NotBlinded Posted January 11, 2006 Share Posted January 11, 2006 So anger, when one is not conscious of how it affects your train of thought, is a negative emotion, generally speaking. However, if one is conscious of it, they can keep their rational mind functioning to balance out the emotion, and decide the most effective response. I think this is the key. Anger is indeed important and necessary to get one's attention but then it's up to the one that is angry to choose the appropriate action after reflecting on the cause. I could be mistaken, but I don't think anyone would disagree that emotions are necessary for action. Only blind emotion is dangerous, IMO and that is what I see you saying also. Once again, I think many are saying the same thing but it appears as conflict. There is an analogy I would like to use here that don Miguel Ruiz uses: If a person is kind and takes care of their dog, that dog will be happy. If they were to kick the dog everytime they see it, the dog would become afraid and try to run or bite. The emotion is genuine and vital to survival. The dog may not ever be able to respond to kindness again because of this occurance and the dog suffers for it after the initial response to the emotion. Other dogs seem to forgive and can be happy with other people. The initial response was real and necessary but the long held hostility serves no purpose after the action was taken. I think if one feels that more action is needed, then hold on to the anger until nothing more can be done. This is just how I perceive it...for what it's worth. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
not1not2 Posted January 11, 2006 Share Posted January 11, 2006 _/\_ Do you feel the world would be a better place if no one ever got angry about the Holocaust, about Stalin's purges, about Jim Crow laws? What I am saying, and I think what Cerise is saying is that it's not so black and white. Your analogy of the mind, while a great image inducer is just not necessarily true. It is certainly not provable. There are times when anger can be a positive. So are you saying that thought & action are not influenced by emotions? Anyway, check out this part of my previous statement: Basically, this whole issue comes down to personal choice. Letting go of anger is a conscious decision that may or may not be made. It is important not to push it away, as it is telling you something important that you need to figure out. Perhaps it is prompting you to some action of social justice or personal assertiveness. I never said anger was a bad thing, just that it can influence our thoughts and actions in undesirable ways. The point here is to be aware of how this emotion is influencing thought & action in order to see the appropriate response. In response to your dog analogy, nbbtb, while the behavior modification may be essential to survival, the anger isn't. One can change one's behavior to achieve the desired results without holding onto any anger. Now, the anger is our initial prompting that something is amiss and needed to be corrected. Something needs to be corrected, either internally, externally, or some combination of the two. take care _/\_ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NotBlinded Posted January 11, 2006 Share Posted January 11, 2006 In response to your dog analogy, nbbtb, while the behavior modification may be essential to survival, the anger isn't. One can change one's behavior to achieve the desired results without holding onto any anger. Now, the anger is our initial prompting that something is amiss and needed to be corrected. Something needs to be corrected, either internally, externally, or some combination of the two. take care _/\_ The anger is essential initially. Isn't that what you are saying also? Dang, we'll get back to where we started soon. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
crazy-tiger Posted January 11, 2006 Share Posted January 11, 2006 The anger is essential initially. Isn't that what you are saying also? Dang, we'll get back to where we started soon. I think we just have... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NotBlinded Posted January 11, 2006 Share Posted January 11, 2006 I think we just have... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cerise Posted January 12, 2006 Share Posted January 12, 2006 sorry sorry sorry. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
All Gods Fail Posted January 12, 2006 Share Posted January 12, 2006 So anyway, what happened to Ssel? Did he get booted, fly off in a snit, or is he just on vacation? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cerise Posted January 12, 2006 Share Posted January 12, 2006 So anyway, what happened to Ssel? Did he get booted, fly off in a snit, or is he just on vacation? He's stubbourn. He'll be back and annoying as ever. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ouroboros Posted January 12, 2006 Share Posted January 12, 2006 So anyway, what happened to Ssel? Did he get booted, fly off in a snit, or is he just on vacation? He got pissed at me. So he left. But I don't know if he's planning on coming back when he's cooled down or not. Last thing he told me that I had become what I feared... whatever that means, since I'm not sure what I fear. I don't know anything that I can become that I also fear... (Hotdog?... no, I can't become a hot dog, and I don't fear them... Maybe a mailman? Nah, don't fear them either. Maybe I've become a loaded shotgun? Sure, I don't like one in my face, but how can I become one?... so I'm not sure...) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
not1not2 Posted January 12, 2006 Share Posted January 12, 2006 What happens when it never gets corrected? Then the anger continues to arise over and over again. This is basically developing a habit of anger as a response to suffering induced by an external catalyst. It is my opinion that this is not the only possible to response and there are more healthy habits that one can develop in these situations. In response to your dog analogy, nbbtb, while the behavior modification may be essential to survival, the anger isn't. One can change one's behavior to achieve the desired results without holding onto any anger. Evidence for another truism? Not quite sure what you are asking. This statement was intended to apply more to people than to dogs. I'm honestly not sure that a dog has this capability. People, however, do (at least potentially, though there are certainly going to be some exceptions here). This is evidenced simply by the fact that people have done so. Basically, in my experience one can carry out the exact same course of action with a variety of emotions. This means that while anger may have some utility in prompting a different course of action, without proper reflection on what the initial factors which led to the undesirable experience, one could direct their anger into actions which do not relieve the individual from future similar experiences. My point however is that where survival and well-being is concerned I can take the actions which are necessary to my survival, regardless of whether or not I am harboring anger and resentment against someone who I feel has wronged me. Another example which Illustrates the utility of forgiveness goes something like this: Somebody does something to me (hit's me or insults me, etc.) This creates an internal negative state which manifests in thoughts such as, 'how could they do this to me', 'that person is an asshole', and any number of angry or hurtful thoughts. However, everytime I think something along these lines, I am re-enacting the pain & hurt. So, instead of being injured by that person once, I am being injured over and over again (of my own accord). This compounds the animosity I hold towards that person and increases the intensity of emotion. This is a feedback loop which basically cycles over and over until it must be dropped or acted upon. It's kind of like getting cut & getting stitched up, then ripping open the stitches and then stitching it up again (over & over). Now, if I were to simply to say, 'well shit, that sucked. That guy is obviously very insecure, confused and unhappy, otherwise he wouldn't have felt the need to do that to me.' and follow that up with analyzing whether I contributed to this action (even in an innocent way), and what I can do to keep it from happening again and make that person realize that what he did was shitty in the way least likely to result in negative side-affects for myself or others. From this point I can determine what the first step is towards the resolution of my negative experience. Anyway, I'm not really trying to establish that there is some absolutely correct action that will work in all situations. Every situation has its own intricacies and calls for an original solution. Additionally, we are not always capable of such forbearance and equanimity, so we will correspondingly have differing levels of ability in letting go of anger. Guess that's all for now. It's nighty night time for me & I'm starting to lose my train of thought. take care _/\_ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ouroboros Posted January 12, 2006 Share Posted January 12, 2006 And I lost my thought on a train some years ago, and I'm still trying to find the station where they dropped it off... Go'nite. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
not1not2 Posted January 12, 2006 Share Posted January 12, 2006 Back on topic... Anybody ever heard of Indra's net?? The Indra's Net: What Is It? FAR AWAY IN THE HEAVENLY ABODE OF THE GREAT GOD INDRA, THERE IS A WONDERFUL NET WHICH HAS BEEN HUNG BY SOME CUNNING ARTIFICER IN SUCH A MANNER THAT IT STRETCHES OUT INDEFINITELY IN ALL DIRECTIONS. IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE EXTRAVAGANT TASTES OF DEITIES, THE ARTIFICER HAS HUNG A SINGLE GLITTERING JEWEL AT THE NET'S EVERY NODE, AND SINCE THE NET ITSELF IS INFINITE IN DIMENSION, THE JEWELS ARE INFINITE IN NUMBER. THERE HANG THE JEWELS, GLITTERING LIKE STARS OF THE FIRST MAGNITUDE, A WONDERFUL SIGHT TO BEHOLD. IF WE NOW ARBITRARILY SELECT ONE OF THESE JEWELS FOR INSPECTION AND LOOK CLOSELY AT IT, WE WILL DISCOVER THAT IN ITS POLISHED SURFACE THERE ARE REFLECTED ALL THE OTHER JEWELS IN THE NET, INFINITE IN NUMBER. NOT ONLY THAT, BUT EACH OF THE JEWELS REFLECTED IN THIS ONE JEWEL IS ALSO REFLECTING ALL THE OTHER JEWELS, SO THAT THE PROCESS OF REFLECTION IS INFINITE THE AVATAMSAKA SUTRA FRANCIS H. COOK: HUA-YEN BUDDHISM : THE JEWEL NET OF INDRA 1977 http://www.heartspace.org/misc/IndraNet.html It originated in Vedic tradition, I believe the Ramayana. It's the same concept as 'seeing the world in a grain of sand', except on an expanded level. In this metaphor, every percievable object in existence contains the mark of all other objects in existence. To me it seems to be the basis of non-dual philosophy in Brahmanism/Hinduism. It also seems to correspond with recent developments in theoretical physics. _/\_ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
All Gods Fail Posted January 12, 2006 Share Posted January 12, 2006 So anyway, what happened to Ssel? Did he get booted, fly off in a snit, or is he just on vacation? He got pissed at me. So he left. But I don't know if he's planning on coming back when he's cooled down or not. Last thing he told me that I had become what I feared... whatever that means, since I'm not sure what I fear. I don't know anything that I can become that I also fear... (Hotdog?... no, I can't become a hot dog, and I don't fear them... Maybe a mailman? Nah, don't fear them either. Maybe I've become a loaded shotgun? Sure, I don't like one in my face, but how can I become one?... so I'm not sure...) Typical. Those who think they've got all the answers are insufferable boors and sooo predictable. I'm sure he'll be back, unless his enormous ego convinces him we're not worth his precious time. Is this kind of inflated sense of importance typical of the 'I am' movement in general, or is Ssel just an exception? Does the movement attract narcissists? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Asuryan Posted January 12, 2006 Share Posted January 12, 2006 I stopped following and answering this thread because each and every time I exchanged posts with Ssel, my ...emotionalism... caused some problems to me... or maybe it was Ssel that caused some problems to me. Pick your choice. Anyway, exchanging posts with him had become a process that savagely, intensely annoyed me. So aloof and arrogant was he, with his way of speaking as if everyone else is shit. Our exchange wasn't surely giving me anything apart from severe annoyance and frustration, and for sure it didn't give him anything apart from material with whom blame me of emotionalism and/or closemindedness and so on. It was pointless, I stopped talking with him altogether. Then other things happened, mostly I have to study HARD for a very difficult exam. And then I come back tonight and see that beautiful, beautiful label over the picture of the pointing finger: Obnoxious Egomaniac. Tonight, I am a happy, revengeful, cranky atheist girl. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Amanda Posted January 13, 2006 Share Posted January 13, 2006 Back on topic... Anybody ever heard of Indra's net?? ------------------------------------------------- http://www.heartspace.org/misc/IndraNet.html It originated in Vedic tradition, I believe the Ramayana. It's the same concept as 'seeing the world in a grain of sand', except on an expanded level. In this metaphor, every percievable object in existence contains the mark of all other objects in existence. To me it seems to be the basis of non-dual philosophy in Brahmanism/Hinduism. It also seems to correspond with recent developments in theoretical physics. Not1not2, I have read that in the dynamics of personality, we often identify ourselves with the reflection of ourselves we see from others. Also, my understanding of a hologram is that each piece of it has the total makeup of it all. I'm curious as to how each object in existence contains the mark of all other objects in existence, is corresponding with theoretical physics? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Skankboy Posted January 13, 2006 Share Posted January 13, 2006 Yep, the ironic part w/Ssel is he did have some good ideas, but was absolutely horrible at conveying them without coming off as an elitist. I think that under different circumstances, he could have made some real contributions here, though I admit I found his constant degradation of the jewish people to be disturbing. Ssel's "sin" was one of certainty. If nothing else, we should learn from his example. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ouroboros Posted January 13, 2006 Share Posted January 13, 2006 You said it well Skankboy. Even I was interested in what he said, but I found it difficult to give any alternative input to Ssel's discussions, because whatever anyone said that didn't match what he already said, then he considered it wrong. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mythra Posted January 13, 2006 Share Posted January 13, 2006 I would have argued with Ssel, but I never could figure out what the fuck he was saying. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cerise Posted January 13, 2006 Share Posted January 13, 2006 I would have argued with Ssel, but I never could figure out what the fuck he was saying. A common problem with Ssel conversations, I've found. [sarcasm]But then, how could Plebes like us every understand the wisdom of such a brilliantly logical seeker like Ssel?[/sarcasm] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Amanda Posted January 13, 2006 Share Posted January 13, 2006 Yep, the ironic part w/Ssel is he did have some good ideas, but was absolutely horrible at conveying them without coming off as an elitist. I think that under different circumstances, he could have made some real contributions here, though I admit I found his constant degradation of the jewish people to be disturbing. Ssel's "sin" was one of certainty. If nothing else, we should learn from his example. Hi Skankboy! This is one of the ironic things about Ssel! Lots of people found him quite degrading of the Jewish people, yet on one thread he said he is of Jewish heritage and was once a Rabbi! I thought his people skills had improved a smite, yet I suppose his seemingly consistent condescending style ruined the respectful atmosphere this site likes to maintain. IMO, this site helps a lot of people... if they let it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cerise Posted January 13, 2006 Share Posted January 13, 2006 Yep, the ironic part w/Ssel is he did have some good ideas, but was absolutely horrible at conveying them without coming off as an elitist. I think that under different circumstances, he could have made some real contributions here, though I admit I found his constant degradation of the jewish people to be disturbing. Ssel's "sin" was one of certainty. If nothing else, we should learn from his example. Hi Skankboy! This is one of the ironic things about Ssel! Lots of people found him quite degrading of the Jewish people, yet on one thread he said he is of Jewish heritage and was once a Rabbi! I thought his people skills had improved a smite, yet I suppose his seemingly consistent condescending style ruined the respectful atmosphere this site likes to maintain. IMO, this site helps a lot of people... if they let it. Amanda, there could be several reasons for Ssel's somewhat confusing statements regarding Judaism. 1) He could be self-hating. 2) He could have been lying about being Jewish/Rabbi. (which is what I vote for) 3) 90% of the people who saw his comments were misunderstanding his attitude towards Jewish people as degrading when they were really just...something else. You would go with #3, I'd wager? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Amanda Posted January 13, 2006 Share Posted January 13, 2006 3) 90% of the people who saw his comments were misunderstanding his attitude towards Jewish people as degrading when they were really just...something else. You would go with #3, I'd wager? Cerise, I didn't see his actual comments considered to be condescending to the Jews, but I did read other's posts in regards to that effect. These comments about him did not alarm me to any prejudices of Jews, because of other discussions I've had with him. I thought they were probably mistaken. There is a strong Jewish element in part of my family and I would of confronted him had I ever saw or suspected this side to him. I had mentioned to Ssel many times that the style in which he communicated often came across as condescending and encouraged him to see and eliminate this in his posts. May I ask, why you think his claim to Jewish heritage and being a Rabbi was a lie? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cerise Posted January 13, 2006 Share Posted January 13, 2006 Well because he also claimed to be older then Moses and possess wicked mental prowess hitherto unexperienced by man. Which I would consider to be fruicake-ish behavior. I got the feeling, when I interacted with him, that he might say anything that would support his point of view, and generally demote those he spoke to as second-class citizens. Some people just have to be smarter then everyone else in the room. Amanda, this may just be because I am generally unforgiving , but when I see assholish behavior, I don't call it "style". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ouroboros Posted January 13, 2006 Share Posted January 13, 2006 Amanda, there could be several reasons for Ssel's somewhat confusing statements regarding Judaism. 1) He could be self-hating. 2) He could have been lying about being Jewish/Rabbi. (which is what I vote for) 3) 90% of the people who saw his comments were misunderstanding his attitude towards Jewish people as degrading when they were really just...something else. You would go with #3, I'd wager? At the end I had a strong feeling (based on his way of communicating his anger against me) that he was a spoof. He was a fake and pretender. Similar to another aquintance we had before on this site. I believe this guy took on a character to gain some interest and hopefully some recognition. When I told him I doubted that he was who he said he was, he didn't respond. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
All Gods Fail Posted January 13, 2006 Share Posted January 13, 2006 Amanda, there could be several reasons for Ssel's somewhat confusing statements regarding Judaism. 1) He could be self-hating. 2) He could have been lying about being Jewish/Rabbi. (which is what I vote for) 3) 90% of the people who saw his comments were misunderstanding his attitude towards Jewish people as degrading when they were really just...something else. You would go with #3, I'd wager? I would go with #3. What creeped me out was the way he would refer to 'the Jewery'. To me, that's both pretentious and kind of weird. Who says 'Jewery', fer chrissakes? He also seems very comfortable labeling large groups of people with very simple, reductionist tags. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts