[NF] If Anger is Taboo, is Deep Thought Possible?

[heart]

"To think deeply in our culture is to grow angry and to anger others; and if you cannot tolerate this anger, you are wasting the time you spend thinking deeply. One of the rewards to deep thought is the hot glow of anger at discovering a wrong, but if anger is taboo, thought will starve to death."

-Jules Henry


Thoughts on this?

 

[Bamboo]

Deep thought seems incompatible with intense anger.

It's far more effective to accept the situation, and arrive at what what your next action is, and do it. Use that anger as an energy source to change the situation - it is an effective motivator - but don't be too surprised if you get burnt out, depressed, corrupted, or the situation blows up in your face as a result.

 

[Phoenix_400]

I agree with Bamboo over using anger as an energy source. Even negative emotions, channeled properly, can have positive effects.

My problem with the quote in the OP is the use of the word 'anger'. It just doesn't feel right to me. If you replace 'anger' with 'passion' however, then we're getting somewhere.

You have to be passionate about your values or they'll crumble without that strength. You have to be passionate about a cause to truly make a difference. Without passion, you're just going through the motions. One way passion can manifest itself is as anger though.

Its not just 'anger' the quote refers to, but more of a 'Righteous Anger', the anger at a wrong which must be righted. I believe that kind of anger depends on what is being contemplated but is not necessary for ALL deep thought.

...Yeah, I think the quote narrowed in on the wrong emotion.

 

[JivinJeffJones]

Sounds like complete bollocks to me. I don't think deep thought necessarily produces or attracts anger, and I don't think anger is taboo. I'm guessing Jules Henry was an angry man.

 

[velocity]

anger is associated with loss. we all "grow up," whatever that means, and confront our finitudes and limitations. paradigm shifts, thistles and thorns, bleeding hands. anger can become confining however (liberation - confinement, womb/tomb theme) when we become comfortable in condemnation.

 

[Chunes]

"To think deeply in our culture is to grow angry and to anger others; and if you cannot tolerate this anger, you are wasting the time you spend thinking deeply. One of the rewards to deep thought is the hot glow of anger at discovering a wrong, but if anger is taboo, thought will starve to death."

-Jules Henry


Thoughts on this?

This sounds like the personal justification of a flaw more than anything.

 

[Totenkindly]

"To think deeply in our culture is to grow angry and to anger others; and if you cannot tolerate this anger, you are wasting the time you spend thinking deeply. One of the rewards to deep thought is the hot glow of anger at discovering a wrong, but if anger is taboo, thought will starve to death." -Jules Henry

Thoughts on this?

Yes -- what's the context, if any?

 

[disregard]

Deep thought seems incompatible with intense anger.

Precisely my thought

 

[MVE]

"our culture"

Which culture? There isn't only one.

 

[Siúil a Rúin]

Anger motivates towards action moreso than thought, I think. It is a useful emotion in unifying people towards an action. This can result in the common good or the common destruction, but it is powerful for motivation.

Some people might integrate emotion into their thinking as their natural course, and in that case it would not make sense to push that person towards compartmentalization. I don't think a personal style can be projected onto others though. Deep thought also results from detachment as much as involvement, but the nature of the thoughts can be different. I suspect that deep thought involving strong emotion is based on a strong attachment to one's place in reality. Deep thought resulting from letting go of emotion and attachment will tend to view one's place in reality from a distance. Detachment is more likely to view the big picture than intense involvement. It is an assumption to say that only the big picture results in depth of thought. There is a kind of focus and depth that can result from a personal perspective as well.

 

[Lauren]

Anger motivates towards action moreso than thought, I think. It is a useful emotion in unifying people towards an action. This can result in the common good or the common destruction, but it is powerful for motivation.

I'm not afraid of my anger, generally. I don't anger easily but if I do, it's here and gone. It arises and then departs. Generally, what angers me, or I should say irritate, is our superficial culture and the few people that get that pop culture attention (like Sara Palin). I get impatient with it and tune it out. Since I don't like negativity, when I get angry, I release and let it go.

 

[visaisahero]

Anger implies a quick temper or a short fuse, hasty judgement- and I think hasty judgement is counter-intuitive to deep thought.

Perhaps indignation, frustration, discomfort would be better substitutes? The idea is that deep thought should unsettle you and drive you into action that is positive and well-reasoned.

But the quote does explain it with "if you cannot tolerate anger... don't think". So I guess it's trying to say that you WILL feel strong resentment when thinking about things like maybe slavery or women's rights or child prostitution or bigotry or whatever, but you must learn to manage that anger to be subsequently productive?

 

[BlueFlame]

If I am feeling anything strongly, I am not thinking deeply.
Deep thought is a welcome break from feeling anything, really.

In regards to the quote, I don't quite think it makes sense. Anger would be more of the motion between the thought and what you do with it, as would joy and fear. Or, perhaps, the precursor. But I think you would rarely find them intertwined.

 

[speculative]

"To think deeply in our culture is to grow angry and to anger others; and if you cannot tolerate this anger, you are wasting the time you spend thinking deeply. One of the rewards to deep thought is the hot glow of anger at discovering a wrong, but if anger is taboo, thought will starve to death."

-Jules Henry

Thoughts on this?

Interesting quote, Heart, and thanks for posting.

Yes. When someone who cares enough to think deeply recognizes that society should be as it is not, they become angry. They do anger the status quo when the status quo realize that there is an individual who may do something about their deep thoughts. That is why all of society is designed to keep us complacent and under control. Society seems like it can't stand even a little deviation. Ever try to paint your house bright orange? Hello zoning comission. And that's just paint.

Even in business, where risk must be taken for reward to be received, the vast majority are valued for their complacency over their entrepreneurialism. The banking failure could only be propagated because everyone involved was lulled into a false sense of security through incentives designed to do only one thing: keep the machine moving in the same direction.

Deep thought may anger others, but sometimes it should be listened too instead of ignored: FRONTLINE: the warning: watch the full program online | PBS

"If anger is taboo, thought will starve to death." Truer words were never spoken...

 

[Lauren]

"If anger is taboo, thought will starve to death." Truer words were never spoken...

I agree with this. I don't think it's good to suppress all negative emotions because they will just take root somewhere else in your life in a negative way. In other words, they will find a way out. If you're angry, I feel you should use it as a positive force for change, in your own life and in life in general. But in relationships, other paths besides anger should be taken because anger only severs communication and understanding.

 

[Tycho]

My anger with the status quo is so deep, that it forms a craving to defy it.
That craving is what makes it rewarding to think more.

I had a friend who felt excluded from society and took this anger as a source of consolation, this anger justified him. He took pride in forming antisocial thought rants that made him look superior.

I think this anger should be eased (i.e. we embrace the status quo) or turned into a more detached state of mind if we ultimately want to transform it into something positive and constructive.

 

[pyramid]

Sounds like complete bollocks to me. I don't think deep thought necessarily produces or attracts anger, and I don't think anger is taboo. I'm guessing Jules Henry was an angry man.

I'm guessing Jules Henry has a FIRE sign! Kill it with fire!



Heart, I often wonder where I'd be without my ol' anger (which I was only able to identify as depression for the longest time, but it was actually rage being mirrored.) I think it's suffering we are born with and must work through to achieve individuation. At which point you may introduce anger scientifically (in a controlled fashion) and with a positive end goal, for which it's not presently so reputable..

On another hand I believe one's capacity for pain is equivalent to their capacity for joy... could this be a similar anger-contemplation paradox?

 

[Lauren]

On another hand I believe one's capacity for pain is equivalent to their capacity for joy... could this be a similar anger-contemplation paradox?

Yes! You only know true joy when you've been through the fire and back out again. One could say you don't need to go through the fire to begin with but I think being human beings, we will feel pain deeply before we know extraordinary joy. Or the other way around. When you know true joy you know the pain does not last.

 

[Quiet]

"To think deeply in our culture is to grow angry and to anger others; and if you cannot tolerate this anger, you are wasting the time you spend thinking deeply. One of the rewards to deep thought is the hot glow of anger at discovering a wrong, but if anger is taboo, thought will starve to death."

-Jules Henry


Thoughts on this?

Thinking deeply can be constructive ESPECIALLY if it can ruffle your feathers a bit. Growth can occur when you can recognize an opportunity to react differently in a situation. In this case, getting angry isn't really productive if it's being reflected onto others. Anger is a secondary emotion to pain, fear and or disgust, so it's simply an emotion, and an indication that you might actually need to think even more deeply.

 

[ThatsWhatHeSaid]

I think some people seek refuge in anger to protect them from self-doubt. Lacking self-doubt (self-confidence) can actually help a person think clearly, accurately, and without hesitation, so in that way anger can promote thinking.

Other times, deep thinking and reflection can inspire values and judgments. Reflection on politics, society, and suffering, for example, can cause a person to value peace and cooperation and become irritated with obstacles to those values -- greed, bureaucracy, people sheltering themselves. That irritation can turn into action, healthy "anger," or unhealthy anger. I'd define healthy anger and acting angry for someone's benefit because of the way anger can motivate people who aren't amenable to discussion. It's not really anger.

Sometimes people avoid the truth because they're afraid of getting unhealthily angry, like avoiding the way a spouse disrespect you because you don't want to start a fight. That can be a problem, but being open to anger isn't the only solution. Instead, you can resolve to feel angry but calculate your response so you don't inject more drama and chaos into a situation.