posted December 27, 2008 07:44 PM           

Very well said, katatonic.

That's pretty much what I'm seeing, at the moment.

Still, I wonder if Abraham-Hicks thinks the anger of terrorists is preferable to the apathy of pot-smoking teenagers.

posted December 27, 2008 11:48 PM           

Maybe the nature of righteous anger is a mystery - to be available or revealed to those who are sufficiently ready.

posted December 28, 2008 07:50 AM           

Perhaps it is, as Nietzsche put it, "human, all-too-human"?
But, then, isn't transcendance also human?

The desire and ability to refine our understanding of, and reactions to, life situations is not "inhuman", --
rather, it is representative of what is best, and most worthy of preservation, in human nature.

posted December 28, 2008 07:57 AM           

Welcome.

That may be.

But I'm skeptical of that so-called intuitive knowing.

So many people have claimed to experience it,
while contradicting one another and promoting absurdities.

That sort of subjective experience is impossible to verify,
and there are too many reasons to unconsciously deceive oneself.

posted December 28, 2008 08:09 AM         

Why are people so afraid of and quick to push away feelings which are not nice and pure and perfect?

Isn't the whole point of transcendence to go through, to become immersed, to become baptized into an experience, a feeling, a thought? I don't think we get to transcend anything anything until we let go of that desire. That means letting go of transcending. Because the desire to transcend is actually judgmental...we're saying essentially, that we'll go through a feeling as though it were bitter medicine in order to reach this nice, green pasture...but that's not how it works. We're not being present and in the moment if we do that. We're just going through the motion, and we haven't let go or surrendered at all.

Transcendence requires true surrender OF transcendence, otherwise it's a set-up. We're letting our egos still take charge of things if we concentrate on even becoming a better person....because that still is a form of self-judgment.

I'm sorry, HSC, I respectfully disagree with you. I think human nature is a lot more base...we seek the divine and to be more divine-like perhaps, but that seeking itself is more telling than what we do. It says we think we are worthless in a way, and must somehow change ourselves and how we feel and MUST get out of a perception in order to get to the 'good' stuff.
I just think that's wrong.

posted December 28, 2008 10:08 AM           

You arent familiar with my history here, but, for a long time,
I've been the one making similar arguments to yours and hippichick's;
defending our right to be "human", and finding beauty in the most unlikely places.

The way I see it now, there is Solar and Lunar wisdom; Spirit wisdom and Soul wisdom.

Solar wisdom concerns aspiration, ascention, and the will to overcome.
It has to do with setting a goal, forging a path and an identity.

Lunar wisdom is reflective and concerns memories, dreams, comforts, ambiguity, and so on.

Solar is active, Lunar is passive.
The highest teaching involves a marriage of these two principles.

I usually argue on the side of the soul,
against the reformers and in favor of the poets,
because I happen to think there is an over-emphasis on solar teachings.

I have posts on this forum praising the beautiful humanness of anger, and the like emotions.
I've talked about how everything in life is part of what makes it so incredible,
and how everything inside us makes us the profound, multifaceted creatures we are.
I've proposed the philosophy that spirituality is about giving up, letting go,
and enjoying the flowers; so I am no stranger to your side of the story.
But, with all due respect, it is just that. One side of the story.

posted December 28, 2008 10:10 AM           

~ Leo Tolstoy

posted December 28, 2008 10:14 AM           

Dont worry, I dont think there are many ways around being human or having human emotions or struggle with our humanness while we're here. But why stay stuck in the lower aspects of our humaness if we are able to rise above them? Why let these things rule or ruin your life? Because they do. Is that productive? Are we not supposed to grow?

I dont like the argument that anger is human and we are human so it's fine. Are we 100% human? Are we supposed to stay stuck in our humanness because here, it seems that's all we are?

posted December 28, 2008 04:27 PM           

Boy, did you misunderstand me.

quote:

---

well firstly, terrorism is not RIGHTEOUS anger, since innocent people are hurt by it.

---

I wasnt talking about righteous anger, i was refering to the Abraham-Hicks quote,
which, as I understood it, was refering to anger, not necessarily "righteous".

And I was being ironic.

My point is that there is nothing redeeming about a terrorist's anger,
and that, contrary to what the quote seemed to suggest,
there is no way that it is preferable to apathy and depression.

quote:

---

and secondly, i have known many potsmoking teenagers and adults in my life and most of them were far from apathetic. including joe strummer, quoted above!

---

Me too.

Sorry if my wording suggested that all pot-smoking teens must be apathetic.
Either way, I think its pretty harmless compared to being angry all the time.
And that was the point I tried to make, in my clumsy sort of way.

quote:

---

no one is hurt by an honest outburst of anger, indeed it can clear the air and make positive solutions more available.

---

On the contrary, everybody is hurt by a burst of anger, whether or not they are sensible to it.
And if they do happen to be a highly sensitive person, it can hurt more than you may know.

Its also far more likely to be the straw that breaks the camel's back,
and provokes someone into a rage, or a full-on downward spiral,
than it is to be the catalyst for positive change.

The problem is that so many people are so repressed,
they cant speak the truth unless/until they get angry, lol.
The answer, though, is not to get angry so they can get the truth out.
The answer is to learn how to communicate uncomfortable things gently,
before they get bottled up and then have to explode.

quote:

---

terrorism is spiteful, physically violent and victimizing; therefore it would not come under the same heading as righteous anger in MY dictionary.

---

Mine neither.

But my argument is that there is probably no such thing as righteous anger.

Nice talking with you.

posted December 28, 2008 05:15 PM         

when i say no one is hurt by an honest outburst the "honest" is crucial, because honest anger does not blame anyone but express feelings. i don't mean the kind of outburst that puts everything on the other person(people) in the room...

posted December 28, 2008 06:05 PM         

Anyway, Taurus26: What makes you think experiencing emotion is being 'stuck' in it? Baaaad anger, get rid of it!
Let's gravitate toward the light instead.
I'm sorry, I just don't buy it.

Are people automatically thinking that feelings and behavior go hand in hand?! Because that's how most responses sound here - like they're talking about the result of behaving and acting out anger, and not merely the emotion itself. I'm talking about the emotion - all of the emotions are righteous.

HSC - I agree with you about people bottling up anger or emotion and only expressing it explosively. It's true that people need to learn how to communicate.

But now that I think of it, I don't feel the term you're using here fully describes what you're talking about....I don't feel you're talking about anger or even righteous anger. It's bitterness that you're talking about. That's what makes people horde their feelings, that's the acidity which comes from repressed emotions of all kind.
So maybe the question is, Is there such a thing as justified bitterness?
Or, at the core, of it, are we really talking about fear?

posted December 28, 2008 06:25 PM           

What made me think it? Actually it's more like what I've gathered after experience and detactment. So to tell you how I have come to this knowing is nearly impossible, as knowings tend to be. I dont think it's "baaaaad" and to "get rid of it". Yet it's not good to have and to hold either. What's wrong with gravitating towards the light? I know just the sound of it, it used to make me want to puke too.

It's okay that you don't buy it. It's not for sale.

quote:

---

Are people automatically thinking that feelings and behavior go hand in hand?!

---

Well they often do. And what's more is that just because you dont "act" on your anger, doesnt mean your anger isnt acting on you. Catch my drift? It's poison to your body.

quote:

---

I hate reading quotes - with all due respect...sorry. I can do it too: "Hell hath no fury for a woman scorned." See? Doesn't prove a point.

---

I think that quote does prove a point. Humans get angry they get scorned and they are being human. Interesting how they also get diseases, cancers, ulcers. But I guess their human bodies are seperate from the rest of themselves. And emotions dont have any effect their bodies.

I think people who are seeing clearly have a hard time getting angry. When you are seeing red, you are not misunderstanding something. Blinded by your own fury.

posted December 28, 2008 06:34 PM           

i meant to say you ARE misunderstanding something - leave out the "not". i think i meant to ask, "are you not"?

When you are seeing red, you are misunderstanding something.

Just another opinion! Don't shoot the happy person!

and I wonder what is so wrong with aspiring to turn something destructive to you bodily temple, into something beneficial.

posted December 28, 2008 07:02 PM           

maybe because you hate them.

anyway, i already quoted it above. and i was just thinking:

"hell hath no fury like a woman with Mars square Uranus and Sun conjunct Caput Algol" is more like it.

posted December 28, 2008 07:06 PM           

Thanks.

posted December 28, 2008 07:35 PM         

Taurus, I'm not a huge lover of New Age-y stuff at all. I hate it because it markets spirituality, and bottles it and makes compassion into a formula. So no, I do not buy it. Black vs. white...no, it's all gray to me. I'm more interested in balance and truth, not love and light. Love and light is great, but it's how it's being marketed as some kind of blanket to cover all of our darker emotions...so we can walk a primrose path to pleasant feelings.
And I do believe people do that out of fear. Just as they bottle up their feelings out of fear. But I don't feel fear is such a bad thing either. I just look at things today and look at self-help books and new age crap and it makes me want to throw up.
People want to act evolved and look evolved, but no one wants to go through the dirty work. No one wants to suffer, that's true enough. But suffering is the key to compassion.
By trade I am a spiritual adviser.
I have a lot of clients who are not always in good places emotionally - my job is to make them find that piece of themselves which is redemptive, to give them a safe place to plunge into, a net, and then allow them to find their own inner 'light' amidst the darkness...whenever they are ready.
I would never pummel them with sugary words or 'all is light, all is love' platitudes...it's just a personal journey, you know?

My point being is that for the past 20 years of my life I have worked to incorporate spirituality into my life into a practical way - I do not believe in this ritualized sort of forced way of making ourselves 'more evolved'...it feels extremely inauthentic to me. It looks extremely forced.
I'm simply more interested in balance and authenticity, as opposed to associating too much with dark or light. But really, by focusing too much on dark or light, we're defining one or the other too much and are over-identifying with it...