On 07/15/2009 01:14 AM, David Thomas Jackemeyer wrote:

Meta
Snipped meta comments.
/Meta

> --- In morelife@yahoogroups.com, Paul Wakfer <paul@...> wrote:
>
>> On 07/01/2009 10:51 PM, David Thomas Jackemeyer wrote:
>>
>>> This is a response to a portion of message 1964.
>>>>> An example involving a physical-psychological phenomenon: I have
>>>>> never enjoyed drawing blood, even for a small sample used for
>>>>> determining my blood content and their respective concentrations. I
>>>>> would like to respond differently, more focused on the benefits
>>>>> (rather than the sickening feeling of being sucked dry) and less
>>>>> likely to steer away from opportunities to learn more about my body.
>>>>
>>>> I think it is unlikely that *anyone* actually enjoys the direct
>>>> process
>>>> of having blood taken from hir body. It is slightly painful (as is any
>>>> puncture wound), but that should be all the harm that you
>>>> physiologically receive. It the phlebotomist is competent, then that
>>>> should be the only negative of the process.
>>>
>>> I can recall only competent blood draws, yet I've always experienced
>>> some sort of "shut down" by my body.
>>>
>> Since most humans do not experience this and it is hard to even imagine
>> any physiological cause for it, the experience is almost certainly a
>> psychosomatic (literally mind-body) result of your mind and the anxiety
>> within it. But such mind generated causes are ultimately under your
>> conscious and reprogrammed subconscious control.
>
> I understand that my "anxiety attack" is something I am creating in
> subconscious, likely as a response to avoid pain or suffering. More
> below...

Its intensity may be connected to some of the vividly recalled
experiences that you relate below. You do not have to continue
creating it, particularly when you do want to experience the minor
pain of the blood draw in order to gain its major benefits.

>>>> Any "sickening feeling of
>>>> being sucked dry" is merely your own emotional (psychological) baggage
>>>> (it is a very tiny amount of your total blood, so the whole idea of
>>>> being "sucked dry" is simply nonsense) which you can and would
>>>> best work to eliminate.
>>>>
>>> I have tried lying in bed at night and envisioning the mechanics of the
>>> draw, and to date I have been surprised at how anxious I get right
>>> there in the bed, tensing up, breathing shallow and quickly.
>>>
>> First, quit even imagining the "mechanics" of the draw. Simply dwell
>> on all the peripheral events involved and the benefits of the whole.
>
> OK, I'll start here, but do you mean all together?
> I planned to continue learning the "mechanics", only stopping before
> or during a draw. I have enjoyed reading about and envisioning how
> the skin organ and vein are disturbed by the entry of the needle,
> followed by platelet plug formation and blood coagulation at the
> vessel walls, etc.

Jack, why is it that if I leave any detail out you always miss my
meaning? (This is a rhetorical question, not requiring an answer, but
merely for you to think about.)
Perhaps the following written above would have enabled you to understand:
"First, quit even imagining the "mechanics" of the draw *on yourself*.
When you are having blood drawn do not think of the physical procedure
with respect to yourself, do not watch the needle, tubes, etc, rather
dwell on all the peripheral events involved and the benefits of the whole."

Yes, it is always beneficial to learn about any physiological
operation of the body. But when you are doing the learning approach it
as if it applies to humans in general not yourself.

[When I was learning to start intravenous infusions, I practiced
getting the feel of lower arm and hand veins on others and myself. But
I did not imagine inserting the needle into my own veins. Even now I
can view and palpate the veins on my arms and note which ones are good
for IVs (if that were ever needed - last time was when I had the
ureteral stone Jan 2003). But I do not envision the puncture of skin
and vein. I do not see any point in getting this graphic on *myself*
and I do not think it is a good idea for you to do it for *yourself*
either. **Kitty]

>> Second, squelch any anxiety by strongly telling yourself what an idiot
>> you are to feel that way and how counterproductive it is again because
>> of all the benefits of the blood letting and the test results.
>
> "How counterproductive", agreed.
>
> I don't understood why you use "idiot" since the word does not apply
> to me, since in present day refers to those with especially abnormally
> poor intellects. The Greek "idiote" referred to one who was static in
> hir learning of subjects outside of hir "private station". I could
> become that idiote if I ceased to educate myself; for example, I could
> move back to Indiana and live on my father's farm as a Jack-of-all-trades.
>
> Why do you choose to use "idiot"?

1. Most important, please note that I was not calling you an idiot. I
was telling you to say to yourself: "What an idiot I am to feel that
way", "What a silly emotion to have." or "How foolish to be so
concerned and have such a reaction to such a simple procedure which is
both overall beneficial and has far less pain attached to it than many
things that happen to me more often (stubbed toe, banged elbow or
knee, other cuts scrapes, bruises, etc.)"

2. My use of the word "idiot" is always with the meaning 3b from
/Webster's Third New International Dictionary, Unabridged/.
Merriam-Webster, 2002. http://unabridged.merriam-webster.com ( 15 Jul. 2009)
"a person who fails to exhibit normal or usual sense, discrimination, or
judgment especially at a particular time or in respect to a particular
subject <I don't know why I was such an /idiot/> <a perfect /idiot/
about budgeting>
Note particularly, the phrase "at a particular time or in respect to a
particular subject". I never use the word for a person as a whole.

3. I rarely ever use the word these days. I only did so here as a way
to emphasis to you the message that when you feel the anxiety, your
conscious part of mind should very *strongly* chastise the emotional
subconscious part of your mind and tell it to: "stop being so foolish"
and "stop acting inconsistently with what I (the conscious) knows is
best for me". This is what I mean by squelching, denying, scolding
and refusing to sanction your emotional response of anxiety.

4. The Greek meaning to which you refer is effectively obsolete in
current English language usage. However, since I do like to keep my
word usages close to root meanings, I will try hard to replace all
usages of "idiotic" with either "foolish", "silly", or, perhaps best
of all, "irrational" - because inconsistent.

>> Think
>> about all the times that you have cut, scraped or otherwise caused your
>> skin to be punctured and bleed profusely and how these did not cause you
>> to have this same shut down due to anxiety.
>
> Thanks for the suggestion of considering examples, of which I realize
> if and only if I watched the puncture event did I react with anxiety.
> All other times I react as you describe:
>
>> In fact, likely quite the
>> opposite, your reaction was either to ignore it if small (sometimes not
>> even to consciously be aware of its existence until much later,
>> particularly if you were intent on a particular task while the
>> cut/scrape occurred) or, if large, to immediately take action to stem
>> the blood flow and patch the wound. Why should there be any difference
>> (except from a foolish mind) between the exact same thing being caused
>> by an intentional act rather than a chance accident or error of
>> carelessness.
>>
> Great suggestions for consideration (intentional vs not).

So use this fact also to remind yourself how foolish you are being
when you feel anxiety before and during a blood draw. If you scold
your emotional subconscious hard enough for long enough and tell to it
to stop behaving this way, then it will eventually do so.

>>> I have attended two blood draws within the past year, one where the
>>> needle was very small and the phlebotomist very competent, one
>>> where the
>>> needle was relatively large and the phlebotomist new but fairly steady.
>>>
>>> I definitely had a greater physical response (much like the one
>>> described above) to the draw with a larger needle.
>>>
>> You are making a major mistake by even looking at the needles or any
>> other mechanics of the draw. I can do this with interest and without
>> anxiety problems and so I do this to get added benefit from the
>> procedure - partly to myself to be able to do a venipuncture for IV
>> purposes, if I ever need to. However, Kitty, even though a former
>> registered nurse, is still a little squeamish about having herself
>> intentionally pricked and purposefully does not watch the mechanics of
>> the procedure but rather keeps her eyes and mind on something else.
>> Perhaps long after you have stopped this anxiety attack from occurring
>> during blood draws, then you will be able to once more view the
>> mechanics and gain the added benefits of doing so.
>
> Your last sentence is my hope!
>
>> [I agree with Paul. The best thing I would suggest under your
>> circumstances, which are similar reactions to what I experienced in the
>> past, is to *not* look at the phlebotomist preparing for or actually
>> doing the procedure. I converse with hir on other or even related
>> matters, but purposely do not look.
>
> Funny thing is that until recently, I thought this technique was my
> evasion of reality, so I decided to cut the small talk, etc., instead
> taking interest in the mechanics by watching with deep interest and
> asking the professionals about the strategies/methods. Maybe I "took
> too large of a bite".

Yes, you tried to get your emotional subconscious (which has irrational
behavior to this particular event) to run before it was even crawling
correctly. Think of this way - if you are capable of rational action
toward reality, then it should never be evaded, but rather faced head on.
However, to the extent that you are not capable of facing the full
reality of something then it may be necessary to circumvent, ignore or
intentionally evade it until you are capable of fully facing it and
reacting effectively to it. Note the difference between intentional
evasion, which remains under your control and can later be altered
when it is useful to do so, and unintentional habitual or subconscious
evasion which is always negative (mainly because you don't even know
that it is happening and therefore are totally missing whatever it is
that you are evading).

>> This method and the others that I
>> took when I first joined Paul have enabled me to have venipunctures for
>> multiple tubes of blood without any of the awful sensations - and even
>> blacking out - that occurred in the past. I don't spend any time
>> thinking about the actual procedure itself - I think that this too is
>> important. Maybe sometime in the future I will look, but I'm not
>> especially motivated to doing so. Everything goes quite well now and
>> that is my interest.
>
> Do you think about the procedure when far from having a blood draw?

[I think of it only in regard to planning what day and approximate
time so that it fits appropriately with our eating. I do not at all
think about the venipuncture itself. I know from experience that if I
get it done with a butterfly and that even if the phlebotomist is not
the best, the procedure will not be unduly uncomfortable. What really
bothers me is the probing for a vein by a less experienced person or,
if a butterfly is not used, the movement every time the test tube is
changed out for another one. This last is many times when we have a
large set of tests. But I've had no real anxiety episodes since using
Paul's method. The blackouts occurred in previous years - I used to
dread going to get lithium levels every 6 weeks and that was only 1
tube. **Kitty]

>> Another suggestion, is requesting that a draw, which will require
>> multiple test tubes for samples, be done using a butterfly.
>
> Interesting, thanks for the suggestion -- I will inquire.
>
>> This is a
>> very small bore needle attached to flexible tubing that enables the
>> phlebotomist to change test tubes without disturbing the needle in the
>> vein. I regularly request this since the sensation at the venipuncture
>> site when the test tube is changed is not at all pleasant to me and I
>> think it has in the past contributed to the anxiousness I have
>> experienced. Phlebotomists do not want a patient to pass out, so if
>> you firmly request a butterfly for that reason, they will almost
>> always readily comply. Yes, this extends the time it takes to complete
>> the withdrawal of blood - but not greatly - and a phlebotomist in a
>> hurry may balk. But if you insist, s/he will not refuse to comply.
>> **Kitty]
>>
>>> Since many years ago, I have always prepared myself with very positive
>>> thoughts about the usefulness of the draw along with the interesting
>>> physics of pressure differences between vein and tube/needle, plus I
>>> always watch the needle enter and leave.
>>>
>> At least for the time being until the anxiety has been eliminated, you
>> would do best to totally quit thinking about and watching the mechanics
>> of the draw.
>>
>> Jack, having observed for some years now, both your actions and your
>> descriptions of your thoughts and feelings, it appears to me that you
>> have a strongly ingrained approach to yourself as an outside spectator
>> viewing the strange but very interesting actions of another person. In
>> fact, you are so fascinated by the activities of this other person
>> (actually yourself in this case) that you do not wish to interfere and
>> cause any changes to that other person. IOW, rather than directly
>> experiencing the life you are living, you act as a vicarious and
>> dilettante spectator of your own life.
>
> I agree that at times I have practiced delightful examination of my
> activities,

I too am (and always have been) highly analytical of my thoughts and
actions, but I would never call this a "delightful" examination.
Rather it is strictly for the purpose of ascertaining, understanding
and modifying for the better, if necessary and to the extent that that
can be done. The only times that I actually "delight" in something
about myself is when I accomplish things that I consider worthwhile or
even just difficult and when my body reacts in a thoroughly healthy
and capable manner to some event. I remember an incident many years
ago when I had not had the flu for a very long time and I was actually
pleased to see my body react positively and normally to getting it.

[Jack, the way you describe "delightful examination of [your]
activities" sounds like taking part in a spectator sport. **Kitty]

> since I have become interested in dealing with two
> difficulties: 1) making sure my presentations were palatable and 2)
> discovering actions that conflicted with my intentions.
> For an example regarding 1), when I've given a presentation of something
> important to me, I am often nervous that
> a) I am considered far beneath those in attendance, and

Jack, you need to get it strongly into your head that you are not
"beneath" any other person nor is anyone "beneath" you. There are things
that you know and understand which no one else does and for any other
person there are things which s/he knows and understands which you do not.

> b) none of them (know how to) care to participate in my development.

What you are missing here is that it is only right and proper for others
to be primarily interested in their own knowledge and development.
However, if they rationally and most efficiently pursue that objective,
then the actions that they take will automatically contribute to your
knowledge and development. I also do not "care to participate in [your]
development". I am only taking actions which aid your development so
that I will have a friend who is better developed and will return values
to me in various forms and ways, some of which will hopefully even aid
my own development.
Once again the purpose is maximizing lifetime happiness. Development of
oneself as a person is only an important and necessary means to that end.

> In class, at a lab meeting, and at Meetup groups, I get the sense that
> most are inwardly obsessed and socially careless. Since I notice this
> attitude often, I want to do my best to not exaggerate the distance
> between myself and them by replacing a set of poor habits that are
> related to protecting myself from embarrassing jesters (stemming from
> middle and high school experiences).

I am baffled about how all the above inter-relate.
1) How do you *reasonably and surely* "get the sense that most are inwardly
obsessed and socially careless"?
2) Why are you trying to assess others as a group? They are all
individuals with enormous variations of egoism, social attitudes and
social actions of all kinds. Concentrate on those who seem to have
qualities that you find interesting and to your own benefit, and
ignore the others.
3) What is the connection between "inwardly obsessed" and "socially
careless"?
4) How do these two characteristics (to the extent that they exist)
relate to "exaggerate the distance between myself and them"? - Note
again that you are lumping everyone else into a collective who is
going to act as one toward you, when in fact, each of the others
around you acts totally as an individual in hir relationship to you.
Lumping people together like this is a certain way to not be ready to
gain anything positive from some individual one of them.
5) How is any of the above related to "a set of poor habits that are
related to protecting myself from embarrassing jesters (stemming from
middle and high school experiences)"?
6) Why were you embarrassed by these clowns, rather than just telling
them what idiots they were? I can only remember two incidents of
embarrassment from my school years and they were both due to high
school teachers chiding, in one case, an uncharacteristic foolishness
and, in the other, a harmless habit in front of the whole class.

Note: All the above are rhetorical questions, not requiring answers here, but
merely for you to think about.

> Instead of self-protection, I hope redirect my focus toward reading
> the audience well

Any audience is composed of individuals. One cannot "read" an audience
even as well as one can "read" one person (and that is not much at all
either). All that one can do is to present to a stereotype of what one
expects and/or wants the typical person in the audience to be. I say
this as a teacher of many, many years of many types of courses.

[I am getting the impression that you view yourself as always "on
stage", as if in some performance. However the facts of reality are
that wherever you and whatever you are doing (short of actually being
part of some entertainment for others) very few people around you are
actually examining you at all. This is because most people are mainly
concerned about themselves, as it is right and proper that they should
be. **Kitty]

> and coupling this with a presentation that draws
> them (as many as possible) in for a deeply meaningful exchange,

Again you are going way overboard. You are never going to have a
"deeply meaningful exchange" with a whole group of people at once. At
best, you may provide some information that is "deeply meaningful" to
a few of them, but whether or not it is "deeply meaningful" is more up
to them than it is to you. A few of those few may return some "deeply
meaningful" information as comments. However, depending on the subject
matter, there may be nothing "deeply meaningful" to possibly be
communicated at all. In addition, what is "deeply meaningful" in your
consideration may not be so in the consideration of most others, or
perhaps even of anyone who is listening to you.

> both in terms of fully addressing the subject

Unless a subject is very narrow, small and simple, it can never be
"fully addressed" within any verbal presentation.

> and my own personal growth in
> presenting information for consideration.

Your personal growth is mostly dependent on you rather than your
listeners or readers, except perhaps for some valuable comments if you
are so lucky as to get them.

> To address this, I watch myself and look for distracting qualities;

I don't see how you can know what is "distracting" to others since
that is a very subjective characteristic. Instead just be yourself and
seek to attract similar others.

> I also attempt to model others who I consider to be inviting and
> intriguing.

It is essential to first analyze just why and how such people are
"inviting and intriguing". Only if their "inviting and intriguing"
characteristics are rationally and honestly based and presented, are
such role models positive to emulate.

> I do gain delight in real-time self-reflection.

As I explained before, I find it strange to label the benefit of a
psychologically healthy self-analysis as a "delight".

> It is possible that I spend too much time doing this and also for the
> wrong reasons (e.g. to make sure I look pop-culturally attractive).

Once again, be yourself (if you really have a self of which you are
proud). Act as you consider to be appropriate and effective and ignore
the cultural notions, particularly the trendy-pop ones.

> Vicariously, I highly doubt; the concept suggests that I am
> developing a second personality, one that can mostly independently
> judge the original. In addition to doubt, I am confused why you have
> chosen this word; if you have the interest and time, will you
> elucidate?

Vicarious:
*1* *:* having the function of a substitute *:* serving instead of
someone or something else *:* acting for a principal *:* representing or
taking the place of something primary or original *: DELEGATED
<memory is /vicarious/ experience in which there is all the emotional
value of actual experience -- John Dewey>
*2* *:* performed or suffered by one person as a substitute for another
or to the benefit or advantage of another *: SUBSTITUTIONARY
</vicarious/ sacrifice>
*3* *:* experienced or realized through imaginative or sympathetic
participation in the experience of another <was getting a /vicarious/
kick out of watching a fellow female preening herself over the
capitulation of the male -- Helen Howe>
/Webster's Third New International Dictionary, Unabridged/ .
Merriam-Webster, 2002. http://unabridged.merriam-webster.com (16 Jul. 2009).

In the context of yourself it means that you have a somewhat "split
personality". One part of you gets great delight (jovial amusement) in
watching the other part of you (as if it were another person) and for
that reason, does not attempt to change the other part of you, since
doing so would spoil the continuing delightful enjoyment. This is how
you appear to me.

[As I noted above, your descriptions remind me of someone who is watching
hirself perform, always assessing for a better *performance*. **Kitty]

>> I urge you to do your utmost to
>> stop this approach. Get fully involved with and fully connected to
>> your life instead of merely viewing its passing scene. Life is for fully
>> living and directly experiencing rather than for amused vicarious
>> titillation. It may be okay to view the lives of others as merely actors
>> on a big stage (although to the extent that their actions also affect
>> you this too is not conducive to increasing your lifetime happiness),
>> but it is most certainly a grave and anti-life error to view your own
>> life that way.
>
> Intuitively, I think I had been doing both, fully living and delightfully
> studying my responses.

You can't simultaneously do both effectively. The second is bound to
inhibit the first.

[It seems to me that one can reasonably examine one's own past actions
or an ongoing situation, but it is not possible to effectively examine
*at the very time* of engaging in some action or exchange with
another. If, during an exchange, a person is paying strong attention
to hir own actions, thoughts and words, then s/he is not really
listening to and noting the behavior of the other person. And
conversely, if that same person is giving hir undivided attention to
the other person's actions and/or words, then s/he is not at that time
examining hir own behavior, thoughts, emotions, etc. **Kitty]

> I am fascinated that I do become so deeply engaged in some activities
> whereas others are sleep-inducing (yawns, disinterest, much reduced
> excitement for the moment). More surprising is that I can create a
> philosophy that discourages most reasoning for participation in an
> activity, say playing basketball, and then demand of myself that I
> cease a particular action for two years -- yet -- that activity,
> basketball, might bring me hours of continuous joy, even after the two
> year drought!

Again I don't understand this "fascinated" relating to something about
which you ought to instead be puzzled, concerned and even unhappy at
the inconsistency.

The above shows that your new ideas (your newly created philosophy of
life) has not yet been fully integrated - your emotions are still not
consistent with your consciously held convictions. "Creating" a
philosophy does not *integrate* it fully into your mind. Consciously
reasoning out why some actions will be more long-run beneficial than
others (if that is what you mean) does not automatically teach and
train all parts of your mind to act in accord with these new ideas.
Rather your mind is a highly complex interconnection of somewhat
independent parts (using computer language, I call them background
subprocessors), the conscious reasoning part being only the one of
them that you are directly aware and in control of. (Although the
later is also debatable since conscious awareness has been shown to
arise milliseconds after some other clearly connected brain response,
so perhaps the conscious is merely a form of presenter of what some
other part of the mind considers to be the most important current
information of which it should be aware.)

Only rooting out and modifying emotional attachments to the previous
philosophy, now deemed incorrect, will enable such total integration.
This applies to both old positive emotions for things that you no
longer consciously value as much and old negative emotions ("yawns,
disinterest, much reduced excitement") for things which you now value
highly.

[I don't understand why you had been berating yourself for playing
some basketball and then denied yourself that pleasure for 2 years. A
couple hours a week isn't any obsession and its good physical
activity. It sure beats spectator sports that so many spend many more
hours on weekly.

We have lots of foods that we enjoy eating but we do not do so
chronically or even periodically because we are convinced that doing
so would be harmful. But we do eat them once or twice a year - because
we enjoy them and we are highly confident that this frequency is not
detrimental to us. I suppose that we could eliminate them entirely but we do not
think it is overall cost productive. Food tastes (and other sensual pleasures)
are not directly substitutable one for another.

Another related thought - even thinking excessively can be detrimental if the
person then avoids actually doing things physical, activity which is necessary
for health maintenance. Both mental and physical activities are needed to
maintain overall good health. **Kitty]

> Likewise, I can create a philosophy that brings to the top the most
> important reasoning for participation in an activity such as learning
> about my body/health/wellness, and then demand of myself that I
> practice the related activities for two years -- yet-- I will cease
> that activity 100% the day after two years and feel no loss!

This makes no sense at all to me. If the knowledge gained and the
practices undertaken during those two years is of benefit to you how
can you not feel a loss (at least a concern for your ongoing health)
at not continuing such practices and more learning to make them even
more beneficial.

The remark above also applies to this - you haven't integrated fully
into your mind (Branden's word is "owned") the ideas that your
conscious reason considers to be most correct and beneficial for you.

> I like to watch and analyze myself now and then to discover the secrets
> to my failures and successes.

It is clear that you have been watching far too much and analyzing the
reasons for your inconsistent behavior far too little.

>>> I typically am slightly tense
>>> just before the needle goes in, then I wait a little bit (breath,
>>> breath), then a rush of something comes over my body accompanied by
>>> emphysema-like shortness of breath and I feel warned that I am in
>>> danger
>>> ("sucked dry" is what I used before, but it's not clearly related to
>>> blood loss, maybe something to do with "invasion" too -- hard to say
>>> because there are no relevant thoughts prior to or during).
>>>
>> Have you never had a splinter or other foreign object "invade" your body
>> accidentally or due to carelessness? When this occurred did you feel
>> the same anxiety of "invasion" over that occurrence?
>
> Only if I visually witnessed the puncture -- to this day, I can
> vividly recall two 15-18 year-old acquaintances of mine wrestling for
> control of a tool they each found in the basement of their home -- it
> had a long wooden handle, like that of a garden hoe and the end
> equipped with a metal hook. I visually witnessed the hook end enter
> (1/4 to 1/2 inch) and leave the right calf of the older (brother).
> Even though it happened to someone else, I experienced the suddenly
> intense response.
>
> I can recall one vivid visual removal of 1/2 inch of Honey Locust thorn
http://www.mitzenmacher.net/blog/wp-content/uploads/2006/01/thorn.jpg
> from the area just below my knee cap. That caused quite a horrified
> reaction as I yanked it out and immediately after as I comprehended
> the entry and removal of the thorn.
>
> All other foreign objects (splinters, scratches, etc) that I do not
> see enter, do not bother me a bit (besides some pain). All rougher
> damage that I do see, such as deep scratches, smaller thorns with
> barbs, splinters, etc. do not bother me either.

Then think about the inessential difference (the end result of a
wound, loss of blood and tissue healing requirement is the same) and
tell yourself strongly how silly you are for making such a distinction.

>> If you did not
>> (as I am pretty sure is the case) then your mind is just being foolish
>> to react differently to the exact same occurrence happening in a
>> controlled manner rather than by chance. Tell yourself that and try
>> your best to eliminate it every time you have that emotion. (Note that
>> I am not talking here about a major stab wound or other trauma which
>> can result in both great pain and immediate major blood loss, both of
>> which will physiologically cause immediate blood pressure reduction
>> and possible loss of consciousness, but rather the scrapes and cuts
>> that a person as active as yourself gets as a part of everyday living,
>> particularly for someone who uses tools.)
>>
> I agree that I have been acting counter to my values, and for some
> unknown reasons, treating similar occurrences very differently, which
> is wrong.

The "unknown reason" is that you still have not understood the concept
of integrating, and making internally consistent, your consciously
held desires/values with your emotional reactions. Your emotions were
all programmed by your values and experiences of your past, and they
can be reprogrammed to react differently and consistently with your
new ideas, values and desires. You are ultimately the ruler of your
emotions. Your emotions are not there to rule you. Their purpose is to
be both tools of cognition and the means by which you experience the
positives and negatives of the external world as it relates to your
values.

> I do not consider myself foolish nor idiotic however. IMO, these two
> terms should be reserved for one who cannot improve hir intellect.

It is up to you if you do not wish to apply such terms to yourself in
particular aspects. I have always applied them to myself whenever I do
foolish, idiotic or stupid things. That is the way that I chastise
myself and impress on myself the need to not do such a thing again.

[I can readily say that I consider 2 points in my life when I was
foolish. The first was when I was 16 and a junior in high school, I
took without questions the guidance counselor's statement that physics
was not a field for women. I don't even recall considering that I
should discuss it with my father (I do recall though that this was a
period in time when he was very involved with getting a new career
started after retiring from the Navy - retirement pay was not going to
pay all the bills.) But many years later I looked back and thought how
foolish I'd been at the time. Even much later than that when I
mentioned it to my Dad in the late 1980s, he was so surprised that I
hadn't told him. His comment was that "we'd have found some way to get
you that kind of education."
The second incident was one I acknowledged fairly soon afterward -
that was in not taking my Dad's advice about the fellow I was dating
and then got engaged to right after completing my nursing education.
Dad was right about Rudy and I was wrong, but I at least didn't keep
on being so foolish as to marry him.

Of course I've done some silly things on occasion and even said so out
loud. Mostly these have been as a result of not paying close
attention. **Kitty]

> Those who can improve intellect yet lack in judgment and act contrary
> to their values can be described with words such as naive and immature.

It is not improvement in your "intellect" that is needed here. But if
you wish to scold yourself by applying the terms "naive" or "immature"
to yourself when you catch yourself in an emotion which is contrary to
your consciously held values, then that should work fine too.

> The last "note" is understood.
>
>>> When this first happened to me (my first blood draw in many years,
>>> between 12 and 16 years ago), I was naive about the whole process.
>>> Again, I watched the needle go in and was slightly tense from the pain
>>> but really just naive, and suddenly in a few seconds, that same rush
>>> came over me. I ended up blacking out (sweating profusely and reality
>>> almost disappeared into a small round dot), followed by recovery
>>> within
>>> minutes, though I was still weak in the knees from the novelty.
>>>
>>> I was shocked and interested in why it happened. "Low sugar" and
>>> "sudden drop in blood pressure", were suggested, with only the blood
>>> pressure drop making any sense to me.
>>> Is it possible that my initial anxiety causes a drop in blood pressure,
>>> further escalating my anxiety, like a feedback loop?
>>
>> The anxiety attack is sufficiently intense to initiate release of blood
>> pressure decreasing hormones. No feedback was necessary and did not
>> likely occur because the lower BP could not cause any immediate
>> psychological anxiety. It is the opposite of the fight or flight effect,
>> which increases heart rate and BP.
>>
>>>> As with any other irrational emotion, you work to
>>>> reprogram yourself so that it no longer occurs. You do this by first
>>>> having at your mind's edge, all the positive reasons why getting blood
>>>> drawn is beneficial to you and even the benefits of the process itself
>>>> (enjoying the interesting mechanics of it: the competence of your body
>>>> pumping out the blood to fill the tubes, the competent work of the
>>>> phlebotomist and the technically neat way that such a blood draw
>>>> can be
>>>> accomplished, the friendly chatting with hir, particularly if s/he is
>>>> someone who you see regularly, the way your own competent body
>>>> quickly seals and heals the puncture).
>>>>
>>> These are VERY helpful, thank you. I am practicing these perspectives
>>> and learning more details of the healing puncture.
>>>
>> Except note that I have now changed my recommendations to totally cease
>> any thinking about or interest in the mechanics of the procedure, at
>> least until you have eliminated all anxiety.
>
> Noted.
>
>>> I have a blood draw for LEF/Labcorp to accomplish this month...
>>>
>>>> So as soon as this "sickening
>>>> feeling" occurs you tell yourself what an idiot you are to feel this
>>>> way, you strongly squelch and deny the feeling (effectively tell it to
>>>> "get lost and do not bother me any more"), you then concentrate on
>>>> all the
>>>> short and long range positives of the procedure and its end results.
>>>>
>>> Thank you -- I will practice this as well, maybe even write it on an
>>> index card for reminders in case I distract myself with other
>>> thoughts.
>>> I have not been well-focused in past personal blood draws thus
>>> inviting hazard to the outcome, so being prepared and maintaining
>>> focus will help.
>>>
>> Not just focus, but also distraction of your thoughts away from the
>> mechanics of the blood draw.
>>
>>> (Thanks for the word "hazard" -- I gained it from your exchange
>>> with Chad)
>>>
>> Good, both to the word and to the news that you read the exchange.
>>
>>>> If
>>>> you keep doing this, then in time the emotion will be eradicated
>>>> and you
>>>> will be *free* of it (similar to the way your immune system rids your
>>>> body of a pathogen - an inconsistent emotion is a pathogen of the
>>>> mind).
>>>>
>>> "Pathogen of the mind" -- I will remember this :)
>>>
>> It is another one of those potentially problematic metaphors, but in
>> this case I think it is a sufficiently accurate correspondence to be
>> useful.
>>
>>>> Actually, I have been through all this before in past posts on the
>>>> subject of changing emotional habits, so I am surprised that you
>>>> did not
>>>> realize that those posts about other emotions and emotions in general
>>>> apply to this one also. You must sometime get to the point where you
>>>> fully understand that your emotions do not come out of nowhere and are
>>>> not in control of you, but rather they are products of your values and
>>>> rational thoughts and are totally under your control with respect to
>>>> making them consistent with those values and thoughts.
>>>>
>>> I recognized the similar methods and have been practicing a few as I
>>> described above. However, I have not *strongly* squelched or denied
>>> feelings before, as I always thought of them as interesting in
>>> addition
>>> to debilitating. I gained some happiness from considering the strange
>>> phenomenon,
>>>
>> These last two sentences, in the light of my previous experiences with
>> you, are what caused me to think that you are far too much a vicarious
>> spectator of your own life events rather than a direct experiencer of
>> those events. I say "far too much" because some such self analysis and
>> introspection is definitely both enjoyable and useful - I have certainly
>> done lots of that and continue to do so. However, because it is almost
>> always done afterward the events being recollected and analyzed, my
>> self observation and analysis does not prevent me from also directly
>> experiencing my life events, but rather helps me to put them into
>> perspective, to understand them and to help/modify them to be more
>> successful in similar future circumstances.
>>
> I am glad that you are thinking about me and offering critical
> analyses for my consideration. I expand/explain a little above and I
> have no intention of brushing aside your comments; instead, I am
> deliberately considering what you have shared and looking for
> opportunities to practice directly experiencing events coupled with an
> awareness to postpone introspection to afterward.
> Thank you for the suggestions!

Yes Jack, I am still trying to get my ideas through to you. I have not
totally given up on you, even though I fear that we are so extremely
different from each other that we will never be able to be kindred
spirits. So I am far from certain that I will ever see a return of
value of the kind that I mostly want from others. I do not mean this
comment to be any criticism of you or to even suggest that you are not
a responsible returner of value - it is only that you are not (and I
strongly suspect that you never will be) capable of returning the
types of values that I most desire.

>>> but I also realize that I have missed out on much more
>>> happiness regarding future blood draws.
>>>
>> I hope you will now give some thought to this being a symptom of more
>> "missing out" than of merely the benefits from blood draws.
>>
> I am thinking about it.

That is good, but you need to do more than just "think about it".

--Paul