Understatement of the century!

On Sep 11, 10:09 am, rigsy03 <[email protected]> wrote:
> Well, the God of the Old Testament certainly had anger management
> problems, didn't he?
>
> On Sep 10, 12:05 pm, RP Singh <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > When we say ' I am God ' or ' I am that ' we are referring to our innermost
> > being which is common to all , animate or inanimate. But practically
> > speaking we are just His emanations in myriads of forms. To say ' I am That
> > ' we ascribe an importance to ourselves and an immortality which becomes our
> > very own. To all intents and purposes we are individuals who are part of
> >  society and owe it the duty to make it rational , humane and progressive.
>
> > On Fri, Sep 10, 2010 at 9:31 PM, ashok tewari <[email protected]> wrote:
> > > This is continuity with the topic of anger / emotions ...
>
> > > ALL feelings are natural ( N ), a given, as in happens the way we are, in
> > > common with the way it happens in whole of the animal world.
> > > Principally >>> 1. as reflexive or instinctual effects linked to Survival
> > > and Progeny ;
> > > and, >>>>>>>  2. immediate effects stimulated by Sensuous objects and
> > > phenomenon impacting our sight, smell, hearing, touch and taste.
>
> > > Emotions are OUR reactive ( R ) feelings ... OUR feelings in reaction to
> > > feelings that merely happen to us. They remain psychosomatic phenomenon -
> > > mental physical -  arising from drives and qualifications set upon by the
> > > subconscious, bypassing dispassionate human discrimination.
>
> > > We are not responsible for N - feelings, as they happen because of the way
> > > we are naturally structured and constructed. BUT we are responsible for 
> > > our
> > > R - feelings, the emotions.
>
> > > ALL human beings ARE IRRESPONSIBLE in this context, more or less, as WE 
> > > ALL
> > > do not deal with our emotions in a manner that simplifies, illuminates,
> > > reduces and perhaps eliminate our subconscious >>>  leading to ALL of the
> > > emotion - feeling phenomena coming under the clear light of our intellect,
> > > in our awareness, with prompts of points along the flow where we are
> > > required to exercise conscious choice, knowing and responsibly.
>
> > > It takes much ( spiritual ) evolution on our part even to dare to be an
> > > emotionally responsible.
>
> > > Raja Yoga Sutra : And, HE is without impressions ( subconscious ). That's
> > > God for me. It's me. It's God.
>
> > > @neil, @fran, @chris, @om, @slip, @molly, @allan, @pat, @abdullah, @doug,
> > > @lee, @drgw, @don and all I couldn't list   ...  nudging you, to add and
> > > extend.
>
> > > On Fri, Sep 10, 2010 at 8:37 PM, frantheman 
> > > <[email protected]>wrote:
>
> > >> As you imply in your link, Molly, it really only makes sense to
> > >> discuss something like Righteous Anger in a virtue-based system of
> > >> moral thinking, something that has a long and varied tradition, much
> > >> wider than simply Catholicism.
> > >>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virtue
>
> > >> It's a way of looking at the world, I suppose. Personally, I often
> > >> find the definitions and distinctions rather artificial; usually based
> > >> on "magic" numbers such as three, seven and twelve. Imagine a teaching
> > >> which talked of the 14 cardinal virtues and 11 chief vices! :-)
>
> > >> Francis
>
> > >> On Sep 10, 3:04 pm, Molly <[email protected]> wrote:
> > >> > Actually, in catholic terms, anger is one of the seven deadly sins.
> > >> > Righteous anger is virtuous only if our will is not applied, a
> > >> > trickier notion to grasp.  The righteous anger we feel when we see a
> > >> > child deformed by any abuse connects us to the virtue of seeing the
> > >> > child as perfect in God's glory.  NOT that I am advocating any kind of
> > >> > catholic doctrine, but anyone wishing to understand this notion
> > >> > further might try reading "Back to Virtue", by Peter Kreefthttp://
> > >> books.google.com/books?id=55QdKe3FmYMC&dq=Peter+Kreeft%27s+Bac...
>
> > >> > Francis would be our resident expert on this subject.
>
> > >> > On Sep 10, 7:54 am, rigsy03 <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > >> > > There is a virtue called rigtheous anger and very necessary in 
> > >> > > society
> > >> > > in regards to justice.
>
> > >> > > On Sep 9, 11:19 pm, Slip Disc <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > >> > > > I guess I could see anger as a release mechanism.  Sometimes it
> > >> could
> > >> > > > be perceived as venting but there is a point at which we can cross
> > >> the
> > >> > > > line, a point at which others are affected negatively by the
> > >> outbursts
> > >> > > > of anger and worse the physical.  I don't see it very useful on a
> > >> > > > societal level because anger usually begets anger which can ramify
> > >> > > > into something too huge to contain.
>
> > >> > > > On Sep 9, 5:53 pm, gruff <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > >> > > > > Slip,
>
> > >> > > > > Anger can be irrational and baseless ... i.e., the act of someone
> > >> with
> > >> > > > > severe mental aberrations.  It can also be a valid reaction and
> > >> > > > > protest to perceived and real injustices.  Anger is not without
> > >> its
> > >> > > > > uses in society.
>
> > >> > > > > On Sep 9, 3:31 pm, Slip Disc <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > >> > > > > - Hide quoted text -
> > >> > > > > - Show quoted text -
>
> > >> > > > > On Sep 9, 3:31 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.
>
> ...
>
> read more »

Reply via email to