"An error does not become truth by reason of multiplied propagation, nor does truth become error because nobody sees it." --Mahatma Gandhi
Psychoanalytic theory is another view of human behavior. Sigmund Freud was a frustrated neurologist who, following the fashion of his time, tried to explain human behavior through Newtonian Physics. Everything in that system is mass and motion. His implicit model of the human mind was a reflex arc. The energy was electromagnetic. People were electronic circuits that generated instinctual energy and attempted to discharge it into 
the world. The system worked towards a reduction in energy, the process of which was somehow experienced as pleasurable (perhaps by another neural circuit). If this energy was not discharged it could be short circuited into other areas and produce neurotic symptoms. Therapy and health resided in removing these blocks so the energy could flow freely through. It was essentially a “just do it” philosophy, although with a hedge. He allowed for something called sublimation that could magically turn a sexual drive into a Mona Lisa or aggression into plowshares. He needed an out because people do not always get healthy by running around just doing it; instead, perhaps just as often, they get sued.
Freud succeeded in offering a model of man as machine, the problem being precisely that. Man became cause only, no purpose, and if everything is caused and determined then how does he change? There is no entrance into the system because that effort itself has to be caused, and so on all the way down. This leads to the following type of problem:
Waitress: “Would you care to order?”
Customer: “No thank you. I am a determinist so I am going to just sit here and see what happens.”
Waitress: “Hmm, perhaps I will just wait to see if I come back.”
Or course this would apply to Freud’s therapeutic endeavors as well. The people had left the room; only machines remained.
It gets worse. People understood the restriction scientific reductionism set for human experience. It ruled it off limits. So they snuck the patient in through the back door by hypothesizing that somewhere in the patient’s head there existed a conflict free ego that could assume human responsibilities. The conflict free entity in the therapist’s head could talk to his counterpart in the patient’s head, perhaps while the two of them observed the dialogue. Essentially the therapist could do nothing (since everything was determined) while pretending otherwise, and then charge for it. Just like the Federal Reserve.
We are more than instinctual drives and discharge channels. We act, we choose, we have purpose. We are not machines. Nor are we machines with little people in our heads pulling little levers. We are people who act, which means we can walk and chew gum at the same time. We think, choose, and act in concert. This only appears magical if one does not realize it is all simply part of the same thing, action.
the world. The system worked towards a reduction in energy, the process of which was somehow experienced as pleasurable (perhaps by another neural circuit). If this energy was not discharged it could be short circuited into other areas and produce neurotic symptoms. Therapy and health resided in removing these blocks so the energy could flow freely through. It was essentially a “just do it” philosophy, although with a hedge. He allowed for something called sublimation that could magically turn a sexual drive into a Mona Lisa or aggression into plowshares. He needed an out because people do not always get healthy by running around just doing it; instead, perhaps just as often, they get sued.Freud succeeded in offering a model of man as machine, the problem being precisely that. Man became cause only, no purpose, and if everything is caused and determined then how does he change? There is no entrance into the system because that effort itself has to be caused, and so on all the way down. This leads to the following type of problem:
Waitress: “Would you care to order?”
Customer: “No thank you. I am a determinist so I am going to just sit here and see what happens.”
Waitress: “Hmm, perhaps I will just wait to see if I come back.”
Or course this would apply to Freud’s therapeutic endeavors as well. The people had left the room; only machines remained.
It gets worse. People understood the restriction scientific reductionism set for human experience. It ruled it off limits. So they snuck the patient in through the back door by hypothesizing that somewhere in the patient’s head there existed a conflict free ego that could assume human responsibilities. The conflict free entity in the therapist’s head could talk to his counterpart in the patient’s head, perhaps while the two of them observed the dialogue. Essentially the therapist could do nothing (since everything was determined) while pretending otherwise, and then charge for it. Just like the Federal Reserve.
We are more than instinctual drives and discharge channels. We act, we choose, we have purpose. We are not machines. Nor are we machines with little people in our heads pulling little levers. We are people who act, which means we can walk and chew gum at the same time. We think, choose, and act in concert. This only appears magical if one does not realize it is all simply part of the same thing, action.
There are more, perhaps many more theories, although I do not claim to be an expert on this topic. Frankly, I find most of them tedious to read, like government manuals. Operant conditioning pairs behavior with a response, while classical conditioning pairs an antecedent condition with a response (Pavlov). Again, the problem they have is that no one is at home. The theorist simply operates on a physical level assembling happy little habits like a Swiss watchmaker. Their writing chronicles an empty space where the mental is void of people and the physical is void of matter. Not much to root for there.
Cognitive interpretations see mental as an energy source. This implies a metaphysical dualism. This is the position to which most people default. Religion says that the thought is as bad as the action. Philosophers say a man is but the product of his thoughts, what he thinks, he becomes. And coaches say that winners never quit and quitters never win. Mental is seen as an instigator and potential equalizer, a possible fusion/fission reaction. But anyone can see that thought is different than action, so the concern must be that thought can inexorably lead to action. Yet it has no means to do so and is not even fueled by its own energy—it simply plugs into the physical.
Cognitive interpretations see mental as an energy source. This implies a metaphysical dualism. This is the position to which most people default. Religion says that the thought is as bad as the action. Philosophers say a man is but the product of his thoughts, what he thinks, he becomes. And coaches say that winners never quit and quitters never win. Mental is seen as an instigator and potential equalizer, a possible fusion/fission reaction. But anyone can see that thought is different than action, so the concern must be that thought can inexorably lead to action. Yet it has no means to do so and is not even fueled by its own energy—it simply plugs into the physical.
If you find yourself thinking excessively about cookies in the cabinet that does not mean that the thoughts will somehow drag you into the kitchen. Rather it indicates you have a desire looking for a means. So deal with the desire. Targeting the thought is the wrong appoach. It has no authority; you c
ause the action. And you control it better with alternatives than injunctions. The choice should not be an abstract one about cookies or not, but a specific one between these cookies and these jeans. Do not expect a few platitudes to hold back desire. Intellect is no match for emotion. Control is your job. Choosing is how you do it. Do it right; compare apples to apples. Then decide.
ause the action. And you control it better with alternatives than injunctions. The choice should not be an abstract one about cookies or not, but a specific one between these cookies and these jeans. Do not expect a few platitudes to hold back desire. Intellect is no match for emotion. Control is your job. Choosing is how you do it. Do it right; compare apples to apples. Then decide. There are of course theological views of human behavior. People should know where they stand on them. It is not possible for us to avoid considering ultimate purpose. And it appears to me that people who do not have a God tend to act like one. But other than from a faith based position we do not seem to have any idea what might help us to prosper in any world except ours. Personally, I choose to believe in a higher power, but apparently what will be will be regardless of what we do about it. So it seems reasonable to make the most of this life and let God handle the next one. That is, unless your faith tells you otherwise. But then be careful not to step all over the principles that seem to help us in this world.
Then there are instinct theories, but as we have said that does not help much. The term instinct is simply a name we give to something we do not understand. It is an attempt to bridge thought and action. Emotions are hybrids as well, although they are more than just hypotheses. Affect is thought en route to action. But feelings are not agents, so we cannot build a theory of human behavior on them.
Yet we need to consider them. Feelings are evidence-based information. Emotions are hybrid creatures, part mental and part physical. They could potentially be measured, meaning some endorphin or neurotransmitter could be correlated with an experience. They underscore sensory experience and help us make sure we do not miss that which is important. It is impossible to cry about something that does not matter or enjoy something you do not like. The practical point is to keep your feelings and use them, rather than deny or distort them. Behavior, not feeling, is our area of responsibility. Emotions are just signs.
The metaphysically critical issue is whether emotion can usurp authority or does authority remain with the person. A bet could be made here, the truth of which can be assessed in consequences. I am axiomatically saying that the individual at all times in all situations remains in charge of the action, which means that "losing control" involves choosing to do so. A person never gets swept away by emotion. Instead, he or she chooses to act emotionally, the consequences of which might be disastrous or the fact of which may violate important ethical principles. But the claim is not that our choices are always good, just that we always make them. Sometimes a choice explodes, but no one makes us do it, and emotion does not cause it. The buck stops with us, at times raining down in pieces on a very dumb move.
It is irrelevant how strong an emotion becomes internal to the individual. By itself it can never storm the Bastille. Control is entirely defined by when an action enters the external chain of causality, and that is always a matter of choice. This is an all or nothing issue like pulling a trigger or trading a stock—you either do it or you don’t. Of course emotions can run right through ideas. Resolutions rarely last through the day. But the caveat about fighting desire with desire remains. When an affect is opposed by a comparably energized alternative, any action, no matter how intense, can easily be seen as a choice, and there is always a valid way of evening up the sides. It remains to the individual how he presents to himself the possible exchange, i.e. 1) read about the monetary system versus no one else is, or 2) read about the monetary system versus someone has to. Such a choice probably most often takes the abstract form of free lunch versus responsibility, but while desire is never subtle, responsibility might need representation. The case for it needs to be presented in high definition accompanied by a musical soundtrack. Honor is not hard to maintain when consequences of dishonor are clearly laid out. And we control the media. The more we care, which means the more we have committed and the better we present the alternative to impulse, the more we hold fast to our principles.
Then there are instinct theories, but as we have said that does not help much. The term instinct is simply a name we give to something we do not understand. It is an attempt to bridge thought and action. Emotions are hybrids as well, although they are more than just hypotheses. Affect is thought en route to action. But feelings are not agents, so we cannot build a theory of human behavior on them.
Yet we need to consider them. Feelings are evidence-based information. Emotions are hybrid creatures, part mental and part physical. They could potentially be measured, meaning some endorphin or neurotransmitter could be correlated with an experience. They underscore sensory experience and help us make sure we do not miss that which is important. It is impossible to cry about something that does not matter or enjoy something you do not like. The practical point is to keep your feelings and use them, rather than deny or distort them. Behavior, not feeling, is our area of responsibility. Emotions are just signs.
The metaphysically critical issue is whether emotion can usurp authority or does authority remain with the person. A bet could be made here, the truth of which can be assessed in consequences. I am axiomatically saying that the individual at all times in all situations remains in charge of the action, which means that "losing control" involves choosing to do so. A person never gets swept away by emotion. Instead, he or she chooses to act emotionally, the consequences of which might be disastrous or the fact of which may violate important ethical principles. But the claim is not that our choices are always good, just that we always make them. Sometimes a choice explodes, but no one makes us do it, and emotion does not cause it. The buck stops with us, at times raining down in pieces on a very dumb move.
It is irrelevant how strong an emotion becomes internal to the individual. By itself it can never storm the Bastille. Control is entirely defined by when an action enters the external chain of causality, and that is always a matter of choice. This is an all or nothing issue like pulling a trigger or trading a stock—you either do it or you don’t. Of course emotions can run right through ideas. Resolutions rarely last through the day. But the caveat about fighting desire with desire remains. When an affect is opposed by a comparably energized alternative, any action, no matter how intense, can easily be seen as a choice, and there is always a valid way of evening up the sides. It remains to the individual how he presents to himself the possible exchange, i.e. 1) read about the monetary system versus no one else is, or 2) read about the monetary system versus someone has to. Such a choice probably most often takes the abstract form of free lunch versus responsibility, but while desire is never subtle, responsibility might need representation. The case for it needs to be presented in high definition accompanied by a musical soundtrack. Honor is not hard to maintain when consequences of dishonor are clearly laid out. And we control the media. The more we care, which means the more we have committed and the better we present the alternative to impulse, the more we hold fast to our principles.
We are in good company here. This was Spinoza’s approach to emotions. He was the one who called the positive ones those that support our existence and the negatives ones those that oppose it. And he saw em
otions simply as facts about the nature of our experience. There is much to sort out about them, and that is what makes us human. But suppressing emotion is like sticking one's head in the sand. Not much down there is going to help us.Spinoza’s term for our responsibility in handling emotion was to find the “adequate” response. Keep the emotion; figure out what to do about the situation. Anger will not eat you up, but losing it might get you killed. Anger provides motivation. The same is true for love, which is a feeling that may not last untill death do you part, but which is something, and better supervised than left wandering around at night on its own. Keep your affects until you have decided what to do with them. They will not bother your T cells. Emotions both guide and energize us. Do not leave home without them.
Action defines us. Thoughts can spin around forever and never leave our heads. Emotions are unborn actions, but they can grow. Thoughts can be left alone, while emotions might need light supervision. Choice, however, is a full time job. Choice defines what we are and what we become. We are purpose, a small bit of autonomy in a world of causality. Perhaps this connects us to a higher power, and if so, then all the more reason to get it right. It is what we do.
No comments:
Post a Comment