Why are emotions so bad? Hmm?

[INTP]

So I had the thought that emotions are pure soulful expressions from the unconscious.

And that feelings are ego expressions.

Emotions lie deeper and become twisted by our ego. And depending upon how convoluted our egos are, emotions can become twisted as well.

Things in life are usually more pure when they are simple and straightforward. It has been taught by spiritual gurus that annihilating the personal ego and assuming God's will is ideal. So too would feelings fall away, if we could do away with our ego, leaving us with raw emotion.

Is raw emotion therefore like something an animal manifests? Angrily guarding a piece of meat? Lustily mating? Lazily lounging? Possessively marking?

Do we need our ego to keep us human?


Does any of this make sense, and is any of it worth discussing?

Imo emotions are the result of strong feeling judgments(this is also what jung said, but didnt say the following) coming to ego, kinda like the responce of ego towards them. Feelings themselves are just positive-negative scale which is purely an expression of the unconscious, but there is another scale which combines with this and is passive-active(these two scales combined create thing called core affect i suggest google), imo this passive-active scale is a result on how ego reacts to this positive-negative thing that the unconscious tells to it.

 

[Cellmold]

I wonder about the day when emotions no longer matter, when we are all but memories in the super highway of technology.

 

[AphroditeGoneAwry]

Imo emotions are the result of strong feeling judgments(this is also what jung said, but didnt say the following) coming to ego, kinda like the responce of ego towards them. Feelings themselves are just positive-negative scale which is purely an expression of the unconscious, but there is another scale which combines with this and is passive-active(these two scales combined create thing called core affect i suggest google), imo this passive-active scale is a result on how ego reacts to this positive-negative thing that the unconscious tells to it.

So you are saying kind of the opposite of what I was saying? That feelings/thoughts are deeper than ego and emotion is expression of ego?

I'll have to ponder it. I think since feelings and thoughts are conscious-minded phenomena they are not of the unconscious. I see ego as sort-of the gatekeeper between the conscious and unconscious allowing only certain things through that will not rock the boat too much. But what happens to everything else? It manifests as emotion that really might not seem connected to anything (but is, we just often cannot know what).

This all seems very clear to me, this explanation. And ego isn't always the bad guy. Ego also, as I pointed out in an earlier post, keeps us human versus animalistic. IF we had no ego whatsoever and could live solely on the basis of raw emotion, responding to it, and being informed by it always, then we'd live like an animal. So it's like we do need ego to filter emotion and keep our human traits (like thinking and feeling) but ego must not become a blockade.

 

[Thursday]

Emotions get the negative rep they do because they are composed of subjective, sub/unconscious goop. You don't deal with it directly, but it deals directly with you. Unless you possess the necessary jujitsu, it will be the carrot that manipulates your actions.

 

[sprinkles]

Emotions get the negative rep they do because they are composed of subjective, sub/unconscious goop. You don't deal with it directly, but it deals directly with you. Unless you possess the necessary jujitsu, it will be the carrot that manipulates your actions.

I'd say that even then they manipulate your actions. Even if you control your entire being, there's a metaconscious feeling which results from that, and makes such an endeavor desirable to begin with.

 

[sprinkles]

So you are saying kind of the opposite of what I was saying? That feelings/thoughts are deeper than ego and emotion is expression of ego?

I'll have to ponder it. I think since feelings and thoughts are conscious-minded phenomena they are not of the unconscious. I see ego as sort-of the gatekeeper between the conscious and unconscious allowing only certain things through that will not rock the boat too much. But what happens to everything else? It manifests as emotion that really might not seem connected to anything (but is, we just often cannot know what).

This all seems very clear to me, this explanation. And ego isn't always the bad guy. Ego also, as I pointed out in an earlier post, keeps us human versus animalistic. IF we had no ego whatsoever and could live solely on the basis of raw emotion, responding to it, and being informed by it always, then we'd live like an animal. So it's like we do need ego to filter emotion and keep our human traits (like thinking and feeling) but ego must not become a blockade.

Ego isn't the bad guy, of course.

It has a function. The purpose of being 'rid' of the ego though is not necessarily to kill it and be an animal, but to absorb it and be unified in consciousness.

It's not much different then my dissociative disorder. If my internal parts cannot communicate, I'm not whole. If your ego cannot communicate with the rest of you, you're not whole. It leads to self illusions, for good or ill.

 

[Lark]

I wonder about the day when emotions no longer matter, when we are all but memories in the super highway of technology.

Are you talking about the downloading and uploading of personalities in a post-singularity world?

 

[greenfairy]

They are stressful and scary sometimes because if they get out of control they can cause people to be destructive to one another. If excessive they can overtake a person's mind and cause irrational behavior based on untrue assumptions. In short they can cause craziness. But then again, out of control lack of emotion causes sociopathic behavior, another kind of craziness. So everything is "good" if in balance and used appropriately, and "bad" if imbalanced and used inapropriately.

 

[AphroditeGoneAwry]

Ego isn't the bad guy, of course.

It has a function. The purpose of being 'rid' of the ego though is not necessarily to kill it and be an animal, but to absorb it and be unified in consciousness.

It's not much different then my dissociative disorder. If my internal parts cannot communicate, I'm not whole. If your ego cannot communicate with the rest of you, you're not whole. It leads to self illusions, for good or ill.

I agree with you again, mostly.

Since I see the ego as a gatekeeper between the conscious and unconscious, I think the ideal ego is one that is translucent and permeable. Ego is what makes us, us. Without ego, we'd function like animals, but I think having too much ego makes us a duality in ourselves, as you said. So the ideal ego is not one annihilated as I originally thought, but one open transparent--having our energy within it, but allowing everything to come and go between our conscious and unconscious as our being lives.

Multiple personalities is just the forming of many ids, superegos, and egos within one psyche. The psyche is the same because it is the unconscious (which allows for co-consciousness and the core to exert its overall influence), and the soul is always the same as long as we are alive--that is the God part of us, but the different egos manifest as multiple personalities. Since these are also the most superficial, they can be 'healed', but perhaps the person also likes existing as multiples.


What do you think ?

 

[sprinkles]

I agree with you again, mostly.

Since I see the ego as a gatekeeper between the conscious and unconscious, I think the ideal ego is one that is translucent and permeable. Ego is what makes us, us. Without ego, we'd function like animals, but I think having too much ego makes us a duality in ourselves, as you said. So the ideal ego is not one annihilated as I originally thought, but one open transparent--having our energy within it, but allowing everything to come and go between our conscious and unconscious as our being lives.

Multiple personalities is just the forming of many ids, superegos, and egos within one psyche. The psyche is the same because it is the unconscious (which allows for co-consciousness and the core to exert its overall influence), and the soul is always the same as long as we are alive--that is the God part of us, but the different egos manifest as multiple personalities. Since these are also the most superficial, they can be 'healed', but perhaps the person also likes existing as multiples.


What do you think ?

Yes, I think so.

 

[Redbone]

I never thought as emotions as being 'bad' myself.

Annoying, yeah. Frustrating at times, sure. Sometimes in the way, of course. But never bad.

The difference between feelers and thinkers, is that when thinkers experience emotions they tend to be much rawer and immature. Simply because they never face the consequences of their emotions by focusing on their rationality. Whilest feelers, who do face the concequences of their emotions, end up with much more well-rounded emotions that can deal with many a situation maturely.

Problems only tend to arise when thinkers attempt to ignore to rationality and let their emotions run their course or vice versa.

I can't think of them as bad either but there are times when I do wish they "go away" and leave me in peace. It would be particularly nice when I experience the emotional equivalent of an ear-worm.

And definitely a yes on letting emotions run my course. It never goes well when my emotions are running high and then I impulsively act on them. I marvel and often envy the way F-pref navigate things.

 

[AphroditeGoneAwry]

Yes, I think so.

I'm thinkin' we should write a book...or two...together.

 

[sprinkles]

I'm thinkin' we should write a book...or two...together.

I'm not very good at writing. At least not when I intend to do it...

 

[AphroditeGoneAwry]

I'm not either. But I could probably write half a book...

 

[Mole]

Emotions are so bad because they are women's work.

And being women's work, they are naturally devalued, just as women are devalued.

But we are slowly waking up as in the post below -

"Just as the work of children is play, so women do the emotional work.

And just as the purpose of play is to learn the difference between imagination and reality, so the purpose of women's work is the well being of the family.

We only have to read the threads on Central to find pages of etext doing the emotional work of women. And how well women do this work, with what skill, and with passion, knowing how important the emotional work of women is to the well being of the family.

Of course women have been training to do this work since they were little girls, and in their mother they had a superb role model.

All this goes some way to explaining women's attraction to astrology, mbti and religion. For astrology, mbti and religion are tools in women's work.

Astrology, mbti and religion are not based on evidence and reason but they are sophisticated, tried and true ways of modulating emotion. And they are fine tuned in the hands of women as any musical instrument".

 

[Coriolis]

Emotions are so bad because they are women's work.

And being women's work, they are naturally devalued, just as women are devalued

It's the chicken and the egg all over again. Are emotions devalued because of the association with women, or was emotional activity relegated to women because it had already been devalued???

We had the opposite of this question on some thread about workplace gender bias: namely whether T-like skills are valued because we associate them with men, or whether we consider them masculine because they are valued.

 

[INTP]

So you are saying kind of the opposite of what I was saying? That feelings/thoughts are deeper than ego and emotion is expression of ego?

I'll have to ponder it. I think since feelings and thoughts are conscious-minded phenomena they are not of the unconscious. I see ego as sort-of the gatekeeper between the conscious and unconscious allowing only certain things through that will not rock the boat too much. But what happens to everything else? It manifests as emotion that really might not seem connected to anything (but is, we just often cannot know what).

This all seems very clear to me, this explanation. And ego isn't always the bad guy. Ego also, as I pointed out in an earlier post, keeps us human versus animalistic. IF we had no ego whatsoever and could live solely on the basis of raw emotion, responding to it, and being informed by it always, then we'd live like an animal. So it's like we do need ego to filter emotion and keep our human traits (like thinking and feeling) but ego must not become a blockade.

Imo

Feeling and thinking are separate from ego, but ego starts to let aspects of each in more easily as it gets used to that sort of information and continues to reject the other(developing/differentiating the other function basically means to make ego accept this new type of information more readily), thats basically where differences in type come in. Ego grows as it learns to let in stuff, if it learns to prefer thinking much more over feeling, then it grows according to thinking more, making ego more thinking orientated.

When it comes to feeling and ego, i think there are few components to what makes up feeling. First off there is the personal unconscious and its structures, complexes(feeling toned associations around a common theme). When a complex gets activated it makes a feeling toned associations to things that are also connected to that complex and creates this bias towards the subject(based on other things associated to the complex) that originally triggered it. When it comes to more differentiated feeling, it is when you are able to consciously make judgments by weighting these feelings that rise from your perceptions(internal or external, dont confuse with I/E), undifferentiated feeling just comes raw through intuition. Anyways, when these complexes gets triggered, its not something you can consciously review, what comes to your consciousness in a form of emotion is the response of your ego to these feelings that were triggered. This is also the reason why i think undifferentiated feeling often leads to mixed feelings about things, your unconscious mind says this is good through intuition very strongly, but it conflicts what ego would prefer since it prefers thinking(or the other way around).

And yea, i dont think ego is a bad guy, but it doesent always want whats actually good for us, it just wants to do what its used to doing and wants to preserve things as they are, so sometimes it causes trouble and needs a little whipping to be able to move on and learn to grow out of its comfort zone.

 

[AphroditeGoneAwry]

I agree with your post for the most part. But I outline below where I have a different opinion, for the sake of argument, and to progress this concept.

Imo

Feeling and thinking are separate from ego, but ego starts to let aspects of each in more easily as it gets used to that sort of information and continues to reject the other(developing/differentiating the other function basically means to make ego accept this new type of information more readily), thats basically where differences in type come in. Ego grows as it learns to let in stuff, if it learns to prefer thinking much more over feeling, then it grows according to thinking more, making ego more thinking orientated.

I believe ego only 'lets in' what become beliefs and values and 'truths' etc. If I could make a conceptual model on the computer, it would look like a surrounding shell over the top 3/4 of it which represents the world, where we accumulate our perceptions and data (with the 1/4 bottom part anchored to the 'other side', which is where God and the life force resides), so we are seemingly more 'in the world' while alive than attached to the other side, which is actually a mis-perception, but one that seems real. Moving on.....

Actions and intentions are on the very top. Then thoughts and feelings are immediately below these, interacting with them, these are superficial too, even though they may feel deep because sometimes we have to search to figure them out. Ego exists in the middle zone. Ego uses our environment (this is a 3D model) and thoughts and feelings and experiences to lay in beliefs and values which makes the middle layer, which serves as a sort of barrier, along with the whole ego zone. When our thoughts and feelings conflict or coincide with our beliefs and values, actions are the outcome, whether active or passive. This also explains why, to change our behaviors (actions/intentions), we truly need to change our beliefs, which then changes our thoughts and feelings, then our actions naturally change.

Below the ego zone is our unconscious. In this lies our core and below this our soul.

I'd make this in some graphic program but don't want to take time to do that.

When it comes to feeling and ego, i think there are few components to what makes up feeling. First off there is the personal unconscious and its structures, complexes(feeling toned associations around a common theme). When a complex gets activated it makes a feeling toned associations to things that are also connected to that complex and creates this bias towards the subject(based on other things associated to the complex) that originally triggered it.

YES! Well said. This is what I'm calling a belief.

When it comes to more differentiated feeling, it is when you are able to consciously make judgments by weighting these feelings that rise from your perceptions(internal or external, dont confuse with I/E), undifferentiated feeling just comes raw through intuition. Anyways, when these complexes gets triggered, its not something you can consciously review, what comes to your consciousness in a form of emotion is the response of your ego to these feelings that were triggered. This is also the reason why i think undifferentiated feeling often leads to mixed feelings about things, your unconscious mind says this is good through intuition very strongly, but it conflicts what ego would prefer since it prefers thinking(or the other way around).

Or, differentiated functions might just be those that are used often, so often dip down into our ego zone, that those pathways get very well used and cannot help but become efficient at knowing what our ego believes and what our mind/body/heart are used to. The good side is that it makes us efficient and useful, but the bad side is that we can get stuck in a rut using the same functions to tell us the same information, instead of using undifferentiated functions or challenging ego.

And all this constitutes our world, but when you look at it, it's just the most superficial half of our world!!! We build our lives upon it as if it is our foundation, but it isn't. We can't even see that it's our deep-seated beliefs that drive us, much less the deeper unconscious and, finally, soul. Which is probably why LOVE is so powerful an emotion. THE most powerful emotion. Because it is the closest emotion to God.

And yea, i dont think ego is a bad guy, but it doesent always want whats actually good for us, it just wants to do what its used to doing and wants to preserve things as they are, so sometimes it causes trouble and needs a little whipping to be able to move on and learn to grow out of its comfort zone.

Yeah. It's our functional foundation. We just could stand to remember that at some point, what we are standing on might need to be readjusted or reconstructed if we start getting warnings from our emotions that we are off, or that we need a more spiritual foundation to feel fulfilled.

 

[Devil Flamingo]

Emotions? Bad? Nahhh, they not. They can be incovenient, and messy and destructive, but never bad.

That's like saying Fi is bad. No it's not. Fi is wonderful. I love Fi. Fi is sooo much better than her stupid sister Fe and her stupid raggedy-ass weave.

Just because y'all can't understand/deal with your own emotions doesn't mean they're wrong.

 

[sprinkles]

It's the chicken and the egg all over again. Are emotions devalued because of the association with women, or was emotional activity relegated to women because it had already been devalued???

We had the opposite of this question on some thread about workplace gender bias: namely whether T-like skills are valued because we associate them with men, or whether we consider them masculine because they are valued.

T-like skills are probably valued because they can be useful for order, but a need for order is ultimately ruled by emotion.

Things are so ruled by emotion that the one thing which accomplishes nothing - apathy - stands out as being exceptional. Even the most die hard thinker can't really be entirely apathetic about it, otherwise they wouldn't bother in the first place.

I'd daresay that the ones who do the hardest thinking are highly invested in strict emotions.