Like everyone else, I’m angry in a heated conflict, but unless that anger can intimidate and stun, I try and keep it under wraps. In fact, sometimes I smile at my opponent and pretend to be their friend.
Because sometimes, certain people can use your insults to motivate them, so I deny them my anger—they might possibly use it as an asset against me. My goal is not to dominate, it’s to achieve my objective and nothing more.
And though I am vengeful, I firmly believe results are the best revenge—let them speak for themselves, and let others get righteous or indignant over their inability to achieve them.
Dirty Sci-Fi Buddha 
I super love this approach!
LikeLiked by 1 person
It works! 🙂
LikeLike
You; in a heated conflict…I smile at my opponent and pretend to be their friend.
Me; Uh?
You; I am vengeful, I firmly believe results are the best revenge
Me; That must have hurt when you were sitting at the wrong side of an argument with a smiling opponent.
LikeLiked by 1 person
What I do is I knock down each point calmly and logically, and I intersperse it with statements that tell em I love em and if they need help I’m still there for them. I’ve already proven myself to be the bigger man, I don’t need to engage in the dominance dance, and I don’t need to do the whole thing where I stumble through an apology later. It just saves time. 🙂
LikeLike
a person who can provoke you must have some power in your mind. the hiding of anger elevates the power of this person. the object might be to discover why your see this person as powerful. arriving at a place of no anger is a worthy goal.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I disagree. If you blow up at someone—unless it serves to off-balance them—it only serves their strategy. Even the statement “a person who can provoke you must have some power in your mind” is predicated on a dominance-borne paradigm, as it plays into the objectives of increasing or decreasing “power.” Anger is neither good nor bad in my opinion; it is part of being human. I would say true detachment would be to understand that and channel it in an appropriate manner, rather than to try and negate its existence. “Arriving at a place of no anger” seems to me to be a bit idealistic to me; my take on it would be that once you arrived at that place, you would see that anger has constructive uses in certain circumstances, and you would then explore its strategic value, much the like the “Enlightened” would go back to chopping wood and carrying water. Negation is not the answer, from my point of view. It is the embracing of all phenomena, and using it with full awareness and clarified intent.
LikeLiked by 1 person
So very true.
Many belief systems have a common theme of the greater battle is within to keep ‘those demons’ out or at least in check.
This has to be reblogged.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Thanks brother! I actually lean towards the “keep in check” philosophy; negation and repression haven’t worked well for me.
LikeLiked by 1 person
‘Keeping in check’ can be a tough enough call. ‘Keeping in check’ is good.
LikeLike
Reblogged this on Raging from the Lectern and commented:
Now here is a more astute distillation of the points I was trying to make yesterday.
This blog is well worth a visit. For all sorts of reasons (some just plain hilarious-in an adult way)
LikeLiked by 1 person
You, of course, are so very right, and I’ve said the same. Only thing is that the reality is it’s sometimes easier said than done. Sigh.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Usually the case. 🙂
LikeLiked by 1 person