 |
 |
Ken, you wrote: Ron, I did not mean to imply that D. Burns is totally wrong, I just don't think anger is something we create. I think it is something that happens in response to a stimulus. Actually if I were pushed off a tall building, the fear would occur before the anger, at least in my case. [log in to unmask] i will respond a little to this. burns and all of us know that no one is "totally ???????(any word)". the founder of general semantics - alfred korzybski - argued against the foolishness of any "??? is ###" verbal construct. all words and non-verbal symbols or signals are labels or pointers or maps referent to something. with something being very broad from physical pieces of the reality to concepts, processes, and abstracts conceived by human minds only. (as far as we know) he oft wrote "the map is not the territory". semantics is an attempt to discover cognition processes. how we think and feel. being cognitive is not equivalent for each of us. "cogito, ergo sum" is the latin sentence "i am cogent, therefore i am" with the next sentence of the philosopher being "dubito, ergo sum" i doubt, therefore i am. knowing one's self involves introspection. burns does much with the verbal - our thinking is all via words - symbols - of classification/labels/generalizations concepts .. language is intrinsic in thinking, knowing, feeling, abstracting, conceptualizing, learning .. cognitive therapy is changing our cognition of our self. opening some of the subconscious to cognition. the writing of our thoughts requires words. the writing of words is random gibberish sometimes - sublime 'seeing' = 'understanding' sometimes to describe an event , the emotions it provoked, the responses we made, the emotions intensity, the sequence of events, the thoughts i had, the observations i made then, the completing of the episode will take me on a journey that is nearly always revelatory --- just doing this putting my memories of the event the emotions, the automatic or considered responses i made, the effects of these on me and the other(s) involved (if any) et c. change me. part two of the burns method is to re-visit each word of the page prepared above to clarify the meaning and to remove any distortions or errors in the thoughts this brings refinement to my thoughts, my values, my beliefs i change my mind i change my mental process sentence: i just don't think anger is something we create reworked: i do not believe that anger is generated by self perception again reworked: i have not understood the process of emotive causality to logically have taken place in my consciousness prior to experiencing anger these may have some different meanings for you than your sentence i have tried to rephrase and to clarify primarily. there is also the step of attempting to remove all distortions in what one has written. the causality of my emotion of anger is at least partially my perception of an event being hurt or pain or loss anger has shades of grey - levels of intensity mild aggravation to livid rage i am not responsible for an event, but i am responsible for my response to an event i have a variety of emotions triggerred by events my emotional state when the event occurs affects my response the environment i happen to be in affects my response my belief about the event affect my response my expectations affect how i respond my understanding and cognitive skills and attentiveness to what is potential affect my response i choose to be in control of my response (some may have the opposite habit) i am not always feeling calm, relaxed, and pleasant .. my temperament determines my response to some extent.. i will say that i will not express anger childishly or destructively via tantrum or throwing something or breaking something i believe teaching assertiveness is central to learning a proper response to events that we perceive painful or detrimental or mean-spirited toward us counter-agression is not appropriate in most instances. i am often angry with myself in the occasions when my attempting has failed seething rage is not common; nor is it response to an event; it is abnormal psyche - madness. i am angry about injustice, deception, lying, cheating, greed, insensitivity of governing persons, but this anger is not often emotive in the sense of felt strongly. it is my attitude about mean-spirited persons in powerful position because of wealth or election or ruthlessness. jesus responded without anger to most every event - as did mahatma gandhi. jesus was a healer with extraordinary perception. his response to remain non-violent included sweating blood apparently. he did run the thieves out of the temple. mostly, he was kind and gentle. i must decide whether to send this to all or just Ken. perhaps some one will benefit. ron