Addition to the Manual of Human Control
by phil on Tuesday Jul 8, 2003 11:16 PM
self-programming, thinking, imperative-based
Anyways, continuing where I left off earlier on the "Imperative-Based Life"...
Here's a interesting model. Well, basically, it deals with our response to stimuli or emotions that bubble up.
Here's the spectrum of our responses:
- Act on it
- Put up with it
- Ignore it
- Remove it
where it is the stimuli or impulse.
Decision-making model:
You act on it:
- if you endorse it
You put up with it:
- if you don't endorse it
- but can't get rid of it
You ignore it
- if you don't endorse it
- but it's not that big of a deal
You remove it
- if you don't endorse it
- and it's killing you or it's easily removed
Now, that's not necessarily complete, but it's a general model for the way we respond to things. The emotional stable, or the emotionally intelligent, or rather those who manage themselves effectively and lead themselves into cycles of or situations that they endorse and enjoy, and give them happiness, tend to have some sort of balance or combination of the above. This is intuitive, they know how to deal with things in a case by case basis. Some things, they can deal with, so they do, some they can ignore, so they do, others they enjoy or believe in, so they follow, others they actively try to fix or change.
Now, there are other versions of the humankind that still manage well without "balance"
"Endorse everything you do" - this involves just acting on everything and then retroactively endorsing it. You'll find this in a LOT of stable and effective ppl. They just "go with the flow" and conveniently the flow matches precisely with their vision about life...
"Endorse nothing" - others don't endorse much at all, so they could go either way. All options are fine to them, and they're liberated by this.
"Minimal Impulse" - the impulses or emotions that are felt by the node are of a low volume so one could also choose from any of the responses with ease.
"Strong Will" - some just have a very robotic like ability to control everything they do, so they just remove everything they dislike about themselves and keep everything they do, and charge forward with that. These are hard to find, but they're out there, and many are very successful. You'll find this among really successful people because what compells someone to remove impulses is someone who desires control, or power, and power and success often go hand in hand.
Unbalanced or poorly managing types... (these are interesting)
"Act on everything" - or the impulsive types. They don't ignore, they don't deal, they can't remove... maybe the volume of their emotions are so consuming or they don't have the will to do anything but just get swept up in the current. These ppl become the Hedonists or imagine anybody else doing everything they want to do.
"Just deal" - these are the most annoying to me. They whine and talk about problems but don't do anything to fix them, don't even act on them, nor do they ignore them, they just sit there on them. These ppl are immobile, and are usually moved around as the environment demands.
"Forced Ignorance" - the ultra religious, or rather not necessarily, but the ostrich head in the ground. These ppl just ignore all their impuless, deny everything, and instead, whatever peeps out becomes the MO.
"Failed Fixers" - those that just keep trying to fix themselves, fix others, solve problems, but never really getting anywhere due to potentially weak will and strong sweeping emotions.. these guys are depressed and usually frustrated with life.
There seems to be some sort of function between your will and your emotions. If your emotional noise is not that loud, then of course, you don't need that much will to conquer them. Too strong a will, imho, doesn't seem to harm ppl, except maybe in the case that it makes someone immoral, but that only harms the victims, not the victimizer.
Which one am I? I'm the act-on-it or failed fixer thingy. I get either swept up with an emotion that I may endorse (or not) or I try really hard to fix my problems. It'd probably be better to ignore or deal, but the volume on my emotions are really high and consume me....
objectively speaking, if this model were taut, it's logically probably better for me to be the "endorse-everything" kind of guy..... this is hard though, because I have high standards for things, and it's hard for me to just "go w/ the flow" esp. given how much control I desire out of this world.
I really wish someone gave or provided a manual for operating the human ship.... now, now, don't be quick to say, that's what psychology is for. Psychology is crap. well, I'm no expert, sorry, but this statistic is unheartening: 1/3rd of ppl become better after seeing a psychiatrist, 1/3rd worse, 1/3rd the same. uuuh. Also, from what little I've read, it models human behavior pretty well, and is good for diagnosing illnesses, but it doesn't deal with the "should" how I operate my life. How should I think in order to get what I want? What is the nature of good living in the brain. What thinking processes are good, are bad. How to I change.
I hoped philosophy would answer questions like that for me, but all I got were some nice cogent phrases.
Usually, the manual comes from the summation of the experiences one goes through... hmmphf.
Most ppl don't like talking about a manual or thinking in terms of that, so they throw out the concept entirely. My feeling si that they just don't want to think about it or rather if somebody were to really reveal that their secret to success was merely a function of topping off or rather a secret to themselves, that would dishearten them. Also, there isn't enough convergence between philosophy, psychology, and systems thinking. I mean, a psychologist would say something like, well, just follow maslow's ladder. You have needs, adress them, and you're happy. But how is one to address them, how should one address them, should I make a list? Will it work? Self-help gurus attempt these things well. Dianetics is the illusion of this but it's just mind control.
OR
Other solutions do exist but they just don't satisfy my notion of a guide.
OR
another wild theory is that division of labor enforces that not everybody have absolute understanding and control of the human. I mean, if everybody had a complete understanding, a lot would just become nihilists or realize that everything is an illusion. Also, there might be too many ppl who could go, "oh wait, I don't have to go to work or go to school, heck I don't even need to do anything"
I mean, does a the EVP need to work so hard and kill himself when even if he did absolutely nothing, he would still survive and live a possibly great life over the next 40 years? No, but that's not how capitilism works.
