Anger Management

Social Forums Non-Philosophical Chat
21
  1. you have agreed with PR in some of you posts in this threads, but presented it as if you are disagreeing. You have responded with points that do not fit with what they are responding to, but these responses are presented as if they are, well, responses to what he wrote. This shows poor reading skills or trolling.
  2. Lev’s post was fucking pissy, as his posts often are. He is a rageaholic poster in general. You seem to miss this in a way that is bizzare…

Lev said, amongst other things…

Now that he is clueless about the irony of attacking someone expressing a defense of anger by saying he thinks it would be good if someone assault and rape shows is hilarious and should be embarrassing for him. I would guess he has some kind of history with PR, online that is, and doesn’t really care that what he is doing makes no sense.

That you, come in and support a post like this is really strange. I can’t figure out what your motive would be for not noticing how ridiculous Lev’s post is.

And amazingly look at how PR responds to this rage dump of Lev’s----

with tremendous restraint.

He continues to ARGUE HIS POSITION in response to someone who has wished him to be raped.

And yet for some bizzarre reason you think he has the problem and not Lev.

  1. PR admitted in his video that he made an error in whatever the inciting instance was. He also said he thought controlled anger could be useful or valuable. YOu seem to agree with this since you support Lev’s post here and then also say the same thing yourself. But then you also seem to miss that what you say, PR has said, so asking him to look at himself, when in fact he does this in several ways in the thread, as said along the lines you suggest he do this, is kinda disconnected. Enough disconnection in social situations is a kind of demonstration of marble loss.
22

I see no problem even, with certain kinds of uncontrolled rage. Certainly if someone is trying to kill you or rape your wife and so on. But even losing control and yelling is appropriate in a wide range of situations, even between people who love each other. People who think this cannot be the case will tend to think of variations of this that reinforce their judgment of anger. Just the other day my wife did something really rude to me, repeatedly, in a very short period of time. I burst out in anger. I did not do that whole therapy contructed zombie ‘When you say X, I feel X, and I would prefer if you Y’ or the like. I got pissed off. I expressed it. She focused on me, for what felt like the first time in a clear way, defended herself, got pissed in return. We hashed it out for a while, came to understand the partial misunderstanding at root, but my wife also decided that she had been dealing with me in a way she did not like herself. She also has burst out in anger when I have been a dick, and, of course, we have reacted to things that were not actually happening. Made mistakes so to speak and worked this out, later also. Humans as mammals working stuff out, getting the full attention of the other person. This is not fucking ok. Not unlike how this happens in a pack of social mammals out in nature but without using our teeth - though frankly social mammals tend to express primarily noise to get these things worked out.

The problem with emotions is when things are skipped over. A lot of people, yes, do skip over fear to get to rage which makes them feel in more control. Other people skip over rage for the same reason. If you skip over emotions you may end up being violent when they is no reason to be. That, yes, can be fucked up. But in fact it is an attempt to control. Skipping to violence is not out of control, but a controlling pattern. I will shut you down, give you pain so I do not have to feel something. (again, in situations where violence would not be an ok response like in response to the violence of others)

Anger is a part of being human and if someone thinks anger must always be controlled or is always bad, they hate life. They have come up with a contextless judgment that is inhuman.

I do see this as partially connected to modernity and certainly ‘civilization’ where violence is done economically and by proxy while controlled half dead people can tell themselves they are rational or in control or not barbarians and so on.

I do not see this as feminization, in part because women get fucking pissed off and they are more likely to be shut down as children and even as adults if they get pissed off. It is unfeminine in some strange theory that even pagan cultures and indigenous ones also had, though they tended to give everyone, including women, a wider acceptable range of emotions.

23

Moreno,

Yes, even uncontrolled anger can be positive. Think of the Viking berserkers, as an example; they would work themselves into
a frenzy during battle and vanquish their enemies with ease. But the problem is that sometimes they would get so worked up and
out of control that they would kill their own comrades, unable to distinguish friend from foe, due to the over-intoxication of rage.

Modernity is becoming too civilized. The demonization of anger is the logical corollary of a culture, which contains a large population
supporting things like gun-control, political correctness, anti-war, feminism, etc.

The pussification of mankind.

Also, those Donnie Darko scenes perfectly illustrate my situation haha!
This is some of the nonsense they make us watch:
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hUGkoqQ67M8[/youtube]

Their advice for “expressing” anger non-destructively is a weak, defeatist, passive rationalization of the “fear” underlying the anger.

24

Lack of control can never be positive.

Lack of control is bad because it escapes (or as Moreno says, skips) reason.

So uncontrolled rage is not good. It is never good.

Loss of control is a mistake and mistakes happen. You just have to learn your lesson and move on. Do not try to turn it into a positive, because it’s not a positive.

Not everything in life is context-sensitive. There are no contexts in which loss of control is good and contexts in which it is bad. It is always bad.

Rage, on the other hand, is context-sensitive.

There is reasonable rage, which is rare, then there is instinctive rage, which is common, and within instinctive rage there is controlled rage, which is good, and uncontrolled rage, which is bad.

Controlling rage does not mean denying it, it means expressing it in a slow manner.

Denial is bad because denial increases activity, and by increasing activity, it muddles emotions, which means, it makes them more confusing/complicated/vague/entangled by clumsily mixing them with other emotions.

Control is good because control decreases activity, and by decreasing activity, it dissolves emotions, which means, it clarifies/simplifies/disentangles emotions.

You can either slow everything down or you can’t.

If you can’t, you either skip your reason or you skip your instincts. Either way, it’s bad.

25

I am not disputing or even suggesting that anger is not a normal emotional state that everybody experiences. There are legitimate reasons to get angry and anger is part of a healthy emotional life. However, a serious anger issue will hardly go unnoticed among those who are close to the sufferer. People close to someone with an anger disorder will literally fear for their safety (and if it is a woman, she will literally give up her voice, to protect herself), when that person’s anger rises from what is considered normal to the level of unbridled rage. It was clear to me that despite the lack lustre attempt at remorse from PR, there was none and instead he is seeking affirmation that his anger, clearly unbridled anger, is justified and glorified no matter the circumstance. Lev picked up on PR’s narcissism and reluctance to take responsibility for his actions and gave him an example of his immature attitude and where it could take him.

PR wrote:

In childhood you begin to develop fantasies where you are powerful and in control. It is easy to develop various defensive strategies to retaliate against one’s enemies, but hopefully as the child matures it acquires better coping mechanisms that do not rely on impossible fantasies to achieve adaptation. It is not abnormal to have fantasies to zap one’s enemies in childhood, but it is abnormal to carry this fantasy through to adult hood.

There is a lot more going on in PR than he allows others to see and by his own admission he is not to be trusted. Anger management classes are not for people who express their anger, usually the anger that needs to be curbed is the unbridled kind, which is usually accompanied by violence. This is not healthy and should be addressed.

26

The problem is that people are applying intellectual solutions to problems that are fundamentally physiological.

Mental illness is a consequence of mental over-activity and mental over-activity is not going to be solved by further increase in activity which is what intellectual solutions do. The best they can do is trick the brain into thinking that over-activity is gone i.e. replace the signal of hyper-activity (pain) with a signal of regulated activity (pleasure.)

I am not saying that intellectual solutions are useless, I am saying that they are useless before enough mental room is created for them.

In other words, you have to calm yourself down before you can start seeking intellectual solutions to your intellectual problems.

Every genuine psychotherapy starts with parasympathetic nervous system. The first thing to do is to activate the PSNS so that excess energy is dissipated and over-activity is reduced and enough room is created for new mental activities.

When done properly, solutions start popping up on their own. The individual himself ends up solving his problems without any need to be told what he should be doing. Amazing stuff.

Of course, intellectual solutions can still be useful because they can save your time (when over-activated, they waste your time.)

Calming down is not separate from thinking, but it isn’t thinking itself. Calming down decreases mental activity, it is a solution to hyperactivity; thinking increases it, it is a solution to intellectual problems. Calming down is connected to thinking in the sense that it leads to understanding because it creates enough room for thinking by disentangling it from other activities.

Interestingly, most people do not have any serious intellectual problems, they merely have too many problems activated all at once, leading to mental over-activity.

27

I am not a doctor of medicine, but Mag Anderson’s post above gave me cause to consider that there is also the possibility that brain damage, for example, blows to the head or tumours could be a cause for unexplained rage. In which case, people with this type of violent rage, would not experience any benefit from anger management. Any underlying cause for unexplained rage/anger perhaps should be investigated thoroughly before deciding on what course of action to take.

28

Not really.

You are missing the point. Achilles’ rage and pride was his undoing, whilst the other Greek leaders being more cunning and calculating succeeded in their mission to bring down the gates of illium.
The most famous of these was cunning Odysseus whose cleverness was able to overcome all the efforts of the God Poseidon to stop him reaching home.
The message of Homer is clear. Be Achilles of the youthful anger and die young , or be smart like Odysseus and get the girls and make it home challenging monsters and the god themselves, and after your travels you get to put your feet up.

If you had spent the time studying Homer as I have then you would know what the fuck you were talking about.
So wave your sword about like a boy and pretend you are strong and manly - or grow up and use your brain.

After all is said and done there are plenty of manly pricks out there who get a gun and shot up their local school.
Make your choice!

29

Be cool. I’m not trolling. I don’t even know what you mean by that.

Anger is for dogs. It’s what they do when they are scared. If you keep your cool you can handle any situation better, even when you are experiencing a real present danger. Anger serves not useful function.

Be the samurai; not the barbarian.

30

There is no dividing line between the mind and intellect and the brain and body. It is not the case that one simply causes the other. These things are interdependent.
If you think about food, you can make your mouth water. This demonstrates that what and how you think can control the way act and how your body responds to stimuli. If you are mindful of the sorts of physiological responses that certain mental pathways can cause then you can with mindfulness control your anger, rage and keep your attention on rational responses.
All psychological factors are also physiological at root, and vice versa. In fact they are not distinct, except conceptually. We break them down and separate them, to understand what is happening, but they are essentially the same things.

31

You are muddling the water.

That things are interdependent does not mean they are not separate.

There is a clear distinction between thinking (which is increase in activity) and relaxing (which is decrease in activity.)

There is a clear distinction between an intellectual problem such as “how do I get from point A to point B?” and a problem of mental hyperactivity. (The fact that you can frame the latter intellectually does not turn it into a problem of intellect.)

Thinking does not solve hyperactivity, it makes it worse because it increases activity (the so-called “over-thinking”.) PSNS does.

What you call “mindfulness” is a physiological solution and not an intellectual.

32

Har Har Har!

The “shield-maiden” accuses me of fantastical, infantile tendencies ( zapping enemies, warrior stuff ), yet how she clings to the most childish, delusional
bullshit of all time: the God myth.

Remember, Shield, your medication is underneath your pillow…right next to your bible.

The time is near, the time is near!

Get on your knees for Jesus, and from there you know what to do. Use your tongue…I mean, speak in tongues :wink:

33

The water is already muddy, you are just imposing a set of concepts to help you break it down.

Your last sentence is so obviously wrong-headed you should be able to understand what I am talking about.
The mind is physical.

34

She’s not wrong. You are just a big kid, with a toy sword.
Grow up a bit, why don’t you?

35

All males are big kids with swords in their twenties, and should be. It doesn’t get interesting until they hit thirty and begin sublimating that energy into achieving realistic things like a career and family. If they are still carrying swords at this age, then we have a problem, but not until then.

36

I’ve got five or six really nice swords. I’m 55. But even if I had had them at 15 I’d still have been too mature to act like a childish prick with them.
I think 12-13 is basically the cut off age for that.

37

You know your living in a feminized time, when people think that it’s childish for a man to own a sword, something that used to be a symbol of honor, social status, and masculine power in the not too distant past.

I pose in a few pictures with an archaic weapon and all hell breaks loose with these ridiculous and rather revealing accusations of being childish.

I guess it’s also childish to own guns, to pose in pictures with them, and to fire them off in gun ranges. Yeah, how childish these guys are:

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TqoYPJDx_oA[/youtube]

Go back to doing mature, adult-like things, you know, like praying to invisible sky daddies and living inside of vans and flashing your genitals to random people.

38

They were not random you ass ranger. I only flashed the best and most beautiful women. I was a eugenexhibitionist.

Random people. I can’t believe you said that erik.

39

Can you send me the video via DM? I didn’t get to see it, so I have nothing to base others’ responses on here on.

40

I’m guessing the swords are substitute phallus’, to compensate for your lack of masculinity.
Even at 15 you didn’t have it in you.

It’s quite sickening and pathetic listening to an old, feminized male trying to emotionally blackmail a younger man into the path of feminization and submission.
Muishkin is a modern Ephialtes.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3vrPY15CYqc[/youtube]