

We already know from many studies that emotional instability is a key characteristic of creative people. For example :

Sure, it’s possible for everyone to nurture his or her creative side, but honest observation shows that fresh ideas come more easily to some people than to others. If you’re in the market for individuals to drive innovation at your business, how can you hire these naturally creative folks?

A new Norwegian study has some suggestions. Forget the Myers Briggs, says the research from Professor Øyvind L. Martinsen of BI Norwegian Business School. What you really need to look for is a handful of traits that tend to be associated with highly creative individuals.

To identify these characteristics, Martinsen gathered a group of artists, musicians, and marketing creatives and compared them with a control group of managers and others in professions less associated with creativity. Which personality traits stood out among the artistically inclined? Martinsen found seven:

Associative orientation: Imaginative, playful, have a wealth of ideas, ability to be committed, sliding transitions between fact and fiction.

Need for originality: Resists rules and conventions. Have a rebellious attitude because of a need to do things no one else does.

Motivation: Have a need to perform, goal oriented, innovative attitude, stamina to tackle difficult issues.

Ambition: Have a need to be influential, attract attention and recognition.

Flexibility: Have the ability to see different aspects of issues and come up with optimal solutions.

[b] Low emotional stability: Have a tendency to experience negative emotions, greater fluctuations in moods and emotional state, failing self-confidence.

Low sociability: Have a tendency not to be very considerate, are obstinate and find faults and flaws in ideas and people.[/b]

inc.com/jessica-stillman/th … eople.html

[phyllo]

Equanimity is associated with Flow.

In positive psychology, flow, also known as the zone, is the mental state of operation in which a person performing an activity is fully immersed in a feeling of energized focus, full involvement, and enjoyment in the process of the activity. In essence, flow is characterized by complete absorption in what one does, and a resulting loss in one’s sense of space and time.

The quote doesn’t support your claim.

[Magnus_Anderson]

Autistic people are also very creative. In fact, far more creative than average people.

Equanimity is not apathy i.e. absence of passions/emotions. It is apathy but it is more than just apathy. Its association with apathy stems from the fact that all absence of passion is equanimous but not every presence of passion is. Equanimity is not incompatible with emotional highs and emotional lows. It is also not incompatible with what we consider to be heroic, passionate and romantic. And it is certainly not uncreative. Not necessarily.

[phyllo]

When equanimity is vaguely defined then it becomes all things to all people. It has no characteristics that can be pinned down. Nothing is incompatible with it. It has no downside. So astonishingly, very creative people who have low emotional stability will be portrayed as having equanimity.

That’s going to happen in the next post, right?

[Magnus_Anderson]

No. What’s going to happen in the next post is I am going to (re-)state that you have no clue what equanimity is + you do not want to accept that fact. Instead, you prefer to jump to the conclusion that equanimity is a meaningless term, which it isn’t.

[phyllo]

Instead, you prefer to jump to the conclusion that equanimity is a meaningless term, which it isn’t.

It’s not necessarily a meaningless term. I already said that the way the Stoics used the term gave it real meaning.

But the way you use it makes it almost meaningless.

[Karpel_Tunnel]

Right now in our society we accept as normal psychotropic equanimity. We medicate emotional reactions. We cut off a feedback loop. Of course we are medicating all sorts of different people and in some cases it may very well be a good compromise.

The prioritization of equanimity as a cognitive goal tends to remind me of the overmedication and the pathologization of emotions already endemic to society.

Of course it’s good not to flip out when driving when someone’s car comes over the median. There are many situations where it is good to not panic. And one can focus on those and reassure oneself that it is better to have an even keel.

But for the most part I see people not reacting, explaining way, medicating, dulling through their own self’medication approachs (food, surfing the internet, readding too much, drugs, whatever) their emotions. We do not seem to want to be social mammals anymore.

We want to be like AIs. Efficient, not bothered.

And we will get a society that is much like the work floor of Amazon. A panopticon, with the most possibly efficient work, where all extraneous things that used to go into being human are monitored out of us.

[pilgrim-seeker_tom]

@Karpel Tunnel

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

A privilege of imagination?

KP … thanks for your kind and thoughtful response to my post. Seems the PE enveloping our e-exchange is friendly … for me, a welcome circumstance.

My gut reaction to your comments:

1. Personal experience can justify conjecture.

2. You expand the scope … introduction of the need for catharsis.

3. Perhaps emotion is a manifestation of PE as well.

[Prismatic567]

@phyllo

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.

This is just an unfounded claim, with an arbitrary number thrown in.

It is human nature and note the Normal Distribution or Bell Curve, i.e. for any human variable there are extremes as both ends with an average in the middle.
Yes, 10% is a number ‘thrown’ in but it is nevertheless realistic. It could be 1% but definitely not >50%.
The average rational person will not reject the concept of equanimity if they are well informed of what it is.

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.

We already know from many studies that emotional instability is a key characteristic of creative people. For example :

Sure, it’s possible for everyone to nurture his or her creative side, but honest observation shows that fresh ideas come more easily to some people than to others. If you’re in the market for individuals to drive innovation at your business, how can you hire these naturally creative folks?

A new Norwegian study has some suggestions. Forget the Myers Briggs, says the research from Professor Øyvind L. Martinsen of BI Norwegian Business School. What you really need to look for is a handful of traits that tend to be associated with highly creative individuals.

To identify these characteristics, Martinsen gathered a group of artists, musicians, and marketing creatives and compared them with a control group of managers and others in professions less associated with creativity. Which personality traits stood out among the artistically inclined? Martinsen found seven:

Associative orientation: Imaginative, playful, have a wealth of ideas, ability to be committed, sliding transitions between fact and fiction.

Need for originality: Resists rules and conventions. Have a rebellious attitude because of a need to do things no one else does.

Motivation: Have a need to perform, goal oriented, innovative attitude, stamina to tackle difficult issues.

Ambition: Have a need to be influential, attract attention and recognition.

Flexibility: Have the ability to see different aspects of issues and come up with optimal solutions.

[b] Low emotional stability: Have a tendency to experience negative emotions, greater fluctuations in moods and emotional state, failing self-confidence.

Low sociability: Have a tendency not to be very considerate, are obstinate and find faults and flaws in ideas and people.[/b]

inc.com/jessica-stillman/th … eople.html

Note the following from the above article you link;

Although some of these traits sound positive (motivation) or neutral (associative orientation), others, you may notice, sound less appealing. Would you want the desk next to yours to be occupied by someone with low emotional stability and sociability? Probably not.

Martinsen acknowledges these tradeoffs, noting that “creative people are not always equally practical and performance oriented” and advising that an employer looking to bring creativity into her organization “would be wise to conduct a position analysis to weigh the requirements for the ability to cooperate against the need for creativity.”
Or, in other words, think carefully about whether being a bit of a jerk is an acceptable tradeoff for being a fount of ideas. Many experts warn it’s often not (here are three just on Inc.com alone), suggesting that your best bet may be to walk a middle way, accepting slightly less creativity in exchange for being more of a team player.

What you are bringing in is the extreme where these people happened to be emotionally unstable for various reasons.
But such trait is not something that is to be deliberately recommended to be developed and cultivated for any person.

Borderline personality disorder (BPD), also known as emotionally unstable personality disorder (EUPD),[7] is a long-term pattern of abnormal behavior characterized by unstable relationships with other people, unstable sense of self, and unstable emotions

Emotional instability is a disorder.
I believe hoping and intentionally keeping or ensuring a person be emotional unstable [the vincent-van-goghs and the likes ] so as to exploit and squeeze whatever his/her creativity for one’s interest is immoral.

In general equanimity is a positive trait that is recommended for all people to develop and cultivate for the net-positive benefits of their overall well being.

[Prismatic567]

@phyllo

Equanimity is associated with Flow.

In positive psychology, flow, also known as the zone, is the mental state of operation in which a person performing an activity is fully immersed in a feeling of energized focus, full involvement, and enjoyment in the process of the activity. In essence, flow is characterized by complete absorption in what one does, and a resulting loss in one’s sense of space and time.

The quote doesn’t support your claim.

Why not?
Note I stated ‘associated’. Note the following;

Flow has been recognized throughout history and across cultures. The teachings of Buddhism and of Taoism speak of a state of mind known as the “action of inaction” or “doing without doing” (wu wei in Taoism) that greatly resembles the idea of flow. Also, Hindu texts on Advaita philosophy such as Ashtavakra Gita and the Yoga of Knowledge such as Bhagavad-Gita refer to a similar state. -Wiki

The basis of the above within Buddhism, Taoism and Advaita is ‘equanimity’.

Point is you lack and have inadequate exposure to these additional knowledge.

[Prismatic567]

@phyllo

Instead, you prefer to jump to the conclusion that equanimity is a meaningless term, which it isn’t.

It’s not necessarily a meaningless term. I already said that the way the Stoics used the term gave it real meaning.

But the way you use it makes it almost meaningless.

I noted Magnus Anderson’s views are on topic and are reasonable.

Your preference for emotional instability is a crazy and immoral idea.

Note:

Philosophy for a Stoic is not just a set of beliefs or ethical claims, it is a way of life involving constant practice and training (or askesis, see asceticism). Stoic philosophical and spiritual practices included logic, Socratic dialogue and self-dialogue, contemplation of death, training attention to remain in the present moment (similar to some forms of Eastern meditation), and daily reflection on everyday problems and possible solutions. Philosophy for a Stoic is an active process of constant practice and self-reminder.

Greek Philosophy then was influenced by Hindu and Buddhist Philosophy but the Stoic’s version of equanimity which is adaption is not that as polished as the Hindus and Buddhists.

[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OXBygl-ox5Q[/youtube]

[phyllo]

It is human nature and note the Normal Distribution or Bell Curve, i.e. for any human variable there are extremes as both ends with an average in the middle.
Yes, 10% is a number ‘thrown’ in but it is nevertheless realistic. It could be 1% but definitely not >50%.
The average rational person will not reject the concept of equanimity if they are well informed of what it is

The Bell Curve has nothing to do with anything. You just made up some stuff.

What you are bringing in is the extreme where these people happened to be emotionally unstable for various reasons.
But such trait is not something that is to be deliberately recommended to be developed and cultivated for any person.

It’s not extreme. It’s a characteristic that creative people have in common.

Emotional instability is a disorder.

And you wonder why I say that you have created a false dichotomy of people with equanimity and people with mental disorders.

I believe hoping and intentionally keeping or ensuring a person be emotional unstable [the vincent-van-goghs and the likes ] so as to exploit and squeeze whatever his/her creativity for one’s interest is immoral.

People are like that and it works for them.

[phyllo]

Your preference for emotional instability is a crazy and immoral idea.

My preference??

I said that people are rational if they consciously or subconsciously choose to reject equanimity. It’s their choice. I’m not forcing my personal preferences on them. I’m not looking down on them if they don’t make the same choices as I make.

[phyllo]

Point is you lack and have inadequate exposure to these additional knowledge.

I don’t think that you know enough to make that statement.

[Fixed_Cross]

Equanimity: what is lost to the Left.

[pilgrim-seeker_tom]

PE at work … ain’t it grand!

[Prismatic567]

@phyllo

Your preference for emotional instability is a crazy and immoral idea.

My preference??

You even try to provide justifications [re the link above] why emotional stability promote creativity without considering the big picture.

I said that people are rational if they consciously or subconsciously choose to reject equanimity. It’s their choice. I’m not forcing my personal preferences on them. I’m not looking down on them if they don’t make the same choices as I make.

The concept of ‘equanimity’ is an enhanced trait for humans, like education, wisdom, etc.

Note Boko Haram and the taliban who choose to reject education and the proven advancement of knowledge from Western Education in general. They will go all out to prevent such the education of such knowledge to the extent of killing non-believers, e.g. Malala. This example is the extreme but there are others of the same thoughts in various degrees. Is that rational?

The above example to an extent is similar to the rejection of equanimity.

[Prismatic567]

@phyllo

It is human nature and note the Normal Distribution or Bell Curve, i.e. for any human variable there are extremes as both ends with an average in the middle.
Yes, 10% is a number ‘thrown’ in but it is nevertheless realistic. It could be 1% but definitely not >50%.
The average rational person will not reject the concept of equanimity if they are well informed of what it is

The Bell Curve has nothing to do with anything. You just made up some stuff.

What you are bringing in is the extreme where these people happened to be emotionally unstable for various reasons.
But such trait is not something that is to be deliberately recommended to be developed and cultivated for any person.

It’s not extreme. It’s a characteristic that creative people have in common.

Emotional instability is a disorder.

And you wonder why I say that you have created a false dichotomy of people with equanimity and people with mental disorders.

I believe hoping and intentionally keeping or ensuring a person be emotional unstable [the vincent-van-goghs and the likes ] so as to exploit and squeeze whatever his/her creativity for one’s interest is immoral.

People are like that and it works for them.

My original intent on the issue was in reference to the general, like education, Science, knowledge, good health, well being and whatever is positive in general, i.e. equanimity in general.

Of course there are exceptions [Bell Curve extreme points] who reject education, Science, good health, etc. but do have other positives relative to their conditions.

[pilgrim-seeker_tom]

oops!

I got so excited observing PE at work I forgot the motivation for my visit … guess my personal equanimity ain’t working so well!

More emerging thoughts from KP’s post …

The concretization of abstract ideas … imagination … conjecture … has been around since time immemorial.

What is unique in the modern age is the time line between the emergence of an idea … an imaginative concept … and the physical manifestation of the idea. This gap seems to shrinking substantially … even a cursory look at the past century or so confirms this claim.

For me, this evidence lends credibility to Teilhard and Huxton’s conjecture … perhaps incorrectly interpreted by me … it’s just that it dovetails so nicely with my personal experiences.

I’m not a learned man … I have stated here on ILP several times … I’m a small town man with a small town mind. Back in the summer of 2004 on my last long walk … about 1,000 kilometres … somewhere in rural France … walking along a cow path … I somehow was attracted to fresh mounds of cow dung. Shortly after I found this thought swimming around in my head …

[b]

from collective unconsciousness to collective consciousness to collective will … this is a biggy.

[/b]

[phyllo]

Note Boko Haram and the taliban who choose to reject education and the proven advancement of knowledge from Western Education in general. They will go all out to prevent such the education of such knowledge to the extent of killing non-believers, e.g. Malala. This example is the extreme but there are others of the same thoughts in various degrees. Is that rational?

You’re changing the subject. The thread is not about education. It’s not about terrorism. It’s not about God or believers or non-believers.