--- In [email protected], new.morning <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> --- In [email protected], TurquoiseB <no_reply@> wrote:
> >
> >
> > So I came up with my own half-assed theory of
> > how to tell what the real *intent* was behind
> > any political post on the Internet or what the
> > real *intent* was behind any political speech or
> > ad. It's pretty simple -- just determine the
> > EMOTION that the post or speech or ad is appealing
> > to. What emotion does the speaker want you to FEEL
> > after reading or hearing it?
>
> <snip to>
> Regardless, I applaud your thought and flow in this post.
> It makes me think of how I can better apply it in my posts
> -- and life. Any ideas from you and others on how you might
> do so too, in your lives?
>
> And, IF you have some insights, I invite you to suggest how
> i might also do so in my life. However, i suggest you limit
> your suggestion for others to those offering such an invitation.
> Its been my life-experience that unsolictied advice is rarely
> effective.
Ok, having delivered the obligatory Oscar Wilde
line, I'll tackle this more seriously.
My theory is based on a Tibetan Buddhist view of
emotion and what it is. That involves two basic
principles. (Vaj can step in and provide the actual
names of these things if he wants...I'm just gonna
use language I'm more comfortable with.)
The first is that emotion is not exactly what we
in the West tend to think it is. An emotion like
anger or sorrow or hatred or joy is not personal.
It's subjective aspect of a person tapping in to
a particular state of attention that has those
qualities.
The second is that we are not slaves to our emotions.
We can change them any time we want, with little more
effort than is involved in "When you realize that you
are not thinking the mantra, gently come back to it."
A common Western view is that emotions like sadness
and grief and anger must be allowed to "run their
course." You often hear people say that "you have to
go through it to get beyond it." I don't believe
that. I believe that the situation is more akin to
tapping into a *reservoir* of sadness or grief or
anger, and *indulging* in it. You cannot ever
"exhaust" the supply of the sadness or grief or
anger; there is an inexhaustible amount of these
feelings. The emotion will "last" as long as you
*allow* it to last, as long as you indulge in it.
Tibetan Buddhists have spent centuries examining
the *qualities* of the different states of attention
(emotions), with the idea of trying to determine
which ones karmically cause an elevation in one's
overall state of consciousness, and which ones
karmically cause a lowering of one's overall state
of consciousness. They are of the opinion that the
"lower" emotions (anger, hatred, sorrow, self-pity)
*always* produce that lowering effect.
Therefore, if your goal in life is to *raise* your
overall state of consciousness, when you become
aware that you are lost in one of these negative
emotions, what you can to is be a bit proactive,
and gently shift your attention to a state of
attention that is a bit more productive, and that
you know from past experience always elevates your
state of consciousness.
In terms of politics, and especially political ads,
I think it's important to remember that they are
ADS, man. They are trying to *sell* you something.
And the way they sell it these days is to try to
sucker you into feeling a particular emotion.
If they want you support invading Iran, they're
going to try to sell you FEAR of the Iranians,
usually combined with a general elitism that tells
you how much better you are than they are. If they
want to sell you on dumping Candidate D and voting
for Candidate R, they're going to try to sell you
ANGER at Candidate D, combined again with a sense
of elitism and moral superiority ("You're so much
better than this person who allowed an intern to
suck his dick, or who tried to get a page to suck
his dick.")
The thing is, when you buy into the emotion that
underlies the ads, you've tapped into a reservoir
of that particular state of attention, and have
bought into the *karma* of that particular emotion/
state of attention. If you allow the ad to make you
fearful, you're stuck in the FEAR mindstate, and
have to live with the karmas of someone who lives
in fear. If you allow the ad to make you angry,
you're stuck in the ANGER mindstate, and have to
live with the karmas of someone who is angry.
Personally, I think a lot of these attempts to
sell a particular negative emotion backfire on FFL
because we're all fairly sensitive perceivers. If
someone goes out of their way to make people angry
or feel the same outraged indignity that they feel,
a lot of people are able to step back and say,
"Now WAIT a minute! The person who is trying to
make me feel angry (or fearful, or better than
someone else) does this a LOT. Do I get the feeling
that this person has become *happy* by living in
the mindstate they're trying to convince me to
adopt?" If the answer to this question is "No,"
well who is going to willingly adopt the mindstate
being sold to them?
My theory is really not rocket science. It just
boils down to, when you get the feeling that someone
is trying to *sell you an emotion*, step back and
say to yourself, "Dude...do I really *want* to
indulge in that particular emotion?"
If so, go for it. If not, you don't have to. Simple
as that.
To subscribe, send a message to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Or go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/
and click 'Join This Group!'
Yahoo! Groups Links
<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/
<*> Your email settings:
Individual Email | Traditional
<*> To change settings online go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/join
(Yahoo! ID required)
<*> To change settings via email:
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
<*> 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/
