Have I understood what you are saying now?
My anger and desire is not the problem, the problem is that I don’t have enough control?
PS. I prefer the previous statement (find it more useful)
When you phrase it this way, the implication is that there is the possibility of more control. This possibility is a fiction, isn’t it? I am saying something else, which is that the problem is not about having enough control. The problem is in not facing the fact that there is no control at all.
An actual crisis effects everyone involved, e.g., a natural disaster and all those affected. A personal crisis affects only one human’s reaction to a threat to one’s illusion of self and what one must do to defend or modify that illusion.
Usually anger is a reaction of one human to any event that reminds one of being nothing but who/what one believes one is; a momentary loss of faith in oneself.
This is your belief. Some people are quite skilled at exercising control of over others.
Maybe you are getting caught up in your own interpretation of what I am saying. I can put it again, if you wish.
Of course. But why do you think they do that? Are they not taking control of others out of a deep feeling of being powerless? It helps them maintain their own fictional status, surely.
I’m sure you want to control me, for whatever reason, make me go away. That desire to control stems from the fact that there is no control over existence. I would not call this a belief. It’s an observable fact. You may not like the fact, but that’s exactly what we are looking at: our reactions to things that are outside of our control.
So suicide and homicide are not deliberate ending of one’s existence?
Does one not cease to exist after killing oneself or being killed?
As usual, you’re speaking in absolutes (like Krishnamurti), when the truth is that there are limits to how much control one has, and one always has a degree of control, depending on how controlling one wants or does not want to be.
I don’t know. Do you? God knows what happens to this miserable consciousness once the body has had enough of it. Therefore, find out why you are separating yourself from the rest of existence in this way by putting yourself at the centre of things. What does it really mean to put an end to one’s existence? This is a much more interesting question. What does it mean not to live as though from the centre of things?
The very fact that there are limits to and degrees of control indicates that underneath there is only impotence, just as our limited knowledge indicates our profound ignorance. There is no ‘as usual’, if you will permit me to say so. That’s just a verbal trick to maintain some degree of control over an ever-increasingly failing argument. We are in a very unusual place, I suggest. What happens when we neither know nor control where we are?
Baloney. This is typical Paul Know-it-All. Spare us. Find a K-discussion forum that will appreciate your BS.
I don’t care if it is baloney or not. Your reverting to personal attack makes me suspect that for you it is much worse than baloney. For I hear only the expression of an angered impotence, of someone or something in pain. But if you really want to tear to shreds what I am saying, there is a much better way to do it.
Am I angry because I have an insistence on a particular POV, and pushed into a corner that POV has been crammed in so small a space that the response is violence in the form of anger? All our problems go back to this central problem. It shows up on the internet too of course.
1 Like
Which is why you post carelessly post baloney.
One is known to use the word impotency on certain occasions. It’s good to see someone pick it up.
I like the coinage angered impotence. Perhaps the order is incorrect, but it doesn’t matter. It seems, anger per se, is the signature of impotence. Whether we see it in rabid humans, or in mad policemen. Both going nuts when guarding their territories.
So anger, is a an actual universal human crisis. It affects the species.
I have watched anger, I believe I saw what was happening right before I got to my angriest. I told myself I was going to look at it without seperating myself from it, so that I could see all of it. As the anger was coming up I had repeated several suppositions about the way things should be, over and over. I’d rolled them through the mind, marinating in the hatred and my impotence to immediately affect change. Things like “she should have done this!” or “a reasonable person would have done this!” It is an insistence on a choice, which the chooser believes he has infalliably decificered. I was backing myself into a corner. I did it mythodically (although unconciously) as I repeated mantras about what should be.
I do not consider myself an angry individual anymore and I believe its because I’d brought some space in there. There is always the chance of anger and great irrational violence as long as we have any of this seperation in us, is what I get the feeling is being considered here.
Is the ‘I’ ever not angry?
Its possible for the I to be content his whole life, if things go “well.” Good as dead, but not expressing anger.
When consciousness holds on to any of its own experiences as though to keep a recorded account of some fixed and accurate memorial content, that is going to lay the foundations for anger, isn’t it? And not just anger, but all the other stuff that plagues our daily life.
Aren’t we all sufficiently content with our content, the content of our consciousness? Yes, it’s a burden and the cause of our suffering and irrational behavior, but how serious are we about being free of the content that defines and sustains our illusory duplicitous self?
1 Like
Are we willing to live without our story of self? It’s all we’ve got. Without it we are nothing. Nothing is great fun to contemplate, discuss, tease at, flirt with, maybe dip a toe into. But to live there? Who would ever voluntarily stand with/as nothingness?