[From Boss Man (2004.04.27)]
I would be interested to learn the PCT explanation of the positive emotions such as "satisfaction"
that people claim to experience while doing such things as sailing, gardening, and painting.
From[Bill Williams 27 April 2004 6:10 AM CST]
[From Boss Man (2004.04.27)]
I would be interested to learn the PCT explanation of the positive
emotions such as "satisfaction"
that people claim to experience while doing such things as sailing,
gardening, and painting.
Can we add to this list looking at the sunset?
Bill Williams
[From Bill Powers (2004.04.27.0859 MST)]
I would be interested to learn the PCT explanation of the positive
emotions such as "satisfaction" that people claim to experience while
doing such things as sailing, gardening, and painting.
I think it helps, in conjecturing about emotion, to forget everything
people have said about it (even those morphin' things) and just examine
the phenomemon as you experience it. Isn't "satisfaction" what you
experience any time you're successfully controlling your experiences? Is it
really "satisfaction" you're asking about, or the feeling that accompanies
it? We may say "feeling of satisfaction," but it would be closer to the
real experience to say "feeling AND satisfaction." I am satisfied with my
current experiences, meaning the errors are small, and I also have a
feeling to go with the satisfaction. I call it a good feeling, But why?
If I look closely at any feeling, it turns into just a sensation or set of
sensations. I can't speak for anyone else, but I assume I'm not a freak, so
maybe it works the same way for you. I'll say "we" in case that is right.
The trouble is, with good feelings we don't really want them to turn into
just a bunch of sensations, so we don't like to look at them that way. If
we exert efforts to have those feelings, they must be good, right? Why rock
the boat?
The closer we look at a "good" sensation, the harder it is to see what's
good about it. I think that may be because whatever we look at and evaluate
as either good or bad, the valuation is taking place in the observer, not
in the observed. The observed is just whatever it is -- a painting, a
mountain, a feeling of pleasure (which becomes just a tightness in the
chest or something if we look at it too long). The evaluation is going on
inside the observer. Things or feelings don't "have" values: we value
them.Valuing is doing something that says "this is a good thing to
experience." And how do we do that? We set our inner reference level for it
to a high magnitude rather than a low one or zero. That is all it takes for
us to find ourselves actively seeking more of that experience (if it's not
already happening).
I know, this doesn't really capture the whole experience of a positive
emotion, but doesn't it cover a fairly large part of it? I think there's
always a sort of disappointment with explanations like this: "Is that all
there is?" But that can make us reject the truth, too. We want emotions to
matter more than they actually do, to have some sort of deep validity that
is more than just feeling sensations and having thoughts about them. We get
addicted to emotions, putting value simply on having them -- either good or
bad ones. By that I mean we don't want to devalue them because -- well,
because we value them.
Looking at emotions is like looking at faint galaxies in a telescope
eyepiece. If you look directly at them they disappear. You have to use
averted vision (a very nice phenomenon of awareness, by the way) to bring
them into view -- to take the edge of clear vision off and capture the
overall impression at lower resolution. Or maybe a better analogy would be
looking at a half-tone photograph or pointillist painting: if you get too
close all you see are the components and the overall picture goes away.
That, of course, suggests that we see emotions at more than one level of
perception. What I'm talking about here is looking at them from a low-level
point of view, where all the dots are visible. But the place where emotions
take on mysterious significance is not at that level, but at higher levels
where we categorize and symbolize and reason and theorize about the
categories and symbols instead of the experiences that underlie them.
Doing something I like to do, and do well, puts me in a state that I value
rather high on the scale of experiences. It's not so much that this state
is good, it's that when I think of ways of being, I compare them with this
state, which is how I would like to be all the time. I say that anything
that feels like this state feels good. There may be aspects of this state
(as seen at lower levels) that are equally part of states that I try hard
to avoid: elevated heart rate, panting, tightness in the chest,
vasoconstriction and so on. But if I'm winning a race, those feelings add
up to something good, whereas if I were losing the same race, they would
feel awful -- mostly because of opinions about winning and losing, of
course, not about the actual feelings.
So there you are, a nice refreshing sip from the firehose.
Best,
Bill P.
.
[From Boss Man (2004.0428)]
Bill Powers (2004.04.27.0859 MST)
I'm still missing one or more connections. When I walk or drive, I exercise control very
successfully, but rarely experience satisfaction in the process. I do experience satisfaction in the
process of sailing. Since a high level of control is exercised in all three situations, why do I only
experience the third as satisfying (most of the time)? Why do pursue satisfying activities?
Perhaps satisfaction is an intrinsic variable. This seems to me to make the most sense.
From [Marc Abrams (2004.04.28.1629)]
[From Boss Man (2004.0428)]
Perhaps satisfaction is an intrinsic variable. This seems to
me to make the most sense.
I think you might be onto something here. Now all you need to do is to
define 'satisfaction' in terms of our physiology and biology.
Marc
Considering how often throughout history even intelligent people have
been proved to be wrong, it is amazing that there are still people who
are convinced that the only reason anyone could possibly say something
different from what they believe is stupidity or dishonesty.
Being smart is what keeps some people from being intelligent.
Thomas Sowell