Your questions about anger are good ones. Gibbs may be able to give us some good psychological insights. I tend to agree with Ken Wilber in his idea that anger is a shadow impulse: http://books.google.com/books?id=n-92sivPE2sC&pg=PA135&lpg=PA135&dq=ken+wilber+anger&source=bl&ots=goQfQDeAPl&sig=pSMgXnc-553yvKbWbssxZnpL_rI&hl=en&ei=nBaKTMi2K4LI8wTajdmNBg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=3&ved=0CCMQ6AEwAg#v=onepage&q&f=false
As far as my comments about intimacy, I was referring not to the common connotation of sexual intimacy, which is often a portal for some into an initial understanding of the nature of true intimacy, but in the broader aspects of intimacy in relationship and communication such as the following Merriam Webster definitions: relationship marked by depth of knowledge or broadness of information; close association or connection; complete intermixture, compounding, or interweaving; In otherwords, the more we share in understanding, the more dimensional or deep our intimacy. On Sep 9, 6:31 pm, Slip Disc <[email protected]> wrote: > You concur, how redeeming and I do agree, the state of consciousness > within which we, those who can, toss if off, water on a ducks back. I > don't see it as the general rule considering the level of manifest > anger in the world. At this point we should recognize the varying > levels of anger distinguished by intensity and reactionary responses. > There are those who become extremely irate due to trivialities, ie; > traffic snarl. Others are as you say puppets of the ego master. > Peacefulness is by far my general demeanor and recognized by those > around me and by now through the numerous exchanges we've had > something you should know; I'm more the voyeur and less the > participant in the mundane experience and we've had our bouts on that > level. Surely the amount of material written regarding this is > enormous but I would venture to guess that it has been a topic of > discussion before the written word; a recognition and inquiry into the > why of it. The where does anger emanate and why does it exist may be > the two most important questions regarding the dilemma of humanity; > the dilemma of anger induced horror. Along with that I would toss in > aggression, the need to conquer and enslave, the continual predation > of one's own species and it should be noted that we are the only > species capable of this aggression. I don't see birds sitting in > their nest relaxing while other slave birds go out and deliver the > goods, clean the nest and take care of the babies; but that is another > subject entirely. > The subject of linguistics is basic and possibly babel born but > whatever the case many a disagreement and war has been started upon > a communication snafu. The intimacy issue I'm not sure of as to what > you are intimating but I might consider that some of our communication > has been intimate; is it my pheromones? ;-) > > On Sep 9, 8:24 am, Molly <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > Some people do live in a state of perpetual anger, it is true. There > > are states of consciousness where we recognize anger and let it go > > without externalizing, internalizing, identifying, projecting or any > > of the other ego function reactions to anger that would limit a > > persons state of consciousness to one where ego is master. I have > > experienced the recognition and release of anger while in a state of > > peace and joy. There is also an enormous amount of material written > > about these states of consciousness, some current, some ancient, and I > > have given many references over the years to them. All traditions, > > religions, philosophies, viewpoints are but languages. We communicate > > through verbal and non verbal language. When the communication is > > deeply intimate, no interpretation from one to the other is > > necessary. Our experience with others provides us myriad levels of > > intimacy in communication, some shallow and difficult to navigate > > because of barriers in understanding on many levels. Such is the > > diversity of life. > > > On Sep 8, 9:32 pm, Slip Disc <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > but do understand that this is not a level of > > > consciousness for an expression of anger-mb > > > > I don't get this "anger is not a level of consciousness" when of > > > course it is a consciousness of anger in which some people spend their > > > entire lives entrenched in it. > > > > I think that you express out of your own personality which is the > > > platform from which you not only view but from which you standardize > > > the world and respond to it in that context, but it is not a general > > > rule. You can't state as if it is fact. > > > > Some people are born, live and die in a complete state of anger. For > > > some it is the extreme but still it is their level of consciousness > > > which they are confined to. > > > > On Sep 8, 3:18 pm, Molly <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > got it. My point is, we are blowing, and the wind...no > > > > difference...but do understand that this is not a level of > > > > consciousness for an expression of anger, which would be a view of > > > > separation, so true. In which case...I wouldn't want any of that > > > > coming back to me. I often wonder if the person acting out anger is > > > > even aware of what comes back. > > > > > On Sep 8, 3:18 pm, ashok tewari <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > * smiling * The point, Molly, was it coming back on oneself. * > > > > > tickled * > > > > > > On Thu, Sep 9, 2010 at 12:44 AM, Molly <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > I see your point, Vam. I didn't think the act made that much > > > > > > difference, but I suppose it could! > > > > > > > On Sep 8, 2:43 pm, ashok tewari <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > " ... blowing in the wind." > > > > > > > > I suggest : ... spitting in th wind, for females. And : ... > > > > > > > pissing in > > > > > > the > > > > > > > wind, for males ! > > > > > > > > On Wed, Sep 8, 2010 at 10:44 PM, Molly <[email protected]> > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > It is interesting, in this thread, so many have taken the task > > > > > > > > to tell > > > > > > > > others how to express themselves. I have not found any > > > > > > > > problems with > > > > > > > > RPs posts (indeed, a great deal of understanding of the > > > > > > > > subject), and > > > > > > > > like gabby, don't think anyone should have to defend him, is > > > > > > > > there a > > > > > > > > gang forming here? Some of us make our sufi like responses, > > > > > > > > others > > > > > > > > make statements reflecting our views and give links with info > > > > > > > > to back > > > > > > > > them up. None of this is new and none of it is the basis for > > > > > > > > opposition. We are all free to express our views in any post > > > > > > > > within > > > > > > > > the parameters of the guidelines, and all free to choose not to > > > > > > > > post. > > > > > > > > But unless a moderator steps in with a reminder of the > > > > > > > > guidelines, > > > > > > > > anyone telling another what to say and how to act in here is > > > > > > > > just > > > > > > > > blowing in the wind. > > > > > > > > > In terms of the thread, these may be the very thoughts that > > > > > > > > plague our > > > > > > > > minds obsessively that we would be better off releasing than > > > > > > > > indulging > > > > > > > > in reaction. Thoughts about how the world comes up short, is > > > > > > > > disappointing, how others should be are all malignant ego, and > > > > > > > > if > > > > > > > > released, leave room within us for honest self examination. > > > > > > > > Levels of > > > > > > > > consciousness filled with thoughts of fear, anger, resentment > > > > > > > > etc > > > > > > > > multiply these thoughts exponentially and uncontrollably until > > > > > > > > our > > > > > > > > minds cannot turn off from them. Levels of consciousness > > > > > > > > filled with > > > > > > > > peace and quiet, compassion, love and gratitude allow us to > > > > > > > > better > > > > > > > > witness the process of thought and mind in consciousness. This > > > > > > > > kind > > > > > > > > of self examination cannot occur in the first mentioned level, > > > > > > > > and > > > > > > > > will inevitably occur in the second. Truth is, even the > > > > > > > > mystics will > > > > > > > > admit that it is human to move from state to state, and many > > > > > > > > suggest a > > > > > > > > spiral dynamic to the movement. > > > > > > > > > On Sep 8, 12:05 pm, gabbydott <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > Seems my vegetarian humor differs quite a bit from yours, > > > > > > > > > Allan. ;-) > > > > > > > > > See what I was going to reply to Darkwater: > > > > > > > > > > I don't know why you are doing this, but I think RP can speak > > > > > > > > > for > > > > > > > > > himself. Or shall I say: Let him speak for himself!? Watering > > > > > > > > > down > > > > > > > > > everything to Ken Wilbur does not help to build the arc in > > > > > > > > > time. He > > > > > > > > > says, his words are meant for people who want to understand > > > > > > > > > them. > > > > > > Fair > > > > > > > > > enough. Take what you get and leave the rest behind is my > > > > > > > > > advice to > > > > > > > > > you, Darkwater. > > > > > > > > > > On 8 Sep., 17:16, iam deheretic <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > LOL Oddly I know exactly what he is saying from different > > > > > > > > > > sources. > > > > > > it > > > > > > > > has > > > > > > > > > > been rumbling around fo eons,, does not make it true and > > > > > > > > > > because > > > > > > some > > > > > > > > people > > > > > > > > > > make something dogma and doctrine of their beliefs still > > > > > > > > > > does not > > > > > > make > > > > > > > > it > > > > > > > > > > true. Some things are interesting to look at but then you > > > > > > > > > > let them > > > > > > go. > > > > > > > > To > > > > > > > > > > me far to many beliefs are based promoted and twisted by > > > > > > > > > > people to > > > > > > meat > > > > > > > > > > their own needs. > > > > > > > > > > Allan > > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Sep 8, 2010 at 3:43 PM, DarkwaterBlight < > > > > > > > > [email protected]>wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > Oddly, I understand much of what RP is trying to express > > > > > > > > > > > but it > > > > > > is > > > > > > > > > > > only on account of my relentless research into the > > > > > > > > > > > subject of the > > > > > > > > > > > thread. Culturaly, here in the west, it is not generaly > > > > > > understood > > > > > > > > > > > that there are two truths, relative and ultimate. > > > > > > > > > > > Relative truth > > > > > > can > > > > > > > > > > > be described by means of science and assetions can be > > > > > > > > > > > made that > > > > > > > > > > > something is true or false under the conditions assigned. > > > > > > However, RP > > > > > > > > > > > speaks of ultimate truth and non dual spirit and in doing > > > > > > > > > > > so, > > > > > > enters > > > > > > > > > > > into the realm of contradiction as the ultimate is empty > > > > > > > > > > > of > > > > > > qualities > > > > > > > > > > > and categorizations. Ken Wilbur describes this as "The > > > > > > > > > > > Two Truths > > > > > > > > > > > Doctrine" > > > > > > > > > > >http://wilber.shambhala.com/html/books/kosmos/excerptG/part1.cfm > > > > > > > > > > > > On Sep 8, 5:04 am, iam deheretic <[email protected]> > > > > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > Words hold so much truth and what we say is but the > > > > > > > > > > > > reflection > > > > > > of > > > > > > > > who we > > > > > > > > > > > are > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Sep 8, 2010 at 7:20 AM, RP Singh > > > > > > > > > > > > <[email protected]> > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > My words are meant for people who want to understand > > > > > > > > > > > > > them , > > ... > > read more »
