Who "Owns" Old PC's?

[jdavis]

The point is that it's perfectly natural to want to kill your kin and to feel frustration at your inability to do so. I have no trouble believing that you are angry because you are unable to kill your grandmother. That's exactly what I'm talking about.

I was in my mid 20's, much more than a child, I never wanted to kill my parents, but that's not the point, sometimes it's not what she said it's that she just won't shut up, even when you agree with her, annoyance made me angry a lot of times, I guess that is me projecting my lack of patience.

You wouldn't have gotten angry, I suggest, unless she was successful in finding issues you feel badly about. Poking you where it hurts. Finding your weaknesses and attacking them. Some people are very good at this sort of thing.

Yes and no, what was said in front of my children was not something I felt badly about that got to me it was that it was said in front of a 10 year old that didn't need to hear it. The fact that she won't leave my mother alone even though she knows my mother cannot deal with that stuff (she has a actual doctor's excuse to avoid her, that's pretty bad), I guess me not wanting my mother to die of a stroke due to high blood pressure and stress could be considered a weakness she has exploited, but I really don't feel personally bad about my mother's blood pressure, I don't feel responsible for it. She does hit a lot of spots where I do feel bad about but as I said that doesn't bother me as much as I have already hit those spots myself, I accepted my personal flaws long ago, She just won't let up on anything and you sit there grinding your teeth wanting to gag her. I really don't want to hear all my faults listed and why she thinks I have them and how she thinks I should fix them and on and on, over Christmas dinner.

 

[Wolv0rine]

I am sorry to hear that. Indeed, I felt we were beginning a discussion of some interest. I am sorry to hear that the only way you can respond to my opinions is by foul language. I didn't mean to provoke such a response, and I hope you don't think I'm trying to be rude or deliberately provocative. Is it that your opinion of me personally is such that it could only be expressed through insults? Well, you don't have to state your opinion of me, you know.

Okay, this is becoming unfair now. There was no foul language that I can see. There was neither overt emotional lashing-out, nor insults. If you take a look at the post, it breaks down fairly straight-forwardly as:
"I disagree, too strongly to go into as much as my level of disagreement warrents. If I tried, I would probably be drawn to use language which could and should get this thread closed because of that language's level of adult content (as used in common everyday life to convey higher levels of emphasis or importance), so I won't do that. So, in closing, I disagree."
I don't think there's anything negative in that, do you?

That's fine. I'd like to know why, and what you think is the true case of the matter, regardless of what your feelings about me are. How do you describe anger? What do you think causes it and what are our choices in so far as controlling it?

Where did the idea come from that this is because of a personal dislike? I missed that..:/

Once again you simply dismiss without discussion. It seems as though you are determined to avoid outlining your arguments. I'm sorry you feel that talking with me is wasting your time.

Shouldn't we allow for the possability that she (she, right?) just doesn't feel like going through the trouble or effort to go into it all -- or just isn't interested enough to want to try? I mean maybe that's not the case, but I think we should allow for the possibility without being snooty or 'calling her chicken' or anything.

 

[Wolv0rine]

Here I'll give a example of how this fails for me. I don't like one of my Grandmothers ... The only thing I ever felt guilty or mad about was going to see her, so now I don't. There was absolutely no way you can find to put any of the anger in me, you can in no way say I was projecting my own feelings in the case

You misunderstand. I'm not talking about projection of feelings, I'm not talking about blame. What I am saying is that there is something about YOU that made you get so angry with her.

Forget about her actions. You can't make her stop, you can't take back any of the things she's said or done, forget it. Doesn't do any good. All you can do is look at yourself and discover what it is about YOU that makes you get so angry.

Which is, of course, exactly what you did

I actually think this example does work the way he was saying. I don't see any "angry with myself"ness here. If a family member starts saying vile, hateful, hurtful, untruthful things to my kids (and at Xmas!) then there is nothing about myself that I am angry with, it's something about that other person. Something they did that was wrong to do, or said that was wrong to say in the attempt to make someone think untruthful things (who might not know enough to not believe them). But anger is the appropriate reaction, and blame is earned not assigned, in such a case.

 

[barsoomcore]

Okay, this is becoming unfair now. There was no foul language that I can see. There was neither overt emotional lashing-out, nor insults. If you take a look at the post, it breaks down fairly straight-forwardly as:
"I disagree, too strongly to go into as much as my level of disagreement warrents. If I tried, I would probably be drawn to use language which could and should get this thread closed because of that language's level of adult content (as used in common everyday life to convey higher levels of emphasis or importance), so I won't do that. So, in closing, I disagree."
I don't think there's anything negative in that, do you?

No, not at all. I didn't mean to accuse KB of using foul language or insults at all. I had the same impression you evidently did: that the only way for her to continue the discussion was to say things that would get the thread closed. I assumed she meant Eric's-Grandma-banned language and since I wasn't able to imagine that an idea could offend someone so much I wondered if perhaps I hadn't done something to upset her so much. So I wanted to say that she didn't have to air her opinions on me in order to continue discussing the idea in question. If that was the problem.

Where did the idea come from that this is because of a personal dislike? I missed that..:/

I didn't think that it WAS because of a personal dislike. I meant that IF it was, that was okay with me, I was still interested in her ideas. And I still am. I said, "regardless of what your feelings about me are." I was trying to keep the discussion from centering on personal disputes and keep it about the ideas themselves.

Shouldn't we allow for the possability that she (she, right?) just doesn't feel like going through the trouble or effort to go into it all -- or just isn't interested enough to want to try? I mean maybe that's not the case, but I think we should allow for the possibility without being snooty or 'calling her chicken' or anything.

I don't see where I did call her chicken. But it DOES seem to me that she is deliberately avoiding discussion. Clearly she doesn't feel like going into it and that, to me, is a shame. Because I remain interested in what she has to say.

But just to be clear, I don't consider her a chicken, I don't think she used foul language or insulted me at all. I understand that she considers my ideas incorrect but I don't know why because I haven't been able to understand what explanations she's made. She seems to think she's explained herself well enough and maybe she's right, maybe I'm just unable to get it. I've never been the brightest bulb on the string.

I hope that's all very clear.

 

[barsoomcore]

If a family member starts saying vile, hateful, hurtful, untruthful things to my kids (and at Xmas!) then there is nothing about myself that I am angry with, it's something about that other person.

Well, that's where you and I disagree. Why should you get angry because someone else does something wrong? Why does somebody else's lie make you angry?

Of course if someone is saying vile, hateful, hurtful, untruthful things to your children you need to take a stand against that. You need to ensure that your children understand these things for what they are. I don't believe that your anger will help them with that. I believe that your compassion, your insight and your courage will help far more than your anger. In fact, I believe your anger will make it harder for them.

Your anger is a signal to you that you have a problem. That you have fears you are not confronting, anxieties you are hiding, insecurities you are denying. You can respond appropriately to a hateful person without anger. You can put them aside, you can speak your mind, you can drive them away without anger. Your anger is something else entirely. It is a barrier you must overcome.

Or, to look at it another way, it's a sign saying, "Interesting Stuff Here! Have A Look!"

 

[Wolv0rine]

Of course if someone is saying vile, hateful, hurtful, untruthful things to your children you need to take a stand against that. You need to ensure that your children understand these things for what they are. I don't believe that your anger will help them with that. I believe that your compassion, your insight and your courage will help far more than your anger. In fact, I believe your anger will make it harder for them.

On the contrary, I believe that without my anger I would not take action to stop that wrong-doing to my children. It is the emotion that sparks the action of protection, anger at wrong done to your child (in this case). I always understood when my father flew into a protective rage, that that rage was my shield and my sword. I was safe behind my father's rage because it would protect me. (Now being in FRONT of it, that's another story. heh heh)

Your anger is a signal to you that you have a problem. That you have fears you are not confronting, anxieties you are hiding, insecurities you are denying. You can respond appropriately to a hateful person without anger. You can put them aside, you can speak your mind, you can drive them away without anger. Your anger is something else entirely. It is a barrier you must overcome.

Again, I disagree resoundingly. And, to put earlier posts in relation, yeah I do disagree to a degree that angers me, and I too believe fully that I cannot hope to express or explain how severely I disagree without foul and vulgar displays. But, I am sad and pathetic enough that I'll take the time to try.

My anger is] a signal, but not of any fears or insecurities, no secret shames or inner sobbing or anything so silly. My anger is a signal that I must rally against that thought or action because I think it is wrong, or harmful, or detrimental in some way. I have anger at your viewpoint. It's not because I secretly know you're right and am angry at myself, or any such pseudo-freudian idea. It's simply that if viewed on a macro-level, your opinion in this matter is in contention with mine in a 'survival of the fittest'-esque fashion. On the macro-level, only one or the other can exist, because they are incompatible. Now on their contextual level, that's not so and it appears silly and meaningless. But if it ever came up for a vote to be a United States Law, then it would indeed be on a macro-level, and my belief is in mortal danger. So, that's how one can feel anger at another's viewpoint, it's a matter of seeing the bigger macro-level scale that the confrontation of ideas could grow into, and the danger it poses to ones-self. Again, anger is a basic function of survival, not a way to martyr ones-self in one's own view.

 

[barsoomcore]

sometimes it's not what she said it's that she just won't shut up, even when you agree with her, annoyance made me angry a lot of times, I guess that is me projecting my lack of patience.

I don't like the term "projecting" because it implies, well, I don't know why. Maybe it just seems so psycho-babbly to me and though you probably don't believe me, I loathe psycho-babble.

Frustration comes from helplessness. Here's this cranky old woman going on and on and there's nothing you can do about it and OF COURSE it drives you batty. What I find is making me angry is my own inability to do anything. We all hate feeling helpless and anger is a common reaction.

This is why, when someone cuts us off in traffic, we get so immediately furious. Because we almost got killed and there was nothing we could have done to avoid it. We're terrified, actually, and rather than be terrified we explode with anger.

I guess me not wanting my mother to die of a stroke due to high blood pressure and stress could be considered a weakness she has exploited, but I really don't feel personally bad about my mother's blood pressure, I don't feel responsible for it.

I need to repeat: I'm not on about fault or responsibility. Or at least not in the way you seem to be thinking. Let me try and explain. We are responsible for the things that we do, I'm sure you agree with that. Your grandma is responsible for her cranky behaviour (with the possible exception of those things that are due to aging disorders or whatever). Of course she is. Just as you are responsible for the anger you feel. It's something you're doing. You're being angry. Ergo, it's your responsibility.

Just the anger, is all I'm talking about. It's not that you've done bad things. It's not like you're responsible for your grandma's behaviour or your mother's blood pressure.

But you ARE responsible for your anger. For how you feel it, how you express it and how you manage it. I'm sure you agree with this.

Doesn't it make sense, then, to say that you are in fact responsible for the existence of your anger? It's yours, after all. You can choose whether or not to feel it.

She does hit a lot of spots where I do feel bad about but as I said that doesn't bother me as much as I have already hit those spots myself

Well, perhaps I am wrong. I don't think so, and forgive me if I say that we are all of us the worst observers of our own behaviour. I don't trust my observations about myself, and I don't trust other people's observations about themselves. You can decide for yourself where your anger comes from, and if you're comfortable making other people responsible for it then I have nothing to say against that. I only know what I have found to be the case -- that every time I have investigated, I have found that my anger erupts out of what I perceive as my own personal failures.

I believe this is a law of human behaviour and I believe it reveals a powerful truth about the way our emotions and our brains work. I try it out on people whenever I get the chance.

It's hard to explain and I'm often misunderstood. I appreciate your efforts.

 

[Kesh]

I'm firmly in the camp that emotions are a natural and important function of the human psyche. Feeling anger or sadness when confronted with a situation is sometimes necessary in order to deal with it, rather than brushing off the event.

The key is in how you use that emotion. In the 'insulting family member' situation, flying off the handle and throwing insults back would make things work. Confronting the individual with their actions in a calm, forceful manner until they back down/apologize likely would at least show the children that they didn't deserve what was said, and shouldn't allow themselves to be treated in such a way. Trying to remain quiet and only telling the children later might avoid a confrontation, but also gives the children the impression it is better to give in to such an individual until they can be alone (which can be potentially abusive in the future).

In the first, you've let the emotion control you. The second, you've controlled the emotion. Third, you've repressed it.

As a Taoist, I choose to go the middle route and control my emotions, while using them. Sometimes I fail, one way or the other, but such is life.

 

[barsoomcore]

On the contrary, I believe that without my anger I would not take action to stop that wrong-doing to my children.

Well, I understand that, but I KNOW that I will take action to stop wrong-doing without anger. In fact, I find that I'm better at stopping it when I don't let anger rule me. When I am calm and rational is when I am most effective.

I find this is true in the people I interact with. When someone wants something from me, their best bet is always to approach me with a straightforward request. People who rage at me only make me dislike them. Distrust them.

Explain why what I am doing is causing you pain and I'm much more inclined to stop than if you come hollering at me filled with rage. That sort of thing only makes me want to hurt you back, and then things get ugly and nobody gets what they want. But approaching me with respect and allowing that there may be more than one side to the story (even if only one side can ultimately be right) -- that gets my sympathy and makes me want to not only do what you ask but look for more ways in which I can help out.

Again, I disagree resoundingly. And, to put earlier posts in relation, yeah I do disagree to a degree that angers me, and I too believe fully that I cannot hope to express or explain how severely I disagree without foul and vulgar displays.

I have to say I'm mystified. Surely either I'm right or I'm wrong? If I'm wrong then how does my foolishness make you angry? If I'm right then likewise with my incredible wisdom and insight? Honestly, I don't understand. If you think I'm a fool go right ahead and say so. If I'm being offensive please tell me how so that I can stop doing it. I have no wish to be offensive, I assure you.

But, I am sad and pathetic enough that I'll take the time to try.

I don't think that trying to increase understanding and wisdom is in any way sad and pathetic. Thanks for making the effort. I am trying to understand, I promise.

My anger is] a signal, but not of any fears or insecurities, no secret shames or inner sobbing or anything so silly.

Fears, insecurities, shames and sobbing are silly? Why do you think so? Surely they are painful. If they were not they would not be fears, insecurities, shames and sobbings. Surely we all of us struggle with these things every day. From childhood to death we try to soldier on in the face of so many voices and pains and fears telling us we'll never succeed. Or maybe it's just me. Oh, and Shakespeare. Oh, and Homer. Oh, and Akira Kurosawa.

Sorry for being a bit facetious there but I do think the weight of human culture and art indicates that fears, insecurities, shames and sobbings are anything but silly. That they are great burdens we all carry with us. That they define us and drive us into the things we do.

My anger is a signal that I must rally against that thought or action because I think it is wrong, or harmful, or detrimental in some way.

For me, the fact that an action is wrong, harmful or detrimental is signal enough that I must rally against it. My anger isn't in it. My understanding is. Can't you make that determination regardless of your anger?

I have anger at your viewpoint. It's not because I secretly know you're right and am angry at myself, or any such pseudo-freudian idea. It's simply that if viewed on a macro-level, your opinion in this matter is in contention with mine in a 'survival of the fittest'-esque fashion.

Ooh, zero-sum games! Okay, so what is your idea -- the idea that's in contention with mine? That anger is a signal to rally against Bad Stuff?

Well, but wait a minute, I still don't get where your anger comes from. Why are you angry just because I offer an opposing viewpoint (if in fact I do)? Surely if your idea is superior it will prove to be so and you will be triumphant. And if it is not you'll have learned something very important and you will be triumphant. Either way, I fail to see the need for anger.

But if it ever came up for a vote to be a United States Law, then it would indeed be on a macro-level, and my belief is in mortal danger.

Well, only if it's wrong. And if it's wrong then surely you're better off without it? Surely the best course is to test opposing ideas, see which one comes out stronger? And then choose that one.

So, that's how one can feel anger at another's viewpoint, it's a matter of seeing the bigger macro-level scale that the confrontation of ideas could grow into, and the danger it poses to ones-self.

But how is finding out that one of your ideas is inferior or superior to another idea dangerous to one's self? This doesn't make sense to me. Surely part of strengthening one's self is exploring ideas and beliefs to see which ones are true and which ones are not.

Again, anger is a basic function of survival, not a way to martyr ones-self in one's own view.

Survival is more reliably found by testing one's ideas and seeing if they are correct or not, rather than angrily defending them against all comers.

So, your notion is that anger is a signal that you need to fight against Bad Stuff. Thoughts, actions, what have you, that are wrong, hurtful or detrimental. And further, that in being so, anger is NOT a sign that you have problems or issues that remain unresolved. That is, that anger cannot be both. Well, I have a few objections to this argument.

One: anger is a signal you need to fight against Bad Stuff. I disagree. I believe anger is one type of reaction to the realisation of Bad Stuff. That is, I propose that what actually happens is that I recognize something as Bad Stuff and THEN become angry. That is, the signal is recognition, not the anger. The anger is a result of the recognition. My proof for this is that people have varied reactions to recognizing Bad Stuff and not all of them become angry. Therefore, there must be a recognition that is not anger but precedes the anger, even if only by a minuscule amount.

So anger is not a signal you need to fight Bad Stuff.

Two: anger is NOT a sign that you have problems or issues that remain unresolved. I disagree. I think you'll find most anger management systems disagree with you on this as well. Not many hold the same opinion I do on anger, I'll admit, but all of the ones I've investigated do certainly consider anger a sign of unresolved issues within the person suffering from the anger. Further, I'll point out that unresolved issues are usually so because they are not conscious to us. They affect us indirectly -- for example through the emergence of anger. My previous posts to jdavis have outlined many of my thoughts on anger and so far I have not seen you offer any rebuttal other than the term "silly", which I believe I disposed of above. If you have any other rebuttals to my idea I would be pleased to hear them.

So anger is a signal you have problems or issues that remain unresolved.

Three: anger cannot be both. Why not? What prevents anger, should it be discovered that it is in fact a signal of things to fight against, from also being a signal of things to resolve within ourselves? I don't see any inherent contradiction here. Many of our emotion responses come from a multitude of sources, so why not anger?

So anger could be both a signal of things to fight against and a signal of troubles within ourselves.

I enjoy debate very much, Wolv0rine, and I am often so eager in my desire to advance my arguments that I speak harshly or more heatedly than I intended. Please believe that if I have done so in this post, it is not out of contempt or a desire to offend you but only from my excitement in having my ideas explored by thoughtful folks who can expose the weaknesses in my thoughts. You have proven to be a thoughtful folk and I look forward very much to your responses.

 

[barsoomcore]

I'm firmly in the camp that emotions are a natural and important function of the human psyche.

Agreed. I'm only saying that we are responsible for the emotions we feel.

Feeling anger or sadness when confronted with a situation is sometimes necessary in order to deal with it, rather than brushing off the event.

Why are the only two possibilities "feeling anger or sadness" and "brushing off the event"? Surely this ignores a myriad of possiblities that lie somewhere in between those two? Or possibly beyond either?

The key is in how you use that emotion.

Again, I agree. But I believe you can go further than that and in fact simply choose whether or not to feel the emotion in the first place. In fact, I believe that you ALWAYS choose whether or not to feel the emotion in the first place. You're just not aware of yourself choosing.

In the 'insulting family member' situation, flying off the handle and throwing insults back would make things work. Confronting the individual with their actions in a calm, forceful manner until they back down/apologize likely would at least show the children that they didn't deserve what was said, and shouldn't allow themselves to be treated in such a way.

Wow, I just keep on agreeing with you. This so right. And requires no anger whatsoever. Where does anger fit into this wonderful picture you've drawn? Calm and forceful, yer darn tooting.

Trying to remain quiet and only telling the children later might avoid a confrontation, but also gives the children the impression it is better to give in to such an individual until they can be alone (which can be potentially abusive in the future).

If I said that such a wimpy response was appropriate, I apologize. I despise cowardice in any form. Allowing Bad Stuff (to carry on a bit of terminology from my last incredibly-long-winded post) to happen is just as bad as doing Bad Stuff yourself. Remember kids, only YOU can prevent Bad Stuff.

In the first, you've let the emotion control you. The second, you've controlled the emotion. Third, you've repressed it.

Well, maybe. I think a more accurate assessment is: in the first, you've made things worse, in the second, you've solved the problem, in the third, you've made sure your children turn into wimps. Or, more succintly: First -- Bad Stuff, Second -- Good Stuff, Third -- Bad Stuff. Do Good Stuff.

Sometimes I fail, one way or the other, but such is life.

Nah. You never fail. You just don't succeed the way you thought you were going to succeed.

Chet Baker once said that great jazz musicians never say "Oops," when they don't play the note they meant to. They always say, "Interesting."

Life is jazz.