<<But that's the difficulty. To do what? To "rage"? >>
To manifest itself.
<<Haven't you now replaced simple "rage" with a little inner man who rages, with all the attendant infinite regress? >>
Don't know what exactly you mean by that, but if so, so be it. All I'm saying is that the sentence is fine, not common but fine. If it requires creating an "inner man" then so be it, I never denied that, but there's nothing in English that forbids the creating of an "inner man". Although it's not really a "inner man", just an emotion, an impulse. It is, in fact, very common to view emotions in this way, as things separate to your reason.
To manifest itself.
<<Haven't you now replaced simple "rage" with a little inner man who rages, with all the attendant infinite regress? >>
Don't know what exactly you mean by that, but if so, so be it. All I'm saying is that the sentence is fine, not common but fine. If it requires creating an "inner man" then so be it, I never denied that, but there's nothing in English that forbids the creating of an "inner man". Although it's not really a "inner man", just an emotion, an impulse. It is, in fact, very common to view emotions in this way, as things separate to your reason.