Hmm... Well, first, I find no annoyance in your commentary. Never concern yourself with that, as I always seek to investigate my position thoroughly to ensure it is sound. My writings represent the best of my understanding so far; a sort of snapshot, as it's an ongoing process.

I don't know that I have a full grasp on what you're pointing to... I would not describe my current understanding as something "owned", as ownership is exclusionary (my owning it means you don't). That being said, we can both own two instances of the same thing (e.g. we both have an iphone 6, or an identical opinion), but a philosophy is really a perspective; a position from which we see the world. It would be odd to say that I own my perspective, treating it as an object, as it seems more like something I'm doing - the action of viewing from a certain point of view.

But, to your larger point, yes, it behooves us to allow the fluidity of conscious experience to remain unfettered by static intellectual positions (and their corresponding emotional conditions), and not to identify with them in the particular. "Truth-seeking" as an overall habitual action is an effort to remain authentic to what we truly are, so perhaps that could be said to be relate to our identity; but saying "I am an anarchist" is a bit inaccurate, as it does not really describe what we are, but what we are doing - viewing the world from that point of view.

Historically, I've had a "quick to anger, quick to laugh" temperament, though I admit to being less quick to laugh as of late, due to righteous indignation. I am a bit battle-scarred by having my efforts to uplift others (by sharing what I found uplifting) met with scorn and ridicule. This is what I'm working on currently, and I am finding it very difficult.

If others are doing wrong, and greater understanding is required for them to change that behavior, then their resistance to receiving that understanding is an act of wrong - and wrongs are to be defended against, as a ubiquitous moral imperative. And if raising a hand is an appropriate means of defense to stop an imminent immoral act, then is not forceful speech equally justified? Is there no place for it? I can't help feeling that there is, and yet, I also feel that I am misaligned by taking this approach.

Unable to resolve this, I feel rather stuck. I am capable of letting my anger go, and being compassionate and patient. What's stopping me is that this other person is actively causing harm, and so it seems wrong that the aggressor should be enabled by this soft approach, while their victim derives no such benefit from them (even if due to misunderstanding, rather than malicious intent). They must desist NOW, whether they understand or not. If they refuse the opportunity to change willingly, then more forceful means seems appropriate, as immediacy is imperative, by whatever means that requires.

In this way I hold on to my anger. If we are speaking of political support, for instance, it is not commonly thought justifiable to resort to physical force - were I to attack someone for attempting to vote, I would be demonized and punished. So words are all that remain. Soft words may begin the conversation, but if this is rejected, or due consideration of them is deferred, then stronger language - anger - seems necessary, to make the unacceptable nature of their actions more likely to be understood.

Morality is an extant construct in this reality - it is objective. We know it subjectively, we abide by it or deny it subjectively, but particular actions have particular effects, and that is not subject to alteration by us in any way. It is no different than gravity. Is there some other sense in which you would say it is both objective and subjective?

I still feel as though I have not addressed your question adequately. If not, please try again. I have patience to pursue it, and if you do as well, another attempt at directing me toward your point may prove profitable.