Most people experience anger. Some experience little else. But from where does it really come? Person X gets deeply angry with person Y, but why?
Normally a person will sense anger and then immediately seek out the apparent cause of it. Sometimes there is an obvious association to the feeling and thus not much reasoning gets involved. Often (especially in the feminine) the cause isn’t really what the conscious mind speculates to be the cause. Scapegoating takes over the heart.
There are quite a variety of triggers for anger and they are different for different people. Many know that down deep at the bottom of the mystery behavior is a hidden fear. Anger is a passion requiring the energy of an instigation - the deeply felt fear with a perceived means to engage the threat. The anger is that engaging, an attempt to attack the “bad”, whatever is perceived to be the bad.
Frustration is very often involved because a good strong anger needs a strong incentive, motivation. Frustration is formed as a repeated effort is repeatedly undermined and apparently by the same source. Anger then builds toward that speculated source, fed by the frustration, “I have had ENOUGH! I’m TIRED of this CRAP!!!” But what was the real effort that was being thwarted and by what actual cause?
It takes some pretty detailed analysis to look deep into someone’s motivations for their hatred. Most people are certainly not qualified to do such analysis and most who are qualified know too little of the person steeped in anger. Thus throughout the world, anger and hatred are left to be supported and guided via mere excuses. Person X hates person Y because … insert excuse. The truth is almost never seen by any parties, certainly not when dealing with political or religious issues.
In science and psychology, there is a formula for causing anger. It is used by cults, cabals, social manipulators, and even individuals at times. The angry person very seldom knows why he/she got angry. She believes in one of her imagined excuses, almost never the real cause. And she never finds out any different. The person she is angry at usually doesn’t really know either. Forty years alter she will still believe in her hatred and her “righteous” cause for it. People are devoted to their excuses. And in sight of anger, truth becomes irrelevant, so lying a little is “justified”.
So it is a challenge. Can you dig deep enough to see the real cause of your anger without defaulting to excuses? Do you know the formula, “spell”, that causes deeply passionate anger and the self-righteous hatred, divorces, murders, and war it brings?
“So Moses made a serpent out of bronze and attached it to a pole. Then anyone who was bitten by a serpent could look upon the bronze serpent and be healed!”
Can you see the brazen image of the actual, real serpent that bites you? The fear is defeated by the light.
yeah, so clarify what it is the source of the anger? Cuz i am angry right now because you teased me and its got me all hot and bothered. Why do you tell about secret causes of anger and cult spells but not give us any examples of it?
I was talking about clarifying your own personal deepest cause of hatred, not the abstract formula which some people have worship as a god with which to conquer nations and rule the world. As you clarify your own deepest cause, you free yourself from it effect. It is a “vampire” that sucks the life blood from you but perishes in the light. So, bring it into the light.
And if you think it is the actions of any person, you are merely hiding it, not exposing it.
if u are a buddhist you cant have it both ways. see, they claim that you are ‘one’ with everyone yet when someone wrongs you they claim it is always your fault, and that forgiveness must come from you…how fucking convinient. When things are going good you are ‘one’ with everyone but if someone wrongs you, you are suddenly not ‘one’ according to buddhism, and that you need to focus on 'improving yourself." fucking joke. So keep that in mind with what im about to say
i will tell you what makes me angry, is hearing some hippie go on about ‘peace and love’ bullshit and ‘everybody needs love and affection’ kind of shit and how ‘she loves anyone once she hears their story’ and yet this person who says it is the most cliquey-ist, exclusory, apathetic, prejudiced, uncaring and uncooperative bitch i have ever met, i will tell you what i hate liars and hypocrits, fucking she might as well be adolf hitler preaching about ‘peace and love’ and shit
I have often noticed that I haven’t got the connection between anger and hate. I can become angry at the actions of someone and at the same time understand that they are unable to do anything else, and therefore not hate them. I can be angry that people in general always seem to make a specific mistake, but it wouldn’t mean that I condemn them for it.
I think that there is a decision made when we are angry, whether to act out our anger - maybe in violence - or not. In order to do that, we seem to be able to construct a reason for our actions which seems convincing at the time, whether it stands up to scrutiny or not. This reason doesn’t seem to have any regular features, so that I’d know how to reproduce it in a different situation, but maybe we are talking about the emotion in an action. In my experiences, we learn to act angry by displaying emotion. This can be called up by actors as well, meaning that as useful as it may seem, it is only superficial and gives our “reason” an underlining, as it were.
I’d say that its chronic anger that you call “deeply passionate anger”, something that we cling to, perhaps because we have been hurt so deeply. This has an air of “self-righteousness” and leads to longer conflicts. But I think that it is the hurt and pain we feel that makes anger chronic. Some of us avoid situations where this distress rises within us, or withdraw from renewed conflicts, but we feel it all the same. Others allow the anger to live out with all of its potential and deepen the conflict.
The story of Moses and the brazen serpent is, I think, an allegory and promotes the transfer of guilt - which is why Christians used it as an explanation for the power of the Cross. I think it would be an interesting thing to try, should anger rise up within us, but the “serpent of anger” is often only recognised when we get down from our warhorse.
It is a common curse for men that at times, they must behave with anger even though not really meaning it deeply. They do this as a natural means to communicate priorities. It can be avoided in certain circumstances, but not all. The fact that they have to do it sometimes, makes it harder to not fall into more genuinely deep anger and eventually lose control of their rationality. They form a habit of being less considerate (the essence of anger). If that happens, the hatred is manifest into somewhat aimless destruction and triggered by mere suggestion or vague associations with the original concern (“You look like one of those people I just can’t stand. We don’t put up with your kind here, you Faggot!!”).
Only a very small percentage of the population ever bothers to self-analyze and behave accordingly. You personally think about your own behavior. That makes you rare within the population. Don’t make the common mistake of thinking that others do what they do for the same rationale that you do what you do. Self-examining people are very differently motivated and guided than the majority of the population.
That is the manifestation of “hatred” (a persistent and insistent blind anger) from the former triggered anger. And: “Distress”
…is a very key word in all of this.
I call it “metaphor”, but…
“promotes the transfer of guilt”?
Perhaps as consequence, but I think not the point.
The rationale was that once a person clearly sees the exact true reason he is reacting without thought, his reasoning thoughts gain priority over his thoughtless reactions rather than the more primitive, animal, and initial other way around.
The “serpent” is a subtle influence that rises from obscurity (by definition). By the time the person realizes the presence of the influence (the rising emotion), he is already bitten (actively invested, “caught up in the game” - “If one even thinks it, he has already sinned”). That is the “allegory” or “metaphor”.
The idea of hanging leaders on a pole was to replicate the notion of letting people see their “influence”/“serpent” clearly in shame and defeat. Most of the time that was sufficient to stop his followers (cure them from the “poison” of believing in the hope he represented). The “miracle of the Cross” was revealed because the followers were not healed of Jesus’ influence. They persisted. And by thus, Jesus “defeated death” (“Death” being the lack of hope).
Once a person can very clearly see why they are doing what they are doing, they can make more clearly throughout decisions concerning their own behavior. In the case of Jesus, seeing him on the cross simply reminded them of why they would rather do things his way than the alternative with which they had suffered far too much for far too long (the “reasoning as to why”, the “cause” is the “serpent”, not the person on the cross).
Jesus succeeded because he sacrificed by letting them play their game their way and they still didn’t win, because the influence of altruistic good, when properly manifest, doesn’t go away, doesn’t “die”; “True love is eternal”.
But on the flip side, hatred, the opposite of love, expires into emptiness as it finally destroys everything it recognizes. Hatred and dispassion dies with the host that it helped to destroy. Love and compassion, being the constructive influence, enhances its host and thus lives on, even beyond its original host. The vampire Dracula in the stories is given extended, but empty life. Eventually the hope in continuing fades because of all of the complex adversaries created, including Truth itself, the “light”.
Thus by clarifying the deepest cause of either animal reaction, love or hate, one is cured of the blind reaction (the “poison”) and is free then to cognitively choose which path to take, freed from the “flesh”/“primitive animal non-thinking reactions”.
Distress
What is really, really, most deeply causing the sense of distress in you?
Is it really the behaviors of other people? Or perhaps something that has gotten into you that other people merely trigger? Is it a belief? A chemical? A situation? Is it psychological, physiological, or physical? Perhaps all three. But clarify to the greatest degree possible in order to be free from it and those who would keep you enslaved to it.
Yes, that is very common in Germany, and my “English way” as the Germans tend to call it, is sometimes too subtle for people. I communicate priorities by praising and encouraging behaviour, and being quietly consequential when giving a warning (which inevitably causes tears to run) to my staff. Of course it is sometimes necessary to get louder once in a while, but I see this as getting loud, rather than getting angry. I recognise that my equanimity is unusual and that my careful use of words stings at times, but I always fall into the trap of thinking that anyone could do it - if only …
I find the self-analysis seems to be more present amongst people influenced by the east, but I have always been impressed by monastic orders and their discipline, and although it is clear that nobody is perfect, self-analysis has been around in the West longer than the eastern influence. I remember that in the days of my childhood, my Grandparents were quieter, more deliberate and they took more time for important decisions than people today. (My Grandfather was still a bit of lad, and the bane of my Grandmother though!)
Yes very much so.
You’re right, in the original story, it was the cure. I find the way you explained the story interesting. It is a more psychological approach than is often made. This kind of exegesis has always interested me, because I’m sure that the Bible, just like other sources of that age, are full of “soul food” which the rationale often overlooks when just accounting the “facts”. But it isn’t just religion, but also the classical plays and the mythology of the ancients - even the language (think of Hebrew) is full of innuendos that the modern reader overlooks with modern translations.
The greek practise of veiling ones self when in anger or emotional pain, a “sad plight”, in “pain of mind” or grief, comes to mind, and the insight that by suffering pain, one might come to wisdom. Even the english word anger comes from the old Norse “ongr” meaning affliction, sorrow or being troubled. So there is a connection in our cultures, which goes a long way back. The aspects of hostility and antagonism are the reaction and a breaking out of the affliction and attacking the assumed source of the trouble.
The curbing of such actions, the surrender of revenge into the hands of higher authority, is in keeping with what you say about finding the turning point and the “exact true reason” of action without thought. A moment of self-analysis, but one which needs that turning point, the interruption of the flow of venom, to be effective at all.
The cross has always been a lesson about the possible consequences of my actions - upon other, perhaps better people than I, or on my children or spouse, for a moment of blind anger or rage. The indignation of religious people is what we have to deal with in our day, looking not only to Paris, but to all places where armed conflict is taking place. But the suffering seems to flood more venom into the system, rather than helping people see sense.
For me, distress is caused by the disillusionment that I have gone through, realising that social entropy is being advanced and the dam, which could prevent that movement, is being weakend. The failure of modern society to uphold social cohesion, but which is instead furthering individualism, is at the same time caused by one of the values that people hold on to - freedom. But it is a freedom that is non-committal and rests on the conflicts of our forefathers, which modern people neglect.
Even religious people seem to be more concerned with getting into whatever paradise they dream of, rather than being “cleaved together” against that tide of decomposition and degeneration that seems to spread across the world.
It is when I see that people are adding to this decline, whether in their behaviour or attitudes, that I can get angry.
Anger is not a single monolithic emotion rather a subtle spectrum of them ranging from impatience at one end to rage at the other. Though
I have found virtual peace of mind by avoiding contact with any one. I some times get angry but it is incredibly contained and as infrequent
as possible. I think that not having a rigid world view helps too. For when reality does not conform to your expectation of it that can act as
a catalyst for activation of the anger spectrum. I though have no desire to be in such a place for it would not be good for my mental health
That relates to my Vector of Command thread involving “impedance matching” - matching the force applied to the need at hand, being appropriately tactful.
True … and why the entire religious forum here is a bit of a waste.
Sounds a lot like me.
Perhaps if I asked the question a little differently:
You become angry.
I ask you why.
You tell me that it is because of X.
I ask why you care about X.
You tell me it is because of W.
I ask why you care about W.
You tell me it is because of V.
Assuming that I kept asking and you kept the patience to analyze and answer, eventually we might get to “A”, the most fundamental cause of your anger related reactions. What people do and say and frustrating events are the X’s, the W’s, K’s, and so on. But the question is, “What is the A, the deepest fundamental concern such as to react at all? Why do you care to react at all?”
And once clearly seeing the most fundamental purpose for what you do, no doubt, you would choose a different method than anger. But until you see it, you know yourself well, you cannot decide against you passions, but merely hide them and hope they don’t sneak back up and bite you later. The serpent is in there. Expose it or know that you sleep with it.
In a sense, it is asking, What is the real purpose or intention for your life? And does anger actually, really serve it?
There are very rare times when it actually might … but hardly ever. Why leave the decision up to accidental causes and surreptitiously devious people?
True.
One cannot always hide forever for fear of the serpent being awoken. Serpents have a way of growing stronger when kept in dark places and oppressed. It is generally better to expunge the serpents than try to sweep them under the carpet.
The answer in psychological terms as a dynamic, is that most anger results from efforts to deny in one’s self, features, and states of mind, which people share, while denying these traits in themselves, but angry in discovering their presence in other people. Even if, they consist of, the other person’s inherent trait, by some mechanism of remote recognition, will attribute it to another person.
The ‘introjection’ may be, that the other person could attribute such unwanted features to one’s self, and
that thought generate or identify that person as
possessing that trait in the first place.
A circularity is formed ,where a state of mind, elevates the
state from a mere possibility, to near certainty.
The hate escalates ,if both people think in this manner,both
suspecting the other of possessing the same trait, or attitude. It gets to be a double whammy, then.
James is your typical fagot who, unable to control/balance his anger, is forced to invent reasons that will devalue his anger such that he can more effectively deny it.
He then misinterprets his cowardly thinking to be rational thinking and then proceeds to enforce it onto everyone else by asking them endless “why” questions in the style of Socrates.
And this is the reason why you should get angry at James whenever you can: because he’s a sickness that is spreading.
These morons are simply taking it for granted that just because their anger is neurotic it must be that everyone’s anger is neurotic.
Notice also how he never asks the same “why” question for other emotions such as love or happiness. Why do people love? or why are they so happy? No, it’s always about anger, because anger leads to conflicts and these other emotions do not.
Well I did know this fagot who was a true fagot, he had a similar train of thought. He kept asking me “why why why” when I could go no deeper. He wanted to know why I asked him a question, I told him because I was curious. He told me that wasn’t enough, he kept asking why I was curious. I told him because I was interested, and the topic piqued my interest. “Why did it pique my interest” he demanded to know. I told him because I was curious, it intellectually and emotionally stimulated me, and I thought it would be friendly to ask him. “Why would it be friendly to ask me, and why would it be intellectually and emotionally stimulating?” The bitch went on.
Now i dont think James is a fagot to this extend, i think he just wants to know a root cause to anger. Id say the most common root cause of anger is either because our needs are not being met, the person is hurting us, or the other person is being deceptive, or both. Anger also stems from a frustration and inability to control another persons ethics, like as someone tormenting you or someone else and you dont have the power to stop them. I dont think it gets any deeper than that.
To me the problem of anger is when it is part of a conversion of other emotions. In a relationship one jumps to anger, when one is really confused, or sad or scared. The last underlying, generally, the first. There are all sorts of reasons why this strategy (or tactic in specific situations) leads to at least seeming short term benefits, but it messes up the relationship.
A related problem is when one hardens into a position of anger and identifies with the position. I am pissed off at X and this just simply becomes a habit, not because anything new has happened.
But otherwise, anger is a kind of pushing away or making something stop assertion.
I can see nothing wrong with it.
The Eastern influence has always had the contradiction that one is encouraged to accept all of what is outside oneself, but to judge control and place in the dungeon some of what is inside oneself.
If this is pointed out masters and adherents will usually do some fancy mental footwork, but at root their is a hatred and fear of the emotional body posing as spirituality.
You can see nothing wrong with blind destruction? That is what separates anger from anything else - the blind, inconsiderate aggression of it.
The lack of consideration and the lack of intelligence are almost the exact same thing.
Not to “judge and control”, but to dissolve, dismiss, and replace. The idea is that the more one does so within oneself, the less of it there will be outside oneself. Affectance aggregates like affectance; nobility aggregates nobility, theft aggregates thieves, love aggregates the loving, and hatefulness aggregates the hateful.
I don’t see all anger as causing blind destruction. Anger can fit as response to something specific - iow not blind. It need not be aggressive, it can be defensive. On the simplest level being physically attacked and using responding force to move that person away. The body mobilized by anger. Sometimes this can be in situations where there is no time to consider (if that is the sense of the root you bring in with ‘inconsiderate’. But one can also think and express anger. It is not an either or proposition. Generally, in my life, anger comes up after less emotional responses have been respected by the other person or organization.
It seems to me many people dissolve, dismiss and replace their own anger and this also has not worked. In the years since I began accepting my anger, I have experienced less anger around me. I could go into my ontology there, but I think it is better to simply say what you are saying does not fit my experience in the least. And I have seen some quite noble souls go down while repeatedly doing those things with their anger.
It is a natural reaction, like a bruise forming after a blow to the body. Or like immune type reactions in the body. There is nothing wrong with it. Once one is convinced there is something wrong with anger, always, then one will keep seeing this confirmed outside oneself since people are generally damaged and confused and, yes, a lot of bad habits couple to anger. But I am not going to dismiss this natural response because other people are messed up.
But if you feel like you want to dismiss and dissolve your own anger, by all means do it.
Then “it” is not anger, merely deliberate tactics. Just because someone hits a nail with a hammer, doesn’t mean that he is angry with the nail. It is only anger when he does it inconsiderately, perhaps missing or more often, hitting the wrong nail.
I see very little of that. What I see is people holding their anger, subduing it, and hiding it from sight then pretending that that it wasn’t really there.
What I discover after meditating on the above is the sense of being helpless and not able to control my circumstances. Out of this, there seems to rise an insecurity when I see people further endanger my wellbeing, and that of my loved ones. I think anger or aggression rises out of frustration - frustration at the inability to alter the situation by other means.
Of course this is counterproductive because anger and aggression makes the problem more complicated. However, in that situation, even if reason tells us it won’t help, frustration causes an emotional reaction. It even feels like the serpent rising and instinctively taking over, disregarding all reason.
There are several paths to combat this:
You force your will on the world around you.
You make do with what the world offers you.
You no longer have any intent or wishes, but cease holding on to an idea of well-being.
The it seems to me you have a unique definition of anger. I definitely feel anger in situations where one could look at it from the outside and say, yes, that was an appropriate response. I do not feel anger when hitting nails. Alright, when I was younger and they bent after blow, but I outgrew that.
I have also been on the receiving end of anger and been, sometimes only after a while, very grateful that they allowed themselves to express their feelings. Easier cases involve patterns where I have not been kind to myself but not realized this was happening. Harder ones often involved patterns where I was inconsiderate of others - this has included loved ones and strangers.
I see very little of that. What I see is people holding their anger, subduing it, and hiding it from sight then pretending that that it wasn’t really there.
[/quote]
I see a lot of that also. But I have seen some very loving souls go down after constantly transmuting their anger to other feelings.
I also have no problem with fear. And if you have a good acceptance of fear, this eliminates the problems with anger. Since one is also afraid of being wantonly destructive or of putting oneself in jeopardy. Further repetitive patterns with held anger or grudges causes anxiety which when opened also has fear and that fear does not like the habit. Of course their can be damaging patterns involving fear also.
But not all fear and not all anger.
Nor grief, though people tend to be more accepting of grief and it tends to come up less in these kinds of discussions.