What is the ideal balance between emotion and logic?

I’m talking in terms of peak performance in a given skill- say playing an instrument or athletic performance.

I have tried both extremes and found either one to have its limitations.

By going only on emotions trying to only ‘feel my way out’ and not analyzing behavior and attempting to course correct I found I would really enjoy whatever activity I was doing in the moment but wouldnt actually learn much. Also even though I would have been enjoying myself in the moment after the activity was over I’d still be frustrated and annoyed as I still didnt perform or even obtain my objective. It seemed to bottleneck my potential and I would stagnate.

Conversely going to the other end being VERY outcome oriented and driven to succeed I’ve found also causes blockages. The main factor with this way I’ve found alot more stressful and resentment for practice would build up and often reach boiling points where I could barely perform at all due to fear of losing etc. Progress in this direction would actually be steady with this way for a while although going ‘too hard’ in this manner I’ve found ‘wells up’ alot of negativity and then will become more and more detrimental.

Im reading the amazing book ‘the inner game of tennis’ for the second time which really digs into this nicely. As usual with these kind of books it has its fair share of eastern philosophy tho what I like most about this one is that remembering from my first reading, unlike other books, this one also credits the rational mind for teaching the unconscious. What I didnt like about most other books of its ilk is they just want to throw out rationality altogether and say ‘screw that you must go with the flow exclusively and let everything sort itself out’. From my experience this has not been effective.

So what would one say is the ideal?

I thought up a pithy statement for this being- logic guided by the emotions. After all to ‘emote’ means to move and rationality is weighing up all your options and deciding which is best among all those. Without any emotions ‘pure’ logic would be impotent would it not?

For myself I am currently trying to find the sweetspot of allowing just enough emotion in to catalyze my logic without stifling my progress (i.e. without getting bogged down in the ‘bacchic chorus’ :smiley:) as it had before in terms of just stagnating and ‘enjoying wherever Im at’ too much that I dont progress. See I’ve always been a staunch rationalist at heart trying to max it out in that direction but recently realized that this is also detrimental and will cause bottlenecking so want to find the sweet spot.

“Just enough emotion”? I don’t think you’d be very successful at anything if you were emotionally stingy. The rational mind helps to focus and direct the emotions. It doesn’t need to combat them.

I don’t think “ideal balance” is best conceptualized as some kind of quantity of emotion matching some kind of quantity of rationality. It’s not a tug of war. I think if emotion and logic are at war with each other, your power to command any particular situation is diminished. There are quiet, reflective times, when you are emotionally peaceful and stable, which allows the rational mind to work unimpededly. And there are times of danger or excitement, when the emotions, if they are in good working order, can guide you well. Trying to balance the emotional aspect of our minds with the rational aspect of our minds in these situations would be detrimental.

I think it’s best to simply think of both healthy emotions and dispassionate thought processes as aspects of ourselves that can be trained to better serve us. We can learn to think and emote with more compassion and intelligence. Doing so is both liberating and empowering. And perhaps with liberation and power comes the ability to truly relax and simply let things take their natural course.

What about vulcans they ration their emotions? I like to take them as my rolemodels. Though they are a bit uptight so I dont think they have it at the ideal level either.

Do they really ration their emotions? Or are they just not that emotional?

I don’t know how to break it to you, but they’re fictional. Someone should have told you by now, I’m sorry. :stuck_out_tongue:

Do you think there’s an ideal balance that’s the same for everyone? If so, why? Seems that even at the highest levels, there are some people who are very emotionally invested and some who are comparatively cool and analytical, although they’re all deeply driven. It’s more a question of demonstrativeness, perhaps?

I can honestly say with years of study and academic background in this field the ideal balance is about 43% (+/- Φ rumsfelds(assuming a standard deviation of 1) and 23.65745645342% (+/- π Klatus (SI not imperial) assuming you have balanced the derivative in accordance with its partiality) on the other scale.

[tab]There isn’t one it’s subjective. :wink: :laughing:[/tab]

Cheers.

And yes the vulcans have powerful emotions they just actively suppress them. They were a wild and unkempt species before they learned to control their emotions.

Going back to real life though looks like you are arguing the old individual differences tack Humean. So I spose I should qualify my question by asking what is best for extremely intelligent and insobeing analytical higher men like myself.

This is sort of off course from what I meant again actually as I was more concerned with performance than individual personalities. When you get to a high level in anything you find how much alike you are to your fellow man rather than dissimilar. As the new buzzword in this field goes ‘talent is overrated’. So its at these upper eschelons of achievement where each man is equal in his struggles to attain those extra few percent that I am concerned with. How to play ones best game consistently. Actually I dont even mean higher performance but rather consistently good.

Ie where your mind isnt on the game/or your trying too hard your performance is hindered. So in this case your thinking too much. As I siad before tho if you thought too little you wouldnt improve your technique. So here is where Im concerned with finding the balance.

You’re welcome, I also have a logarithmic scale for that thing we call Earth love too if you’re interested. It defeats the notion that you cannot know what love is until you have experienced it for yourself by the use of the Fibonacci sequence in base 11.

Peoples logic are usually guided by their emotions. Balance will never exist.

I can’t choose how much emotion I have. I can stifle my emotions, try not to express them, hide them from others and through these and other means set up a kind of jail for them inside myself. But they are still there. So I agree with others who have said it is not a matter of quantity, at least in my case, but rather relation. For a process of no longer allow thoughts and ‘logic’ to judge emotions has led to better balance. The idea that these two facets of mind or self are and must be at odds, is another problematic thought that needs to be challenged.

They’re very emotional.

Every moment we exist we should analyze our emotional status and attempt nothing more than becoming comfortable in our present state-emotionally and mentally

No such thing as a hundred percent logic.

Balance is essential to life. Balance will always re-establish itself, regardles of what a puny little group of Earthians may think or do, for if they choose to disregard balance in their own approach to life, they will be terminated as players in the larger game. No balance = entropy.

As for logic/emotion, my Teachers demonstrated long ago that “emotions” a la earth style are basically the same as fuel exhaust from an internal combustion engine. Not the kind of thing you suck on, but rather you clear out of your way as cleanly and efficiently as possible before you proceed. We should be engaging “feelings” and not emotions. Logic is how the mind approaches life. Feelings are how that translates into a physical body. Most of what we need to DO has little or nothing to do with the body/brain complex in any case - that, we use to test that which the individual (mind) wishes to experience in the physical. We do not need a physical environment to exist, express, interact, live. This physical/material part of life is just something we are currently experimenting with, something we are using to allow us to understand other, sometimes greater, aspects of cosmic life.

I sense that if Earthians learned to not engage their emotions they would take a giant step in self-empowerment. They would see how their gods, their “powers and authorities in the heavenly realms” control and manipulate them. They would realize the damage they do to each other socially through their belief systems and to their material environment through their greed and innate selfishness. They would discover that the basic law of higher evolved consciousness (as of true humans for example) is simply, “you shall do no harm to any other.” Once that law was understood and accepted, they would see that everything else falls into place and that life makes no allowance for selfishness. A proper reading of the teachings of the Palestinian Avatar Jesus in the synoptic gospels explains this very well once one is freed of religious constraints.

Just a few thoughts from someone living in “sudden death overtime” who’s been around a long time and used that time to engage the cosmos.
Be well and take care o’ you!