Conference quark::human_relations-v1

    
    	Differences between reason and emotion?   Sure, every day.
    	For example, certain women that my emotions desire all kinds
    	of pleasant and exciting sexual adventures.  But my reason stops
    	me from pursuing.  Sometimes it seems like I stop due to being
    	afraid of rejection.  But closer reflection suggests I don't pursue
    	for another reason:  fear of acceptance.  What if she accepts? 
    	Then we might have wonderful sex, but then what?  What if she wants
    	a serious relationship?  Do I think I want a serious relationship
    	with her?  Usually not.  And if not, best not to "start something
    	you don't think you can finish".  So I end up being sexually
    	unfulfilled due to fear of what comes next.
    
    	just one example of reason vs. emotion...
    
    /Eric
    	

	 One thing I have observed....with myself and others.




	 Emotions do not allow us to see what is real, but rather what
	 we want to see as real.

	 Reason allows us to throw away what we want to see, and see
	 what is really there.




	 Case in point:  Think of any reply that is really close to
	 your heart that you've discussed in NOTES where you have read
	 with your emotions, instead of your reasoning.

	 Re-read that topic now, throwing out emotion, and you might
	 see a person saying a totally different thing than you
	 perceived them to be saying.



	 kath

	 

>    A discussion last night brought up a question I've been planning to
>    enter here for a while:  Do you feel any conflict between reason and
>    emotion?

No.

>    I'm a very analytical type but also "hot", emotionally.  Some people
>    say that these two traits are difficult to reconcile. 

I never tried to.

>    These feelings aren't unique.  I get a sense of fellowship whenever I
>    read Stendhal, for example.  But from conversation (and from criticism
>    of Stendhal!), it seems to be uncommon.  

Ain't _Read and Black_ great?  Gosh, if I can only have one tenth of the 
talent Julien Sorel had in whatever he did best :-).

>    I'm curious
>    about how the fine cross-section of the species in this conference
>    works.

Well, ya just haveta keep 'em separate.  Never pour Drano over roses, 
if you know what I mean.  If you do, you end up wasting your Drano and 
destroying your roses.  If you feel reason (what an oxymoron), read a 
math book.  If you feel emotional (redundancy never hurts), write poetry.  
However, if you mix the two, you get messes like philosophy :-).


>	 Emotions do not allow us to see what is real, but rather what
>	 we want to see as real.

I can't really agree with that.

>	 Reason allows us to throw away what we want to see, and see
>	 what is really there.

Kinda agree.


Eugene

    I've got to disagree with you, Kathy.  
    
    For me, when I go by my emotions i.e. instinct - my perceptions are
    usually much more grounded in truth than if I "reason" it out.  Most of
    the time when I'm being "reasonable" I'm really stuck in the paralysis
    of analysis.  Personally - analyzing usually leads me to a series of
    "what-if" scenarios similar to Eric's which are anything but
    constructive.  For instance in relationships - to use Eric's example -
    I usually have myself rejected and mourning a relationship that
    consists of one whole date - if I analyze too much.  It's one of the
    reasons for my p_n.  I need to remind myself to _live_ my possibilities
    instead of just _thinking_ about them.
    
    Nanci

    Yes, I feel conflict between reason and emotion.
    I suspect, however, that we create more problems
    for ourselves by placing them in a contest where
    one must win and the other lose; I think we would
    be better off figuring out how reason and emotion
    work together.  Finding a balance between these
    two "extremes" is, unfortunately, pretty tricky.
    

>    enter here for a while:  Do you feel any conflict between reason and
>    emotion


       Almost all the time, and I would have to say that the
   emotional side of me has won out more times than not.  I think
   it's because I'm a very optimistic person and I do too much
   wishful thinking.  Usually I don't do any reasoning when in this
   state of mind.  For example about two months ago a serious
   relationship I had ended.  I really had a hard time dealing with
   it not only because of the loss but also because I kept thinking
   that maybe I'd get a second chance. That she'd realize she made a
   big mistake.  So I left my heart out "on the shelf" and kept
   waiting, wasting my time.  Until the other day, while eating out
   for dinner with one of my friends I got a fortune cookie and it
   read; 

       
          Do not ignore
          the facts
          For they will not
          go away


      It made me realize that I had to stop dreaming about the way
   the relationship was, could or could've been.  The fact is she
   left me for some valid reasons and there wasn't anything I could
   do about it.  I had(have) to accept my mistakes and move on with
   my life.  This is an example where my reasoning got mixed up by my
   emotional state hoping things would go back to the "way they were" 



>    I'm a very analytical type but also "hot", emotionally.  Some people
>    say that these two traits are difficult to reconcile. 

      Yes for me at least, that little fortune I got I keep in my
   wallet just as a reminder to try to keep everything in
   perspective. It is real easy for me to close my eyes rather than
   look at what is really happening. I think I am constantly jumping
   from one state to the other. It is pretty hard trying to figure
   what is right and wrong in some situations, since both states have 
   very good points and bad points.

just the way I see things today...

 -Ed

    hmmm, i like to think i use a "scientific method" (severe tongue-in-cheek)
    method for my decisions - base them on past experiences.
    
    so when my logic/reason gets to that cold stage where ANYTHING can be
    proven, i pull out relevant experience and review the feelings
    accompanying it: "now how does/did THAT feel???"
    
    when i get impulsive and emotional, i pull out those same relevant
    experiences and review the consequences: "see what happened THAT time?"
    
    but the brain is a lot smarter than we know, so if the intuition and
    emotions aren't used a lot of synthetic (ie. able to synthesize
    disparate information into a coherent whole) skills lie idle.  <- my
    opinion only...  i think it's terribly short-sighted to rely solely on
    conscious logic.

    I often use the type of synthesis that Lee talks about in .7. I think
    it's much easier than relying solely on logic, and less risky than
    relying solely on emotions. There's alot of interpolation going on.
    
    I think that part of using your brain is realizing that art and science
    are both equally valid, and one shouldn't forsake one for the other.
    here's what I mean- when learning a new skill f'rinstance, you can look
    at things from a purely artlike perspective. What is the essence of
    what you are trying to do. Or you can look at it scientifically- what
    are the component and requisite actions to arrive at the final result.
    The fastest way to learn seems to be to meld these two approaches
    together- a little shooting from the hip, and a little analysis.
    
    When exposed to something new, or asked a question about something I
    hadn't thought about before, I usually come up with a synthetic theory
    about what I believe to bve true. Then I usually attempt to prove or
    disprove this theory. Then I ask myself about the nature of the theory
    from an emotional perspective. Not all logic. Not all emotion.
    Hopefully, the whole brain.
    
    I think that our brains are woefully underutilized (mine included or
    especially). :-)
    
    The Doctah

    Actually, I don't think the dichotomy is so much Reason vs. Emotion
    as it is simply a left-brain/right-brain phenomenon.  When we're
    being completely "logical" about something, we're literally using
    only half of our brains (like the Doctah said...).  You can't have
    logic without reducing a problem down to something that can be 
    stated in a human language; once you do that, you're in left-brain
    territory.  A lot of times what happens is that we'll be thinking
    out a problem in our heads by talking to ourselves in words.
    This is the left brain thinking.  Then we'll get a "hunch"; some
    concept seemingly out of the blue that provides a new direction
    for inquiry.  This is the right brain chiming in.
    
    	Those who try to be completely logical will try to banish
    these hunches; after all, they aren't "logical" because they
    don't follow from all of the preceeding premises that we have
    carefully set down (in language, of course!).  Yet I have come
    to realize that these hunches are the result of perfectly good
    thought processes by the right brain unfettered by the constraints
    of language.  They're not always right, of course, any more than
    one's logic is always flawless... but in my case, at least, they
    have a pretty good batting average.  At the very least, when logic
    tells me to do one thing and my hunches tell me to do another,
    I realize that means I'd better re-examine my decision before
    acting on it...
    
    --jim
    

    Wow, I haven't felt so out of place since the time I used the Sex
    Pistols' "God Save the Queen" for the "Name That Tune" game in FRIENDS.
    It was surprising to what an extent reason is considered utilitarian
    rather than ornamental.  I see as big a gulf between "reason" and
    "reasonable" as between "sense" and "sensibility" - apparently, this is
    unusual.
    
    Anyway, thanks to those who ignored the incomprehensibility of the
    topic and entered something.  Special thanks to Lee T. - I had
    painstakingly deduced that applied memory (as opposed to logic) was the
    secret ingredient in several replies, but it was nice to have that
    confirmed so elegantly - and to the Doctah for his reasonable approach
    to rationality.
    
    .1 ("around sexual desires") -
    
    This is a good example of learning from experience.  If experience had
    taught you that a complicated emotional life is worthwhile in itself,
    or that a large number of sexual partners is worth any amount of
    hassle, or that it is worth laboring to build an intellectual and
    emotional relationship based on sexual attraction, or if experience had
    taught you nothing at all, reason could be thoroughly engaged in the
    engrossing task of pursuit rather than being dug out ("closer
    reflection suggests") and then put away again.
    
    Believe me, this is no criticism - what you write makes much more sense
    than the above list of alternatives, but it's not what I think of as
    reason.
    
    .2 (emotions are misleading, reason shows what's really there) -
    
    Usually, I seem to understand your entries (although I hesitate to say
    so given your "case in point") but this one threw me.
    
    Emotions are relatively stable.  They can change unexplainably (and the
    resulting pain is one reason for this note) but they have a certain
    inertia.  (I think of a quote from "The Third Man":  "You don't stop
    loving a person just because you find out more about him.")  Emotions
    also involve intuitive knowledge, which seems much subtler and open
    than deductive knowledge.  Many times my emotion has warned me that
    something was wrong only to be argued out of it (wrongly) by my reason.
    
    Reason, on the other hand, is completely unreliable by nature.  You can
    spend years believing something based on reason only to have your
    belief reversed in an instant by a new argument or by an
    counterexample.  Reason can build skeletal contructs around what is
    really there or can help pry us from a false view of what is really
    there, but I can't imagine it making us _see_ what is really there.
    
    .3 -
    
    I should've explained about Stendhal.  I was referring to his (and to a
    lesser extent, his characters') way of throwing himself into a passion
    or adventure, heedless of consequences, all the while carefully
    analyzing the causes and effects of the passion.  "Lab animal, research
    thyself."  His analysis seems to have almost no influence on his
    actions; after all, that might disturb the impartiality of the
    experiment.  (The Doctah does an excellent job of describing a
    healthier way to deal with the syndrome.)
    
    Regarding Drano and roses:  I have a B.A. in math and am very serious
    about poetry.  The practice of poetry hasn't much to do with "feeling
    emotional".  Coordination of coherent intellectual, imagistic, sonic,
    and emotional structures is tougher brain work than any math (or
    programming) I've ever done.  Now _readers_ of poetry can feel as
    dewy-eyed as they please, but I can't imagine Dante composing the
    Paradiso in a burst of passion. 
    
    The few times that I've tried verse myself, I've found it even more
    distancing than rational analysis.
    
    .6 -
    
    Your fortune cookie (along with a conversation last weekend with a
    different friend from .0 in a different city) made me realize that
    reason, having its own set of rules, naturally leads outside one's
    current mindset.  Whether it leads towards truth or not is another
    matter; the distancing is valuable in itself, sometime serving as a
    force which helps the mind out of the muddy patch in which it's
    spinning.
    
    Distancing oneself from one's current desires is liberating and often
    rewarding; this can translate into a feeling of revealed truth.  Note
    that recalling and drawing analogies to previous experiences (or to
    biblical texts, say), that astrology, the I Ching, tarot, and fortune
    cookies, that friendly conversation and that Freudian analysis are also
    ways of drawing one's mind away from its self-imposed obsessions and
    can also give a sense of self-evident truth. 
    
    Ray

    Some apropos quotes from John Wilmot's "A Satyr against Reason and
    Mankind", c. 1675, follow.  Moderators, it's in the public domain.
    
    
    The senses are too gross, and he'll contrive
    A sixth, to contradict the other five,
    And before certain instinct, will prefer
    Reason, which fifty time for one does err;
    Reason, an ignis fatuus in the mind,
    Which, leaving light of nature, sense, behind,
    Pathless and dangerous wandering ways it takes
    Through error's fenny bogs and thorny brakes;
    Whilst the misguided follower climbs with pain
    Mountains of whimseys, heaped in his own brain;
    Stumbling from thought to thought, falls headlong down
    Into doubt's boundless sea, where, like to drown,
    Books bear him up awhile, and make him try
    To swim with bladders of philosophy;
    In hopes still to o'ertake th'escaping light,
    The vapor dances in his dazzling sight
    Till, spent, it leaves him to eternal night.
    Then old age and experience, hand in hand,
    Lead him to death, and make him understand,
    After a search so painful and so long,
    That all his life he has been in the wrong.
    Huddled in dirt the reasoning engine lies,
    Who was so proud, so witty, and so wise.

    ...

    But thoughts are given for action's government;
    Where action ceases, thought's impertinent.
    Our sphere of action is life's happiness,
    And he who thinks beyond, thinks like an ass.
    Thus, whilst against false reasoning I inveigh,
    I own right reason, which I would obey:
    That reason which distinguishes by sense
    And gives us rules of good and ill from thence,
    That bounds desires with a reforming will
    To keep 'em more in vigor, not to kill.
    Your reason hinders, mine helps to enjoy,
    Renewing appetites yours would destroy.
    My reason is my friend, yours is a cheat;
    Hunger calls out, my reason bids me eat;
    Perversely, yours your appetite does mock:
    This asks for food, that answers, "What's o'clock?"
    This plain distinction, sir, your doubt secures:
    'Tis not true reason I despise, but yours.
    
    
    (I should point out that Wilmot was far from consistant in his use of
    "right reason", being drunk for about a decade, riddled with venereal
    disease, several times exiled from the court for inappropriate writings
    and violent actions, and converted to Christianity on his deathbed.)

>    Regarding Drano and roses:  I have a B.A. in math and am very serious
>    about poetry.  The practice of poetry hasn't much to do with "feeling
>    emotional".  Coordination of coherent intellectual, imagistic, sonic,
>    and emotional structures is tougher brain work than any math (or
>    programming) I've ever done.  Now _readers_ of poetry can feel as
>    dewy-eyed as they please, but I can't imagine Dante composing the
>    Paradiso in a burst of passion. 
 
    As Ezra Pound once said "only emotion endures."  You can play all kinds
    of tricks with words, but in the end it is how it feels that counts in
    poetry.  I agree that programming is easier than writing poetry (that
    is why I am writing programs for DEC :-)), but math ain't.  Just try to 
    read any algebraic geometry book, and you will see what I mean :-).  
    See, everyone can read poetry and can try to write, but immediately 
    they encounter all the difficulties associated with it.  On the other 
    hand, in math, you won't even encounter the really difficult problems
    until you are at least 7 to 10 years down the road.  I think that is 
    why it creates a feeling that doing math is indeed easier than writing 
    poetry.  Believe me, it isn't.
       
>    The few times that I've tried verse myself, I've found it even more
>    distancing than rational analysis.
 
    But you can feel it (forgive me, but I dare to argue that if you can't
    feel it, you might as well dump it).
    
    Eugene
               
             

    re .12:
    
    	"I agree that programming is easier than writing poetry..."
    
    Actually, I think it's easier to write 
    A bad poem than a bad program,
    But harder to write 
    A good program than a good poem. 
    
    I say this because
    There are more bad poets than bad programmers, 
    But fewer good programmers than good poets.
    
    	Jon

    Speaking as both a poetry lover and a programmer I'd rather read
    good poetry than a good program but they both have their place.

    I don't think most people use 'reason', they use 'rationalization'.
    They build houses of logic with specious foundations to prove what
    they want to be true.

    On the other hand, emotions can also mislead. They give you a "gut
    level" truth that may not match reality. If one person has let you
    down and hurt you, your emotions will explode into the next
    relationship telling you not to trust again. Maybe true, maybe not,
    but who can tell?

    I consider myself a creature of emotion, ruled by the moon and my
    feelings. I may think through a thousand options but at the moment
    of decision how I feel is the determining factor of what I do. liesl

    Some words from ee cummings about thinking and reason

    the trick of finding what you didn't lose
    (existing's tricky: but to live's a gift)
    the teachable imposture of always
    arriving at the place you never left

    (and i refer to thinking) rests upon
    a dismal misconception; namely that
    some neither ape nor angel called a man
    is measured by his quote eye que unquote.
    

RE: .14

>    I'd rather read good poetry than a good program 

For me, that depends on the mood. A good program (or, for that
matter, a schematic of an inventive design) shines with its own
beauty that Poetry (or even Music or the Theater) cannot match.


>    I don't think most people use 'reason', they use
>    'rationalization'.

What a profound observation! And, I believe, quite true. Though you
will have a hard time finding anyone who will admit to doing it
themselves. I never do.


>    On the other hand, emotions can also mislead. They give you a
>    "gut level" truth that may not match reality. If one person has
>    let you down and hurt you, your emotions will explode into the
>    next relationship ...

This, I believe, is highly personal. For some people it may be true.
For many others. no way. Generalizations should always be avoided
(except for the one in the previous paragraph, with which I agree). 

-- Ron