Anger Against Natural Reactions as Though They were Purposeful Communications

There is a difference between me having my own thoughts and feelings and me communicating my own thoughts and feelings to you through my intonation.

You might say that I should modulate my intonation better to hide my thoughts and feelings in order to make it clear that I am not intending to communicate them when they are negative.

I say that you should learn to ask the question of whether or not I am intending to convey negativity, not only because it will help you regulate your own feelings, but also so you can base your own thoughts on better information, whether I intend the communication or not, which will give you basis for different conclusions, insofar as you believe that you should base your next thought or feeling on what you think I intend to communicate with you (that is, whether you are going along with a certain prescribed formula of conversation with me at this time).

Holding back my natural reactions is different from not intending communication.  Like holding in a sneeze, holding back my natural reactions might be harmful, especially over a long time.  Purposely not communicating something that I have reason to withhold is a communication of itself in a way that simply reacting does not speak to.  There is an unnatural control device in anger at a person's natural reaction, even if anger at their purposeful communication would be warranted, due to that communication's misplaced conveyance.

Popular Posts

What the Church Should Know and Do

The Problem of Evil

Notes on Paw Creek Video about Heresy in TBN

Analysis for a Baby Christian - On Women Pastors

A Special Forces Demon Attack in a Dream

The Strange Meanness of Christians

Countering the Concept that the Bible Does Not Help with Everything in Modern Life

The Semantic Trickery in the 'Bring the War Home' Book Blurb

Track the Basis of Your Preaching Message, Dear Church - Psychology Based and Inverted Reading of Scripture

Answers about Gender Dysphoria