Josh says (11:33 AM):
Well to me it sounds a bit creepy
Emmah says (11:33 AM):
It is.
Emmah says (11:34 AM):
But he's not.
Josh says (11:34 AM):
so...what? you think it's a phase or something?
Emmah says (11:37 AM):
Exaggerated emotions like that tend to run out during the day anyway.
Josh says (11:38 AM):
depends
Josh says (11:38 AM):
depends how real they are
Emmah says (11:39 AM):
Emotions are emotions, they aren't meant to run forever.
Josh says (11:40 AM):
there's always reminince of strong emotions
Emmah says (11:41 AM):
You know what I think? I think that the process goes thought -> emotion. So as long as the person keeps thinking X then then he will keep feeling Y every time he thinks of X.
Emmah says (11:41 AM):
If you change X, you can change Y.
Josh says (11:43 AM):
You can't always change it
Josh says (11:43 AM):
Sometimes it always shows up and you can't help but think of it
Josh says (11:43 AM):
in his case, he can by just not talking to you
Emmah says (11:46 AM):
You can ALWAYS change X. For example, him missing me like that if we were to assume he was being genuine, could mean he has issues regarding people always leaving him at his most vulnerable. To me, I would immediately change that because that's really weak and co-dependant, I would say, well hey, they might not be here, but I don't need them to because I am not *actually* vulnerable and I *can* take care of myself.
Josh says (11:48 AM):
The point is even though you think that way, you will still think about it
Josh says (11:49 AM):
the effect it has on you is what changes
Emmah says (11:50 AM):
Nooo... it just means you haven't found the cognitive source of your emotional conflict.
Josh says (11:50 AM):
It's impossible to not think of things when something reminds you of them.
Josh says (11:51 AM):
unless you find something to give yourself amnesia
Emmah says (11:53 AM):
k, need I remind you your mind is not independant of you? That you're in complete control of it? That you have the ability to change your own thoughts? It's a very useful tool. For example, if you thought you knew the answer to a question, but you were wrong and someone corrected you, you've just reaccessed what you know about that thing. WHich has an obvious advantage... like not defending yourself against a lion with only a watermelon in hand.
Josh says (11:56 AM):
so you think you control your mind instead of your mind controlling you?
Emmah says (11:56 AM):
Absolutely.
Josh says (11:56 AM):
So what in your body controls your mind?
Emmah says (11:57 AM):
They were codependantly. But I'd say the greatest influence your body has on your mind is hormones. Though, all parts of your body are connected to your brain in some way, so ah, that's how they're condependant...
Emmah says (11:58 AM):
were = work
Emmah says (11:58 AM):
con = co lol
Josh says (11:59 AM):
Horemones are produced because your brain tells them to. Every single thing in your body works because of your brain. The only ting that doesn't get affected is anything that happens inside each individual cell
Josh says (12:00 PM):
your brain controls you. It's not like my hands tell my brain "Hey bitch! I wanna type!" My brain is telling my hands to type
Emmah says (12:03 PM):
But then you have to ask what is controling your brain. Well at least, you would if you didn't believe in "a higher power" making these things happen the way they do... I think most philosophers have called it "the spirit"... Still, no one knows what that is...
Josh says (12:04 PM):
God isn't controlling my brain
Josh says (12:05 PM):
The brain is controlled by electric signals and outside interaction.
Josh says (12:05 PM):
If God controlled my brain, there would be no free will
Emmah says (12:06 PM):
Heeey, that was my theory, about the electrical signals... I think I told my father of that once... But still, too much stuff no one knows. One thing I'm positive of is, though, that nothing about your is permanent, least of all emotions.
Emmah says (12:07 PM):
And I have to go away for a while cos something just happened and now I'm sad.
Josh says (12:07 PM):
emotions are not permanent. Just reacurring
Josh says (12:07 PM):
You want to talk about what's making you sad?
Emmah says (12:09 PM):
If they're recurring then they have a pattern, if you can find the pattern you can break it, ie the actual source of the emotional conflict.
Emmah says (12:09 PM):
There's no reason to, my FMB that Kate gave me just broke, and it also contained some other memories of special people.
Josh says (12:11 PM):
It's not a pattern, it's only certain outside things that trigger it. The only way to not have the same emotions is to get rid of those things.
Josh says (12:11 PM):
And that can not happen. They will always be somewhere in the world
Josh says (12:11 PM):
unless you can find all of them and destroy them
Josh says (12:12 PM):
which would be a little psychotic
Josh says (12:12 PM):
for instance w/e is making you sad now. with the memories.
Emmah says (1:04 PM):
No, I sorted mine out.
Emmah says (1:04 PM):
Amazingly, I don't think that a set of events dictates your exact reaction. How you interpret the event, which is different with everyone, dictates how you react to the events.
Emmah says (1:05 PM):
Change the interpretation and you're fine.
Emmah says (1:05 PM):
There's no right, wrong or one way to interpret something.
Josh says (1:08 PM):
That's very true
Josh says (1:08 PM):
everyone interpruts things differently
Emmah says (1:09 PM):
I still don't believe it's set in stone how a person interprets an event either. I think how you interpret something can change. With the example from before about being corrected.
Josh says (1:10 PM):
it's never set in stone how you interprut things
Josh says (1:10 PM):
depending on the person, it is more likely that they will interprut things one way rather than the other
Emmah says (1:11 PM):
So change it and you're fine. I find it very hard to believe that someone who is told their father just died, but the person was lying and their father is actually in perfect health, is still going to be grieving after he learns his father is in full health.
Josh says (1:12 PM):
In that case, they didn't chang it. the circumstance changed.
Josh says (1:12 PM):
but changing it isn't that easy
Josh says (1:12 PM):
not everyone thinks like you
Emmah says (1:13 PM):
Their interpretation of the circumstance. The father was always the same, it was the other person who lied. It was the person who interpreted the father to be dead making him said, then when he learns the father is fine, his interpretation of the situation changes,.
Josh says (1:13 PM):
You are trying to prove a point that if his dad died, he needs to change his interprutation
Josh says (1:14 PM):
not if his dad died and then was found to be alive
Emmah says (1:14 PM):
It's always the interpretation, the event doesn't actually do anything. Like, loving a person for example. The person you love isn't giving you the feeling, it's your own interpretation of the person and you creating that feeling.
Josh says (1:14 PM):
of course
Josh says (1:14 PM):
but if that person changes, so does the other interprutation
Emmah says (1:15 PM):
Yes, so, if I tell someone they're father died they could have numerous different reactions depending on how they interpret the situation. The person may not actually like the father, so they're happy that he is dead! Another person might be sad because they were attached to their father.
Josh says (1:15 PM):
ok
Emmah says (1:16 PM):
Thank you.
Josh says (1:16 PM):
I'm still waiting for the point
Josh says (1:16 PM):
you're talking about 2 different people all of a sudden
Josh says (1:16 PM):
people are different
Josh says (1:17 PM):
I'm not even sure what you are trying to prove anymore
Emmah says (1:18 PM):
Event/stimulus -> Thought -> Interpretation -> Reaction/feeling.
Kids father dies. Kid was attached to father. Kid could be sad, but acknowledges that this is a circumstance that cannot be un-done and do upset himself would be a waste of time. Kid feels the loss of the parent, but does not get severaly depressed and emotional, instead he accepts it and is not troubled by it.
Josh says (1:19 PM):
Yes, but to the very original point, no matter what feeling he gets from it, that feeling will never go away
Josh says (1:19 PM):
only stored until reminded
Emmah says (1:20 PM):
The feeling he ends uo getting is acceptance!
Emmah says (1:20 PM):
He does feel upset, say that he accepts it, but still gets upset. That's fucking contradictory.
Emmah says (1:20 PM):
doesn.t*
Josh says (1:22 PM):
There is a difference between greivence/sadness and dwelling/depression
Josh says (1:22 PM):
and take it easy. not that serious
Josh says (1:22 PM):
you can accept, but still feel sadness
Josh says (1:22 PM):
and if that is what he feels, that will never go away. it will come out in some form every time something reminds him of his dad
Emmah says (1:27 PM):
You: Kids father dies, he automatically gets sad, then he thinks about it and accepts it, but he's still sad.
^
There's the problem. There was a THOUGHT before he got sad. THAT thought has to be changed. Even though he thinks about it again and accepts it, he's always going to have the same reaction because he HASN'T change dthe thought that made him sad in the first place.
As far as I know, when I accept something from happening, it's a rational event that means I'm not longer sad because I've changed my thought pattern from feeling the loss (which makes me sad), to accepting the loss. If I were IRrational I would be sad even after I accepted it, which means I didn't actually accept it at all.
When YOU seem to accept thing, you seem to accept the emotion that goes with it. Like, "I feel sadness, I accept the event and that now I will be forever sad when I am reminded of it." That's not what I mean, what I mean is you change the thing that makes you sad, making you NOT sad. People do it all the time. For example:
Emmah says (1:28 PM):
Bob asks Suzie out, Suzie declines, Bob is sad because he's rejected... but then he thinks "eh, Suzie wasn't my tpe anyway" and TAH-DAH! He's not sad! Because he's changed his thought process!
Emmah says (1:29 PM):
Usually that's out of spite because he's mad at Suzie for rejecting him... <_<
Josh says (1:31 PM):
The point I am trying to mak is that even if it doesn't hurt him anymore, he is still going to be reminded of the rejection every time he sees her no matter if he is sad, happy, or angry about it
Emmah says (1:33 PM):
Hahahaha. Yeah you haven't got it. Okay, Bob asks Suzie out. Suzie declines. Bob really liked Suzie, so he's upset that she declined. Then he gets mad thinking she thinks he's better than her, so he turns it around and says, "she wasn't my type anyway" so he instantly feels better about himself. When he sees Suzie next, he has the same feeling that he's too good for her.
Emmah says (1:33 PM):
It wouldn't make sense if you said "she wasn't my type" and then STILL got sad.
Emmah says (1:34 PM):
Like I said, you haven't treated the actual thought that triggered that emotion.
Emmah says (1:34 PM):
If you don't get it this time, I simply give up, in utter bemusement. :D
Josh says (1:35 PM):
holy fucking shit
Josh says (1:35 PM):
You keep changing the point you are trying to make
Emmah says (1:36 PM):
No it's the same point, you just fail to understand it the first time. I'm used to saying something and the person actually thinks for themself and fills in the blanks, I'm not used to having to fill in the blanks for the person, but I obviously have to when you refuse to think of it properly.
Josh says (1:37 PM):
Why are you being mean about tis for one. It's not that serious
Josh says (1:37 PM):
and 2
Josh says (1:37 PM):
scroll up. You changed points like 5 times
Josh says (1:37 PM):
The bob being mad eas added as an afterthoguht
Josh says (1:37 PM):
*was
Josh says (1:40 PM):
before you finish typing maybe we should stop because I might start saying things I shouldn't
Josh says (1:40 PM):
it will just turn bad
Josh says (1:40 PM):
so break time
Josh says (1:40 PM):
cool you fingers
Emmah says (1:42 PM):
I'm not being mean, your interpretation of what I said has led you to think I am attacking you and thus you have to defend yourself. I'm simply stating a fact: I'm filling in the blanks that you refuse to fill in yourself. I haven't changed a single point, like I JUST said, I'm filling in the blanks so what you are left with is the whole story. The point all along, if you read back properly:
1. EVENT/STIMULUS -> THOUGHT -> INTERPRETATION -> REACTION/FEELING
2. There is more than one way to interpret an event, or thought occuring from that event. Some will make you sad, some will make you happy. You have to find the one that makes you happy.
3. If you find you're still sad, then you haven't found the cause (the original thought) that led you to that reaction.
5. It is SIMPLE AS SHIT, to change your interpretation of something, using the example of the person who got corrected, which, in all LOGICAL SEQUENCE, should change your feelings. Usually you don't tend to look back on the thought that made you interpret an event negatively, USUALLY someone says to themself:
Emmah says (1:43 PM):
"Hey, that's what it REALLY meant, and now I am happy." You don't look back and say "This is how I interpreted it before, now I am sad." In all fucking rationality, you shouldn't get upset from something like that again when you've solved it, you should be looking back and saying "damn, I was way off with that interpretation..."
Emmah says (1:43 PM):
And continue to feel happy!
Josh says (1:46 PM):
You really need to realize not everyone is like you and not everyone thinks like you and not everyone believes in the fat guy buddah's beliefs.
Josh says (1:47 PM):
You have issues realizing you are not superior to evryone
Josh says (1:47 PM):
and no matter how much you say you're not
Josh says (1:47 PM):
and no matter how much you say it doesn't bother you, you know the truth deep inside
Josh says (1:47 PM):
so I'll leave you with yourself
Josh says (1:48 PM):
Stop trying to prove things to me by tunning around in circles and jumping from point to point and maybe think about being honest with yourself and other people
Josh says (1:49 PM):
Say what you like in response to all of that, but what i think doesn't matter so there really is no point in responding
Josh says (1:49 PM):
think about it yourself
Josh says (1:49 PM):
if you would like to talk, nudge me.
Emmah says (1:54 PM):
The real problem is we're both used to debating/discussing things differently. If I give my view, and someone obviously doesn't understand it, I try to clarify. Usually if the person doesn't take on the same belief themself, then they can at least acknowledge what I said makes sense.
My beliefs aren't like *every*body's, but if they clearly make sense then I see no reason why people don't try and work on themselve sthat way. I see everyone's role as just trying to maintain their own happiness, if you're stuck doing things the same way and leave you feeling the same way: sad, angry, depressed, whatever, and someone else has learnt to change their ways so they're left with happiness, I so no reason why that person should stick to what they are doing which isn't productive and learn from the other person.