Function:

Anger is a protective circuit. What are the trigger mechanisms?

Utility:

Anger offers the mind focus on the source of the anger, and provides urgency regarding its resolution. It can allow feats of strength or mental accuity that could not be performed while lacking the focus/motivation for resolution anger provides.

Pitfalls:

Anger becomes an issue when it goes beyond a certain threshold in a person to where it becomes self-sustaining, or causes focus on something other than the true source and thus urgently attempts to resolve something unrelated to its resolution. If it is self-sustaining, its utility is co-opted to serve a perspective that is constantly skewed by anger.

No time to delve at the moment.

Any playas in da house?

Unjustified anger and justified anger should be dealt with seperately dont you think?
Is it possible that they can both serve the same function?

peace

c20

They are both anger. Who determines the justification? I don't think they should be dealt with separately no, they are the same thing. Unjustified anger really comes from either lacking information or comprehension of whatever scenario is in question, an inability or refusal to relate to the others involved, or the self-sustaining anger thing that co-opts your lense on reality. I think that should all fall under this thread. No?

Well I guess if we are discussing trigger mechanisms then yep you are right. This isn't the Moral/Ethics/Justice forum after all.

Should be interesting wes.

Have to go now but will check it out later :)

peace

c20

Hmm.. now that I think about it, I don't think there is such a thing as "unjustified anger" in subject we're discussing. In the person experiencing the anger, the fact that they are angry implies directly that they feel justified in being angered.

Anger is essentially a storm in a kettle.
Some people like to pretend it is a hurricane of global dimensions.


Anger "protects" our misunderstandings from becoming clear to us. Anger is triggered by our misunderstanding of a situation, whereby this misunderstanding is based on particular beliefs that we have. Those beliefs are mainly our ideas about how things should be (like, "the world should be perfect", "people should treat me kindly", "I am never wrong, others make mistakes", "this shouldn't happen").


The utility of anger is that it seems to make us intellectually sharp, pointed, confident, powerful, special, certain of our identity. Thus, anger seems good for our intellectual pursuits.


But the downside is that anger invariably makes us unhappy. We may accomplish a certain action in anger, and we feel fullfilled -- yet not happy, we are tense.
If problems are continually solved by the use of anger, this tension slowly builds up into a constant state of stress, and we become physically sick.

Hmm.. now that I think about it, I don't think there is such a thing as "unjustified anger" in subject we're discussing. In the person experiencing the anger, the fact that they are angry implies directly that they feel justified in being angered.

They surely *feel* justified in being angered. Whether they *think* they are justified in being angered is another matter.

Anger can be usefull. It causes biochemical changes in the body which can be used for productive and good purposes.

But it is like TNT. The usefull is the thin slice of possbilties; the destructive is much more common. Using TNT can be productive, but the user has to know the strengths and weaknesses of the material for it to be effective in achieving the set goals.
The uneducated can set off TNT easily, but the chances of them blowing their own hand off is much greater.

Therefore, while I maintain that anger can be a tool, I must first warn 99% of the wolrd's population away from attempting to use it. They will more than likely end up injuring themselves or thier loved ones in the attempt.

As for triggers, it seems that desire and fear are the most common triggers for the generation of anger; also for the release of it in destructive ways.

Anger "protects" our misunderstandings from becoming clear to us. Anger is triggered by our misunderstanding of a situation, whereby this misunderstanding is based on particular beliefs that we have. Those beliefs are mainly our ideas about how things should be (like, "the world should be perfect", "people should treat me kindly", "I am never wrong, others make mistakes", "this shouldn't happen").


I like this, but would modify it somewhat. In this context I think anger protects what we understand. It sheilds that understanding from aggressive challenge. Whether is or is not actually a misunderstanding doesn't necessarily correlate. That one is angry doesn't mean they don't understand something, it just means they're protecting the understanding they have.

I like this, but would modify it somewhat. In this context I think anger protects what we understand. It sheilds that understanding from aggressive challenge. Whether is or is not actually a misunderstanding doesn't necessarily correlate. That one is angry doesn't mean they don't understand something, it just means they're protecting the understanding they have.

But it is still a misunderstanding.
Have the person justify their reasoning once calm, and they'll come to the concluision that they acted irrationally when they were angry.

agreed.


spiffy avatar, water.

But it is still a misunderstanding.
Have the person justify their reasoning once calm, and they'll come to the concluision that they acted irrationally when they were angry.

You have stated that it's impossible to act rationally while angry.

Justify this.

I'll allow you the generality if that's all you're getting at. Generally I agree, most don't utilize their anger constructivley. It's not necessarily so though, as I've seen any number of rational acts conveyed from anger. I generally agree with River-wind's comments above, and mostly with your own... but there are many instances of productive anger.

Would you say that anger greases the wheels of action? I suppose that might be generally true, but depends greatly on the invidual.

Can I suggest that you include in the question the two types of anger : That being
1] directed at self and
2] directed at others.

Anger at self has the potential to be constrictive like: "Shit I made the same mistake again" type anger.
However anger at others is IMO never fully rational.

There is also a difference between being "firm" and angry. Anger is in most cases irrationally justified and acted.

Anger at others is also usually premised in a sense of injustice.

Anger makes for very poor decision making. It also makes a person reliant on anger to continue to support such decisions. There is a good yardstick. If you can't continue to support a decision when you have a clear head, it was wrong. It is better when you don't use anger in the first place.

Anger is not to be confused with decisiveness and/or assertiveness.

However, to a point, they can appear together, and this is why it seems that even though appearing angry (or even thinking oneself angry, one can always be victim to false, conditioned misperception of oneself (which is another anger trigger)), a person still can act rationally.

But take a person while being angry, tape them. Later on, when they are calm, sit down with them, watch the tape, and logically analyze the arguments they have made while they were angry. Normally, the person will admit that they have made illogical, irrational arguments while they were angry, arguments based on irrational beliefs.

But the reasons behind getting angry are always irrational, of the kind "This should not happen".


* * *


spiffy avatar, water.

Thank you!

One cannot stop from becoming angry only try to redirect that anger somehow by using logic to see the anger for what it is. When logic can win out over anger then reason sets in and calmness prevails. The problem is that the anger blinds us from our own logic and that's a very bad characteristic of humans. Anger sometimes causes humans to become unaware of what they are doing and lose control of themselves cauing catastrophic results at times.

To me the point at which anger causes irrationality is called rage.

Here is a true story.

I worked hard in a department of an insurance firm. It was a new department and I was taken on as a junior with one other girl. This girl and I made the department into something quite special and we both got pay rises accordingly. We had no direct line manager because none had 'yet' been hired. I think the company wanted to see how it went before commiting to pay someone a manager's salary.
Anyway, one year on the company decides that it needs a manager in our department and as neither the girl I work with or I have much ambition in that direction, they hire a woman who has recently graduated in business studies and finance and make her our manager.
The woman did 'nothing'. She scorned the practices that we had put in place and yet suggested no changes. When we were really under pressure to deliver she wouldn't help. Her contribution was zero and there were more people in the office than just us that realised this. She became known as 'lazy' pure and simple. No one offered to make her coffee or get her lunch because she had a very haughty attitude with everyone.

Then one day she had some sort of terrible panic attack. I dont know to this day if it was epilepsy or whatever but she thrashed around and struggled for breathe.

As much as I didnt like her in a professional sense, my better nature took over and i went to her assistance. No-one in the office payed any attention.

Rightly or wrongly my first instinct was to get her outside in the fresh air. She was intimating that this is where she wanted to go anyway.

Not one person got up to help me help her. The total apathy of everyone in that office made me angrier than I probably have ever been and I literally screamed out 'you are all fucking useless, are you all such weak fuckers that you wont even help me???'
No one moved.

This was not the language to use in that environment. There were some relatively very senior people within earshot. I managed to get the woman outside eventually and reception phoned an ambulance. We never saw the woman again but she was alright I think.

From that moment on I lost all respect for my collegues and they thought my outburst was hypocritical given that I clearly had no respect for the woman which just made me more angry.

Eventually I left that company but the image of me trying to get this almost dead weight out of the building and everyone elses apathy still makes me get angry.

I dont think I would have ever sat down afterwards and refered to my anger as a storm in a teacup or irrational, however by others it was viewed as irrational even though they knew the woman needed help.

this kind of brings me back to my first point about anger being justified. Was I justified to be angry?

peace

c20

Rightly or wrongly my first instinct was to get her outside in the fresh air.

Why did you think that the air outside was "fresher" than the air inside? And what made you think that, even if it was, that the "fresh" air would help?

Anger is seldom, if ever, really justified. Oh, but we "justify" things all the time, don't we? We lie to our own kids, telling them that there's a Santa Claus, but we justify it by saying dumb-ased things like, "Oh, that's just a little white lie, it won't hurt anyone!" Yet that's when the kids learn to lie, ain't it? And do we like it when our kids lie to us?

Baron Max

Here is a true story.

Anyway, one year on the company decides that it needs a manager in our department and as neither the girl I work with or I have much ambition in that direction, they hire a woman who has recently graduated in business studies and finance and make her our manager.


This woman was a parasite and the rational thing to do is to let her sink if she's going to sink. The caring thing to do is to get her the help that she needs, and it is the right thing to do.

A lot of us have taken too much from too many such beings to really care what happens to them. To appear to be human you have to show some genuine empathy for the people you work with, and you certainly don't want to be beating on them all the time. The apathy you see is induced by the kind of person that you described the manager as being. A lot of people perceive this apathy as the result of what such a manager wants. A lot of us would just as soon see her live with that result if she can. Nothing else seems to work, not hints, persuasion, going over their head, not anything, and attempting to be helpful can get you fired or make the rest of your tenure unlivable.

Was I justified to be angry?

Only you can answer that question, why do you need our responses? We don't have the full story, only your view of what actually happened. Since we weren't there during any of the goings on during her stay with you then we don't really know any other side of the story except yours. I find it difficult to believe tha you never heard about her again for it would seem to me that you, above all the others , would check up on her condition and keep track of her well being which you didn't do, why not? Why would the company get rid of her for becoming sick, she could sue them for firing her if she were sick. Perhaps everything is as you stated it still would seem that only you can answer your question if you had the right to be angry.

That being said I would have been in touch with her supervisor to let them know she was not doing her job correctly and bring proof of that somehow to the supervisor to move her out of the position she seems not to belong in way before she created that type of atmosphere in your office.

Here is a true story.
/.../
Eventually I left that company but the image of me trying to get this almost dead weight out of the building and everyone elses apathy still makes me get angry.

I dont think I would have ever sat down afterwards and refered to my anger as a storm in a teacup or irrational, however by others it was viewed as irrational even though they knew the woman needed help.

this kind of brings me back to my first point about anger being justified. Was I justified to be angry?

I think that what was justified in that situation was the decidely negative evaluation of other people's lack of action.

But, someone else -- in that same situation as you, with that same decidely negative evaluation of other people's inaction, and also trying to help the manager all by himself -- might have responded differently, not with anger.

I know it is possible to have a decidedly negative evaluation of something, yet not respond with hatred or anger, but instead with understanding and compassion.

One cannot stop from becoming angry only try to redirect that anger somehow by using logic to see the anger for what it is. When logic can win out over anger then reason sets in and calmness prevails. The problem is that the anger blinds us from our own logic and that's a very bad characteristic of humans. Anger sometimes causes humans to become unaware of what they are doing and lose control of themselves cauing catastrophic results at times.

We do not have to forever be victims to our conditioned ways of responding to life's situations. We do not have to victims to our anger.

We can study pscyhology, spirituality sources, meditate on our anger, ponder how come we become angry, discover the causes and effects of anger, and thus prepare ourselves for future situations where we might become angry, and thus effectively prevent the harm responses like anger can cause.

When I get angry I usually kill something.

A stray cat, a bug, my self-esteem.
It keeps me outa jail and heavily sedated.

Quote C20:
“From that moment on I lost all respect for my collegues and they thought my outburst was hypocritical given that I clearly had no respect for the woman which just made me more angry.”

* Does it really matter what your colleagues did or did not do? Is what you did not the important thing? You helped a fellow human being. Does a doctor have to LIKE a patient to save a life? Was your anger perhaps not directed at yourself? Why should YOU have to be the one to help THAT woman? Strange thing, anger.

Quote C20:
“this kind of brings me back to my first point about anger being justified. Was I justified to be angry?”

* Maybe you were just frustrated that you had trouble heaving a dead weight? :D Anger/frustration, whatever. Maybe you saved that womans life? That’s good.

Quote C20:
“From that moment on I lost all respect for my collegues and they thought my outburst was hypocritical given that I clearly had no respect for the woman which just made me more angry.”

* Does it really matter what your colleagues did or did not do? Is what you did not the important thing? You helped a fellow human being. Does a doctor have to LIKE a patient to save a life? Was your anger perhaps not directed at yourself? Why should YOU have to be the one to help THAT woman? Strange thing, anger.

Quote C20:
“this kind of brings me back to my first point about anger being justified. Was I justified to be angry?”

* Maybe you were just frustrated that you had trouble heaving a dead weight? :D Anger/frustration, whatever. Maybe you saved that womans life? That’s good.

I was frustrated that I did have the dead weight on my own and that did make me angry I agree. The frustration was coupled with despair and I have tried to pinpoint why I felt 'despair' because I am sure it was despair that made me spit my dummy out of the pram and shout at everyone. The despair went something like this 'It shouldn't matter whether this person is a twit or not, she is still a human being and nothing we do here in this office is more important than any individuals health or wellbeing.' - When people didn't move to help me I despaired because I took it as they actually believed that what they were doing WAS more important than helping out another human being. Their inaction in my eyes made them all nothing more than corporate hamsters unable to get off their corporate hamster wheels. In shouting at them I was actually begging them to rebel.

Despair and anger seem very closely linked to me.

peace

c20

Only you can answer that question, why do you need our responses?

I dont need your responses, just interested in them :)


We don't have the full story, only your view of what actually happened. Since we weren't there during any of the goings on during her stay with you then we don't really know any other side of the story except yours.


It is hardly a legal case is it? Since I am not looking for a pat on the back I have no reason to add bias to the story. I am sure I would have used a hypothetical if I had wanted to prove a set of standardised responses to myself, but then I would have stated it was a hypothetical.

I find it difficult to believe tha you never heard about her again for it would seem to me that you, above all the others , would check up on her condition and keep track of her well being which you didn't do, why not?

I did ask her manager and was told that 'she was ok but would not be returning to work' however her manager would not comment further than that.


Why would the company get rid of her for becoming sick, she could sue them for firing her if she were sick.

She left voluntarily as far as I could gather. I believe she took the inaction of all to be a sign of her popularity or lack thereof. Maybe she couldn't handle that and decided to start again elsewhere.


Perhaps everything is as you stated it still would seem that only you can answer your question if you had the right to be angry.

Maybe there are views other than mine though? It was those views I was interested in. For example someone may say 'Why did you help her? Why didn't you follow your collegues example and show your disgust at her professional behaviour by refusing to help her?'


That being said I would have been in touch with her supervisor to let them know she was not doing her job correctly and bring proof of that somehow to the supervisor to move her out of the position she seems not to belong in way before she created that type of atmosphere in your office.

Here you are spot on but you no doubt have the benefit of age and wisdom on your side. It was my first job after leaving school and I just didnt feel empowered to challenge in the same way I do now. I think my outburst left all the more impression on me because it was in such stark contrast to the 'shut up and keep your head down' mentality that rightly or wrongly, I perceived existed.

peace

c20

From past experience I know how middle management can be ham-strung by senior management. I also know that the manager in question could have been subject to isolation from the top and was desparately trying to sustain an untenable situation. Her medical problems could have been induced by the stress of trying to survive an impossible catch 22 situation that her superiors created and her subordinates were totally oblivious to.
I have also had the experience of how senior management will sometimes for a political agenda place incompetant persons in lesser positions only to bolster their own corporate esteem and hide their inadequacies from the board.

No doubt there is a truth underlying all this trauma that has yet to see the light of day.
Whilst I don't think your anger is justified I do understand how frustrating it can be when petty work place problems can end in tragedy due to apathy about the human condition. [which we all suffer from]

She may have been incompetant but she was or is still a human being.

You obviously have learned a little lesson about the down side of human nature and possibly you felt a little shame for being associated with it.

From past experience I know how middle management can be ham-strung by senior management. I also know that the manager in question could have been subject to isolation from the top and was desparately trying to sustain an untenable situation. Her medical problems could have been induced by the stress of trying to survive an impossible catch 22 situation that her superiors created and her subordinates were totally oblivious to.
I have also had the experience of how senior management will sometimes for a political agenda place incompetant persons in lesser positions only to bolster their own corporate esteem and hide their inadequacies from the board.

No doubt there is a truth underlying all this trauma that has yet to see the light of day.
Whilst I don't think your anger is justified I do understand how frustrating it can be when petty work place problems can end in tragedy due to apathy about the human condition. [which we all suffer from]

She may have been incompetant but she was or is still a human being.

You obviously have learned a little lesson about the down side of human nature and possibly you felt a little shame for being associated with it.


Interesting post as it speculates to the underlying causes of the woman's workplace situation and who knows what was really going on there. The lack of will by any individuals within senior management to comment further on either her condition or status as employee even lends credance to the speculation.
What I find particulary interesting is that you state you empathise with the frustration encountered when one meets apathy but you do not see the resulting anger as justified. Surely the antidote to apathy is to challenge apathy even if that challenge is an angry one?

peace

c20

Interesting post as it speculates to the underlying causes of the woman's workplace situation and who knows what was really going on there. The lack of will by any individuals within senior management to comment further on either her condition or status as employee even lends credance to the speculation.
What I find particulary interesting is that you state you empathise with the frustration encountered when one meets apathy but you do not see the resulting anger as justified. Surely the antidote to apathy is to challenge apathy even if that challenge is an angry one?

peace

c20
I guess I take my position because it is the human condition and if anything it is sadenning that it is so. I tend to think in this case anger was needed as a way of coping with the extremes involved as there was no time to sit down and have a good think about it all. But unjustified only because once you have come to terms with the human condition later in life you realise the futility of all that anger, in hindsight and with a greater wisdom. Of course the getting of wisdom neccessarilly means you have to learn it so the anger is all a part of growing and maturing to a better philosophical position where anger is felt very rarely.

Years ago I remember when they said that the ozone layer was being destroyed by refrigerant gasses I was angered by the sheer stupidity of science for allowing such a thing to happen. I was angry that what was once loved and worshiped was now needing to be avoided with hats and sunscreen. [ I am in Australia]
I guess I am still a little angry even now as I watch children unable to run free of fear of UV.
Is this anger justified. If it means I can do somthing to stop it all happening again I suppose it is justified, If it can't be utilised to avoid repetition then it is a futile anger thus not justified.

Getting angry with the scientists is not going to solve the problem but it may prevent a repeat of our sublime arrogance ruining the picture for every one in the future.

Anger justification is such a vexatious issue but one thing I do know is that if it used to avoid repeating mistakes it can be very productive.
And this is where I feel anger is possibly able to be justified and can think of no other circumstance where it may be. But maybe there is.......

I guess I take my position because it is the human condition and if anything it is sadenning that it is so. I tend to think in this case anger was needed as a way of coping with the extremes involved as there was no time to sit down and have a good think about it all. But unjustified only because once you have come to terms with the human condition later in life you realise the futility of all that anger, in hindsight and with a greater wisdom. Of course the getting of wisdom neccessarilly means you have to learn it so the anger is all a part of growing and maturing to a better philosophical position where anger is felt very rarely.

Years ago I remember when they said that the ozone layer was being destroyed by refrigerant gasses I was angered by the sheer stupidity of science for allowing such a thing to happen. I was angry that what was once loved and worshiped was now needing to be avoided with hats and sunscreen. [ I am in Australia]
I guess I am still a little angry even now as I watch children unable to run free of fear of UV.
Is this anger justified. If it means I can do somthing to stop it all happening again I suppose it is justified, If it can't be utilised to avoid repetition then it is a futile anger thus not justified.

Getting angry with the scientists is not going to solve the problem but it may prevent a repeat of our sublime arrogance ruining the picture for every one in the future.

Anger justification is such a vexatious issue but one thing I do know is that if it used to avoid repeating mistakes it can be very productive.
And this is where I feel anger is possibly able to be justified and can think of no other circumstance where it may be. But maybe there is.......

Your post seems a little contradictory. You seem to be saying that anger is the domain of those without the benefit of 'maturity' and that once maturity is reached 'anger' is no longer justified because you have had the necessary time to come to terms with the negative aspects of the human condition.

Surely this is the same as saying 'As you get older you become more apathetic to the human condition'. I am happy to be corrected if this is not a fair representation of your words :)

You then say that if anger is actually the catalyst that brings positive change (i.e. bad mistakes are not repeated) then it is justified.

So is rebuttal anger which produces change the domain of those without the benefit of maturity 'justified' and if so does this mean that reaching a state of maturity is really just a cop out as it seems happy to leave the real issues to be addressed by the 'angry'?

peace

c20

peace

c20

Your post seems a little contradictory. You seem to be saying that anger is the domain of those without the benefit of 'maturity' and that once maturity is reached 'anger' is no longer justified because you have had the necessary time to come to terms with the negative aspects of the human condition.

Surely this is the same as saying 'As you get older you become more apathetic to the human condition'. I am happy to be corrected if this is not a fair representation of your words :)

You then say that if anger is actually the catalyst that brings positive change (i.e. bad mistakes are not repeated) then it is justified.

So is rebuttal anger which produces change the domain of those without the benefit of maturity 'justified' and if so does this mean that reaching a state of maturity is really just a cop out as it seems happy to leave the real issues to be addressed by the 'angry'?

peace

c20

peace

c20
You are of course quite correct. I have been contradictory...and maybe this is the nature of the problem. Anger can be so contradictory....hmmmm.....I shall think some more...

I think anger pivots itself on justice and since we are usually so poor at judging a situation objectively we can find ourselves exhibiting anger against something we are only capable of judging subjectively always failing to see the other side so to speak. A judge must be impartial from the word go or he could end up sentencing on a personal bias (unjustified anger).

So what is a fair measure of inequity? Can any man define inequity without personal bias? Could we have a global agreement on what inequity is? Can one assume that without inequity, anger would cease to have a role at all?

peace

c20

Anger is seldom, if ever, really justified.

Says who? I say it's often justified. Prove me wrong. For instance, a guy refuses to pay me after I've done 10 hrs of hard work for him. I get angry. Convince me my anger isn't justified.

Oh, but we "justify" things all the time, don't we? We lie to our own kids, telling them that there's a Santa Claus, but we justify it by saying dumb-ased things like, "Oh, that's just a little white lie, it won't hurt anyone!" Yet that's when the kids learn to lie, ain't it? And do we like it when our kids lie to us?

Why the tangent? Lies are a different topic. Sounds like a good threat though, start it and provide a link please. What you're talking about above is 'the path of least resistance" toward supporting some goal, and no ethical circuit keeping the path of falseness from being taken. Personally, my kids know Santa is like a cartoon or a book... a nice story. Well, they know it as well as they can understand it. I think Molly gets it, but Emmy is still too young.

Ah... I remember now. It's been too long.

Anger is "the mental glue" which facilitates memories of our sense of "injustice" so we can keep clear who/what represents a threat (anger providing a negative connotation to memories associated with the percieved threat). Fear has a similar function in memory, and is perhaps simply a different manifestation of anger. Hmm. Perhaps fear has nothing to do with "justice", so fear is more primal and anger is generally more socially based.

What is the relationship between fear and anger?

Ah... I remember now. It's been too long.

Anger is "the mental glue" which facilitates memories of our sense of "injustice" so we can keep clear who/what represents a threat (anger providing a negative connotation to memories associated with the percieved threat). Fear has a similar function in memory, and is perhaps simply a different manifestation of anger. Hmm. Perhaps fear has nothing to do with "justice", so fear is more primal and anger is generally more socially based.

What is the relationship between fear and anger?

Fear in this context surely warns us that projecting our anger will lead to more harm if we speak out against what we percieve to be an injustice done to us? Fear supresses externalised anger yet provides something for the anger to absorp into without losing face. Our fear protects us and affirms us at the same time. Protects us from sticking our head above the bunker where it may be shot off, and affirms us because we are worthy of such protection.


peace

c20

What is the relationship between fear and anger

Anger grows from fear but fear doesn't grow from anger.

Anger grows from fear but fear doesn't grow from anger.

I dont agree with that. You are walking along the street when a guy bumps into you carelessly and knocks your mobile phone from your pocket. It smashes into a million pieces. You are instantly angry because the guy wasnt watching where he was going and he has ruined your phone. As you turn to round on him and sound him out, demanding he pick up the cost of the phone he draws a knife. Your anger grows into fear very quickly. After you have run away I am sure the fear will turn back into anger. I summise then that both feelings are interchangeable depending upon the level of threat involved with being angry (see my previous post).

peace

c20

Fear in this context surely warns us that projecting our anger will lead to more harm if we speak out against what we percieve to be an injustice done to us? Fear supresses externalised anger yet provides something for the anger to absorp into without losing face. Our fear protects us and affirms us at the same time. Protects us from sticking our head above the bunker where it may be shot off, and affirms us because we are worthy of such protection.


peace

c20

I guess the deal is that they aren't necessarily related, but perform similar functions in terms of memory, in that the function of fear is to impress ...

Oh wait, the relationship just occured to me. Duh.

Fear is to anger as flight is to fight.

Anyway, both are strong inhibitor/reinforcer (s) of memory.

Fear inhibits fight and fight overcomes fear, each is feedback from perception of the current context/stimulous. Fight/Anger, is perfectly justified every time within the perceived context, the question may arise however (and does a LOT), is the percieved context representative of a realistic perspective of what's happening, or is it based purely in distortion?

Yup.

the question may arise however (and does a LOT), is the percieved context representative of a realistic perspective of what's happening, or is it based purely in distortion?

Yup.

The 'realistic perspective' you speak of doesnt exist because where there is more than one person to consider, you have more than one perspective each with their own view of reality. Basically this fact highlights the futility of man judging man because bias will inevitably play a role. Even if one claims to be impartial there is no proof of their impartiality when the final decision is made.
Even a jury of twelve is fallible so now we are making judgements based upon probability. So I guess I am saying that a truly realistic perspective is one that accepts the situation can only ever be judged on probability, it does not exist as an absolute.

Jeez that seemed convoluted :bugeye:

peace

c20

The 'realistic perspective' you speak of doesnt exist because where there is more than one person to consider, you have more than one perspective each with their own view of reality.

True, but are all perspectives created equal? Aren't some more clear than others? Don't some offer more utility than others? "To what end" is certainly a good question. I answer "to cope and be 'well-adjusted'", for now.

Basically this fact highlights the futility of man judging man because bias will inevitably play a role.

It's not entirely futile and is basically a necessity. If I for instance, have been deemed "smart" or "authoritative" on a particular topic, it is indeed my place to "judge" whether a person meets whatever criteria may be in quesiton at a given time.

Even if one claims to be impartial there is no proof of their impartiality when the final decision is made.

Sure, and proof itself is subjective. You can spend your life developing "the perfect criteria" for proof and it all vanishes on the sheer bull-headedness of a single unreasonable person who simply says "no, I refuse your proof". That doesn't mean it's disproved to YOU, but it IS disproved to someone at that point.

Even a jury of twelve is fallible so now we are making judgements based upon probability.

Hehe.. yeah, very fallible. What choice is there but to make judgements on probability? Is that not the nature of being? Do you not find "sureness" to be philosophically hollow, though perhaps realistically quite practical?

So I guess I am saying that a truly realistic perspective is one that accepts the situation can only ever be judged on probability, it does not exist as an absolute.

I won't argue with that, but will just say: Them's the breaks. ;) Life would suck if there were no mystery.

Jeez that seemed convoluted :bugeye:

peace

c20

Nah, I think I knew what you meant.

Here was my original reply:

Well my reaction is mixed, because truly "reality" is subjective. That said however, I think it's important to remember that we CAN help each other sort out our "reality". When people come to me with problems for instance, my perspective of it can, if they are receptive, usurp their own. Not everyone is created equal in their ability to understand the context in which they are dealing. In fact, I'd say many, MANY people have a very small view of how they fit into this or that and as such, their "reality" in the sense I mentioned above can be quite ridiculous, as in "mostly distortion". If I for instance, can offer a clarified view of the scenario, their "reality" can be changed. They would then judge their past view of it as distorted and adopt a new, more "real" perspective.

No?

...In fact, I'd say many, MANY people have a very small view of how they fit into this or that and as such, their "reality" in the sense I mentioned above can be quite ridiculous, as in "mostly distortion". If I for instance, can offer a clarified view of the scenario, their "reality" can be changed. They would then judge their past view of it as distorted and adopt a new, more "real" perspective.

No?

How can you be guarenteed that you can offer any real clarification?

Do you not find "sureness" to be philosophically hollow, though perhaps realistically quite practical?

Sureness and doubt to my mind are the hot and cold of the mental engine ;)

peace

c20

Fear inhibits fight and fight overcomes fear, each is feedback from perception of the current context/stimulous. Fight/Anger, is perfectly justified every time within the perceived context, the question may arise however (and does a LOT), is the percieved context representative of a realistic perspective of what's happening, or is it based purely in distortion?
I think this is what was behind my confused post earlier.
I tend to think anger is premised on distortion, usually due to a lack of understanding. Which is why as one gets older [ learning curve] and is capable of understanding with less distortion anger becomes more and more obsolete as a neccesity.

As we learn about our limitations and the limitations of others we gain a more tolerant perspective. With tolerance comes acceptance, and a lessening in the desire to change other people and focus on changing yourself instead.

Quote C20:
“Their inaction in my eyes made them all nothing more than corporate hamsters unable to get off their corporate hamster wheels. In shouting at them I was actually begging them to rebel.”

* Heh. Yeah, like the wheel’s still turning but the hamster is long gone! I totally relate to this.

Quote C20:
“Despair and anger seem very closely linked to me.”

* Yep. Limit your expectations from others and it gets better.

How can you be guarenteed that you can offer any real clarification?

Why would I expect a gaurantee? All one can give is the best they got.

Just as important, how can one gaurantee that the person is open to being clarified, or capable of comprehending the clarification?

Hehe. Just give it your best crack is all you can do.