How to change your emotional state?

[bozadi]

If it was not for those prevailing frequencies, there would be no need to do The Work. We do The Work in order to be able to overcome them.

I agree that those negative frequencies motivate us to become aware of, and counteract, them. However, the work I meant would be needed regardless of those frequencies. I mean, even if we were living in a 3D STO world, we would still need the self-work 'of conscious personal relation to God/Being/Positivity' although I know that the concept of self-work cannot be limited with this idea, and I don't either. Apparently, the main reason for the fall from 3D STO in the long-wave cycle was, arguably, the lack of work on self.

 

[Anamarija]

In the second episode In Search of the Miraculous: Holy Grail Symbolism & Early Christian Mystery w/ Laura Knight-Jadczyk on the end Laura talks about, among other things, situations when someone triggers our emotional reaction:

And then there’s also something that’s very difficult. We call it the doctrine of present, which is when you’re in a situation that causes you to have an emotional reaction and you have to learn this and then you have to practice it in your life. Like your boss says or does something or one of your coworkers or whatever and you feel the heat rising and you know when it gets up to here that you’re going to say or do something that you’re going to wish you didn’t say or do and the trick is to be able to stop it here.

And to sit in it and cook with it and to be able to bring your brain into focus, because the minute that he gets up here, your brain is going to be thinking in a different way.

This is very helpful. Each time when you manage to stop the reaction and don't react in a way that could stir the situation you can feel peace and satisfaction afterward.

I was talking about it with my friend and she said that sometime she can control reaction, but sometimes she burst in the anger and everything that she tried to achieve falls apart. And also, after each controlled situation the anger rises. Which is quite opposite of what we want to do. She didn't manage to rationalize situation or make space for understanding which is important part of this practice.

Every new situation in which we succeed in this can be a new incentive for further practice.

 

[bozadi]

In the second episode In Search of the Miraculous: Holy Grail Symbolism & Early Christian Mystery w/ Laura Knight-Jadczyk on the end Laura talks about, among other things, situations when someone triggers our emotional reaction:


This is very helpful. Each time when you manage to stop the reaction and don't react in a way that could stir the situation you can feel peace and satisfaction afterward.

I was talking about it with my friend and she said that sometime she can control reaction, but sometimes she burst in the anger and everything that she tried to achieve falls apart. And also, after each controlled situation the anger rises. Which is quite opposite of what we want to do. She didn't manage to rationalize situation or make space for understanding which is important part of this practice.

Every new situation in which we succeed in this can be a new incentive for further practice.

Yes, if you are aware that the reaction you are about to make will most likely make an already negative situation even more negative, it would be great if you could desist from giving that reaction. But depending on the specific situation, sometimes your burst of anger in your reaction is inevitable and natural, kind of necessary. Knowledge protects. I mean one needs to increase one's awareness of various aspects of the situation retrospectively and prospectively.

One of the things that especially attracted my interest in that podcast which Laura said:

…people don't realize that the main thing you need to do is you need to fuse yourself into a singular being because all of us have programs. And I wrote about programs in the Wave, you know, how you have these psychological programs. You're attuned to this, you're attuned to that, you like this, you don't like that, you know, all of those things are, you know, going all these different directions. You're one person with this person and you're somebody else with the other person and trying to fuse yourself into a singular being is not so easy.

What I was trying to describe is closely related to this.

 

[forrestlittle]

Brings to mind the "not wanting to" even though you have the tools (in certain moments), and the question of whether we have any right to not want to, or instead a responsibility to maintain a certain state. I find myself more of a naturalist than, dare I say a moralist, but maybe moralist isn't quite right. If I go out barefoot in nature enough each week, have alone time, eat correctly enough (for me a bunch of beef and fat, and not too much sweets or bread), my emotions tend to be in the realm of manageable, and when something is upsetting, I feel upset and it passes.

For me the key is processing them independently and avoiding arguments rather than trying to key too far in to recognition of this or that emotion. Its weather, even if we do eat well and take care of ourselves.

I recognize the utility of being unphased so as to more productively problem solve sans the distracting negative emotion. But considering what a guiding force emotions, the negative ones, play for our safety and boundaries, I prefer the reaction, even if extended, to training myself out of a human response.

At least thats where my mind goes with the topic. Say you become unphaseable and can be in unpleasant situations all day because it doesn't bother you hardy at all. How does it affect the honor of being part of a preferred community of people who like each other, an insular clique perhaps, or simply trusted, extended family thats been hand picked as your team. Do things still taste good if you don't have anything you intensely dislike?

Thoughts.

 

[palestine]

I found an interesting quote on a French website, about emotion and the inner emotional state:

(From René Guénon et le sentimentalisme des modernes)

In subjective people, thoughts and actions are greatly influenced by emotions, that is, their thoughts and actions are determined to a large extent by how they feel. This is why contradiction, or anything that can generate any discomfort, is highly painful for them: because feeling plays a considerable role in the psychic constitution of such an individual and, consequently, "discomfort" is experienced as all the more uncomfortable. Reality is therefore assessed according to its impact on feelings: what is "good" is not what agrees with the truth, but something is considered "good" when it generates a comforting or consoling emotion (we consider, for example, that women are "equal" to men, not according to a precise criterion of truth, but for the simple reason that it "sounds" right or "appears" right, that is to say that it is no longer the correctness of the reasoning that counts, but its appreciation by the subject).

The article expands on the aspect in various ways that could be discussed - but the bolded part attracted my attention. We may want to discern that sometimes, we would wrongly "assess reality" after a "negative" / unpleasant stimuli. It's not always synonymous of "negative" - and that we may have such tendency.

I would especially think of medias - tabloïd-like - which agreed to push a bit on the manipulation to "sell" more. Some medias are, for example, there to make the citizen "feel okay", so they will not tell the whole truth. Other medias want to sell something, they are bound to ads, etc - and so it may be useful to have a way allowing to navigate through, because there are many stimuli and we may eventually face some.

(The rest of the article expands on antisemitism but I found the above bit interesting)

Original French:

Chez les personnes subjectives, pensées et actions subissent une grande influence de la part des émotions, c’est-à-dire que leurs pensées et leurs actions sont déterminées en grande partie par la manière dont elles se sentent. C’est pourquoi la contradiction, ou tout ce qui peut générer un quelconque inconfort, leur est hautement pénible : car le ressenti joue un rôle considérable dans la constitution psychique d’un pareil individu et, par conséquent, l’« inconfort » est ressenti comme d’autant plus inconfortable. La réalité est donc appréciée en fonction de son impact sur le ressenti : ce qui est « bien » n’est pas ce qui s’accorde avec la vérité, mais une chose est considérée comme « bonne » dès lors qu’elle génère une émotion réconfortante ou consolante (on considère, par exemple, que les femmes sont « égales » aux hommes, non selon un critérium précis de vérité, mais pour la simple raison que cela « sonne » juste ou « paraît » bien, c’est-à-dire que ce n’est plus la justesse du raisonnement qui compte, mais son appréciation par le sujet).