Well sometimes I ask myself if I'm being a jerk and bringing it on myself and then say 'sorry, I'm being a jerk, let's start over.' If I'm not, and it's them, I tell myself that it's their problem not mine and I mellow out. YMMV.

I dislike the fact I obsess over scenarios after the fact and have trouble letting go afterwards.

EVERYONE does. Let it go and don't waste ANY time beating yourself up over the obsessive thoughts that follow. Stairwell thoughts, ghaaah.

How do I practice ahimsa in my day to day life to avoid, defuse or calm these situations before they even start?

I'm sure as hell not the person to ask, LOL, but I'm learning it has to do with empathy, with trying to understand why the other person acts the way he does, and if you come to the realization that he's just a fuck-up with neurotic baggage making him what he is (such as a screwed up ego from emotionally abusive parents?--sometimes), then you might even feel sorry for him... and walk away, telling him sternly he needs to straighten himself the fuck out... and that you're not going to bother doing it for him.

I guess walking away is always simply the BEST thing, too, and it indicates far more strength, self-confidence, "nothing-to-prove," classiness, and mensch-demeanor than kicking someone's ass, however cathartic, righteous, and deserved the potential ass-kicking might be... but this one takes a long time to realize.

When is it worth it? Maybe when you're going to teach a died-in-the-wool bully that he never knows what he's getting into when he starts something, and the next time he thinks about victimizing someone, he'd better think twice... such action thus potentially saving someone else from being victimized. And, let's face it, some spoiled-ass, cavalier, bully-ass shits are just that, with no psychological justification, and with no reason to stop until they're given one...

Some people find that concealed carry is the modern embodiment of ahimsa, in an armed world. Having a lethal weapon at instantaneous call, and having the discipline, training, and street smarts not to call upon it, except in dire necessity, with nothing less than life at stake, is, I would argue, the very nature of ahimsa. Ahimsa does not prohibit self-defense against an aggressor, but it does assign a karmic penalty for mis-judging the intent of another, and for being so foolish as to give any creature, human or animal, a foreseeable opportunity to be truly threatening.

Put a S & W Model 66 in a concealed carry holster, and you take on a karmic burden that you can't step away from, except, strangely, in the very instant you most need to step away. Training will help you, but training to put your rounds on target, and knowing when you may, legally, do so, isn't much help in resolving the larger morality of a situation, should it ever come to that. Having the last bullet needed, when only a bullet is needed, is a terrible responsibility, but the universe never so much as wobbles, when it truly demands that bullet.

Some people find that concealed carry is the modern embodiment of ahimsa, in an armed world.

LOL! I remember an ancient Wonder Woman comic from my kidhood in which WW says (paraphrased well, if not literally), "The better you are at fighting, the less you have to."

Which does, despite its logic, however remind me of MAD. Not another "comic book" magazine MAD, unfortunately, but rather Mutually Assured Destruction.
;-)

It's basically about being self-aware enough to know when your ego's getting in the way, and not getting so caught up in any emotion that you can't step back when that happens.

It's owning your own shit, basically.

I'm neither small nor slow nor soft, and my response tends towards the disproportionate and I don't know how to control it or turn it off.

OK, so you're self-aware enough to know that. Now start paying attention to the process of your reactions. Sit down, close your eyes, and picture that scenario happening (as you said, replay it in your mind). You're likely to start getting upset again, but now you're in a safe environment, so you can explore what's going on.

What's going on in your body when you *start* to get upset -- does your stomach clench, do you clench your fists, do you start to feel hot, something else? What happens to your breathing? What's going on in your mind when you start to get upset? Are there themes that keep coming up in your thinking, something about disrespect ("No one's allowed to treat me that way") or control ("I'm not in control of myself or the situation") or shame ("I shouldn't feel this way") or something else?

Now you know something else about yourself -- you know not only your over-the-top-can't-stop-now reaction, you also know some of the internal triggers that get you there. So start paying attention, in daily life, to when you feel those things happening internally.

THAT is your cue to stop, take a deep breath, and choose to respond in a different way -- walking away, backing down, or, in some instances, responding back with strength. But this will be a strength that you're consciously choosing to use, rather than desperation that's coming from being out of control.

And that breathing part is important. We almost always hold our breaths when we're really overwhelmed by emotion, and it's part of what starts that physiological process of losing control.

What you're looking at is the difference between "reacting" and "responding." If you're not in control of yourself, you're just reacting. There's no honor in that, and the results are likely to be as random and unpredictable as our state of mind. Responding requires acting without attachment to the results or glorification of the ego, with a conscious willingness not to get seduced by that rush of adrenalin that makes self-righteousness feel so good.

"... but rather Mutually Assured Destruction."

A higher percentage of practiced CCW permit holders than you might think can come pretty close to Jerry Miculek's kind of speed and accuracy at 25 feet. There need be, and shouldn't be, anything "mutual" about confrontations involving deadly force. Putting your first two rounds on target, and timely, after making the shooting commitment, is the important bit in survival shooting.

It's basically about being self-aware enough to know when your ego's getting in the way, and not getting so caught up in any emotion that you can't step back when that happens.

It's owning your own shit, basically.

That's great insightful advice.

What you're looking at is the difference between "reacting" and "responding."

Right: Act, don't react. When you react, you're not acting of your own self, you're just a ball bouncing around in a damn pinball machine. Don't be that.
;-)

Man... someone asks about nonviolence, and the third post is about guns? Am I the only one who's disappointed?

You're not alone, BP. If you hear a whirring sound in the distance, that's Gandhi spinning in his grave.

that's Gandhi spinning in his grave.

...and that rattling sound is his bullet plinking against his ribs.

My point is that while total non-violence is a philosophy that may have its benefits, those benefits may not necessarily accrue to you personally.

"You're not alone, BP. If you hear a whirring sound in the distance, that's Gandhi spinning in his grave."
posted by matthewr 02 December

Interesting you'd mention Ghandi in his grave, in this thread, matthewr.

"If I am to die by the bullet of a mad man, I must do so smiling. There must be no anger within me. God must be in my heart and on my lips..

– Mohandas K. Gandhi on January 28, 1948, two days prior to his assassination."

He ceased his practice of non-violence on January 30, 1948.

loquacious ended his comment by asking "... When is ahimsa no longer adviseable, and when is it actually time to just kick someone's ass?"
post by: loquacious at: 20:12

I think my comments regarding CCW were on point in response to that, particularly with respect to a society where it is estimated that more than 10% of the population is routinely armed in public, legally or illegally, and if my comments do nothing more than to remind loquacious that he was twice lucky not to have met someone with a significant difference of opinion, in the 10% armed camp, I think I'll have been responsive to his inquiry.

That's not to say I don't hope that someday, all inter-personal conflict will be handled non-violently, or that in bringing up CCW, I've abandoned any interest in teaching lions to lay down with lambs. But it's not my only interest, or even my first interest. Staying alive to teach another day is.

But good you brought up Ghandi. He's a great example of what happens when you do meet bullets with a smile and a glad heart.

Sorry, paulsc, but I have to giggle at this one.

Q: I have anger management problems; what should I do?
A: Carry a concealed weapon.

Is this one of those old SNL "Bad Idea Jeans" skits?

And some think that carrying a weapon actually increases the degree of confrontation in a situation, because people behave differently, in ways that increase the tension, because they're aware they themselves are in the safer situation. I'm aware of that discussion being part of law enforcement training. People feel more powerful with a firearm, so they sometimes make decisions they otherwise might not.

I struggle with the line between confrontation for truth and justice's sake and confrontation for ego's sake. Although I don't fly off the handle easily at all, if anything being more placid and emotionally reserved most of the time, I am also very likely to directly (though usually calmly) confront someone who is doing something shitty in a public place - such as jumping a line that other people are patiently waiting in or catcalling. I strongly believe that we live in the society we accept. When I was young, I can remember that community standards were enforced in not always comfortable ways by mild daily confrontations just like that - "Aw siddown, the bus can't start until you siddown!" - "Shhhh!" in the movie theatre - "What do you think you're doing?" to a line jumper. We seem to have developed extreme non-confrontation as a habit across the board, and so people walk around seething at the rude and crude behavior of others without ever doing anything even a little bit assertive to call attention to it and help to rule it out of bounds with community disapprobation.

"... Is this one of those old SNL "Bad Idea Jeans" skits?"
posted by taz 02 December

Not really. Think of a CCW as an American adaptation of komboloi. Except, here, we're carrying the other guy's "worry bead." ;-)

Pretty civil of us, no?

Paulsc shot a man in Reno just to practice ahimsa.

"And some think that carrying a weapon actually increases the degree of confrontation in a situation, because people behave differently, in ways that increase the tension, because they're aware they themselves are in the safer situation. I'm aware of that discussion being part of law enforcement training. People feel more powerful with a firearm, so they sometimes make decisions they otherwise might not."

I didn't join this thread to turn it into a CCW discussion. And I don't want to start down the path of tossing stats on license holders in the 23 "shall issue" states around. Let's just say that it's become less of a discussion in police circles since the accumulation of license/permit holders statistics has built over the last 10 years. In every one of the 23 states that are "shall issue," the incidence of actual use by permit holders is under 1%.

The data are just the data, and different folks draw different conclusions as to the psychology of permit holders. But the data say clearly that folks that carry don't, by and large, fire. And 99+% don't ever want to, except down a practice range.

"Paulsc shot a man in Reno just to practice ahimsa."
posted by Lipstick Thespian 02 December

Nah, but I might have carried in Reno, and not felt I needed to shoot. That's ahimsa.

paulsc, are you a veteran?

What Miko said about fear of confrontation reminds me of a book I read on anger management for a class, that made the same point. Most people don't learn assertiveness -- the ability to clearly and politely learn to ask for what they want (or, in many cases, the ability to know what they want at all!). So instead we tend to be passive, letting people walk all over us as we try to convince ourselves that our own needs aren't important, until all that bottled-up frustration makes us out-of-control aggressive, reacting hostilely and inappropriately to the smallest provocation.

So that skill becomes figuring out why you may be scared to ask for what you want -- fear that the other person will say no, fear that your own needs aren't really that important, fear of even admitting that you have needs or need other people's help -- working through that fear, and practicing the communication skills necessary for asking for what you need in ways that people understand (that is, "I feel X when you do Y, and I need Z instead," no passive-aggressive bullshit), as well as understanding that if the other person says "No, I can't do that," they're within their own rights and you have the resources, strength, and creativity to figure out an alternate solution.

That confidence, that we can rely on other people without becoming dependent on them, helps a great deal in that it can keep any one interaction from having so much meaning -- "If this person says no, I'm screwed" -- that you react aggressively if it doesn't go the way you want it to.

That's stuff I've been thinking about a lot in recent years, occhiblu. It is funny, but a whole lot of people have grown up thinking that they don't have the right to air their requests or state their interest or disinterest in something, or that if they do, the results will be drastic and awful. I'm not sure exactly how that message gets transmitted in families, but it does. Walking the line between reliance and dependence, self and others, is not so easily learned.

I'm not sure exactly how that message gets transmitted in families, but it does.

"If you loved me, you'd know what's wrong."
"If I love him, I should know what he's thinking without having to ask."
"Partners should never disagree or have conflict; it's a sign that we're not soulmates."
"Women should ask men all about their interests, and take an interest in what he's interested it, and not burden him with silly feminine concerns or topics."
"Children should be seen and not heard."
"Children should do what they're told and not talk back."
"If you ask dad for something and he's in a good mood, then you'll get it. If he's in a bad mood, you'll get punished for even asking."

Though I think a lot of it is inconsistent parenting in general. If you grow up not knowing if your parents will actually listen to what you need -- if they'll satisfy your needs one day and not do so the next -- you grow up feeling like asking for something for yourself is a process fraught with anxiety. The people whose job it is to make sure you're ok aren't doing so, so of course you're going to worry that no one can fulfill all your needs.

Though I guess that also brings up the assumption we're moving toward that, once you're an adult, one person should be able to satisfy all your needs, as your parents should have done. So then there's tremendous pressure on romantic partners to give that consistent, all-accepting, non-judgmental, total love that your parents didn't -- but your partner's looking for the same thing from you.

We were looking at Bowenian family therapy a while ago, and apparently Bowen's first intervention for any couple who was having problems would be to have each of them go and try to establish better connections with their families of origin. The idea was that if you're having problems in your current relationship, it's probably because you missed something important in those early relationships and it's more effective to try to fix those, rather than make your partner responsible for it; plus, seeking out other significant emotional connections takes some of that pressure off your romantic relationship, as you realize a partner can't satisfy all your needs -- because they're not a parent, and you're not a child.

Granted, even great parents can't be perfect, and some of that process of learning that people sometimes can't, or don't, give you what you need is a normal part of growing up. But it shouldn't be the main lesson of childhood, and as I've started working with kids, I'm astounded how often it is.

(That was a bit of a brain dump; I've overcaffienated and chatty. All "you"s should be considered editorial "you"s.)

No, that's totally interesting. Your window into the thought behind therapy is very cool.

No, that's totally interesting. Your window into the thought behind therapy is very cool.

To everyone except paulsc: Thanks. The words were informative and helped me grasp a couple of key points, particularly the owning your own shit one.


But, now for a direct example that learning is hard and my big fat mouth is probably a huge part of my problem, because I'm fucking irritated as hell.

To paulsc: Yeah, that's pretty much the exact opposite of what I'm talking about. I'm talking about minor squabbles that might possibly end in fisticuffs, a split lip, or a black eye - not putting huge fucking holes in them and outright ending their lives.

In fact, I'm pretty annoyed with what you did to this thread. Your malignant re-appropriations of eastern concepts is appalling, if not outright disgusting. This doesn't even begin to address the issues brought up by your readiness to see guns as a valid solution for too broad of a spectrum of confrontation and human interaction.

What the fuck, man? Is the "This is totally erroneous to the point of the conversation, so I better shut the fuck up and keep my opinions to myself" switch in your brain totally broken? Fucking hell.

Frankly, you're one of the small handful of people that make me now avoid MetaChat almost entirely.

Paulsc please assume as fact that from this point forward that when you see anything typed by me anywhere on the internet - in particular, questions - that you assume correctly that I'm not speaking to you, soliciting your advice nor eliciting any desire to hold a conversation with you or in your presence.

Worst case? At least you made me feel better about my supposedly "disproportionate response".

Gah, that was ugly and harsh.

Well. Yeah... Hm.

Paulsc, look, I really want to try to believe that you aren't simply trolling here sometimes, but you can make it difficult. In this thread, I can't imagine you as doing anything but leaning over the keyboard muttering, "heh heh; this oughtta shake 'em up a little bit."

And if you are trolling, you usually try to at least make it stealth trolling... But really? I just don't get the point. You aren't some silly teenager, and what do you get out of it? Does it make you feel like a master manipulator to derail a conversation? Because, if so, that's weird and sad. And if you are actually hanging around a forum whose members you feel nothing but contempt for - even weirder, even sadder.

If this isn't the case, and you just give in to temptation sometimes, well, please try to resist. Please. And if it is the case, why not go fishing in a bigger pond? Surely the rewards would be greater.

Did Charlton Heston just hijack this thread?

Yeah, what taz said. Not for the first time, either.

I used to have what I considered a disproportionate response to what later seemed small stimuli. They seemed like big issues at the time but, thinking about them later (yeah, I think everyone does that - I do it about everything), I often wondered what all the fuss was about. While I didn't really do anything conscious about the problem and barely even realised that there was a problem, I have found that it has more or less vanished over the past couple of years, except when I am feeling very down for whatever reason.

The only thing I can attribute it to (apart from encroaching old age) is that my work for the past three years has seen me in a position of holding power over people's lives (well, their businesses, so livelihoods at least) while having to be continually aware that those same people have the right to appeal to a higher power without repercussions. Often, in fact, these people would be far better off going to the minister or their local MP, but they don't. The only reason I can see that they don't is that they have agreed with my decisions, even when they argue against me at the time. The feeling of responsibility and, as I have gained higher positions in the organisation, a sense of how much of a role model I am (like it or not) for staff I recruit has really forced me to think a lot more before acting and to gain a sense of perspective about issues that I would never have had before.

My partner was listening to me negotiate with a domain registry a few months ago after a domain I manage was screwed up by them and, after convincing them to renew the domain for free and update the DNS immediately impressed her no end and she commented how my current job has given me formidable persuasive powers. This is when I realised the changes that have occurred in my mannerisms. A couple of people who are involved in sports administration with me have made similar comments in the past couple of years also.

So, how does this help you, I hear you ask? Well, I guess it doesn't much, except that I feel it is all a question of being able to remove your emotions from decisions at times of stress. I can get very passionate about things that 99% of the population would drop asleep at the merest mention of, but I can also make actual decisions in a very impartial manner and not take arguments personally or feel challenged when someone disagrees with me (about the same issues). I guess practice is the key - for me, it was both forced and unconscious (therefore easy). Perhaps the only way to get over this is to work out what triggers these feelings in you (as occhiblu notes in her excellent comment here) and then to practice turning off your emotions when you feel those triggers approaching. Sounds easy, right? Yeah, it's a lot harder than that, but I don't see any easy way unless you come and work with me (we have two positions vacant and I'm the selection committee chair, nudge, wink). Good luck - you can do it and you'll feel much happier in yourself when you do.

The amateur Tantra philosopher in me must take small issue with dg's excellent advice:

I don't think it's about turning off emotions, per se, and I worry that that idea is part of what suggests to people that they should suppress what they're feeling (that "bottling up" I talked about earlier). I think you can fully feel the emotion, but at the same time consciously recognize it as a temporary state, not as your "true self." That's the Buddhist image of emotions being waves that rise and fall in our consciousness, rather than the full extent of our consciousness itself.

So I think the effect is the same that dg talks about -- not being ruled by emotion in stressful situations -- but I would phrase it less as "turning off" and more as "recognizing, accepting, and not being controlled by."

I guess the difference in internal dialogue, at least as how I imagine it, would be:

"I want to punch this guy. I need to stop being angry," versus "I want to punch this guy. Huh, that's interesting. I can understand why I feel that way, but I should be careful that desire doesn't override my good sense." The first can sometimes keep aggression or frustration spiraling up, because I, at least, then start getting frustrated at my inability to stop being frustrated; the second lets you recognize the feeling and consciously be aware of how it's affecting you, so that, if you *do* feel it overriding your good sense, you're in control enough to take a time-out and calm yourself down.

Or, the advanced (!) technique I'm working on: Take a deep breath, assume the person in front of you is hurting and in pain -- because I do think we all want to be happy and lovely and helpful and only don't act that way when we're in psychic distress, when our own egos and defense mechanisms and emotions are getting in our way -- back way the hell down and start asking sincerely sympathetic questions to try to understand the pain and how it's affecting them. This is frustrating as hell, but remarkably effective (I'm hoping it starts getting easier as evidence for its working continues to mount). Who knew? ;-)

"I want to punch this guy. Huh, that's interesting. I can understand why I feel that way, but I should be careful that desire doesn't override my good sense."

Or, as one of my yoga teachers taught us, "Part of me wants to punch this guy. Well, I'm not going to do that right now, but thank you for your input."

Something else (I swear, I need to stop posting while drinking coffee, it makes me hyper): If you've got time and energy for a book, the Bhagavad Gita deals explicitly with what you ask in your question. (I'm going off of teachers' interpretations of it, though, I have not yet read it myself.) The hero must decide when it's appropriate and right to be a warrior, and when it's simply a gratification of ego -- and when turning away from battle is a gratification of ego.

There's also the Hindu (I think) model of gunas, or qualities. Sattva is calm and centered, with the possibility of becoming emotionally detached; rajas is fiery and passionate and energetic, with the possibility for aggression and anger; tamas is heaviness, groundedness, and relaxation, with the possibility of lethargy, depression, and inertia.

Traditional scholarship would say one wants to rid oneself of rajas and tamas and become wholly sattvic; Tantric philosophy (which I like better) says to embrace all three elements and keep them balanced. When any one quality dominates, then it's harder to work against its potential downfalls. (My yoga teacher says that she believes much of the weirdness of New Age-y types is too much emphasis on what could be called sattva -- complete detachment from action or energy or emotion or, in many cases, reality; you need all three elements (mindful reflection, energy for action, ability to relax and let go) in order to exist in any practical, effective way in the world.)

What you're talking about for yourself is a too-heightened state of rajas, so you'd start to counteract it by encouraging more sattvic (reflective) and tamassic (relaxing) practices.

That link gives some suggestions, some of which seem a bit over-the-top to me, but take from it what makes sense to you and ignore the rest -- it's just the best explanation I could find through Google.

Well, as usual I was probably a bit extreme in saying you should turn off your emotions, when I really mean push them away from the forefront of the situation and let logic rule your decisions instead. Not all the time, but when your emotions start to lead you astray. In most non-intimate interactions with others, I think logic should rule the way you interact, even if your emotions are providing the fuel.

I think you can fully feel the emotion, but at the same time consciously recognize it as a temporary state, not as your "true self."
I like the way you describe this - it expresses how you need to feel to avoid completely suppressing your emotions but still use the power they contain. I would say that "not your entire self", is more accurate, but that's just me.

The trick, of course, lies in knowing when the right thing to do is to punch someone in the face ;-)