Emotional Cognition Theory (pt 2) A New Psychoanalytic Therapy
Part 2 of 'Emotional Cognition Theory' describes the key to its psychoanalytic thought.
My challenge:
To some I have been called a "haulei" [pronounced 'HOW-ly'] -- a derogatory name for a white person -- in native Hawaiian language. To others I have been called a "cracker" -- a derogatory name for a member of the Catholic faith. In both instances it hurt to be slurred upon. Yet, in using 'Emotional Cognition Theory', as well as by using 'emotional intelligence', I could have the patience and tolerance to not come to fisticuffs. By learning and applying this therapy I do not have to have words make me come to blows or create the tendency for anyone else to become physically aggressive. Words alone do not make me have to fight.
With our differences why should we communicate?:
It is seen by the limits of words that man is meant to communicate with others, with his environment, and with nature. We are to use words so that we can describe natural phenomena, danger, and the essence of something important. Certainly if we are attacked, or if there is inordinate aggression, it is permissible that defensive force be used. But for the most part if we are to cooperate with style and culture -- learn to compromise -- then we should be big enough to work with others whether they are 'like-minded' or not. In the end we want mankind to survive and maintain a home -- somewhere.
Just as 'barristers' -- old English lawyers -- formed in old England to have people settle differences without coming to blows; so too were words and trade invented by 'cavemen' to bring peace to communities. As man grew in population more groups (and countries) were formed and things became more complicated. More than ever communication was needed for the benefit of all -- yes, each and every one of us.
What can we do to make it better for mankind?:
At this point in time -- for all mankind -- it needs to be said that not only do we have to learn how to live in outer space, but just as likely deep under the sea, even to the "bowels" of the earth. We should work together to expand peacefully and stop killing each other and locking each other up for other trivial reasons. If it is necessary to supervise -- or lock someone up -- then give them the choice to work at something substantial while their time is engaged.
As living beings, as organisms living on this earth, even as souls bound for heaven [or the heavens if you will] we need to communicate better. One way we can do this is by applying 'Emotional Cognition Treatment'. What this means in particular is that we should express more through emotion and less with physical altercation.
What do we do with 'base' emotions?; Look at this example:
At the base of every living creature's brain is an amygdala -- a structure where the base emotions of fear and aggression are centered. In a mammal like a cat there is the higher structure of the brain which acts as a modifier to the amygdala. The higher functioning of the mammal's brain actually communicates to others of its species (or similar organisms) what emotions are going on inside the creature. One can "read" a cat better than one can "read" a crocodile.
Have you ever been able to tell whether a crocodile is 'pissed off' or not? With no warning a crocodile will either attack or crawl back into the swamp. He is either aggressive or fearful. Cats are different. Usually they 'telegraph' what they are going to do. We can "read" them easier.
Do we need to stop communicating? What do humans need to do?:
So what of humans? Man has something that no other creature really uses as well as he can. Man can talk! He has words and even intonations to his voice. He can annunciate his words clearly, talk in a whisper, or yell forcefully. He may even sing in a multitude of languages. Not to mention the use of expression the utter diversity of ways man can communicate is astounding. With patience and tolerance there really should be no reason why mankind cannot air differences. The music is infinite. Only through the static of listening ineffectively do we really misunderstand.
Our question for fighting comes either as people stop listening, misunderstand, or in cases where someone actually makes a stand for life itself. In cases where life is threatened and settling differences seems impossible we really need to ask one of either of these questions -- "Are we describing the situation accurately?" OR "Really, how important is the issue?" If the survival of any person or persons is at stake then considerations are imperative and action should be taken. Otherwise we have to keep trying to communicate until understanding comes. More on this later in Part 3.
What needs to be done with emotions?:
In brief, we need to cultivate a sense of 'emotional intelligence'. This means that at all costs we need to communicate in all ways possible without physical altercation, but in ways in which we transmit the core of our inner essence. The communication needs to be as direct and as honest as we can make it at any point in time. We also need to recognize the existence of certain moments of denial -- where the obvious is not transmitted -- and we think that we may 'betray' our true feelings (or emotions in either case). In the end our physical health and separate future is determined by the health of our brains, how we express ourselves, and how others understand us. Although at any point we may not be able to think ourselves out of a problem -- we may however be able to describe just where we are to someone who can help. We need not be afraid of our emotions per se.
The abilities described herein necessitate the concepts of hope and faith. With these underfoot, 'actions' can then be taken which can bring understanding. There will be more on these concepts in Part 3. Hold your 'baited breath' for more!
Thank you;
Respectfully submitted,
Robert N. Franz
See: amzn.to/1R1Oayq
Or check linkage: amazon.com/author/rf3rd
My challenge:
To some I have been called a "haulei" [pronounced 'HOW-ly'] -- a derogatory name for a white person -- in native Hawaiian language. To others I have been called a "cracker" -- a derogatory name for a member of the Catholic faith. In both instances it hurt to be slurred upon. Yet, in using 'Emotional Cognition Theory', as well as by using 'emotional intelligence', I could have the patience and tolerance to not come to fisticuffs. By learning and applying this therapy I do not have to have words make me come to blows or create the tendency for anyone else to become physically aggressive. Words alone do not make me have to fight.
With our differences why should we communicate?:
It is seen by the limits of words that man is meant to communicate with others, with his environment, and with nature. We are to use words so that we can describe natural phenomena, danger, and the essence of something important. Certainly if we are attacked, or if there is inordinate aggression, it is permissible that defensive force be used. But for the most part if we are to cooperate with style and culture -- learn to compromise -- then we should be big enough to work with others whether they are 'like-minded' or not. In the end we want mankind to survive and maintain a home -- somewhere.
Just as 'barristers' -- old English lawyers -- formed in old England to have people settle differences without coming to blows; so too were words and trade invented by 'cavemen' to bring peace to communities. As man grew in population more groups (and countries) were formed and things became more complicated. More than ever communication was needed for the benefit of all -- yes, each and every one of us.
What can we do to make it better for mankind?:
At this point in time -- for all mankind -- it needs to be said that not only do we have to learn how to live in outer space, but just as likely deep under the sea, even to the "bowels" of the earth. We should work together to expand peacefully and stop killing each other and locking each other up for other trivial reasons. If it is necessary to supervise -- or lock someone up -- then give them the choice to work at something substantial while their time is engaged.
As living beings, as organisms living on this earth, even as souls bound for heaven [or the heavens if you will] we need to communicate better. One way we can do this is by applying 'Emotional Cognition Treatment'. What this means in particular is that we should express more through emotion and less with physical altercation.
What do we do with 'base' emotions?; Look at this example:
At the base of every living creature's brain is an amygdala -- a structure where the base emotions of fear and aggression are centered. In a mammal like a cat there is the higher structure of the brain which acts as a modifier to the amygdala. The higher functioning of the mammal's brain actually communicates to others of its species (or similar organisms) what emotions are going on inside the creature. One can "read" a cat better than one can "read" a crocodile.
Have you ever been able to tell whether a crocodile is 'pissed off' or not? With no warning a crocodile will either attack or crawl back into the swamp. He is either aggressive or fearful. Cats are different. Usually they 'telegraph' what they are going to do. We can "read" them easier.
Do we need to stop communicating? What do humans need to do?:
So what of humans? Man has something that no other creature really uses as well as he can. Man can talk! He has words and even intonations to his voice. He can annunciate his words clearly, talk in a whisper, or yell forcefully. He may even sing in a multitude of languages. Not to mention the use of expression the utter diversity of ways man can communicate is astounding. With patience and tolerance there really should be no reason why mankind cannot air differences. The music is infinite. Only through the static of listening ineffectively do we really misunderstand.
Our question for fighting comes either as people stop listening, misunderstand, or in cases where someone actually makes a stand for life itself. In cases where life is threatened and settling differences seems impossible we really need to ask one of either of these questions -- "Are we describing the situation accurately?" OR "Really, how important is the issue?" If the survival of any person or persons is at stake then considerations are imperative and action should be taken. Otherwise we have to keep trying to communicate until understanding comes. More on this later in Part 3.
What needs to be done with emotions?:
In brief, we need to cultivate a sense of 'emotional intelligence'. This means that at all costs we need to communicate in all ways possible without physical altercation, but in ways in which we transmit the core of our inner essence. The communication needs to be as direct and as honest as we can make it at any point in time. We also need to recognize the existence of certain moments of denial -- where the obvious is not transmitted -- and we think that we may 'betray' our true feelings (or emotions in either case). In the end our physical health and separate future is determined by the health of our brains, how we express ourselves, and how others understand us. Although at any point we may not be able to think ourselves out of a problem -- we may however be able to describe just where we are to someone who can help. We need not be afraid of our emotions per se.
The abilities described herein necessitate the concepts of hope and faith. With these underfoot, 'actions' can then be taken which can bring understanding. There will be more on these concepts in Part 3. Hold your 'baited breath' for more!
Thank you;
Respectfully submitted,
Robert N. Franz
See: amzn.to/1R1Oayq
Or check linkage: amazon.com/author/rf3rd
No comments have been added yet.
