Didn't make it to the sink

[avevale_intelligencer]

Because:

Neil Gaiman on entitlement issues.

Seanan McGuire on the above.

Both posts are good, and this is just a thought that spun off from reading them in close succession.

The answer to any question that begins "Is it wrong to feel...?" is "no."

While there may be some who have perfect control over their emotions, I believe there can only be a few. For the rest of us, emotions drive us. They are the foundation of the structures of reason we build with our brains, they are the fuel that powers the engine of our will, they are the bow with which we shoot our arrows of desire. They shape the world we live in. We do not control them. If we're very lucky, we can sometimes use them. The rest of the time, we just hold on and hope not to be thrown off.

We do control what we do about them. We have (most of the time) that measure of control. We can (nearly always) choose not to act on our emotions. It's not always an easy choice (there are times when it's not a humanly possible choice, and then we simply have to take the consequences of our actions), it can be damned painful, and it's so very tempting, every time, to give in, but we do have the power to choose. I gave in just now, when I decided to have another look at LJ instead of going and doing the dishes, and that means the dishes will remain undone for a little longer. Neil's correspondent gave in when he decided to articulate his annoyance at George R R Martin, but he exercised control in that he didn't (as far as I know) scream directly at Mr Martin, but instead put it to Neil in the form of a question.

It's not wrong to feel anything, just as it's not wrong to think anything or believe anything. I don't believe telling people that it is helps at all; it just gets them all wound up about something over which they have no control. What you do about your feelings, what you say and to whom, how you express your emotional state...that is something over which you have, most of the time, some control.

Is it wrong to feel annoyed when an author isn't writing the book you want her to write? No.

Is it wrong to write to that author saying "Why aren't you writing the book I want you to write?" Could be. Depending on how you frame the question, it could be very wrong, or it could just be mildly irritating. Either way, it's best to think before you do it, something the net makes it very easy not to do.

And now I really am going to go and do the dishes.

EDIT: no I'm not, because I've seen the pitfall yawning. Someone, possibly howeird, will comment with an air of spurious innocence along the lines of "So, you're saying that it's not wrong to feel, say, hatred towards non-white people, then?"

In the sense that that feeling is not justified, yes, of course it is wrong. I want to be very clear on that. Sometimes feelings are without justification. Emotion has by its nature very little to do with truth.

What I am saying is that telling someone that it is wrong to feel that hatred (in the sense of "morally unacceptable") will not enable them to make the feeling go away. Feelings can change, of course, but the process is hardly ever susceptible to conscious control, and can take years. We may, given a firm resolve and the willingness to act on the part of our leaders, be able to eradicate acts of hatred, and compel those who feel the hatred to choose not to act on it, every time. I hope we can. But that will not make the hatred disappear. Even if we can induce people in the grip of hatred to want to be free of it, that is not something they can do by a single act of will. It's not in their control, any more than the flash of irritation when you read your favourite writer's blog and there's nothing there about the next book, or the surge of depression when I think about that sink full of crockery.

I hope that makes my meaning a little clearer.

Comments

[keristor.livejournal.com]

What you say in your edit is how I read your earlier part.

However, I would actually go further and say that /feeling/ hatred towards someone or some group is not ethically wrong, because the person feeling it can't do anything about it. Allowing yourself to /do/ something based on that feeling (including speech and writing) is what makes it ethically wrong. Feeling it and refusing to act on those feelings, in my book, is a very admirable thing, just as acting to overcome any disability is admirable (and is akin to courage being not the absence of fear but acting in the presence of and in spite of that feeling).

[lil-shepherd.livejournal.com]

This. I know we disagree on a lot, but I agree with you wholeheartedly (as I agree with Zander) on this.

This is why the whole "Trust your feelings, Luke," thing bothers me so much. It is our ability to refuse to give in to our feelings that is the greatest attribute of the human race.

[bedlamhouse]

This is why the whole "Trust your feelings, Luke," thing bothers me so much. It is our ability to refuse to give in to our feelings that is the greatest attribute of the human race.

Don't be confused by the inability of the English language to use two different terms when one will do. Obi-Wan is telling Luke to trust his intuition, not his emotions. In fact, he and Yoda warn Luke against giving in to his emotions. Often. Frequently.

[lil-shepherd.livejournal.com]

Which makes very little difference, as, for my money reason is what makes us human, and intuition comes way, way, behind.

[sodzilla.livejournal.com]

Well, some people claim intuition is actually nothing but reasoning done subconsciously - which is certainly the best explanation I've been able to find for it.

I'm generally nervous of arguments about reason making us human. Certainly we're able to control our worse impulses, and we need to do it, a lot of the time. But automatically privileging reason above emotion leads to its own pitfalls.

[lil-shepherd.livejournal.com]

On that we will have to disagree.

Yes, reasoning can be outside top-level consciousness - indeed, it has been argued that all reasoning is actually outside top level consciousness, which strives to catch up. However, what makes us human is the ability to overcome both emotion and instinct. As far as we know, outside the other Great Apes, nothing reasons, and certainly no other animal reasons in a formal fashion.

All other animals operate by instinct - which is, in biological terms, built-in operating systems. Sub-conscious reasoning is not instinct in those terms.

[zanda-myrande.livejournal.com]

I don't know where intuition fits in--I've never had any that I know of to trust or not to trust.

There are, for my money, also times when emotion can be right and reason (for whatever, um, reason) dead wrong. I wouldn't trust either alone in absolutely all cases. We need both. Or, even if we don't, we have both and there's no getting away from it.

The reason...I'm sorry, the consideration that prompts me to stress the control of emotion by reason is that emotion is so much more powerful and basic. Reason is the top three inches of the iceberg that is a person, and it has to work many times as hard to steer the whole gigantic bulk and stop it crashing into ships and things. It is what makes us human, I think, in that it's one of the last things to develop in the species that became us, and that puts it at a huge disadvantage against the old wily monster it has to ride.

Sorry this has taken so long--I got called away in mid-thingy and have now lost my thread. I think that was about it though.

[catsittingstill.livejournal.com]

I've heard it said that emotion tilts the field on which reason must play. I thought that was a very interesting idea. I agree with you that reason can stop a person from acting on emotion--but it's hard, like kicking a soccer ball uphill. It takes constant attention.

[keristor.livejournal.com]

I like that comparison, thanks for it.

[lil-shepherd.livejournal.com]

Well, I'm not disagreeing with you - I'm just suggesting that one of the things that makes us human is the ability to reason. But what I do not trust is this glorification of emotion above reason that you get in so many pieces of art. If you see a child fall into an icy river, emotion tells you to leap into after it, but that will only get both of you killed.

In respect of personal relationships, or of moral decisions, emotion can be the way to go, or, at least, is something that needs to be considered. However, that we can override that emotion and do the rational thing is what differentiates us from (most) other animals.

[catsittingstill.livejournal.com]

I thought this was very well put.

[pbristow.livejournal.com]

Amen to that. [NODS]

[catsittingstill.livejournal.com]

Since I was in my teens I've thought of it like this:

Emotions are like the wind. The wind blows or it doesn't, and there's nothing I can do to change that, and wanting to be able to change it doesn't mean I actually can.

I can choose what to do, given the direction and force of the prevailing winds. I can row with the wind, or against it, put up the sail or throw out the sea anchor, or do my best to struggle back to the harbor and tie up at the dock.

But I'm not responsible for the wind itself, so I try not to feel guilty about it.

What you had to say seems very similar to me.

[howeird]

Using me as an excuse to not do the dishes? Okay, I'm good with that.

I agree with you that it is not wrong to feel whatever one feels. Beliefs I'm not so sure about, but thinking? Hmmmmm. I guess if you're drawing the fine line between thoughts and actions, maybe.

As for the bothering of authors, If someone wrote a book or series I enjoyed, and it dawned on me that I would also enjoy their writing another book with xyz as the theme, or character J hooking up with that hottie in book three, I might drop the author a line saying how much I enjoyed the other books and ask if there were any plans to write something about xyz or character J.

I used to write a weekly column for a daily newspaper, and would often get suggestions for a topic. I took it as a compliment that someone was actually reading my stuff. I can only recall one where the person was rudely insistent, and I simply threw it out. This was before email and delete keys.

[keristor.livejournal.com]

"fine line between thoughts and actions"

Fine line? I see it as a very big line. If I think about punching you in the nose, nothing happens. If I take the action, you get a bloody nose (and we possibly end up both in hospital and on criminal charges). As a German filksong goes: "It's OK to want to throw the childen out the window. / It's OK, just to think, but it's not OK to do."

If I think about committing an act, but don't do it, there is nothing either good or bad about it. I can think all I want about giving a thousand pounds to a charity, but if I don't do it then it has benefited no one. It is true that thoughts and feelings can then be actualised, but having the thought does not have the effect on the real world.

[howeird]

Fine line? I see it as a very big line.
It's a thin line for many people, depends on how impulsive you are. To take a less drastic example, I went into the grocery store last night to buy some sharp cheddar cheese and a bunch of bananas and found myself with half a cart of stuff at the checkout. Somewhere in there the thought "gee that looks good" turned into an action. It's a sliding scale, though, because I did not act on lots of other thoughts, like "it would be fun to topple that neatly stacked display of canned fruit".

My rule of thumb is the more painful the outcome, the thicker the line between thought and actions. YMMV.

[faxpaladin.livejournal.com]

"'Look, don't get the wrong idea. It's not a case of not wanting to,' said Angua. 'It's a case of wanting to and not doing it.'"
- Terry Pratchett, Feet of Clay