/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.4058510]

I solemnly swear that all negative emotions can be dispelled upon searching the self. This also applies to negative thoughts and feelings towards other people and their actions. That is, you alone are the only one who makes themselves angry. Next time you’re angry, take a step back and think “Who’s making me angry here? Them or I?” and the feeling is instantly dispelled. The person or thing, in all likelihoods, was not trying to annoy you, and if it were so that they were attempting to annoy you, haven’t they only won by making you feel this uncomfortable negativity? By dispelling negative thoughts and feelings through the realisation that you are the one yourself making the angry feeling arise, you are coming a step closer to truth.

For a little while I’ll answer any more questions regarding the above, if I can and if you wish.

[Anonymous No.4058528]

yeah i read in some gay ass self-help book once this shit that's like when u get pissed off abt sumshit u have to think "i am responsible" and then rather than be mad u think in an action oriented way to change it rather than be mad abt it

[Anonymous No.4058533]

>>4058510
that was only ever the case for me insofar as I found it novel that things happen within rather than outside of my perception. now, so what if I make myself miserable? I am still unhappy

[Anonymous No.4058537]

babby's first stoicism

[Anonymous No.4058542]

yeah i used to be mad that Summers, Rubin and Geihtner used the World Trade Organization to deregulate the global financial system and thus enrich themselves while ruining the European and American economies but then using OPs method I realized they weren't trying to annoy me and so I went back to watching tv

[Anonymous No.4058557]

>>4058537

This is it, you see. Upon self searching one will come to this conclusion naturally, and be content with the results.

I have observed personally, through a chaotic attempt to combine keen observation, foresight, hindsight and meditation, to realise the 'play' of the experience.

Human life has never been experienced outside of the human brain you exist in now. Never either has such a thing been so vain and self defeating, so self punishing. And yet it lets itself manifest in grotesque manners. Thoughts and actions is all we are, and so contaminated they become through simply put collective despair.

[Anonymous No.4058558]

>>4058542
top lel

[Anonymous No.4058559]

Do you always equate anger with annoyance, and both these things with uncomfortable negativity?

[Anonymous No.4058568]

>>4058533

What makes you unhappy? Through enough deduction you will find that guilt is what get's us to do most things. You'll see how successful it is for religion.

Realising it is only really the first step, but it's the first grand step. From there, you should be free.


I would highly recommend researching the concept of NLP. Knock the practical side of it all you want, just focus on the concept.

[Anonymous No.4058569]

Get over urself

[Anonymous No.4058573]

>>4058510
>haven’t they only won by making you feel this uncomfortable negativity

So your motivation for not getting upset is to 'win'? This is a really immature way of thinking about things.

[Anonymous No.4058578]

>>4058559

They're synonyms to me. I'd be interested to hear your semantic analysis though, it could help us come to new conclusions.

[Anonymous No.4058579]

So discomfort with being raped or tortured should just be dismissed as pathological?

[Anonymous No.4058587]

>>4058573

I think you've miscomprehended me here. As in, you've only quoted half of the sentence.

>and if it were so that they were attempting to annoy you, haven’t they only won by making you feel this uncomfortable negativity?

This was simply a reference for somebody who feels they have been wronged by somebody else, and a comment on the resulting, perpetuating negativity that derives from the situation.

[Anonymous No.4058591]

>>4058579

0/10.

[Anonymous No.4058595]

>>4058578
Anger can be comforting and positive, while annoyance lacks dimensions which anger can achieve or sustain.

[Anonymous No.4058600]

>>4058542

I used to get mad at that shit too. But then I thought 'What exactly am I gonna do about it?'.

The answer was clearly, as it will be for everybody, 'fuck all'.

We're in no power to do anything to change the course of history. We're just drops of piss compared to the game changers.

Unless you're a politician with access to secret files or a whore to an 'illuminati elder', there's not a whole lot you can do.

Why then be angry about it? Focus on yourself and you will surely find happiness.

[Anonymous No.4058607]

>>4058510
I agree with this, I used to have big anxiety, but I managed to solve it without any medications.

[Anonymous No.4058609]

>>4058510
>I solemnly swear that all negative emotions can be dispelled upon searching the self.

Define negative thoughts and self. I can guess what you meant by that but you really cant make a manifesto like this without first defining your terms.

>That is, you alone are the only one who makes themselves angry.

I agree.

> Next time you’re angry, take a step back and think “Who’s making me angry here? Them or I?” and the feeling is instantly dispelled.

I agree, but it isnt this thought specifically. Its just self-criticism or self-doubt in general that dispels anger.

>The person or thing, in all likelihoods, was not trying to annoy you, and if it were so that they were attempting to annoy you, haven’t they only won by making you feel this uncomfortable negativity?

No, you could deal with your anger in a healthy way, by immediately confronting the thing that annoys you (both within, as you say, and outside, as you dont say). If my friend is being assaulted for no good reason, I can think to myself, I am only suffering now because I am attached to my friend. I am no longer attached to my friend, I will not suffer.

You could also take the risk of acting on your anger and overcoming that which angered you.

Ever read Nietzsche?

[Anonymous No.4058610]

>>4058587
Cleese picture makes every post sound intelligent and eloquent.

[Anonymous No.4058612]

>>4058595

Anger is a naturally occurring phenomenon which allows us to exist as humans. It makes us human. Makes us productive. Some would even argue anger is only ever born out of love itself.

You could say then that annoyance is a lacklustre sensing of anger, a 'twinge' of anger. I still say then, they should ask themselves what is making them want to feel this way? Perhaps there is something territorial about it, there is something they need to defend? What is that thing then? Be it pride? Or honour? Are they themselves but synonyms to one another? Are they both not a direct path to anger? A product of cheap ego nonetheless.

So now; When one's territory is attacked, does he feel angry or afraid? Answer me that.

[Anonymous No.4058616]

>>4058612
Youre right, it is an attack on the ego, the self, and whatever the ego attaches to itself which it also represents as itself.

I think youre dichotomy between anger and fear is false unless you clarify on what they mean.

[Anonymous No.4058617]

>>4058612
>When one's territory is attacked, does he feel angry or afraid? Answer me that.
This would assume that I take one's reaction to be true to the whole.

I would not equate annoyance with territoriality, I think that is something of a leap for "a twinge of anger" even had I said that. And usually when
there is something territorial about it, there is something they need to defend? What is that thing then?
the thing that is to be defended is territory, whence the adjective.

[Anonymous No.4058619]

>>4058600
>'illuminati elder',

Oh dear.

[Anonymous No.4058622]

when someone lets their dog take a huge shit on the sidewalk outside my door i search the self but i'm still annoyed

[Anonymous No.4058632]

>>4058609

>Define negative thoughts and self

Hmm true. We all sort of 'know' what they are, but when it comes to defining them, it is a tricky thing. I would argue, questionably, that because it is quite a personal thing, that it is also hard to talk about. It's not something we confront, for it's something that takes us over and possesses us into wretched beings, and meditating on it seems entirely counter-productive for that very reason. Perhaps that itself is the reason that these definitions must be explored by the self?

>No, you could deal with your anger in a healthy way, by immediately confronting the thing that annoys you (both within, as you say, and outside, as you dont say). If my friend is being assaulted for no good reason, I can think to myself, I am only suffering now because I am attached to my friend. I am no longer attached to my friend, I will not suffer.

Why you are not letting anger win here? Anger is not in the question, I don't think, when your instinctual reactions kick in to protect your friend.

See the question on territory perhaps. You have incredible investments in your brethren.

[Anonymous No.4058637]

i realized this at 15 or so

[Anonymous No.4058649]

>>4058632
I am going to take a leap here, a leap I hope that wont offend, that youre in an unending cycle of skepticism here, one that you might not want to be in. For example:

>Hmm true. We all sort of 'know' what they are, but when it comes to defining them, it is a tricky thing. I would argue, questionably, that because it is quite a personal thing, that it is also hard to talk about. It's not something we confront, for it's something that takes us over and possesses us into wretched beings, and meditating on it seems entirely counter-productive for that very reason. Perhaps that itself is the reason that these definitions must be explored by the self?

What have you exactly said here? Emotions and personal, yes, and that maybe these things being personal should make us define them personally, yes.

So, lets enter a conversation. Lets do battle. Take a leap and define your terms, of course personal, but something being personal, subjective, or relative does not necessarily lead to being paralyzed.

>Why you are not letting anger win here? Anger is not in the question, I don't think, when your instinctual reactions kick in to protect your friend.

See the question on territory perhaps. You have incredible investments in your brethren.

You didnt understand my post. The posit that suffering can be minimized by eliminating detachment is a hypothetical, not something I am advocating. It is a position however that is close to what youre bringing up, which is why I brought it up.

There are no instincts, your own OP shows proof of that. Self-doubt can lead to this detachment, and several philosophies have been arguing this for centuries.

The point I am making is this. Yes, it seems that anger only appears because of the values the self decides upon, just like any other emotion. Happiness will be determined by the self, sadness, all of it. The self can eliminate the 'triggers' to these emotions by not allowing these things to be triggers anymore, by detachment.

Instead of this, which is where it seems your argument is leading, why not accept anger as something positive? Something that self can get rid of, but shouldnt.

[Anonymous No.4058653]

>>4058617

I myself have never been robbed or held up so I wouldn't know the experience. I can imagine the feeling itself would be subsequent of adrenaline and therefore possibly invalid.

But perhaps there is an attack on the ideology? This can be a commonly experienced thing, and if the depressed or angry person were to look into themselves they might find their central beliefs simply divert away from that of the majority. And so to subvert the status quo the brain is rebelling to it's own hardware, spitting into the tribal Instinct that made man what it is today. What are the implications of this? Does one ever break through this primatial instinct or are they forever damned to self punishing? Or do they give up and sink into the ways of the commoner?

[Anonymous No.4058658]

>>4058653
so much citation needed.

[Anonymous No.4058661]

i believe the same as you, op, and i have managed to control myself more over the past year or so, but i still have trouble. for instance, many negative emotions come, but they are not just thoughts because they affect the body. when anxious i shake. my words won't form. i can barely move. i could repeat as many aphorisms i like but my body refuses to calm down. what could i do to bring my body more in line?

[Anonymous No.4058670]

>>4058649

>Lets do battle.

I'm conversing, and you seem angry, to be honest.

[Anonymous No.4058672]

>>4058649
i hate these tl'dr fags writing these longs ass turds no one wanna see

[Anonymous No.4058676]

>>4058670
I promise you im not angry.

If youre the OP, you should just define your terms. Itll help this conversation develop.

>>4058672
Is it ironic if someone gets angry reading a thread about how to not be angry?

[Anonymous No.4058679]

>>4058661

What kind of situations are you in when this happens? The imagery is almost comical. I hope you don't mind me saying.

You've identified the symptoms. Now we must identify the causes.

[Anonymous No.4058680]

>>4058672
word

[Anonymous No.4058698]

>>4058676

I certainly commend your obstinance and willingness to aggress.

However, I will pass on the therapy session today.

But let me ask you: How would you respond, say, if a man fornicated with your supposed 'girlfriend'?

Would you go and beat him? Would you beat the man?

[Anonymous No.4058700]

>>4058698
it always seems kinda beta to beat up a dude who fucked your girl, i mean it just shows ur girl doesn't really like u and is just with u till someone better comes a long

[Anonymous No.4058704]

>>4058700
Not him, but that's what I've always been saying. You're not good enough to deserve exclusivity, and that's that

[Anonymous No.4058705]

>>4058698
It would depend upon a lot of things.

If me and my girlfriend are in a open or closed relationship, if it looks like she is willing or not, and if its closed a relationship and she is willing, it would depend upon my mood as I entered into the situation.

If it looked like rape than regardless of other variables I would beat him.

If it wasnt rape and we were in an open relationship then I wouldnt beat the man because I knew this was going to happen.

If it wasnt rape and it was a closed relationship and I entered into the situation where they knew I saw them I would beat the man. If they didnt see me, say I was in the other room and heard, im not sure what I would do, but I would be angry.

[Anonymous No.4058708]

>>4058700
>>4058704
Not to mention it's the girl's fault, not really the guy's.

[Anonymous No.4058709]

>>4058705
>If it wasnt rape and it was a closed relationship and I entered into the situation where they knew I saw them I would beat the man.

Probably beat the man*. Again it depends on my mood and how much I know about the situation.

[Anonymous No.4058715]

>>4058711
it's funny that you act like there's a correct answer and you know it

[Anonymous No.4058711]

>>4058700

Yet a particularly angry man might be very inclined to go and seek revenge in this way.

And you have reasoned higher, so that you might look down upon somebody who acts in this way.

Of course this is an extreme example, but it's an observation on how anger itself is imbued by primal urge which when experienced in every day life must be examined in relation to the self as opposed to acted upon.

[Anonymous No.4058730]

>>4058705

So your variables derive somewhat from reasoning against willingness and expectancy. In a sense, you're gauging your actions in advance because you accept that in the end you will act however you feel for "it would depend upon my mood as I entered into the situation."

So should morality be based upon self-referents? Or do you choose to not have morality altogether?

In all your scenarios, the guy is either getting beaten, or not beaten, but the variable which remains steadfast is that he merely had sex with a girl (Rape case aside).

[Anonymous No.4058732]

>>4058711
but on the other hand sadism can produce similar actions as anger so if you're saying it's bad to beat someone because you're mad then it still leaves possibility that beating people is ok if you do it out of sense of sadism...so if you want to reduce overall amount of beatings being served you should argue beating people is bad rather than anger is bad

[Anonymous No.4058733]

>>4058715

What do you feel about anger, or the discussion at hand?

You might disagree. Is anger merely a precursor to an action and nothing else? What good have you seen become of anger?

[Anonymous No.4058734]

OP's dad was an alcoholic rager and so now he has emotional issues including repressed anger

[Anonymous No.4058739]

>>4058730
In the end I act on my own emotions and my own logic, yes, just like any other human.

Yes, I base my morality on self-referents, just like any other human. I cant choose to not have morality, I perform actions versus other actions or "not-actions", these actions will always be based on values, I will always "have" morality.

He is not merely having sex with "a" girl, im not some abstract concept floating in space, this girl is my girlfriend, and depending on the situation will mean more or less to me depending on different variables.

[Anonymous No.4058755]

>>4058732

Sadism is derived of a sexual nature, a 'fully consented form of expression', whereas physical aggression is usually non-consented and destructive.

So perhaps there is a divide between physical aggression and sexual aggression, or perhaps one is an unhealthy manifestation of the other. Any one a sadist?

[Anonymous No.4058762]

>>4058755
how is sexual expression "consented" and physical expression "not consented", i don't think you've thought very much about this except at the most trite fedorafag level

[Anonymous No.4058765]

>>4058755
>'fully consented form of expression'
is homosexuality 'consented'?

[Anonymous No.4058769]

>>4058762
how is sexual expression not physical expression? damn this thread gets dumber by the minute

[Anonymous No.4058771]

>>4058739

>im not some abstract concept floating in space

But to him you quite possibly are. Understandably, if one were to walk into the situation one would be quite easily forgiven for giving a beating. But the man who went to the house to give a beating was less forgivable? Perhaps then it is premeditated acts of anger which are to be condemned? Then where is the line between 'acts of passion' and 'premeditated acts of passion'?

If it is so then the angry-unthinking are alleviated of all responsibility, for it becomes their nature to act in ways which could always be perceived as 'premeditated acts of anger'.

[Anonymous No.4058785]

>>4058762

You read it wrong. Sexual aggression and physical aggression were being possibly divided because we discussed some forms of aggression are carried out in controlled, consenting situations. Boxing, for example, would lie on the side of sadism in this certain divide.

[Anonymous No.4058791]

>>4058700
"Better" is rather subjective, and people cheat for all kinds of reasons, including not thinking they're good enough for their current partner. But I agree. It makes more sense to be non-needy so you can let go of her instantly (allows you to love more fully anyway). Then if something like this happens, either decide you like her/being with her enough to stay, or go. In either situation it's better. Of course, you could beat him up for recreation. That's not exactly beta.

[Anonymous No.4058794]

>>4058785
so you think the people tortured by the Catholic inquisition consented to that shit? Interesting....

[Anonymous No.4058796]

>>4058771

>for it becomes their nature to act in ways which could always be perceived as 'premeditated acts of anger'.

I meant 'non-premeditated acts of anger/passion'. Anyway, OP is signing out for a rest. Might check back in a bit. It's been very interesting so far.

[Anonymous No.4058797]

>>4058796
no it hasn't, it's been shallow and fedora cringy but there's no other threads going so people respond to your dumb shit

[Anonymous No.4058800]

>>4058771
No, im not an abstract concept to him, im standing right in front of him and punching him if im beating him. Thats concrete, not abstract.

>one would be quite easily forgiven-

I have no way of knowing this, I doubt you know this as well. Again it would depend on the situation.

The rest of this conversation is going to go nowhere unless we define what the self is, what freedom is, and what free will is.

Also, where are you going with this? Why are we talking about responsibility when this thread is supposed to be about dispelling anger and "negative" thoughts?

[Anonymous No.4058804]

>>4058797
Fucking. This.

People should work on the skill of asking questions.

[Anonymous No.4058805]

>>4058797

There's certainly been some snippety dissenters who were reluctant to give their views in the thread. Laters Joseph.

[Anonymous No.4058807]

what if you got beat up for fucking somebody's girlfriend? should u b angry about it? or did u deserve it

[Anonymous No.4058818]

>>4058800

Ah in the act of passion though - when he had sex with your girlfriend - you were a non-person. You didn't exist in his 'plane of existence'.

See; >>4058807


Yet a person based on anger might still be inclined to seek out and lay a beating down upon the man.

>The rest of this conversation is going to go nowhere unless we define what the self is, what freedom is, and what free will is

OP has got to eat but carry on the thread by all means, friend. Keep it discussion based and ignore the shit-poster/s.

[Anonymous No.4058839]

>>4058818
Him not knowing that I exist does not make me abstract. What exactly do you think I mean when I say abstract, because it seems that youre thinking something else.

An abstract person would be the actual hypothetical man in this situation. He is an abstraction right now, he doesnt exist, but im thinking about him. Once I meet him he will no longer be abstract. I might mistake the concrete him for the abstract him in my head, but the situation changes once I meet him.

If this were actually happening, the way the man would have an "abstract me", the person typing this post, would be for him to be told about my existence without actually meeting me.

This also doesnt help your case. Him knowing about my existence but still having sex with my girlfriend would make me want to beat him if I knew this.

This conversation is going nowhere fast because no one is defining their terms. Everyone is just walking around in a fog hundreds of feet away from each other while they think they are next to each other and deciding on where to go.

[Anonymous No.4058881]

[Anonymous No.4058943]

>>4058600
Drops of piss make up a sea of piss, and seas of piss can get shit done. If everyone checked out the easy way like you have, nothing would ever get done cause no one would go through the trouble of making a difference.

[Anonymous No.4058950]

OP is just trying to rationalize and make excuses for his pathetic submissive personality type

[Anonymous No.4059130]

>>4058510
I like OP.

[Anonymous No.4060955]

>>4058679

confrontation mainly. or anything where i have to be centre of attention. basic anxiety shit, really. like, if i were to get into a situation where violence was likely, i know my legs would turn to shit and shake, my stomach would cramp up, my voice would become dry and wobbly, in general my body would just go to shit. adrenaline? fight or flight? huge pussy syndrome? i don't know. really is something i want to wipe the fuck out though.

[Anonymous No.4061004]

>>4058510


"negative" "positive"