"You Say You Want a Revolution..." The Beatles

In the last several weeks, I started to hear rumblings of a “revolution.” Because I don’t watch TV, I mostly hear them in my daily interactions with people or from the Internet. Facebook, for one, is full of incitements for some kind of a “revolutionary” action. Some of my 20-something friends are quite passionate about the “Occupy (Your Choice of Locale)” movement and I don’t blame them.

I witnessed firsthand and lived through the products of a revolution. Every time I hear that word in a political context, it makes me think of the people from whose lips that word so easily rolled off. Are they aware that almost every “successful” revolution in history destroyed what existed without having anything to put in its place? That those revolutions “succeeded” at hurting or killing more people than the prior establishment did? That the ensuing “new establishment” was usually more oppressive than the one it replaced and that it took many decades before a livable environment was again created? (I have to add here that the American Revolution was one notable exception, but it can be argued that it did not take place in a well-established country, but a colony.)

To get some answers, I decided to talk to one of my younger friends and ask him those questions directly. Tylen’s name, according to Google, means “brave lion.” His maternal grandparents were born right after the Great War, were Flower Children and met during the Summer of Love in 1967. His mother is a teacher and his father is an architect. Tylen holds a Bachelor’s Degree in Fine Arts and paints murals, such as one would see on the walls of supermarkets. He supports “Occupy Wall Street” and he wants a revolution.

“Tylen,” I said. “Let me ask you something. How many hours have you spent studying and thinking about revolutions?” After a bit of pondering, he replied, “Ummm… Not that many; a few, here and there. We covered the French Revolution in the History of the Western Civilization class.”

“Of the countries that have experienced revolutions in the last 100 or so years, how many have you traveled to?” I asked. “Well, none. I don’t have any money to travel,” he was quick to respond.

I felt that I could ask one more question: “On the list of you intellectual accomplishments, what are the top three?” “I paint, I work with my right brain.” Tylen stammered after a short while.

I was quiet for a minute or two, thinking about how to present my final statement. “Tylen, you are a friend of mine, so don’t take offense when I say this. If I were interviewing you for a job of a “revolutionary”, I wouldn’t hire you. How could I expect people to follow a person with no historical knowledge, with demonstrated limited introspective capacity and with no record of creative accomplishment in that area?”

The look on his face reflected that he was both angry and crestfallen. I didn’t want to say anything more. I could tell him that people who follow him into the revolutionary fray without asking hard questions would be much like him: with no experience, no real knowledge and with a perception that they have “nothing to lose but their chains.” I could tell him that revolutionaries are just people and they are really good at pointing fingers at others but not so skilled at turning that index finger towards themselves. I could further ask him what makes him think that his wish for change is any more valid that another person’s desire for status quo.

I would be happy to explain to Tylen that “revolution” implies a sudden, often radical, and complete change in something; that it means an overthrow and thorough replacement of what currently exists. I would be happy to ask him how many radical and complete changes he was able to institute within himself. I could tell him that without firsthand experience with at least a personal, internal revolution, he has no credibility with me or any other thinking person. But what would be the point? His mind is made up and I really don’t need to bother him with the facts.

I am not against change. I agree with the cliché that “the only permanent thing in the world is change.” But to change doesn’t mean to needlessly destroy. We can make changes within ourselves by progressively becoming more aware of what is in and around us. The changes that stem from greater awareness are slow, non-violent and tend to be permanent.

When it comes to changing the world, ask yourself this: if you don’t like the house you live in, do you prefer to burn it to the ground and then live under the bridge while the replacement is built? Or do you prefer a more elegant way to go about it? I thought so… Nothing wrong with being elegant.

More on Emotions

I wrote about “self-regulation of emotionality” in the blog entry that addressed differentiation. It is an important piece and I want to talk about it more to answer some questions that came up. What I write here may appear over-simplified as far as the brain science is concerned. For that, I apologize. There are many books written on the subject, should you find the need for in-depth information.

A friend of mine spent some good time trying to explain to me that feelings and emotions are synonymous, and that it was an exercise in semantics to make a distinction between the two. My response was that it may be true for everyday English, but, from the standpoint of physiology, they are not quite the same.

Let’s just say that most of us experience the environment through our five senses and, perhaps, that impalpable “sixth” sense of intuition or “deeper knowing.” This is what we “feel” physiologically. Whatever we sense via our vision, hearing, taste, smell and touch comes into the brain and gets processed by the limbic system, whose job it is to color that sensory input with emotions. After a hot drink is spilled on your arm, you may feel the pain first, and then the emotions of anger or fear will follow as you become angry with the person who spilled the coffee and start being concerned about the possible damage to your skin.

Interestingly, the limbic system (also known as the “reptilian brain”) of our brains never “grows up” and that is why we may react to a situation in a childish way even as we are well into our middle age. The reaction of the limbic system is automatic. It is our thinking brain that enables us to purposely select a response to a sensory input. We are “feeling creatures that think”, not “thinking creatures that feel.”

Self-regulation of emotionality is essentially using our thinking brain to choose an appropriate response to a sensory stream of information. The trouble stems from the fact that our thinking brain is composed of innumerable and complex networks of neurons that were created by the sum total of our past experiences, which, of course, include our upbringing and education. This is what I call “programming” and it is largely responsible for how we deal with our emotions.

To be able to regulate how we experience our emotions, we need additional programming. We can acquire that new programming by learning to see the raw sensory data even as our limbic systems assign emotions to them. Seeing that original information, untainted by affects, is seeing “what is” on a mental level. Once we become aware of the stimuli that caused the emotion, we can choose the required action to maintain our sense of self and not get lost in the situation.

Accomplishing this takes a bit of practice. We need to learn to slow down even as we want to react to an emotion. We need to take some fraction of a second and become aware of what we sensed and then pick a response that is appropriate to the situation and the one that will help us go in the direction we desire. At first, it seems like a complicated, lengthy and cumbersome process. In time, it becomes so quick that no one will ever notice the slightest pause.

Well worth the work…