Re: [FairfieldLife] Does emotion poison the brain and destroy the ability to reason?
Vaj wrote: > It is odd, the obsessive posting on a 30 year old rape. That's not to say > it's > not terrible, but I hear of such things locally all the time. It still goes > on, > all the time. It's much more common than most people are aware of. > > I was recently talking to a guy who "baby sat" for sex offenders for a > living. > The things they would admit to, were just chilling. They're experts at where > kids go and how to groom them. State parks with beaches/swimming in the > summer > were a particular favorite. He had some real hardcore tantric practices that > kept him level-headed and balanced enough to be able to work with these > folks. > All I can say is: thank god for people like him. > > Ever see this software ad?: It might be better to talk to your 13 year old to make them aware that the people online may not be what they appear to be rather than spend some money on rather nebulous software. I think your teenager might be happy you are not spying on them. When I was growing up the only "software" needed to keep us from predators was some short movies, posters or PSAs on TV. Most of those were about excepting candy or rides from strangers. They're cleverer now. One could do a movie about some teens who agree to meet with "Susan" and then beat the shit out of him. And it's already been done (Ellen Page starring): http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0424136/
Re: [FairfieldLife] Does emotion poison the brain and destroy the ability to reason?
TurquoiseB wrote: > I'm fascinated by this Polanski situation not > because I'm a fan of his, or even his movies. > IMO, he's only made two good movies in his life, > "Repulsion" and "Chinatown," and neither of those > place him in any way "above the law." I have said > on this forum several times now that I think he > should have spent more time in jail for the crime > he was convicted of than he did. > I'm more amazed at the obsession with this boring news story on a forum of supposedly somewhat enlightened people. The obsession is about the same as the supposedly unenlightened public. I guess whatever it takes to get people distracted from more important issues at hand like the economy?
Re: [FairfieldLife] Does emotion poison the brain and destroy the ability to reason?
On Oct 5, 2009, at 3:58 AM, TurquoiseB wrote: But that has been perverted by the revenge fantasists on FFL to me "supporting and enabling a child rapist." Go figure. The amount of time Polanski serves is now a moot point. By the time his extradition is settled, he will have spend more time behind bars than he was originally sentenced to, and that will be *before* he is returned to the US, if he is. The larger issue in my opinion is that people in the media and on this forum HAVE LOST THEIR FUCKING MINDS with regard to Roman Polanski. They don't seem to be able to remember even simple facts about the legal system they claim to be upholding. There has been a lot written and there are numerous on-going investigations into what the Buddhist taxonomy of consciousness would call afflictive emotions. The first major work was by Daniel Goleman, Ph.D. and entitled Destructive Emotions. Goleman was group leader in the Mind & Life conference, where HH the 14th Dalai Lama meets with leading scientists. The meeting Goleman was at was actually the 3rd Mind & Life conference held in 1990. Since that time researchers have continued to look into this topic. I am actually just reading a more recent work on the topic of emotional awareness, a conversation between the Dalai Lama and Paul Ekman, Ph.D. entitled Emotional Awareness: Overcoming the Obstacles to Psychological Balance and Compassion. Of course there are afflictive and non-afflictive emotions. If one truly expands consciousness one should expand consciousness to include automatic mechanisms--"knee-jerk reactions"--which can include the afflictive emotions. As awareness expands, unconscious afflictive emotions are diminished. Some meditation forms may not work at this level and so destructive emotions continue to flourish, which means such people can afflict others with their afflictive emotions. But someone who is free from afflictive emotion and able to discriminate instinctively, can also use afflictive emotions constructively. It's usually pretty easy to tell "who is who" in person, if one spends enough time around them. Similarly, although with less precision, you can also get a good idea by reading someone's writing across time. One primary characteristic of afflictive emotions is that they are out of tune with reality. There is a distorted perception of reality. It is as if the perception of reality is poisoned or negatively colored by an instinctual negative reaction. Whether one can turn that afflictive emotion into something constructive depends on the skill of the individual. Certain meditative training can help one develop that skillfulness. In general meditative forms that use a form of top-down control of attention tend to favor a more egocentric neural functioning, and thus aren't as good at transforming instinctual negativity. Bottom- up, more "open presence" style of meditative practice, either alone or in conjunction with egocentric attentional forms, seem to favor a more allocentric, "other", "out there" awareness and are better at integrating and transforming negativity. "Transcend and include" rather than "transcend into". All healthy humans have various instinctual reactions or reflexes that originate from the very old, reptilian part of the brain. For example, in all humans, if they are startled by a loud sound, there is a reflexive and measurable response that always occurs at exactly 250 milliseconds after the stimulus and always lasts for exactly 250 milliseconds, always ending 500 milliseconds after the stimulus. Never longer, never shorter, in the entire species. However in advanced meditators we now know they can "transcend and include" to the point where that reptilian startle is no longer measurable or just barely detectable. It's this level of meditation practice and proficiency that allows a person to conquer--and master--even the most instinctual negative emotions. This "non-startle" presence is very obvious once one has recognized it, around certain meditative adepts. It has a kind of ripple effect through the various levels of the person. And like the afflictive emotions of a person who can spread this "affliction" to others (and cause them to produce negative emotions), people with the non- startle, non-afflictive style are able to pass that presence on to others, but in a more positive manner.
[FairfieldLife] Does emotion poison the brain and destroy the ability to reason?
I'm fascinated by this Polanski situation not because I'm a fan of his, or even his movies. IMO, he's only made two good movies in his life, "Repulsion" and "Chinatown," and neither of those place him in any way "above the law." I have said on this forum several times now that I think he should have spent more time in jail for the crime he was convicted of than he did. But that has been perverted by the revenge fantasists on FFL to me "supporting and enabling a child rapist." Go figure. The amount of time Polanski serves is now a moot point. By the time his extradition is settled, he will have spend more time behind bars than he was originally sentenced to, and that will be *before* he is returned to the US, if he is. The larger issue in my opinion is that people in the media and on this forum HAVE LOST THEIR FUCKING MINDS with regard to Roman Polanski. They don't seem to be able to remember even simple facts about the legal system they claim to be upholding. Roman Polanski was convicted of (after having been talked into confessing to it as part of a plea bargain that was not honored) only *one* thing -- having had sex with a minor. That's it. That is ALL that he was convicted of. The people screaming for revenge can't seem to remember this. They talk about the supposed drugging and the anal rape as if they were facts, and had been proven to be facts in court, and as if Polanski had been convicted of doing these things. THAT NEVER HAPPENED. These things were never established as fact; he was never found guilty of these things. They were, and remain, hearsay. Roman Polanski can be held accountable (some would say "unfortunately," and I agree with them) for only one thing -- having had sex with a minor. *That* is the only thing he was convicted of. The *only* penalties that can be applied to him are penalties appropriate to that crime. That's the appeal of reason and of legal fact. But this case isn't *about* reason or fact; it's about emotion. Normally sane people get so emotional that Cokie Roberts said yesterday on This Week (only partly tongue in cheek), "Roman Polanski is a criminal. He raped and drugged and raped and sodomized a child. And then was a fugitive from justice. As far as I'm concerned, just take him out and shoot him." This normally sane reporter doesn't even realize that she is so emotional she said "raped" twice, let alone that she's calling for him to be punished for *things he was not convicted of*. The guy should have received the same jail sentence as anyone else in the state of California convicted of having had sex with a minor. End of story. "Weighting" his sentence and making it lighter because he was famous is unacceptable. "Weighting" his sentence and making it longer because of hearsay that was never allowed to be presented in court (because of the plea bargain) and that he was never convicted of is unacceptable. Stop letting emotion poison your brains, people. Step away from the outrage (faux or real) and away from the revenge fantasies and try to remember the *facts*. Roman Polanski was convicted of having sex with a minor. Period. If you're calling for "punishment" for more than that, the person who considers themselves "above the law" is YOU.
