The comment of @falsepremise to this post made me think.
The alexthymia is a disorder because of which, those who suffer from it, are not able to recognize their emotions. He is not able to catalog them and above all he can not express in words what he feels. Hence the definition of the disorder, alexithymia, a privative, lexis / word, thymos / emotion. This does not mean that alexithymic people do not feel emotions, they are overwhelmed like everyone else, but they are not able to recognize and talk about them. They do not associate the physical symptoms of emotions to their cause. This means that they are not able to develop empathy because as they do not recognize the emotions in themselves they do not recognize them in others either.
So I do not think it is possible to hypothesize that Sherlock Holmes can be alexithymic because, although exerting a detachment from his emotions, possibly even at the pathological level as suggested in TFP, he is necessarily an empathic man. So he does not act on his empathy, he does not let this to condition his behave, but he exercises a rational detachment towards it. But he is able to perfectly read people’s emotional behaviors, he could not be otherwise that excellent detective he is. Even when he asks John to confirm if his behavior is not good it is not because he was not able to read the emotion caused by his behavior. What he does not understand is the behavioral cause (his) that caused that emotion.
So I think here the point is another. Having ascertained that SHerlock Holmes recognizes emotions in others, the fact remains that he is detached from his own. An apparently deliberate act, in the belief that emotions can undermine its intellectual process.
And in a certain sense it can also be understood. When emotions take over, the most rational part of our brain can be compromised, what is called an EMOTIONAL HIJACKING happens. It is a moment in which we stop thinking, we get carried away by emotions, not necessarily negative and, after the critical phase, we do not remember very well what we did or why.
Responsible for this is Amygdala. I had talked about it in this meta, and I had assumed that in a metaphorical reading of Sherlocks it was represented by Eurus. (then @beingallmysterious described the emotions / Eurus connection in a much simpler and clearer way!). Seen from this point of view, however, the “Hijacking” of Sherlock by Eurus in Sherrinford takes on a different meaning.
Up to forty years ago, only one type of intelligence was recognized, which was then calculated with IQ. Knowledge was considered HYPER -RATIONAL, emotions were not part of it, rather they were thought to contribute to confusing mental life. In this we see Holmes and his crack in the lens. Holmes was the paradigma of intelligent man and true intelligence that rose above the world of emotions.
Then different types of intelligence were recognized, but still the emotions were not taken into consideration.
However today we talk about Emotional Intelligence (X), not in contrast but in coexistence with the intelligence that can be defined by IQ.
Human intelligence is not comparable to that of a computer, the human brain is immersed in a cauldron of chemicals (defect for Holmes) that affect its functioning. Our humanity is more evident in sentiments than in pure logic. It is the ability to feel sentiments that differentiates us as human beings. And the humanization of SHerlock Holmes I think is a fundamental point of BBC Sherlock.
The connetion of the great intelligence (IQ) of Holmes with his emotional intelligence. The journey from great man to good man.
The description of subjects with large IQ, but little or not connected to their emotional intelligence is the following:
The male with a high IQ is characterized - which is not surprising - by a wide range of interests and intellectual abilities. He is ambitious and productive, trustworthy and obstinate, and is not disturbed by self-referential concerns. It also tends to be critical and condescending, demanding and inhibited, uncomfortable in the sphere of sexuality and sensual experiences, detached and not expressive, cold and indifferent from the emotional point of view. On the other hand, men endowed with great emotional intelligence are socially balanced, expansive and cheerful, not subject to fear or rumination of anxious nature. They have the distinct ability to devote themselves to other people or to a cause, to take responsibility, and to have ethical conceptions and perspectives; in their relationships with others they are understanding, considerate and protective. Their emotional life is rich but appropriate; these people feel at ease with themselves, with others and in the social universe in which they live. (DAVID GOLEMAN, EMOTIONAL INTELLIGENCE).
It’s really hard not to see the stereotypes of Holmes on one side and Watson on the other.
The fact remains that the subjects in which the prevalence of an intelligence at the expense of the other is absolute or massive are in reality extremely rare.
Emotional intelligence is fundamental to rationality. Emotion nourishes and informs the operations of the rational mind, while this refines and sometimes opposes the veto to the inputs of emotions. Two distinct realities, one based in the amygdala, the other in the prefrontal lobes, which work, in optimal conditions, in tandem.
In amygdala emotional memory is preserved, fundamental for making informed decisions.
If we exclude emotional memory, whatever is processed by the neocortex is no longer able to trigger the emotional reactions in the past associated with the same event, and everything assumes the tones of a gray neutrality.
In the same way, in the prefrontal lobes what is called the working memory is stored, that is the ability to keep in mind all the relevant information to carry out what we are dedicating to. The sudden escape of emotions can temporarily affect the working memory, and one has the feeling that thinking is impossible.
But if emotions can not be contained (Eurus that escapes continuously), one can learn to control them, recognizing them and accepting them through a process of SELF-AWARENESS. There is a difference between being slaves of emotions and becoming aware that the latter are overwhelming us. I think this is Sherlock’s point of arrival and perhaps also why we see Eurus still imprisoned at the end of TFP.She is not actually imprisoned, she is contained, but Sherlock is in connection with her. The difference between being overwhelmed by emotions and recognizing them. The reached harmony between mind and heart, between sense and sensibility.
In this regard, a last fleeting thought. In the novel of the same name by Jane Austen, the two opposite mental states were embodied by two sisters. In Sherlock we have Mycroft and Eurus … coincidence?
@possiblyimbiassed @ebaeschnbliah @gosherlocked @loveismyrevolution @sarahthecoat @beingallmysterious @falsepremise
