Neutral events hey! Ok let me try and get my head around the logic here. It appears to me that this argument relies on the theory that in its most simple form that an event is neutral because the event itself is just something 'that happens' and is not inherently positive or negative in itself.
Eg, If it rains on a particular day one person might be upset because they're going to the footy and their team doesn't play well in the wet, a supporter for the opposition team might be happy about this because his team plays well in the wet, and a supporter going to a different game in a stadium with a roof doesn't care because the rain wont affect his game either way.
So I guess you could argue that events are, when looked as simply an isolated event, in themselves neutral. But to be honest who cares! I'm concerned about how the event will effect me! So isn't it the effect of the event on the individual that matters? That is, whether the event results in a positive, neutral or negative experience to the individual.
Don't tell me that this is just mindset.
Eg - If BLOGGS is a happily married family man with two lovely kids. Lets take for granted that this individual has no reason to want anything bad to happen to his family. A drunk driver crashes into their family car and kills his entire family leaving him alive but badly injured.
THIS IS A NEGATIVE EXPERIENCE for this particular individual! Yes, people react differently to the experience. You could argue that he could count himself lucky to be alive. But that is a matter of opinion only. Even if this event changes the course of his life such that he achieves other positive things as a result. Eg, he may compete in the Disabled Olympics and win a gold medal. But the initial experience is still extremely negative and it doesn't change that fact for him.
Yes in some circumstances you can find positives, or learn lessons, but that doesn't necessarily make the experience itself any less negative. It just means the individual is making the most of the situation whether it be a negative situation or a positive one. How someone reacts to a situation doesn't change the nature of the situation itself.
Things 'are what they are' to any particular individual at that time in their specific circumstances. Once you know the circumstances (variables are set) then there is a result for that individual that only changes if you change the circumstances.
It seems to me that people struggle with accepting the fact that individuals will experience positive and negative things in life and that they are not always in control of what happens to them. Yes you can get on with life (if you can) and learn from some experiences (where you can) but events have positive, neutral or negative effects on individuals to varying degrees depending on their specific circumstances.
Whether or not the 'event' itself is neutral in it's strictest sense seems irrelvant to me. We're talking about how things effect us. Our emotions result from an event, they don't change the event after it's already happend. The notion that a person could simply change the way they emotionally react to an experience and therefore change the positive or negativeness of the experience itself seems absurd to me. BLOGGS couldn't say in his circumstances, "I choose to be happy about about the unlawful and completely unecessary killing of my family" and make the experience a positive one! The experience is still what it is.
The suggestion (if this is the suggestion that some are making) that you can make a negative experience positive simply by telling yourself so seems to me to be ridiculous. I'd call this 'denial'. It's a self defence mechanism that prevents people from facing reality. I'll be settling for what I consider a healthy acceptance that negative things do happen (just like positive ones do) and you just have to deal with them as best you can in the circumstances.
My opinions for what they're worth.
MF35
Eg, If it rains on a particular day one person might be upset because they're going to the footy and their team doesn't play well in the wet, a supporter for the opposition team might be happy about this because his team plays well in the wet, and a supporter going to a different game in a stadium with a roof doesn't care because the rain wont affect his game either way.
So I guess you could argue that events are, when looked as simply an isolated event, in themselves neutral. But to be honest who cares! I'm concerned about how the event will effect me! So isn't it the effect of the event on the individual that matters? That is, whether the event results in a positive, neutral or negative experience to the individual.
Don't tell me that this is just mindset.
Eg - If BLOGGS is a happily married family man with two lovely kids. Lets take for granted that this individual has no reason to want anything bad to happen to his family. A drunk driver crashes into their family car and kills his entire family leaving him alive but badly injured.
THIS IS A NEGATIVE EXPERIENCE for this particular individual! Yes, people react differently to the experience. You could argue that he could count himself lucky to be alive. But that is a matter of opinion only. Even if this event changes the course of his life such that he achieves other positive things as a result. Eg, he may compete in the Disabled Olympics and win a gold medal. But the initial experience is still extremely negative and it doesn't change that fact for him.
Yes in some circumstances you can find positives, or learn lessons, but that doesn't necessarily make the experience itself any less negative. It just means the individual is making the most of the situation whether it be a negative situation or a positive one. How someone reacts to a situation doesn't change the nature of the situation itself.
Things 'are what they are' to any particular individual at that time in their specific circumstances. Once you know the circumstances (variables are set) then there is a result for that individual that only changes if you change the circumstances.
It seems to me that people struggle with accepting the fact that individuals will experience positive and negative things in life and that they are not always in control of what happens to them. Yes you can get on with life (if you can) and learn from some experiences (where you can) but events have positive, neutral or negative effects on individuals to varying degrees depending on their specific circumstances.
Whether or not the 'event' itself is neutral in it's strictest sense seems irrelvant to me. We're talking about how things effect us. Our emotions result from an event, they don't change the event after it's already happend. The notion that a person could simply change the way they emotionally react to an experience and therefore change the positive or negativeness of the experience itself seems absurd to me. BLOGGS couldn't say in his circumstances, "I choose to be happy about about the unlawful and completely unecessary killing of my family" and make the experience a positive one! The experience is still what it is.
The suggestion (if this is the suggestion that some are making) that you can make a negative experience positive simply by telling yourself so seems to me to be ridiculous. I'd call this 'denial'. It's a self defence mechanism that prevents people from facing reality. I'll be settling for what I consider a healthy acceptance that negative things do happen (just like positive ones do) and you just have to deal with them as best you can in the circumstances.
My opinions for what they're worth.
MF35
