Perverted cardinals can truly lead to an outburst of what you call "righteous anger", yes, rigs.
On 13 Sep., 15:27, frantheman <[email protected]> wrote: > 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 > > ... > > Erfahren Sie mehr »
