I'm not sure Trek ever considered Vulcan repression something to aspire to. As far back as "This Side of Paradise," written by D.C. Fontana herself, Spock was describing it as a self-imposed purgatory.
Trek's attitude toward Vulcan culture was always more ambigous than some fans seem to realize. Spock represented one extreme, as did McCoy, with Kirk representing both reason and emotion.
It was about synthesis, not the triumph of logic over emotion.
And I admit to being being one of those fans to some degree. But my point is: Where's the synthesis now? NuSpock now apparently just drops logic completely whenever its most needed (Old Spock isn't any better). There is no longer a balance either within him or between the three original main characters. This isn't so bad in the later TOS movies because the ground work has already been done and having an older Spock be more balanced doesn't undermine that too much. Its weird that they should
restart TOS yet just carry on from the later movies with respect to Spock's "enlightenment" and proceeded to take it to the opposite extreme of effective non-existence (at least when it matters).
Heck, whenever Kirk found a "perfect" society that had eliminated negative emotions, he usually blew it up! At the end of "Paradise," he regards an outbreak of unruly human emotions, including a couple of fistfights, as a good thing!
And then, of course, there was "The Enemy Within," in which Kirk discovered that he needed his negative emotions to be a fully-functioning human being.
Yep and many Spock-centric stories are about him finding the human way is the "better" way.
It is hardly surprising that human authors would write stories that draw those kind of conclusions or have those attitudes to Spocks character. The fantastic thing for me was that at least Spock represented the alternative view.
It's funny. I've had this argument before, on this very board. Spock is such an appealing character that a surprising number of fans seem to think that Star Trek endorses the Vulcan Way as a role model for humanity . . . whereas the show itself actually had a very ambiguous attitude towards the idea of repressing human emotions. (On TOS, that's something evil computers usually want to do.)
Even Roddenberry didn't believe that Trek was about placing logic above emotion--or else why would he have had Spock reject Kolihnar and have his ephiphany with V'Ger in the one and only Trek movie he had a hand in . . . ?
If nuSpock's decision to selectively dump logic when convenient in ST09 is another typically ham-fisted imitation of previous Trek (Spock Prime's "epiphany" in this case) then my argument is that they once again got the wrong end of the stick and have thrown the baby out with the bath water.
Or to put it another way: Roddenberry may have been trying to find a balance between logic and emotion (perhaps in response to changing social attitudes?) as you advocate. But you don't seem to realise that this is not what ST09 does (regarding the Spocks at least).
Most Star Trek aliens are presented as lacking when compared to humans. The humans may learn a lesson along the way but it's the aliens who as most often presented as the ones most in need of an attitude adjustment. There are exceptions of couse but this is the way that most stories play out.
Well Spock will no longer be putting the Vulcan point of view. Not in any meaningful way. Not when things get tough. Or so it would now seem.
I certainly didn't see "Put aside logic, do what feels right." as "completing the subversion of Rodenberry's Trek"
Perhaps you weren't in a position at that point to appreciate that that's what was happening. But now you have been exposed to that view. So on behalf of Mr Blackman and myself, you’re welcome.
I saw a frank admission from a guy who, looking back on his long life, realizes the way he chose may not have been the best or most fulfilling. Spock is a hero, but he's not infallable. Irrespective of our entertainment watching him trying to be the universe's #1 Vulcan, I can believe him looking back at his life and thinking, "all that termoil and angst and stress, trying to be something that deep down I'm not, it wasn't worth it. I wish I'd realized it long before V'Ger."
The point is that statement doesn’t represent any sort of "balance", it suggests an abdication of logic and as I’ve mentioned it wasn’t even necessary because logic would have arrived at the same solution!
He wasn't even using reason in deciding to reject logic! So my guess, when combined with the earlier dialogue with Serek and later abandonment of logic/reason when dealing with Nero (when it was really needed), is that Robert Blackman is correct: we have an agenda here. The writers thought the audience would prefer the warm fuzzy Spock so they fast tracked that outcome. In their unholy rush, they forgot the emotion/logic balance issue and that what they were doing wasn't actually required.
Like someone mentioned re Spock Prime’s efforts to "engineer" the Kirk/Spock relationship, we have another attempt to short circuit history. This may be good for the individual characters, if it works, but its bad for Star Trek as it removes an important device from its tool box and makes the whole thing more bland and uninteresting in anything other than it's more limited aspects.
The Valeris quote was from Star Trek VI: The Undiscovered Country. Therefore, I naturally interpreted your criticism of it in the context of the Prime timeline, after the events of TMP.
Actually I didn't recall where it was used and I don't think that was referenced, but it makes no difference because my point is that despite the new start, they seem to want to carry on from the last TOS movie, or later, in this respect which misses an important part of TOS's value IMO.
).
It may not always be the way to go but I don't want Kirk trying to convince Spock to be logical! 
The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few...or the one...(thought of that one myself too! 
