We should be angry. But after a time, we find various ways to let it go; become accepting; and quiescent. I believe this must be a necessary human mechanism that aids in the prevention of heart attacks; and murder. I believe that for most of us, this (agreeable, accommodating, amiable, compliant, conciliatory, obliging, solicitous) mechanism is on a constant cycle, always humming in the background, ready to gear up at the least sign of provocation. Provocation can come from another individual, a group, an organization, a circumstance, or a blend. Many, (if not most), believe that this complaisance is a right and proper state; to be good and kind little children is ingrained (to an extent) in each of us. Even though we should be angry.

I believe knowing that we should be angry, yet having the hum of good and kind constantly in the background, can on occasion create a conflicted state of anxiety difficult to escape. There should always be a degree of uncertainty running alongside the anger to question and temper the anger. But, if a circumstance or an individual or a group delivers an injustice perceived as extreme, I believe one may experience uncertainty of such intensity that they feel compelled to angrily oblige; which is obviously conflicting. In this instance I believe good and kind should be thrown out the window, because good and kind are in the way of moving on.

But if I am able to get past good and kind, how then do I deal with the circumstance? A heart attack or murder are not favorable options, but the anger must be expressed in some manner. If the source of the injustice is an individual within my reach, I may choose rational truthfulness directed at the individual. But if the individual chooses to not listen and/or is unable to comprehend? In this case, the act of expressing truthfulness has helped with forward movement. And if it is an individual, group, or circumstance beyond my reach, I believe that to express rational truthfulness to an empathetic ear will also help in some small measure. And, on occasion, rational truthfulness may find a target and perhaps chip away at injustice.

So far I have simply said 1) throw good and kind out the window, and 2) express your anger verbally and rationally. It seems basic, but since I believe we should be angry, thinking through the process helps me to reconcile various threads of daily anger. This in turn, coupled with a recognition that the source of the injustice is relatively inconsequential to the whole of Humanity, ensures continued functionality.

Some may question the wisdom of daily anger, but if one believes "we should be angry" (as I do), then a process must be implemented to handle that anger. And I would argue that to not understand why we should be angry is to be (at least a small bit) delusional. And I would also argue that rationally processed anger drives learning and adds to wisdom. I would much rather be angry than complaisant.

I believe step 3 is to rationally prioritize. With anger, there will always be a natural emotional prioritization, but while taking that into account I must also consider the potential productivity of a specific thread of anger. This means that on occasion it will appear I have let some things go. This is the process. I am channeling anger toward productive results while actively learning and working toward Truth and Wisdom.

Again, this sounds simple; basic. Yet without these rational reminders, I may find myself in a prolonged state of anxiety lacking productivity, much less learning. We should be angry. And if I recognize this, I must have a process.