2. emotional stability vs emotional resilience
3. respecting emotional instabilities
4. respecting the cultivation of hysterias
5. how the mass media is like a dog humping your leg
To “respect” something means to be interested in it enough to explore it repeatedly and then update one’s presumptions based on actual observations. The word respect is related to the words inspect, spectator, specify, special, and speculate. To inspect something repeatedly is to respect it. There is an attention to what is unique or special about it.
Emotion is simply a class of experiences, including a wide spectrum of emotions like delight, terror, gratitude, rage, courage, and grief.
Emotions can be observed in humans and many other creatures. How do we identify specific emotions? Imagine someone telling a story and displaying a variety of emotions. The display of emotion is through breathing rate, body positioning, facial expressions, and vocal variations.
We can also relate various emotions to different hormones. That could be adrenaline, cortisol, and testosterone or the unique hormonal variations of a woman who is pregnant, pre-menstrual, or menopausal.
Another obvious factor in emotional response is exhaustion. A young child who “really needs a nap” can have a very different emotional range before the nap and after the nap.
The word emotion is of course related to the words motion, mode, mood, motive, motivation, as well as to remote, promote, and demote. Mood basically means a lasting emotional tendency, so even as emotions shift, the general emotional state repeatedly “settles” back to a particular mood or motivational tendency. When someone’s “emotional landscape” recalibrates to a new tendency, we can call that a “mood shift.” When someone alternates between a few different moods, we may call them “moody.”
In fact, the word mood (and thus also the word emotion) is even related to the word moon. why is the moon famous as an influence on mood and emotion?
In all creatures, different hormones are triggered by the different frequencies of visible light and of invisible radiations (infrared and ultraviolet). As the moon reflects more light (near the full moon) or less light (near the new moon), that alters the hormonal biochemistry of any bodies that are exposed to those fluctuations in reflected solar radiation.
The more emotionally responsive (as in open or unimpeded) that some organism is, the more sensitive they will be to fluctuations in the 28-day cycle of moon phases. The brains of sexually mature human females tend to be especially responsive to that 28-day cycle, which corresponds to the duration (or “period”) of the human menstrual cycle.
As a brief aside, one subject of possible controversy among theorists is how human females developed a menstrual cycle. First, it is not isolated to humans. Many primates menstruate as well as two types of bat and one other species (of rodent). Further, menstrual cycles do not always last 28 days. Some species frequently have cycles that researchers have measured to be as short as 21 days.
Further, while the length of the lunar phase is globally consistent, the actual reflected solar radiation is not. There is a difference between moonlight in clear skies at 12,000 feet elevation near the equator and the “same” moonlight on a cloudy day at sea level in polar regions. Further, with modern humans, artificial light sources can trigger various degrees of “hormonal chaos” (and the emotional variations that result from them).
So, we have already reviewed terms like moodiness and “hormonal chaos.” What about the opposite extreme: as in emotional dullness?
This brings us to the final word of the title: stability. Stability refers to a spectrum, like very stable (as in inflexible or even inert), moderately stable, moderately unstable, very unstable, and “totally collapsed” (or amorphous).
Consider the growth of a tree. A small tree has a small root system and will be easily uprooted by high winds (like in a hurricane or tornado). As it grows, a tree can get a deep, healthy root system and so it will be more stable.
However, a tree can also begin to lean (slightly or a lot). In that case, the roots may grow in a way that counters or balances the leaning (the imbalance).
In that case, that tree could be very stable (undisturbed) by winds from a certain direction, yet rather vulnerable to a strong wind from the opposite direction. If we combine a drought then a sudden flooding and erosion with high winds, that can uproot even rather stable trees.
So, stability is a rather general term. Things can stabilize, destabilize, and then destabilize. Or, something may not be capable of the adaption of destabilizing and then destabilizing. Something “inflexible” may hold steady for while under stress, but then totally break (rather than bend).
When we respect the issue of stability in relation to emotion, we can speak of emotional stability as well as emotional resilience. To use the analogy of the roots of a tree, roots can be deep as well as widespread. Shallow roots will be unstable and deep roots will be stable. Further, widespread roots will be resilient (corresponding to the ability to destabilize and then restabilize).
So, when we respect all emotions, that means that we relate to them all as instruments, as in valuable functions. We do not hysterically suppress certain ones as “fundamentally shameful” or “negative.”
However, hysteria itself can be respected as deserving great caution and care. To hysterically suppress something (an emotion or anything else) is already an extreme emotional state of hysteria. those who operate in hysteria are already what we might call “destabilized.”
Can we respect the emotional hysteria of shaming certain emotions as negative? When we respect emotion, we can respect all emotional responses… with an interest in the unique nature of each specific response.
One contrast to hysterically shaming certain emotions is hysterically glorifying certain emotions. We can also hysterically glorify all emotions without any caution (as in alertness, attentiveness, mindfulness, fear, awe, or respect). We can even hysterically vilify all emotions (as being terrifying… which is of course operating in the emotion of terror).
We can recognize emotional instability and perhaps withdraw from social contexts of destabilized or chaotic emotions. We can value opportunities to restabilize (such as social seclusion or even social uniformity).
For instance, someone who has been triggered in to distress may value a very predictable, consistent routine… which might normally be very boring or even stifling to them. If they return to a calm state, they may value abandoning the “monotony” of too much social uniformity (or seclusion).
So, when we respect emotion and stability, we respect all of the different levels of emotional stability (and emotional resilience). We find that emotional resilience is extremely valuable (as is useful or beneficial). However, very “deep” emotional stability can also be useful. Depth prevents collapse while mere resilience does not.
As for various kinds of “emotional instability,” they are each notable. Some people are trying to suppress a particular range of emotions while trying to nourish some other part of the emotional spectrum. They are not increasing depth, but are trying to spread their roots in particular ways to restabilize.
When trying to suppress some range of emotions, we may withdraw from or shame people who display those emotions openly, such as young children or people whose career involves a particular kind of emotion. Maybe we glorify the compassionate courage of firefighters who rescue kittens from out of burning houses. Maybe we ridicule the destructive courage of soldiers who confront crowds of civilians and then throw grenades in to the crowds.
However, why is it that someone would hysterically vilify or hysterically glorify any pattern of activity or experience? We can protest or praise something without any hysteria.
Hysteria is part of a shock response (an extreme distress). If armed police throw grenades in to crowds of civilians, we can predict a result of hysteria or chaos within the crowd, right?
So, consider that some individuals or groups actively seek to incite hysteria and chaos for particular other groups (or individuals). Can we respect that provoking hysteria might be considered useful or beneficial to certain special interests?
Imagine that there is a group that wants to increase the widespread use of surveillance technology. However, the public currently is biased heavily against that.
So, how can there be a surge of public support for one specific “isolated” case of surveillance technology? Create a perception of a problem so that “more surveillance” can be presented as the obvious solution! After claiming to “solve” a few “isolated” problems with “more surveillance,” then whenever there is another new problem, the “obvious” solution can be presented: MUCH more surveillance. All symptoms become evidence for the original misdiagnosis: a simple deficiency in the use of our only salvation (the latest advances in surveillance technology).
Can the public be convinced that there is too much police brutality? Then why not create a public support for increased use of video recording devices by the police “to discourage police brutality?”
Take the desired policy and then construct a perceived problem so that the desired policy can be justified as a solution. People do this unconsciously anyway, so why not do it consciously (attentively) as well?
After all the police are set up with video recorders, then other “public safety” hysterias can be created. If the public can be convinced that students are not safe in public schools, then that perception can justify metal detectors and airport TSA inspections at every entrance. Video recorders will be installed throughout the campus (also recording audio).
It is of course important to have a solution ready before inviting public hysteria. Otherwise, parents might respond to a “student safety crisis” by withdrawing students from public schools and placing them in schools where there is no safety issue.
But public authorities do not want people thinking that “the bureaucrats obviously have been negligent, so why give them more responsibility?” If the “solution” involves giving more responsibility to bureaucrats, then a public perception of widespread negligence is unfavorable. Much better would be a series of isolated, shocking, and traumatic tragedies.
The public officials can even have some members of their alliance go on TV and argue against the policy that they want to present as a solution. The public perception can be cultivated that “anyone against this obvious solution is hysterical.”
How can an unusually deplorable politician get a surge of public support? Present them as the only viable alternative to someone who is even more repulsive to public sentiments.
In other words, stir up a hysteria in which people hysterically say “anyone who is against the obvious solution is clearly retarded.” Does merely using the word “retarded” stir up controversy and hysteria? If so, then that trigger (or “psychological button”) can be firmly established by the media and then repeatedly “pushed.”
Can the masses be programmed to perceive hysteria about cholesterol or cancer or the flu or the measles? If so, that can be very favorable for those who sell things that can be marketed as “the only reasonable solution.”
Consider an issue like policies about gay marriage. The policies might be directly relevant to a small minority of people, but think of the value (to the media) of inciting hysterias to glorify and vilify different policy initiatives. For the media to retain a loyal audience, they need controversies and scandals and hysteria. Also, to keep public attention away from certain issues, just direct their attention to the latest scandals and controversies.
The idea is to polarize the public. Even with a familiar, boring issue like “balancing the federal budget” or “raising taxes on the middle class,” the media can present a massive antagonism between exactly two extreme views.
Should there be a federal law against prostitution (to prevent legal prostitution in Nevada)? Generally, most people probably do not care. So, the job of the media could be to make people care about things that are irrelevant to them (while distracting people from various things that are relevant to them).
Should members of gay married couples be allowed to serve in the military? It is probably not a high priority issue to the military. They probably have other priorities that are much more valuable investment of resources to them. However, why not create public hysteria about that issue?
Police officers need more video recorders and more grenades in order to better protect the loyal members of the public from the disloyal civilian terrorists. The court judges who monitor police brutality need better lighting on school campuses (or infrared cameras) so that they can better regulate police brutality at schools.
Our system is the most glorious ever because we recently implemented the insightful policy of _____. Further, we heroically repealed the shamefully retarded policy of ______ (which by the way was naively presented as gloriously insightful ____ years ago).
Every individual involved in the mass media cares more about you than anyone else cares about you. Do you think that your dog cares a lot about you? No, the media cares about you more.
To work for the media, the main qualification is that someone cares way more about every single viewer than viewer’s own dogs would care about those viewers. I don’t even know why people bother owning dogs these days since now the mass media is so much more caring than it was four hours ago.
In summary, my ankle was sexually assaulted by someone else’s tiny chihuahua yesterday. Apparently, I accidentally evoked some very intense motivations in the dog, probably because of my revealing clothing.
Naturally, you may be wondering whether the dog was a transexual dog, a homosexual dog, a bisexual dog, or none of the above. As for me, at first I thought the dog might be gay, but then it tried to hump the ankles of a variety of people of different sexes, proving that the dog was born as a bisexual.
Fortunately, an off-duty undercover police officer was there to video record the whole thing. Unfortunately, the lighting was not very good.
That is why I am very hysterical that we need better lighting in public schools. Technically speaking, the incident did not take place at a public school, but, if it did, would you have wanted poor lighting to justify the continuing insanity of the deplorable retards who pretend to be my political opponents? (I only say “pretend” because we are all pro wrestlers working off of the same script while pretending not to be pretending.)
See? Just saying that proves that I am honest, unlike my opponents. They deceptively incite hysteria in the masses and use terror to intimidate and shame the masses in to relating to certain emotions as fundamentally negative. Shaming people in to hysteria is shameful and wrong and they should not do that.
Again, more lighting is the only reasonable solution to this important crisis (which my hysterical opponents shamefully claim to be just a distraction from what they deceptively call the real crisis). However, we already know that they must be presumed to be wrong because they are just suffering from confirmation bias, unlike us, who are fundamentally very different from them.
“You can’t have any pudding if you don’t eat your meat! You simply have to eat your meat first before we will reward you with some pudding.” – P. Floyd (The Wall 4:59)