RoR: Forum

Lindsay, I am in total agreement with your post. That may surprise you, since I have expressed strong disagreement with some of the terms with which you categorize anti-war people. (It is relevant for me to say that I approve of our war in Iraq, as you know, so this is not a personal defense.) I believe you use such terms when you are angry -- and I do not dispute your right to be angry. But you have called anti-war people names some of which I do not believe you truly mean; in fact, when I have pointed out to you that certain people, whom I specified, did not deserve such criticism, you agreed.

Yes, passion comes from convictions. And anger comes from convictions. And few things are more boring and ineffectual than a person without the capacity for passion and anger.

However, it is one thing to show one's passions -- and quite another to be carried away with them to the point of saying things one does not, on calm consideration, really believe. As a child, I had many acutely painful experiences of the latter, and I cannot tell you the damage they caused me. They cause pain, Lindsay, and isn't there enough pain in the world without burdening people who honestly disagree with us with still more?

I believe that anger should be a warning sign, a warning that it would be very easy to exaggerate one's condemnation, to misstate it, and to say what one does not authentically believe. It should be a warning that one must take extra care, extra pains, to express oneself with precision.

Post 1

Monday, August 2, 2004 - 5:19am

I fully agree with all of Barbara's comments in the above post.

MH

Post 2

Monday, August 2, 2004 - 2:25pm

I am more effective angry than at any other time. Why? Because my premises are clearest, and my goals most certain, when the injustice of that which stirs me to anger is in clear focus. Anger's just one expression of passion. I likes it.

Post 3

Monday, August 2, 2004 - 2:44pm

Lindsay,

I really loved your essay... You brought up a point which needs to be made, and often, until people "get it". Anger is a tool, like any other... the trick is to use it for the purposes it is equipped for.

I think that the reason people have such a problem with emotions like anger is that we all feel the absence of rational-driven emotions in our culture... in fact, on a subconscious level, it can be said that the basic culture we have lived in for some time is driven by mysticism and mindless emotionality. With this in place, with no entrenched, explicit logic as the basis for our culture, yes, indeed, anger is dangerous.

But that was before Objectivism. Individuals who have incorporated Objectivism as their "operating system" if you will, tend to have much greater appropriateness and control over their emotions, and they are much more responsible practitioners of emotions like anger.

I have been "trained" in a field which is filled with mental manipulators who love to tell their "clients" (i.e., thralls) that their displays of emotion are "inappropriate"... that their behaviors are "inappropriate", when all they are basically doing is displaying emotion or personal authenticity... period.

That's rubbish. What they basically promote is this kind of sterile, neurotic, Vulcan sort of existence based on the nullification of individual convictions, and this quasi-Buddhist "non-self" merging with some non-existent conformity standards. And yes, of course, I am once again speaking of the mental health industry (MHI), which presently operates under the influence of the most evil set of standards ever known to mankind.

(Edited by Orion Reasoner on 8/02, 8:55pm)

Post 4

Monday, August 2, 2004 - 5:59pm

I think Aristotle nails this one:

"Anybody can become angry - that is easy, but to be angry with the right person and to the right degree and at the right time and for the right purpose, and in the right way - that is not within everybody's power and is not easy."

- Daniel B

Post 5

Monday, August 2, 2004 - 8:56pm

Barbara (or Ms. Branden),

I loved what you had to say... it makes sense to me... The key is precision.

If blandness does not convey the full intensity of the wrongness or rightness of your convictions, do not use it. It's false and ineffectual.

On the other hand, if anger does not convey the more subtle intensities of what you are trying to convey, do not use it. It's like playing the piano with a sledgehammer. You may need to smash something, but if the task at hand is to make musical richness, you have a conflict of interest in which neither goal is served.

I like what you said here:

I believe that anger should be a warning sign, a warning that it would be very easy to exaggerate one's condemnation, to misstate it, and to say what one does not authentically believe. It should be a warning that one must take extra care, extra pains, to express oneself with precision.

That was great, because anger is an effective but wild horse... One of my favorite comedians was a man who really knew how to convey his sense of profound worldly outrage through expressions of anger... and certainly had trouble controlling it: Sam Kinison.

Many people never gave him the respect he deserved, I feel... Although uncontrolled and destructive at times, he always made an effort to point out the things that few people were brave enough to talk about, and with an infectuous kind of logic that could whip a crowd into a frenzy in no time.

He said many things that I agree with: he mercilessly ridiculed religion, he supported militarism when necessary (in Libya and Beirut)... He advocated a life of non-malicious selfishness.

He wasn't highbrow, but if he was a lowbrow... I'll be a lowbrow anyday.

Post 6

Monday, August 2, 2004 - 11:38pm

Interesting article, Lindsay.

On the state of anger's acceptance in the culture, Orion wrote something on which I would like to comment:

"I have been "trained" in a field which is filled with mental manipulators who love to tell their "clients" (i.e., thralls) that their displays of emotion are "inappropriate"... that their behaviors are "inappropriate", when all they are basically doing is displaying emotion or personal authenticity... period.

"That's rubbish. What they basically promote is this kind of sterile, neurotic, Vulcan sort of existence based on the nullification of individual convictions, and this quasi-Buddhist "non-self" merging with some non-existent conformity standards. And yes, of course, I am once again speaking of the mental health industry (MHI), which presently operates under the influence of the most evil set of standards ever known to mankind."

Hmm, I have been trained in mental health as well, but I live in California, and I wonder if a different culture is at play here. (Forgive me, I'm not sure where you hail from, Orion, but given your classy use of the word "rubbish," I'm thinking it's probably not the States?)

In my neck of the woods, it is taken as relatively standard wisdom that clients need to learn how to clearly express anger. I think many if not most influential therapeutic traditions over here recognize this, and certainly more than one tradition is quite keen on assisting clients to access and de-repress pent-up anger from the past.

It is true that most Buddhists are not big fans of anger, and they are indeed a contingent here. On the other hand, a somewhat prominent Buddhist retreat leader I know quite well is rather fond of declaring that "love without a wrathful face is impotent." He was a huge supporter of the Iraq war and was practically jumping for joy when Saddam Hussein was captured. So even with Buddhism I think things are not as simple as they may seem. (Ancient Zen masters are known, after all, for hitting students on the head with blocks in order to wake them up.)

Then, look at pop psychology -- I'm not a big fan of it, but it does indicate penetration of psychotherapeutic ideas into the culture. And I'm pretty sure that Oprah and her boy wonder Dr. Phil would agree that we must, in order to lead healthy lives, be capable of expressing anger honestly and forthrightly.

So, from where I sit on this point of longitude, things are looking reasonably okay for anger. Maybe different in different countries?

Andrew

Post 7

Tuesday, August 3, 2004 - 1:45am

Yet another coincidence occurs in my life, though very mild by comparison to certain others.

Not two days ago, I entered "interviews" into the audible.com search engine, and although I wasn't even looking for Rand material, one of the 80 or so listings that appeared was Facets of Ayn Rand, by Mary Ann & Charles Sures (the only Rand listing there). So I decided to ask in here whether or not it's a worthwhile read (or listen in this case), only to see quotes from it just now while reading Lindsay's article about anger. I guess the fact it's being quoted in here means it's valuable enough, since it was used to demonstrate positive aspects of SOLO. But even so, I'll still ask what I originally intended to: should I buy it? I mean, aside from The Fountainhead and The Passion of Ayn Rand, I've read nothing else yet, except for several random pages of The Romantic Manifesto, which seemed to mirror almost all of my own thoughts regarding art.

Anyway, since I'm here, I may as well pass comment on the whole anger issue as well.

I find that a good way to work out whether or not you're reacting to a given situation with the correct level of anger is to imagine how you'd react in an ideal world if that same situation confronted you there. In such a world, everything would be perfect, including your state of mind. So, if a low-life suddenly appeared before you, for instance, and said to you, in a hate-filled tone of voice, that he wished everyone would be like him and desire a dictatorship-like world, would you spit a glare at him and punch words in his face, or would you shrug off the comment and observe instead the petal whose tip you can see reaching up above his shoulder from behind him? I suspect that most truthful folk, if imaginative enough, would say the latter. They wouldn't be angry. Which is interesting, because if the same statement came their way in this present world, they would be angry, if Objectivists. Be it to a lesser or greater degree.

Sure, it's a bit different in this present world: all too many other evils have already inflamed us before we even regard a new single evil like that statement above, and certain single evils themselves frequently signal a more wide-spread evil to begin with. But that's exactly my point. We often fail to let ourselves know that more than one anger usually helps sharpen the knife of rage that we stab into any single evil. I think that, a lot of the time, we tell ourselves that the single evil at hand, the particular situation confronting us, deserves the amount of anger we give it, just so we can vent everything else in us at the same time without looking excessive, either to ourselves or others.

Of course, even though our anger may exceed justification sometimes, this also means there's a justified degree. It might not be what we'd express in a perfect world - the world described in my first paragraph - but it would and should be what we'd express here. Unless, that is, the evil causing our anger is very small, bringing me to my next point: As with my above perfect world, where even big evils might fail to interest us, I think that certain small evils in present time should - but often don't - disinterest us. All too often, we react with distain to things that should be overlooked. Like, for instance, a lover not putting the toilet seat up or down after use in accordance with the wishes of their other half. I'm not personally on the receiving end of this situation, but when people become irate about such things - and I mean irate - I think it's a sign of lacking life-lust, not justified annoyance, not reason. As another example, when one looks at a naked beauty on the computer screen or through a shower-room peep-hole, the stray hair hanging in front of ones eyes disappears into a blur due to corrected focus. It's all a matter of priority.

In your article, Lindsay, you talk about Objectivists almost disapproving of anger these days, and that they should instead release it when it's there to release. Interestingly, and ironically, I think that part of the reason many Objectivists have the anger they do is because of previous repression. In the name of reason, they sneer so hard at their stray emotions that these emotions cower in a corner out of sight, only to fight back eventually by flooding out sneakily along with the anger that's sometimes expressed when "non-repression" is exercised, thereby causing the angered individual to excuse the mass over-flow of anger by lying that the target deserved it all.

Yes, I too, like you, think that Objectivism is filled with repression, but it's not the repression of anger that's most abundant, it's the repression of what causes this anger. Until this is cured, until certain Objectivists lighten up, anger will always be displayed in disproportionate degrees. Get angry at those who deserve it (get very angry, in fact), but be careful when it comes to the levels of it there-on-down, the levels where evils aren't all that evil at all really.

Not that it's easy to know when we're crossing the line, of course; perhaps the hardest challenge in this world is knowing whether or not the airs of emotion mimic the calculus of reason that inspire them. What could be more difficult, god dammit? It sucks! It really sucks! HOW THE HELL ARE WE SUPPOSED TO KNOW WHEN OUR EMOTIONS EXCEED WHAT'S CALLED FORRRRRRR!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Yes, I'm not denouncing anger, even though the above was a mildly extreme display of it. In fact, about two days after posting a recent-ish message of mine, in which I said that true Objectivists will always be identifiable because of their fountaining love, I realised, too late for editing to be practical, that I should have put in brackets after that very statement "(except for those moments of justified hatred)," so as to erase the touchy-feely quality of my sentiments.

Man, this is way more than I thought I was going to say. I guess I'm angry about anger or something.

-D

Post 8

Tuesday, August 3, 2004 - 2:20am

Andrew,

First of all, the majority of people whose lives intersect the MHI find that everything in that field is about numbing. Numbing of emotions, numbing of thoughts, numbing of everything. Much as I would like to be genteel and polite in response to you and say that "I'm okay, you're okay", on this particular issue I have a moral duty to everything that is good and true in this world, to not yield even a fraction of a planck as to what this industry really is.

Now, perhaps your experience in the MHI has revolved around more affluent clients (or maybe California is a more humane place), but I can tell you that in North Carolina (sorry, I haven't been everywhere), and in the brutally frank reports that I read from people all over the country, the industry is a far, far cry from even remotely embracing genuine catharsis of any kind.

Most people who have dealings with the MHI are ultimately dealing with state-run agencies, and they are not just crap, but they are much worse than crap. They are staffed by uneducated, bottom-rung, chain-smoking, drug-addicted, feet-shuffling "professionals" who are willing to work for the lousy wages those agencies provide. These are mentally and physically tired folks, filled with frustrations, who ultimately and consistently seem to accomplish little more than dehumanizing their "clients" in any and every way conceivable.

What you have seen in such movies as "Girl, Interrupted" is largely myth. The only facilities that take that sort of time and care with their patients are the very expensive private resort hospitals, and even then, nowadays it's all voodoo-effective drugs... almost no talk therapy ever occurs. This is because the present vanity obsession of the MHI is to impress themselves by playing "neuro-magicians" and designing all sorts of convoluted chemical structures that "target" "specific" receptors that are randomly scattered all over the brain, and abysmally poorly understood at best.

The mental health industry is not a science, it is not even a proper profession or industry. It is a dark ages religion with a megalomaniacal quest to achieve a stranglehold on as many human beings as possible, in order to justify its fraudulent continued "right" to exist, and keep the paychecks and government grant monies coming. Its practitioners know that too much of their chosen industry is ineffective, harmful and basically a fraud, yet now that they've painted themselves into a corner, career- and mortgage-wise, they figure that "the best defense is a good offense".

If I have been conveying a vulgar, dripping, and assaultively noxious contempt for this industry, my apologies... I have been holding back.

Please check out the following websites:

http://www.antipsychiatry.org and http://www.breggin.com

(Edited by Orion Reasoner on 8/03, 2:37am)

Post 9

Tuesday, August 3, 2004 - 2:41am

Darin,

I agree with your "previous repression" explanation.

Post 10

Tuesday, August 3, 2004 - 1:09pm

Orion,

I see - you seem to be equating "mental health industry" with "state-run mental hospitals." It strikes me as an unusual equation, leaving out the legions of therapists in private practice. That said, I have no trouble believing that the state-run mental hospitals are pretty bad. And, I haven't seen Girl Interrupted.

My background, since you wondered about it, includes studying therapy in school, taking professional workshops, experiencing multiple therapies on the giving and receiving end, having friends in the profession, working with some clients privately, and working for two years as a counselor in a 28-day psychiatric crisis house, in which I ran groups and did individual work with clients.

The crisis house, while not state-run, was mostly state-funded, and while it wasn't half as bad as the kind of environment you describe, and there was plenty of talking going on there, the welfare aspect of the program -- and the type of clients the welfare aspect attracted -- did make it very hard to do satisfying work.

To bring this back to the theme of ANGER though: One thing I did learn at the crisis house was that, in addition to helping repressed clients access, accept and learn to express anger, there were rare occasions when brandishing my own anger at a client (generally a non-repressed one) was the most therapeutic thing I could do for that client. That is something you don't see much of in the therapy textbooks!

Best wishes,
Andrew

Post 11

Tuesday, August 3, 2004 - 2:49pm

I sent Solohq an article I wrote recently on immigration, where I said in essense that I have two reactions frequently to confronting people with whom I disagree- anger and reasoned debate. Thank God for both. The fact is that both are called for on occasion; the art is knowing when to use which.
I wrote another piece a while back on how being cool is one of the worst goals a person can have. I'll try to dig it up.
Meanwhile, Lindsay, angry or reasoned, you and Solo are an oasis in a desert of stupidity and indifference.

Post 12

Tuesday, August 3, 2004 - 6:51pm

James - you wrote: "Meanwhile, Lindsay, angry or reasoned, you and Solo are an oasis in a desert of stupidity and indifference." I thank you, & return the compliment. You are one of the very few who really get what SOLO is about. I have read your essay in the Article Queue & am most anxious to post it soon.

As far as Barbara's comments are concerned, I thought I made it clear that one ought to be mindful at all times of the line between passion & hysteria. I also acknowledged having crossed the line on occasion (though I don't think anyone has been scarred for life because of it).

And, since I think it is what I am being implicitly rebuked for, I should add that "Saddamite" is a term I use, angry or calm, for those who succour Saddam by opposing the war against him. And I take the dimmest view possible of succouring Saddam. If anyone thinks I'm going to resile from that term, he's dreaming.

Linz

Post 13

Tuesday, August 3, 2004 - 10:15pm

That Lindsay has no reticence whatsoever about utterly loathing Saddam Hussein is a beautiful, beautiful thing.

Shine on, you crazy diamond.

Post 14

Wednesday, August 4, 2004 - 12:36am

Lindsay,

And, since I think it is what I am being implicitly rebuked for, I should add that "Saddamite" is a term I use, angry or calm, for those who succour Saddam by opposing the war against him. And I take the dimmest view possible of succouring Saddam. If anyone thinks I'm going to resile from that term, he's dreaming.

Let me point out for the record (and I expect this to make no difference whatsoever), that a number of those whom you have termed "Saddamite", amongst other vicious and unjustified insults, have shown tremendous loyalty towards you during recent days when you have been insulted in just as unjustified a manner.

MH

Post 15

Wednesday, August 4, 2004 - 1:25am

There is nothing unjustified in "Saddamite," as I have explained in several articles & posts, & again just now. And I don't know what other "vicious insults" I am supposed to have hurled. But I'm sure I don't resile from any of them. If they cause pain to the people of whom they're true, then frankly my dear, I don't give a damn. I suspect the pain of Saddam's victims was greater - & no whining New Agers spoke out for them!

It's as true that Saddamites are Saddamites as it is that I am *not* a Stalinist. A = A. Get used to it.

Linz

Post 16

Wednesday, August 4, 2004 - 2:23am

Lindsay,

The point you keep missing is that they aren't true - I am no more a "Saddamite" that you are a Stalinist or Leninist, and recognising both are a matter of Objective judgement. If somebody was saying that Saddam was a hero and the US and UK villains, that the invasion was immoral and they hoped Saddam would win, then yes they would be supporters of Saddam and some of the language you've used would be justified (I'm not sure that I personally would use such language as it really just isn't my style, but that's a separate issue), and indeed some of the leftist antiwar crowd may have said some or all of the above. But I have never said anything like that, and to my knowledge nor have any of the other Objectivist critics of the invasion to whom you have applied the Saddamite label. Saddam was the bad guy, the invasion was 100% moral and once our troops were in I never for one second wished them anything but absolute success.

Arguing that there might be negative consequences to a particular method of taking action and that therefore an alternative method might be/might have been preferable is categorically not the same as saying that taking any action whatsoever is/was wrong. I've said it before and will say it again: My position has far more in common with yours than with that of the leftist hippies who genuinely thought the war immoral. Ultimately of course your failure to recognise that is your problem, and those of us who have been unjustly slurred will have to react as we think appropriate.

MH

Post 17

Wednesday, August 4, 2004 - 8:18am

I think DDD jr is the true son of DDD.

They both share in common a knack of redefining their arguments, when it suits them.

They have definitely both given the impression for over a year now that they thought that the Iraq War was both wrong and damaging to Western interests in the middle-east and that SH was not a threat. And they have fully known that they were interpreted in this way.

Now DDD junior maintains that the Iraq War was only less preferable to something else to take out SH, but it was still "100% moral" and he wishes it all the success in the world.

If that is the case, why hasn't he and his Dad been marching at the front of the "pro-war" campaign thus far, rather than constantly stoking up the "anti-war" campfire?

Dialectics, my ass!!!!!

Post 18

Wednesday, August 4, 2004 - 9:16am

I think DDD jr is the true son of DDD.

My parents would take exception to that one ;-)

They both share in common a knack of redefining their arguments, when it suits them

Examples?

They have definitely both given the impression for over a year now that they thought that the Iraq War was both wrong and damaging to Western interests in the middle-east and that SH was not a threat. And they have fully known that they were interpreted in this way.

I've (I'll not speak for Chris) said that he was not an immediate threat. I said the war was "wrong" in the sense of being the wrong course of action.

Now DDD junior maintains that the Iraq War was only less preferable to something else to take out SH, but it was still "100% moral" and he wishes it all the success in the world.

I'm convinced Saddam (WMD or not) was containable (i.e. stick our nukes so far up his backside he wouldn't dare launch a damn thing at us). This, given the wider context of a) the "war" against Islamic terrorism and b) that statist domestic political situation would have been preferable to war. Once the invasion began though, neither Chris nor I have expressed anything other than total support for our side. Find a single quote where I've said anything different.

If that is the case, why hasn't he and his Dad been marching at the front of the "pro-war" campaign thus far, rather than constantly stoking up the "anti-war" campfire?

I have repeatedly emphasised the difference between me and Chris' "antiwar" arguments and the broader, generally leftist anti-American anti-war campaigners. Your response last time I did so suggested that you had grasped the distinction.

Dialectics, my ass!!!!!

Still enjoying Ayn Rand: The Russian Radical then?

Post 19

Thursday, August 5, 2004 - 12:23am