Emotional Regulation

Emotional Regulation Ok.
A modern term, but Stoic methods work.

Emotions are automatic reactions to situations.
Stoic, we react, not to the situation,
but to what we think about the situation.

There is a space between the situation
and our reaction; insert filter.
Stoic- we feel the emotions,
but we react with reason.




Anger is something getting in the way
of our expectations.
Stoic, expect what happens.
Expect what typically happens,
in traffic, the aggressive assholes,
and the road slugs.

Stoic, natural human development
is from emotional to rational.
Encourage development of rational
approaches to emotional situations.

Stoic, some things are up to us,
and some are not. Our judgements,
our opinions, and some violations
are up to us. As we become more
rational, our desires, aversions, delusions,
and the like become up to us.
Our body, and everything outside
us is not up to us.
We can influence some things
by our actions, and more
can be influenced by others,
but there is much
that we have no influence on.
The weather, earth and it's events,
the physical world.

Boredom is lack of interest
in the world around us.

Obsession, a natural characteristic

Obsession, is a natural characteristic.
Now, do I want to keep practicing this
or let the whole characteristic
fall to the ground, to cast it off,
like an old coat?

There is a space between
stimulus and response.
I can add to the Epictetus filter
that I have slipped into that space,
but then, nothing get through.

Without obsession,
will anything get done?
My life has been driven
by a series of obsessions.
There never has been a reason
to do any of the thing I have done
beyond the need, desire,
obsession for money,
and the things money provides.

I never wanted,
beyond the potential for money,
to do engineering,
to dig holes,
to solve problem others created,
to provide solutions
before others knew they had a problem.

Lack of desire, or what?
Is obsession just a fixation on a issue,
without a reason.
Or with a reason?
A solution must be found.
Just supply the problem.
This sounds like obsession.

Perhaps the Epictetus filter
need a few holes in it.
To allow engineering like problems in.

But for today, with family,
I am just a mushroom:
kept in the dark,
fed shit.
It is none of my concern.

Emotional to Rational

The human population is seldom either emotional or rational, but rather a mix of the two extremes. If we could truly measure this characteristic, what would we find?

I expect we would find something that looks like a normal distribution folded in half. A few high emotional, and a few high rational, and most of us in the middle.

What difference does this make? Well, if we were rationally driven, we could follow a diet without issue. But we cannot, therefore we are emotionally driven, when we fail. Add physiological in with the emotional, and we are in good shape. The model behaves as people.

Now the problem is that it is rational to set up a diet, and then say those that are unable to follow it have a philosophical, psychological, or physiological problem, but never accepting the issue that 50% of the people are not predominantly rational. So the diet industry is based on a non-understanding of people, so the failure rate will be high. Yes, exactly as we see.

Now how does one get hold of directing the emotional part of oneself? Adopt a god is one method. Adopt a philosophy, and convince the emotional part that it should be followed. Not so easy.
But we can also lever off our beliefs, bend behavior. Some things are just not food works. But that alone may not be enough. Perhaps we need a purpose bigger than ourselves, that we become obsessed with, regardless of what that purpose is. Perhaps it is understanding this disease, and understanding a solution, and describing that solution without resorting to a god for a solution.

Each time we go through this model, more is added, or refined. sooner or later it will all become clear. As we age, we may become more rational as well; hence, age out of the problem.

I think that we are reluctant to admit that we are emotionally based and are unable to consistently and committedly able to follow a rational plan of eating, aka a diet. We cannot be rational and still hang on to religion, so as long as we have religion, emotional govern people. This is beyond the issues of setting up and measuring food energy in a useful way.

Starting with the Bottom Line

Intentional living is any lifestyle based on an individual or group's conscious attempts to live according to their values and beliefs. These can include lifestyles based on religious or ethical values, as well as coaching, personal transformation, and leadership training. These are often expressed by living in a community with other like-minded people, claiming higher satisfaction, and more sustainable future.

Ok, so we have living by some principal. Frugal, green, self-sufficient - more or less, subsistence farming, why not Stoic, or Epicurean principles; but living with an underlying purpose. It is that purpose that provides the motivation. So how is this different from an action plan ? Or from Smart - life balance? Or really, goal setting? It is placing some emotional value on some future desired result, and then using that to lever motivation. We need to know where we want to end up at, the bottom line.

I was at a OA meeting last night and the subject was step 7. It once again struck me the negative aspects of the term "character defects". These are characteristics that I must stop practicing. I do not know whether the outcome will be negative or positive. Being overly chatty and other verbal diarrhea can be corrected by silence and walking away with a smile on my face. Practicing saying less, cutting to the bottom line, starting with the bottom line, may be a better way to live.

Negative visualization for today: Some of the drivers today will be aggressive assholes, just as the wind blows crap around. It is nothing to do with me. Just smile and let it all go.      

Spiritual or Philosophical Development

One thing that is absent in the steps but many of us have found necessary for continued development is a ongoing commitment and effort to develop spiritually or philosophically. Step 11 suggests that we need to work on improving contact, but nowhere is there any suggestion that ongoing development is necessary, until we read the book, or AA comes of age, and then we see that the whole program is about spiritual development. The steps are just the starting point.

For those of us who do not profess to follow a god, we must learn something of what a god would have us do and do it, because it is simply right to do right. We may subscribe to doing what it is natural for us humans to do, or what we may define as our purpose inside the greater purpose of humanity.

It may be the purpose of humanity to grow and prosper, to create and support creation, but we are also rational beings. We should accept that there is a limit to growth given finite resources, and we may be beyond sustainable, without shortages. There is likely poor, good and better ways of doing things, of relationships, of speaking, of acting, and of making a living. There are as likely wrong, better and best known ways to thinking, of knowledge, of intents, and attitudes. And to go along with this, effort, concentration and attention or mindfulness.

Some thing are up to us and some are not. Our judgements, opinions, volitions, thoughts, ideas, beliefs, values and the like are up to us. If we are a highly rational person, our desires, expectations, delusions, aversions and like are up to us. That which is not up to us is beyond our control and is therefore none of our concern. Our bodies are beyond our control, but we do have influence over what we put into them, but not over physiological cravings. We can use our volitions to leave the scene of eating when necessary, and hide out elsewhere, as a last resort to eating, while learning other methods of handling the problems.

The Original Sin

Eve was the first recorded overeater; she took the apple. I am non-religious, not anti religions, and certainly not christian. I prefer a magpie approach, pick the shiney bits, and leave the rest. I do beleive that the concept of the original sin is wrong, not a shiney bit. Eve caved to temptation, or was it greed or envy, I do not remember what the old preacher said, but I think the original sin was pushing the apple at Eve. Had the Christians defined sin as pushing products rather than the weakness of needing or accepting produces, we would not have the issue of obesity today. Today, I choose to define sin, or lack of virtue as pushing food on others. I will not cook for other beyond family, and will not offer that which I do not think it is proper to eat, either quality or quantity.

Note that they, christians, defined accepting a product to fill a physiological need as sin. Their concept of god created the need for food, and accepting a solution, food, is sin... not rational, I think. Just like computer virus companies today.

So is the original evil to offer food to others? So what happened to do no evil?

This simple change in philosophy would destroy the advertising industry, or at least beyond a low pressure offering of there products. It would also change the way sales are conducted, it would be on the effort of the buyer to find products, that would likely be produced on demand, not ready for purchase. Middle quality, rational supply, Custom built if you prefer. We would need to order groceries ahead, not make the choice at the store or refrigerator. Is there room for an empty fridge diet? Or perhaps the only freshly cooked food diet.

Oh, well, are philosophy and definitions necessary in our life today?