Why so critical of deepak chopras work?

[Naer]

I remember it having a profound effect on me before FDR.

 

So?

[Wuzzums]

From his wiki page:

 

"Chopra coined the term quantum healing to invoke the idea of a process whereby a person's health "imbalance" is corrected by quantum mechanical means. Chopra claimed that quantum phenomena are responsible for health and wellbeing. He has attempted to integrate Ayurveda, a traditional Indian system of medicine, with quantum mechanics, in order to justify his teachings. According to Robert Carroll, he "charges $25,000 per lecture performance, where he spouts a few platitudes and gives spiritual advice while warning against the ill effects of materialism."^[36]"

 

^"In 1993, Chopra became executive director of the Sharp Institute for Human Potential and Mind–Body Medicine with a $30,000 grant from the Office of Alternative Medicine in the National Institutes to study Ayurvedic medicine.^[8] "

 

"Chopra wrote about the contrast between spirituality and science in his 2011 book War of the Worldviews - Science vs Spirituality, coauthored with Caltech Professor of Physics Leonard Mlodinow. In it he says he has a respect and admiration for the scientific method but he believes it has limitations and he contends there is a need for an expanded science that includes the reality and investigation of the observer, or consciousness.^[34][35]"

 

^"In August 2005, Chopra wrote a series of articles on the creation-evolution controversy and Intelligent design which were criticized by science writer Michael Shermer, founder of The Skeptics Society.^[78][79][80] Shermer has said that Chopra is "the very definition of what we mean by pseudoscience".^[81]"

 

etc

 

Personally I'm not being critical of him, I'm just pointing at him and laughing.

[FriendlyHacker]

Deepak Chopra does not really understand what he is talking about, Quantum Physics has became the new God of the gaps for spiritual people, they enjoy talking about how it can explain afterlife, mind reading and psychic powers, since they believe: Quantum Physics = Anything goes.

 

If you hear someone talking about how the multiverse, 11 dimensions, string theory and dark energy/matter can explain their spiritual beliefs, you can be sure that the person is full of shit, because not even Michio Kaku or Stephen Hawking actually understand what the hell those things are. They've never actually been directly observed, so right now it's a very curious possibility that enables Particle Physics to make mathematical sense, and have very accurate real world predictions.

 

It's like people have stumbled into some kind of buried artifact, and the more they dig in, more they understand what it is, though since they've just started digging, they don't know if the pointy uncovered tip is an iceberg or the hull of the Titanic.

 

It's funny that these people talk about Quantum Leaps, like if that represents something huge, when it's actually something happening at subatomic level.

[JSDev]

I have mixed feelings about Chopra. On the one hand, I know he's just making things up "WooFoo" as Michael Shermer likes to say. On the other hand, he comes across as sincere and a really engaging person to talk to. To use an overused sentiment... I'd have a beer with him.

[Pepin]

There is a quite annoying trend for self-help gurus to use physics terms in their theories. I can understand it as a metaphor, but those who like to pretend the metaphor is anything more are dumb. I was reading a book about emotional intelligence, and the book was quite good, but the authors went way overboard to make their advice and theories internally consistent with an semi-informed knowledge of quantum physics.

[Reason]

 

his son made a documentary about him.

[Kevin Beal]

These types of gurus claim to want you to get closer to your true self. What the effective result is of this non-dual type work is self erasure. The ego is bad, negative thoughts are you harming yourself and this sort of thing. Ironically it is these types of people who are the most egotistical and have the most toxic kinds of negative thoughts. It has the opposite effect they claim it does.

 

This is no accident. I've never met people so full of repressed rage as the kind of people who make anger out to be a bad thing. Instead of feeling their anger, they suppress it and it gets acted out unconsciously later. And like any "thinker" who has no real methodology, they have no genuine humility. They reject empiricism (as a general rule), the most arrogant of things that I could imagine.

 

What this kind of stuff does is pretend that the false self is the true self. It's a series of easy answers, instant gratification and is so sad. Their manufactured smiles fill me with deep sorrow.

 

I did a sort of socratic journey when I became an adult, asking the "enlightened" people of the large community of new age thinkers in my area what the basis of their conclusions were. And you get the same response you get from any mystical person: passive aggression and rage.

 

There is this quote from that time that has left a big impression on me:

 

 

 

If you have the choice between enlightenment and a million dollars, take the million dollars! Because if you get the million dollars, there will be somebody there to enjoy the million dollars; but if you get enlightenment there's no one there to enjoy the enlightenment.

 

Ironically it is those people who have become lifeless, in search of an enlightenment that is actually nothingness.

[FriendlyHacker]

These types of gurus claim to want you to get closer to your true self. What the effective result is of this non-dual type work is self erasure. The ego is bad, negative thoughts are you harming yourself and this sort of thing. Ironically it is these types of people who are the most egotistical and have the most toxic kinds of negative thoughts. It has the opposite effect they claim it does.

 

This is no accident. I've never met people so full of repressed rage as the kind of people who make anger out to be a bad thing. Instead of feeling their anger, they suppress it and it gets acted out unconsciously later. And like any "thinker" who has no real methodology, they have no genuine humility. They reject empiricism (as a general rule), the most arrogant of things that I could imagine.

 

What this kind of stuff does is pretend that the false self is the true self. It's a series of easy answers, instant gratification and is so sad. Their manufactured smiles fill me with deep sorrow.

 

I did a sort of socratic journey when I became an adult, asking the "enlightened" people of the large community of new age thinkers in my area what the basis of their conclusions were. And you get the same response you get from any mystical person: passive aggression and rage.

 

There is this quote from that time that has left a big impression on me:

 

 

 

 

Ironically it is those people who have become lifeless, in search of an enlightenment that is actually nothingness.

 

People want simplistic, easy to understand solutions, because dealing with the actual world is mind boggling complex. And more importantly, they want someone to blame their problems to. So some spiritual leader can come along and say:

 

"- Hey, this is really complex, but don't worry about it, I've done the thinking for you!"

 

That is why is easy for a dictator to come along, pick a scapegoat and control a whole country after that particular society has been broken. People are pissed and want to blame anyone but themselves:

 

"- It's those damn Latinos/Chinese/Jews/Arabs/Blacks/Women/Any group of people!"

[Kevin Beal]

People want simplistic, easy to understand solutions, because dealing with the actual world is mind boggling complex. And more importantly, they want someone to blame their problems to. So if some spiritual leader can come along and say:

 

"- Hey, this is really complex, but don't worry about it, I've done the thinking for you!"

 

That is why is easy for a dictator to come along, pick a scapegoat and control a whole country after that particular society has been broken. People are pissed and want to blame anyone but themselves:

 

"- It's those damn Latinos/Chinese/Jews/Arabs/Blacks/Women/Any group of people!"

Right, and that's why buddhism lends itself to dictatorship. It's all self erasing, mystical bullshit.

[FriendlyHacker]

When I say people, I obviously include myself. Often catch myself blaming politicians, religious leaders, bankers and warmongering scientists.

[Josh F]

Why aren't you critical of his philosophy?  How else do you know if it is true?

[CrazyCanuck]

 

 

This is no accident. I've never met people so full of repressed rage as the kind of people who make anger out to be a bad thing. Instead of feeling their anger, they suppress it and it gets acted out unconsciously later.

 

 

 

 

Do you realize anger reduces your life span?  I don't you get the point these people don't suppress anger.  Forgiveness and compassion stops them from getting angry.

Have you ever meditated for a while?  It can help you decrease stress and anger.  

 

Look Dalai Lama he was forced out of country leaving his friends and family.  He lost everything he had yet he stilled has compassion and he preaches it.  You have no proof that these people are suppressing their anger.  All you can do is speculate from your experiences not theirs.

[Kevin Beal]

Do you realize anger reduces your life span?  I don't you get the point these people don't suppress anger.  Forgiveness and compassion stops them from getting angry.

Have you ever meditated for a while?  It can help you decrease stress and anger.  

Stress reduces your lifespan for sure, not so sure about anger, but let's assume that it does for sake of argument. Anger can also increase your lifespan by informing you about unjust situations to the degree to which you take the appropriate action and get that injustice away from you, take care of it, so that it reduces your stress over the long term.

 

I haven't meditated in a while beyond simple breathing exercises which I do daily. It has had a good effect on my quality of life. I would also recommend that to people who haven't tried it.

 

If you are just (consciously) telling to yourself about compassion and forgiveness where it is not earned so as to reduce your stress level (and not because it's true), then that's, ... okay I guess albeit very weird, but if what you are doing is holding them up as virtues to avoid acting on real conflict, then that is the very definition of cowardice and is an exploitative co-dependent nightmare that I would reject vehemently.

 

You should check out the Introduction to Virtue series, Am I too mean? and Contempt podcasts for a deeper explanation.

 

 

 

Look Dalai Lama he was forced out of country leaving his friends and family.  He lost everything he had yet he stilled has compassion and he preaches it.  You have no proof that these people are suppressing their anger.  All you can do is speculate from your experiences not theirs.

"Speculate" implies that I don't have firm evidence. You are speculating that I don't have firm evidence.

[CrazyCanuck]

You speak about truth however truth is matter of perception.  What you see might not be necessarily correct.  So according to your theory a man that walks away from a guy that wants to fight is a coward.  It takes  more time and energy to have a compassionate and forgiving heart.  A lot more than despise, hate and vengence.  Bad things are easier to do however the good things to do can take a life time to master.

 

In martial arts we are taught anger works against us, anger causes us to lose focus or concentration.  We can deal with things without being angry.

 

The conflict is the inner demons among us.  Fear, hate and anger.  This is taught in martial arts.

 

 

 

"Speculate" implies that I don't have firm evidence. You are speculating that I don't have firm evidence.

If you had any evidence you would at least show it or if wasn't possible you would state why.    

[Kevin Beal]

You speak about truth however truth is matter of perception.  What you see might not be necessarily correct.

If truth were a matter of perception, then you would have no basis to correct me. My "perception" is then just as valid as yours. And of course I could be wrong. Do you think I believe that I'm always right? You must not think very highly of me, lol.

 

 

 

So according to your theory a man that walks away from a guy that wants to fight is a coward.

No, it would be cowardice if he pretended that there was no conflict there to begin with while walking away. Cowardice is self deception, not fear or non-aggression or whatever you are getting at.

 

 

 

It takes  more time and energy to have a compassionate and forgiving heart.  A lot more than despise, hate and vengence.  Bad things are easier to do however the good things to do can take a life time to master.

Not for a lot of people. I've met lots of people who are afraid of their own anger and have had to do a lot of work on themselves to regain it. Luckily I didn't have that problem because it's a very difficult one to overcome, especially with people like you making it out to be some kind of unenlightened, harmful emotion to be suppressed. Not that however long it takes to accomplish it means anything about it's importance or value. Just sayin'.

 

 

 

In martial arts we are taught anger works against us, anger causes us to lose focus or concentration.  We can deal with things without being angry. The conflict is the inner demons among us.  Fear, hate and anger.  This is taught in martial arts.

Okay. I know martial artists who would disagree with that and martial artists who seek out fights. And even if what you said were true, so what? Just because your teacher said something doesn't make it true or of value.

 

 

 

If you had any evidence you would at least show it or if wasn't possible you would state why.

You are right that I didn't provide evidence. Hopefully you can forgive me for offering anecdotal evidence, but that comment came from my experience of these kinds of people. Decades of exposure and maybe a decade of regular conversation on the topic. I think it would be a mistake to consider me ignorant. I grew up with it.

 

The reason that I say it's repressed anger is because (for one thing) people have told me that's what they do.

 

What I mean by suppression / repression:"Psychological repression, or simply repression, is the psychological attempt by an individual to repel one's own desires and impulses towards pleasurable instincts by excluding the desire from one's consciousness and holding or subduing it in the unconscious."

 

If you hold anger to be dangerous to your health, then you are going to repel it, and being that you cannot repel your actual true experience, your judgments, thoughts, emotions, feelings etc, then what the effective result of that is going to be is that it simply makes it unconscious rather than actually get rid of it.

 

Suppression is doing this consciously, and repression is when it's become such an ingrained habit that it never really reaches the level of consciousness.

 

What people have told me is that when they get angry they said they would use some sort of suppressive technique like thru distraction or dissociation. So that looked like a particular kind of meditation, the neti neti "not this not this" meditation for example. This isn't always bad, nor is suppression always bad. It's just a problem when people use it to the point where they are avoiding legitimate issues or it becomes repression so that they no longer have conscious control over it.

[CrazyCanuck]

[Kevin Beal]

Okay, so I can totally empathize with the fact that I implied some degree of cowardice before and how any person would take offense to that. Maybe I should have chosen my words more wisely.

 

I'm sure that you wouldn't be saying what you are saying unless you had some reason to, and while although your name suggests that you are crazy, you as a person are in all likelihood not crazy.

 

Your message has a ton of white space, strange editing, misspellings, things said without any context, and so I'm afraid I can't really comment on your last response, but I would like to say that there is one thing that I think is super important that I would really like you to consider even if it's antithetical to your position (as I understand it). And that is this point about making making virtues out of forgiveness and compassion.

 

Forgiveness and compassion are all well and good where they have been earned, but there is often a case where they are preached in cases where they have not only not been earned, but where the other party has no intention of earning it. This is a very dangerous thing and having been party to and witnessed many cases where this happened, I can tell you that it's a terrible thing that leads inevitably to exploitation of one kind or another.

 

Whether we like it or not, people respond to incentives and if you treat people like they can do you injustices and you will always forgive them and show them compassion, they are much more likely to repeat that. It is not a kindness that you do to people by forgiving them when they haven't earned it. Instead you are enabling them. They are probably not conscious of this exploitation, but by offering unconditional forgiveness you are also unconscious of the truth that this is passive aggression on your part toward them by encouraging them to be nasty people.

 

And to whatever degree this is true is the degree to which it is bad.

 

This may not describe you at all, but it does describe many people and that is what I'm referring to with the comments that I've made.

 

Regardless of whether or not this does apply to you, the podcasts I suggested are quite good and relevant.

 

Hope that is clarifying.

[CrazyCanuck]

Quote feature on this site is pretty buggy since I'm new I just don't know how to use them.  Give me time to repost.  Too bad I can't delete a post.

Okay, so I can totally empathize with the fact that I implied some degree of cowardice before and how any person would take offense to that. Maybe I should have chosen my words more wisely.

 

I'm sure that you wouldn't be saying what you are saying unless you had some reason to, and while although your name suggests that you are crazy, you as a person are in all likelihood not crazy.

 

Your message has a ton of white space, strange editing, misspellings, things said without any context, and so I'm afraid I can't really comment on your last response, but I would like to say that there is one thing that I think is super important that I would really like you to consider even if it's antithetical to your position (as I understand it). And that is this point about making making virtues out of forgiveness and compassion.

 

Forgiveness and compassion are all well and good where they have been earned, but there is often a case where they are preached in cases where they have not only not been earned, but where the other party has no intention of earning it. This is a very dangerous thing and having been party to and witnessed many cases where this happened, I can tell you that it's a terrible thing that leads inevitably to exploitation of one kind or another.

 

Whether we like it or not, people respond to incentives and if you treat people like they can do you injustices and you will always forgive them and show them compassion, they are much more likely to repeat that. It is not a kindness that you do to people by forgiving them when they haven't earned it. Instead you are enabling them. They are probably not conscious of this exploitation, but by offering unconditional forgiveness you are also unconscious of the truth that this is passive aggression on your part toward them by encouraging them to be nasty people.

 

And to whatever degree this is true is the degree to which it is bad.

 

This may not describe you at all, but it does describe many people and that is what I'm referring to with the comments that I've made.

 

Regardless of whether or not this does apply to you, the podcasts I suggested are quite good and relevant.

 

Hope that is clarifying.

 

 

 

We only live about 80 years if you're lucky around 100 years.  A person can take advantage of me.  They can take money, my belongings and stuff.  But they can not steal my heart.  I usually give people chances for benefit of doubt.  It gets to be too much I will stop contacting with them but there's no thoughts of negativity towards them.  Of course I still do get angry but it's less and less.  The smaller stuff i don't get angry about because I have worked at it.  The bigger stuff I need to work on.  When i get angry I get stressed.  When I feel I'm wronged I feel stressed when I let things go and see it to improve my moral character I feel better.  If feels like a ton of bricks is off my chest.

 

 

Btw I wasn't offended.  I think the quoting feature was giving me a hard time. lol  People have called me a coward, stupid and all those things without proving their point.  Been called stupid frequently when people don't have anything else useful to say.  i don't get upset over petty things and I'm getting better at the biggest things in life.

 

I ask you to do the rice experiment, only then you will see what I  mean.  http://www.billybeck.com/mental-conditioning/the-rice-experiment-this-will-blow-your-mind/

 

Let me ask you this what do you value more?  Virtue or money/material goods.  If you value virtue more than what you say doesn't really matter.  If you fear losing these things only give what are willing to lose.  You can stop dealing with people who take advantage of you without feeling being wrong and wanting them to suffer.  These people suffer in the long run because what they want isn't lasting.  Maybe when you grow older you will enlighten to what I am saying. 

 

Every conflict is a learning process for me.  A valuable tool.  Nothing is truly lost for me because I don't truly have anything to lose.

 

 

 

If truth were a matter of perception, then you would have no basis to correct me. My "perception" is then just as valid as yours. And of course I could be wrong. Do you think I believe that I'm always right? You must not think very highly of me, lol.

 

 

 

 

Whatever you think is correct is real for you but that doesn't mean what is happening is the truth.  Your emotion is at play so you might be able to clearly, this can certainly be the case if you are angry, agitated etc.

 

 

Okay. I know martial artists who would disagree with that and martial artists who seek out fights. And even if what you said were true, so what? Just because your teacher said something doesn't make it true or of value.

 

 

 

 

"Japanese martial arts reveal the character of the practitioner and should express a spirit of loving protection for all beings"

 

 

 

http://aishinkai.com/Ethics_in_Martial_Arts.html

 

Chinese martial arts are not only the means of self defense or mental training but also dealt with the system of morality and ethics. Wude in Chinese means ‘martial morality’; it mainly deals with ‘morality of deed’ and ‘morality of mind’. Morality of deed mainly concerns with the social relations while morality of mind is primarily concern with the cultivation of inner harmony between the emotional mind and the wisdom mind. The following article briefly discuss about the morality in Chinese martial arts.

 

 

The other ethics of Chinese martial arts also mainly concerns with moral conduct and manners. While learning Chinese martial skills or arts one should cultivate fine qualities. The other important points that should be included in the Chinese martial arts ethics is the respect for teacher and care for each other. Modesty and eagerness is also a part of morality in Chinese martial arts. Everyone should learn from each other to improve and be united and cooperative with each other. Martial ethics also includes freedom from personal grudges, persistence and perseverance.

 

 

 

http://martialfunk.com/basic-issue-of-morality-in-chinese.html

 

 

 

I like to point out  I don't follow his work due to the fact Ayurveda is related to hinduism.  Hinduism is a mixed religion.   

 

 

When Sakyamuni founded this cultivation way, there were eight religions prevailing in India at the same time. There was a deeply-rooted religion called Brahmanism. Throughout his lifetime, Sakyamuni battled ideologically with other religions. Because what Sakyamuni taught was a righteous way, the Buddhist Dharma that he taught became more and more popular in the course of teaching while other religions increasingly weakened. Even the deeply-rooted Brahmanism was on the brink of extinction. After Sakyamuni’s nirvana,³  however, other religions, especially Brahmanism, regained popularity.                                               http://www.falundafa.org/book/eng/lecture3.html

[Mishelle]

Depak has been a very big influence on me in the past!  I've read almost all of his early works and even went to a book signing once, something I've done about twice ever.

 

I really stand by this kind of teaching though I do understand why most in this community would not, and how these teachings can be dangerous.  There is the erasure of the ego thing that makes it sound like a sheep-training camp.  

 

But, have you ever had this physical experience?  If you have not experienced it through some means, whatever it might be, then you cannot understand how powerful it is and how much it alters your life and thinking for the better.  

 

What I learned from him and his kind in the New Age circles is that you've got to spend dedicated specific time in the realm of possibility.  Where else growing up could I have learned this considering everything in my world was trying to push me into the very distorted box of "reality"?  For myself, I could not have found the path of self-knowledge strictly through the intellect.  These teachings don't have to make any rational sense at all, that's how powerful they are, just like religion.

 

Transcendence, oneness, connection, united with a higher power, whatever you want to call it, the reality is, lots of people still need it to evolve and stay on the path of the true self.  When I'm feeling hopeless and the world is just too far gone and I'm powerless to change it, first I get myself back inside possibility with some meditation or good cheesey new age hype, and afterward I turn Stef back on.  

[CrazyCanuck]

Depak has been a very big influence on me in the past!  I've read almost all of his early works and even went to a book signing once, something I've done about twice ever.

 

I really stand by this kind of teaching though I do understand why most in this community would not, and how these teachings can be dangerous.  There is the erasure of the ego thing that makes it sound like a sheep-training camp.  

 

But, have you ever had this physical experience?  If you have not experienced it through some means, whatever it might be, then you cannot understand how powerful it is and how much it alters your life and thinking for the better.  

 

What I learned from him and his kind in the New Age circles is that you've got to spend dedicated specific time in the realm of possibility.  Where else growing up could I have learned this considering everything in my world was trying to push me into the very distorted box of "reality"?  For myself, I could not have found the path of self-knowledge strictly through the intellect.  These teachings don't have to make any rational sense at all, that's how powerful they are, just like religion.

 

Transcendence, oneness, connection, united with a higher power, whatever you want to call it, the reality is, lots of people still need it to evolve and stay on the path of the true self.  When I'm feeling hopeless and the world is just too far gone and I'm powerless to change it, first I get myself back inside possibility with some meditation or good cheesey new age hype, and afterward I turn Stef back on.  

Question, how can you be so into sex and yet be so spiritual?

[Mishelle]

I think sex and spirituality are intrinsic aspects of the creative drive, to me it makes perfect sense to cultivate them among other avenues like philosophy for evolving the self.

[Seleneccentric]

Question, how can you be so into sex and yet be so spiritual?

 

Am I understanding rightly that you see sexuality as inconsistent with spirituality? Do you think you could explain that a bit more?

[CrazyCanuck]

Am I understanding rightly that you see sexuality as inconsistent with spirituality? Do you think you could explain that a bit more?

My understanding  the mind and body needs to be pure.  If you have lust and other sexual desires your mind isn't clean.  According some religions I say that because I don't obviously know about all religions is that sex is supposed to be used for procreation.    

[Kevin Beal]

Let me ask you this what do you value more?  Virtue or money/material goods.  If you value virtue more than what you say doesn't really matter.  If you fear losing these things only give what are willing to lose.  You can stop dealing with people who take advantage of you without feeling being wrong and wanting them to suffer.  These people suffer in the long run because what they want isn't lasting.  Maybe when you grow older you will enlighten to what I am saying. 

There is a surprising amount packed into this one paragraph.

 

I value virtue more and what I say absolutely does matter. I cannot change reality because I say something that contradicts it, my words don't have primacy over reality, but what I say totally matters.

 

I do fear losing things and by default I don't put myself out there very much, but when I begin to trust someone (or myself more) I choose to be more vulnerable making the stakes higher but the payoff bigger.

 

It's true that I can stop dealing with someone without holding a grudge, but that's not at all what I've been talking about. The anger is the motivator to take that appropriate action. If you don't feel angry, then you are not likely to fully get the impact of that injustice and you run the risk of repetition. You cannot just get it intellectually, you need to get it emotionally as well.

 

"Maybe when you grow older you will enlighten to what I am saying"

 

Okay, then how about you try psychotherapy or study the psychology of your own mind with a professional and then tell me if there really is a distinction between suppression / repression and what you're doing with your anger. I really don't think that there is.

 

This comment cements that conclusion for me. You probably did not mean it to be passive aggressive, but that would be because you've repressed your anger and it gets acted out in ways you are not conscious of.

 

All comments like "you'll understand when you're older" ever do is elicit self doubt in people. Most of the time only because the person saying it cannot demonstrate what they are saying and use it as a kind of smoke screen, to blind their enemy as they make their escape.

 

You know I won't be satisfied with that as a response, you know that I vehemently disagree with your thesis, so why? Why the comment?

[CrazyCanuck]

There is a surprising amount packed into this one paragraph.

 

I value virtue more and what I say absolutely does matter. I cannot change reality because I say something that contradicts it, my words don't have primacy over reality, but what I say totally matters.

 

I do fear losing things and by default I don't put myself out there very much, but when I begin to trust someone (or myself more) I choose to be more vulnerable making the stakes higher but the payoff bigger.

 

It's true that I can stop dealing with someone without holding a grudge, but that's not at all what I've been talking about. The anger is the motivator to take that appropriate action. If you don't feel angry, then you are not likely to fully get the impact of that injustice and you run the risk of repetition. You cannot just get it intellectually, you need to get it emotionally as well.

 

"Maybe when you grow older you will enlighten to what I am saying"

 

Okay, then how about you try psychotherapy or study the psychology of your own mind with a professional and then tell me if there really is a distinction between suppression / repression and what you're doing with your anger. I really don't think that there is.

 

This comment cements that conclusion for me. You probably did not mean it to be passive aggressive, but that would be because you've repressed your anger and it gets acted out in ways you are not conscious of.

 

All comments like "you'll understand when you're older" ever do is elicit self doubt in people. Most of the time only because the person saying it cannot demonstrate what they are saying and use it as a kind of smoke screen, to blind their enemy as they make their escape.

 

You know I won't be satisfied with that as a response, you know that I vehemently disagree with your thesis, so why? Why the comment?

 

There is a surprising amount packed into this one paragraph.

 

I value virtue more and what I say absolutely does matter. I cannot change reality because I say something that contradicts it, my words don't have primacy over reality, but what I say totally matters.

 

I do fear losing things and by default I don't put myself out there very much, but when I begin to trust someone (or myself more) I choose to be more vulnerable making the stakes higher but the payoff bigger.

 

It's true that I can stop dealing with someone without holding a grudge, but that's not at all what I've been talking about. The anger is the motivator to take that appropriate action. If you don't feel angry, then you are not likely to fully get the impact of that injustice and you run the risk of repetition. You cannot just get it intellectually, you need to get it emotionally as well.

 

"Maybe when you grow older you will enlighten to what I am saying"

 

Okay, then how about you try psychotherapy or study the psychology of your own mind with a professional and then tell me if there really is a distinction between suppression / repression and what you're doing with your anger. I really don't think that there is.

 

This comment cements that conclusion for me. You probably did not mean it to be passive aggressive, but that would be because you've repressed your anger and it gets acted out in ways you are not conscious of.

 

All comments like "you'll understand when you're older" ever do is elicit self doubt in people. Most of the time only because the person saying it cannot demonstrate what they are saying and use it as a kind of smoke screen, to blind their enemy as they make their escape.

 

You know I won't be satisfied with that as a response, you know that I vehemently disagree with your thesis, so why? Why the comment?

 

 

You are using anger as you way of dealing with things.  I can say it's not a good way.  Remember you been aggressive at me before?  Not trying to make you feel bad but I just want to point that out.  I have been angry in the past and not a single time did it makes things better it got worse.  If I stayed angry it would build up.  That's a good way to deal with things.  How can you think clearly when you are angry at any degree.  This just doesn't make any sense.

 

 

As for you will understand when you get older means you will more experience.  Experience takes time.  I have friends much older than me and have taught me a lot of things I wouldn't come across if I interact with my peers.  If you're this aggressive at me are you this aggressive with your own children maybe not now but in the future.  Children rebel when they get older and will have disagreements.  For your own sake please keep your anger under control.  I don't like to see people angry.

[Kevin Beal]

You are using anger as you way of dealing with things.  I can say it's not a good way.  Remember you been aggressive at me before?  Not trying to make you feel bad but I just want to point that out.  I have been angry in the past and not a single time did it makes things better it got worse.  If I stayed angry it would build up.  That's a good way to deal with things.  How can you think clearly when you are angry at any degree.  This just doesn't make any sense.

I don't "use" anger, I get angry. And I wasn't angry with you. I stand behind everything that I said, I just realized that the implication of cowardice was something anyone would take offense to (including me) so your response (which I interpreted as angry) made more sense. I didn't say you were a coward, I said that behavior of avoiding necessary conflict by creating virtues out of forgiveness / compassion was cowardly, and I'm not wrong.

 

As far as anger needing to provide a practical benefit, I don't think that's true either. People's joy can get them in trouble, so we shouldn't have joy either? You get that's not a very good argument, right?

 

Anger is an emotion, not an action. It's there whatever you try and do with it. If you don't feel it when you should then that's a serious problem and I say this partly out of concern. If you don't feel heat then when you put your hand on the stove accidentally you could do some serious damage to yourself. And the fact that you tell me that you no longer feel anger (after I expressed serious concerns about repression) then that's a big red flag for me. Especially since you do not seem to understand what repression is.

 

The fact that you ignored my point entirely in the next paragraph and double down is sadly predictable given the what I said about repression.

 

 

 

As for you will understand when you get older means you will more experience.  Experience takes time.  I have friends much older than me and have taught me a lot of things I wouldn't come across if I interact with my peers.  If you're this aggressive at me are you this aggressive with your own children maybe not now but in the future.  Children rebel when they get older and will have disagreements.  For your own sake please keep your anger under control.  I don't like to see people angry.

You either do not understand what I said or you are being kinda like a condescending jerk. I told you exactly how I experience this comment, and yet you repeat it.

 

And that's what passive aggression is a lot of the time. It's repressed rage.

 

When you do not acknowledge your own feelings / experience, you inevitably deny people theirs through passive (or overt) aggression.

 

I get irritated when people ignore the important parts of what I'm saying and then go on to dismiss me with cliches and unsolicited and condescending advice.

 

I'm conscious of the fact that I'm irritated and I've decided to share that with you in order to demonstrate the difference.

 

I'm not abusing you. I'm not stressed out. I'm simply being honest.

 

Here are some podcasts on anger:

 

425 – Anger And Evolution

http://cdn.media.freedomainradio.com/feed/FDR_425_Anger_And_Evolution.mp3

 

352 – The Difference Between Anger and Rage

http://cdn.media.freedomainradio.com/feed/FDR_352_Anger_Versus_Rage.mp3

 

1187 – Sympathy versus Anger

http://cdn.media.freedomainradio.com/feed/FDR_1187_Sympathy_vs_Anger.mp3

 

363 – The Joy of Anger Part 1 & 2

http://cdn.media.freedomainradio.com/feed/FDR_363_The_Joy_Of_Anger_Part_1.mp3

http://cdn.media.freedomainradio.com/feed/FDR_364_The_Joy_Of_Anger_Part_2.mp3

[kalmia]

I am not that familiar with this guy beyond people ridiculing him, but I do think there is value in collapsing the ego. I don't mean permanently, but we are not aware of the parts of ourselves and how they affect us unless we alter or stimulate them in some way. My ego, and the filters surrounding it, is part of who I am. Denying it would be to deny myself. To not be aware of how it controls me is to be controlled by the influences that built it. 

 

I am a bit into some other spiritual types that might be considered New Age in a way. I can see their flaws, but that does not prevent me from learning from them. I wonder if some focus so much on the flaws of certain teachers out of some desire to prove their own superiority. I'm not promoting Chopra. I will admit I have a negative prejudice of him after hearing so much about how he is wrong. Maybe hearing lots of "quantum" this and that might get to me too.

[CrazyCanuck]

I don't "use" anger, I get angry. And I wasn't angry with you. I stand behind everything that I said, I just realized that the implication of cowardice was something anyone would take offense to (including me) so your response (which I interpreted as angry) made more sense. I didn't say you were a coward, I said that behavior of avoiding necessary conflict by creating virtues out of forgiveness / compassion was cowardly, and I'm not wrong.

 

As far as anger needing to provide a practical benefit, I don't think that's true either. People's joy can get them in trouble, so we shouldn't have joy either? You get that's not a very good argument, right?

 

Anger is an emotion, not an action. It's there whatever you try and do with it. If you don't feel it when you should then that's a serious problem and I say this partly out of concern. If you don't feel heat then when you put your hand on the stove accidentally you could do some serious damage to yourself. And the fact that you tell me that you no longer feel anger (after I expressed serious concerns about repression) then that's a big red flag for me. Especially since you do not seem to understand what repression is.

 

The fact that you ignored my point entirely in the next paragraph and double down is sadly predictable given the what I said about repression.

 

 

 

You either do not understand what I said or you are being kinda like a condescending jerk. I told you exactly how I experience this comment, and yet you repeat it.

 

And that's what passive aggression is a lot of the time. It's repressed rage.

 

When you do not acknowledge your own feelings / experience, you inevitably deny people theirs through passive (or overt) aggression.

 

I get irritated when people ignore the important parts of what I'm saying and then go on to dismiss me with cliches and unsolicited and condescending advice.

 

I'm conscious of the fact that I'm irritated and I've decided to share that with you in order to demonstrate the difference.

 

I'm not abusing you. I'm not stressed out. I'm simply being honest.

 

Here are some podcasts on anger:

 

 

 

 

 

Now you are calling me names out of anger?   You are not me and I'm not you.  I thought anger was ok.  However the more I see it it is not a good thing.  You say you're not angry with me but you call me names.   Yes anger is an emotional state however you can choose not to get angry.  You can decide to use your other emotions.   There is a process of getting to the emotion of anger.  You can use anger as you can use your other emotions.  I don't deny my feelings I am in fact smiling and even laughed a little bit now.  Not to upset you just that I can decide my emotion.  And I don't anger angry that much anymore and sure there will be times I do because I need to work on them.  I can get peeved or mildly annoyed.  I can use these things.  I am transforming anger not suppressing them.

 

Since you have virtue in your signature I like to say something about it.  Here is the definition of virtue.

 

Virtue (Latin: virtus, Ancient Greek: ἀρετή "arete") is moral excellence. A virtue is a positive trait or quality deemed to be morally good and thus is valued as a foundation of principle and good moral being. Personal virtues are characteristics valued as promoting collective and individual greatness.

 

 

I like to know how anger is morally good and how great anger is.  Anger is the reason why parents hit their children.  Anger is the reason why people there's violent crimes.  How is this deemed morally good and valued?  

[Kevin Beal]

I like to know how anger is morally good and how great anger is.  Anger is the reason why parents hit their children.  Anger is the reason why people there's violent crimes.  How is this deemed morally good and valued?  

This is like saying that grief is the reason war torn villages hate war. You have the cause and effect all messed up. Anger does not cause violence. Anger is involved in child abuse and violent crime, sure, but it's also the reason we get so fundamentally how evil those things are.

 

This is like those people who say that without god, we would have no morals and we'd go around raping kittens and blowing up orphanages. If we let ourselves feel anger then all hell will break loose (ostensibly).

 

But I don't go around hurting people when I get angry.

 

When people make such blanket universal statements, they are often talking about themselves (i.e. psychological projection), so I feel like I've gotta ask you. Do you have a history of violence? Are you suddenly violent when you get angry? Do you lose all self control when you get angry? Cause those are all markers of repressed rage, and that's exactly what I've been talking about since my first post in this thread.

 

This idea that this self erasing pseudo-buddhistic nonsense somehow makes people less violent is something people should reject completely. It's not true, and it never was. It's a slave morality like the christian notion of "turn the other cheek". It's been used to fight wars, commit ethnic cleansing, it's toxic stuff.

[Kaki]

I grew up in a household where it was not safe for me to express and ultimately feel my anger. I learned from very early on that I had to repress feelings of anger or I would end up in a very threatening situation. It took me years to finally connect to my anger again.

 

I can only echo Kevin in saying that (healthy) anger can't be overestimated.

 

While repressing anger was useful for my survival as a child it did me a lot of damage as well. When repressing my anger I was very often unable to set boundaries and to see the wrongs people did to me. Not having anger put me again and again in situations where I felt guilty or ashamed for something that was actually unjust against me!

 

Instead of Anger, which would have greatly helped me to remove myself from humiliating, unjust or more general abusive situations, I felt anxious, passive, afraid and ashamed. Also walking away from people or situations didn't resolve these feelings. I simply repressed anger. Anger is the emotions which would have moved me to action to help myself, not to feeling lost and at fault.

 

Just winning my anger back was difficult, scary and very uncomfortable. I wasn't even aware how much I had repressed it, that it was really there and that I had acted it out in more subtle unconscious ways.

 

Feeling anger doesn't mean that I will act like an insane Rumpelstiltskin. It gives me very clear and helpful indications that my needs are not being met. I can always check in with my emotions and be attentive to them. When doing this I do not lose my rationality. I can always ask myself "Is my anger authentic?" "Am I overreacting or is my anger appropriate to the situation?"

 

I found that anger is invaluable to identify injustice and toxic people and situations. It is needed to put the responsibility where it belongs and is a very important tool to have.

 

Again, let me make this clear: there is a difference between authentic anger and misplaced anger. I do certainly not think it is healthy to scream on top of your lungs at the car in front of you when the driver doesn't immediately start moving. Acting out misplaced anger is, as I see it, ultimately just as unhelpful as not feeling any anger. (The difference being that in the first you might be more likely to be abusive towards others while the latter might take a detour through self-abuse.)

 

CrazyCanuck, when you say that anger is the reason for violent crimes, you are onto something but miss to differentiate between authentic anger and misplaced anger. When a teenager smashes a window out of anger/rage I would take the guess that he is not actually angry at something the window did to him. He is misplacing his anger. It would be healthy for this teenager to be angry (and angry doesn't equal violent!) at the person who treated him unjust or angry because of a need which he didn't get met. In a healthy scenario he could be using the energy resulting from anger to change something about his situation, to get help from outside or process is experience in a much more productive way.

 

[CrazyCanuck]

This is like saying that grief is the reason war torn villages hate war. You have the cause and effect all messed up. Anger does not cause violence. Anger is involved in child abuse and violent crime, sure, but it's also the reason we get so fundamentally how evil those things are.

 

This is like those people who say that without god, we would have no morals and we'd go around raping kittens and blowing up orphanages. If we let ourselves feel anger then all hell will break loose (ostensibly).

 

But I don't go around hurting people when I get angry.

 

When people make such blanket universal statements, they are often talking about themselves (i.e. psychological projection), so I feel like I've gotta ask you. Do you have a history of violence? Are you suddenly violent when you get angry? Do you lose all self control when you get angry? Cause those are all markers of repressed rage, and that's exactly what I've been talking about since my first post in this thread.

 

This idea that this self erasing pseudo-buddhistic nonsense somehow makes people less violent is something people should reject completely. It's not true, and it never was. It's a slave morality like the christian notion of "turn the other cheek". It's been used to fight wars, commit ethnic cleansing, it's toxic stuff.

 

 

Are you saying parents that abused their children aren't angry?  You might they are in a good mood when abusing their child physically, mentally, emotionally and sexually?  Why are you asking me?  It's Stefan brings the topic of how violence allows the control of the people.  If you call sparring with others because I practice martial arts violence?  I don't know, we don't hurt each other nor do we get angry.  Even when someone trying to rob me with a knife I wasn't angry.  I was cool and calm and not even afraid.  I did end up beating this person because this person was going stab someone.

 

You do not have to be violent to hurt people.  You can hurt someone's feelings verbally.  I'm sure you already know that.

 

As for your religious bashing show me the evidence/proof.  

 

CrazyCanuck, when you say that anger is the reason for violent crimes, you are onto something but miss to differentiate between authentic anger and misplaced anger. When a teenager smashes a window out of anger/rage I would take the guess that he is not actually angry at something the window did to him. He is misplacing his anger. It would be healthy for this teenager to be angry (and angry doesn't equal violent!) at the person who treated him unjust or angry because of a need which he didn't get met. In a healthy scenario he could be using the energy resulting from anger to change something about his situation, to get help from outside or process is experience in a much more productive way.

Sounds like you're making stuff up.  Nothing I can find on authentic anger or misplaced anger.  Here are the types of anger:  http://louisville.edu/counseling/topics/anger.html/when.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anger   http://www.angermanagementnyc.com/types-of-anger

 

 

 

 

 

According to the Cognitive Behavior Theory, anger is a consequence of many causes such as cognitive, social/or behavioral models that we have learned from others, the lack of social skills and problem solving strategies, and several biological factors. The main cause of anger is represented by our irrational perceptions and evaluations of situations when our rights and goals are apparently broken. Put in simpler terms, thoughts are the underlying factor of anger.

According to the Rational Emotive Behavior Therapy (REBT), introduced in 1955 by Albert Ellis, irrational evaluative beliefs such as "Things must be the way I want”, or "Others must do what I tell them to do”, combined with a low-frustration tolerance (LFT) (e.g. "if they don’t do it I can't stand it”) cause anger and lead to aggressive behavior. To describe a belief as self-defeating or irrational is to say that:

• It distorts reality (it is a misinterpretation of the reality) or it involves some illogical ways of evaluating yourself, others, and the world around you: awfulising, can’t-stand-it-itis, demanding and people-rating; 

• It prevents you from achieving your goals and purposes; 

• It creates extreme emotions which persist, cause distress, and immobilize;

• It leads to behaviors that may harm yourself, others, and your life in general.

 

vents and circumstances alone do not trigger anger. This feeling is a direct consequence of how people perceive reality. Experts have identified four types of thinking that typically lead to dysfunctional anger:

1. Inferential distortions such as mind-reading, fortune-telling, filtering, and emotional reasoning lead people into misinterpreting the facts and thereby classifying normal events as goal-threatening. People affected by such distortions are more prone than others to interpret events or other people's actions as threats to their goal achievement or as attacks to their dignity, rules or property. Such distortions result in increased levels of irritation and/or frustration and ultimately lead to dysfunctional anger. Misinterpretations are followed by self-defeating evaluations.

2. Awfulising and discomfort-intolerance (often called 'cant-stand-it-itis’).

Anger frequently results from anxiety and violence often represents an attempt to ward off perceived threats. REBT suggests that such threats may be of two types: 

• perceived threats to well-being (discomfort anxiety); 

• perceived threats to self-image (ego anxiety).

3. Expectations held as demands.

Demands typically lead to low-frustration tolerance - a key cause of dysfunctional anger. This kind of behavior can manifest itself in different ways, such as: 

• a tendency to moralize people on how they 'should’ or 'should not’ behave; 

• the presence of a deeply rooted belief that the world or one’s circumstances 'have’ to or 'need’ to be exactly as expected.

4. Global rating of other people.

Labeling a person as a 'bitch’, 'bastard’, or applying her/him some other all-encompassing makes it easier to be angry with that person.

 

 

 

http://www.conselis.com/anger-management/articles/main-causes-of-anger.php

 

So much for reality.  

[Kaki]

Sounds like you're making stuff up.

 

Well if that isn't passive aggressive...

[CrazyCanuck]

Well if that isn't passive aggressive...

I said it sounds like you made stuff up since I'm looked for those terms or even remotely close with types of anger.  What am  I suppose to say?  If I said you're making sounds up that's a different story.  I am suppose to prove my points here and I expect the same.

[Kevin Beal]

@CrazyCanuck

 

Your quotations are within the context of anger management. Somebody who has insufficient ways of dealing with their anger are the people that this is written for.

 

This distinction between using your anger productively and using it destructively (as Kaki points out) is the difference between somebody who needs anger management training and somebody who is justly angry with an unjust situation. The distinction is made to highlight another distinction: emotions are not actions.

 

For instance, a person who has had issues with being put down or humiliated for experiencing joy as a child may develop defenses around the genuine experience of joy that they feel later on as adults, and with their joy they become spastic or anxious and act it out in some way that offends or just puts people off in some way. We wouldn't say then that joy is the problem, right?

 

You said that anger causes violence, but that's not even what your quotations say. The author even makes this distinction that Kaki did when they say that it's the thoughts that lead to aggression and not the anger itself.

 

I work with a professional psychologist twice weekly who knows about the importance of anger and the inevitable problems that arise from suppressing it intimately. So if your quotations are proof, then an actual professional is even greater proof.

 

The CBT model as described in your quotation does not make anger out to be the problem, but the associated thoughts. Do you understand that?

[CrazyCanuck]

@CrazyCanuck

 

Your quotations are within the context of anger management. Somebody who has insufficient ways of dealing with their anger are the people that this is written for.

 

This distinction between using your anger productively and using it destructively (as Kaki points out) is the difference between somebody who needs anger management training and somebody who is justly angry with an unjust situation. The distinction is made to highlight another distinction: emotions are not actions.

 

For instance, a person who has had issues with being put down or humiliated for experiencing joy as a child may develop defenses around the genuine experience of joy that they feel later on as adults, and with their joy they become spastic or anxious and act it out in some way that offends or just puts people off in some way. We wouldn't say then that joy is the problem, right?

 

You said that anger causes violence, but that's not even what your quotations say. The author even makes this distinction that Kaki did when they say that it's the thoughts that lead to aggression and not the anger itself.

 

I work with a professional psychologist twice weekly who knows about the importance of anger and the inevitable problems that arise from suppressing it intimately. So if your quotations are proof, then an actual professional is even greater proof.

 

The CBT model as described in your quotation does not make anger out to be the problem, but the associated thoughts. Do you understand that?

I know that, we are talking violence is caused by anger, that's why I quoted them, of course that's not always the case.   You can not think clearly with any type of anger.  Passive or aggressive.  I'm not suppressing anger it's more like transforming before it leads to that.  I do get angry but my goal is eventually not get angry at all.  I only know of person that has never gotten angry and that's my brother in law.  Not because they way you acts around me but what he says and what my sister tells me about him.