More Processing.

[greenstorm]

Not having something that I like and want makes me sad.

Having something for awhile, and then not having it anymore, makes me fearful and defensive.

Not understanding why I don't have it anymore makes me more fearful and defensive, and sometimes makes me combative, where I want to find something and fight for the thing I no longer have.

If I can no longer have something, I will react less strongly, less defensively, and more rationally if I know that in advance, and if it is made clear to me that I cannot have that thing, and also if the reasons are explained although I understand that there are not always reasons for things.

There is a difference between arguing against a restriction and trying to find alternate solutions. This difference lies mainly in whether the reason for the restriction is clearly understood, in which case you are exploring alternate solutions, or hidden behind a different excuse, in which case you are arguing.

If I work hard for something, my first response is to be impatient and unsympathetic when someone else wants it without what I percieve to be working hard for it.

I can think about my first responses to things and decide whether I wish to keep them or not. I can notice them. They can be altered.

Bad thoughts are excusable, natural, and normal. They do not make one a bad person. Acting on them is sometimes excusable, but those actions are the responsiblility of the person acting them out even if they are excused.

Do you believe the above paragraph?

Comments

[khamura.livejournal.com]

In a word? Yes. That may be my personal point of view only, but you know the entire jealousy debate that recurs with nice regularity? It's the same thing. Jealousy is a "bad thought" in the sense of "negative thought" -- a feeling of lack, loss or some other situation that de- or subtracts from what you feel you have a "right" to. (I'm being extra careful with the word "right" here; I can't think of a better phrasing right now, so for want of a better word... Grains of salt are advised.)

I do believe both that 1) acting on bad thoughts is sometimes excusable, and 2) these actions are the responsibility of the person acting them out. I have to concur with 1) because I know that people sometimes act on instinct, and this instinct can often be a "bad thought". 2) then follows from my belief that, well, you have to take responsibility for your actions, right? I'm not a big friend of determinism and its view that you only ever react, and therefore are not responsible for your actions. Of course outside influences are something you need to look at as well (what with looking at things in context and all) -- it's a slippery slope both ways; the balance is hard to keep.

Excuse vs forgiveness.

[darthmaus.livejournal.com]

Bad thoughts are excusable, natural, and normal. They do not make one a bad person. Acting on them is sometimes excusable, but those actions are the responsiblility of the person acting them out even if they are excused.

Do you believe the above paragraph?

In general, no -- not the part about acting on them. Yes, bad thoughts are normal and we all have them. No, it's not 'excusable' to act on them. Excuses negate personal responsibility -- there is a difference between forgiveness and excuse. Bad acts (ie acts resulting from bad thoughts) can often be forgiven -- but not excused. Responsibility needs to be taken and acknowledged.

That's how it is in my little world, anyway.

[wik.livejournal.com]

Yes, bad thoughts are excusable, natural, and normal. But no, there is a difference between thought and action. I allow my brain much, much more free rein than I'd ever imagine allowing my body. I'm having difficulty thinking of good excuses for letting these thoughts take form, other than something along the lines of it being just too much to handle. But then afterwards, that might require a self-censorship in thought. But yeah, in all cases, the actions are the responsibility of the actor.