You are encouraging self alienation, the thing that CS Lewis warned against in his little book "Men without Chests". Instead of seeing the sublime or wondrous waterfall, we see only someone looking at a waterfall and having a feeling that it is sublime or wonderful. This therapeutic approach does indeed dampen emotions but at the cost of living no more. You are no longer being-in-the-world but only an amorphous observation point hanging somewhere above the world.
Why should you attach such a negative value to it if it's only a temporary state? We don't see the wondrous waterfall when we're asleep either but nobody would conclude that sleep is undesirable in due measure. Self-observation isn't self-alienation, and it's certainly beneficial in some regards. Conversely, if we followed what seems to be your advice and went to the extreme of never employing self-observation we'd handicap ourselves psychologically, and arguably be left with quite negligible capacity for self-awareness.
It is a "popular fear" among artists. "How could I create beautiful, and emotionally loaded art without myself living in the emotional extremities?" And these same artists, while create admirable stuff, make the life of anyone who lives around pure hell...
When I studied physics, my friends in the humanities regularly mocked me that "you can not see now the beauty of nature, only the dry equations"... which is a very naíve thought in itself, but also denies the truly sublime nature of a waterfall (which is incomprehensible for a layman). One could generalize this to the topics of psyché and emotions: when we might see not just a first-person's momentary anguish but a whole opera... So CS Lewis' view is just as short sighted on the human nature, as the un-educated artist's (un-scientific) view on natural phenomena. As a scientist sees much more of Nature he/she could admire it much more as well. The same is true for people who are capable of meta-thinking.
Also I think, the general Christian worldview does not really contain, or allow any kind of meta-thinking. (thinking about thinking) Even one of the ten commandments is about thought-crime. There is no understanding in the Bible about the deeper nature of human thought and cognition.
An interesting read and nice articulation of the finite capacity of human conceptualisation/reflection. We can never know or think anything, as our capacities for both reasoning and experiencing are limited. It is for this reason that conversation becomes such an essential aspect of human (social) life.
This notion of intersubjectivity (knowing one's self through the other) and mutual recognition is a huge, recurring theme throughout history and philosophy (see Hegel's Phenomenology of Spirit or Sartre, who writes, "I must obtain from the Other the recognition of my being" (Being and Nothingness, 260-261).
Of course, here we are asked to become that Other to ourselves, which, however, presents a different problem:
How can one know whether they are, indeed, providing conscious insight toward one's self and not false reflections of what they already perceive to be true?
With intersubjectivity (knowing one's self through the other) -- which can also go wrong for so many reasons and in so many ways -- one's idea/perception or 'truth' of one's self is being examined through the other, for something clearer to arise.
But if one were to have some faulty foundations already and lacks guidance, would it not be easy to compound wrong assertions on wrong assertions?
Would it not be the case that, for this illeism to function properly, one would also need a proper education (philosophical, psychological, and moral education, to be precise)?
You are encouraging self alienation, the thing that CS Lewis warned against in his little book "Men without Chests". Instead of seeing the sublime or wondrous waterfall, we see only someone looking at a waterfall and having a feeling that it is sublime or wonderful. This therapeutic approach does indeed dampen emotions but at the cost of living no more. You are no longer being-in-the-world but only an amorphous observation point hanging somewhere above the world.
Why should you attach such a negative value to it if it's only a temporary state? We don't see the wondrous waterfall when we're asleep either but nobody would conclude that sleep is undesirable in due measure. Self-observation isn't self-alienation, and it's certainly beneficial in some regards. Conversely, if we followed what seems to be your advice and went to the extreme of never employing self-observation we'd handicap ourselves psychologically, and arguably be left with quite negligible capacity for self-awareness.
It is a "popular fear" among artists. "How could I create beautiful, and emotionally loaded art without myself living in the emotional extremities?" And these same artists, while create admirable stuff, make the life of anyone who lives around pure hell...
When I studied physics, my friends in the humanities regularly mocked me that "you can not see now the beauty of nature, only the dry equations"... which is a very naíve thought in itself, but also denies the truly sublime nature of a waterfall (which is incomprehensible for a layman). One could generalize this to the topics of psyché and emotions: when we might see not just a first-person's momentary anguish but a whole opera... So CS Lewis' view is just as short sighted on the human nature, as the un-educated artist's (un-scientific) view on natural phenomena. As a scientist sees much more of Nature he/she could admire it much more as well. The same is true for people who are capable of meta-thinking.
Also I think, the general Christian worldview does not really contain, or allow any kind of meta-thinking. (thinking about thinking) Even one of the ten commandments is about thought-crime. There is no understanding in the Bible about the deeper nature of human thought and cognition.
An interesting read and nice articulation of the finite capacity of human conceptualisation/reflection. We can never know or think anything, as our capacities for both reasoning and experiencing are limited. It is for this reason that conversation becomes such an essential aspect of human (social) life.
This notion of intersubjectivity (knowing one's self through the other) and mutual recognition is a huge, recurring theme throughout history and philosophy (see Hegel's Phenomenology of Spirit or Sartre, who writes, "I must obtain from the Other the recognition of my being" (Being and Nothingness, 260-261).
Of course, here we are asked to become that Other to ourselves, which, however, presents a different problem:
How can one know whether they are, indeed, providing conscious insight toward one's self and not false reflections of what they already perceive to be true?
With intersubjectivity (knowing one's self through the other) -- which can also go wrong for so many reasons and in so many ways -- one's idea/perception or 'truth' of one's self is being examined through the other, for something clearer to arise.
But if one were to have some faulty foundations already and lacks guidance, would it not be easy to compound wrong assertions on wrong assertions?
Would it not be the case that, for this illeism to function properly, one would also need a proper education (philosophical, psychological, and moral education, to be precise)?