Nice post. I often think about this pre-directed catharsis the ‘culture industries’ already has mapped out for us.
It has its benefits, and also, pitfalls of course. The benefits are the control it has over those who have a propensity to anger and so directs their rage against anything that happens to transgress their precious ego onto a path that won’t continually attack those not related to the anger cause. The pitfalls is, as you mentioned, the way it can almost totally control the people’s emotions onto issues that really don’t matter. For example, where is the moral outrage now at Israel’s killing of civilians? People seem to think their time is better spent watching Big Brother or similar idiotic programs.
Nevertheless, personally, my frustrations are carefully manipulated by society into an acceptable path. And I think it is a fortunate path. Nietzsche constantly emphasizes that culture and creativity only ever moves forward by those individuals who hold themselves in some kind of self-contempt; because this contempt perpetually pushes them to better themselves in a given task. For me this is music - guitar and drums.
But, putting my personal inclinations aside, the blind acceptance of acceptable catharsis outlets is problematic when it engulfs the masses of a populace to think watching Opera or Dr. Phil is more important than trying to alleviate war.
I would say that is a pretty good score - iow frustration levels not exacerbated excessively by theory or expectation.
I am not sure it even does this. Or any more than physical activity might. They are simply given yet another trigger.
For example - and for people who will weigh in on the Israeli side, that is not the issue here. To speak passionately in a bar about the Yankees would be seen as OK - imagine someone ranting with spittle and passion about the coach’s decision to leave in a tiring pitcher who gave up 2 homeruns - where speech of similar intensity on political issues or religious ones or interpersonal ones would be seen as unseemly.
Here the issue is the full replacement of an inner life related to oneself with an inner life focused on issues that are relevent to others. ‘We’ literally feel the lives of others and for that time, at least, do not feel our own.
It has been a couple of decades since I read N so perhaps you could describe this self-contempt. To me it seems an unnecessary kind of no pain no gain - here on an emotional level. It seems to me desire and passion - without the ideas about oneself I associate with self-contempt - that can drive one towards excellence. In fact I think self-contempt can undermine a fully relaxed muscle set up - where one needs to be relaxed.
Or the side I am very concerned about…that they must shut themselves down in all but the few accepted outlets.
To make a slightly askew analogy - since it involves an act not accepted by most in society - it is like one must be stiff - no puns intended - cool and distant when making love to one’s girlfriend, boyfriend, spouse but one can really be passionate with a prostitute or when using porn.
That is a sad, split sex life.
And to me, in my OP, I am pointing toward a sad, split entire life.
uh hu…
Uh what? How did you come to this conclusion?
Yeah thats because you are supposed to respect your boss, if you did not you would not be a usefull part of the workforce. This does not relate to a reaction to a team game of which the purpose is escapism, and letting off steam in such a situation is healthy
Yes because these situations call for restraint, we are not animals, society would not work if we acted on primal instict all the time.
Everyone is born free and then spen the rest of their lives in chains, the trick is to enjoy the bondage.
If soicety was different or not existant we would still be slaves to something, view society as a cage and you will not be free, freedom is a state of mind, not a state of being.
Watching people, listening to them. Noting levels of passion in their voices when they discuss sports in a variety of contexts. Certainly some political discussions become heated, but generally speaking I see most men are expressive in a small range of contexts, sports being one area they allow expressiveness to be public.
So we can be expressive as escapism but not for reality based complaints problems, etc. Further it seems to me your definition of respect is very restricted. I do not think respect should be equated with dulled affect. It is, in fact, respectful, to respond to poor treatment - even if it is merely perceived so - with one’s real reaction. It is those I do not respect who I decide to use a poker face on. IOW people who cannot have a mutual, real relationship. And beyond that respect is a two way street.
That certainly is a widespread assumption. The truth is 1) we are animals 2) we do not have act on the emotions but we could express them 3) cultures vary widely on how much emotional expression is acceptable. Which ones are ‘wrong’? How do we determine it? What is the science that backs this up?
[/quote]
It seems to me the first sentence - where you show awareness that you are in chains contradicts the second where you claim it is better not to view it this way.
The second sentence could have been said to African American slaves. Where do you draw lines? Is it possible that we could be more free as a state of being? Consider the further possibility that you, as an individual, may have an aversion to freedom, or at least place a low value on it, and so your happiness is not tied to this. Other people may not be like you, and further may be more functional and productive when they are free. IOW they may be able to handle it and your concerns about what would happen if you were free might not apply to them.
From my own experience I have never seen anyone become afraid of another person if they get emotional about real life tragedy, I would even say its more acceptable than say crying at a film.
Certainly more expressive of course, that is the purpose of escapism, to do or imagine things that we could not do in reality
Not if that reaction is strangling your boss. Being a manager is a hard job and alot of the time people in your employment will become upset or even angry with your decisions as a leader, however if we always gave our “real” reactions, the job of manager would go from being difficult to impossible.
A poker face is totally acceptable in responding to something you find distasteful, no one gets hurt, you don’t loose your job everyone is happy. In an ideal world respect is mutual, however in reality this cannot always be the case. Conflict is inevitable, in these instances there must be one person with more power to come out on top, in modern society that person is the manager.
- genetically yes, socially we are totally different 2)So you are saying that we can express emotions as long as we show restraint? That’s what happens already 3) That depends entirely on the society you live in.
Contradiction? not in the slightest, its a realization. One is not bound by the cell they live in if they wish to be there, in modern developed society we get to choose the chains that bind us, it is the closest to freedom that we can get. If a person is given the key to their cell and told they can leave but choose not to, were they ever really imprisoned?
True, it could have been said by African American slaves also, which would be closer to the context I was using it in
That does to an extent depend on circumstance. Most people in a developed society have the ability to choose what life they lead, a slave (conventional sense) does not have this liberty, however freedom as a state of mind can be possible to every circumstance.
Consider that I put a high value on freedom, which is why I have taken the time to consider how to get the closest to it.
- It seems that you allow strong emotional expression in reaction to catastrophic events. In those instances you think the strong natural reaction is appropriate. In other situations you think the reactions are too strong and should be suppressed. 2) I actually do see people try to reduce the natural reactions to tragedies through platitudes, medications, advice, etc. The doctors used to give the berieved a shot of barbituates, now the range of medical options is much broader.
So we can be expressive as escapism but not for reality based complaints problems, etc.
[/quote]
This implies that we could not react with strong emotions in reality, which is not the case.
There are several judgments in here 1) if we express emotions we must get violent. This seems obvious because we are sitting on so much unexpressed emotion. 2) the problems are already there. we all, including that manager, walk around with a huge backlog of resentment and we get our licks in indirectly. The manager is also likely to suffer stress related chronic and acute physical breakdowns from all this. He or she has nothing to gain from our current unnatural stalemate.
- what about in relationships between equals, such as spouses? 2) your argument could be support for feudal power relationships, slavery, men dominated women…etc.
Restraint around violence. That’s it. That need be the only limit.
The contradiction was you said you noticed it and then said it was best not to see it this way. It seemed you saw it this way and suggested it was better not to. Perhaps problem would be a better description than contradiction.
yes, but a freedom as a state of mind led to more literal freedoms and this was good. Perhaps what I am talking about is precisely the same. Someone telling the slaves they can be free in their minds was, to my mind, being rather cruel, if this was part of saying there was no need or it would be wrong if they were literally free.
- you are correct I think that rather than emotion being expressed more in unreal situations being more accepted it is simply that emotion should be expressed in front of certain people. As I think more deeply about it, I am beginning to think that this is actually not learnt as society has progressed but is in fact more primal. IE not showing weakness to your enemies for example… what do you think? 2) Perhaps people seek this advice and medication because the pain is greater in real situations, an indirect effect may be that they do not want people to see this pain, I can see a number of reasons why someone would do this one of which would be it is something that can be controlled in a situation where allot of their control has been removed.
That depends on the situation, and the emmotion that needs expressing. If we are angry with someone we cannot punch them in the face without being arrested, or getting punched in the face ourselves. Escapism allows us to ‘let off steam’ without having to deal with unsavoury consequences.
Responding to poor treatment is important, but it is not necessary to respond with ones real reaction to put the point across
However if we did things your way managers would have to be chosen on physical prowess, which would not often be best for the company/organisation.
Not really because you are again taking my argument out of context, in which I am arguing why these things must be applied to our society, as this is what you originally had a problem with.
Then it is no different from now, we would not be showing our real feelings at all. The principal would be the same, with the only difference being that you have created the parameters yourself
No you have simply missed the point. Freedom is simply a state of mind, not a state of body. Its all about perception, two different points of view need not contradict each other. One can look at a wall with one side painted green and the other painted red. I understand that one side is painted red, I simply choose to look at the green side.
I think this depends on the people saying it. If a slave driver says it to the slaves it is of course cruel. If however a slave says it to himself I see no problem. If even a slave chooses to stay with their slave driver after they are let free, I still see no problem.
I do think there are protective elements in there. When I mulled over our discussion here I thought I might take another tack which is to mention that certain cultures, subcultures saw inexpression as a mode of showing superiority - the upper classes in Europe, perhaps peaking in the extreme dry, indirect communication of the upper class English. At least, this is an example I am aware of. However this restriction of emotional expression did not decrease the violence of these classes, though it did tend to shift the anger out of the interpersonal - except for all the cutting the sardonic wit and oneupmanship was performing - to violence handled by proxies - lower class soldiers, torturers, colonizers who expressed the wishes, physically, for example, of upper classes who were not particularly emotionally expressive - except perhaps in private. I am not arguing that violence increased due to this cultural poker face, but that it did not go away.
I agree. And it is not these people in these situations I want to argue against, but rather the culture around them that often suggests they tone it down - in a variety of ways - and also makes it seem so vulnerable to be emotional. IOW I see the grieving person’s sense of vulnerability as connected to widespread judgments and fears of emotion. If one person does not cut themselves off others often have to face their own emotions.
Sure, but we do not have to express emotion via violence. And I do not think violence is reduced by stuffing stuff down either. We could let off steam in the natural way of letting off steam, by expressing emotions as they come up.
But, again, if a pattern goes against the natural reaction, it bears the onus of proof that it is better. I am being asked to be split against myself. It should be clearly shown that there is a benefit. Simply deducing or assuming that it is a benefit is not enough.
No. We have the same laws about physical violence. And remember we are not simply talking about expressing (and first feeling) anger. I am talking about making emotions in general more acceptable both to feel and express. I, personally, when connected to my emotions am afraid of physical conflict. Even if I would win. Not to speak of fears of going to jail.
There is violence now. There is tremendous pressure not to express emotion. What I am suggesting is that we open up the expression of emotion. This is clearly a movement towards greater realness. If violence stayed the same, we are still more real, with no loss. And then there is a gain in that one does not have to sit on so much. Perhaps violence would decrease. Who knows? I still see no evidence that it would increase, just speculation.
Seems to me you are looking at the red side in relation to what I am suggesting. Or if society moved in the direction I am suggesting would you begin looking at the green side? It seems like your analogy would be essentially conservative. You look at the green of what is now. You look at the red of what is suggested. Which is why I keep 1) pointing out historical examples where this turned out to be considered now an unethical stance - say around slavery and 2) keep pointing out that the onus is on those arguing against nature. In other words when you talk about human nature and emotions, you see the red, not the green, in this context. YOu imagine you know all the things that would, as a whole, be negative. You have a list of red assumptions about our natures, if they were a step freer.
You are not saying it to the slave driver. You are saying it to a fellow slave. The fellow slave thinks we can live without the slave drivers. You are telling him all about the red you imagine will happen without the slave drivers. You are not stating it as fears you have, but rather in certainties about what would happen. As if you know. This of course does happen when groups of people move out from under oppression. There are those who think it must get worse. They work with what they know. They have been trained to believe certain things are inevitable or necessary. But I think it is important to be very clear about what one knows to be the case and what one fears to be the case.
Most people, when they imagine the change I am suggesting, imagine the only change is people will explode more at each other. But if we are more accepting of emotions, in general, we will not be sitting on all this emotional backlog. We may not get triggered by emotions so much because we will be 1) used to them 2) not in the situation where we express them only when we cannot hold them back anymore. The effects are not just on that moment when the boss makes a condescending remark, but are indirectly affecting all interactions in a variety of ways. To be sure you know what would happen, it seems to me, is to have tremendous faith in one’s intuition. It also seems to ignore that some cultures are vastly more expressive than others without being more violent, per se.
Also it is not as if we need to DO THIS ALL AT ONCE, nor could we. It is not like tomorrow everyone just let’s out everything. It would have to come in small steps. And as we make those small steps, the triggers of being around the emotions of others might reduce. Now if someone gets pissed off, we assume, without thinking it that we are on final straw turf. If they raise their voice they must think we are a total asshole or evil.
And the truth is, I think we have been moving in this direction in the West for quite some time. Look at old documentary footage of how people spoke in the US 50 years ago, 70. They are stiff. We have opened up not just what we talk about, but with how much passion. Music is inextricably intertwined with these changes.
I think I will leave our back and forth here. I appreciate what we’ve said so far, but I think it will get repetitive from here. I’ll read a response if you write one, of course, but I think I am unlikely to respond unless I think new ground might be covered.
Thanks.
As an aside: I find the fact that I am trying to convince Rhinoboy of this rather ironic.
Certainly it did not go away, but it was given order. I am not saying that this is expectable, most people here who know me know that I am very anti-violence (though I still nedd to satiate my primal urges by creating things like ILP fight club hehe) however I can see that it is important for a functioning society to have order, even in those areas that are not so wholesome, in fact especially in these areas.
There is certainly an element of discomfort when people around us grieve but I don’t think that we are unhealthy in our reactions to it. I think that it would be frowned on allot more, if someone at work say, burst into tears and we casually ignored them. Sometimes it is important to cut short a crying period, one must be strong as well as in touch with ones emotions in order to recover from a stressful or depressing event and get on with life. Breakdowns are not fun.
I think you are oversimplifying a very complex human system, very few people have enough control over their emotions to do this, all would need some form of intensive therapy whether psychological or meditative etc to achieve such a state, even then allot of people would not be able to achieve such an enlightened state, what do we do with these people. Some people when given this aproach would express their emotion via violence. I don’t think it would change anything
The proof is society.
I see no difference in what you are suggesting to the current situation in western culture
So you would risk what we have now, in order to have an experiment. There is a reason why social experiments have ethical restrictions. To be truly serious about this would be insane. Anyway we can see from nature especially our closest cousins that violence is always there and in large supply. What you are talking about is risking everything for a whim, if you are serious about this being a good idea, you would have to be the one to supply evidence of that, not the other way around.
When what was unethical? positive thinking about the situation fate has dictated for us? I think you may be twisting my words a little too far
When one must take stock of their future they must use critical thinking and observe both sides of the wall that they have not yet reached and decide if they want to look at the wall at all. When one is already confronted with a wall (the present) they must choose which side to look at. If we have a choice it is better to be critical. If we do not have a choice it is better to be positive. Note that I said at the beginning that we can know both sides of the wall. Looking at the red side of your proposed wall does not mean I cannot see the green also. Looking on the bright side of life doesn’t mean you have to be a pushover or take risks with insane odds, far from it.
All I have stated that I know is that freedom of circumstance is impossible, we are all slaves to something.
Let us examine this slave compound a little clearer and see the full picture. I am indeed saying that we should not leave the compound, because we are marked as slaves, our escape is not only uncertain, its impossible. If you escape another slave driver waiting, what I am saying is how do you know that that slave driver would not be worse. Our slavery here is not so bad, there are slaves allot worse off than us. what you are proposing is not that you lead us from slavery, but you try to leave this slave driver for another to catch us, and from what I can tell the one you wish to run to has a far nastier reputation.
I have no emotional backlog as the system stands. Some people explode now and they would then are you suggesting that reactions to emotions would always be better if only subjected to nature rather than nurture? do you have any evidence of this or are you going on speculation. Circumstance does effect personality types slightly, it makes some people better able to cope and others less, but it is controlled. What you suggest is that we throw caution to the wind. And so you know, Personality types are also effected by nature, take away the system and all you do is take away boundaries that hold back the most unsavoury personalities.
I still dont understand what you mean by being more accepting (because I think we are accepting)… can you give an example of an instance in which we as a society are not accepting and how this has a detrimental effect and then give an example of how this would get better given your treatment.
Why would reacting to our emotions make us more used to them, we still have the emotions just as much, poppycock
well firstly you have that there are restrictions, so that would still happen where it counts the most (with violence) secondly we can express emotions now anyway. we have established that
Well now that depends on the emotion doesn’t it
So what’s your problem? I told you that what you were talking about was already going on, make no mistake I have no problem with the natural changes that are already occuring. The way you were describing it it sounded like you wanted to give society an overhaul
[/quote]
[/quote]
Heh true. Though the name simply refers to my obsession with rhinos, I in no way resemble a rhino, well actually thats a lie. I am thick skinned and horney