permaculture

[Lee Flier <lflier@mindspring.com>]

Jack wrote:

>Lee wrote:... "I get really tired of hearing the line, whenever someone
>gets angry, that it must be because there is "something within that we
>don't like"... 
>
>Didn't say MUST be... COULD be, though... 

Well you didn't say it personally, but it seems to be a common assumption
these days - and a frequent comeback by people who are trying to deal with
somebody else's anger.  Really there's no reason to assume that this is
true any more than a variety of other causes of anger.

>I wonder which of us does not
>live by the system of global rape&pillage which now exists? 

Hmmm... but what has that got to do with anger as an expression of
something you don't like about yourself?  Granted some people did and do
have that motivation.  But there are innumerable other reasons for people
becoming rapists and pillagers which are often cultural, not personal -
sexual repression, perceived need for control or power (which may or may
not have a valid basis - some cultures really are historically constantly
threatened because of problems with neighbors or scarce resources),
stoicism/repression of pain (again, often there is a real need for this at
some point), etc.  For example, historically men have been taught that
expressing pain or sadness is not culturally acceptable, but anger/warrior
energy is.  One can see where this attitude developed out of necessity.
But the result is a lot of men who feel it would be a weakness to cry or
directly express sadness, and therefore express it indirectly as anger.

It is nowadays a tendency of women to blame men for this, and a tendency of
more enlightened men to feel badly about being angry and feel there is
something bad or wrong with them if they are.  All I'm trying to say here
is that repression or even transformation of anger is no more natural or
enlightened than sexual repression, but anger and death seem to have
replaced sex as the taboos of the late 20th century - the facets of
existence we would rather pretend didn't have to exist.  Like sex, anger
has the potential to get you in a lot of trouble. :-)  Thus, unless there's
some unavoidably useful function for it, such as procreation or defending
the women and children against enemies, our strange cultural tendency is
simply to try and avoid anything potentially powerful or out of control, as
much as possible. 

Post '60's, most of us would agree that humans vitally need to have a sex
life and would not suggest that celibacy should be an ideal chosen path
(though it is for some), nor would most suggest that we "transmute" all our
sexual energy into some other form of expression.  Yet not so long ago,
that was the only acceptable way to discuss sexuality in America.  Now, it
seems that anger is the new unacceptable human "sin" which enlightened
people should strive to avoid.

Personally, I trust that all facets of human existence have a valid place
and purpose in expressing love.  Most people NEED to feel angry sometimes
as a demonstraton of their love and desire to protect their loved ones and
their cherished ideals.  And they need to feel perfectly justified and
accepted in expressing their anger, just as we NEED to express ourselves
sexually without guilt.

>Fear of facing anger/pain fuels addiction... there's a
>gas-guzzler for you.

Boy you got that right!

>A few good points, though, Lee -- I agree with one particularly... whatever
>you DO decide to do with anger, DON'T bottle it -- no one will pay you for
>it (beat poetry?), and it'll leak through any container and mess up the
>carpet. 

Heeheee... that's for sure.  The 90's seem like they've been one big messy
carpet.  People spewing bad music and bad poetry and bad talk show fodder
and random violence all over the place for all the world to see.  One big
anguished whine of unexpressed STUFF, directly at nobody in particular.  We
hear all the irrelevant personal details of everyone's lives without
addressing the really relevant stuff at all, because for the most part the
worst of it isn't personal.  Hell, even a lot of professed
environmentalists aren't angry, they aren't terribly concerned about the
earth or the future, they're only concerned about the "environment" as it
relates to their own personal health and safety.  Hence the yuppie catalogs
filled with personal air purifiers and expensive herbal remedies and all
sorts of things to give people the illusion that they're in control.

Well I guess this has turned into a big rant, but Permaculture to me is
about being able to do something about real global problems on a level that
is still human scale, still within arm's reach of people like you and me,
not something you have to have money and power to do.   As such I think it
can be a great healer of depression and powerlessness, which when you
realize something really CAN be done, often turns into healthy anger and
the desire to fight for what's important.  I'd hate to see this vital stage
of revelation become blunted because people don't feel comfortable with
getting angry.  Actually I HAVE seen that very thing happen on quite a few
occasions now.  It's depressing, and it makes me angry. :-)

= Lee =