I love this ! This words got me "We should know that we can never define people, or bend them to suit our narrative and expectations unless they're willing to be redefined, or they're allowing us to shape them to our satisfaction. There's no need to be angry when people refuse to change, lower or increase their standards for us. And expecting anyone to do so without their own free will is terrible". it's a lesson i have learnt. Thank you
You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
Even though I agree, I will raise some thoughts to contradict your given statements. I hope you don't mind.
And yet it happens all the time that you (or I) get angry precisely because of this. This is a reality and cannot be changed by avoiding feelings like "anger", because something like anger cannot be avoided, just as joy cannot be avoided. Expecting the other person to lower or raise their standards of their own free will happens without any input from you or me, because it is human to have expectations. The other person who is in relationship with you is dependent on knowing your feelings towards him or her, only then can he or she know what you want or do not want. The other person recognises you by the degree of your anger or frustration, as well as by the degree of your joy and approval. Without this, he/she gets no clues as to how he/she can position him/herself in relation to you.
Trying not to get angry is futile because you do it anyway. There is no provocation that is not in some way suitable to achieve such. Because there are always situations in which provocation works, there will also always be conflicts where feelings such as anger play a role. If someone is very angry with you and doesn't want to show it, what good does it do you? Don't you feel the anger anyway, even if the other person wants to look as if he is not angry? Can you remain calm about it in every situation, without exception?
My own answer is "no", because otherwise I would be a saint. Since I assume that no one is holy, the insight that one should not force others to behave in a certain way is correct, but it is not a question of "whether it will happen", but the answer is "it will happen in any case".
Doesn't the whole thing then change and replace an avoidance behaviour with one that accepts a situation in its spontaneous nature?
Having learned this lesson was only made possible by trying to force each other to do something (to have control), wasn't it?
But since it doesn't stop, the fact that you haven't learned this lesson "once and for all" but keep encountering it is a reality of life for me.
I therefore claim the opposite and say "there is the need to get angry", because it is only by crossing boundaries that it becomes apparent where something is happening too much or too little. The other person cannot guess or know this on their own, because every situation is new and different from the previous one. How else are you supposed to know where you have transgressed or kept a boundary if it is not the occasional transgression that points you in the right direction?
Greetings to you.