Mourning

Perhaps I am a person of extremes, but I cannot accept letting myself become overcome by fun, or love, or hate.
It is most disturbing to find ones self doing that and suddenly become aware of the situation. Most annoying and unnessesary

I would consider joy secondary to keeping your rational sanity 24/7.

Emotions are part of life. Supressing them, or ignoring them is denying a large chunk of yourself. You become a partial lie.
People who are completely emotionless bug me more than the over-emotional. Being empathic I hate it when someone is extremly angry, I feel that anger filling up the entire room. But when someone supresses their emotions thinking themselves suprior, I feel the emotions wriggling around under the surface and trying to get out. It's pitiful the struggle they endure. And it's a pathetic person who tries to ignore all emotion.

I suppose I don't see joy and rationality as having to be mutually exclusive.

In fact, I've seen nothing that would contradict that....of course that could be my own biased interpretation of events.

Again, I believe there's a huge grey area between "acknowledging and allowing emotions" to "emotions overcoming rationality and controlling us".

Balance is the key.

But then, I'm repeating myself

I'm going to have to agree and disagree with both views. Emotions are not completely necessary. On the other hand, they are not completely useless either. Neither view is entirely correct.

Emotions are tools, like our hands, that we've developed over time. Like our opposable thumbs, emotions are things that are very useful. However, not all animals have thumbs, and yet they somehow manage to live without them. This is how I view our emotions. Not completely necessary, but not without their advantages either.

And clearly if emotions were anything but advantageous to our species, they never would have developed in the first place. And, yes, they obviously developed... they're not just some random mutation like "Poof! Green eyes!"

Sure, you can live without emotions; many creatures do. But if you're a human born with emotions, ignoring them and pretending they don't exist goes against your nature and design. Sure, there may be advantages to not having emotions, but there also might be advantages to having fins instead of legs... So does that mean you should tie your legs together and pretend you have fins?

Now consider the difference between controlling your emotions, and letting your emotions control you. If you let your emotions control you, then they are no longer helping you. This is alike to tying your thumb down to your hand... However, when you learn to control your emotions and use them to your advantage, they will be very useful to you... Like taking up a sword in your hand.

Emotions can be very powerful.

Mourning is not advantageous. This is an example of letting your emotions control you.

[edit on 23-6-2005 by CloudlessKnight]

All the things that seem to make emotions worth having dont seem to be worth complete self awareness...

True, the world would be a very boring and cold place, but it would be safer, peaceful, and more intelligent.

I would consider any period of time in which you arent conciously thinking about your actions, while in love, during a joyfull game, anything, is you not in control of the situation fully and thus being controlled by some evolutionary system, rather than your very intelligent conciousness.

Complete self-awareness does not have to be sacrificed for ones emotions. Actually, you'd be doing the exact opposite by sacrificing them. How can one be completely self-aware if they're ignoring half of what they are?

I understand exactly what you mean, though. From the perspective of the observer, emotions do seem completely irrational. This is because the majority of people (we're talking 99.9% of the human population) does not fully understand their emotions or how to properly use them. The improper use of emotions is what leads to the chaos we see in so many people, time and time again.

I wouldn't be so quick as to theorize that emotionless beings are the way of the future. They might actually be archaic. Perhaps we've only yet to completely evolve our emotions. Maybe we're in what might be the Dark Ages of our emotional evolution.

I don't believe that controlling emotions = supressing emotions. I feel that emotions are a vital portion of my life. But I endevor to control negative emotions rather than letting them control me.

Mourning is an intregal part of my letting go of anything. Along with the mourning of lost loves and lost lives, I've had to mourn the loss of my youth and the loss of my health. The act of mourning is my way of acknowledging what was and letting it go. It is the only way for me to attempt to accept what now is.

edit to correct spelling.

[edit on 6/23/2005 by darkelf]

One does not have to let go if one does not attach themselves in the first place, now do they?

Im gonig to get !@#$ for that remark, but its true.

Originally posted by darkelf
I don't believe that controlling emotions = supressing emotions.

Exactly. Emotions should be observed, analyzed, and interpreted, then acted upon according to logic. In this way you are embracing your emotions, but keeping a firm grip on them so that you lead them instead of letting them lead you. Supressing your emotions is very unhealthy and can lead to mental and physiological instability.

Originally posted by Raideur
One does not have to let go if one does not attach themselves in the first place, now do they?

That's a person's perogative, an no one should look down on you if you choose not to get attached to anyone. However, I , as well as many others, believe that all good things in life are worth taking a risk to get. Loving a person is one of those things. Nothing in life is permanent, so if you're afraid of getting and enjoying things just because you'll eventually lose them, then what's the point?

Being attached to someone not only involves the loss, but also the constant, subconcious and concious commitment or love or attachment to them. You do not have a second in which you could be "free" of that fear of them dying or you somehow losing them, or that they will not be the same person. Its mostly a fear factor (pun).

I would rather replace that stress with the stress of repressing any attempts for attachment in the first place. It doesnt involve as much fear or incredibly harsh moments if something occurs.

Mind your emotions, they trick you into doing and love for the most insane reasons. Be fully aware.

Again, it seems that there is ample place for a middle ground approach.

We know that attachment causes most of our suffering.

But that doesn't necessarily imply that withholding all emotion is a better option; just as being in love doesn't have to imply that you're held hostage by fear or dread.

Similarly, you can experience grief, anger, love, joy, etc - without letting these emotions run wild and find yourself controlled by extremes.

Ridding ourselves of attachment doesn't mean we must ignore or suppress our emotions - it simply means that we acknowledge them for what they are (transient, impermanent things), and then deal with them accordingly.

We know that attachment causes most of our suffering.

Unessesary suffering I might add.

How can you ever be happy or at peace when your own mind fights itself?

Wow, don't you know or have you not experienced the loss of a loved-one or a person cared about?

Perhap's the thing is selfish in losing someone to someone but just the same I suppose I think the answer to your question is obvious.

Dallas

Originally posted by Raideur

We know that attachment causes most of our suffering.

Unessesary suffering I might add.

How can you ever be happy or at peace when your own mind fights itself?

Sounds like a survival skill learned the hard way. You must have really been hurt. I'm sorry.

Unessesary suffering I might add.

How can you ever be happy or at peace when your own mind fights itself?

You're making a vast assumption. Encountering emotion does not necessarily mean your mind is "fighting itself", by any means. On the contrary - emotions can often help us actually get beyond traumatic situations, and back on track to a much calmer, healthier existence. It's when we repress these emotions that the trouble usually starts.

I reiterate - it's not that black and white

I believe that mourning is the inability to have contact with someone who was important or close to you. When someone dies....you can't just call them on the telephone and talk to them when you want to.

When we don't know how to cope without someone.....that is mourning.

Emotions are the CAUSE of Trauma! They are the reason we become totally incapacitated for non-physical reasons.

We would never be inhibited again to do anything. We would be truly free to do what is the most rational, and that would be promoting the existance of the species. AKA Progress.

you need emotions. you just need to learn to control them instead of them controlling you. trauma's are caused because the individual is weak in mind and can't handle emotions.

when you hold something in your hand you can feel it. but you can't truly feel it without being in tune with your emotions. a lesson you'll learn eventually yourself.

Originally posted by Raideur
Emotions are the CAUSE of Trauma! They are the reason we become totally incapacitated for non-physical reasons.

I actually like this 'incapacitation' that you talk about. Life wouldn't be the same without it.

Originally posted by RaideurWe would never be inhibited again to do anything. We would be truly free to do what is the most rational, and that would be promoting the existance of the species. AKA Progress.

Please don't make me live here.

Grr...

Why is everyone afraid of a emotionless world!? They wouldn't even BE afraid in it, because fear is an emotion.