Re: Re: Introductions

> Sure you can control them. Many of them, anyway. An impulse that is out of
> control is one that operates as a reflex. What you can do is reprogram
> your reflexes, through practice, or insert a universal reflex, such as
> taking a breath, that gives you a moment to reflect.

I agree here, that there is control in a broader sense. I've taken to using
the term influence instead of control. I think I'm imposing on the
definitions, but I use 'control' to mean something I can immediately
manipulate and 'influence' to mean something I can have effect change on
over a longer period of time. Example: I can't control my weight (I'll weigh
the same five minutes from now regardless of my actions -- barring the
extreme, like amputating a limb), but I can control my diet and exercise in
order to influence my weight.

> One example is how I've learned to wait one day before sending a strongly
> emotionally charged email. Alternatively, I send such email to my friend
> Cem Kaner, first. He usually suggested a graceful alternative, and by the
> time I read it, I've cooled down anyway.

Right - for me -- I can't control my feelings, if I get angry reading
something and writing a response, but I can control my reaction, choosing to
not send the reply, and, with practice, I can influence my feelings so that
in fact I no longer feel the anger in the moment after several iterations.

The reason I'm so anal about all this is that I used to live and see others
living under the (usually not consciously noticed) belief that I should be
able to control my feelings in the moment -- that the mere appearance of
anger (or fear, etc) was well within my control and if that emotion was not
helpful that I was at fault for the feeling itself, and next time I should
try even harder to not feel 'bad'. A recipe for failure every time.

Instead of shooting the messenger (trying to control my feelings so that I
don't even experience them), I've been taught to listen to the messenger and
work at getting what's underneath.

> You are in a far better position to judge than I. I just like to practice
> seeing multiple possiblities in any situation.

That's a good point -- it rarely hurts to consider many options.

> I can accept your definition for the purposes of this conversation, but be
> careful. Your definition means someone can be a good person, in full bloom
> of living an examined life, and yet be a hypocrite. Just having
> conflicting beliefs doesn't make someone a bad person, but most people
> would say that it *is* bad to be a hypocrite.

Ah, but I'm more or less a Calvinist -- I believe everyone is a bad person.
:)

I do believe it is bad to be a hypocrite and I believe everyone is a
hypocrite to varying degrees, myself included. (What's the gag? "I don't go
to church cuz it's full of hypocrites?" "Where else should they go?")

Being bad, though, is not license to not love others, to not show them
grace.

Romans 5:8
But God demonstrates his own love for us in this: While we were still
sinners, Christ died for us.

> > Splitting hairs again -- I think his action was wrong based on his
stated
> > motives and beliefs. Could the same action have been the right thing to
do
> > given a different heart? Possibly.
>
> But since you grant that a true belief can be unconsciously held, you
> could just as easily say that his stated beliefs are not the best basis to
> assign rightness or wrongness to his behavior.

Yeah, true enough. It all goes back to what we use as the foundation for
judging right and wrong.

> > If she can't trust him to control his tongue in a simple
> > conversation, what's it going to be like in a more important issue?
>
> Or you could look at it this way: if he can't trust her to see the heart
> and meaning of his words instead of legalistically analyzing them, what's
> she going to do in a more important situation?

True, true. Rarely is a conflict between two people entirely one-sided.
Perhaps she could've shown him more patience.

> So, you're saying that it was wrong of him to go against his own sense of
> right. I agree, except for the fact that you are treating his *stated*
> sense of right as if it was his *true* sense of it. Since a belief may be
> unconsciously held, you have to be carefuly treating consciously
> constructed statements as truths.

Well, I guess I'd have to add that I also agreed with his stated beliefs in
this case.

Big picture, you are correct that his consciously held beliefs could be all
out of whack. I don't just assume that only the beliefs that are known are
the correct ones.

> If God is the authority, and the only way to know God is through a direct
> personal experience, and people seem to have difference experiences, then
> it seems to follow that judging is relative. I realize that a lot of
> people think the bible is a source of information about what God thinks,
> but I don't. I don't think God ever wrote a book.

Well, then we simply differ here. While it would probably still be
resistance related in a distant sense, I'm sure the rest of the list didn't
sign up for a religious debate, so I'll refrain from going there :)

(I've re-written that a few times but I'm 'resisting' sending it -- it
sounds to me like I'm trying to high-horse James by claiming *he* wanted a
religious debate, but I'm bigger than that. Not my point at all -- I just
don't know how to make it without this additional explanation -- ack).

> Citing the Bible only
> helps you in a debate with people who think God speaks through the Bible.
> Since I don't, it won't help you here.

True enough.

> > I think we need to push towards a Biblical,
> > Godly consensus and not stray too far into every man's beliefs for
himself.
>
> Your "we", of course, does not include me, so if you go that way, you will
> find yourself unable to overcome my resistance.

Duly noted :)

> > > > Or another way - my emotions (impulses) tell me what I believe, but
do
> > > > nothing to judge the correctness of that belief as being morally
right
> > or
> > > > wrong.
>
> I think impulses can be a message from within about what is morally right.
> So I guess I don't agree with you if you are making a categorical
> statement that no impulse can convey moral information.

To me, it's the heart, the belief that matters. The impulse, the emotion is
too simple a thing. The nerves in my skin send me different sensations, but
it's the source, and the proper analysis of the source that determines
value. The pain in my leg may be the result of an unset broken bone growing
back incorrectly or the result of a set bone growing back correctly. The
pain, the impulse, itself can't evaluate the scenario for good or bad.

So, yeah, I guess I am saying that no impulse can convey moral info.

Chris
tech: http://clabs.org/blog
arts/faith: http://cministries.org/blog


------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ---------------------~-->
Get A Free Psychic Reading! Your Online Answer To Life's Important Questions.
http://us.click.yahoo.com/Lj3uPC/Me7FAA/CNxFAA/X1EolB/TM
---------------------------------------------------------------------~->

To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[email protected]

 

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/