I have a question about emotions

[horvay]

My question is one on emotions. I am not talking about removing emotions because that would of course go against human nature and one would lose out on many important things by doing that. What I am saying is just decreasing the scale of negative emotions. Instead of someone crying when someone important to them dies, just feel pretty sad (but not to the point where one would cry). This is of course just for negative emotions.

If I were to put it into more graphical terms: The X-Axis would be the level of drama that happens while the Y-Axis would be the level of sadness one feels while going through said drama (assuming it is drama that has a reasonable reason to make one sad). So what I am asking is, why would one want a curve that is y=5x when one could have a curve that is y=x?

Is it really possible to change the intensity of emotions? If it is, would it be a good thing to lower the over all intensity of negative emotions? Of course one would want variation still so they could understand the level that they are feeling, but why not make less variation?

[Mimpy]

The extent of negative emotion you feel stems from the amount of value you place on the object/person/concept. To change your emotions, you would have to re-arrange to what extent you value things. For example, I wouldn't cry if my neighbor unfortunately passed away because I hardly know him. I would, however, probably be sad about it. If it were a close friend, I would obviously be more emotional because that friend is of a greater value to me than my neighbor whom I hardly know.

Also, you cannot shift your negative emotions without affecting your positive ones, as well. If you would not be as sad when someone of great value passed away, then you wouldn't be just that much exhilarated that they (or someone else of the like) were alive and with you.

[KendallJ]

Hi Greg,

I'm not sure what you mean by drama vs. sadness. Can you give an example?

My first response is that strength of emotion, as Mimpy says should be in proportion to the value heirarchy you hold. If you lost your top value (say like a spouse), I would worry about you if you didn't feel extreme emotion.

[John McVey]

Is it really possible to change the intensity of emotions?

As a theory, qualifiedly yes. In practice, it would be difficult, depending on what one is having the emotion about. The depth of the origin of a response to something could be as simple as an idea that you hold strongly, which would require you to change what you believe and internalise the change over time, or it could be as really deep-seated as an entire history of a relation to something. Philosophy can give guides, but what it guides in this regard is psychology as it is the psychologist who has responsibility for sorting this out and putting it into clinical practice. I wont say much else other than if the matter is important to you then try to find a good psychologist, such as Dr Hurd or Dr Kenner.

If it is, would it be a good thing to lower the over all intensity of negative emotions?

That depends on what you're responding to, why, how strongly, and is it interfering with your ability to function. Beyond that, it's an issue for you and your therapist to sort out, not philosophy and certainly not a semi-casual discussion board. I will say, however, that there is no reason to think there's something wrong with you merely for the fact that you have intense emotions.

JJM

[DavidOdden]

It actually sounds like you're comparing outward realizations of the emotion versus the psychological state that the acts reflect, which then are related to the value of the thing lost. That is, when a loved one dies, the emotion that you feel may be extremely intense, but does that level of feeling translate directly into acts like crying (in way way, for how long) and shrieking.

It's psychologically healthy to have a good cry when a parent or spouse dies, as an overt recognition of the fact of loss. I think some people over-react in a "Now my life is over there is nothing left for me as a human I must act like an animal" fashion. (Although, note that animals don't grieve the way humans do -- dogs don't cry when their fur-brother is snuffed). But the standards of drama are individually chosen (no doubt with help from the surrounding culture), and the "level of drama" should reflect reality. I would venture to say that in Scandinavia, people are less outwardly dramatic about loss, perhaps reflecting the view that their mental state is not the business of the public; whereas on the lovely island of Ukerewe in Tanzania, a death is commemorated with a major two-day public performance of ritual sobbing, and then they get on with their business. The question one ought to ask is whether a particular display of emotion is honest or not. Trying to appear to not care that your beloved wife was just killed in a car accident is pointless and I'd even say evil. But I don't see any way to relate the sum of external physical responses to an objective "scale of loss", without considering the cultural context.

[Ifat Glassman]

I would like to first examine the cause and source of emotions before attempting to discuss the methods of lowering an emotion's intensity, and whether they are good or bad;

Emotions are the result of a person's subconscious value-judgement of reality, according to their standard of values, their premises, and the knowledge of reality which they have.

Emotions are experienced more strongly when that knowledge which triggers them is under one's mental focus at a specific moment in time.

A person can choose their mental focus, and therefor they have the ability to lower the intensity of an emotion.

The question what should be under one's mental focus is: That which contributes to one's life and happiness.

If some event triggers a negative emotion, and a person has a choice about having focus on the event or not,

it is good to have it under one's focus as long as doing so helps solve the problem.

As for positive emotions: it is good to focus on the facts that trigger them as long as doing so does not collides with a higher value.

There are 4 factors involved in triggering emotions:

1) One's knowledge of reality

2) One's premises which he uses to deduct more facts from given knowledge

3) One's values

4) The automatic mechanism in our brain that attaches certain emotions to certain basic ideas (pain with loss, happiness with achieving one's values).

Man has control over 1,2 and 3:

1) Man determines his method of gaining knowledge from reality, and by that has control over the accuracy of one's knowledge.

2) Man determines his method of validating his knowledge (if at all) and by that has control over his premises.

3) Man has control over those things through shaping one's philosophy.

Man does not have control over his emotions in the time course of an immediate moment: As long as one has certain facts (or knowledge) under one's mental focus, and as long as one has a certain value-judgement, one's emotions are produced automatically. It is only in the long term that one can decide what to do next and by that controlling their emotion. (long term can be a second after one has first had their mental focus on that thing which triggered some emotion).

Man can have control over their emotions in the long-term by deciding to ignore reality (or correct their knowledge), pretend reality is something other than what it is, by choosing premises which would cancel out the emotion (but which are not necessarily validated), and by changing their hierarchy of values.

Needless to say, morality determines that 1, 2 and 3 have to be done by reason, mental integration of one's knowledge, and by observing reality.

If one experiences a negative emotion that has a justified cause, one should not simply repress that negative emotion: Such an action ruins the mind. Repression is the act of shifting one's mental focus into something not disturbing, even when there is a necessity to focus on that thing, sometimes accomplished by lying to oneself about the existence of that event, which is denial.

The only proper way to control emotions by shifting one's focus is if there is no more value to be gained by having the details of the event under one's focus, and if one indeed has full understanding of the event.

[Matus1976]

The question what should be under one's mental focus is: That which contributes to one's life and happiness.

If some event triggers a negative emotion, and a person has a choice about having focus on the event or not,

it is good to have it under one's focus as long as doing so helps solve the problem.

Good post, but in the case of the death of a loved one, focusing on the death mentally can not promote ones happiness, it doesnt help solve the problem (that people die) so how long ought we focus on the death of a loved one?

[horvay]

Thanks for your replies. I was not thinking about me when I made this post, but rather, someone else close to me. I suppose it could relate to me but in an opposite way: I sometimes value things less than I reasonably think I should, and therefor have a weaker emotion. It is something I should watch out for.

To answer my own question: no, one can not change thier emotion according to the graph I depicted. Thinking about a better way to ask it now, I would say: a graph with emotion vs value (for negative emotions).

There are 4 factors involved in triggering emotions:

1) One's knowledge of reality

2) One's premises which he uses to deduct more facts from given knowledge

3) One's values

4) The automatic mechanism in our brain that attaches certain emotions to certain basic ideas (pain with loss, happiness with achieving one's values).

What I was asking originally was if one could change number 4. So as Ifatart said, and I agree with, one cannot.

[Ifat Glassman]

Good post, but in the case of the death of a loved one, focusing on the death mentally can not promote ones happiness, it doesn't help solve the problem (that people die) so how long ought we focus on the death of a loved one?

I never had experience with this, so the only answer I can give that would personally guide me is: This about it as long as some value can be gained by it, or if not thinking about it may lead to a loss of value.

For example: if the person who died was a source of great inspiration for me, yet we did not spend too much time together, I suppose that thinking about them will bring more value than the negative emotion of missing them. So the value gained by thinking of them outweighs the possible feeling of feeling sorry for their death.

Another example: if the only thing I can do to make myself stop thinking about them (assuming we spent so much time together that most values in my life were shared with this person) is to destroy my mind by suppressing constantly, then allowing myself to feel the sorrow is better than not feeling it, but destroying my mind in the process.

What I was asking originally was if one could change number 4. So as Ifatart said, and I agree with, one cannot.

What? Like a brain operation? I can recommend you someone with experience in performing those .

BTW, how funny would it be to have someone with a negative slope? The heigher the value lost, the more happy the person becomes? Or how about a person with a flat line? Emotions=0 for all x

[Moebius]

Is it really possible to change the intensity of emotions? If it is, would it be a good thing to lower the over all intensity of negative emotions? Of course one would want variation still so they could understand the level that they are feeling, but why not make less variation?

Just out of curiosity - are you for or against amplifying positive emotions, if it were possible?

Why and why not?

[horvay]

BTW, how funny would it be to have someone with a negative slope? The heigher the value lost, the more happy the person becomes? Or how about a person with a flat line? Emotions=0 for all x

Sometimes I think this is true. I used to have a friend who would always do what caused him more pain. He told me that his girlfriend does not make him happy -- next thing I know, they are getting married. At one point he went around looking at horrible gross accidents and things on the web. While he probably doesn't really have a negative slope, its probably just some self sacrifice poop. (though he isn't religious.)

Just out of curiosity - are you for or against amplifying positive emotions, if it were possible?

Why and why not?

If it were possible, I would see nothing wrong as long as the emotion does not get in the way of gaining value, being productive, and thinking straight consciously.