Conference hydra::dejavu

    re: .0 (Jeff)
    
         Fine.
    
         I intuited something different than that, though.  Now what?
    
         
    Frederick
    

    
    re:.0 (Jeff)
    
    Is the purpose of this conference the free and open exchange of ideas
    that in some (sometimes vague) way relate to psychic phenomena? 
    
    I thought so - and if I'm right about that, then you've made some very
    good points (and done it very well, IMHO).
    
    re: whatever
    
    At times when I've been reading this conference I've been reminded of
    a friend of mine who once argued a point to death to myself and another
    friend.  He just couldn't accept that we weren't going to be swayed in
    our views.  When we told him this, he said that his ideas would win out
    by sheer power of the truth of them.  I laughed, and he got upset with 
    me.
    
    My point (somehow related to that story) is that lately I get the
    feeling that a vague concensus reality of DEJAVU has been formed that
    blocks out opinions or "models of reality" that have not been
    "established" here at great length, as if their mere presence and
    presentation in this conference (I'm refering to ideas, not specific
    people) has given them "the power of truth." 
    
    I don't want to downplay anyone's ideas, but I believe we have to 
    remember that we are, in most cases, dealing with *systems* of reality
    that have been accepted by their proponents and perhaps not by others
    (including newcomers to this conference).  The result of this can be
    (through the eyes of a newcomer) that booming voice (or reply) that
    says "well, everyone knows that the universe works like this..."  And
    this is when I believe disclaimers are necessary stating what is
    opinion and what is not (of course, we could debate what is or is not
    fact...yuck!).
    
    
    But I could be wrong - this is all just my opinion....:-)
    
    
    Guy 

    re: .2 (Guy)
    
         Sounds good, Guy.  (Too good, maybe...;-) )
    
         Yeah, we've talked about it before (remember, Cindy?)  Sometimes
    wimpy voices such as mine (this is a sick joke  8-) ) want a bigger
    "share of the pie" in terms of beliefs, and want to strangle those
    who don't share it (I'm honoring my emotions here...;-) ) and
    brow-beat them somehow.  Just a little frustration...but everyone else
    can express themselves, too, I think?  Yes?  No?
    
    Frederick
    

    
    re:.3 (Frederick)
    
    Couldn't honoring one's emotions be taken too far?  It could reach the
    point of being selfish at the expense of others.
    
    Shall we honor shame?  How about guilt?  Agression? 
    
    I can see that we should not repress such things, but acting upon them
    should still be a choice made by the intellect or whatever part of us
    can remain objective and has a desire to protect others from us "going
    off" at random...
    
    Again, no facts, just opinion (hey! that's most of my replies!).
    
    Guy

    re: .4  (Guy)
    
         Yes, absolutely!  The bottom line is that the emotions must
    be honored, no matter what they are.  Honoring it does not mean
    act impulsively, as you are indicating.  Of course we must THINK
    as well as FEEL.  Too often, though, (and this is my point) we
    THINK we shouldn't show emotions and then the emotion gets stilted
    or stifled.  The converse has the impact you were stating.  It's
    a *balance* (where do we see that word?) that is important.  What
    do we do?  When we get an emotion, use it, but thinking about its
    appropriateness is also an integral part.  
         NOT honoring ones emotions destroys our self-esteem...Without
    self-esteem we cannot be real.  Without realness, our illusions
    crumble and our power is thwarted, leading to "suicide" in some
    form or other.
         This from Lazaris last week: Shame comes when we realize that
    love isn't enough.  The paradox is this, Love is all there is AND
    sometimes love isn't enough.  When we aren't real, love isn't enough.
    When we project father or mother, love isn't enough.  When we say
    we want to love ourselves more and then seek love from outside, love
    isn't enough.  When we realize that the love we hold isn't enough,
    then we open ourselves up to shame.  The solution is REALNESS.
    Who do *we* say we are?  What do *we* feel?  Whose choices and
    decisions are you honoring?  To develop realness, develop these
    three things: intimacy, self-esteem and self-image.  WE can function
    without intimacy but we won't really succeed.  We can also function
    with low image, but not with realness.  Self-esteem is something we
    simply can't live without (though people often attempt to get it
    via false-esteem or esteem from others, etc.)  
    [For those who don't like spending money for workshops, there, I just
    saved you countless dollars.  ;-} ]
    
    Frederick
    

    Yo Guy...
    
    If you think Fred is being a certain way you should tell him so.
                           
    being selfish...agressive...whatever...
    
    If not...don't mess around with his free will to say how he
    feels by interjecting a questioning attitude in the mans mind
    about his own beliefs. 
    
    My opinion is that if you think Fred is being selfish by venting
    his emotions into this conference...those of us who feel we have
    the Eyes of the God/Goddess/All-That-Is in regards to the situation
    should take the responsibility and say so if we think he is.
    
    My opinion...no flames intended.
    -Arthur
                             

    re: .6 (Arthur)
    
         Definitely take responsibility for honoring your feelings and
    thoughts.  I concur with that, even if it's me at the whip's end
    of that.
    
    Frederick
    

    EXactly Frederick Now You Understand!!!!
    
    You're such a Good Martyr!
                       
    ;-) ;-) ;-) ;-) ;-) ;-) ;-)
    
    -Arthur

    I don't see anything wrong with venting one's emotions.  Just make
    certain that the emotions (read: anger) are vented at the right person
    for the right reason, and at a level appropriate to the transgression
    (that led to anger).
    
    What I don't understand is what Frederick was/is angry about.  I see 
    two possibilities, based upon his replies to Steve's reply:
    
    1.  I surmised from Frederick's original response that he was angry
    because Steve didn't preface his reply with "In my opinion" or
    something similar.
    
    2.  From later responses, it seems that Frederick was angry because
    Steve has different opinions from Frederick's.
    
    Frankly, I don't see either as a reason to get angry.  Therefore, I'm
    inclined to believe that his anger is at something entirely different,
    probably unconscious.
    
    Mary

.5 Fred

>   [For those who don't like spending money for workshops, there, I just
>   saved you countless dollars.  ;-} ]

Countless dollars. As in 0, zippo, nothin-to-count $$.

;')
Jay

    
    
    Steve Martin, the comedian, wrote a book entitled Cruel Shoes
    and there is a short story in it by the same name.  Good Stuff.
    I also liked the one about the Chinese Toe Suckers, then again
    that is another story.
    
    L.

    
    re:.6
    
    I must be slow - I don't understand....
    
    I generally like Frederick AND his ideas.  I believe he was a *little*
    off balance this time around, but that is no big deal in itself.  What
    IS a big deal?  Not much - maybe Love, Compassion, Kids, SO's, etc.
    
    My ideas aren't particularly right or wrong (IMO :-).  You seem to disagree
    with them on some point - that's O.K.  
    
    I thought all I had to do was to state an idea in this conference and
    it was accepted instantly by everyone.....(hahahoho ;-)
    
    
    :-)
    
    Guy
    
    Am I being nebulous enough?
      

    
    I seem to remember (I could be wrong :-) something earlier in this
    conference (God/Goddess/All-that-Is knows where :-) about attacking
    ideas and not people.  I didn't attack Frederick because it's not 
    my style.  I don't think it would have helped the situation if I 
    had told Frederick that I thought he was being selfish.  Especially
    because I don't think that....
    
    Guy

    It looks like I opened a real can of worms with my
    question in 1120.  

    re: Mary M.
    
         Yes, you are correct.  There are some angers deep "in here."
    I have uncovered some, but not all.  It is therefore easy to get
    into "anger mode" at seemingly trivial things.  Some of the angers
    are FROM my child and adolescent within (things that angered me
    then that haven't been resolved) and I believe also that some I
    "brought into this lifetime" (although I acknowledge that those
    could be excuses and could also be handled.)  However, there was
    still some "current" anger (but not real big, I don't believe.)
    I also don't feel it would benefit anyone (or could hurt someone)
    if I go into it further, and I don't want to do that.  Apart from
    ALL THAT, then there is still the issue of wanting to present a
    more balanced answer than I felt Steve was giving.  Usually Steve
    gives a gentle, balanced answer...this did not seem like one of those.
    Otherwise, I would have shined it on.
    
    re: Arthur,
      
        True, too true.  There is definitely a martyr within that needs 
    to be throttled.  Say, who is this person on the cross next to me, 
    anyway?
    
    Frederick
    

    re: Guy
    
    Maybe I misinterpreted your reaction...could bee...
    I just hope that we all can be staightforward and not
    try and be so fancy dancy with alot of subtle intellectual
    oneupmanship played between the lines...
    
    Hey No Big Deal!
    
    re: Fred
    
    That guy on the cross next to you resembles alot an Evangelical 
    Fundamentalist Swedish All Whitebread Northern Born-Again Billy
    Graham Baptist...namely me...
    

    
    re:.16 (exit26::saarinen)
    
    No intellectual oneupmanship here.  I'm lucky to be one up on the 
    neighborhood cats.
    
    :-)
    
    >That guy on the cross next to you....namely me...
    
    No it isn't - it's me!
    
    :-)
                                     
              Guy
             

    MMMMMMMMMm  Guess nobody read Steve Martin's book.  Oh well.
    
    People do communicate.  And sometimes we get re-activated by
    the words and miss the communication.  Lots of us were told 
    we were "no damn good" and to hear similar words which remind us
    of the past and set off miniature volcanoes of protective effluent
    might be given room to vent.
    
    What plugs Frederick in?  I don't know.  What plugs me in; I don't
    know either.  Though I will say when I smell parenting going on
    the hackels on my neck begin to rise.
    
    There is scar tissue on hearts left with some of us.  It cages our
    Being.  It takes time to heal.  We must heal ourselves as there are
    no doctors expert in this area.  Compassion is having been there.
    
    Deal me another card Sam
    
    L.

    I really don't believe it! 
    
    This is the first time I logged into this note and what do I see?
    
    (A) A note is opened as a request for ideas and thoughts. 
    
    (B) The very first individual who offers a response is verbally shredded. 
    
    If this is what I can expect in response to my thoughts, then NO THANKS!
    
    
    Signed a one time noter who just signed off! 
    
    

    re .19
    
    I can safely speak for a few others when I say we love Frederick. 
    Often we exchange kicks-in-the-pants.  It takes a great deal of courage
    to put one's ass on the line and be true to his or her position.
    Getting "ripped to shreds" happens in this and other conferences.
    What we can learn from such attacks is the nature of our courage
    since an attack is the only way to have courage manafest.
    
    The second and higher lession is becoming responsible for  one's ego.
    
    The third and highest lession is experiencing oneself disidentified
    with ego and position and manafesting the Christ-like forgiveness
    of the conditions in this local reality.
    
    Hang around, it grows on you ;^)
    
    L.

    re .20
    
    I think my ego is a bit too large to courageously endure such an attack.
    I guess I need to learn more about forgivness and ego. What you say made 
    great sense.
    
      
    Stephan G. Anderson 
    

    Re: .19
    
    I sort of had the same reaction as the person in reply #19.
    
    Sure, I guess we MUST accept *some* bashing, slashing, whatever...
    but in this particular notesfile environment, doesn't it usually tend 
    to take place in circumstances where things have already started to 
    get a bit heated?  I was sort of under the impression that the general 
    attitude of readers in this notesfile was one of "open-mindedness".
    
    I can only hope that people who consider themselves somewhat
    "open-minded", "aware", or "enlightened" won't feel they have free 
    firing power with their thoughts and words -- in other words,
    use caution and be responsible.  This IS a public forum...and I
    would like to pick up good things here, not vented hot air, which
    there's plenty of everywhere else!
    
    Jerri

Re: The earlier replies about emotions

Why is it that we think that because we *experience* emotions that we 
must necessarily *express* them.  We do no injustice to ourselves or 
others by acknowledging and experiencing emotions, but we do sometimes 
do injustice to ourselves and others when we express certain emotions.  

Expressing all of our emotions serves no purpose.  It is, however, a 
good way of starting wars.  Thinking we should express all of our 
emotions would be analogous to saying that we should *say* everything we 
*think*.  On the mental level, we don't think that every thought we 
*experience* should necessarily be *expressed*.  We don't think that we 
are doing an injustice to ourselves when we experience thoughts without 
expressing them.  Why should emotions be any different?

If there are times when we feel the need to express emotions which are 
potentially harmful, then we can redirect them and "vent" them in a 
manner which serves our purpose while remaining harmless.  Reflecting 
back on the topic of "control," this is something we do have control 
over.  

We are not our bodies, we are not our emotions, and we are not our 
minds.  We are the experiencer which has these tools for experience and 
expression.  When the expression of any of these tools is allowed  
indiscriminately, then the tool is in control of us rather vice versa.
Why let the hammer swing the carpenter?

Jeff  (who's system has been off the network since Thursday afternoon)

    re .23
    
    
    Very well put, the things we have control over should be used 
    constructively and in a positive manner. Therefore we should respect 
    and help each other by giving positive and constructive criticism.
    
    Stephan G. Anderson
    

    Re.24 (Anderson)
    
    Hi Stephan,
    
    Welcome to DEJAVU.  
    
    One comment on 'constructive criticism' - perhaps 'honest feedback' is 
    a better and more positive way of expressing this idea.  Read this in a
    management (or perhaps a parenting?) book somewhere...  
    
    As for the rest of the note - often confrontation, even angry
    confrontation, is necessary to work through the chaos of a
    relationship.  As long as it doesn't denigrate into a cruel and cutting
    free-for-all in one-upmanship, this kind of confrontation is quite often
    a wonderful thing (as Scott Peck writes in "The Different Drum" - it's
    'glorious chaos' and a precursor to a true community setting.  It gets 
    us out from behind our masks and we can then start communication (and 
    eventually understanding) each other as we truly are, as opposed to some 
    fake facades.
    
    As for Frederick - he's an extra special good buddy of mine, and this
    shall always be so, regardless of how much we disagree on certain
    things (and we do)...though this may not be apparent if you enter the 
    conference on a particular topic where we're all in the midst of 
    confrontational chaos.
    
    Hope this makes sense...(;^).
    
    Cindy

    re: .23 (Jeff)
    
         Good that you've thought about it!
    
         I want to ask something, though.  How do you acknowledge something
    without expressing it?  What is expression?  I agree that we sometimes
    do others injustice with the expression, but then, in the
    participant/observer scheme of things, that's the way our reality is
    created and reflected.  I'm not saying this in a way to suggest that
    we not be responsible for our impact, because even though ultimately
    our impact is illusionary, impact is one of the primary things we
    are here to understand.  
         I must disagree, therefore, with your statement which says that
    expressing all of our emotions serves no purpose, in spite of the
    reality in which "wars are created."  I do not think the analogy you
    state about saying everything we think is the same thing.  Moreover,
    this reminds me of those who believe that we only *partially* create
    our reality (but can never pinpoint the percentages.)  Either you
    ACKNOWLEDGE all, or you acknowledge none.  HOW to acknowledge them is
    perhaps the crucial difference.  I think we would both like to say
    that it is inappropriate in certain sets and settings to express
    our emotions...that is NOT the same as saying we shouldn't express
    them.  What happens if you suppress or repress *any* emotion?  This 
    question MUST be answered before you can stand on your position as
    stated in the first paragraph or two of .23.  In fact, you seem to 
    retract a bit in the final paragraph.  Maybe our "differences" stem
    from our understanding the word "expression?"  But to answer a bit
    for you, unexpressed emotions are killers...whether emotional or
    physical.  They strangle and incapacitate us, they putrify and rot
    us, they sabotage our intentions and aspirations...and they probably
    do more than that (and who cares how much more since this is already
    enough.)  I definitely agree, however, with you in stating that the
    tools should not be given free reign or indiscriminate exercise.
    Control is the word that once again comes up...
    
    Frederick
    

    re: .25 (Cindy) which was sent while I was sending .26
    
         ...sounds good, but maybe only because it serves me!   ;-)
    
         True, jumping into the middle of this could be unsettling and
    a "turnoff"...(maybe the same could be said about starting at the
    beginning or being at the end?  :-) )  Yes, it's true I could have
    been gentler...maybe someday I will be, but I am who I am at this
    time and I reacted as I did, which to me wasn't as severe as apparently
    some people felt it was (I really don't dislike Steve,  honest, ...
    I actually like the guy!)  Sometimes I mistaken my saw for the bow
    when I pick up my violin, though both initially are capable of making
    music...
    
         
    Frederick
    

One of my goals is to express my thoughts in these ways:

  X seems to work for *me*.
  Y hasn't worked for *me* in the past.
  Those ideas don't seem to reflect *my* experience.

rather than:

  *You* shouldn't do/believe that.

I'm sometimes disappointed/outraged when others don't 
always act this way.

I've felt hurt, taken offense, gotten angry.  But it was MY doing.
I believe that one allows/causes oneself to feel hurt, angry, offended.
So when i read or hear something to which i react strongly, i want to ask:

  Why am i astonished?
  Why do i feel hurt?
  Why do i feel angry?


While i agree that it would be more comfortable if everyone said only
'nice' things here,  it seems to me that 'negative reactions' can be used
to further growth.

I recently participated in an event that left me feeling
extremely drained, misunderstood, even depressed.  
This made me think:
   Who am i to think that i am above reproach?
   So my ego was bruised;  SO WHAT?
   Am i really so pure?

Reflecting on the experience reminded me that the purity of
my motives is not necessarily obvious, and not necessarily
all that pure, either.  But if in fact I am sure of my own
intentions, it doesn't matter what 'external' consensus says.

So, to *me*, it's all useful information, even if it makes me
uncomfortable for awhile.
    
    
/bruce

    
    For me,its how the emotion is expressed. I must accept responsibility
    for it,and,determine what action to take,if any. It must be delt
    with,otherwise,it will build until it becomes the
    controller,and,usually results in inappropriate responses.
    
    Peace
    Michael
    

    Maybe we should replace the word "control" with "direct."  Control
    unfortunately conveys the connotation of force and, possibly for some
    people, repress.  If we direct the energy of our feelings (as Bradshaw
    says, e-motion = energy in motion) into positive action, the emotions
    can be a catalyst for positive change instead of destruction.

re. -1

  Well, thats sounds great Mary, But what if we are 'mad as hell'?

  Just a thought.

  Meredith

    Jeff, what you said reflects the way I feel too...very much so!
    
    It's obvious from some of the other responses, that there are many
    different views to this.  For myself, I'm reminded that it's easy to 
    over-analyze (justify/explain) anything...and sometimes I just have to 
    get away from the words and trust my feelings.
    
    One thing I used to do a lot was analyze everything I felt and
    experienced and say "Why am I feeling this?"  I kept looking to myself
    to be more open, more accepting, and so on.  This is fine to a certain
    extent...but wisdom must enter into it too.  If I pick up certain vibes 
    from something, it's not just because of the way I perceive.  My belief 
    is that there are a lot of inter-relations going on in this Universe.  
    Just because we are striving to be open and aware, does not mean we 
    have the wisdom to deal with the realizations we think we have.  That's 
    why I think caution and responsibility are very important.  
    
    A lot of people are very "loose" with their emotions because they've 
    been told it's bad to "hold it in".  But I don't think this is a black 
    and white issue.  There's a balance in the spectrum...and I think 
    wisdom helps us know what it is.  
    
    Personally, if I come upon a group of people that think venting is a 
    valuable experience that we are all here to provide for each other...
    well, I will probably make my way somewhere else.  I don't really agree 
    that venting to large groups of people is necessary and/or greatly 
    valuable.  In my opinion, there are many other more valuable ways to
    vent and find value.
    
    It really has nothing to do with a person's character -- we all have
    infinite versatility.  
    
    Jerri

     I have a question that perhaps someone out there can help me with:
    
    Which of these is better than the other and why?
    
      1.) Venting anger to either at/to one person or a large number of
          people,  (being openly angry)
    
      2.) Channeling that anger into an intellectualized format, and
          expressing the "rationale" or thoughts behind the anger to one
          person or a large group of people. (the advantage is that
          you don't turn anyone off to what you are saying right away -
          and since what you may be so empassioned about is really *you*,
          at the core, you are doing yourself a favor by taking this 
          approach.)
    
    
       Note the different effect of "to" and "at" in the above two choices.
    
    Guy
    
    (I know some wise person will come up with #3....:-)
    

    Re .33 (Guy):
    
    I don't claim to be wise, but ...
    
    3.)  Converting that anger into an exploration of what is/was
         its basis, and, rather than explaining it to others, using
         it as a foundation for further explorations of meaning.
    
    There's an old joke that fits in here:
    
    Two wise men were in deep contemplation.  They sat in silence for
    several years.  Then, the first spoke.  He said, "Life is like a
    well of bricks."
    
    They sat in silence for another five years, lost in thought.  On
    the fifth year, the second said, "_Why_ is life like a well of bricks?"
    
    Another seven years passed.  Then the first said, "All right, have
    it your own way: life _isn't_ like a well of bricks."
    
    [End of shaggy guru story.]
    
    Steve Kallis, Jr.

    re: .31
    
    Meredith,  that's a very good question.  I think its a case-by-case
    basis.  The main thing is not to act in anger.  Acting in anger is
    incredibly counter-productive, as well as generating lots of bad karma. 
    Acting ON anger, on the other hand, is a different thing.  If a
    situation makes you angry, do what you can to change it.  Recognize
    that you cannot, and haven't the right, to change some things. Most
    important, if your anger is out of proportion to the thing that has
    wronged you, then you're probably feeling anger that you repressed in
    the past.  This is the most destructive kind of anger, that explodes
    when you least expect it and in the face of somebody who probably did
    nothing to deserve it.
    
    Mary

Not necessarily the wise person of #3 and I suggest "acting out"
emotions is the case where it is very difficult to de-attach from
the actor. We can have emotions and not "act-out". Rather let them
go.

Now then, letting them go is not such an obvious task.  I suggest
it is a little like acknowledging an emotion is present,
saying "hello" to the emotion and letting it go as one might
let a bird perched on one's finger fly off to adventures unknown.

Expression, SELF-EXPRESSION, the expression of Self, does not 
necessarily mean having, and having to have, impact on the local reality.
Self Expression means to express oneSelf as Self in the context
of Selves.  Every Self around notices one's communication of
emotion.  Unaware Selfs will not respond.

A person can either feed their ego or feed their (Soul, Being, Self;
whatever name).  Fundamentally, this is the only choice one has
in the Universe.

"You can either dig it, or bitch about it"

L.

    Not too long ago, I was full of advice and good wisdom (so I thought)
    and when a friend would need to talk I was more than willing to
    offer my opinions and advice.  I as at times amazed that they did
    not readily accept and act on it.  Then, in a conversation with
    a friend with whom I had shared many experiences and discussions,
     a simple statement was made that I will never forget, and it has
    helped me immensely in my battle to eliminate being critical and
    judgmental.  It was - No matter how much you tell someone how to
    act or react to a situation or person, it is up to the `involved'
    person to determine how they accept the reality they are being exposed
    to.
    
    Example - a friend asks your advice how to deal with a relationship
    where the SO is possessive and uses `guilt' control.  It's easy
    for an outsider to assess and advise - but it is the `friend' who
    decides to let their SO make them feel guilty or not - and it is
    up to them to determine the reality of the situation - they make
    the interpretation and accept or reject the guilt.  You are not
    responsible in the least for their interpretation/acceptance - positive
    or negative.
    
    I would like to be a positive influence for those people I interact
    with, but I'm sure there will be controversy and disagreement at
    times.  But again, it is not responsibility as to how they interpret
    or accept/reject my reality - which I create for myself.  In the
    process - it's not boring!  And without controversy or discussion
    or sharing - it would be an emptier world.
    
    Sorry if my thoughts were not expressed clearly - but I feel strongly
    about this particular subject.  I don't see the need to convert
    - but there is certainly nothing wrong with offering your perceptions
    for others to interpret.  And how you feel about that - is your
    responsibility and reality. %) - now did anyone see a smiley face
    in those symbols?
    
    T
    

Re: .26 (Frederick)

I would rather avoid getting into a debate over semantics, so I'll 
change the wording...

The idea I was trying to share (in .23) was that we should be 
responsible for the *direction* of any emotions which are released. If 
we feel anger, for example, there are many ways of releasing that 
energy.  We can run a few miles; we can beat the sh*t out of a punching 
bag; we can find a private place and scream; but we don't have to walk 
into a crowd with a flame thrower.  How we release energy is always a 
matter of choice.  We don't always consciously choose, but we always 
have that option.

About suppression...  There is no doubt in my mind that continuous 
suppression of emotions causes damage.  But there is also no doubt in my 
mind that there are times when it is preferable to suppress it than to 
cause harm.  The deciding factor for me is to always opt for 
harmlessness as best I can.

Whether you agree or not doesn't really matter.  I'm not trying to 
convince you; but is the idea clearer?

Jeff

    re: Jeff
    
        
         Yes, thanks.  And I *do* agree.  It does seem to me, though,
    that your last paragraph is saying the same thing as the first
    in that "direction" is what's important.  Causing harm or not
    causing harm is the difference between being appropriate or being
    inappropriate, that's all...it doesn't mean that something needs
    to get suppressed. 
    
          Incidentally, this also holds true for the 
    emotions most people think of as positive emotions, e.g. love,
    which is equally destructive if unexpressed.  Think about it, if
    you haven't and see if you can understand the truth in this without
    having to have it expounded on.
    
    
    Frederick
    

    
    Re.31 (Nikoloff)
    
    Meredith,
    
    If we're mad as hell, we decide not to take it anymore and then we
    do something about it.
    
    Smashing rocks is one alternative.  (;^)  It isn't all that productive
    if you do it as the only alternative though.
    
    Cindy

    Cindy, the point I was trying to make was; if someone is mad as hell.

Venting the anger by some other means other than comfronting the person/sit-
uation doesn't solve the problem.   I know, I have done this for years.  I am 
really working on letting the anger out(by some unhurtful means, *I have these
great throw pillows*....;^)) and than changing the situation....by telling 
person/situation that made me 'mad as hell'.   

In the past, I have found just stuffing it inside wasn't/isn't enough anymore.  
I use to tell everyone 'I only get mad twice a year'...of course I did...
the rest of the time I was surpessing it.

Meredith_who_now_gets_mad_4_times_a_year...8^)

night_all

    In a larger sense we cannot actually "hurt" someone or be "hurt" by
    someone; especially considering there is only one person in the
    universe anyhow.  Interemly, we can convince another person
    identified with being "not I", or the you over there pretending
    to be individuated, that he/she is at effect.
    
    
    l.

    
 Re: .40 (Cindy)    
    
>    Smashing rocks is one alternative.  (;^)  

Smashing pottery is far more cathartic! ;-)

alison

    Re: .39 (Frederick)
    
    >	Yes, thanks.  And I *do* agree.
    
    
    Frederick, you really had me confused there for a minute.  When you
    said you agreed, I was so flabbergasted that I went back and re-read
    my note, certain that I must have said something that *I* didn't agree
    with.  Oh well, will wonders never cease... :-)
    
    Jeff