Indeed, Molly! Wittgenstein (Witters, as Neil calls him) is seminal on this, with his reflections on language "games", which can only work when everyone plays according to the same rules. A basic realisation of the need for a "common system of meaning" would be very useful in many of the conflict (mis)dialogues going on worldwide. Pushed to its most evil extreme it brings us to Orwell's "Newspeak" in 1984.
Francis On Sep 13, 2:13 pm, Molly <[email protected]> wrote: > I think that is a pretty good example of Humpty Dumpty making words > mean what he wants them to mean outside of a common system of > meaning. Not that there is anything wrong with it until you are > trying to gain a deeper understanding with a group. > > On Sep 11, 11:05 am, rigsy03 <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > Anger is also referred to as a Cardinal Sin because it is a gateway to > > other serious sins. I regard righteous anger in the same way as a > > "just war"- neither is pleasant but often are necessary. Anger need > > not be a social virtue- it can also be a means of protecting ourselves > > from others. > > > On Sep 10, 8:04 am, 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. > > > > > > > > > > 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 > > ... > > read more »
