"There's no crying in baseball"

My life? That's a completely different story.

There's been a notable uptick in crying lately. Men, women. At work, at home. Lately, I am like a magnet for weeping.

Not that there's anything wrong with that. I have no problem with crying - it is a natural thing. A normal part of living. And I am not a conventional, emotionally-repressed American male* - I will shed tears without embarrassment at the drop of a hat (OK, maybe a tiny bit of embarrassment if there are a lot of people around).

All I'm saying is: it would be cool if the crying could be spread out a little better.

Of course, life isn't like that. People die when it is time for them to die - not when it would be convenient. People don't make plans to get confused and upset - it happens when it happens.

And I'm on top of things. I've got the situation covered. But the crying doesn't make things easy.

In fact, it's times like these when I'm most grateful for being such a contrary person. I'd like to think that it's just to "bring balance to the Force" - but it's probably just being a contrary jerk. When everyone else is nervous, I choose to remain calm. When those around me are confident, I try to point out where there confidence may be unfounded. When lots of tears are flowing - I don't cry.

I assume that's one of the reasons I'm such a weeping magnet - people expect me to hold firm in such circumstances. And I'm - if not happy - at least willing to oblige.

On the grander Good News - Bad News front, it's a roller coaster ride as well:

Good news - The Wings are up 2 games - 0 in the Stanley Cup Finals.
Bad news - GM declared bankruptcy this morning

So there's likely to be a lot more crying around here soon enough.
But let's hope this won't go on for much longer. It's a drag.

Take care.




RED WINGS PLAYOFF UPDATE:
The Stanley Cup Finals - Detroit vs. Pittsburgh
The Wings defeated the Penguins Sunday night by a score of 3-1.
Detroit leads best of seven series, 2 games to 0

* If you apply any of those terms to me individually, I would probably have to plead guilty - but not in that combination

Guilt is good

Remember Gordon Gekko?

He's just a fictional character from the film, Wall Street, so I don't have to feel guilty for very nearly plagiarizing his dialogue for the title of this post. I probably should feel guilty for using a title which directly contradicts a statement I made in yesterday's rant. But it just seemed so attention-getting and punchy; I couldn't resist.

Anyway, when we last saw Our Hero, he was getting ready to talk about how some emotions seem to fall out of favor amongst the general populace - and to mount his case in defense of guilt. Despite today's title, I stick by my statement yesterday that viewing "emotions as good or bad is almost meaningless." I think many people view emotions as bad if they seem out of control, unjustified or unreasonable. Anger, pride and hatred are sometimes described with those words - but so could grief, love or joy. Is a person consumed with anger that is out of control worse off than the person consumed by grief? If my pride in someone has caused me to lose sight of the real person, would I be better off if I was blinded by love?

Our feelings should, I think, be a reflection of our reality - not a filter through which we see ourselves and our circumstances. If the things that we have desired and hoped for happen, shouldn't we be happy or content? And if we get sick or hurt, are we wrong to feel sad or frustrated? Clearly, the makeup of our lives and our emotions are far more complex; but the principle remains that our feelings make sense as a reaction to the main action - of what is going on in our lives.

So - what about guilt?

Here's an emotion that has been getting a bad rep ever since the rebellion of the Sixties swept away the repression of the Fifties*. Once people, on a large scale, began embracing that idea that they weren't going to go to Hell for wearing a skirt their parent's though was too short, or smoking a joint, or having sex before getting married, or getting divorced - the conclusion was not far behind that previous generations had been using guilt as a tool to manipulate them. And, in so far as that was true, people were right to reject the guilt being imposed upon them externally. But some folks have, I think, taken this idea too far - and taken a stance that all guilt is useless, a waste of time, a trick to hold people back from realizing their full potential.

But I say: To reject guilt outright, is to reject the conscience. And that would be a monumental mistake. For what is real guilt - not guilt imposed externally, not someone trying to make you feel bad - what is real guilt except your conscience sending an alert that you have violated your own sense of right and wrong?

Like any other emotion, guilt that is simply dwelt upon or wallowed in serves no particular purpose, brings no benefit, and may be harmful to the overexposed. But when guilt reminds us of the right thing to do, moves us to change our behaviors where they are not in line with our own moral code, and helps us to live in a way that let's us sleep well at night...

Well, I'm all for that.

Take care.

*I know repression goes back before the Fifties - but I'm not that old.

RED WINGS PLAYOFF UPDATE:
Detroit vs. Columbus - Wings lead the best of seven series, 3 - 0

Feelings about feelings

Do certain emotions seem to go in and out of style? Oh sure, there are perennial favorites like love or courage. And hatred, fear or envy never seem to get good press. But there are other emotions - like pride or devotion or guilt - where our attitudes seem less clear. (Since I'm about to make another - in what has been a series of - sweeping generalization(s) on this blog, I'll stick with what I know.)

I think attitudes in 21st Century America concerning emotion are generally confused. I think this is a reflection of the individual struggles most people have with their own feelings. There are plenty of opinions out there about dealing with emotion - but many of these views come with an accompanying agenda (men need to get in touch with their emotions; to be successful in business, a woman must hide her emotions; we need to give our children more praise and positive reinforcement to help improve their self-image; we are praising our children too much and devaluing real accomplishment) - an agenda which often has nothing to do with understanding the causes of our emotional responses and using that information to our advantage.

My underlying premise is this: to think of emotions as good or bad is almost meaningless. Emotions ARE. We must deal with them. Attempts to ignore or suppress feelings, to discount their importance in the hope they will disappear are futile and (in the unlikely event of success in that endeavor) potentially damaging.

For the sake of time, let's take just one example: fear. If someone or something makes me afraid, what am I to do? Should I deny the feeling (I'm not afraid)? Or ignore it (There's nothing to be afraid of)? Should I label the emotion as "bad" in the hope of squelching it (fear is for wimps - my courage will overcome it)?

Isn't the first step to try and understand WHY I'm afraid? For if I can determine why, I may find a basis for concluding that there is nothing to be afraid of - or that I'm no longer afraid. And I can come to those conclusions in a lasting way - not by playing a trick on myself.

But just as importantly: If I had good reason to be afraid (that guy is pointing a weapon at me, Johnny's about to walk out into a busy street), I may be able to use the physical responses associated with fear (adrenaline rush, heightening of senses, (and in extreme cases) increased speed and strength) to meet the challenges of the situation.

I hope you find this topic interesting - because tomorrow, I'm planning to move on with the post I had originally envisioned for today.

It's called: "Guilt is good". Until then,

Take care.


RED WINGS PLAYOFF UPDATE:
Detroit vs. Columbus - Wings lead the best of seven series, 2 - 0