Anger

Passages

Every passage tagged with this emotion in the Vela corpus. Search the body text, narrow by source or register, click through to a book’s profile to see how the passage sits with the rest of the work.

Page 226 of 447 · 20 per page

• From How to Deal with Angry People (2023)

  Their anger allowed them to respond with more energy and made it more likely that they would survive hostile altercations. I’m guessing most of you can easily pull up a recent example of a time you got angry. Maybe it was over a mild inconvenience at the grocery store that slowed you down. Or maybe it was when you experienced a much more significant injustice that left you feeling disrespected and helpless. Regardless, that anger wasn’t just normal, it was likely healthy. The anger we feel when we are treated badly or slowed down both alerts us to the poor treatment and energizes us to respond to the poor treatment. TIP One way to judge the healthiness of your anger is to pay attention to the consequences. Is your anger harming your relationships, leading to arguments or fights, or leading to other negative outcomes? It’s worth noting, though, that even though our anger is often good for us, it can still cause problems. It can disrupt our lives in significant ways when we don’t manage it properly, when we get angry too often, or even when we get angry over the wrong things or at the wrong times. Learning to navigate our anger is an important part of being an emotionally healthy person. It is also worth noting that some people get angry more often than others, express their anger in more aggressive and hostile ways, and suffer more frequent negative consequences as a result of their anger. Such people can be described as having an angry personality. ANGER FACT Almost a third of people surveyed described themselves as having an anger problem.9 What’s a Personality Trait? When psychologists talk about this dynamic – where an emotion is both a feeling and a personality characteristic – we refer to it as state–trait theory. Anger as an emotion is a state . Anger as a personality characteristic is a trait . A personality trait can be defined as a relatively consistent way of behaving, thinking, and feeling. If you were to describe a person as friendly, you likely mean that most of the time they treat people kindly and are pleasant to be around. When you describe a person as arrogant, you likely mean that they often show an exaggerated sense of their own importance. In both of these cases, though, the people in question can behave differently – a kind person can be cruel sometimes and an arrogant person can show vulnerability. Having a personality trait doesn’t mean you are that way all of the time . It just means you are that way much of the time . Trait theory originates with the work of Dr.

• From How to Deal with Angry People (2023)

  CHAPTER 6 STRATEGY ONE: WORK OUT WHAT YOU REALLY WANT “If he didn’t want to know what I thought, he shouldn’t have asked me” A friend of mine recently told me about a very unpleasant anger-related situation she was having with one of her in-laws. As a family, they were dealing with some complicated health issues that required making some difficult decisions. My friend was asked by her father-in-law what she thought they should do. She was honest with the advice she gave even though she knew he wouldn’t like it. What she hadn’t anticipated, though, was how much he wouldn’t like it and how angry he would become. He was livid. She received an email from him that was exceedingly angry and hostile. He questioned her commitment to their family and told her she had no right to say such things. When she tried to explain that she was just offering her opinion the way he had asked her to, he attacked her again with a second email. This one was even more aggressive. She decided not to respond to that one and he never followed up with her. At the time she told me all of this, her father-in-law had cut off contact with her and though he was still communicating with her husband, he had become very cold to him. She was hurt and scared about what all this might mean to their family. On top of the hurt and fear, though, she was also really mad at him. He had asked her opinion, so she provided it. “If he didn’t want to know what I thought, he shouldn’t have asked me,” she told me. “He didn’t really want my opinion. He just wanted me to tell him that he was doing the right thing.” In retrospect,

• From How to Deal with Angry People (2023)

  Like I described with both Simone and my son, children essentially learn their expressions by watching their caregivers and other important people in their lives. Taking it a step further, it’s not just that they notice the anger of others and emulate it, it’s that they intentionally look to others to see how they are responding to situations as a way of determining how they should feel. This is called social referencing and here’s how it works. When we encounter a new stimulus and we aren’t sure how to feel, we look to a trusted other, often a caregiver, to see how they feel. If they seem scared, we get scared. If they get angry, we get angry.* Over time, these collective experiences teach us what types of situations we should become angry over. The same way that we develop phobias in part by watching mom or dad express fear in response to particular objects or situations, we develop our anger responses by watching mom or dad get angry in particular situations. We start to prioritize particular types of injustice and unfairness because the people we look up to care about those injustices. Display Rules Interestingly, it is also here that children often learn their culture’s display rules for particular emotions. Display rules are the informal norms that exist regarding how emotions should and should not be displayed in a particular culture or group. There’s a well-established norm in most cultures, for example, that males should avoid crying. Despite popular claims, though, this difference isn’t rooted so much in biology. It’s rooted in cultural expectations. Male and female infants cry at the same rate29 , but males learn over time through rewards, punishments, and modeling that they should avoid crying. Anger, in particular, has very complicated display rules. Who gets to be angry and in what way is driven largely by cultural and social expectations and they differ based on gender, race, age, and a variety of other factors. For instance, consider these three facts: Black men in the United States are more likely to be assigned anger management as a consequence for crimes, even when it’s a similar type of crime or the same judge.30Women who express their anger outwardly are seen as less competent than men who express their anger in the exact same way.31Black men and women who voiced anger were found to be less influential than their white male counterparts when expressing the exact same thing.32Taken together, it’s clear that there are very different expectations for how people believe anger should be expressed based on gender and race. Anger can be expressed in the same way by two different people and how that expression is perceived will vary greatly depending on the characteristics of the angry person. Let’s consider what this means in the context of how anger develops in people. It really goes back to those three elements we discussed: reinforcement, punishment, and modeling.

• From How to Deal with Angry People (2023)

  Imagine you are on social media and you comment on a friend’s political post. Someone you have never met before – a friend of your friend – responds to you with an angry and even aggressive and insulting post. Most of us probably don’t have to imagine this – you can just think back to a time when this very thing has happened to you. In fact, data from The Anger Project reveals that 23 per cent of people get into online arguments at least once a month. 52 In that moment, you might feel the desire to fire back at them – to really let them have it for insulting you. But if you stop and think through your goals in this situation, you may come to a completely different course of action. For instance, you may decide your goal isn’t to get revenge. You may decide you don’t want to insult them or try to prove them wrong. Rather, your goal might be to convince anyone reading the thread of your position, and you write a response intended for that broader audience. That could entail an entirely different tone or approach. Instead of the hostility you might have started with, you shift to a positive approach that is more likely to resonate with other readers. Or you may decide that your goal is to preserve your relationship with your friend – the original poster. In that case, maybe you don’t respond at all for worry that this stranger and your friend are close and preserving a relationship with your friend might mean that you shouldn’t insult or attack someone on the social-media feed. At the Office Now imagine you make a mistake at your job that causes one of your co-workers some extra work and some understood frustration. That co-worker responds with a very hostile email to you about the mistake you made and the time it cost them. You understandably get defensive and maybe even a little angry yourself. People often tell me that their gut reaction to situations like this – likely rooted in defensiveness – is to fire back in a similarly hostile way. Rather than admit the mistake or offer an apology, they try to turn the cause back on the person with a “I know I made a mistake but...” or “It wouldn’t have happened if you hadn’t....”

• From Another Country (1962)

  He came and stood over her. “Let’s get this straight. We’ve been married almost thirteen years, and I’ve been in love with you all that time, and I’ve trusted you, and, except for a couple of times in the army, I haven’t had anything to do with any other woman. Even though I’ve thought about it. But it never seemed worth it. And I’ve worked, I’ve worked very hard, Cass, for you and our children, so we could be happy and so our marriage would work. Maybe you think that’s old-fashioned, maybe you think I’m dumb, I don’t know, you’re so much more—sensitive than I am. And now—and then—” He walked over to the bar and set his glass down. “Suddenly, for no reason, just when it begins to seem that things are really going to work out for us, all of a sudden—you begin to make me feel that I’m something that stinks, that I ought to be out of doors. I didn’t know what had happened, I didn’t know where you’d gone—all of a sudden. I’ve listened to you come into this house and go and look at the boys, and then crawl into bed—I swear, I could hear every move you made—and I’d stay on in the office like a little boy, because I didn’t know how, how, to come close to you again. I kept thinking, She’ll get over it, it’s just some strange kind of feminine shift that I can’t understand. I even thought, my God, that maybe you were going to have another baby and didn’t want to tell me yet.” He bowed his head on the bar. “And, Jesus, Jesus—Eric! You walk in and tell me you’ve been sleeping with Eric.” He turned and looked at her. “How long?” “A few weeks.” “Why?” She did not answer. He came toward her again. “Answer me, baby. Why?” He leaned over her, imprisoning her in the chair. “Is it that you wanted to hurt me?” “No. I have never wanted to hurt you.” “Why, then?” He leaned closer. “Did you get bored with me? Does he make love to you better than I; does he know tricks I don’t know? Is that it?” He wrapped the fingers of one hand in her hair. “Is that it? Answer me!” “Richard, you’re going to wake the children—” “Now she worries about the children!” He pulled her head forward, then slammed it back against the chair, and slapped her across the face, twice, as hard as he could. The room dropped into darkness for a second, then came reeling back, in light; tears came to her eyes, and her nose began to bleed. “Is that it? Did he fuck you in the ass, did he make you suck his cock? Answer me, you bitch, you slut, you cunt!” She tried to throw back her head, choking and gasping, she felt her thick blood on her lips, and it fell onto her breasts. “No, Richard, no, no. Please, Richard.”

• From Amplified Holy Bible (2015)

  17 But motioning to them with his hand to be quiet and listen, he described how the Lord had led him out of the prison. And he said, “Report these things to d James and the brothers and sisters.” Then he left and went to another place. 18 Now when day came, there was no small disturbance among the soldiers over what had become of Peter. 19 When Herod had searched for him and could not find him, he interrogated the guards and commanded that they be led away to execution . Then he went down from Judea to Caesarea [Maritima] and spent some time there. Death of Herod 20 Now Herod [Agrippa I] was e extremely angry with the people of Tyre and Sidon; and their delegates came to him in a united group, and after persuading Blastus, f the king’s chamberlain [to support their cause], they asked for peace, because their country was fed by [imports of grain and other goods from] the king’s country. 21 On an appointed day Herod dressed himself in his g royal robes, sat on his throne (tribunal, rostrum) and began delivering a speech to the people. 22 The assembled people kept shouting, “It is the voice of a god and not of a man!” 23 And at once an angel of the Lord struck him down because he did not give God the glory [and instead permitted himself to be worshiped], and h he was eaten by worms and died [five days later]. 24 But the word of the Lord [the good news about salvation through Christ] continued to grow and spread [increasing in effectiveness]. 25 Barnabas and Saul came back i from Jerusalem when they had completed their mission, bringing with them John, who was also called Mark. [Acts 11:28–30 ] Acts 13 First Missionary Journey 1 N OW IN the church at Antioch there were prophets [who spoke a new message of God to the people] and teachers: Barnabas, Simeon who was called a Niger, Lucius of Cyrene, Manaen who had been brought up with b Herod [Antipas] the tetrarch, and Saul. 2 While they were serving the Lord and fasting, the Holy Spirit said, “Set apart for Me Barnabas and Saul (Paul) for the work to which I have called them.” 3 Then after fasting and praying, they laid their hands on them [in approval and dedication] and sent them away [on their first journey]. 4 So then, being sent out by the Holy Spirit, they went down to Seleucia, and from there they sailed to Cyprus. 5 When Barnabas and Saul arrived at Salamis, they began to preach the word of God [proclaiming the message of eternal salvation through faith in Christ] in the synagogues of the Jews; and they also had John [Mark] as their assistant.

• From How to Deal with Angry People (2023)

  Online Imagine you are on social media and you comment on a friend’s political post. Someone you have never met before – a friend of your friend – responds to you with an angry and even aggressive and insulting post. Most of us probably don’t have to imagine this – you can just think back to a time when this very thing has happened to you. In fact, data from The Anger Project reveals that 23 per cent of people get into online arguments at least once a month.52 In that moment, you might feel the desire to fire back at them – to really let them have it for insulting you. But if you stop and think through your goals in this situation, you may come to a completely different course of action. For instance, you may decide your goal isn’t to get revenge. You may decide you don’t want to insult them or try to prove them wrong. Rather, your goal might be to convince anyone reading the thread of your position, and you write a response intended for that broader audience. That could entail an entirely different tone or approach. Instead of the hostility you might have started with, you shift to a positive approach that is more likely to resonate with other readers. Or you may decide that your goal is to preserve your relationship with your friend – the original poster. In that case, maybe you don’t respond at all for worry that this stranger and your friend are close and preserving a relationship with your friend might mean that you shouldn’t insult or attack someone on the social-media feed. At the Office Now imagine you make a mistake at your job that causes one of your co-workers some extra work and some understood frustration. That co-worker responds with a very hostile email to you about the mistake you made and the time it cost them. You understandably get defensive and maybe even a little angry yourself. People often tell me that their gut reaction to situations like this – likely rooted in defensiveness – is to fire back in a similarly hostile way. Rather than admit the mistake or offer an apology, they try to turn the cause back on the person with a “I know I made a mistake but…” or “It wouldn’t have happened if you hadn’t….” It’s natural and understandable to get defensive when someone is angry with you. In fact, it would be weird not to want to defend yourself in such situations. It would really run contrary to our nature.

• From How to Deal with Angry People (2023)

  Allport described these as “those that we mention in writing a careful letter of recommendation* .” Central traits are our primary personality traits. Those qualities that regularly influence our behavior and thoughts (such as intelligence, kindness, conscientiousness, introversion). These are relatively stable traits and central to how people see you and describe your personality. When you set up your friend on a date, you might say, “You’ll like them. They are really….” Whatever you end that sentence with – funny, kind, smart, charming – is likely an example of a central trait. So when Izzy described her dad as an angry person, she was saying that one of his central traits was his anger. It doesn’t mean he is always that thing. It simply means he is usually that thing. Finally, secondary traits are those traits that tend to emerge only in particular types of situations. He described these as “less conspicuous, less generalized, less consistent, and less often called into play.” For instance, I tend to be a rather laid-back driver who doesn’t get too angry when I’m behind the wheel. That said, there is a specific circumstance when I find myself getting very frustrated. It’s when I am running low on gas. I can tell you exactly what happens in these situations. I become preoccupied with the idea that I’m going to run out of gas and so I catastrophize every slight delay. The red light, the person driving too slowly, the traffic… they all become reasons why I am going to run out of gas, be stranded on the side of the road, and have my day ruined.† This is an example of a secondary trait. It’s a personality characteristic in that it predicts my feelings and behavior, but only emerges in a very specific situation. TIP If you recognize that anger, either yours or someone else’s, comes out during specific situations, try managing those situations. Prepare for them, modify them, or even avoid them. This last type of trait is really tricky because it speaks to a fundamental question about personality. How can it be stable on the one hand and emerge in particular circumstances? Isn’t that evidence that it’s not really the trait influencing our behavior, but actually the situations we’re in? If people only get mad in particular circumstances, it’s hard to argue that it’s their personality leading to the anger. It must be those particular circumstances leading to the anger. The “Person vs. Situation Controversy” In the late 1960s and 1970s, as one group of psychologists – the personality theorists – were trying to articulate these building blocks of personality, another group of psychologists, led by Dr. Walter Mischel, were arguing that the personality does not exist. On the surface, this claim might feel a little outrageous. How could the personality not exist? Don’t we see proof of the personality all the time through our interactions with people?

• From How to Deal with Angry People (2023)

  Consistently, studies of these thought types have linked them to anger, sadness, and fear. People who have these types of thoughts often aren’t just more likely to get mad, they are more likely to express their anger in maladaptive or dangerous ways.49 These findings have some really important implications for therapy and self-help too, in that we know that these thoughts are where intervention often works best. In keeping with Beck’s original ideas, research has confirmed that one of the best ways to help angry people is to help them change these thoughts. When people replace their angering thoughts with more adaptive thoughts, they experience less anger and express it in healthier ways. To me, though, what is equally fascinating is to consider where these thoughts are learned and developed. Why do some people gravitate toward these particular thought types in the first place? Ephraim said something really important about this when he talked about the origin of his so often feeling misunderstood and devalued. He talked about his mother, who he described as controlling, and how he felt like his feelings and thoughts were devalued throughout his childhood. He felt misunderstood for so much of his life that it has been a consistent source of frustration to him. Our thought tendencies likely develop through a similar mechanism as our emotion tendencies. We learn some of it through rewards and punishments when our caregivers actively encourage or discourage ways of thinking by praising or scolding us. When a child does poorly on a test and says, “It wasn’t my fault. The teacher didn’t teach us that stuff” a parent might agree and support them, which acts like a reward. Or they might scold them for externalizing the blame, which acts like a punishment and encourages them to think differently. They may even offer them alternative explanations of what happened or different ways of thinking about the situation. That said, much of how of our worldview develops likely comes through modeling. We pick up on how our caregivers think of things through the thoughts they actually vocalize during their day-to-day experiences. When one of our parents says, “Look at this idiot” or “This happens every time” or “Well now the entire day is ruined,” we take in those interpretations and thinking styles. We start to label people, overgeneralize, and catastrophize because those things have been modeled for us. It’s worth noting too, that while our caregivers might be the most influential here early on, it isn’t just them.

• From Lost Christianities: Christian Scriptures and the Battles over Authentication (2002)

  49 The account is remarkable for a number of reasons. It has numerous similarities to the accounts of the New Testament gospels: Jesus is tried before Pilate and cruci¿ ed with two robbers, he is taken from the cross before the Sabbath and buried in a tomb by Joseph of Arimathea, and on the third day, Jesus is raised from the dead. But far more striking than the similarities with the more familiar gospel accounts are the differences. Some of the differences heighten the responsibility of the Jews in the death of Jesus. These appear to reÀ ect a kind of incipient but already virulent anti- Judaism among the early Christians. It is important to understand some historical background of what happened between Christians and Jews in the early centuries. Christianity started out as a Jewish sect. Jesus himself was Jewish, as were his followers. After Jesus’ death, his followers began to proclaim that Jesus was the Son of God, whose death had brought about salvation for the world. This rejection of the message of Jesus led to a split between the few Jews who accepted Jesus as messiah and the majority who rejected this claim. Those who accepted Jesus began trying to convert others, and Christianity became a separate religion. All religions in the Roman Empire had been tolerated because all, except Judaism, were polytheistic. Judaism was not considered a problem because it was an ancient tradition. The new religion of Christianity was seen as dangerous. Christians refused to worship the state gods and did not have an ancient tradition to back up their views. To defend themselves, Christians began to claim that they were the true representatives of Judaism. This led to a serious split, with Christians accusing Jews of being responsible for the death of Jesus. It is the King of the Jews, Herod (not the Roman Pilate), who condemns Jesus to death (v. 2). The Jews realize the evil they have done and fear the wrath of God as a result (v. 25). It became a standard polemic that the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 A.D. came about because the Jews had executed Jesus. The Jewish people are explicitly condemned for what they did (v. 17). Other differences point to the possibly “heretical” leanings of the gospel. Jesus is said to have been silent on the cross “as if he felt no pain” (v. 10).

• From Lost Christianities: Christian Scriptures and the Battles over Authentication (2002)

  95 Hagar and Sarah in Gal. 4, which he interprets as referring not to the two partners of Abraham, but to Jews (Hagar) and Christians (Sarah). Later proto-orthodox Christians then had to decide how to interpret their Scriptures, and the matter became increasingly important, with different teachers interpreting the same texts in different ways, then claiming that these texts supported their points of view. Marcion, for example, insisted on a literal interpretation of the Old Testament, which led him to conclude that the God of the Old Testament was inferior to the true God because he was sometimes ignorant, changed his mind on occasion, and was wrathful and full of vengeance. Marcion’s proto-orthodox opponent Tertullian insisted that passages speaking about God’s ignorance and emotions were to not to be taken literally but ¿ guratively. He took other passages ¿ guratively, as well, to illustrate his own theological system. In this, he was following solid precedent (cf. the use of ¿ gurative interpretation to attack Jews in the Epistle of Barnabas). But when proto-orthodox fathers faced opponents like the Gnostics, who interpreted Scripture ¿ guratively, they insisted vehemently that only a literal interpretation of the text would do. The proto-orthodox attacks on gnostic ¿ gurative modes of interpretation are particularly interesting. The second-century church father Irenaeus, bishop of Gaul, is a key ¿ gure in these debates. Irenaeus recounts a number of interpretive strategies used by Gnostics to support their points of view and gives speci¿ c instances of their interpretations that he ¿ nds to be completely willful, in that they overlook the literal meaning of the texts. Gnostics who believed in thirty divine aeons appealed to the claim of the Gospel of Luke that Jesus started his ministry when he was thirty. They also found support that these thirty aeons were divided into three groups—the ¿ nal twelve of which were completed with the creation of Sophia, an aeon who fell from the divine realm, leading to the creation of the universe—in the fact that Judas Iscariot, the twelfth of the disciples, fell away to become a betrayer. Irenaeus considered these interpretations ludicrous. In his view, the Gnostics were simply making texts mean what they wanted them to mean and ignoring what the texts actually said. He likened the gnostic approach to interpretation to someone who takes a beautiful mosaic image of a king and

• From Lost Christianities: Christian Scriptures and the Battles over Authentication (2002)

  73 The Epistle of Barnabas Lecture 17 The Epistle of Barnabas was widely considered to be Scripture in some circles of early Christianity, and it nearly made its way into the New Testament. I n our previous lecture, we considered non-canonical epistles allegedly written by the apostle Paul. These books of 3 Corinthians and the letters to Seneca were forged by proto-orthodox Christians to promote their own perspectives. This is true of all the early Christian pseudepigrapha, including the one we will examine in this lecture, allegedly written not by the apostle Paul but by his trusted companion, Barnabas. The Epistle of Barnabas was widely considered to be Scripture in some circles of early Christianity and nearly made it into the New Testament (it is still found in one of our earliest Greek manuscripts of the New Testament). The manuscript, the Codex Sinaiticus, was discovered in the nineteenth century by Constantine von Tischendorff in St. Catherine’s Monastery on Mount Sinai. It is the earliest complete manuscript of the New Testament, but it also contains two other books, one of which is the Epistle of Barnabas. The history of Western civilization may have been drastically changed had the Epistle of Barnabas been included in the canon. It is a virulent attack on historical Judaism, which may well have fanned even further the À ames of anti-Semitism. We m u s t ¿ rst consider some background to the Epistle of Barnabas. This particular book, written about 130–135 A.D., is not actually forged; the author is anonymous. Only later was the book attributed to Barnabas, a well- known ¿ gure from the early church as a traveling companion of Paul. The historical context of the epistle involves the developing relationship of Jews and Christians in the early decades of the second century. It is important to bear in mind a few features of early Jewish-Christian relations. Jesus and his followers were all Jews; Jesus appears to have wanted to give the right interpretation of Judaism, not to set up a new religion in opposition to Judaism. His follower Paul advocated the view that even

• From How to Deal with Angry People (2023)

  The idea being that we want to teach kids to let out their anger in a safe way so they don’t bottle it up and hurt themselves. We have a lot of evidence, though, that this sort of catharsis only encourages anger and aggression. * Even though this is often referred to as a single study, it was actually an entire line of research related to social learning. It was replicated many times using several different variations, not just by Bandura but by many other scholars after him. * This doesn’t stop as we age. It happens less often because we are uncertain about our emotions less often, but it still happens. Have you ever been in a work meeting and had a colleague say something you were unsure about? Did you look to a trusted colleague or friend to see how they felt about it? CHAPTER 4 THE CONTAGIOUSNESS OF ANGER “I Absolutely Snapped” In May of 2010, a group came together in Columbus, Ohio to protest the Affordable Care Act (ACA), President Obama’s signature healthcare initiative (often referred to as Obamacare). The protest itself was one of many happening across the United States and wouldn’t necessarily have been noteworthy on its own had it not been for a viral video that captured a particular person behaving very badly. Like a lot of these protests, a group of counter-protesters arrived as well and this particular counter-protest included a man named Robert Letcher who was holding a sign that read “Got Parkinson’s? I do and you might. Thanks for your help.” Letcher is sitting down in front of the anti-ACA protesters when a man leans down and lectures him, condescendingly, “If you’re looking for a handout, you’re in the wrong end of town. There’s nothing for free over here. You have to work for everything you get.” Meanwhile, another man comes over and says, “No, no, I’ll pay for this guy. Here you go.” He tries to hand Letcher money, which Letcher doesn’t take, so he drops the bill on him. “Start a pot,” he says, “I’ll pay for you.” He then starts to walk away, but turns back and yells, “I’ll decide when to give you money.” He then crumples up another bill and throws it at Letcher, yelling even louder, “No more handout!” The crowd behind them seems to be egging him on, applauding his hostility and calling Letcher a communist. Taken together, what you have is a particularly troubling sight where a large group of people, led by two men, are mocking an elderly Parkinson’s patient.

• From Henry Miller on Writing (1964)

  We don’t want to hear about the logic of events—or any kind of logic. “Je ne parle pas logique ,” said Montherlant, “je parle gétiérosité .” I don’t think you heard it very well, since it was in French. I’ll repeat it for you, in the Queen’s own language: “I’m not talking logic, I’m talking generosity.” That’s bad English, as the Queen herself might speak it, but it’s clear. Generosity— do you hear? You never practice it, any of you, either in peace or in war. You don’t know the meaning of the word. You think to supply guns and ammunition to the winning side is generosity; you think sending Red Cross nurses to the front, or the Salvation Army, is generosity. You think a bonus twenty years too late is generosity; you think a little pension and a wheel-chair is generosity; you think if you give a man his old job back it’s generosity. You don’t know what the fucking word means, you bastards! To be generous is to say Yes before the man even opens his mouth. To say Yes you have to first be a Surrealist or a Dadaist, because you have understood what it means to say No. You can even say Yes and No at the same time, provided you do more than is expected of you. Be a stevedore in the day time and a Beau Brummell in the night time. Wear any uniform so long as it’s not yours. When you write your mother ask her to cough up a little dough so that you may have a clean rag to wipe your ass with. Don’t be disturbed if you see your neighbor going after his wife with a knife: he probably has good reason to go after her, and if he kills her you may be sure he has the satisfaction of knowing why he did it. If you’re trying to improve your mind, stop it! There’s no improving the mind. Look to your heart and gizzard—the brain is in the heart. Ah yes, if I had known then that these birds existed—Cendrars, Vaché, Grosz, Ernst, Apollinaire—if I had known that then, if I had known that in their own way they were thinking exactly the same things as I was, I think I’d have blown up. Yes, I think I’d have gone off like a bomb. But I was ignorant.

• From Lost Christianities: Christian Scriptures and the Battles over Authentication (2002)

  49 The account is remarkable for a number of reasons. It has numerous similarities to the accounts of the New Testament gospels: Jesus is tried before Pilate and cruci ¿ ed with two robbers, he is taken from the cross before the Sabbath and buried in a tomb by Joseph of Arimathea, and on the third day, Jesus is raised from the dead. But far more striking than the similarities with the more familiar gospel accounts are the differences. Some of the differences heighten the responsibility of the Jews in the death of Jesus. These appear to re À ect a kind of incipient but already virulent anti- Judaism among the early Christians. It is important to understand some historical background of what happened between Christians and Jews in the early centuries. Christianity started out as a Jewish sect. Jesus himself was Jewish, as were his followers. After Jesus’ death, his followers began to proclaim that Jesus was the Son of God, whose death had brought about salvation for the world. This rejection of the message of Jesus led to a split between the few Jews who accepted Jesus as messiah and the majority who rejected this claim. Those who accepted Jesus began trying to convert others, and Christianity became a separate religion. All religions in the Roman Empire had been tolerated because all, except Judaism, were polytheistic. Judaism was not considered a problem because it was an ancient tradition. The new religion of Christianity was seen as dangerous. Christians refused to worship the state gods and did not have an ancient tradition to back up their views. To defend themselves, Christians began to claim that they were the true representatives of Judaism. This led to a serious split, with Christians accusing Jews of being responsible for the death of Jesus. It is the King of the Jews, Herod (not the Roman Pilate), who condemns Jesus to death (v. 2). The Jews realize the evil they have done and fear the wrath of God as a result (v. 25). It became a standard polemic that the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 A.D. came about because the Jews had executed Jesus. The Jewish people are explicitly condemned for what they did (v. 17). Other differences point to the possibly “heretical” leanings of the gospel. Jesus is said to have been silent on the cross “as if he felt no pain” (v. 10).

• From Amplified Holy Bible (2015)

  12 “So I will send a fire [of war, conquest, and destruction] upon Teman, And it shall consume the citadels of Bozrah [in Edom].” 13 Thus says the LORD , “For three transgressions of the children of f Ammon and for four (multiplied delinquencies) I will not reverse its punishment or revoke My word concerning it, Because the Ammonites have ripped open the pregnant women of Gilead, That they might enlarge their border. 14 “So I will kindle a fire [of war, conquest, and destruction] on the wall of Rabbah [in Ammon] And it shall devour its strongholds Amid war cries and shouts of alarm on the day of battle, And a tempest on the day of the whirlwind [when the enemy captures the city]. 15 “Their king shall go into exile, He and his princes together,” says the LORD . Amos 2 Judgment on Moab 1 T HUS SAYS the LORD , “For three transgressions of a Moab and for four (multiplied delinquencies) I will not reverse its punishment or revoke My word concerning it, Because he burned the bones of the king of Edom [Esau’s descendant] into lime [and used it to plaster a Moabite house]. 2 “So I will send a fire [of war, conquest, and destruction] upon Moab And it shall devour the strongholds of Kerioth; And Moab shall die amid tumult and uproar, With war cries and shouts of alarm and the sound of the trumpet. 3 “I will also cut off and destroy the ruler from its midst And slay all the princes with him,” says the LORD . Judgment on Judah 4 Thus says the LORD , “For three transgressions of Judah and for four (multiplied delinquencies) I will not reverse its punishment or revoke My word concerning it, Because they have rejected the law of the LORD [the sum of God’s instruction to His people] And have not kept His commandments; But their lies [and their idols], after which their fathers walked, Caused them to go astray. 5 “So I will send a fire [of war, conquest, and destruction by the Babylonians] upon Judah And it will devour the strongholds of Jerusalem.” Judgment on Israel 6 Thus says the LORD , “For three transgressions of Israel and for four (multiplied delinquencies) I will not reverse its punishment or revoke My word concerning it, Because they sell the righteous and innocent for silver And the needy for the price of a pair of sandals. 7 “These who pant after (long to see) the dust of the earth on the head of the helpless [as sign of their grief and distress] Also turn aside the way of the humble; And a man and his father will go to the same b girl So that My holy name is profaned.

• From Henry Miller on Writing (1964)

  Making ready, with feet on the desk, to write “strong works, works forever incomprehensible,” as my dead comrades were promising. These “strong works”—would you recognize them if you saw them? Do you know that of the millions who were killed not one death was necessary to produce “the strong work”? New beings , yes! We have need of new beings still. We can do without the telephone, without the automobile, without the high-class bombers—but we can’t do without new beings. If Atlantis was submerged beneath the sea, if the Sphinx and the Pyramids remain an eternal riddle, it is because there were no more new beings being born. Stop the machine a moment! Flash back! Flash back to 1914, to the Kaiser sitting on his horse. Keep him sitting there a moment with his withered arm clutching the bridle rein. Look at his moustache! Look at his haughty air of pride and arrogance! Look at his cannon-fodder lined up in strictest discipline, all ready to obey the word, to get shot, to get disemboweled, to be burned in quick-lime. Hold it a moment, now, and look at the other side: the defenders of our great and glorious civilization, the men who will war to end war. Change their clothes, change uniforms, change horses, change flags, change terrain. My, is that the Kaiser I see on a white horse? Are those the terrible Huns? And where is Big Bertha? Oh, I see—I thought it was pointing towards Notre Dame? Humanity, me lads, humanity always marching in the van … And the strong works we were speaking of? Where are the strong works? Call up the Western Union and dispatch a messenger fleet of foot—not a cripple or an octogenarian, but a young one! Ask him to find the great work and bring it back. We need it. We have a brand new museum ready waiting to house it—and cellophane and the Dewey Decimal system to file it. All we need is the name of the author. Even if he has no name, even if it is an anonymous work, we won’t kick. Even if it has a little mustard gas in it we won’t mind. Bring it back dead or alive—there’s a $25,000 reward for the man who fetches it. And if they tell you that these things had to be, that things could not have happened otherwise, that France did her best and Germany her best and that little Liberia and little Ecuador and all the other allies also did their best, and that since the war everybody has been doing his best to patch things up or to forget, tell them that their best is not good enough, that we don’t want to hear any more this logic of “doing the best one can,” tell them we don’t want the best of a bad bargain, we don’t believe in bargains good or bad, nor in war memorials.

• From How to Deal with Angry People (2023)

  most relevant personality traits. The Angry Personality In 1996, Dr. Jerry Deffenbacher, along with seven other researchers from Colorado State University, wrote an very important work 16 on the subject of the angry personality. While eight authors is a lot of authors for a research paper, this particular paper was completed over the course of eight years, tested five different hypotheses related to the angry personality, and included eight different research projects within it. It is an extensive series of projects that remains a defining work in understanding anger as a personality trait. To break it down quickly, the researchers had five hypotheses that all served a single goal – to establish that anger really could be considered a personality trait. To do all this, they ran eight separate research projects using a variety of questionnaires that measure different aspects of anger. In one of these eight studies, for instance, they looked at people with unusually high or low scores on a test of trait anger (a measure of anger as a personality trait). Those participants came in for a session where they were asked to complete a number of short activities (take additional questionnaires, provide blood pressure and heart-rate data, listen to a provoking situation). Participants who had scored high on this test were more likely to become angry in response to the provocation, were more likely to experience anger on a day-to-day basis, and experienced more intense physiological symptoms (such as increased heart rate and blood pressure). Later in this same paper, the researchers established that people who scored high on the scale suffered more serious anger-related negative consequences. They were more likely to hurt someone as a result of their anger, to break something when angry, or to use drugs or alcohol when angry. In fact, they asked these angry participants to describe the two worst anger incidents in the past year. The researchers coded the responses and found that those who had scored high on this test of their angry personality suffered the most severe consequences. What makes this paper so important both to the overall field of anger and to

• From How to Deal with Angry People (2023)

  make it about something more than the specific situation. Rather, they are intended to help resolve the problems in a way that minimizes conflict. TIP Try not to mistake assertiveness for aggression. A person who is angry with you might share that with you in a way that is not intended to be harmful (assertiveness) and that’s very different from someone who tries to hurt you verbally or physically when they are angry (aggression). Anger-motivated assertiveness is relatively rare. This is largely because it’s really difficult for people to be assertive when they are angry. The emotion of anger often includes the desire to lash out at people, so being able to take a step back and express that anger in a way that is direct but doesn’t intend harm is a real skill. It is a talent that most people don’t have. That said, there are people who can do it and their anger is often unrecognized by those around them. Because of their ability to remain calm and direct without yelling or swearing, people don’t view them as angry in those moments. In the spirit of remembering that anger can look a lot of different ways, we need to remember that just because a person is calm on the outside, doesn’t mean they are calm on the inside. Deep Breathing or Relaxation When my youngest son, currently 11 years old, starts to become angry, the first thing he does is put his arms down at his sides, lowers his shoulders, stares straight ahead, and takes a deep breath. In those moments, it seems like he’s tuning everything else around him out and just focusing on staying calm. As described in the previous chapter, this is one of the ways anger can look in people. They experience a provocation, they start to feel angry, and they quickly move to try and calm themselves through deep breathing or some other form of relaxation.

• From Paul and Palestinian Judaism (40th Anniversary Edition) (2017)

  They provoked God's anger (orgisthl) and are punished (18.15). 15 In 19.2 the angels are said not only to have defiled mankind, but to have led them astray 'into sacrificing to demons'. Otherwise their sin is not specified. In 22.9-13, all men are divided into three groups. One division is that of the righteous (22.9, dikaioz) or pious (22.13, hosioi). They are put in Sheol into a 'hollow place' 'in which there is a spring of bright water'. Sinners who were not punished in their lifetime are segregated from those who were. The latter 'shall not be punished in the day of judgement nor shall they be raised from thence' (22.13). The righteous are apparently raised and re- warded, while the unpunished sinners are raised and punished. It appears not only from 22.9,13, but also from 25.5 that 'righteous' and 'pious' (Charles, 'holy') are used synonymously. If the Greek fragment here accurately represents the Hebrew or Aramaic, the term dikaioi probably translates tsaddiqim, while hosioi translates ~asidim (or the Aramaic equiva- lents). In 25.5 the righteous and pious are equated with the elect. The right- eous, pious and elect, after God visits 'the earth with goodness' (25.3), will enter 'the holy place' where there is a fragrant tree, and there they shall live a long and untroubled life (25.3-7). It is especially noteworthy that God's 'true judgement' condemns the 'accursed', while the righteous bless God 'for the mercy in accordance with which He has assigned them (their 15 Cf. also 21.6. The stars which transgress are not the same as the fallen angels, despite Charles's heading to ch. 21: 'Punishment of the fallen Angels (stars).' The seer goes from the place where the stars are punished (21.6) to 'another place' (21.7) where the angels are punished (21.10). 2] I Enoch 351 lot)' (27.3f.). We shall repeatedly see that whereas God pays the wicked their just deserts, he is considered to show mercy to the righteous. Their very 'allotment' as righteous and elect is due to the JTlercy of God. I Enoch 83-90 The section of the 'dream-visions' opens with a grim warning: 'upon the earth there will be great destruction' (83.9) because of sin. Enoch is urged to pray to God, since he is a believer, that a remnant may remain and that all the earth will not be destroyed (83.8). In his prayer, he acknowledges that God's wrath abides on mankind until the great judgment (84.4) and prays that God will 'destroy from the earth the flesh which has aroused [his] wrath', while establishing 'the flesh of righteousness and uprightness' (84.6). Although Israel, which is compared to a flock of sheep, had been pastured and fed by the Lord (89.28), not all remained faithful to him.