Double Post
We are talking about a whole myriad of feelings now. Of course parents can become angry, but I don’t think that the emotion “love” is the initiator, but rather concern or worry, which may of course grow because of love for someone. But the progression of feelings doesn’t go from love to anger, but passes through worry or concern. I think that does make a difference, and it is something which children pick up very quickly and jumble up sometimes. That is why they can’t see that anger was caused by worry, which in turn was caused by love. Anger seems for children to rule out love, or vice-versa.
I called uncontrolled anger negative, but said that anger can be utilised positively.
I think that “creation” isn’t negative, except for the (non-sentient) ingredients of a creative process. Havoc and damage were chosen especially to express something which is not constructive, not to morally charge the discussion. However, I think you are becoming too abstract now.
Of course eating is aggressive, but it isn’t angry. The words are not interchangeable.
I think that when you think you are loving something evil or damaging for you or your children, you are in the realm of desire. Some people call it love, so we have to define love:
- a profoundly tender, passionate affection for another person.
- a feeling of warm personal attachment or deep affection, as for a parent, child, or friend.
- sexual passion or desire.
Affection or attachment are bonds of fondness, loyalty or devotion, so in the case of something evil or damaging, this kind of “love” would amount to an infatuation or admiration, which generally short-lived because it is destructive.
It could also just be something which cultivation suppresses and which occasionally rises within us, when we lose control.
Empathy is the ability to feel with someone in a similar way to how they feel themselves. It is the ability to gain the perspective that another person has. What you are describing seems to be the result of not being able to cope with the fragility and fear of a helpless person, and rage is inappropriate. Anger can be an expression of frustration at not being able to help in the way you want to, and a helpless person could judge that to be a kind of solidarity with them.
The method of treating someone normally, rather than as an ill person, is quite widespread and is effective to some degree, as long as the patients are willing to go along with you. As soon as you try to “mother” people, they very often sense it to be inappropriate (even those with dementia). It is often noticeable in the tone of voice.
I don’t think that this is the subject that James and I were talking about. You are of course right that anger is often socially unacceptable, and maybe I look at it that way too - but I can only influence myself directly. Other people are the way they are and I’ve given up trying to change people, which seems to have the effect that they do change, funnily enough. I can work with the anger of others, also with controlled and deliberate anger, but the “serpent”, that goes unnoticed very often and then breaks out, is non-rational and destructive. At least that is my experience.
Your lack of understanding humor is probably due to some autistic condition, likely being dropped as a baby or given too many vaccines. Not understanding jokes is usually a lack of intellect. Also I wasn’t even talking about James, I was talking about an acquaintance of mine, so you are very dumb. I wish the internet didn’t have as many of you around.
I think they can, or I can say directly, I could. I might have, on the surface, reacted the same. Perhaps defensively. But looking back there was a kind of comfort in that kind of anger from a parent. There are immediate effects and delayed effects and the in the delayed effects I could even be vaguely conscious of this. I think even in the moment it feels different. Of course other reactions get mixed in. I think some of my friends also got the difference, however put upon they may have looked in the moment.
Well, that’s good, there is some overlap between our positions. I think anger only gets what people call out of control in a couple of situations. When it has been held back and/or judged chronically. When it is actually another emotion the person cannot face (in that context/moment). If the anger is not controlled as a rule or the result of converting other emotions to anger - which is a method of controlling those emotions, generally fear - then there is no need to control the anger. It will not jump to violence, for example.
Right. When I used the word ‘moral’ there I meant that they were not description terms, they were terms of judgment, of negative evaluation.
My point was not that eating is angry, but that processes that break things down are not necessarily negative. Even some aggressive ones.
What I was introducing was the idea that what gets batched under the term love includes problematic patterns. So it is with anger. I work with the terms that are being used to describe anger to show that they can be used with the positive emotions. Anger is non’-rational so it is a problem. Well, love is non-rational. OK, but love is constructive. So then I go into the value of now I will call it deconstructing and also point out the problems of things that happen with patterns labeled love, at least often by those having the feelings.
I am working with the abstractions I am being given by you and James. Or, as I experienced it, I was presented with qualities and told these were why anger deserved to be considered a negative emotion. So I working on showing that these qualites need not be negative. In no way am I saying that all destruction or taking apart is good, just to keep repeating my disclaimers. I am working against the global negative generalization not for a global positive generalization.
I don’t think that is the case.
Sure, it can be and I make no claims to never converting emotions. I do that. But that is not what I was referring to.
Yes.
I am not sure how you are using the adverb ‘directly’. In the beginning of the thread two very intelligent people, you and James, seemed pretty much in agreement that anger was always the wrong choice. That might influence people. Vibe has a very powerful influence also on people. Generally one can pick up how other people feel about anger. In part this can come when we feel how and what they control, but also through even unstated reactions to other people’s emotions. Whether this is all direct or not depends on how we define that, but there is influence.
STill not sure what that means, but I certainly see very damaging instances and patterns where anger is a big part. I do not disagree in the least with that, though I can’t say for sure I agree about the serpent phenomenon. Seems likely I do.
I wondered if you or James would openly get angry at the other two posters. I thought it was a rather humorous situation and I appreciate the fact that you stepped right in expressed anger openly. Given the context and how the conversation between the three of us was going this had a nice clang of integrity. You could have expressed it differently, especially with the delay and invisibility options of the internet.
I am going to step back for a bit, check back in later, see where the conversation has gone.
JSS wrote
As you have referred to the Scriptures with reference to “getting angry” I will reply in the same vein.
“Spirit” is the English translation of the Hebrew ruach, in the Old Testament and the Greek pneumain the New. When used figuratively, it indicates the “vital principle,” that animates human beings. “It is the spirit which gives life”.
The course of the lives of Biblical personalities carefully describes both the weaknesses and strengths of their characters and in a strict and thorough manner their sins are depicted, as are their successes. There is no attempt to conceal Noah’s inability to exercise self control or Abraham’s artifice. The Scriptures describes at least three disciples who displayed periods of uncontrollable anger and there is certainly no attempt to make excuses for, or explain away. Anger is part of the nature of man.
“There is not a just man on earth who does good and does not sin” (Eccl. 7:20). The New Testament states “if we say we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us” (1 John 1:8).
The imagination plays a significant role in all thought. Mathematics, geometry, architecture, engineering, literature, poetry, and even philosophy all require imagination. Imagination is what connects the dots into a nameable pattern. It is imagination that allows one to draw a two dimensional picture of a three dimensional object. It is imagination that allows one to call something that is roughly spherical a “sphere”. And it is imagination that allows one to perceive a behavior as a known bad even if the portrayer had never been seen before. Evil is is identified by imagination.
A Noid is a fictitious, imagined character similar to an annoying fairy or gremlin. Deep within the recesses of the mind where objective reality is minimally identified, the imagination creates characters from identifiable patterns of behavior, and often when the pattern wasn’t really there. When that happens, we call it “being para-noid”. Paranoia is the mental behavior of imagining a threat that either doesn’t really exist or is greatly over exaggerated.
Anger ≡ the urge to ruthlessly attack a perceived bad, discomfort, or threat.
Anger is formed by the fear of a perceived bad, a relatively thoughtless response usually rationalized after the fact. Most often it isn’t the object of anger, perhaps a person, that is the actual target but rather what the person’s behavior or existence represents: “I get angry when people do that! I hate that kind of thing!”
Often the imagination gets a bit carried away when the threat feels strong enough, perhaps related to a traumatic memory. The actual threat might be far less than what the imagination paints it to be. Such is the make of phobias. And when anger gets into that picture, one might find themselves getting far too angry for the real situation and groping for a rational excuse for their anger.
It is actually paranoia that inspires a person to angrily kick the door, car, or dog. It is usually paranoia that inspires husbands and wives to fight while angrily over exaggerating nuisances. And it is even paranoia that inspires hatred between genders, gangs, races, and nations. But that doesn’t mean that all anger or hatred is merely paranoia. Sometimes the real threat is even greater than imagined. One can also be too complacent.
That is all too true.
You’re not supposed to be calling people fags and cowards.
So anger is possible with all beings who can imagine. This poses the question, whether animals get angry? We know that dogs can bark hysterically when frightened or confronted with a formidable foe. Are they therefore imagining the outcome, or are they acting on instinct, based on some (chemical?) information which they are not aware of, but which triggers such a reaction?
Then I ask myself whether there are situations when we are also triggered by the chemistry in the air, and the cognition hasn’t identified the problem, although we experience ourselves getting angry. I ask this also because there are voices who say that the psyche is often interpreting such experiences, rather than creating them and that psychotic disorders are not always disorders of the mind, but disorders of the body, which the mind tries to interpret.
A traumatic memory, after having experienced a danger or threat, is not only based on those things we can picture, but also on smell and other sensual information. I have experienced this when in a completely uncomplicated situation and getting a whiff of something which speeded up my heartbeat. Later I could associate it to an experience, but in the situation I couldn’t.
The kind of behaviour you are talking about, kicking at cats, getting into a fight about something paltry, or prolonging conflicts with “enemies”, are situations which our social environment must also, to some degree, promote. Even if it is the lack of support and acceptance of our peers, it may encourage us to act in this way. And, as you say, we can’t be too complacent, otherwise we may be taken advantage of.
So, having thought about this, getting angry is a very complex issue. It isn’t something that we can just look at superficially. This is also something that I have to ensure my staff don’t overlook when residents have cognitive disorders and behave in an antisocial or provocative manner. We have to see their behaviour as a challenge to understand their emotional state, rather than judge it superficially.
This does further pose the question whether varying degrees of cognitive disorders, which may as yet not be clinically diagnosed, can cause a degree of “anger” in society, for which we have no rational explanation. Some aggressive modes even in discussion forums may be linked to the inability of expressing ones self or fear of conclusions that may be reached, which one feels may be threatening, leading to a “challenging” mode, which for all we know may be looking for answers.
Literally all conscious creatures imagine, but not all imagination triggers anger. Spiders, for example, can be teased into anger, but it is unlikely that Earth worms can be. Anger is only one of the many children of fear. Some creatures are not designed to be inclined to bear anger.
Have absolutely no doubt of that. Most anger is triggered by never identified instigation. In the heat of anger, accuracy is not a priority. That is what makes anger a “bad thing” - it encourages destruction without regard to accuracy. Anger is the antithesis of the surgical strike.
That thought implies a false dichotomy. It is not an “either/or” situation. Both occur. You just have trouble knowing when it is which until you know to watch yourself and sense out when you are feeling anger without apparent reason. Most people never bother to even try. Again, this separates types of people and what can be expected of them: “Do they watch themselves? Or merely respond and rationalize?” If they are always certain of their actions, they are in the second category.
Yes. Hormones are often used to trigger a variety of instinctive reactions in people without their knowledge. Fear, sex, or euphoria are the primary aims. The rationalizing mind will then associate the feelings with what the mind can see, hear, or otherwise perceive as being present. That is a common type of “false-flag” used in psychology to manipulate PHT (Perception of Hope and Threat). Love, hate, and fear are easily created through biochemistry … which makes them no less real, merely more inaccurate - perfect for those trying to manipulate society. Black men find themselves seriously lusting after white women and have no idea why.
Must it?
The greater and more significant complexity is not the anger itself (which can be complex in itself), but rather the perception.
How does one control the perception of all of those various kinds of minds such as to obtain the preferred behaviors? That is almost the sole priority and purpose of modern science, especially biomedical, neurological, and psychological sciences. The control of other people is the only “purpose of life” Man can agree upon. And that means controlling perception - media/information/sensation control - Google glasses - complete artificial reality living - The Matrix.
James, there is still a conscious component to anger. Lust is like a hunger. So if a white woman rejects a black man, that causes him to be angry, because he assumes that she is aware of his suffering, and is consciously trying to prolong his suffering even longer, and denying him his needs. So he becomes angry at someone who made the conscious decision to increase his suffering.
Similar to how a homeless person gets angry at a rich person who refuses to buy them a meal, yet this person would rather pay lots of money to greedy and shady oil corporations and bad people. They are angry because this person would rather an innocent person suffer, and bad people not suffer.
Certainly. Anything that finalizes frustration, regardless of justification and rationalizations, generally inspires either anger or depression. The imagination helps to cause a perception of an intent to frustrate, especially when drugs get involved. The mind then rationalizes an excuse to shift blame onto something identifiable, never suspecting the chemical (or even radiological) component.
In the long run, it is the lack of proper attention to the details that cause frustrated effort which then form anger (“the devil is in the details”). The mind gets into a rush to judgment and thus allows the true cause to remain invisible. The serpent vanishes back into the grass to strike again another day.
And often merely the feeling of being guilty and inadvertently exposed can trigger serious anger and imaginative blame shifting. It’s that perception of threat along with the perceived hope that an aggressive reaction can relieve it.
On this forum quite often (and mostly males) find themselves becoming quite angry because they felt socially threatened by something that someone else said. The impulse to shift the blame back onto the other person becomes very conspicuous. People who do not watch themselves can easily be triggered into foolish and exposing reactions. And the more they see themselves react that way, the more hateful they get at the other person, who possibly said nothing wrong at all. Insecurity creates enemies.
James, its a bit like being surrounded with nothing but mice. You yourself, are taller than the mice. The mice want nothing to do with you. They go about their daily lives fucking each other, eating your food, and tearing your house to a pulp. You see their delight, you see what fun they are having, and you want to love them and experience it with them, but they always run away from you, so you can never enjoy their hedonistic pursuits. They wake you up each night with their loud music, sometimes even teasing you and touching your body, but never with a genuine intent to be your friend. Eventually you say enough is enough, and get a cat, who you can relate to, and also take care of the mice.
By the way, mice were a metaphor for a certain specie that is not mice.
Again, yes, something that happens, and thus can happen, but it is not the universal rule. I have often found anger - which is a holistic, intuitive response - coming first and only later/after, I realize that at some level I caught on to something and could use the rational mind to get into the details. But the rational mind, more focused on details, often, and able to explain often in incorrect ways, or to be focused elsewhere, had not caught on to the pattern. Same with fear. I have had connections to people where fear arose. I then ‘looked at’ the person and could not find any causes for this fear. If the fear came back, I would be more cautious. Often this was later confirmed that the person was up to no good. Emotions are tightly connected to intuition. If your intuition is poor - often because emotions are suppressed - this can seem like intuition is not to be trusted and emotions also. However when that portion of the self is free and not damaged/twisted by suppression and judgment, it can and often does catch patterns that the rational mind misses. It is a pattern recognition at a holistic level, often catching small cues from disparate sources.
Of course that can be messed up, but ruling it out is not something I consider a good move. In fact I have found that in releasing that area from judgment and suppression, I am much safer, better able to relate to others and smarter. It is not an either or choice, the rational mind is also freer, not needing to expend any energy on suppression.
I also find that the people I meet who judges these emotions ends up channeling the aggression in unjustified feelings of superiority and smugness. These vibes, I find to be quite pernicious. This may not be a rule, but I am hardly encouraged by what it has done to them either.
James, your sexism triggers me. Everyone knows it is feminists (females) who get angry and feel socially threatened by what someone said on the internet.
Not here. From what I noticed here, female posters hardly get angry, even when somebody attacks them. they tend to back out and don’t post for a while. No woman got angry with you or called you sexist, when you stated that you hate women.
And btw., not all females are feminists.
Oh, uh … should we … like …um … get or room or …?
Then there must be a one hell of a lot of feminists masquerading as egocentric males on the forums.
I don’t understand the term “holistic emotion” but I do understand that rational thought is not an independent process from intuitive thought or impulse.
Rational thought merely identifies compatible intuitive thoughts and thereby reinforces the probability of their accuracy. The intuition might come up with separate notions A, B, C, and D. The rational mind identifies that A and C are compatible. Thus the intuitive response favors the A-C combination of notions, leaving B and D as less probable.
Rationality merely seeks coherence in thoughts. It doesn’t generate thought. Intuitive imagination generates notions and rationality merely chooses among them which are coherent with other previously accepted thoughts.
I don’t think I used the term ‘holistic emotion’ that would be redundant, at least in this context. Perhaps I typed too quickly.
This could be used to support what I was saying. You get a better range of intuitive reactions when the emotions are free to be both felt and expressed. If they are suppressed you lose some ability to react. Some patterns will not get noticed. The rational mind need to understand X before reacting to X. Not in any complete sense but to the degree that it is ‘thinking about X’. The emotional and intuitive mind can merely get a sense something is going on. If anger is involved generally it is something that seems bad or threatening. Sometimes these patterns involved very disparate cues. Something said by someone a week ago. The way he is holding the bag. Something you read once.
The rational mind reading the situation in paragraph form might, yes, be able to put the clues together and note the pattern. Emotions and intuitive connected to them can ‘feel’ these patterns often much faster than the rational mind would, often where the rational mind would not. After the reaction, then the rational mind can come in and check. It may well throw away some conclusions, it may accepted that there is a threat or bad thing going on. Just adding in that it is not a Emotion/intuition bad argument I am making. I see them as complimentary and I do not want to eliminate either. Yes, one can have a kind of emotionless intuition also, but this is a subset of intuition.
Do you mean the “fight or flight” instinct here? It seems to be what you’re talking about here to me.
If you’re speaking solely of intuition, I feel that it can come to the forefront, be felt, more when the mind has already been cleared of “stuff” that gets in its way…as in some kind of meditative or contemplative state.
This is a forum for intellectuals. If i had, say, posted this on facebook, I would have gotten 100 replies and/or my account flagged and banned.
Fight and flight are fairly extreme. Something can bug me, but I am not triggered into flight or flight. Something can nag at me, iow the first hints of fear, but not give me the urge to run out of the room. Warning system, but at all levels, from the very slight to the very strong. The cave man slows down when walking through the woods, or steps back into the shadows, or double checks that snake like stick. Or I get the vague sense I might get backstabbed by a coworker. Might turn out the guy is acting funny cause he has a crush on me. But those parts of the emotional/intuitive system pick up stuff in very disparate patterns that the rational mind will not notice or catch on too late.
[/quote]
This is very good for some things. I am not trying to replace anything with the emotional intuitive reactions/perceptions. I am arguing against their elimination. I am arguing against an absolute position on James side that it is bad to feel and express anger.
If however you want to eliminate anger and try to increase those states, I am not trying to tell you what to do. I am resisting a universal judgment and an absolute one.