It’s difficult, thinking back, to recall all my feelings and thoughts of the session. I’ll do what I can. The simple solution is, as instructed, to fill one out on the day, but tiredness effortlessly conspired with laziness to derail that wise course.
In its own way though, waiting until events crystallise before writing about them is wise in itself: that which sticks in the mind is more likely to have emotional charge. Even as I started trying to remember, something jumped out at me: talking to… Hah. So her name escapes me. Irony, of course, is that I remember her son’s name, since that is what we were talking about. Hmph. Let’s see. Well I can find out, having access to EBS. [L], right.
So anyway. I was talking to [L] during the “exercise.” I enjoyed talking to her, I remember feeling that I wanted to make her feel more comfortable since she said she was nervous about speaking. I tried to reassure her, and thus found the remainder of the exercise, if not upsetting then perhaps offensive. Laughter, forced to come, was as much in despair at the ridiculousness of the situation as anything else.
The point and lesson are not only obvious but well-learned I suppose. Nonetheless *shakes head,* can’t say I approve. Never really been one for negative reinforcement. While making the point attempts to justify it, and placing it in an exercise attempts to forgive it, I do not think that people’s self-confidence is going to be improved by negative experiences during speaking and listening sessions. It was apparent to me that any progress in making Lianne feel more comfortable talking, by honestly expressing my interest was most likely undone, not on a conscious level, but probably deeper running. No matter how one’s mind accepts a rationale, appeals to fear are more likely to be borne out. I feel that it will be now be harder, not easier, to convince her to open up, and harder still to instil her with confidence in herself (RE: speaking abilities).
Ho hum. What else. I enjoyed talking to my group of pears ([A], [LyII], [M]). How about that, pairs of pears of peers. Oh dear. Well anyway. I felt [LyII] did a very good job of listening, reflecting & amplifying my enjoyment of gaming. [A]’s interest in his hobby was felt by all I think.
A few points came up that put my back up a bit, as there are some things I don’t like being said, even to prove a point, since to me they are patently untrue. I realise that people are free to define words as they please, but there is something deceitful about saying things with are thus untrue and then covering by saying “it’s allegorical/metaphorical/subjective semantics/etc.” I don’t really like it. I’m very careful about defining things, and I worry that other people are much less so.
The, oh what was it, it’s an argument I’ve both heard and had (with myself) time and time again, what was it. Well it’ll come to me. Oh yeah! (Ref: this remembering/writing comes after the following paragraphs). The argument of people “making” us feel things. While I understand the idea that other people have no direct control over our emotions, the statement that “we create our own feelings” is, in my view, simply untrue. It is, if I recall, choice theory? I am choosing to depress. Never mind that I was treated cruelly by someone I care for and thus am responding appropriately. The truth is I “chose to depress” when I “chose” to get close to someone. The truth is people can hurt you, which makes you sad, but only if you let them. Thus if someone told me I was choosing to depress, I would respond by saying I choose to care about others.
The whole thing reeks of over-simplification. Take anger: I don’t choose to get angry, but perhaps I choose not to do my utmost to restrain it. Better to say “I choose to express my anger.” The idea that one chooses ones emotion seems to imply those choices are made at the time, which is patently untrue (in my personal experience). Emotions are shortcuts to decision. We feel based on our beliefs and our inputs. Input -> [belief] -> Feeling. If I choose to get angry, it’s because I choose what I believe. One cannot change beliefs on a whim or in a moment of passion.
Plus, in a further point, it carries the implication that some emotions are not meant to be felt. This is almost a travesty. I choose to experience all my feelings. It’s what they’re for.
Instead of arguing over whether someone can “make” you unhappy, argue whether being unhappy is bad in every situation. I strive for human happiness, but grief and sorrow are a part of being human. If people are cruel to you, if life is cruel, being unhappy is normal. It saddens me to think that people are driven to “choose” not to “depress.”People “make” me sad: my emotional reaction to given inputs is sadness.
My answer: so what? or even “good.” To not be sad given certain inputs is not healthy, in my opinion. Perhaps I’m just overly “socialised,” but I can’t help but feel that some things deserve mourning. How can you have pride in yourself if you’re not unhappy not to be given respectful treatment? If you’re not angry at injustice? We learn from our experiences.
Those who give us inputs whose reaction via our beliefs is unpleasant to experience, we should avoid.
The other thing was that four emotions only. Sigh. Tempted to call it drivel. However such arguments are always semantic and thus subjective. Words are there to be defined after all, but I can’t quite imagine excitement being one of the four. Confusion can just be a state of intermingled emotion which one cannot define, rather than an emotion in its own right, but I do not see the sense in denying something the state of an emotion. I defined it for myself on the way to the loo: surely that which one feels, where the physical element is an effect and not a cause of the “feeling,” is an emotion? That is to say, when feeling fear your hands might shake, but it is reactionary physical elements. As opposed to feeling pain from a wound, which is physical inflicting on your sensory inputs, not emotional.
How about interested? Amazed? Surprised? The feeling of love? Of being *in* love? Happiness is such a cover-all. Why have granularity of language only to deny it. And I’m not even extending the argument to shades of emotion deserving their own titles for accuracy. What about hurt? What about ecstasy?
Still, as I said, one can define words to please oneself (or one’s theoretical framework). I’d be interested in hearing the reasoning behind this (in my view) needless restriction of vocabular diversity. [irony, vocabalur is a made up word].
My apologies for a) the length and b) the lack of structure in what has become something of an essay on a couple of points, these are things I’ve never bothered to try and express, and since I was writing this up mostly for myself, I let it flow out.
Have a nice week,
Gareth
Tags: Beliefs, Counselling, journal, opinions, Thoughts
