Posted by Gabbi-x-2 on May 22, 2005, at 23:47:35
In reply to Re: Gabbi, posted by alexandra_k on May 22, 2005, at 21:53:51
> > I've been well schooled in that, and I do know the semantic difference, but as I said, most people I speak to, except those who've been in therapy, don't interpret the two any differently,long as there is and "I feel" or "I find" in front of it it's assumed it's personal, and not a generalization.
>
> Yeah. The distinction only becomes important when one is very upset, I guess. Or (I would like to maintain in my thesis) when one is delusional...
>
> > Nothing is inevitable though, much of what people find *offensive* in general, and in the civility rules is societally influenced and people would be just as *offended* if society deemed the opposite to be offensive.
>
> Well... I think it is fairly clear when someone is being accused or attacked... Maybe human beings (in general - of all cultures) are similar enough (on some level of abstraction) to be able to talk about 'inevitable human responses'. At least... It would help the notion of 'objective' (read 'inter-subjective') ethics if that was indeed the case...
>
> >That I find to be contradictory to "owning emotions" and that is what bothered me. The statement that somehow if you owned your emotions then this particular thing wouldn't bother you.
>
> Wouldn't bother you AS MUCH. That was the key there. It wouldn't bother you AS MUCH. It still might bother you enough so that you are better off avoiding the poster... But not enough to get really upset about it and risk lashing out at the poster.Oh was there an "as much" in there? Shame on me, it didn't register, and it does make a huge difference.
>
> > I don't think story is a good word.
>
> Ah. I think working out 'intentions' and 'reasons' is a process of narrative construction (aka 'story'). There are different options... Different ways we can construe the 'story'. If you ask 'but what REALLY happened??? What is the TRUE story???' then there isn't really an answer. There isn't really a fact of the matter (the process of interpretation is irreducibly underdetermined - and there is a fundamental indeterminacy). What that means is that (IMO) we are best off to employ the 'principle of charity' to construct the most 'helpful' story. In the sense that you can't change the facts - but there is a lot of leeway in the interpretation of the facts. If consider different interpretations then we find that some of those interpretations lead to us feeling bad - and others lead to us feeling much better about ourselves and others. IMO one is better off picking the interpretation that has the good consequences. It just makes life a whole heap nicer.Definitely, erring on the side of compassion, (if there is an "err")
And yes, I took story to be "telling yourself a story" as in kidding yourself. That makes a big difference too.
>
> > However, there have been other posters who have annoyed me, and no matter what I tried to convince myself I could not believe that they were not being rude. So I don't think it's something everyone can do. You need to believe it, otherwise it's insincere and that's no good to anyone. I think it would be more honorable to just ignore the person.
>
> Yes.
> Maybe it would be helpful to post to a 'buddy' who might be able to help you out there with respect to 'charity'???Oh of course, or to let off steam. Someone may offend me, but honestly usually I don't think what I feel in that regard is that important.
So someone offends me.. I'll deal with it. I don't necessarily try to make myself think positively about it, unless I truly believe they have good intentions. Of course it's not up to me to judge that, but it's been dangerous to me to always override my feelings. That's another reason I dislike C.B.T.When I worked in a group home with violent clients I was forever suppressing the natural urge to get angry. Eventually I accepted abuse in my personal life as well, and became unable to know what I was feeling.
I still haven't recovered from that, and I value my emotional reactions. When I intellectualize them to the point that they are not emotions, It may at times minimize the negative but I automatically negate the good as well, and that in itself is negative.>
> You are welcome, have anotherI do think I will.
(((Alex)))
: )
>
>
>
>
poster:Gabbi-x-2
thread:500533
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20050517/msgs/501520.html