Well the person I'm mostly interested in analysing is myself. Understanding my own understanding is just what I am interested in. Sometimes it looks like psychoanalysis, and sometimes it looks more like philosophical analysis. — unenlightened

Cool.

So I am suggesting a reason. Whether it is true for another is for them to find out for themselves or not as they wish. Your health warning will no doubt be heeded by some, but for those that like to think too hard about such things, I plan to continue to dispense my rather vague psychobabble.

Personally, I think the toddler deserves to be taken seriously and offered an apology and compensation. I don't find the anger of the powerless that funny. — unenlightened

My warning comes from learning the hard way that pain, anger, and other difficult emotions are sometimes messengers I'd like to shoot. Analysis can be loaded gun for that purpose. I see you aren't having that kind of issue.

My two cents worth: in the same way a baby lion instinctively tries out its claws and jaws, that toddler is flexing muscles that have to do with her potential for social magic (as Confucius put it). She's learning how to get what she wants. The fact that the family is laughing makes me suspect that they already know that this kind of thing runs in their family: a tendency to react to stress with anger.

In some worlds, a human like that will become a military leader. People will tend to ally themselves with her because she does get what she wants. In other worlds, this little girl would lead a short life as the people around her seek to declaw her, cripple her, and finally either directly or indirectly kill her.

I think that the sense of self you spoke of is not necessarily there prior to the outburst of anger, but can instead be a product of it. Likewise groups of people can experience an invigoration of identity through collective abiding wrath. Fascism is a desperate attempt to gain that strength artificially.

The young one seems to be rehearsing the form of an argument rather than delivering content. Imitation within an argumentative family perhaps?

On another thread, I participated in a discussion about anger, jealousy and envy, where someone claimed that envy was a always a source of evil, whereas anger and jealousy were not always sources of evil, and were sometimes sources of good. I agreed with this in regard to anger, but argued that envy and jealousy are closely linked and that jealousy, like envy is always negative. The other claimed that jealousy is righteous, that is just, anger over someone taking what is rightfully yours. I disagreed and said that I think jealousy is actually pre-emptively envying the other (even if it is only a general or imaginary 'other') for having what you want.

I thought about all this some more and came to think that envy is wanting what the other has, whereas jealousy is not wanting the other to have what you have.

So, for what it's worth, there's my little bit of analysis of emotion.

Possibly, but I doubt it based on the reaction of the father.

I'll have to listen again, more closely.

Yeah, I think you're probably right. Maybe mommy is argumentative and Daddy is passive aggressive (" I don't think I like your tone")?

Mom is in charge. Notice how the child directs appeals to her. Dad's comments on the child's tone seem to be directed at Mom. Mom is the one laughing which suggests to me that if this is a case of inherited quickness-to-anger, it's probably coming through Mom's genes.

There was a time when I would have been all nurture about that sort of thing. In fact, I point blank told a friend who reported that there was an anger-gene in his family that it wasn't so. Actually witnessing the two-year old who had been identified as carrying it changed my mind.

I think right at the end, after Daddy says "I don't think I like your tone" Mom says "Go hard". Perhaps a combination of inherited character and nurture? Instinctive identification and mirroring?

I do agree that individuals are born with more or less passive or aggressive natures.

Actually I think one cannot assume that. Rather one has to assume that we are talking about the same emotions that folks can have more or less of. Otherwise, we will be talking at cross purposes and without communication. So I do not agree that one can express love with anger, indifference hostility or malice. If you want to use words that way, then I'm afraid I cannot discuss with you meaningfully. — unenlightened

Yes, but just take the example of the cold father that masks his love. Certainly, this isn't an uncommon practice by many fathers to do so.

So, too can someone else mask his or her emotion including love being masked by anger. Although, this would be something that happens at a semi-conscious level as I can't imagine someone simultaneously feeling love and anger at the same time.

Yes. It's definitely an environment where the child is allowed to express anger. In a family where anger isn't allowed, the child would be shutdown.. maybe taught to direct the anger inward. I think it's in those cases that the anger can begin to feed something malignant and possibly violent. That's what I believe... that before it becomes violence, it was just a spontaneous spew no more intentionally harmful than a thunderstorm. Denying that spontaneity is the monster-maker.

Yes, the child's moods are like fast-moving clouds over the face of the sun, she is angry then she runs over and hides behind mommy's legs, and then she becomes kind of coy and says softly "Yes", and then she erupts again.

I totally agree with you it's not good to suppress that. Suppression becomes repression and repression can become neurosis, even psychosis; the breeding grounds of monsters.

Yep.

In the video of the little girl, I think (speculatively) that she is mimicking her parents behaviors and language. "holy crap" the mother translates for her, the way she looks downward sweeping her hair forward, something I imagine she saw her mother do. She is learning how to stand on her own, to be counted, it involves her mentally, gesturally-physically. She emotions have a target, the soda, and she is playing out similar to the way she may have experienced her mother and father argue.

This is the way children learn how to use words, what strategies work, how to align oneself in a arguments, and eventually how to act in social interactions.

At the end, the mother tries to mollify the child, bring her in line by suggesting solidarity with the dad. "Go Hawks!" probably a familiar family cry watching sports on TV.

I think all emotions are embodied, the question is (and maybe it works both ways) whether you tremble because you are afraid or are you afraid because you realize you are trembling.

She emotions have a target, the soda, and she is playing out similar to the way she may have experienced her mother and father argue. — Cavacava

Yep. As I told John, there was a time when I would have strongly supported this view. Witnessing first hand that kids aren't blank slates changed my mind. Notice that when she says "You know what? Listen to me." She's easy to understand. That is mimicry. When it's hard to understand her, she's struggling to construct English sentences. "Daddy never gave my soda back!" is not mimicry. That is something pretty freakin' astonishing and as far as we know, only found in humans.

It appears to me that she is role playing, a role that she has seen taken place before... she is improvising upon what she has learnt, which is amazing.

Isn't that what we do sometimes, don't we get into a role, playing a part. Some of our roles give rise to hard emotions, which can consume normal consciousness even if only briefly. Normally we repent or make up. When we don't make up or repent, aren't we left with guilt, vengeance a sense of injustice. That's not to say that people don't have inherited dispositions, or that contextual situations don't have their part in our actions.

Arguments about who needs to do what are common. Sometimes civilized discussion, but not always, sometimes protagonists become angry, get upset by what is said, respond in similar terms to what is said, they play a role, which may be particular to them, but it is still a role.

Religions also ask us to perform ritualized behaviours, to assume a role as a member of the religion community. Some of these roles may be self-destructive, and some monstrously destructive to others...you know the Spanish Inquisition, which no one ever expects, happened. The jihadist beheading the non-believer, sets their soul free, saves them (as I understand it).

I'm not so sure jealousy is simpler. One could say that jealousy is the motivator of competition, and competition is the motivator of excellence. It seems to be concerned again with self image, and may or may not involve a component of anger. But whether it is felt to be good or bad, that feeling comes after the jealousy itself, and does not affect the complexity of the source of the feeling. — unenlightened

We can stay focused on anger then.

I want to hold clear the distinction between the feeling - anger, and the action - harming. So, although it is not always used quite this way, I define anger as the feeling that motivates harm. Now one can't make an omelette without breaking eggs, but breaking eggs isn't normally the motive. So to endorse harm is not necessarily to endorse anger. I support taxing the rich, not to damage them, but to help the poor. I can imagine not hating Hitler, but loving Jews enough to assassinate him. — unenlightened

My focusing on goodness and badness is that it seemed to me that anger is (generally) bad, in your characterization of anger. That's what gives me hesitancy.

But actually rereading your post -- anger is a secondary emotion to primary pain, either empathetic or egoistic.

What, then, are the primary emotions?



Also, I gather we're thinking about anger in a different way. I don't think of anger as egoistic. I agree with your approach that it is a result of an internal configuration, but I'm less prone to think of anger as attached to identity. I'm more prone, in general now and not just with anger, to think in terms of attachment. And this may just be a way of restating what you're getting at, but it's the verbal pattern I'm accustomed to.

I become (and, in some sense, am) attached to the world in various ways. This "I" is not an identity, but is that which identifies with an identity -- one might say becomes attached to an identity. But it is this attachment which usually results in anxiety and anger. Possibilities take on a kind of reality (may stop what I have become attached to), hence resulting in anxiety, or reality interferes with this attachment, hence causing anger.

But were I not attached in the first place -- or were I to detach ahead of time -- anxiety and anger would go away. (at least when it comes to things I have no control over, which will inevitably come and go, causing excitement and disappointment)

Which isn't to say one should always detach. While I do think anger is a nullity on compassion, I'm less certain about saying compassion is something we should always have.

I'm concerned to emphasise that whether anger is proper or improper, good or bad, harmful or not, is a feeling one has about one's anger (or about another's). The phrase 'consuming anger' is interesting; when one is consumed by anger, it has taken over, to the extent that in the moment, there is no judgement - no feeling about anger - one is anger itself, completely. To get carried away is to be for a moment undivided, single minded, and this is a wonderful state of no (internal) conflict. Afterwards, one may judge one's condition to have been proper or improper in the usual divided and conflicted way. This is part of the attraction of anger, that it liberates one from conflict. — unenlightened

Well, I think what I was getting at is a little different from what you're stating here. All consuming anger, as I meant to refer at least, is not something which is momentary or which you can't have divided internal conflicts about. It is all consuming precisely in the way that even if you have divided feelings you continue to feel the anger. It is an anger in the long-term, and is all consuming in that it centers your awareness of the world. Akin to hatred, but different too -- because it is easy to hate, but it is hard to hold anger. It is the sort of anger one desires revenge out of, because of the harm you are causing yourself.

Yes, but just take the example of the cold father that masks his love. Certainly, this isn't an uncommon practice by many fathers to do so.

So, too can someone else mask his or her emotion including love being masked by anger. Although, this would be something that happens at a semi-conscious level as I can't imagine someone simultaneously feeling love and anger at the same time. — Question

Ah, I see what you are saying now. Yes, the whole thread is about how one feeling can mask another. We Brits are famous for our stiff upper lips, and my own family is like that; "not bad" is our highest accolade. So the man that disguises his affection as a punch on the arm, or the woman that covers her affection with nagging are certainly familiar.

"I hate you for making me feel vulnerable."

I think this expresses clearly a feeling about a feeling that I have been talking about in another form. A great many of the comments here focus on feelings about feelings - is this feeling always good or bad?
So to love is to be vulnerable to rejection or ridicule, one is afraid of this, so one becomes angry.

So if one is in such a state, and following this thread, one will find that looking at one's anger and asking not 'what about?', but 'why?', one is in great danger, as Mongrel pointed out, of uncovering the masked feeling that one had rejected. So, before one starts, one needs to suspend judgement about feelings; one needs a mental space that is dispassionate, and compassionate, and insatiably curious with regard to oneself.

On another thread, I participated in a discussion about anger, jealousy and envy, where someone claimed that envy was a always a source of evil, whereas anger and jealousy were not always sources of evil, and were sometimes sources of good. I agreed with this in regard to anger, but argued that envy and jealousy are closely linked and that jealousy, like envy is always negative. The other claimed that jealousy is righteous, that is just, anger over someone taking what is rightfully yours. I disagreed and said that I think jealousy is actually pre-emptively envying the other (even if it is only a general or imaginary 'other') for having what you want. — John

Who is this person? >:) >:O

But actually rereading your post -- anger is a secondary emotion to primary pain, either empathetic or egoistic.

What, then, are the primary emotions? — Moliere

I was wondering when this would become an explicit question. It has been given answers in various comments that I have avoided responding to, and has hovered in the background of the discussion of the toddler video. One might look at infants or animals, one might look to evolutionary psychology. But I don't want to answer, because I don't want to start from there, I want to start from here.

So my only answer is that the primary feeling is the feeling I have before I make a judgement or have a feeling about my feeling. It may well be that such feelings do not even have a name of their own, because they are so universally masked. Or maybe it is some list - fear, disgust, curiosity, affection, or whatever. I don't want to preempt what anyone might uncover, or force feelings into categories.

I don't think of anger as egoistic. I agree with your approach that it is a result of an internal configuration, but I'm less prone to think of anger as attached to identity. I'm more prone, in general now and not just with anger, to think in terms of attachment. And this may just be a way of restating what you're getting at, but it's the verbal pattern I'm accustomed to. — Moliere

This is difficult to tease out; we may need to go into it again, but for the moment let's hope it is just a matter of terminology.

But were I not attached in the first place -- or were I to detach ahead of time -- anxiety and anger would go away. (at least when it comes to things I have no control over, which will inevitably come and go, causing excitement and disappointment)

Which isn't to say one should always detach. While I do think anger is a nullity on compassion, I'm less certain about saying compassion is something we should always have. — Moliere

Can I say that to be attached is to be vulnerable to hurt? This immediately prompts one to see the benefit of detachment. But to me, detachment is a curse, it is a state of unreality in which my relationship to the world is denied. There is no feeling more destructive of the person and the other than indifference.

Well, I think what I was getting at is a little different from what you're stating here. All consuming anger, as I meant to refer at least, is not something which is momentary or which you can't have divided internal conflicts about. It is all consuming precisely in the way that even if you have divided feelings you continue to feel the anger. It is an anger in the long-term, and is all consuming in that it centers your awareness of the world. Akin to hatred, but different too -- because it is easy to hate, but it is hard to hold anger. It is the sort of anger one desires revenge out of, because of the harm you are causing yourself. — Moliere

Right, that is something different. I imagine that somehow anger becomes integrated into the self-image, so that one is constantly evoking anger with a circle of thoughts, rather as a plumber constantly evokes his identity as plumber by going to work and joining pipes every day. But I confess I have little experience of this.

Does it matter? (L)

Yes, I think the psychological concept of over-determination deserves a mention here. We tend to identify with the way we feel and that in turn causes a cascade of events to happen in the mind. One does wonder though, can one dissociate from the way they feel, for example being depressed over being depressed ad nausium. Or if dissociating oneself from their emotions is even a healthy thing to do and what does that in turn lead to...

I think the prominence of recognizing 'emotional reasoning' to borrow a term from CBT is important here along with some mindful awareness in getting a better 'feel' for some problematic situation; but, I'm not sure if you recognize that this also can be some sort of mental masturbation if emotions truly reign supreme.

We tend to identify with the way we feel and that in turn causes a cascade of events to happen in the mind. One does wonder though, can one dissociate from the way they feel, for example being depressed over being depressed ad nausium. Or if dissociating oneself from their emotions is even a healthy thing to do and what does that in turn lead to... — Question

I think in order to identify with the way one feels, one has first to dissociate from it.

I don't know if that is clear? I am not depressing, but I have got depression which I am trying to escape or cure by pressing it down. So I would say that to reason about one's feeling, or to act on it to change it is to have dissociated from it - the reasoner is dealing with a feeling separate from the reasoner, and then identified with the reasoner. It's always 'I have a problem', and not 'I am a problem'.

Yes, I think the psychological concept of over-determination deserves a mention here. We tend to identify with the way we feel and that in turn causes a cascade of events to happen in the mind. One does wonder though, can one dissociate from the way they feel, for example being depressed over being depressed ad nausium. Or if dissociating oneself from their emotions is even a healthy thing to do and what does that in turn lead to... — Question

In English we identify with feelings. In other languages feelings may be owned (as if stored in an internal suitcase) or they may be upon one as if sadness falls like rain. Since a form of dissociation is managed by the autonomic nervous system, it may be dubious to ask about how healthy that is. .

In Spanish, one apologizes by saying "Lo siento", which literally translates as "I feel it." It can be taken as a verbal signal that one is experiencing the results of empathy. IOW... imagine that empathy is always there like radio waves. You become aware of the feelings of another by tuning your radio to that frequency.

This is a handy way to think of it for me because like other people I've known, I had issues in my younger days with being unable to control the radio. I wouldn't try too hard to explain unity of consciousness or the communal nature of emotion to someone who doesn't experience it that way. People can be incredibly strong in the conviction that we're all the same. The result is that we can't listen to one another... all we can do is preach.

And.. a person may say "Lo siento" without meaning it. Sometimes wording is just a matter of custom.

That would be a wonderful world to live in where one can dissociate oneself from one's emotions like that; but, my intuition tells me that that is not the case. At least they way you presented the situation is overly strict in terms of an either or state; but, I agree that anger as you so aptly described it is a instant dissociation from the object or cause of frustration and the self.

I have been told many times that I have no ego, this is perhaps due to some event in my childhood that stunted its growth; but, that's another story. Obviously, it would be impossible for me to not have an ego entirely as I am no Buddha or Wittgenstein although I strive to be the latter, as in later, former Wittgenstein.

It's always 'I have a problem', and not 'I am a problem'. — unenlightened

This is tricky because one's self does not want to be in contradiction with itself in perceiving the problem as its own or simply take responsibility for it. This is classically portrayed in the prisoners situation where one will continue to electrocute an inmate at ever higher 'doses' as long as they aren't directly responsible for the welfare of the poor bastard being electrocuted in such a psychotic experiment. The problem as I see it is that we aren't solipsist beings and the necessary demarcation between 'being a problem' and 'having a problem' is very hard to delineate; but, obviously the bias will be towards saying that one 'has a problem' as opposed to 'being a problem'... But, then again to whom is this person a problem to? Is it to others or oneself?

That would be a wonderful world to live in where one can dissociate oneself from one's emotions like that; but, my intuition tells me that that is not the case. — Question

I agree with your intuition. Perhaps I should emphasise the role of time in this. Suppose you say something that hurts me, intentionally or not. So first I feel hurt. Quick as a flash, I defend against my hurt by getting angry. Then, I feel my anger. Then there is a thought, 'I mustn't be angry'.

So here, in the space of maybe a second, is dissociation happening; there is a hurt me, an angry me, and a controlling me. Now these fragments are operating as if they are independent, and in particular controlling me is operating on angry me as if it (controlling me) is not angry. But this is a fiction; controlling me is still hurt, and still angry.

Now the obvious question at this point is, who is saying this: "But this is a fiction; controlling me is still hurt, and still angry."? And there are two possible answers. It might be the controller of the controller, another dissociation, another fragment. Let's call him 'the analyst'. Or it might be simply an expression of my feeling.

And this is the end point of my whole thread and analysis, and it is what is strongly resisted by the controller and the analyst; that they are unnecessary fictions. Rather, it is possible to feel one's feelings and not try to operate on them to control or defend, and in fully feeling as one feels, there is no dissociation, no contradiction, and no stress.

Nussbaum doesn't agree with Aristotle that all anger is of that type. — andrewk

Right, I think it obviously isn't all in response to other people. I more often get angry as a form of extreme frustration/annoyance at things not working the way I'd like them to, tempered by how they could work with a bit of tweaking etc., and/or at me not being able to execute something as well as I'd like to, tempered by knowledge of my abilities, so that I should be able to do something better than I did on my assessment.

And this is the end point of my whole thread and analysis, and it is what is strongly resisted by the controller and the analyst; that they are unnecessary fictions. Rather, it is possible to feel one's feelings and not try to operate on them to control or defend, and in fully feeling as one feels, there is no dissociation, no contradiction, and no stress. — unenlightened

Or maybe the controller and analyst aren't fictional people. They're aspects of your psyche which have a history of doing a fabulous job of protecting you and keeping you functional. They aren't going to come into view as "unnecessary fictions" until they aren't needed anymore. Then they can be taken off the way a cast is taken off a broken limb.

There's no benefit at all from trying to force a broken leg to support you. But a cast on a healthy limb is crippling you.

It's simple, when there's a problem you can either change yourself, or change the world. When you're stuck in paralyzes it means that you're trying to do the former. That's good to do, we need that -- but sometimes people are wrong, and ultimately you have to go with your gut. The thing is to wait. Most of the things that people do are covert, and attack you on an unconscious level, so that your feelings about it are themselves unconscious. Flipping the fuck out, sending out glares, and things are overt responses that you may not even be aware that you're doing. Retreating inside, trusting them, and doubting yourself is another response. It is only after a certain amount of time, after some digestion that the truth will be revealed.

As the Buddha said, just like the moon and the sun, the truth never remains long hidden. Why are you stuck in paralyzes? Because you think that something is wrong with you, that's why you won't stop thinking. You're constantly being attacked, and you can't figure out why, and that's your response to it.

But maybe they're wrong? The idea is to find a good balance between things, not to not give a shit what people think, but to just absorb it, digest it, and the truth will be revealed, and trust those instincts.

If you find yourself at one end of a spectrum try inverting it, and doing the opposite, the middle will then become more obvious.

Or maybe the controller and analyst aren't fictional people. They're aspects of your psyche which have a history of doing a fabulous job of protecting you and keeping you functional. They aren't going to come into view as "unnecessary fictions" until they aren't needed anymore. Then they can be taken off the way a cast is taken off a broken limb.

There's no benefit at all from trying to force a broken leg to support you. But a cast on a healthy limb is crippling you. — Mongrel

Maybe. 'Fictional' is probably misleading, but my suggestion is that the situation is more like putting a broken cast on a broken leg, which doesn't do a fabulous job - not in the sense you mean. The controller of anger is angry, so he functions to sustain anger and does not protect against it.

That could be as well. I think of Shakespeare's Richard 3rd as a dude who can't face the experience of weakness so mutilated his own psyche.

The executioner I mentioned just doesn't feel anything. He or she is good at looking at people as if they're meat. All emotion is deadened. A lot of us in this world have ancestors who were like that. I think it was a survival strategy.