What angers us in another person
is more often than not an unhealed aspect of ourselves.
If we had already resolved that particular issue,
we would not be irritated by its reflection back to us.
What angers us in another person
is more often than not an unhealed aspect of ourselves.
If we had already resolved that particular issue,
we would not be irritated by its reflection back to us.
If the anger is a general quality, then maybe...
But if is a specific action we feel the anger about, then no not at all...
I say false...im not easily angered at all, and when I am, its usually because the person is being extremely unreasonable, or stupid/annoying...lol- and im none of those things : P
Im conscious...I dont get it...I dont think I transfer my memories, notions, expectations, hurts onto others...unless i mean to do it purposely.
PHOEBY!!! Your confusing me!
Probably true and false, sometimes and sometimes not. However, liberals love that arguement. If you hate so and so you must be a so and so. Just not true.
it may be true. or false. depends on the stuation...
I think it's true when coupled with low self-esteem ingrained in those who grew up troubled. It bounces back as anger, and depression is anger turned inward. When you don't have these kinds of issues to deal with, (are there any truly stable, mature people out there--I've heard the rumor) you are probably able to deal with others on a more logical basis. Or at least...that's the goal we are supposed to be aiming for.
(Interesting concept that I should blame myself when hubby pushes my buttons....he'd like that one!)
Im fully ready to admit that a few comments flew right over my head. Im not ignoring them, I just dont know how to respond...intelligiently...
I tend to agree more so with Alabama Girl, Peter Opie, and completly disagree with justice for all...
I think in general human being are angered by that which we do not understand...
Thinking of my most recent angry moment with Phil...his hoarding. Im very simple and a necessities type of person, i like things to be uncluttered and of use. I do not understand the mentality of cluttering a home full of stuff you might someday need...Phil is that way. I get angry at him for collecting roomfulls of things hes acquired over his lifetime of stuff that he hasnt used in years and years, it was all given to him free, things he just "picked up" from people who were throwing it out. He holds onto with a death grip bc "he may someday need it"...I truly do not understand this, to me, if its been unused in over a year, you wont need it, and ten years down the line if you do need it, odds are you can borrow it from someone else if its something that is used so infrequently.....
This disagreement makes me angry bc i do not understand his logic...
That is what makes me think this quote is mostly bogus...
On the other hand, im a very stubborn person and so is he. I think there are many layers to any surface arguement. While the skin of the arguement may be about something two people dont see eye to eye on or dont understand, the true nuts and seeds is that both people have a quality that keeps them from reaching an agreement, the same quality...
Stubborness....
So im torn and dont think i will fully grasp this until someone explains it to me in lamen terms...