On Fri, 6 May 2005 00:01:30 -0700, Warren Ockrassa wrote > As to fear being present with anger in all cases ... that's a very > interesting idea, and my inclination is to agree with your > assessment. If anger is (in essence) a response to perceived threat - > - any perceived threat -- it could be easy to support the suggestion > that there's at least *some* fear there as well.
Behind anger, I think there's always a "should." That guy shouldn't have cut me off on the freeway... Wes shouldn't have been killed in Iraq... I shouldn't have wasted time arguing about politics. And so, the opposite of anger is acceptance, in my view. I'm not saying that fear and anger don't are wrong... it is appropriate to be afraid of the lion and to be angry when he eats our friend. Fear and anger themselves call for acceptance. In another thread, I said I wanted to get out of the "kill the other guy's argument" mode of talking about things here. Another way to say that is that I want to figure out how to talk about difficult issues -- politics, religion, etc. -- while accepting others where they are. Hard to do, which pisses me off. Okay, that was a joke, that last thing. Mostly. Nick _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
