New Step by Step Guide - Emotional Force Strategies (not a professional)

 
kevergar
 
Avatar
 
 
kevergar
Total Posts:  32
Joined  21-06-2019
 
 
 
25 June 2019 17:55
 

1. I am arguing that every emotion that is occurring in the mind is basically a force or/and acts like a force.

2.  It is possible to control forces for a benefit. Such as redirecting a stream to get water to a village.


3. In the same way that you can redirect the force of water you can redirect emotions (they act like a force) in the mind to one’s own benefit and there are strategies to do this.

4. We need to start using the force of emotions to our advantage assuming emotions act like a force in the mind.

5. The strategies give a structure for the user to direct emotions more effectively for the purpose of making the user feel better (emotionally satisfied).

6. This is an internal ‘practice’ for the mind.

7. The goal is to generate more positive emotional forces in the mind

8. The strategies are designed to help with step 7:

1. Guide the force of the emotion without blocking it ex. Redirecting a flowing stream in some way (left, right, up, down)
2. Move mind with the flow of the emotion without resisting emotions pull ex. Going down along a flowing stream on a inner-tube
3. Block an emotional force with the mind
4. Practicing letting go of the negative force of an emotion
5. Not fighting when an emotion is excessively hurtful to resist

9.  The strategies can be used from moment to moment to act as a kind of meditation for the mind and switched depending on the user’s feelings.

10.  In theory, responding better to complicated emotions with the help of the strategies can train the mind to feel better and rationalize better.

 
Jb8989
 
Avatar
 
 
Jb8989
Total Posts:  6373
Joined  31-01-2012
 
 
 
26 June 2019 06:23
 

I think that another problem you’re going to run into is that with advanacements in neurology, science is beginning to understand emotions as increasingly physical (e.g areas of the brain associated with emotional reactions). Psychologists are trying to square this with the inception of labeling emotions, which came from this long-held idea that if you put a name to a feeling, it can help that feeling become less overwhelming. The idea was that pain can start to feel a bit more manageable once you’ve pinned the feeling down and named it. Simply lumping them all into the category of forces seems like it’s going in the other direction. Like more toward how society used to deny their influence on our cognition. Maybe that’s it; I think maybe it would promote denial and delusional thinking over time as one gets better as forcing positivism. Even if we wanted to pause to reflect and embrace other non positive but also important feelings, I think the natural progression in your model would work against yourself in that regard. And if not, then you’re still circling back to something that would look more like positive thought power.

[ Edited: 26 June 2019 06:25 by Jb8989]
 
 
kevergar
 
Avatar
 
 
kevergar
Total Posts:  32
Joined  21-06-2019
 
 
 
26 June 2019 09:49
 
Jb8989 - 26 June 2019 06:23 AM

I think that another problem you’re going to run into is that with advanacements in neurology, science is beginning to understand emotions as increasingly physical (e.g areas of the brain associated with emotional reactions). Psychologists are trying to square this with the inception of labeling emotions, which came from this long-held idea that if you put a name to a feeling, it can help that feeling become less overwhelming. The idea was that pain can start to feel a bit more manageable once you’ve pinned the feeling down and named it. Simply lumping them all into the category of forces seems like it’s going in the other direction. Like more toward how society used to deny their influence on our cognition. Maybe that’s it; I think maybe it would promote denial and delusional thinking over time as one gets better as forcing positivism. Even if we wanted to pause to reflect and embrace other non positive but also important feelings, I think the natural progression in your model would work against yourself in that regard. And if not, then you’re still circling back to something that would look more like positive thought power.

The reason that I wanted to point out emotions act like a force is to get the reader to start thinking in that way about their emotions. Of course there are so many different kinds of forces that we have identified in the physical world and those forces can be very complicated just as emotions can be very complicated.

And in the physical world we have yet to harness a lot of forces because either we don’t know how or we don’t have enough power to do it. I think the mind works in a similar way around certain emotions. The strategies are an attempt to get a foothold so to speak to control and redirect emotions to ones own benefit.

I think the practice actually strikes quite a nice balance between emotions and rationalizing so I think it would actually reduce denial and delusional thinking over time(not a professional) . Not perfect but a step in the right direction.

I’m not quite sure what your definition on ‘positive thought power’ is but I just see it as simply thinking better for oneself and for those around her/him.

 
Jb8989
 
Avatar
 
 
Jb8989
Total Posts:  6373
Joined  31-01-2012
 
 
 
26 June 2019 11:14
 
kevergar - 26 June 2019 09:49 AM

I’m not quite sure what your definition on ‘positive thought power’ is but I just see it as simply thinking better for oneself and for those around her/him.

Positive thinking is supposed to change how you perceive things and therefore feel about what you’re perceiving. Which is pretty much your reality in any given moment. You seem to be talking about a unilateral emotional force that I’m not sure exists in a vacuum.

 
 
TheAnal_lyticPhilosopher
 
Avatar
 
 
TheAnal_lyticPhilosopher
Total Posts:  916
Joined  13-02-2017
 
 
 
27 June 2019 03:48
 

You have an interesting take here, and in the spirit of candid criticism, I think you would be better off using a notion like “constructive engagement” for emotion than “force.”  This has the benefit, I think, of capturing how we (in part) construct our own emotions that act as ways of engaging with the world, even as it leaves room open for them to have an intelligence (a “force” does not have any intelligence, but emotions do).  In any case, you might be interested in Cognitive Behavior Therapy as a professional analog to what you describe, as it too emphasizes the ability and need to re-direct emotions, though unlike you it postulates the mediating mechanism of thoughts, not simply re-directing force per se.

 
kevergar
 
Avatar
 
 
kevergar
Total Posts:  32
Joined  21-06-2019
 
 
 
27 June 2019 10:22
 
TheAnal_lyticPhilosopher - 27 June 2019 03:48 AM

You have an interesting take here, and in the spirit of candid criticism, I think you would be better off using a notion like “constructive engagement” for emotion than “force.”  This has the benefit, I think, of capturing how we (in part) construct our own emotions that act as ways of engaging with the world, even as it leaves room open for them to have an intelligence (a “force” does not have any intelligence, but emotions do).  In any case, you might be interested in Cognitive Behavior Therapy as a professional analog to what you describe, as it too emphasizes the ability and need to re-direct emotions, though unlike you it postulates the mediating mechanism of thoughts, not simply re-directing force per se.

I’m not sure you agree with me on how important it is to recognize emotions that we are feeling as being essentially different kinds of forces. The key idea to keep in mind is the realization that we can control forces directly(even emotions). It’s about cutting to the chase with emotions and dealing with them directly just as you would deal with physical forces directly in the outside world if you wanted to get anything done.

So another way to think about it is to use the strategies to deal with emotions in a more ‘tangible’ way.

Also, there are probably many more complicated strategies to go about directing emotions effectively, but the ones I have mentioned seem to be the most accessible for human minds.

 

[ Edited: 27 June 2019 11:37 by kevergar]
 
kevergar
 
Avatar
 
 
kevergar
Total Posts:  32
Joined  21-06-2019
 
 
 
27 June 2019 11:41
 

If anyone wants to argue with me about the utility and/or potential drawbacks of the mentioned strategies I am willing to discuss that.

 
Jb8989
 
Avatar
 
 
Jb8989
Total Posts:  6373
Joined  31-01-2012
 
 
 
28 June 2019 09:48
 
kevergar - 27 June 2019 11:41 AM

If anyone wants to argue with me about the utility and/or potential drawbacks of the mentioned strategies I am willing to discuss that.

The utility of positivism is clear. But just vaguely, you said that you want people to THINK about their feelings like a force. So you see an early element of your strategy has a built in mantra - for lack of a better word. I’m not saying that it’s a bad one, but historically mantras have had the tendency of creating unnecessary axioms. I’m for many mantras, just not one.

Incidentally, what’s the difference between your strategy and this?: (i) Collecting all the facts as objectively as possible without forgetting that we’re inherently biased, (ii) analyzing them, (iii) making an informed decision about how to proceed good or bad, and finally (iv) choosing to attack it with positivism.

 
 
kevergar
 
Avatar
 
 
kevergar
Total Posts:  32
Joined  21-06-2019
 
 
 
28 June 2019 11:58
 
Jb8989 - 28 June 2019 09:48 AM
kevergar - 27 June 2019 11:41 AM

If anyone wants to argue with me about the utility and/or potential drawbacks of the mentioned strategies I am willing to discuss that.

The utility of positivism is clear. But just vaguely, you said that you want people to THINK about their feelings like a force. So you see an early element of your strategy has a built in mantra - for lack of a better word. I’m not saying that it’s a bad one, but historically mantras have had the tendency of creating unnecessary axioms. I’m for many mantras, just not one.

Incidentally, what’s the difference between your strategy and this?: (i) Collecting all the facts as objectively as possible without forgetting that we’re inherently biased, (ii) analyzing them, (iii) making an informed decision about how to proceed good or bad, and finally (iv) choosing to attack it with positivism.

So for the first part i’m arguing that emotions are ‘forces’ or act like forces inherently. In other words, it’s just the way it is. it’s not an unnecessary axiom. It’s further getting to the root of how emotions work, and i’m saying from that understanding we can change the strategies on how to handle emotions better. I don’t think you can just lump it together with ‘mantras’ really.

 

 

[ Edited: 28 June 2019 12:18 by kevergar]
 
Jb8989
 
Avatar
 
 
Jb8989
Total Posts:  6373
Joined  31-01-2012
 
 
 
28 June 2019 12:24
 
kevergar - 28 June 2019 11:58 AM

So for the first part i’m arguing that emotions are ‘forces’ or act like forces and that’s just the way it is. In other words, it’s the way that emotions work inherently.

I disagree. Emotions aren’t as static as you think. They don’t by themselves behave. For most people they don’t even register. But for those who are aware of how they’re feeling, that level of self- awareness is equally a product of cognition. It’s somewhat meditative, but it’s an intellectual process nonetheless to attend to a felt sense with accuracy ( anger, joy, frustration or whatever). Once there, they don’t all inherently do the same thing.

kevergar - 28 June 2019 11:58 AM

It’s not an unnecessary axiom. It’s further getting to the root of how emotions work, and i’m saying from that understanding we can change the strategies on how to handle emotions better. I don’t think you can just lump it together with ‘mantras’ really.

For the above reasons, I think that it’s forcing them into a root.

 

[ Edited: 28 June 2019 12:30 by Jb8989]
 
 
kevergar
 
Avatar
 
 
kevergar
Total Posts:  32
Joined  21-06-2019
 
 
 
28 June 2019 12:36
 
Jb8989 - 28 June 2019 12:24 PM
kevergar - 28 June 2019 11:58 AM

So for the first part i’m arguing that emotions are ‘forces’ or act like forces and that’s just the way it is. In other words, it’s the way that emotions work inherently.

I disagree. Emotions aren’t as static as you think. They don’t by themselves behave. For most people they don’t even register. But for those who are aware of how they’re feeling, that level of self- awareness is equally a product of cognition. It’s somewhat meditative, but it’s an intellectual process nonetheless to attend to a felt sense with accuracy ( anger, joy, frustration or whatever). Once there, they don’t all inherently do the same thing.

kevergar - 28 June 2019 11:58 AM

It’s not an unnecessary axiom. It’s further getting to the root of how emotions work, and i’m saying from that understanding we can change the strategies on how to handle emotions better. I don’t think you can just lump it together with ‘mantras’ really.

For the above reasons, I think that it’s forcing them into a root.

 

I’m not arguing emotions are static, I am arguing emotions are forces.

I agree with you about attending to emotions accurately, and I would also say that it is important to attend to ones own emotions productively for growth.

 
Jb8989
 
Avatar
 
 
Jb8989
Total Posts:  6373
Joined  31-01-2012
 
 
 
28 June 2019 14:29
 
kevergar - 28 June 2019 12:36 PM

I’m not arguing emotions are static, I am arguing emotions are forces.

Okay that’s fine. I won’t derail the thread anymore. I’ll leave you with this: How we feel about things can shift good or bad based off our overall perceptions, which generally also involve memory and thought. Like a stew. Try to control for just one thing and the other ingrediant overcompensate, and not always in the best way.