Evil is characterized by opposition. So opposition breeds more of itself.
When you understand anger you begin to discover you don’t really have to control it. It arises like it does from the concept of control. You channel it. You own your anger by putting an end to objectifying your anger that is either making it a dirty object to bury in your mind, or projecting it onto another and thus objectifying them. I once read that all “evil” arises from objectifying life. In my experience this is true. How about you?
Is jealousy a type of anger? No. It’s a perversion of anger brought about by a common style of thinking. It is a need for control. We are taught to think to get and keep control. Supposedly this is thoughts purpose.
Anger gets things done very often? Not by itself, but yes it can be a catalyzing force if understood and thus I speak against disowning our anger.
Anger for injustice? You can punish injustice and perpetuate the practice of punishment thus making us all suffer, or you can champion the hurt and the weak. What you take anger against weakens you, but what your anger is for can strengthen you. If you were angered about something that should happen and championed it, was anyone harmed when you were angry in support of something? Do you oppose their action, or propose another more proper one?
Blind anger creates zealots, zealots lead jihads, can we say world crusade two? What heathens shall we save by burning this time? Deep concern is warranted, and there are some very serious problems in the world right now; Darfur, the conflict in Israel, Kim Jong-il’s agenda. The conflict in the Gaza strip is unjust, but there is not a fine line between deep concern and anger. It is anger, but how we relate to it, how we understand our anger, dictates what we will do with it. If our anger has to have a villain then there will be bloodshed. I can be angry at it and need no villain. If I go in with the idea that there is a villain, than a villain must be punished and it requires killing. If I go in angry about the injustice, maybe I will call to others who feel the same and as a world, without bloodshed, the killing can be stopped.
I know the history, and I know why they as a people won’t part. It isn’t from nobility that Palestine is a battlefield. There is no one being held prisoner. It’s a religious and cultural bigotry on both people’s parts. They are both making villains. If in anger we punish all who are worthy of punishment, then our lives will be only suffering and death. Ghandi was very angry, but didn’t make the English into villains. Ghandi wasn’t an English sympathizer either.
In the end anger isn’t about what we think. Thinking people get angry. Unthinking people are the cattle driven before the wolf and everything gets trampled. Use anger in understanding, objectifying no one. I am not saying tolerate evil. I’m saying evil arises from intolerance. It doesn’t go both ways. Intolerance leads to indifference, indifference leads to exploitation, exploitation leads to blind anger. At first not having seen, we look for someone to blame and the whole cycle starts all over again. Anger can show a blindly feral mind. If rage is holy and the just outcome of rage is killing, then why are the most effective assassins’ notoriously calm people?
I am angry at Governments who promise aid to starving Africa and do nothing. Is this a good form of anger? No. What is a good form of anger is to be angry for the starving children. To have your mind on their plight and to be moved to do what it takes to see them fed. The broken government will stay broken no matter how pissed off you get. Anger for the starving might lead you to protect them from the rebels but won’t lead you to killing, not beyond the natural defense. No amount of anger will fix your enemy and never has in the entire history of the world. Who do you champion? Who do you care about? Let your anger be a focus on their cause.
Should reasonable people be angry with their governments who break promises to help the starving? Reasonable people should see that the broken government is their fault, not as individuals but as a whole. If you are focused on what you are for, then yes. If you are for positive governmental reform and focused on that, then you need no enemy and your anger just fuels your conviction. Let your anger be a focus on their cause.
If I get angry at the woman I love and make her the cause, the villain to blame, I destroy and gain nothing. If anger arises in my relationship and I see what I am for and communicate it clearly to her, then I preserve and strengthen. She can withdraw favor, but those who know me well know I care not for anyone’s favor. I seek the truth of love between her and me, and would preserve it whether she’s doing things for me or not.
When you recognize that passion, that would make you fight, for what it is, you don’t have to fight to have the passion. You can just be passionate. Those who know me well know I’m a very passionate person. I’m angry, just no person is an object of my anger.
Your thoughts are welcome. Be well friends.