Thread: Managing Anger
View Single Post
Old 08-15-2006, 12:41 AM
  # 11 (permalink)  
equus
Member
 
equus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: uk
Posts: 3,054
Bear with me Don - I may come to a point where I can see it in a real sense but to do so now would just be compliance not a change of belief.

A simple approach to the belief is to ask 'why?' or 'what if?'--recognizing that we are using an extreme example in order to make the point.
So 'we should take care of our children'--why? what if someone else can take better care of them? what if their care is beyond our capabilities?
If I ask the whys and what ifs for caring for children the answers come easily. Starting with the 'why' my answer is that we are not born independent, none of us can survive the first year of life without care, in that sense we 'must' (so shoot me!!) co-operate. As a young child has no means to care for self we should care for them. I think at this point though perhaps I have been misunderstood, when I say we should care for our children I mean as a society. There will always be orphans, there will always be children of ill adults, there will always be children who's own parents simply drop them off at the door of social services - they are OUR children.

What if we don't think that way? Well I hear plenty in life and in the news reflecting that view, the view that 'they' are someone else's problem, even that 'they' are to blame. If it wasn't for those who give their homes and time to take children in (urgh - sorry, that's unthinkable!!) the madness and sheer human distress of children's homes would be rife, then if no workers could be found that took pride in them, the human distress would be greater. What if that minority of people who believe we should care didn't exist? I know just enough to know the answer is almost unthinkable. These aren't words of exageration, you have to SEE what I'm talking about and live through child suicides then you KNOW how much children need care and that we should care for our children. The thought of not saying that, the thought of softening it for paletablity, or easing it so it can be ignored doesn't feel like health to me. History swells with examples of similar choices and the what if we didn't think we should care for our children is more disturbing by far than the what if we did.

On to co-dependency. First of all I have to say I have not seen a clinical dicription of this, there seems to be no way to disprove it, a lacking in null hypothesis which leads me to think it is either poorly discribed or circular in nature. BUT I would say that becoming overly attached to a single human being does foster anger and resentment. I think that through observation and believe it's reflective of the difference between love for another which goes outwards and desire for another which is about what 'I' want. I can put hand on heart and say it's something I've also learned through error. I can look at mountains and my mind is blown but I have no need to take them home with me or possess them, no fear that tomorrow I can't see the same scene. For me it's about learing to love those close to me the same way, fearlessly and for the moment, freely. It strikes me this is actually quite a hard task - some success in it pays big rewards but I don't feel unhealthy from not having achieved it totally.

The shoulds I apply to me are in terms of social responsibility - in my perspective, the 'should' that applies to me in regard of D is no more than for any other human being. Of course I actually do more regarding those close to me, my friends etc as well as D, but that part is about my connection/attachment and 'should' doesn't have a place in it. On the other hand I'm learning to give similar human worth to strangers.

And anger? Well for me it goes like this:
By giving human worth, by knowing those I'm not connected to are worth equally as much as those I am, I get motivated to try to look from their point of view and listen carefully where I can. I haven't got this nailed down - it isn't a done deal and my certificate isn't in the post, but what I've found is the nearer I get the less angry I get. I must admit though my achilies heel is organisations, my response is to learn more about them and how they effect and are effected by individuals.

For some reason - in my early years certainly not of my doing, I seem to have spent most of my life around the less disirable parts of existance; by that I mean commonly disirable. I grew up in a house full of homeless men in an area full of immigrants, even working with horses I ended up largely by fate working with problem animals on death row!! I suppose it's a chain reaction, because I speak to people other people don't talk to, because I'll take on dogs other people won't, because it isn't as unknown to me, because long before I was old enough to hold fear of someone dirty (physically) I knew their name and story, it seems to stay that way. I know lots of successful people but have never been a stranger to 'others' (chavs, assylum seekers, addicts, illegal immigrants, etc etc) for each group I know somebody's name and story. That's where my shoulds come from, sort of being aware that there are so many stories I don't know and how much difference that makes.

There are things I struggle with - I try to look at those in a similar position and mostly see they struggle too so I don't feel too unhealthy. There are some big things I struggle with - I think I 'must' have enough heart to struggle and learn my way through because I want the rewards. The flipside is how much people blow me away, I think it's like having access to the most amazing gallery, I can stand and stare - recalling stories and I wouldn't trade a single day of it.

I'm rather attached to my shoulds!!!
equus is offline