Should justified anger be acknowledged or ignored?

[mensa-maniac]

Should justified anger be acknowledged or ignored?

Justified anger is anger which should be acknowledged, because it is anger that is justified. Justified anger may be anger that was inflicted upon you, it is important to face this anger head-on instead of festering inside of you creating emotional turmoil.

One can ignor justified anger if one considers the source of the anger, which then makes the impact less influential.

[Cahoot]

The source of anger is your own mind. When you recognize the existence of anger and study it, you learn about anger, and you learn about yourself.

Whether or not your anger is justified is intertwined with your purpose. Each moment has a purpose. When you know yourself, you know your purpose within the context of each moment.

When the purpose of a particular moment is to defend and preserve your existence, then a variety of methods are used by the organism. Chemicals such as adrenalin are released into the blood. Initially anger may or may not be present in such a situation, however when the threat to existence is most imminent and the purpose is preservation of the organism, then the energy of anger will turn into clarity.

In a situation such as an internet message board, existence of the organism is not threatened. However, existence of self-image may be threatened.

When the purpose of a particular moment is to preserve or protect self-image, then anger is a method that may be employed. Anger is actually a habitual interpretation of energy, an interpretation intertwined with memory and self-image.

Self-image is no small thing. It can have power over the existence of the organism, which accounts for suicide, or self-sacrifice, or murder.

When you learn about yourself, and understand anger, you come to learn characteristics that define the nature of this self-image. With equanimity, you realize that the self-image that once seemed so solid and concrete is actually arbitrary. A particular self-image that defines a person, that is defended and protected with anger, could easily be another self-image.

So, in the circumstance of an internet message board, when you feel you are being attacked, and you feel anger, consider that the anger is actually a response to protect and preserve your arbitrary self-image. If this preservation and protection is your conscious purpose, then your anger is justified.

Impatience with the perceived deficiencies of another may be another cause of anger, which may manifest as intolerance. If the purpose is to preserve the self image of superiority, then the anger manifesting as intolerance is justified, though in effect the manifestation may be ineffectual and thus impotent.

(There are other conscious purposes within the circumstance of an internet message board that can result in justified anger that transforms into clarity. One example is an administrator neutralizing maliciousness, or spam, that threaten the existence of the venue.)

If you reach a state of self-knowledge where you see that the purpose of protecting and preserving your arbitrary self-image is a chimera, yet you are still experiencing anger and you would like for this situation to be different, then there are various methods of training your mind in order to view the world in other ways.

Seeing the world in a new way, and becoming attentive to a non-habitual perspective, stimulates awareness. Awareness enables the calm and clarity where rationality and compassion bloom. Which is why a vacation from the routine has the potential to be beneficial.

One method from the Buddhist tradition which counteracts the anger behind protecting self-image is Tonglin practice. There are undoubtedly methods from other traditions.

[mensa-maniac]

Hello Cahoot

Thank you so much for your incredible knowledge, you've enlightened me. I know much of what you're talking about, it makes so much sense.

I read every word and will read it again just because it is so good and beneficial. I like to read what you have to say because you're bang on!

I'm not an angry person, I seldom ever become angry. I know myself well, and avoid angry people. I don't like angry people, nor do I try to make people angry. If I find myself in an angry situation, I try to talk about it, face it, then let it go. I try to find the source of the anger.

[Animus]

I can't justify anger.

Anger is an egotistical response to faulty expectations. I expect my girlfriend to leave the backdoor unlocked, I get home most nights and it is locked. That is not a cause for anger. I explicitly ask her to leave the back door unlocked, she still locks it, again not a cause for anger. Unlocking the backdoor for me is not a big part of her consciousness, I cannot blame her for the thought not arising. Though, she gets quite frequently angry with me for the same thing. Is my anger justified when she is angry with me? Nope, I still can't find any justification for gettting angry. I can leave or I can stay.

[cousinbasil]

I can't justify anger.

Anger is an egotistical response to faulty expectations. I expect my girlfriend to leave the backdoor unlocked, I get home most nights and it is locked. That is not a cause for anger. I explicitly ask her to leave the back door unlocked, she still locks it, again not a cause for anger. Unlocking the backdoor for me is not a big part of her consciousness, I cannot blame her for the thought not arising. Though, she gets quite frequently angry with me for the same thing. Is my anger justified when she is angry with me? Nope, I still can't find any justification for getting angry. I can leave or I can stay.

I agree with Animus.

Anger is a false emotion. It can by its very nature accomplish nothing. It is to be avoided at all costs.

Think about it. When was the last time you admired someone for getting angry? Anger can only instill fear and resentment. Angry behavior is shameful behavior. Note that I am specifying behavior.

Anger tends to nullify any potential intellectual resolution in a given situation. In situations where anger is involved, reasoning usually suffers.

[1456200423]

http://l.thumbs.canstockphoto.com/canstock4782051.jpg

[Cahoot]

Sound reasoning can explain the existence of anger more effectively than wishfully thinking that anger should not exist.

Rationalizing anger, or rationalizing anything, uses flawed reasoning, often for self-justification.

Someone who feels justified in their anger could possibly feel justified, by means of rationalization, when they angrily, irrationally, stick a knife in you, or use the knife to slice off some of your favorite parts. Quite likely, you will not agree with their self-justification.

Thus, the determination of whether or not someone’s self-justified anger should be ignored is linked to conditions of the circumstance: conditions such as the players in the drama, their perspectives, their capacity for violence, the presence of weapons, and so on.

[cousinbasil]

Sound reasoning can explain the existence of anger more effectively than wishfully thinking that anger should not exist.

I don't see how wishfully thinking anger should not exist could effectively explain anything, let alone anger itself.

Thus, the determination of whether or not someone’s self-justified anger should be ignored is linked to conditions of the circumstance

That I agree with. When someone has become angry, he or she has already lost a measure of control. By its nature, anger is an attention-getter - one ignores the angry person at one's peril.

Anger should be avoided at all costs within oneself; this is not to say it should be ignored in others, unless the situation calls for that.

I assume we are speaking of "adult" instances of anger.

[Cahoot]

Sound reasoning can explain the existence of anger more effectively than wishfully thinking that anger should not exist.

I don't see how wishfully thinking anger should not exist could effectively explain anything, let alone anger itself.

Thus, the determination of whether or not someone’s self-justified anger should be ignored is linked to conditions of the circumstance

That I agree with. When someone has become angry, he or she has already lost a measure of control. By its nature, anger is an attention-getter - one ignores the angry person at one's peril.

Anger should be avoided at all costs within oneself; this is not to say it should be ignored in others, unless the situation calls for that.

I assume we are speaking of "adult" instances of anger.

Just don’t do it.

True enough, and a cogent corollary to Nike’s advertising slogan.

Ineffectiveness is often a popular method of explanation. Here’s an anthem of wishful thinking whose level of inquiry into the human condition of social issues often serves as a perspective.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VM0Z75KEd_o

*

“Never lose your temper because anger is a very important emotion, and you must never share important emotions with strangers, because you will only lose face, because none of it is important to them.”
- James Clavell, from studying his Japanese captors

[mensa-maniac]

Sound reasoning can explain the existence of anger more effectively than wishfully thinking that anger should not exist.

I don't see how wishfully thinking anger should not exist could effectively explain anything, let alone anger itself.

Thus, the determination of whether or not someone’s self-justified anger should be ignored is linked to conditions of the circumstance

That I agree with. When someone has become angry, he or she has already lost a measure of control. By its nature, anger is an attention-getter - one ignores the angry person at one's peril.

Mensa says: I also agree with both remarks, however, ignoring one's anger is spitefully and intentionally cruel. It's very important to let the angry person have their say, and let them talk talk talk because they need to, and don't comment, unless asked for it. If you ignor their anger, this will hurt them further which in turn will cause more anger.


Anger should be avoided at all costs within oneself; this is not to say it should be ignored in others, unless the situation calls for that.

Mensa says: I agree, but, ignor only if it is a life/death threatening situation, then, run like hell. At what level of voice raising would one consider it to be anger? I think screaming is what young hormonal females do.

I assume we are speaking of "adult" instances of anger.

Mensa says: Yes, the younger generation still have to go through lifes experiences yet, to learn to control their anger.

Just don’t do it.

Mensa says: I agree, especially in public, never!

True enough, and a cogent corollary to Nike’s advertising slogan.

Ineffectiveness is often a popular method of explanation. Here’s an anthem of wishful thinking whose level of inquiry into the human condition of social issues often serves as a perspective.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VM0Z75KEd_o

*Mensa says: Yes!

“Never lose your temper because anger is a very important emotion, and you must never share important emotions with strangers, because you will only lose face, because none of it is important to them.”
- James Clavell, from studying his Japanese captors

Mensa says: Excellent quote, Thank You! Here is one I will share with you, "Never answer an angry word with an angry word, it's the second that makes the quarrel" Steven Grellet

[Animus]

“Anger dwells only in the bosom of fools.” - Albert Einstein

[cousinbasil]

From famous-quotes.com (and a million other sites):

Whatever is begun in anger ends in shame.
Benjamin Franklin

Anyone can become angry -- that is easy. But to be angry with the right person, to the right degree, at the right time, for the right purpose, and in the right way -- this is not easy.
Aristotle

Be not hasty in thy spirit to be angry: for anger resteth in the bosom of fools.
Ecclesiastes 7:9

Heaven has no rage like love to hatred turned, Nor hell a fury like a woman scorned.
William Congreve

Holding on to anger is like grasping a hot coal with the intent of throwing it at someone else; you are the one getting burned.
Buddha

Indulge not thyself in the passion of anger; it is whetting a sword to wound thine own breast, or murder thy friend.
Akhenaton

Let us not look back in anger or forward in fear, but around in awareness.
James Thurber

The angry man will defeat himself in battle as well as in life.
Samurai Maxim

To be angry about trifles is mean and childish; to rage and be furious is brutish; and to maintain perpetual wrath is akin to the practice and temper of devils; but to prevent and suppress rising resentment is wise and glorious, is manly and divine.
Alan W. Watts

[mensa-maniac]

From famous-quotes.com (and a million other sites):

Whatever is begun in anger ends in shame.
Benjamin Franklin

Mensa maniac: Whatever is begun in anger, if intelligent, will achieve a successful result! Donna Thompson

Anyone can become angry -- that is easy. But to be angry with the right person, to the right degree, at the right time, for the right purpose, and in the right way -- this is not easy.
Aristotle

Mensa says: But achievable!

Be not hasty in thy spirit to be angry: for anger resteth in the bosom of fools.
Ecclesiastes 7:9

Mensa says: I cannot disagree with the Bible, for it's wisdom is divine!

Heaven has no rage like love to hatred turned, Nor hell a fury like a woman scorned.
William Congreve

Mensa says: True!

Holding on to anger is like grasping a hot coal with the intent of throwing it at someone else; you are the one getting burned.
Buddha Mensa says: Agreed!

Mensa says: Holding on to anger, is because you haven't learned to let go of it yet. Donna Thompson

Indulge not thyself in the passion of anger; it is whetting a sword to wound thine own breast, or murder thy friend.
Akhenaton

Mensa says: Why is one self-destructive, or murderous of thy friend, who dwells in the heart?

Let us not look back in anger or forward in fear, but around in awareness.
James Thurber

Mensa says: Words of wisdom to live by!

The angry man will defeat himself in battle as well as in life.
Samurai Maxim

Mensa maniac: The angry man defeats himself. Donna Thompson

To be angry about trifles is mean and childish; to rage and be furious is brutish; and to maintain perpetual wrath is akin to the practice and temper of devils; but to prevent and suppress rising resentment is wise and glorious, is manly and divine.
Alan W. Watts

Mensa says: I've been awakened to wisdom. Forgive me Cousinbasil for the unthoughtful useless words I used. I'm ashamed of myself.

[cousinbasil]

Mensa says: I've been awakened to wisdom. Forgive me Cousinbasil for the unthoughtful useless words I used. I'm ashamed of myself.

Hey no need for that on my account - or to apologize for that matter. I was needling you - albeit with a big, fat electric drill bit. No harm no foul?

BTW, in perusing the quotes about anger, there seemed to be two schools of thought on what to do with it if it ever does show up inside one. One, expressed by Watts and by the overwhelming majority, is that one should suppress it. The other is that suppression equals repression and that doing so will only cause it to grow, therefore one should express it and it will go away. I heartily disagree with that second viewpoint. Expressing it makes the inner resentment go away - but this is a lazy way of dealing with it, since it merely passes the ill-feelings onto others. Doing the "manly, glorious" thing as Watts puts it, makes it go away for everybody, and leaves no scars. It also builds character. Rather than causing the source of the anger to fester and grow, refraining from expressing it causes one to deal with the underlying issues, thereby gaining additional skills, insight, and strength.

So my bad for hurting your feelings - but you gotta be tougher if you are going to commit your words to print. You might be too much of a sweetheart for the journalism gig, in which everything you say will be fair game.

[mensa-maniac]

Mensa says: I've been awakened to wisdom. Forgive me Cousinbasil for the unthoughtful useless words I used. I'm ashamed of myself.

Hey no need for that on my account - or to apologize for that matter. I was needling you - albeit with a big, fat electric drill bit. No harm no foul?

BTW, in perusing the quotes about anger, there seemed to be two schools of thought on what to do with it if it ever does show up inside one. One, expressed by Watts and by the overwhelming majority, is that one should suppress it. The other is that suppression equals repression and that doing so will only cause it to grow, therefore one should express it and it will go away. I heartily disagree with that second viewpoint. Expressing it makes the inner resentment go away - but this is a lazy way of dealing with it, since it merely passes the ill-feelings onto others. Doing the "manly, glorious" thing as Watts puts it, makes it go away for everybody, and leaves no scars. It also builds character. Rather than causing the source of the anger to fester and grow, refraining from expressing it causes one to deal with the underlying issues, thereby gaining additional skills, insight, and strength.

So my bad for hurting your feelings - but you gotta be tougher if you are going to commit your words to print. You might be too much of a sweetheart for the journalism gig, in which everything you say will be fair game.

Mensa says: I'm tough enough to stick-up for myself, to face when someone is being deliberately mean and their words are not of truth. Truth to me is facts. My intuition is factual, my words are my intuition. Would you believe if I told you that most people think of me as a sweetheart, it's true in real life away from computer life, I'm positive in every situation, people like me because they see an honest, loving person, one who sees the good in everything, or will make good out of a bad.

My problem is seeing the good in everyone and they may not even see the good I see in them in themselves.

[Blair]

or will make good out of a bad.

What makes you think you can do this, outside of using and projecting the mechanism of denial?

[mensa-maniac]

or will make good out of a bad.

What makes you think you can do this, outside of using and projecting the mechanism of denial?

Mensa says: It's not that I think I can do this, it's that I know, no denial involved. Love conquers all! Positive loving reinforcement to every negative will conquer anger and hatred. Trust is a necessity, if there is no trust, there is no changing. But, I am talking about changing an angry hateful person to a loving acceptable one. It can be done, but the person has to trust the psychologist, and it may take several years depending on how much time is actually involved. If I were a practicing psychologist and you were my patient, I would see you twice a week at my expense, just to help you overcome your need to degrade or denounce people. I would have you thinking differently than your usual way. And it's not because I love you either, so don't think that, it's because I love myself and know I can help others.

[cousinbasil]

If I were a practicing psychologist and you were my patient, I would see you twice a week at my expense, just to help you overcome your need to degrade or denounce people.

Getting Blair to go twice a week would be difficult enough. How do you know that seeing Blair twice a week for any length of time wouldn't "cure" you, i.e., make you start seeing things through prince-nez glasses?

[cousinbasil]

Would you believe if I told you that most people think of me as a sweetheart, it's true in real life away from computer life, I'm positive in every situation, people like me because they see an honest, loving person, one who sees the good in everything, or will make good out of a bad.

Believe it? I'm sure of it, that's why I said it - and because I really didn't mean to hurt your feelings and because perhaps you should develop thicker skin. People will still like you, you know. It's not necessary to be vulnerable all the time or take things personally in order to be a "good" person or so that people will like you. And developing a thicker skin does not mean you have to stop "seeing the good in everything" if that strikes you as particularly beneficial to anyone--- it might even make you better at it.

[mensa-maniac]

Would you believe if I told you that most people think of me as a sweetheart, it's true in real life away from computer life, I'm positive in every situation, people like me because they see an honest, loving person, one who sees the good in everything, or will make good out of a bad.

Believe it? I'm sure of it, that's why I said it - and because I really didn't mean to hurt your feelings and because perhaps you should develop thicker skin. People will still like you, you know. It's not necessary to be vulnerable all the time or take things personally in order to be a "good" person or so that people will like you. And developing a thicker skin does not mean you have to stop "seeing the good in everything" if that strikes you as particularly beneficial to anyone--- it might even make you better at it.

Mensa says: How can I stop from being vulnerable? People automatically like me, because I offer suggestions, I dare to speak up when I should. I'm not certain where I'm vulnerable, can you tell me? What am I vulnerable at?

[mensa-maniac]

If I were a practicing psychologist and you were my patient, I would see you twice a week at my expense, just to help you overcome your need to degrade or denounce people.

Getting Blair to go twice a week would be difficult enough. How do you know that seeing Blair twice a week for any length of time wouldn't "cure" you, i.e., make you start seeing things through prince-nez glasses?

Mensa says: You're absolutely right in saying that cousinbasil, you have a keen sense of knowledge. "How do you know that seeing Blair twice a week for any length of time wouldn't "cure" you" See, you make a very valid question here, and in most cases that's exactly the way it goes. The psychologists sees a different perspective from her own, through her clients. But, it's really only a one-way street here, because the psychologist is concerned about Blair, it's Blair who is discussed not the psychologist. If the psychologist didn't understand Blair or where he was coming from, then the psychologist could never help him. I am gifted with seeing into people and I can help people through just talking with them. Not by having them see things my way, but having them see things differently, and that's what cures people. That is all we need is to see things from a different perspective.

Prince Blair is either brilliant or he's angry. If he is brilliant he doesn't give a flying fuck what anyone thinks of how he expresses himself. He would find it hilarious just to hear the response. If he is angry, he still doesn't give a flying fuck what others think, but anger needs to be dealth with. Alan Watts suggests suppressed anger is best, I disagree. Suppressed anger is no darn good at all, it festers inside like a rotted corpse, it needs to be acknowledged, but not by just anyone. It has to be someone a person can trust to understand them.

Mensa says: I often walk in anothers shoes, this is how I help them. I understand where they're are coming from through listening to them speak, and I never judge anyone anymore. We can't really change people, they can only change themselves through seeing things from a different perspective, which then changes them.

Mensa says: The psychologist has to deal with each client from their clients perspective, it is the psychologists responsibilty to change that perspective with a different one. Or, find something positive about the clients perspectives and work on that. Basically, what it boils down to, is just plain old talking. Talking is what is needed, and to be listened to and understood.

[cousinbasil]

Mensa says: How can I stop from being vulnerable? People automatically like me, because I offer suggestions, I dare to speak up when I should. I'm not certain where I'm vulnerable, can you tell me? What am I vulnerable at?

If you are speaking up when you should be speaking up, that doesn't sound daring, does it?

By vulnerable, I didn't mean you are not capable of fighting back. I meant you let your feelings get hurt, so that you might not make the best decisions when you do fight back. If you never let the thing get to you that you are fighting about, you might fight better? Does that make sense?

[Cahoot]

“By becoming vulnerable you will lose something, that is your ego; you will lose something, but you will not lose yourself. In fact by losing all else you will for the first time attain to your authentic being.”
- Osho

This observation by Osho is useful at a fearless level of awareness.

*

At another level of awareness, many women who are psychologically treated brutally by men, are attracted to those men. They return for more mistreatment while denouncing the mistreatment. In fact they enjoy it, crave it on a feminine, emotional level of awareness. This apparent paradox is a reality of the female psyche. It exists, and liking it or disliking it has nothing to do with the fact that it does exist.

The opportunistic male with the intelligence to see this quality in a particular woman’s level of awareness, by stepping into the role the woman at that level of awareness desires, can be assured of getting his fair share of ass, for awhile at least, and this fulfills both the shallow depth of the relationship and the level of awareness.

This phenomena accounts for female attraction to the bad boys. And that term bad boys is a key to understanding the apparent paradox of a female who feels attracted to that which does not nurture in a healthy way.

She wants to fill a perceived need, and at the same time, validate her power by taming the bad boy into interludes of kindness, towards her.

A male who exhibits the qualities of discipline, restraint, and impartial equanimity, who does not act like a bad boy in ways such as self-absorption, fits of anger, or calculated offense, offers little need for the feminine to either mother or conquer.

[cousinbasil]

At another level of awareness, many women who are psychologically treated brutally by men, are attracted to those men. They return for more mistreatment while denouncing the mistreatment. In fact they enjoy it, crave it on a feminine, emotional level of awareness. This apparent paradox is a reality of the female psyche. It exists, and liking it or disliking it has nothing to do with the fact that it does exist.

I'll say this: true or not, most males think this is true.

By this I mean that assessing it rationally would lead a male to the conclusion that it it true at least for some females, since by the time he has reached the age where what attracts women to men has become important, he has noticed instances of it. The question then becomes, is it true for most women on some level?

The problem is that a male is going to try such behavior to see if it works, even if he is not prone to such behavior, because somewhere in the back of his head is a voice telling him nice guys finish last. Should this behavior succeed in getting him attention from a female he desires, what then? If he ceases the behavior, he risks losing her, but the behavior may not reflect his true self. The behavior then becomes something which is positively reinforced, and he will find the female will keep coming back to him for more abusive treatment.

If this dynamic becomes part of a relationship, the relationship is doomed to fail and be tumultuous until then. It comes down to the female's selection process, since her attention to abusive behavior will reinforce that behavior whether it reflects the male's true character nor not. On top of this, when males point this out, they are accused of "blaming the victim." The minority of more enlightened women will understand the responsibility they must accept, that the female often creates her own victim-hood or propagates it. If one refuses to let oneself become a victim in the first pace, one can never be blamed as one, that is, the question of blame becomes moot because the notion of responsibility has replaced it.

[jupiviv]

The problem is that a male is going to try such behavior to see if it works, even if he is not prone to such behavior, because somewhere in the back of his head is a voice telling him nice guys finish last. Should this behavior succeed in getting him attention from a female he desires, what then? If he ceases the behavior, he risks losing her, but the behavior may not reflect his true self. The behavior then becomes something which is positively reinforced, and he will find the female will keep coming back to him for more abusive treatment.

You explained what the real problem is with this paragraph - it is wanting to be with women in the first place. In sexuality, one is either active or passive. So one basically has a choice between being a "bad boy", or a "nice guy," if one wants to have any sort of relationship with women. If neither option seems quite suitable, then the only other choice is to stop wanting to be with women.