Anger
-
What is the Thelemic view toward anger? Seems a primal emotion, albeit often resulting (and ameliorated by resolving) a false sense of separation or helplessness. Does the Thelemic tradition express any type of "Christ among the money lenders," or "justified wrath of the Erinyes," exception to the conventional notion that anger is a "negative," emotion to be transcended or avoided?
-
Thelemic philosophy doesn't tend to consider any particularly thing inherently good or bad - it's a matter of context. That would certainly apply to the "red" emotions at least as much as anything else.
And yes, there is a place for outrage, e.g., in the event of gross injustice. (Justice and rage are both Mars principles.)
-
As much as I long to embody the perspective that all is one, I have not attained it, and as much as I endeavor to own my own crap, I still find certain outside antagonisms warrant and resonate with strongly felt "red" emotions. Moreover, even viewed holistically, I think parts of the recognized self might indeed need to be, "hit," as you say--for example, certain cells might need a strong dose of chemo; certain habits of thought might need to be beaten back.
Re-reading the third chapter of Liber AL, I am struck by its radically martial quality. Repeatedly, Ra Hoor Khuit tells us to "curse," and "despise," and worse. I don't pretend to understand the line between prescription and allegory in these passages, but I am left wondering how one's internally felt "red," emotions relate to worship, "with fire and blood ... with swords & with spears."
-
I think that a positive way to look at anger is to try to spin it into motivation - look at it as an intense release of feeling that basically amounts to "okay, something has to change here, and here's the energy to accomplish it."
I wish I could always frame it that way, or even approach my deep well of repressed anger that way, but I haven't done this.
93, 93/93.
-
This persons view is to not take things personally.
If so and so calls me a chatty Cathy, or an air head or says I am a lazy twit, why should I get angry about that?
If I can't afford a t bone steak, why get mad.
If I think the news is unjust and the poor are suffering, why get mad?If some external thing is upsetting me, I think being a Thelemite means I do something about it, or reflect upon why this is creating disharmony in me and make changes that way.
It seems like the life girls lead are drama circles, so and so said this, and that, and can you believe what happened at.... Did you know....So many stories and events and reasons to get your blood pressure up
I really find that while my family gets swept away in theses emotional rollercoasters, my faith leads me to a more even and balanced existence, in which I am not feeling like a flag in a wind storm.
-
"....why get mad?"
I guess that's the thing. In my experience, anger (and other strongly felt feelings) happen before one becomes aware of them; the emotional body moves faster than consciousness, and I find that I am mad, and then am beset with a decision of what to do about it.
I get your point, Angel of Death, not to stay mad in the face of certain obstacles, and instead taking steps to act powerfully to directly confront the antagonism. But does the futility of rage still apply in the face, for example, of an assault, or a threat to one's children? I understand that unchecked anger is bad for you. I get that. I understand that it can be like drinking a poison of one's own making, doing violence to the self in carcinogenic ways, over-amping the adrenals toxicly. But at the same time, I take to heart the point made above that anger is neither positive nor negative, that sometimes it has its place.
Like the example I gave of Jesus railing at the money lenders in the temple, it seems anger is not always something to be surmounted or denied, even by an adept, and that sometimes it is necessary and appropriate to let it loose. It seems to me that in history, the inchoate outrage of different groups of protesters have inculcated a powerful, infectious sentiment, which resonates with others and animates a willingness to organize and act against the injustice toward which the feeling is directed. I'm wondering how this animating principle applies at the individual level, and what to do with the feeling that underlies it.
I find many people of a spiritual inclination to be very wishy-washy, and I intuitively attribute this to a fearful denial of their baser instincts. Same is true of our emotionally anemic post-Puritanical culture in a lot of ways. I think there is often a repression at work here, whether individually or socially, which tends to give rise to some very nasty, passive-aggressive externalization down the road, unless the restriction and denial are confronted and the sentiment is somehow released. My will is to evolve these baser instincts, to bring them into the fold, if you will, and I think there's a sociological application available here too.
So to put a finer point on the question, I would like help identifying those places where anger is an appropriate response, where the fight side of fight-or-flight has its rightful place in a person's life. Or does it? Are we just better off to rise above all of that in each instance, to lighten the redness whenever we confront it, and take a pleasantly pink, non-violent approach to personal or civil injustice? I suppose that worked OK for Ghandi. But I really don't think it would have worked to stop, for example, the Holocaust. Quaker's might disagree, but as I see it, it really did take a nuclear bomb to end WWII. That's what happened. And it seems so much violence could have been prevented if martial arms had been raised by good people much, much earlier in the conflict. So I wonder if the failure of outrage allowed or resulted in more suffering than its earlier acceptance would have caused. And I wonder how all of this applies at the level of the microcosm within.
I suppose I am rambling on a bit here, but I do think this is a fundamental part of understanding oneself and that alignment of emotion is part of embracing True Will. Thank you for the insights.
93, 93/93
-
Rage is not futile.
If you are genuinely enraged, it will be extremely hard for you to gain control. But you can.
You are feeling, for a purpose. Something is unbalancing you, and it is your body telling you to pay attention.
Often, we can make progress when we are able to honestly reflect after a situation, and ask ourselves those important * uncomfortable* questions, like, why did I think that, why did that bother me, how did that make me feel why did that hurt, why did I think......
The other party, did or said what ever their part was for reasons you may never know or understNd, so I find it best to just seek clarity in my part of my own emotional response.
Btw, I am not wishy washy at all,
I am kick arse in your face if you piss me off....But most things don't make me mad any more
-
I have been thinking about this threat for a while now,
Seems like there was something on the tip of my tounge that I wanted to say,
But I couldn't put my finger on it.Then yesterday, something happened and I got furious, madder the a hatter.
And as I said my piece to the party involved, and I expressed why I was so mad...it came to me, something I had heard in. Workshop years and years ago.
Anger is a manifestation of Fear.
When we are angry we Re actually experiencing fear, of some degree.
I was afraid that what was going down in my life was going to cost me my home, that I was going to loose what I had because of some event outside of my control.
Because I have a strong and healthy ego, and my personality is naturally optimistic I do not usually fell fear, for my self. I know that I can be blown to smithereenz and it will be ok, I can live on the streets in a box and it will be ok. BUT when my kids, the lives I brought into this world were threatened, I forgot.....they would be ok too.
When we feel angry at something, it may serve us well to pause, breathe and then reflect, just what am I really afraid of, and then...is that fear just?
-
Although I've pondered this matter for some time, the immediate impetus for this threat <VBG> arose from a situation very much involving my children. And I feel you've opened up something for me with your reflection here, Angel of Death. Thanks.
The way you've linked the fight/flight counterparts evokes a sense of something very primitive, instinctual, basic. Makes me think muladhara/purgation. And more graphically, that some sh*t has just got to be eliminated; otherwise it's a terrible poison.
I like your approach. Seems right that intentionally canceling/counteracting anger with its tremulous, threatened counterpart should allow a reasoned perspective to emerge--tempering the temper, if you will, and permitting a more holistic appreciation of circumstance and stimulus/response. Your approach accomplishes this without whitewashing or undermining the primal, instinctive sensation itself--the often-urgent need that springs forth valiantly to right wrongs and protect the innocent and defenseless. This is a passionate "red," feeling I experience strongly sometimes, and one I find blithely dismissed in many quarters as a mere "negative" emotion to be avoided.
Often, fear suffers the same rebuke as harmful and it is casually dismissed, but fear too has its purpose, and I think we are better are overcoming it without denying it than we are at dealing with rage. (What color is fear, if anger is red?)
For example, we recognize a distinction between courage and ignorance--between facing a reasonable fear nobly and being too stupid to appreciate an imminent threat, between throwing oneself on a grenade and tripping over one. Yet I don't think we have a suitable word or idea like "courageous," which could be similarly applied to well-managed rage. "Valiance," is as close as I can come at the moment, but it doesn't do justice to the primal feeling of maternal protectiveness you mention, which really captures the essence of what I'm trying to address.
I think fear has long been recognized as a necessary weakness, to be integrated thoughtfully. I think our survival depended on overcoming fear without just ignoring it. But I don't think we've had as much evolutionary impetus to evolve our anger, and it has now submerged just below the surface in our mythos and culture, unacceptable in polite company, but glorified, for example, in pop music and video games, and manifesting around the globe in underground silos full of long-range nuclear bombs! This concerns me.
I'm reminded now of the litany against fear in Frank Herbert's Dune:
"I must not fear.
Fear is the mind-killer.
Fear is the little-death that brings total obliteration.
I will face my fear.
I will permit it to pass over me and through me.
And when it has gone past I will turn the inner eye to see its path.
Where the fear has gone there will be nothing.
Only I will remain."I can't recall anything I've ever read that has offered such an approach for confronting anger. How does one "face" wrath, when it is moving you to action like a shove from behind? The best we get is generally akin to someone saying, "Count to 10." Doesn't cut it for me. Just raises the systolic pressure over time.
Yet blending the two seems a possible way through, and I'm willing to try on the notion that anger can always be connected to, and seen as arising from, a perceived threat of loss. I think what you've said might offer a course of action for evolving rage without denying it--allowing self-consciousness to emerge without hamstringing the instinctive Protector of Threatened Children (who, I suppose, also protects the vulnerable inner child as well).
I'll try to remember your suggestion the next time I find myself seething and will report back on the results.
Love is the law, love under will.
