The Personal Side of the Homosexual Debate

[Arthur Brain]

You continue to misunderstand my position, which must mean you either have zero reading comprehension or you are simply skimming my posts without paying any attention to what is being said.

READ THIS: I never asserted that one can simply turn on/off their feelings on a whim. What I asserted is that overtime one's conscious decisions to act on or reject the emotions one feels results in those emotions changing. You can nourish feelings so that they grow, or you can reject them and harden your heart against them.

If you have an emotional feeling as strong as actually being in love with someone you don't get to either choose to develop such or make 'decisions' that help to 'switch it off' over some random duration of time. Do you think people can choose to harden their hearts over time when they experience grief at the loss of a loved one to provide another example? You think people can control emotions as simplistically as that?

 

[csuguy]

If you have an emotional feeling as strong as actually being in love with someone you don't get to either choose to develop such or make 'decisions' that help to 'switch it off' over some random duration of time. Do you think people can choose to harden their hearts over time when they experience grief at the loss of a loved one to provide another example? You think people can control emotions as simplistically as that?

You get to choose how you will act on your feelings. Strong feelings don't remove freewill - they simply highly influence it. If you consciously decide that a relationship is inappropriate, then you may choose to harden your heart against it. Of course, without a compelling reason one would not normally do this. Lacking such a reason, one embraces the emotions - which is a beautiful experience.

And yes - one's emotions for a lossed loved one do fade overtime. I've lost family and pets. I was quite sad when it happened, but it is not something that pangs me anymore - I've accepted it and moved on. I look back on them fondly, but not sadly. Of course, the closer they are the harder it hits, and the longer it takes.

And one's emotions for a dead loved one might very well turn negative if, after their death, they learn horrible secrets about them. For instance: finding out that a dead spouse was cheating on you for years.

Furthermore, I did not say that changing emotions was "easy." Resisting something that feels good, that you may want badly, is never easy. But, if there is good reason to, resist temptation you must.

 

[quip]

The costs of existing are worth a little pain, for there is far more joy and love to be had. Don't like the state of the world - work to make it a better place - its not like you are planning on reaching Nirvana this life anyways. Abandoning the world because you are afraid of a little pain - that's just cowardice. And the means of doing so - abandoning all that is good and moral, tossing aside your love for others - this is evil.

Besides, freedom has no meaning when you lack the desire to do anything.

This is a fine declaration...just one problem, it's based upon a faulty premise. Buddhist's don't abandon the world or love...incidentally, that's antithetical to what the Buddha taught. Teach yourself about the middle-way.

 

[Arthur Brain]

You get to choose how you will act on your feelings. Strong feelings don't remove freewill - they simply highly influence it. If you consciously decide that a relationship is inappropriate, then you may choose to harden your heart against it. Of course, without a compelling reason one would not normally do this. Lacking such a reason, one embraces the emotions - which is a beautiful experience.

I'm not arguing that there's no will involved in how one acts on said emotions, rather that such cannot be controlled themselves.

And yes - one's emotions for a lossed loved one do fade overtime. I've lost family and pets. I was quite sad when it happened, but it is not something that pangs me anymore - I've accepted it and moved on. I look back on them fondly, but not sadly. Of course, the closer they are the harder it hits, and the longer it takes.

For you perhaps. For others it never heals no matter how much time elapses. From what I've ascertained with your exchanges with Granite you admit to being not exactly the most emotional of people anyway so perhaps it is easier for you to "move on".

And one's emotions for a dead loved one might very well turn negative if, after their death, they learn horrible secrets about them. For instance: finding out that a dead spouse was cheating on you for years.

Perhaps, but that's straying from the point.

Furthermore, I did not say that changing emotions was "easy." Resisting something that feels good, that you may want badly, is never easy. But, if there is good reason to, resist temptation you must.

In some cases it's impossible and beyond any sort of decision making process. I'm not talking about pursuing a temptation or an inappropriate course of action but simply a feeling itself.

 

[csuguy]

This is a fine declaration...just one problem, it's based upon a faulty premise. Buddhist's don't abandon the world or love...incidentally, that's antithetical to what the Buddha taught. Teach yourself about the middle-way.

In order to reach Nirvana you must give up your attachments and desires based upon Buddhist teachings. Indeed - according to the Buddha these desires and attachments are the very source of the pain you are seeking to escape from.

And, in order to escape Samsara, you must be rid of all the wholesome and unwholesome karma that keeps you locked in the cycle of death and rebirth. Karma is produced via moral action - by intending to do good/bad. Only neutral karma doesn't hinder your path towards Nirvana.

As such, a practicing Buddhist seeking Nirvana must abandon their love for others and abandon the desire to do good. For to act on morally good desires is to bind yourself to Samsara.

 

[csuguy]

I'm not arguing that there's no will involved in how one acts on said emotions, rather that such cannot be controlled themselves.

By acting on them you are influencing the fate of those emotions, and how you will feel in the future regarding said person.

For you perhaps. For others it never heals no matter how much time elapses. From what I've ascertained with your exchanges with Granite you admit to being not exactly the most emotional of people anyway so perhaps it is easier for you to "move on".

I'm not a feeling type, I am an intellectual. This no doubt gives me an advantage in letting go. I've never been one to hold a grude or hate anyone - too much emotional work. I'd rather forgive and move on.

However, it would be false to conclude that I don't have the same emotions as you or anyone else; it just means that my relation to my emotions is different - I don't let them blindly control me. However, I also embrace them if I see no reason not too, and can be quite sappy at times.

Perhaps, but that's straying from the point.

No its not - it reflects the fact that a change in conscious perspective leads to a difference in how you feel about someone you may truly love.

In some cases it's impossible and beyond any sort of decision making process. I'm not talking about pursuing a temptation or an inappropriate course of action but simply a feeling itself.

Whether a feeling is inappropriate or not depends upon the context. Morality enters the picture when you decide how to act on it.

 

[quip]

In order to reach Nirvana you must give up your attachments and desires based upon Buddhist teachings. Indeed - according to the Buddha these desires and attachments are the very source of the pain you are seeking to escape from.

And, in order to escape Samsara, you must be rid of all the wholesome and unwholesome karma that keeps you locked in the cycle of death and rebirth. Karma is produced via moral action - by intending to do good/bad. Only neutral karma doesn't hinder your path towards Nirvana.

As such, a practicing Buddhist seeking Nirvana must abandon their love for others and abandon the desire to do good. For to act on morally good desires is to bind yourself to Samsara.

No, not abandon. The Buddha taught that abandonment is the opposite of clinging...yet, an equal form of desire....its not a goal to be sought. Again, the middle-way is what he taught. I'll admit, it's hard to get your head around and even harder to explain.

 

[csuguy]

No, not abandon. The Buddha taught that abandonment is the opposite of clinging...yet, an equal form of desire....its not a goal to be sought. Again, the middle-way is what he taught. I'll admit, it's hard to get your head around and even harder to explain.

He taught to avoid the desire to abandon things - but in practice, to remain neutral with regards to others is nothing else but abandonment of love for others.

You can't love someone and be neutral regarding them. To love someone is to care for their well-being and your relationship with them, to desire that they be safe and well and that you are in a good relationship with them.

It is not a matter of getting your head around it - its a matter of the two being incompatible.

 

[Arthur Brain]

By acting on them you are influencing the fate of those emotions, and how you will feel in the future regarding said person.

Well, it may work that way for you but for others the feelings stay no matter what course of action they take.

I'm not a feeling type, I am an intellectual. This no doubt gives me an advantage in letting go. I've never been one to hold a grude or hate anyone - too much emotional work. I'd rather forgive and move on.

It's possible to be both intellectual and have strong feeling so using intellectualism in itself is hardly valid.

However, it would be false to conclude that I don't have the same emotions as you or anyone else; it just means that my relation to my emotions is different - I don't let them blindly control me. However, I also embrace them if I see no reason not too, and can be quite sappy at times.

Well, you don't come over as being particularly emotive frankly. For example, when you described your reaction to losing family and pets your exact words were 'quite sad' whereas for many, if not most people it would be more 'devastated' and similar.

No its not - it reflects the fact that a change in conscious perspective leads to a difference in how you feel about someone you may truly love.

Quite possibly, and it would be painful one way or the other.

Whether a feeling is inappropriate or not depends upon the context. Morality enters the picture when you decide how to act on it.

Quite, but the feeling itself is beyond control. I wouldn't dream of pursuing another man's wife by way of example. If I developed unwanted feelings for her I'd just be hoping that one way or another they dissipated.

 

[quip]

He taught to avoid the desire to abandon things - but in practice, to remain neutral with regards to others is nothing else but abandonment of love for others.

You can't love someone and be neutral regarding them. To love someone is to care for their well-being and your relationship with them, to desire that they be safe and well and that you are in a good relationship with them.

It is not a matter of getting your head around it - its a matter of the two being incompatible.

Asceticism transpires slowly as a natural progression of studying and contemplating Buddha's teachings, perhaps for several lifetimes...it's not a prerequisite or something done rashly. One would eventually come to the conclusion that love eventually ends, its a transitory emotional attachment that inevitably results in suffering ...a tough pill to swallow perhaps yet, a necessary one to remove yourself from lifetimes of samsara.

Your objection is symptomatic to the (understandable) clinging desire for love.

 

[csuguy]

Asceticism transpires slowly as a natural progression of studying and contemplating Buddha's teachings, perhaps for several lifetimes...it's not a prerequisite or something done rashly. One would eventually come to the conclusion that love eventually ends, its a transitory emotional attachment that inevitably results in suffering ...a tough pill to swallow perhaps yet, a necessary one to remove yourself from lifetimes of samsara.

Your objection is symptomatic to the (understandable) clinging desire for love.

It might not happen immediately, but a practicing Buddhist must ultimately give up love for others if they are to reach Nirvana. To chase after Nirvana all that is good and moral must be abandoned - and for what? Nothingness..

It might be necessary to give up love to escape Samsara - but why escape in the first place? Do you remember your countless life times? When you were born - were you tired of living? Are there no new experiences for you? Is there no love in your life?

There is pain in life, sure. But there is happiness, love, and fulfillment in life as well - and these outweigh any suffering. Indeed, according to Buddhists teachings, to do good results in good things happening to you - while bad things result in bad things happening to you. Surely, then, you can plan ahead for a happy existence by doing lots of good things - and avoid any pain by avoiding sin.

 

[Arthur Brain]

I have a natural hard wired revulsion toward it. I believe that is how God designed every human being.
Homosexuality is a dysfunctional addictive behavior as are many of the sexual sins out there. Once a person is snared, it is hard for them to extricate themselves.

Well, the one obvious problem with that arguments is:

If everyone has the same hard wired natural revulsion towards it, how could anyone possibly choose to be attracted to the same sex?

 

[csuguy]

Well, it may work that way for you but for others the feelings stay no matter what course of action they take.

For a dear loved one who was very close, some degree of pain may remain for one's lifetime - but it does decrease. If it didn't - it would be completely debilitating and one wouldn't be able to continue functioning in society.

It's possible to be both intellectual and have strong feeling so using intellectualism in itself is hardly valid.

I never said to use the intellect alone. But the intellect should monitor and guide emotions, not allowing them to run around unrestrained. Feelings are best when they are backed by the conscious will and mind. Then they can be fully embraced.

Well, you don't come over as being particularly emotive frankly. For example, when you described your reaction to losing family and pets your exact words were 'quite sad' whereas for many, if not most people it would be more 'devastated' and similar.

Being emotive and having emotions are two different things. No - I don't particularly care for spilling my guts out to people. I don't like to put my emotions on display - and I generally don't care to be around overly emotive people. None of this means that I do not experience the same emotions as anyone else, nor that I do not experience them just as intensely.

Quite, but the feeling itself is beyond control. I wouldn't dream of pursuing another man's wife by way of example. If I developed unwanted feelings for her I'd just be hoping that one way or another they dissipated.

The feeling is controllable overtime - for by changing your conscious perception you may change your feelings (as with case presented earlier of learning horrible things about a loved one after their death). By making the conscious decision that such a feeling is inappropriate you consciously fight thinking about her like that - and overtime you stop.

 

[Arthur Brain]

For a dear loved one who was very close, some degree of pain may remain for one's lifetime - but it does decrease. If it didn't - it would be completely debilitating and one wouldn't be able to continue functioning in society.

For some people it's debilitating for a very long time, and time doesn't heal the wound.

I never said to use the intellect alone. But the intellect should monitor and guide emotions, not allowing them to run around unrestrained. Feelings are best when they are backed by the conscious will and mind. Then they can be fully embraced.

But this is the point. Intellect has no say in it. If I could have simply rationalized things on an 'intellectual level' I'd have 'willed' myself not to fall in love with the woman I told you about earlier in the thread. From a purely logical perspective there was no point in developing those feelings as there was nought at that point that could come of it. It happened anyway and I couldn't just 'reason' it away, as much as I wish I might have been able to...

Being emotive and having emotions are two different things. No - I don't particularly care for spilling my guts out to people. I don't like to put my emotions on display - and I generally don't care to be around overly emotive people. None of this means that I do not experience the same emotions as anyone else, nor that I do not experience them just as intently.

Well, you've already described yourself as 'not a feeling type' so it is actually questionable as to whether you feel emotional response as intensely as others do to be fair.

The feeling is controllable overtime - for by changing your conscious perception you may change your feelings (as with case presented earlier of learning horrible things about a loved one after their death). By making the conscious decision that such a feeling is inappropriate you consciously fight thinking about her like that - and overtime you stop.

If it transpired that a passed love one had done something hitherto unknown then it may well have an effect, obviously. Then again, it will be an emotive reaction that informs it. If you think you can consciously will yourself to stop being in love with somebody however, even if to pursue such is inappropriate, then it ain't quite that easy...

 

[csuguy]

For some people it's debilitating for a very long time, and time doesn't heal the wound.

But it does decrease nonetheless - they start to move on, they must move on.

But this is the point. Intellect has no say in it. If I could have simply rationalized things on an 'intellectual level' I'd have 'willed' myself not to fall in love with the woman I told you about earlier in the thread. From a purely logical perspective there was no point in developing those feelings as there was nought at that point that could come of it. It happened anyway and I couldn't just 'reason' it away, as much as I wish I might have been able to...

And as I said - I never asserted that you can turn emotions on/off like a switch. Stop attacking a strawman.

You keep returning to the same false dichotomy: you want to say that either emotions are completely a matter of the conscious will, or else the will must have no role to play in emotions.

Both of those positions are false. The reality is that while emotions may come on us independent of our will, they can be influenced by the conscious mind overtime. If you make the conscious decision to value something deeply - any attack on that thing invokes emotions. If you discover truths that shatter your pre-existing perceptions of a person - your emotions regarding them change. etc. And this is because both the emotions and your conscious will are rooted in the same place: your brain. Emotions arise form the subconscious, but the subconscious mind is shaped through our conscious will and experiences.

Well, you've already described yourself as 'not a feeling type' so it is actually questionable as to whether you feel emotional response as intensely as others do to be fair.

When I said I'm "not an artys feeling type" I very clearly meant that as a personality description, such as with Myres-Briggs. Being an intellectual type, as opposed to a feeling type, doesn't mean that one lacks emotions. It means that one doesn't let their emotions serve as their guide - an intellectual puts more weight in objective logic vs subjective emotional appeals.

See this for more details: http://www.myersbriggs.org/my-mbti-personality-type/mbti-basics/thinking-or-feeling.asp

If it transpired that a passed love one had done something hitherto unknown then it may well have an effect, obviously. Then again, it will be an emotive reaction that informs it. If you think you can consciously will yourself to stop being in love with somebody however, even if to pursue such is inappropriate, then it ain't quite that easy...

Again, never said it was easy. I'm certainly not innocent myself in this arena - I've made the mistake of pursuing someone who was already in a relationship before myself. Oh the drama... But something being difficult isn't the same as it being impossible.

 

[Arthur Brain]

But it does decrease nonetheless - they start to move on, they must move on.

And sometimes, for some people, it simply doesn't.

You keep returning to the same false dichotomy: you want to say that either emotions are completely a matter of the conscious will, or else the will must have no role to play in emotions.

I've never said that emotions are anything like a matter of the conscious will. That would be a bizarre position to hold given that falling in love is far from a conscious decision. What I am saying is that you can't will yourself either in or out of such a feeling. If those feelings dissipate it won't be due to some 'decision process', otherwise you may as well argue we could will ourselves to be attracted to floorboards. That's what one poster on here thinks we can do...

Both of those positions are false. The reality is that while emotions may come on us independent of our will, they can be influenced by the conscious mind overtime. If you make the conscious decision to value something deeply - any attack on that thing invokes emotions. If you discover truths that shatter your pre-existing perceptions of a person - your emotions regarding them change. etc. And this is because both the emotions and your conscious will are rooted in the same place: your brain. Emotions arise form the subconscious, but the subconscious mind is shaped through our conscious will and experiences.

If you discover certain things that mar your former perception of a person then you're not making a conscious decision to change your emotions. It happens independent of the will and a subconscious reaction.

When I said I'm "not an artys feeling type" I very clearly meant that as a personality description, such as with Myres-Briggs. Being an intellectual type, as opposed to a feeling type, doesn't mean that one lacks emotions. It means that one doesn't let their emotions serve as their guide - an intellectual puts more weight in objective logic vs subjective emotional appeals.

See this for more details: http://www.myersbriggs.org/my-mbti-personality-type/mbti-basics/thinking-or-feeling.asp

Or perhaps it's just that you're not a particularly emotional person? I'm not saying you lack any emotion but your responses to certain things are a lot more subdued than most people's would be. Where it comes to intellectualism then it's not simply a case of intelligence v feeling.

Again, never said it was easy. I'm certainly not innocent myself in this arena - I've made the mistake of pursuing someone who was already in a relationship before myself. Oh the drama... But something being difficult isn't the same as it being impossible.

Well, I wasn't referring to the act of actually pursuing someone inappropriately but simply the feeling itself whether you acted on it or not. If only feelings like that were within conscious control...

 

[csuguy]

And sometimes, for some people, it simply doesn't.

Some people choose to hold on - some kill themselves over the lost of a love one. Not because they loved them more than anyone else who has lost a loved one - but because they let their depression consume them.

I've never said that emotions are anything like a matter of the conscious will. That would be a bizarre position to hold given that falling in love is far from a conscious decision. What I am saying is that you can't will yourself either in or out of such a feeling. If those feelings dissipate it won't be due to some 'decision process', otherwise you may as well argue we could will ourselves to be attracted to floorboards. That's what one poster on here thinks we can do...

I didn't say you said that. What I said is that you are presenting a false dichotomy: either emotions are completely under the control of our conscious will (clearly false), or else they are completely independent of the conscious will (what you have been pushing forth). You easily dismiss the prior and therefore conclude the later - without considering anything in between.

If you discover certain things that mar your former perception of a person then you're not making a conscious decision to change your emotions. It happens independent of the will and a subconscious reaction.

It demonstrates that your conscious perceptions, thoughts, will, etc. influence your emotions. If you admit that to for your conscious experiences to influence your emotions - then why not your conscious choices?

Again - if you consciously decide that something is important to you - do not emotions arise when someone threatens it?

You can't cut off the emotions from your conscious life - emotions aren't random, they respond to our experiences, thoughts, values, etc. Watch a sad movie - does it not move you?

Or perhaps it's just that you're not a particularly emotional person? I'm not saying you lack any emotion but your responses to certain things are a lot more subdued than most people's would be. Where it comes to intellectualism then it's not simply a case of intelligence v feeling.

Again - being emotive and emotional are two different things. Just because I don't wear my heart on my sleeve doesn't mean I don't feel as deeply as someone who does. It simply means I have a different relationship with my emotions. It's really not that hard to understand - more like you refuse to understand it.

I'm growing rather tired of such snobbery - trying to downplay my emotional life with respect to your own.

If only feelings like that were within conscious control...

You get to decide how to act on them - to nourish them in your heart and through your actions, or to resist them and harden your heart against it.

 

[Arthur Brain]

Some people choose to hold on - some kill themselves over the lost of a love one. Not because they loved them more than anyone else who has lost a loved one - but because they let their depression consume them.

So, let me get this straight. Those who die as a result or who are so racked by grief that they're consumed by emotional loss are effectively 'choosing' all of that? Do you have any idea of just how precocious and downright condescending that sounds?

I didn't say you said that. What I said is that you are presenting a false dichotomy: either emotions are completely under the control of our conscious will (clearly false), or else they are completely independent of the conscious will (what you have been pushing forth). You easily dismiss the prior and therefore conclude the later - without considering anything in between.

Well who 'chooses' to feel happy, sad, angry, euphoric etc? You can choose on how to act on any given emotion but you have very little say in how any of them come about. If you stub your toe on a morning I doubt you can will yourself to find pleasure in the experience...

It demonstrates that your conscious perceptions, thoughts, will, etc. influence your emotions. If you admit that to for your conscious experiences to influence your emotions - then why not your conscious choices?

Again - if you consciously decide that something is important to you - do not emotions arise when someone threatens it?

You can't cut off the emotions from your conscious life - emotions aren't random, they respond to our experiences, thoughts, values, etc. Watch a sad movie - does it not move you?

Okay, in order - if one were to discover that a deceased loved one had been cheating, then unless there was already any suspicion there then the first reaction would likely be ones of shock and hurt, none of which I would say could be under conscious control.

Making a conscious decision to find something important is often predicated on the subconscious to start with, so if it's threatened in some way then yes, emotional response would come into play. Say you'd fallen in love with someone and they were under attack for example. You'd want to defend them right?

It would depend on what the film was to be honest. If it was some formulaic Hollywood schmaltz then I likely wouldn't be moved at all. If it was an intelligent film with genuine emotional depth to it then yeah, chances are I'll be moved by it.

Again - being emotive and emotional are two different things. Just because I don't wear my heart on my sleeve doesn't mean I don't feel as deeply as someone who does. It simply means I have a different relationship with my emotions. It's really not that hard to understand - more like you refuse to understand it.

Or rather you seem to prefer to refer to yourself as an intellectual in regards to how you have so much apparent control over such, as if others who aren't so 'intelligent' are somehow a slave to them if they happen to disagree with you.

I'm growing rather tired of such snobbery - trying to downplay my emotional life with respect to your own.

Rather ironic given your opening insistence in this post. lain:

You get to decide how to act on them - to nourish them in your heart and through your actions, or to resist them and harden your heart against it.

You get to decide how to act on them, that much I've not argued against. 'Choosing' to diminish those feelings isn't a simple as opening a can of beans however. If it is for you, then I would say you're lucky but in other senses, perhaps not as well...

 

[Eeset]

This thread is now officially derailed.

 

[csuguy]

So, let me get this straight. Those who die as a result or who are so racked by grief that they're consumed by emotional loss are effectively 'choosing' all of that? Do you have any idea of just how precocious and downright condescending that sounds?

I'm not talking about people who die in their sleep or something as a result of their severe emotional stress. I was clearly referring to those who commit suicide; they do choose to end it all of their own free-will. It is in their control.

Well who 'chooses' to feel happy, sad, angry, euphoric etc? You can choose on how to act on any given emotion but you have very little say in how any of them come about. If you stub your toe on a morning I doubt you can will yourself to find pleasure in the experience...

Even when the false-dichotomy is pointed out you just return to it...

Okay, in order - if one were to discover that a deceased loved one had been cheating, then unless there was already any suspicion there then the first reaction would likely be ones of shock and hurt, none of which I would say could be under conscious control.

Their conscious experience led to a change in their emotions

Making a conscious decision to find something important is often predicated on the subconscious to start with, so if it's threatened in some way then yes, emotional respoonse would come into play. Say you'd fallen in love with someone and they were under attack for example. You'd want to defend them right?

Incorrect - more often than not one's values are a result of conscious experiences and decisions. For instance: when one converts to a religion/philosphy they adopt values from that religion/philosophy as their own. Or again, the people you value are a matter of choice - you choose who to spend your time with, who you consider a friend or foe. Democrats vs Republicans. Capitalists vs Socialists. Israel vs Palestine. etc.

It would depend on what the film was to be honest. If it was some formulaic Hollywood schmaltz then I likely wouldn't be moved at all. If it was an intelligent film with genuine emotional depth to it then yeah, chances are I'll be moved by it.

Granted not all movies are gonna move you - but some do. And that demonstrates that emotions aren't operating in their own dimension apart from our conscious life. Our conscious mind is linked to our emotions - there is no reason to conclude that this is a one-way communication channel.

Or rather you seem to prefer to refer to yourself as an intellectual in regards to how you have so much apparent control over such, as if others who aren't so 'intelligent' are somehow a slave to them if they happen to disagree with you.

Wrong - I refer to myself as an intellectual for that is what I am: I am naturally drawn to thinking logically and looking for the optimal solution regardless of people's emotions on the matter. I am drawn to the study of philosophy, theology, Computer Science, etc. This doesn't mean that I innately have control over my emotions more than anyone else, it simply means that I don't embrace emotional appeals as a guide for life. Emotions are good and enhance life, but they aren't an indication of truth or the way things should be.

The feeling types, on the other hand, are primarily concerned with other people's emotions: they seek harmony. A good goal - but they are willing to sacrifice logic to make people feel good. They are more prone to using emotions as a guide for life, though they are as equally capable of using logic as the intellectual.

Being an intellectual doesn't give you control over your emotions, that is something that comes from the conscious will disciplining the mind. A fool blurts out whatever he feels, a wise man restrains himself.

Rather ironic given your opening insistence in this post. lain:

I didn't downplay anyone's emotions. I fully grant that it hurts terribly, and for a long time. But one doesn't commit suicide independent of their will - that is something they choose.

You get to decide how to act on them, that much I've not argued against. 'Choosing' to diminish those feelings isn't a simple as opening a can of beans however. If it is for you, then I would say you're lucky but in other senses, perhaps not as well...

By choosing how you act on them - or refusing to act on them - you are deciding the fate of the emotion. If you constantly and emphatically refuse an emotion, then eventually it will change. Emotions are really no different, in that respect, from any other function of the brain. It is a matter of positive and negative reinforcement to develop connections in the brain that result in a change in behavior (or emotions in this case).