Contrasting the linguistics of proactive, prospective thinking versus reactive emotive thinking

It comes down to be the affected sob-sister who specializes in after-the-fact damage control, or the cold-eye analyst who's looking ahead and about for what could be preempted so to control the adverse event or situation. The former is so good at seeking to feel good, they can intuitively be sympathetic to obstructions and adversities to feeling good. They're familiar with the gestures and the mantras of those gestures-all of which are for sharing the emotions and the emoting of the 'victim'-undeserved or deserved. It is a behavior that focuses on what happened AFTER 'the horse left the barn'. There is little reflection of how the subject got to that place after the barn door was closed. It is mostly the centering on how to bring comfort, unconditionally, to the situation. This near-compulsion to keep a situation in a state of anesthetized bliss or stability from discomfort, DESERVED and undeserved precludes conceptualizing of alternative actions. It focuses on the consensual mechanics that prescribe the 'needed' comfort level for that group's indulgences. Thus, since affirming the indulgence to be given to a member, socially, is the primary determiner for thought, little attention is given to analysis of the actions taken or neglected to be taken. The damage control and comforting are as much an affirmation for the desires to be indulged or enabled, as it is the palliative for the subject-accountability or responsibility for the adverse consequences being neglected and forgotten in the process. This approach of thinking has its effects and consequences on the language that becomes the mantra for these situations.

On the other hand, the proactive prospective group think is analytical as it is incidentally emotive to the circumstances at hand. The feelings are coincidental to what needs to be done and to be considered. This type of thinker is marginally affected, and does not become self-indulgent in the 'drama' for the sake of having a shared, emoting experience-primarily. Therefore, this analytical approach separates the factors of the event's present and conception from the emotions expressed in the moment. In the separation of the factors from the on-going carnal and psychological experience, the thinker goes beyond the linguistics of 'how to make the subject feel better' to 'how this situation could have had a better genesis'. Since this train of thought has emotions as a coincidental sign of affirming the low arguability of the logic, rather than as the main reason for whatever logic evolves, emotions and the supporting linguistics for the mantras of emotional enabling are transcended. An entirely unique 'linguistic dialect' of form and purpose develops beyond the preoccupation and obsession with affirming the level of group indulgence. It becomes a search for a refining, if not redefinition, of what can and should be affirmed. The alternative perspectives that are formed from this proactive prospection has little to do with carnal comfort. It is concerned with the relationship of concepts that form metaphors of comprehension to devise alternative visions and avenues for behavior. Unlike their emotive brethren, the present is not for maximum, feasible indulgence; the present is base from which the best signals and signs of the present are used to tangibly and intangibly fashion the architecture for a less ecologically adverse future.

JacobinTrotsky at Twitter.com