Anger often confuses. We tend to err in assuming that our inclinations will always bear fruit. The objectification of want or hope takes away the willingness to allow the unfolding of events bereft of supposition. This means that we struggle to reestablish an anchor that grounds choice amidst plenty. Any plenitude stems from choosing to trust. The trust that we can manage with whatever comes our way. Such a conviction is never actually firm, but we can permit its absence if we can be secure in knowing that even though there is dissonance, there is also harmony. That even though there is violence, there is also compassion.
In times when this form of anchoring is missing, we could choose to share our uncertainty. However, this must be done with care. If we share with those we love and trust, the resumption of balanced supposition and filtering is likely hastened. What this means is that the object of anger is accurately identified only if we can be certain of that which is good and harmonious. With uncertainty about the locus of anger, everything becomes uncertain including that which is empowering and wholesome. Such a thing is perilous and the advent of anger residue seeping into background becomes increasingly possible.
That is why anger confuses. We start to confer a dubious kind of certainty on what can never be more than mere likelihood. With this happening, the coloring of thoughts and feelings takes on shades that are identified as definite and mental life becomes rigid and unwholesome. The only recourse that then remains is the redistribution of an illusory fixity when all that there actually is, is our maneuvering within the unknown.