Dancing around the question
Posted by Patrick on January 29, 1998 at 16:37:54:
In response to Walking into walls (I've given up dancing), written by Helen on January 29, 1998 at 11:31:22
Helen:
] I think it's a running commentary (nice phrase) but one which has the power to influence the mental life on which it comments - because once you've thought of something, it becomes part of your mental life, and you are therefore influenced by it. I don't see any clear line of division in the mental life between rational analysis and emotions - both are part of the consiousness, surely?
Patrick:
Good point. But "becoming part of your mental life" means going back down into the unconscious.
Helen:
Does it really not matter which one you choose, as long as you are following your heart?
Patrick:
Slippery question. If you make "good/bad" independent of "your heart" then the answer would be, It does matter. But if (as I believe) "good/bad" is not independent of the heart, then the answer would be yes (because you would not, in following your heart, choose the destructive path).
Helen:
And if it does, what happens when you feel a negative emotion? How do you produce the positive emotion to counter it? How do you recognise it as negative?
Patrick:
How do you produce the positive emotion to counter it? That's what growth is about - experiencing enough of the world, clearly enough, to generate a positive emotion. That may sound wishy-washy, but it would defeat my point to give a rational analysis of the steps whereby you "produce a positive emotion" as if this could be controlled analytically. There may not be a procedure for doing it, but there are such things as examples from life of people who can do it.
How do you recognize an emotion as negative? You don't "recognize" it as negative, which is to stand outside and look at it. You feel it as negative. And of course, "negative" is a label which lets us talk about it, which is not the same as feeling it...
Helen:
I can't think of any way of doing this without involving consious mental processes at some stage... which is what I mean by "rational thought".
Patrick:
You can't think of anyway of doing this. That means you can't put it into words and talk to yourself about how you would do this. But you might be able to do it, anyway. :-)
Helen:
You may not need to balance anything. But when I feel like taking a hammer to someone's head, I need to use all my powers of rational argument to tell myself that this would not be a good idea.
Patrick:
But it is possible that the reason you invoke those powers of rational argument is because you feel something that makes you not want to bash that person's head in with the hammer? And, here again, the "powers of rational argument" may be running commentary. They may be just a way of giving yourself permission not to pick up the hammer. Again, the existence of the rational argument does not prove the efficacy of that argument. What if you had the same feelings, but didn't make the conscious argument? (Kids, don't try this at home.)
Helen:
When angry passion has me in its grip, I am incapable of automatically generating positive emotions. Perhaps you could tell me the secret of how to do it.
Patrick:
Why do you think you are incapable? Might it be, for example, that the angry passion has some purpose in your life, and that to generate positive emotion too soon would defeat that purpose? Perhaps you're smarter than you think you are :-) And, in any event, I could not tell you the secret. It's only secret from consciousness. Mine as well as yours.
Helen:
] IMO, not walking into walls is a very important part of life management... an essential background for the fun stuff, like writing novels. If you haven't learnt the mechanics of writing/composing/painting, you will find it difficult to create. And if you investigate the backgrounds of people you think create effortlessly, you will find that they often have some form of training behind them, enhancing their natural talents, although it may be unorthodox.
Patrick:
Hmm. I don't believe in such a thing as "natural talent," anyway. In my view, all achievement is the product of experience, and anyone can learn to do anything. But I certainly agree that it would be difficult to create without some form of learning.
Helen:
] Again, see my post below. I really agree with Caroline: knowledge of JA from outside her books does suggest to me that the marriage ceremony mattered to her - for religious reasons as much as for social. If you can find any evidence for a contrary opinion external to the novels, I will be grateful to see it. If you don't think that's necessary, please explain to me why the characters who achieve successful relationships in her novels all get married, and the notably unsuccessful (William Elliott and Mrs Clay, Willoughby, Henry Crawford and Maria Rushworth (tell me I have the right sister), Lydia and Wickham) are the ones who contract extra-marital relationships?
Patrick:
For the same reason that until twenty years or so ago, film makers never made films in which criminals got away with their crime: social constraint. Even if an artist (ie, a director) had, for legitimate artistic reasons, wanted to make such a film, she would not have been able to. JA, after all, was exquisitely sensitive to the difficulty of getting published.
Thanks for your post. Very interesting ideas.
Cheers,
Patrick
Posting followups to old messages is disabled; instead go to the main index and post a new message which mentions this one.
