Geeks. Not exactly people who are good at talking about feelings.
I don't want to talk about feelings with my friends, let allone my acquaintances. I find it difficult and embarassing, especially when I am less than entirely happy. What I want to do is drink too much port/wine/mead and argue about how bright the gorram moon is/play bridge/listen to people talk about computers.
We're Brittish damn it. Stiff upper lip wot wot. Cope with your own damn feelings, I'll cope with mine.
No, I am not lonely when I am talking to people about interesting things. I enjoy talking to people about interesting things.
Why do I have to talk about my/their feelings with someone in order to care about them as a friend? Furthermore *if* I was going to do so then I would expect to do so in a much more private setting than infront of all my other friends - because this is an essentially private topic.
Fundamentally I view 'talking about feelings' as something that young children do because they have no idea what to do with them and that as you grow older and learn how to recognise, act on and cope with your own feelings that you should stop trying to get other people (and that includes professionals) to help with them, grow up and cope. Excepting that some people are unfortunate enough to develop illnesses which precludes this, in which case I suggest that prefessionals might be able to help but that I certainly don't think I could.
Your language seems to suggest that you see the existence of emotions as problems? For example, the way you talk about "coping" with them and being "able to help" with them?
An complimentary picture would be to see the expression of emotions as a part of the expression of your existence, a part of your extent within the universe, like the extent of your body, or the carry of your voice?
I think that public display or discussion of emotions is a problem. I would rather people didn't do it around me, I certainly am not going to do it myself if I can possibly avoid it. In private with partners or very close friends, people you can trust with all your secrets, then discussing these things can be helpful. But really, no, I don't see emotions as useful, I mostly think they get in the way of the rest of life - along with the other physical and mental limitations of the body I happen to inhabit.
I doubt it. I think what makes us capable of 'self' is our thoughts not our feelings. But really, I don't care. It's not as if I'm going to be able to turn myself into Mr Spock just because I think emotions are hugely inconvinient.
But even taking your premise I don't think that that means that we have to lay them out for the whole world to see!
I suspect the original person may be one of the many who are unfortunate enough to have the "wrong" emotions that hinder their daily life.
They are not an unalloyed good - while happiness is (tautologously) what makes us happy, uncontrolled anger and despair can destroy lives, and not just those of the person who feels them.
There is no such thing as a 'wrong' or a 'right' emotion. Emotions simply exist. They are by their nature and definition involuntary. It is our behaviours in response to those emotions that can both build and destroy lives. We cannot control our emotions (supressing them is dodgy - western philosophy, esp. Descartes has a bloody lot to answer for) but we can control our behaviour. It is vital to recognise the difference.
And to pass judgement as to the 'state' of the original person is patronising and possibly hurtful.
We cannot control our emotions (supressing them is dodgy - western philosophy, esp. Descartes has a bloody lot to answer for) but we can control our behaviour.
I disagree about 'cannot' but since I have not managed to do so I cannot comment on the outcome of doing so.
We can indeed control our behaviour, and we *should* control our behaviour. A lot of people seem to have forgotten this, and go arround acting like their emotional response to Thing X should be the driving force that decides whether Thing X is good or bad rather than a rational investigation of the benefits or otherwise of Thing X.
"Uncontrolled" almost anything can destroy, not only emotions, in the way that "too much" of everything is bad, for me that's just a language thing you're saying, not a subject thing.
I hope you don't mind me stating the following, if you don't like talking about emotions? Hopefully that's not so strong an objection, when considering emotions as a class. I'll try to explain my reasoning (which is really post-hoc rationalisation of how I'm reading this), so that you can refute it. I present them because presence connotes the corresponding absences, which are therefore lightly suggested.
The impression I get from the above is that you think that emotions are difficult to control, particularly negative ones.
I think this because I assume that you mean something non-tatuologous by saying "uncontrolled" can destroy, and the best meaning I could come up with was an implicit connotation of "the following have the feature of". Like when people say "I hate dismal accountants" to mean "accountants, who are dismal", not "those accountants who are dismal", as nobody likes dismal anythings.
I get the impression that you believe that emotions are principally the property and responsibility of the person experiencing them.
I think this because of the way you use "feels" in that last paragraph, which has very much an "owns" structure for me. (Try substituting "feels" for "owns"). This is because you say "just", which distinguishes the person feeling them from others, and also suggests that the feeling person may be closer, in an ownership or control sense, to those emotions as, assuming a vaguely liberal framework, we are more permitted to do much more which might otherwise be seen as destructive to us and our own.
I think the stereotype is incorrect. There are actually quite a few geeks who like talking on the emotional level given enough beer, a quite corner and a sympathetic ear.
I think there's an odd thing where geeks tend to socialise in spaces they create where they don't talk about emotions: it seems to be more of a "geek space" thing than a "geek person" thing.
I took the original comment to mean 'geeks should discuss emotions in large groups at, say, parties'. Quite why anyone would want to do that I don't know since whilst I'm happy to talk nonsence with everyone in the SGO I certainly don't want all of them knowing intimate details about my life!
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
ewx
(no subject)
Date: 2007-01-11 10:00 am (UTC)I don't want to talk about feelings with my friends, let allone my acquaintances. I find it difficult and embarassing, especially when I am less than entirely happy. What I want to do is drink too much port/wine/mead and argue about how bright the gorram moon is/play bridge/listen to people talk about computers.
We're Brittish damn it. Stiff upper lip wot wot. Cope with your own damn feelings, I'll cope with mine.
(no subject)
Date: 2007-01-11 10:25 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2007-01-11 10:38 am (UTC)Why do I have to talk about my/their feelings with someone in order to care about them as a friend? Furthermore *if* I was going to do so then I would expect to do so in a much more private setting than infront of all my other friends - because this is an essentially private topic.
Fundamentally I view 'talking about feelings' as something that young children do because they have no idea what to do with them and that as you grow older and learn how to recognise, act on and cope with your own feelings that you should stop trying to get other people (and that includes professionals) to help with them, grow up and cope. Excepting that some people are unfortunate enough to develop illnesses which precludes this, in which case I suggest that prefessionals might be able to help but that I certainly don't think I could.
(no subject)
Date: 2007-01-11 12:49 pm (UTC)An complimentary picture would be to see the expression of emotions as a part of the expression of your existence, a part of your extent within the universe, like the extent of your body, or the carry of your voice?
(no subject)
Date: 2007-01-11 12:56 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2007-01-11 01:20 pm (UTC)Oh how droll - just gone to post this and lj came up with an error and asked me to confirm that I am a human.
(no subject)
Date: 2007-01-11 01:26 pm (UTC)But even taking your premise I don't think that that means that we have to lay them out for the whole world to see!
(no subject)
Date: 2007-01-11 03:39 pm (UTC)But what makes us care about our selfness? Without feelings there wouldn't be much point to the thoughts...
(no subject)
Date: 2007-01-11 02:35 pm (UTC)They are not an unalloyed good - while happiness is (tautologously) what makes us happy, uncontrolled anger and despair can destroy lives, and not just those of the person who feels them.
(no subject)
Date: 2007-01-11 03:42 pm (UTC)And to pass judgement as to the 'state' of the original person is patronising and possibly hurtful.
(no subject)
Date: 2007-01-11 03:50 pm (UTC)I disagree about 'cannot' but since I have not managed to do so I cannot comment on the outcome of doing so.
We can indeed control our behaviour, and we *should* control our behaviour. A lot of people seem to have forgotten this, and go arround acting like their emotional response to Thing X should be the driving force that decides whether Thing X is good or bad rather than a rational investigation of the benefits or otherwise of Thing X.
(no subject)
Date: 2007-01-11 10:14 pm (UTC)I hope you don't mind me stating the following, if you don't like talking about emotions? Hopefully that's not so strong an objection, when considering emotions as a class. I'll try to explain my reasoning (which is really post-hoc rationalisation of how I'm reading this), so that you can refute it. I present them because presence connotes the corresponding absences, which are therefore lightly suggested.
The impression I get from the above is that you think that emotions are difficult to control, particularly negative ones.
I think this because I assume that you mean something non-tatuologous by saying "uncontrolled" can destroy, and the best meaning I could come up with was an implicit connotation of "the following have the feature of". Like when people say "I hate dismal accountants" to mean "accountants, who are dismal", not "those accountants who are dismal", as nobody likes dismal anythings.
I get the impression that you believe that emotions are principally the property and responsibility of the person experiencing them.
I think this because of the way you use "feels" in that last paragraph, which has very much an "owns" structure for me. (Try substituting "feels" for "owns"). This is because you say "just", which distinguishes the person feeling them from others, and also suggests that the feeling person may be closer, in an ownership or control sense, to those emotions as, assuming a vaguely liberal framework, we are more permitted to do much more which might otherwise be seen as destructive to us and our own.
There is other stuff, but I'm waffling.
(no subject)
Date: 2007-01-11 10:36 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2007-01-11 12:51 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2007-01-11 12:58 pm (UTC)I took the original comment to mean 'geeks should discuss emotions in large groups at, say, parties'. Quite why anyone would want to do that I don't know since whilst I'm happy to talk nonsence with everyone in the SGO I certainly don't want all of them knowing intimate details about my life!