Reconciliation and Forgiveness
Are they mutually exclusive? Whilst I would like to explore this question philosophically by ascertaining the nature of forgiveness, it does arrive from a shift in my appreciation for the ethics behind forbearance in relation to reconciliation without necessarily forgiving the said party. Think Luke 17:3-4:
Take heed to yourselves. If your brother sins against you, rebuke him; and if he repents, forgive him. And if he sins against you seven times in a day, and seven times in a day returns to you, saying, ‘I repent,’ you shall forgive him.”
The problem with that is clearly the authenticity behind 'I repent' that has always stood firm within me, where a repetition of behaviour clearly outlines that the person is unwilling to actually admit to his/her wrongdoing.
To give you some perspective, I have not spoken to my mother for sometime as any attempt quickly turned sour, the latter due to her constant denial when I would remind her of the many wrongs she has done to me, instead getting defensive and shifting the blame to me making it impossible to communicate or reason with her. I experienced some serious difficulties and over the past several years have spent most of my time confronting previous experiences as a matter of healing and I have done really well thus far, having now transformed into a physically healthy, happy and successfully independent person.
She recently contacted me on instagram to my dismay and it afforded a new method of communication that enabled a distance from her rather emotive behaviour. She never treated me well and I basically grew up and lived on my own, but she herself was mistreated rather contemptibly and in her efforts to survive both for herself and for her children, she developed such issues. The experiences I had recently enabled me to understand the astounding effects that other people can have to your mental health and I began to appreciate just how much she went through. It allowed me to remember amidst the so many wrongs those beautiful moments such as when she would hug me in bed as a child and I could feel her breath crawl down the back of my head. I am still afraid to take it beyond what it is now, to actually reconcile, but having forgiven her it is really nice talking to her about things.
Have I forgiven her because of my own experiences that enabled me to understand her better or have I forgiven her because she acknowledged her wrongdoing?
Take heed to yourselves. If your brother sins against you, rebuke him; and if he repents, forgive him. And if he sins against you seven times in a day, and seven times in a day returns to you, saying, ‘I repent,’ you shall forgive him.”
The problem with that is clearly the authenticity behind 'I repent' that has always stood firm within me, where a repetition of behaviour clearly outlines that the person is unwilling to actually admit to his/her wrongdoing.
To give you some perspective, I have not spoken to my mother for sometime as any attempt quickly turned sour, the latter due to her constant denial when I would remind her of the many wrongs she has done to me, instead getting defensive and shifting the blame to me making it impossible to communicate or reason with her. I experienced some serious difficulties and over the past several years have spent most of my time confronting previous experiences as a matter of healing and I have done really well thus far, having now transformed into a physically healthy, happy and successfully independent person.
She recently contacted me on instagram to my dismay and it afforded a new method of communication that enabled a distance from her rather emotive behaviour. She never treated me well and I basically grew up and lived on my own, but she herself was mistreated rather contemptibly and in her efforts to survive both for herself and for her children, she developed such issues. The experiences I had recently enabled me to understand the astounding effects that other people can have to your mental health and I began to appreciate just how much she went through. It allowed me to remember amidst the so many wrongs those beautiful moments such as when she would hug me in bed as a child and I could feel her breath crawl down the back of my head. I am still afraid to take it beyond what it is now, to actually reconcile, but having forgiven her it is really nice talking to her about things.
Have I forgiven her because of my own experiences that enabled me to understand her better or have I forgiven her because she acknowledged her wrongdoing?
Comments (215)
The authenticity is irrelevant. We are not to judge our neighbor. If they lie, that is their fault. But if you act and expect them to lie, that is your fault, for you have justified their behavior by your low esteem of them. They will say that you expected them to lie again anyway. Their behaviour would condemn itself if you weren't to condemn it.
The difference to me seems to be a matter of trust. You can forgive someone on the basis of compassion alone but true reconciliation requires a rebuilding of trust.
Quoting TimeLine
Both, it seems to me. But it also seems you still don't trust her, which is not at all unfair considering the circumstances.
Authenticity is certainly relevant and while your example may be correct, likewise it is not about expecting them to lie but rather whether your actions of continually forgiving them despite the lack of honesty reduces apologies into nothing but a word with no meaning or substance. We find evidence or "proof" when mistakes are not repeated so indeed you can reconcile with such a person, but you cannot forgive.
This is incoherent. We constantly judge our neighbours. We've been designed that way and it's impossible not to judge at some level. Those that couldn't or wouldn't are dead ends on the tree of life. And no, you don't justify someone else's behaviour by taking reasonable precautions against it. Don't pretend you actually act that way in real life. You wouldn't last five minutes.
Whether they accept your forgiveness or not is a different story, but you should always forgive.
Quoting TimeLine
Their lack of honesty is theirs, why is that relevant to you? Their apology has no meaning or substance. That says something about them, not about you. If you treat them as if that's the case though, you will justify their behavior and aggression towards you by the low esteem you hold of them.
Reconciliation is a more mutual affair; we reconcile our points of view of the past; we understand each other. It's not something I can do on my own, and it's not inherently unequal. It requires truth.
Virtue and compassion are like two sharp swords Baden - they may seem weak if you haven't understood their logic.
Quoting Baden
I think you are equivocating on this word. Yes, you do form opinions of people, however, the type of judgment that is in discussion here is not the passive, automatic one, but the active one that impacts your behavior towards them.
Quoting Baden
Yes you do. If we live together, and I lock myself in one room at night for fear that you will kill me, that would justify aggressive behavior from you and may actually even bring it about.
Now this isn't to say that in some situations we don't take the very pragmatic course of action when the risks are too high. But the logic is still the same.
Quoting Agustino
Because @baden is correct, our relations and interactions are the fundamental basis of who we are and we contrast and identify ourselves with others that make them just as much a part of us as our own subjectivity permits. When he said:
Quoting Baden
He is denoting authenticity and this reflects not only your personal moral position, but your ethical convictions as well. What you are saying is that you don't care about other people, you don't care about the well-being of the community as long as you are safe from being morally liable, which I find to be paradoxical.
How you forgive does actually say something about you.
If you'll just open the door and then we can talk. Oh, never mind, I'll speak through the keyhole. No, it doesn't. Which is why that defence would not be used by even the zaniest of lawyers in a court of law. Now, it might cause aggressive behaviour, but that's a different thing. If someone acts afraid of you, you are not justified in being aggressive towards them on the basis of that fact. True or false?
I agree with him regarding reconciliation.
Quoting TimeLine
Yes indeed. A person who requires excessive contrition in order to forgive - who demands authenticity - is a person who lacks the virtue of magnanimity of soul. Don't judge and you will not be judged.
I have a different attitude towards forgiveness than you do. I think it's a factor of personality and also experience. For me, forgiving someone is something you do for yourself, not the other person. It's a surrender, a release. There is one thing in my life I did that I really regret. Many years later, I asked my friend for forgiveness. She thought about it and said - well, I don't really think you need to be forgiven. Then she did anyway, just in case she was wrong and to make me feel better. I guess when it comes down to it, I don't believe in forgiveness. I don't believe it's necessary. If you ask for it, you're asking the other person to let you off the hook.
I remember talking about responsibility a few posts ago. I said, to me, the way to take responsibility is to acknowledge the action, make it right to the extent you can, and try not to do it again. Anything else seems unnecessary and even self-indulgent to me.
As for reconciliation, again - it's something you do for yourself. You can forgive someone and not reconcile. This person that keeps hurting you and then apologizing - maybe you can just put them out of your life. That's not necessarily unkind, mean spirited, or inappropriate. It can be not worth the trouble to reconcile.
In reality no. But what will actually happen is that you will start fearing that they might take some sort of action against you because they are afraid, which will paradoxically drive you to violence yourself.
It is all dependent on the condemnation itself, indeed there are many people who economise their behaviour with others, seeking forgiveness not because there exists any genuine issue but rather as a display of authority and power, dragging things out unnecessarily to play the victim as an actual method to control. But, in the instance where there was an actual situation - say for instance a car accident that involved a fatality - some form of condemnation exists depending on the causes. Was the person drink-driving? Was the person speeding? There needs to be a justification behind the condemnation first before seeking forgiveness.
Quoting unenlightened
The problem here is that reconciliation requires forgiveness. So, what happens then?
I remember when Pope John Paul II went to the prison where the man who had shot him was locked up. They sat down, talked, and John Paul forgave him. It was a simple act of kindness and commitment and I found it very moving. I remember the guy was shocked and moved.
This is completely and absolutely not true. Not judging is not an act of virtue or kindness, it's the most effective way of dealing with problems. Judging leads you in the wrong direction and makes you less effective.
Of course. It's actually part of the hidden strategies of war in Chinese history as well. Forgiveness of the enemy. It's funny that the Chinese are more Machiavellian than Machiavelli by being rulers that you want to serve under, instead of rulers that are hated and feared - which pretty much is in direct contradiction with Machiavelli's weak advice. Which is precisely why in Western history we have few great strategic minds.
Quoting Agustino
Are you saying there is no hell?
It also follows that you cannot reason with an ignorant egotist, like those people who pretend to be holier-than-thou when they clearly contradict themselves. Being honest is not an excessive requirement, it is reasonable and virtuous and if you cannot see that saying it is moral to forgive a person consistently making the same mistakes when if you were a moral person you would prefer to help them see the meaning behind the apology itself so that they stop making the same mistake - where does the substance in our moral fibre come from? - than, what can I say other than good luck to you, O magnanimous one.
Well it does, to the extent that the agreement we reach is such. It may require restitution as well or instead. I'm thinking squaring accounts, reaching agreement. If we agree that I owe you, you can forgive the debt, or I can look to pay it, or both, but we might agree that I don't owe you after all.
I wonder what rewards - other than protection - he received for his conversion.
I'm saying hell and heaven are just reactions to Love.
Quoting TimeLine
Quoting TimeLine
If you are a moral person all you have to do is be a mirror so that they can look at themselves as they are.
Again - trust is not a gift or an actuarial calculation. Just like forgiveness, you do it for yourself, not the other person. There is a calculation of sorts - I know he may, even is likely to, repeat the offense, but I lose more by not trusting than I do by trusting. A lot of it comes down to consequences. You don't leave your children with a sex offender. You don't give your life savings to someone you don't trust very much.
You seem to be using the word "judging" in the derogatory sense, which means essentially "unfairly judging", something like being prejudiced. I'm using it in the general sense as in making judgements of people's intentions and likely behaviours. So, yes, we should make our judgements carefully and fairly but in the end we must judge someone, for example as sincere or insincere, in order to know how to act towards them.
I think he was forced to see the Pope as a human being. Forced to consider the human cost of his action. That's the first step in taking responsibility. And then, maybe it was a momentary feeling that didn't change him at all.
Yes, because you judge them in the sense I meant.
If you don't give up your weapons for fear that the other will kill you, then the other will also not give up his weapons for fear that you will kill them, and like so conflict will escalate, and it will be only your mutual violence - paradoxically - that keeps the peace. That is the structure of human society from time immemorial. Jesus represents a break with this structure - He says - love your enemies and those who persecute you. Choose to be killed instead of to kill if you are forced to choose. Imitate Christ, just as He imitated the Father, who has been the victim from time immemorial.
The history of the world is the continuous expulsion of the victim - of God.
If you mean judging like "that tiger may eat me," fine, I'm ok with that. If you mean "That person is evil and deserves retribution," No, and for practical and concrete reasons - it doesn't lead you to the most effective way of dealing with that person.
Are you saying the law has lead us in the wrong direction?
Quoting T Clark
I actually understand this, however I could be wrong. Are you attempting to convey that when any acknowledgement of wrong is formed, forgiveness is unnecessary because it has been articulated either subjectively or to the said-party and the forgiveness is really an acknowledgement of the acknowledgement itself? So it isn't really forgiveness but rather an acknowledgement? I would like you to think about building trust when you think of your response to this.
Quoting T Clark
I agree, I think reconciliation is a lot clearer in that it is a mutual effort, however there needs to be meaning in this reconciliation, an honesty and authenticity that would enable it to adequately work, which requires building trust. Keeping that person out of your life is indeed not an unkind thing to do neither is it immoral, on the contrary it is a form of punishment as you attempt to articulate both your position on this said wrong and what you expect from others to be allowed to be in your personal space.
@Augustino is saying that if his wife cheats on him repeatedly, he needs to represent himself as a moral person by continuously forgiving. He is being paradoxical.
I may not want to be married with her anymore, but I would forgive her and be friends with her. Not to forgive her is to justify her actions and approve of them. It would be to tell her that she was right to cheat on me, because I am a bad guy, and I didn't deserve her anyway.
But to forgive her would show great magnanimity of soul, and expose her evil to herself. You do not realize that this is actually the biggest punishment that can be dealt. It's much worse than anything else I could do, for it is the only action that refuses to justify her behavior.
A man rapes your wife. She doesn't forgive him. Does that mean she approves of his actions? And at what point should she forgive him? I would say forgiveness should only be offered when the threat a person represents dissipates. Agree of disagree? If you disagree, please explain.
(The example is more extreme but the principle seems to be the same to me.)
[Edited to be more on point.]
So, now you do believe in punishment? So, there is a hell?
This magnanimity is a hallucination of reality because your forgiveness is irrelevant if she is not genuinely repentant, proven if she repeatedly makes the same mistake. The problem here is that you are arguing against authenticity and you need to prove why it is not relevant for a person to be honest when they apologise. So far, notwithstanding your religious position, there has been no reasonable attempt to do so.
Yes, it does, because from his point of view my hatred of him and unforgiveness justifies his behaviour, because just like him, I am a bad guy who wants to harm him. That hides himself from seeing his responsibility for what he did - instead, he will conceive of himself as someone who now has to defend against the evil I want to do to him.
Quoting Baden
Forgiveness has nothing to do with taking actions to protect my wife. I can forgive him and still take actions to dissipate the threat as you say.
So, you believe those men who don't forgive those who rape their wives approve of their wives being raped. OK. Can you take a look at the edited example? Does the woman also approve of being raped if she doesn't forgive?
I've told you that there is hell back a long time ago:
Quoting Agustino
Punishment is self-inflicted. Vice and sin are their own punishments.
Quoting TimeLine
My forgiveness is very relevant because I have to set myself as opposed to her actions. By setting myself on an equal footing with her - as someone just like her - I do the opposite. Setting myself as opposed to her actions is the only way to encourage repentance in her.
Quoting TimeLine
It is relevant for me to be honest when I apologize, but not for the other. I will assume that they are honest because we should always try to think the best of our neighbors.
Now you're equivocating on "approval". There are two kinds of approval. There is one type of approval that involves me willing the same specific action that you will. There's also another kind of approval that involves me willing according to the same nature that you will.
Now, with regards to the first kind of approval, neither my wife nor I would approve of the rape. Neither of us will want that she is raped. Obviously.
With regards to the second kind of approval, if we will not to forgive the other, if we will to punish him - that is willing in the same nature that he wills in. That would be to will under the logic of violence, which would make us approve of him by virtue of sharing in the same underlying logic that he shares in. By virtue of the very fact that we want to distance ourselves from him, we will only make ourselves approach closer to him. It is only the radical break offered by forgiveness that can tear away the logic of violence and create an abyss between us and him.
I've been developing this understanding only very lately, but it seems to be correct and to bring clarity to a lot of situations.
So, there is only free-will?
Quoting Agustino
There is this saying, Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me. Indeed, when a person first conveys repentance, you show this forgiveness. But, any act repeated is verification that the repentance itself was artificial. You assume honesty within reason but if you forgive an act that is repeated, you are a party to this lack of 'magnanimity' that makes one firm in virtue.
If the law is meant as punishment, yes, that's the wrong direction. If it's meant to keep criminals off the street or even to rehabilitate them, that should be judged based on how effective it is.
Quoting TimeLine
I think what I mean is simpler than that. Blaming someone, judging someone puts a weight on your shoulders. From what you've written, it seems like you will understand what I mean. Forgiveness takes that weight off. It's a release. You become freer. It doesn't mean you have to ever see the person again.
As for trust - as I said to Baden - that's something else you do for yourself. It's another load you take off your shoulders. I'm not saying you should trust everyone, but the decision, for me, is based on possible consequences. I've been having a conflict with my boss, whom I have been friends with for almost 30 years. There are some really hard feelings on both sides. There's an awkwardness between us now. This kind of thing has happened once or twice before. It will just take some time.
Quoting TimeLine
Alternatively, I could just decide that the love and closeness I feel for that person are more important than the hurt I feel. Or you can decide that they're not more important.
Quoting TimeLine
Agustino is a pretty devout person. I think he's trying to act like he knows he should. @Agustino - I was going to say I hope you'll forgive me for putting words in your mouth, but I won't. Pope John Paul II wasn't "representing himself as a moral person" he was forgiving the way Jesus forgave. I don't see any paradox.
No, I'm not equivocating. "To approve" of something involves believing it is good, acceptable or satisfactory. If you don't then you don't "approve" of it. That is the meaning of that word. Your garbled meaning is in your head only.
Quoting Agustino
That's not approval. And to say of a woman who is raped that she is of the same nature as her rapist because she doesn't forgive him is disgusting. A raped woman or a victim of a similar crime is a person in torment. Their nature is chaotic not evil. So, no, a raped woman does not "approve" of her rape in any sense regardless of her attitude towards the rapist (can't believe I actually have to write that on a philosophy forum).
Absolutely. How could there be anything else if God is Love?
Quoting TimeLine
It is of course not the one who loves who is fooled. Jesus Christ wasn't fooled when He was put on the Cross. He knew exactly what was happening. It was Satan who was fooled. That is why in Dante's Divine Comedy there is the image of Satan nailed to the Cross - because that is what happened. Through his innocence, love and non-violence, Jesus exposed Satan for the murderer and liar that he is. And a lie that has been exposed no longer works :)
Love is not fooled in its innocence and forgiveness. It is worldly wisdom which is fooled. That's also the Socratic irony that Plato tried to convey. It wasn't Socrates that was fooled for going to his death - it was those who sent him that were fooled.
I don't think you're paying attention to what Agustino is saying.
What you think isn't important. What you argue for might be. So, go ahead.
I forgive you for being snooty.
When you keep people out of your life because they are hurting you, that is a form of punishment. You are conveying the same message the law is attempting to convey, which is that justice prevails by effectively keeping criminals from harming people, just like how you are saying morality prevails by effectively keeping the said-person from harming you. Any rehabilitation that developed following this act is not up to the law in as much as it is not up to you, but the attempted effect is to rehabilitate, to make them see that what they have done is wrong and to allow others to abide by these laws.
Quoting T Clark
Playing the victim is entirely different when you actually are a victim; if you have experienced a wrong from someone else, that is not blaming them for the wrong, it is stating a fact. It is contrasting to moral principles, which is the fabric of our humanity. The weight of that forgiveness is established when that fact is acknowledged, because there is no longer a rigidity or halt, there is the opportunity that peace affords, the channels of communication are opened.
What you are saying is ignorance, not forgiveness.
I'm justifiably looking for a justification. My basic point here is there is no sense that a woman who is raped "approves" of the act on the basis of not forgiving the rapist. I know more or less what Agustino is trying to say but he is using words wrongly and that has consequences for his argument, which I'm trying to hold him accountable for.
Marriage is really hard. No one in my life has been as cruel to me as my wife can be. I don't forgive her, it never gets that far. I know her, I see her. I know the part of her that does what she does - the things I like and the things I don't. My goal is to deal with her behavior. I know that if I don't get angry and push back, the incident will be over. That doesn't mean it doesn't really hurt. It hurts a lot. We've been married for 40 years and together longer than that. It still hurts and I still fail to react the most effective and, coincidentally, the most compassionate way.
Yes, in that sense of the word, no good person approves of it.
Quoting Baden
What is it then? You're willing according to the same nature that gave birth to the other's actions. That counts as approval of that nature, what else can it count as?
Quoting Baden
It may be disgusting if you don't separate forgiveness from approval. To forgive someone doesn't mean you approve of their actions. But it seems you do not understand the underlying logic of violence that perpetuates it, and hence the danger that Jesus's radical exhortation seeks to avoid:
Why does Jesus give those prescriptions? Because he wants to be a nice guy? No. Rather because those are the prescriptions that are required to STOP and put an end to the logic of violence, which is otherwise interminable because it feeds off itself.
Each person involved in violence becomes - paradoxically - identical with their enemy, in their desire to harm one another. And so violence continues. It is only by surrendering violence - even if it means that you will be killed for it - just like Jesus was - that it is possible to circumvent the logic of violence. As hard as it sounds, this is the only way. All other ways lead to more violence, because violence feeds off it - both combatants end up seeing themselves as victims and desiring revenge - as being justified in their violence. It is precisely the reactions of the other that make them justified in their escalations of violent behavior.
When you hate the rapist, you become one with him in the very fact that you hate - just like him. That's the double bind you find yourself in. To disapprove of the rapist and what he stands for, you think you need to condemn him violently. So in your very violent condemnation of him, are you not approving the logic of hatred and violence? Are you not like the Pharisees here:
In your very attempt to disapprove of the rapist, you are approving of him by using the very same logic he has used - the logic of hatred and violence. Likewise, in their very rejection of their fathers, the Pharisees are approving of them. Just like their fathers did not recognise their own violence and expelled their own fathers saying they have nothing to do with their violence, so too the Pharisees go on perpetuating the same logic of violence while being unaware of it.
Quoting Baden
That is true, but just because they are suffering does not mean that they are not at risk of perpetrating and continuing evil. Many have felt that because of the injustices done to them, they are allowed to murder, pillage, torture, etc. That is wrong. An evil doesn't justify another evil.
Wasn't it you that said everything is determined? So, now there is only free-will? Are you shifting your beliefs to suit the argument at the given moment?
Quoting Agustino
What has this got to do with what I asked? I said that when a person apologises more than once by repeating the same mistake, it is verification that they are being dishonest. I am happy to discuss the ethics of Jesus but this is just you floating on a cloud.
Again, talking about Agustino in the 3rd person. I don't agree with everything he is saying, but his beliefs seem like those of a man who is committed to his principles. I find that moving. Your argument seems very rigid, knee jerk, tangled in words. It doesn't seem as if you are sincerely trying to put yourself in his philosophical shoes.
No, I don't think I ever said that :s - when did I say that? Believing that everything is predestined is against my spiritual position, and I don't believe I would ever have said that.
I may have said in the context of Spinozist philosophy that everything is determined, in the sense that everything has causes for it. However, I distinguished this from fatalism which holds that everything is pre-determined.
Conceding to prevent incidents from escalation is perhaps the key difference between you and I as people since, for me, my ideal partner and I would communicate any concerns rationally and effectively. If they are unable to do this, they would not be my partner as I would hate to be in a relationship that involves this power struggle and especially playing games. It ends up hurting both parties and I refuse to be hurt.
There is a big difference between holding onto principles and holding onto beliefs. You could also potentially be moved by a neo-Nazi, unless what you are really trying to say is that Augustino's beliefs align with yours and you find that moving?
No, I don't think @Agustino presumes this. Someone may be unable to forgive for psychological reasons, but this doesn't change what it would be preferable that they do. These things can take time. It can take time to forgive your enemies. I never said it's easy.
I'm not going to continue to give you English lessons and I'm not going to let you away with that comment. If you remain confused, quickly grab a dictionary.
There is no sense in which a raped woman approves of her rapist's actions because she doesn't forgive him.
Are you ready to agree to that yet?
(+Not forgiving is not equal to hating. + Not forgiving is not equal to wishing violence on someone etc.)
What you seem to be getting at, which I understand, is the idea that we should eventually get past our negative emotions towards those who have done us harm as that is psychologically healthy. That, I presume, was what Jesus was getting at too. I don't necessarily accept that that is a moral obligation but at least I understand it. But you need to stop using the wrong vocabulary if that is what you want to say.
You weren't just saying it's preferable, you were saying if they don't, they are guilty of approving the horrific acts that were inflicted upon them. Again, you need to adjust your language.
I don't see it that way at all. It seems like it may be an effective way of avoiding the trouble and pain that person causes you.
Quoting TimeLine
It has nothing to do with morality. I have smoke alarms and a fire extinguisher to prevent my house from burning down. I keep that person out of my life to prevent the pain and damage they bring to my life.
Quoting TimeLine
Not ignorance, .... equanimity. Not sure about that.... yeah, I'll stick with equanimity.
Yes, that is a very big difference. You have set a very high bar for yourself.
Also - I don't "concede to prevent incidents." I try to act with compassion and effectiveness. Very often I fail.
I don't expect you to change how you are and what you feel and believe. I'm just telling you how I see it, how I try to live my life.
Yes, yes, I love @Agustino too. Look at it as me helping him not to say stuff that may result in grievous bodily harm against him. Besides which, we are not going to get anywhere unless we clarify that we are using words in the same way.
I see forgiveness as a processes on an interpersonal basis, a processes that varies greatly depending on who all are involved. There is a difference in forgiving a child, a parent, a friend, a lover, or a stranger. It has to do with fairness, harm, and pain.
How many times have we heard a child or adolescent say to a parent "I hate you", and we discount it because we understand that they really don't understand what it means to hate, how deeply this word can cut. It is quite another thing for a parent to tell a child or adolescent that they are worthless, or no good. I was reading a poem by Philip Larkin the other day. Here are the lines that caught me:
They fuck you up, your mum and dad.
They may not mean to, but they do.
They fill you with the faults they had
And add some extra just for you.
To forgive you have to feel hurt. I don't event think you necessarily have to understand why you feel hurt, but you do have to feel it or act in a way that demonstrates to others that you are hurt. A friend you count on, or some one you love, may inadvertently hurt you and be quite unaware of the pain they have caused you, unless you tell them. In a lot of ways, I think dialogue is the source of openness, from which honest reconciliation, and forgiveness (healing) are possible.
A business relationship is in some ways like a marriage of sorts. One business partner may act in a way that the other deems unfair, but they try to work it out for the sake of their relationship. They talk, they try to find common ground, a way to proceed, because they both need each other. In time, on a new basis of understanding they can move past the prior hurt, the wound heals, and the relationship may grow and even become stronger. It is not the event that counts, it is how the event is handled and what it means to the parties involved, how it is understood and handled, that determines how the hurt heals, and what scars if any remain.
I think we are doing a reasonable good job of defining our terms and understanding what we're saying . I don't think this is an issue of meanings. We have real differences in the way that we feel about this issue and I think we are putting them out there with some clarity.
And I don't "love" Agustino, I'm moved by his conviction.
Okay, let's see. Approve means to have a positive opinion of something or someone. Forgive means:
With that definition, yes there is no way in which she approves of his actions. But if she doesn't forgive him she would approve of the mode of being in hatred and anger. To forgive means precisely to renounce the will to do violence to the other or punish them. If there is no forgiveness, then there is approval (ie having a positive opinion) of the mode of being that entails that violence and punishment are useful and good. That mode of being is the opposite of the mode of being entailed by forgiveness.
Quoting Baden
Yes, I am getting at that, but not only at that. My point is that if there is no radical forgiveness and renunciation of violence, then there can be no peace on Earth. My point is that violence tends to spread because each party ends up seeing itself as justified to reprisal. Do you follow that?
Quoting Baden
No, not of the acts. I never said of the acts. In fact, I said the opposite:
Quoting Agustino
I did say that they would be guilty in approving of the mode of being of hatred and violence, in at least some of its manifestations, if they don't forgive. This isn't "moral guilt", just "guilt" in the sense that they would be responsible for that, it would be a consequence of their actions. It shows that they think the mode of being of hatred and violence can be good - for example in punishing wrong-doers.
Quoting Baden
Quoting Baden
Does being angry involve hating? Not forgiving per the definition above entails wanting to punish someone and/or being angry with them. That sounds to me like hating someone or wanting to punish them (do violence to them).
Quoting Agustino
I'm outside now so I'll come back to it later. Hopefully, we can move on to more sensible territory.
Good luck. I'll miss the ankle biting. ;)
"having canceled the debt ascribed to us in the decrees [of the law] that stood against us. He took it away, nailing it to the cross!" Colossians 2:14
Okay yes, I see what you mean. My apologies, I didn't mean it that way, as should have been clearer after my second reply.
I don't think it is a very high bar to want to marry someone who you can have a rational conversation with; playing games, nourishing egos, that sort of thing is not for me. I ask for that since you will be spending a lot of intimate time together and most of any relationship is based on the conversations that you will have. If that is too much to ask, then I would rather be alone and face the hardships that come with that rather than be unhappy in a relationship as long as I am not alone. Lesser of two evils.
I appreciate you telling me how you try to live your life in as much as I am doing so with me, but I think that trying to be compassionate and effective vis-a-vis your own statement that you stay silent because that is the quickest formula of ending any conflict with your wife who has hurt you a number of times is enough to say that you are conceding to prevent incidents that is compassionate and effective for you.
What is the difference between predestined and predetermined?
No difference. But predestination and fatalism and predeterminism are different from determinism.
This is how I see it too; the intensity of a parent hurting you is more than a sibling, in as much as it is easier to forgive a sibling for hurting you than it is a friend. There are many factors to consider and any reasonable efforts to hold your moral ground while at the same time balancing your personal emotions can be tricky that having an absolute 'just forgive' or being completely unforgiving without really thinking things through is wrong both for yourself and for the principles in question or wherefore the wrongs have been breached.
Quoting Cavacava
I don't believe in hatred, despite the last thing you say above happening to me; my siblings tormented me about my appearance that I believed I was not attractive to a point of keeping away from men entirely. I quite literally thought I was ugly and that wound was very deep, but I still managed to forgive them because I was able to reason that it was all a reaction. I have never hated anyone, I have only found an act based on a bad decision, choice, idea to be abhorrent, though there is always a part of me that desires to expose why it is bad as a way of effecting a reminder that there is meaning and value in holding to the right principles. Actions can hurt people so apologies should not be superficial, but it should be actual to remember the meaning of morality and to be altruistic enough to care. This is why acknowledgement is important. One of my favourite movies Dead Man Walking exemplifies my type of reasoning. Punishment is a way of showing the value of principles or the principle in question. When it is broken and the person genuinely feels guilt, it would be vicious not to forgive but if any admission of guilt is artificial because they know that they can get something out of it including the act repeating itself, a certain responsibility follows you that how you act becomes more complex.
Quoting Cavacava
This is absolutely right and a lack of dialogue is the very source of grief, where you hurt the most. When you can't communicate to them either because they escape you or hide from you or they just simply don't hear a word that you are saying, that is where you feel the most pain. If you can't communicate with them, you have to let it go otherwise you will end up hurting yourself.
Can't it be both? Perhaps neither?
Forgiveness is an act of a victim. Do you feel victimized? Do you feel a wrong was done to you? Or did you realize that you were mistaken and that you were never a victim?
The wrongs did happen, that is clear, however what changed was my level of altruism, my capacity to feel compassion and appreciate the vulnerability that caused those wrongs. The idea of being a victim dissipated with reason and forgiveness became an entirely subjective phenomenon. This is why I don't hate anyone, because I hold firm the Socratic notion that evil is ignorance. Reconciliation, however, is different because it is a mutual effort and so while I can do the above mentioned, I nevertheless refrain from any physical contact as I slowly rebuild and communicate from afar. This is really just a way of protecting myself from being hurt, but no, I was hurt and there is no mistake in that.
Quoting Agustino
Gracious, I think I may need an explanation for this one. :-O However I must admit that I had always held in my mind that you believed in determinism, so it is good to know that is not the case.
Quoting Agustino
That violence is called seeking revenge, an entirely different subject to one being unforgiving; punishment is not always about hurting people for doing wrong but about upholding values.
Quoting Agustino
If you continue to read the Colossians, it also states in 3:9: "Lie not one to another, seeing that ye have put off the old man with his deeds." If you prefer to exegete in that language, biblical hermeneutics is more than fine by me. The teachings are all about love, about oneness but this is sourced in the virtues and moral principles that we adhere to and its about our dedication to righteousness. The importance of authenticity was a source that would drive Jesus to anger, Therefore when thou doest thine alms, do not sound a trumpet before thee, as the hypocrites do in the synagogues and in the streets, that they may have glory of men. Verily I say unto you, They have their reward. And don't forget, there is nothing wrong with be passionate about right and wrong, as it is rather lukewarm to simply just accept an artificial apology of one consistently making the same errors; I know your deeds, that you are neither cold or hot; I wish that you were cold or hot. So because you are lukewarm, and neither hot nor cold, I will spit you out of My mouth. I'm going to sleep now. Sweet dreams :-d
Those things and because you love her.
That is because a child takes the parent as a model of imitation. Even when the parent hurts the child, the child is still attached to the parent, because the very hurt signals a superior sufficiency of being in the parent that the child is shown to lack, so the child paradoxically seeks to imitate and become even more like the parent. This double bind is painful. The more violent the parent, the more attached the child becomes. The interiorized sense of lack always propels the child forward in seeking dominating models - the masochistic desire of course isn't because the child takes pleasure in pain, but rather because the proximity of the pain signals a self-sufficient model that the child can imitate and hence achieve the same self-sufficiency of being. The child cannot forgive the parent easily because the parent as model becomes rival - it is precisely in its rivalry that the parent is shown to have superiority of being. And the child wants this superiority of being. It is propelled by the desire to become invincible - of course a desire which is impossible and self-defeating.
"ONE year ago today, a shooter entered a one-room Amish school in Nickel Mines, Pa., dismissed all but 10 girls, and fired at them execution-style, killing five before shooting himself.
Within hours, the Amish community forgave the killer and his family. "
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.csmonitor.com/layout/set/amphtml/2007/1002/p09s02-coop.html
Something truly inspiring really.
Well it is the case that I am a determinist of the Spinozist kind in the sense that I take that things are determined, things have causes to be what they are. But there is no predeterminism/fatalism and the like because you yourself are part of the causal chain. Determinism isn't incompatible with free will.
Do you not acknowledge that we can be in an emotional state without approving of it? So, for example, we can be angry without approving of (the mode of being of) hatred and violence (we may simply wish we weren't angry, for example), and we can be unforgiving without wanting to apply an unjust punishment to the one who harmed us. To me, what's important, morally speaking, is not the emotional state, which is often beyond our control, but our reaction to it. Do we allow it to overcome us so that we also act unjustly or will unjust acts? Or do we stick to our moral precepts regardless? It's only in the former case that we can be accused of "approving" or "approving of" immorality (and therefore being immoral) in any sense.
Quoting Agustino
Yes, and I agree with the spirit of it, but responsibility for violence must be laid at the feet of the violent (and their enablers) not at those of their victims regardless of whether those victims forgive the violent or not. Ideally they would forgive those of the violent who sincerely repented, but I see no moral obligation to do so provided they refrain from unjust acts themselves or support of unjust acts by others against their former oppressors. And even if I were to accept that that's not what tends to happen that would make no difference to my argument.
I imagine it takes a very different approach to life to be able to be that strong psychologically. More power to them.
Yes, we can be in an emotional state without wanting to be. That experience is quite common.
Quoting Baden
Sure. Forgiveness and love are not emotional states, they are precisely choices. Jesus always presents it as an alternative choice between violence and love.
Quoting Baden
It's not so much of where responsibility must be laid - responsibility cannot be laid, it exists. It must only be revealed to be at the feet of the violent.
Quoting Agustino
Quoting Agustino
Love is not an emotional state? What is then? Also, do you agree we can be unforgiving without wanting to unjustly punish the one who harmed us? If so, can you explain how this is violent? (If that's what you are claiming). If not, why is it at least immoral?
I already told you - a choice.
Quoting Baden
Oh, of course you won't want to "unjustly" punish the one who harmed you. That's precisely how the logic of violence works - the victim always deserves it. "The woman asked to be raped", and so on. What Jesus reveals is precisely that "the victim deserves it" is a lie, but it is precisely this lie which gets the logic of violence working and sustains it in motion.
You misunderstand. I mean name an emotional state.
Quoting Agustino
This makes zero sense. I am the one saying the victim should not be blamed. You are the one claiming they should be if they don't forgive. Now, can you answer my actual question?
Quoting Baden
In other words is not forgiving someone for harming you and seeking a just punishment somehow immoral?
(I realize you wrote before it's not "moral" guilt but if so then they cannot be blamed, right? I find it hard to square your pronouncements on this.)
Meaning? Anger is an emotional state for example.
Quoting Baden
And I go back to the phenomenology of the experience. If you seek an unjust punishment you're never going to think the punishment is unjust are you?! You'll be 100% sure it is just, like how the rapist feels 100% sure that the woman really wants to be raped. Then you'll go ahead with your punishment thinking it is the most just thing in the world. You're never going to think "Ah I want this really unjust punishment for he who harmed me".
That is why there is a forced choice between love and violence, and why I cannot answer your question. If I say "yes" (to seeking a just punishment) all the criminals in the world will think they're justified in punishing their victims, because their punishment is just (in their minds) - hence more violence. If I say "no" then it will seem like there is no justice in the world, hence again more violence. So I cannot answer your question and subvert the logic of violence. I can only outline that logic and force you to choose between violence and love.
Does anger not have in common with love the fact that is an emotional state though an opposing one? Can we not talk of anger vs acts of anger as well as love vs acts of love?
We can absolutely talk like so, and there is a sense in which love is an emotion. I fell in love with a girl, there is a certain emotion associated with it.
But Christian love as recommended by Jesus - love your neighbor as yourself - isn't a feeling, it's a choice. Even if you feel like hating your neighbor, you should put your hatred to one side and love your neighbor. This propagates further on in other relationships such as your relationship with your wife or partner.
I remember the story of Bertrand Russell on his bike one day, when he realised he no longer felt attracted to his wife. So he divorced her. He failed to see that there is anything more to love than feeling. So when the feeling was gone, so was his love. That's also why life-long marriage vows are hard to conceive in our Western society today - because the conception of love given to us by our society is no longer the Christian one.
This is completely backwards. Rapists are not "punishing" women for something the woman did to them. The rapist is abusing the woman and should themselves be punished. And I doubt most rapists can convince themselves the woman wants to be raped any more than someone who punches you in the face can convince themselves you wanted them to do it.
Quoting Agustino
Let's presume the punishment is just. For example, the woman hopes the rapist will be sent to prison for a period of time as outlined under the law. So, what then?
Quoting Agustino
If it's fully a choice, it relates fully to an act. We don't get to fully choose our feelings. Would that we did. That makes love (of whatever sort) and anger commensurate in terms of state and action.
He was a dodgy bugger, I'll give you that.
Well many of them do cite that the woman really wanted it as justification for their actions. That the woman seduced them, etc. So either we believe that they think that and then we can understand why they did what they did, or we disbelieve them, and then evil becomes somewhat of a mystery. Of course by believing that this is what they think we are not also entailed to thinking that what they think is true (because it's not).
Evil always involves some sort of self-deception, in the case of the rapist, this would be the self-deception that the victim, for whatever reason, wanted it or somehow deserved it.
As for someone who punches me in the face, it's not difficult for them to convince themselves that I deserve it. Maybe they start thinking that I've stared at their wife for too long. Who knows - violence always finds reasons and justifications when it needs them.
Quoting Baden
If the punishment is really just, then obviously that wouldn't be wrong.
Ok, so in this case being unforgiving would not be wrong. So, it seems to me it's not being unforgiving per se that you consider wrong but wishing harm, violence, unjust punishment etc on others. That's a different issue as far as I'm concerned.
Asking for the just punishment isn't necessarily being unforgiving though. And in either case from unforgiving not being morally condemnable, it doesn't follow that unforgiving is morally laudable (or right).
I didn't say it was, but the example we were discussing specified someone who doesn't forgive and asks only for a just punishment.
Quoting Baden
Quoting Agustino
Sure.
How's that @Robert Lockhart?
Only in that particular situation you have presented. And I wouldn't necessarily say that if a criminal goes to jail you haven't forgiven them.
I meant "... necessarily right or wrong". Poetic licence. :)
Here is my advice about how to manage your intimate relationships. This is based on decades of study and experimentation - Whatever guidance I give you, do the exact opposite. I have not been notably successful in this area. You know what you need to be happy. I don't. I would never criticize your judgment on that and I wasn't.
The thing I regret most about my relationships is that I was not friends with my partners before we became lovers. Love and sex are very dangerous. Friendship provides a protected place, a harbor, when there are storms.
Reconciliation is actually getting back on good turns with them, which requires somethings on their part as well. I don't generally talk to my mom, but it isn't as if we're on bad terms or anything. My sister is astonished at how I talk genuinely to her, and say what I think and feel, whereas she doesn't -- but this is mainly because our relationships differ. My sister generally got a lot more help from her than I ever did, it was usually her getting help from me, and I don't really care about not talking to her. She has nothing besides covert insults to reproach me with, and I'm fairly thick skinned, so they don't really work on me.
I don't expect to really hear from her unless she wants something, and she isn't that capable of a conversation, she doesn't really listen, and wants to just talk about how flat the earth is, or her alien blood, and royal lineage and things...
I think that I'm pretty good at forgiveness, but seeing as I'm a loner anyway, I'm not so great that reconciliation. I have broken off relations with many people, and I eventually come to a point where I see my own mistakes, or see where they were coming from, or am simply no longer angry with them so that I no longer feel negatively towards them, or bother to think of them at all anymore, but that usually don't imply a restoration of relations.
T Clark, I am not asking for your advice, even one as hilarious as this, I am more than capable of being decisive in my decisions with people in my personal space and who I choose to have around. The primary impetus of every decision I make is based on the objective of happiness. I am asking what you think the nature of forgiveness is.
You can attempt to convey your answer philosophically (my preference), religiously, personally, whichever way you feel most comfortable in narrating your opinion as I will endeavour to translate it, but let it be an attempt at the very least.
Quoting T Clark
Friendship is the fundamental basis of every relationship. People often come confessing their immediate affection and desire for intimacy with me without even knowing who I am, and that frightens the crap out of me because I never allow anyone into my personal space until I feel comfortable knowing that they are friend-worthy. The concept of 'brotherly-love' or the love between two friends, for me, teaches the most powerful lessons of empathy and it makes us care for the person as they are and not what they will give us that once two people have become friends, only then can they move on to become lovers. This then becomes the foundation of the relationship and so you love and respect the person for who they are as an individual and vice-versa while sharing emotions and experiences with one another.
This is why 'building trust' as said by @Baden is fundamental during reconciliation, because it is the same foundation that needs to be structurally applied to ensure that this process is genuine and will be strong enough to hold the weight of the arrow of time.
I remember Michel Foucault due to the authorship of I, Pierre Rivière, having slaughtered my mother, my sister, and my brother talking about the differences between himself and his brother vis-a-vis their relationship with their mother, who appeared to be a difficult and dominating woman. His brother found it intolerable to a point that it affected his emotions and his capacity to function, possessed and perhaps even somewhat tortured by the profound confusion the emotion wrought, while Foucault himself managed and eventually transcended the emotional grip, perhaps for the same reasons I have, finding that intellectual foundation that enabled me to see things as they were and not entirely what I would like them to be.
I think that is the biggest flaw we have when it comes to familial relationships. We tend to view our parents in an idealistic sort of way, perhaps a result of our childhood cognitive limitations. We are told that 'this is what makes a good parent' or 'this is a woman who epitomises a good mother' and we therefore fail to acknowledge that our parents can also just be human beings with flaws. They are just like you and have little to no skills in raising children, perhaps even being a good person. What distinguishes between Foucault and his brother is this attachment to an ideal.
This may sound absurd, but I love everyone. What I mean is that I believe in everyone, or that I believe everyone is capable of being loving, perhaps in a Rousseau kind of way. Whatever circumstances - being it social, economic, cognitive - that cause people to become evil does not necessarily mean that they have escaped their nature. Evil is psychological.
Quoting Hanover
The killer is dead. That changes the nature of this forgiveness.
I'm with the thought police. Can I see your poetic licence, sir? Do you verily have a rhyme for your necessarily? Recite after me:
[quote=Larkin]This Be The Verse
They fuck you up, your mum and dad.
They may not mean to, but they do.
They fill you with the faults they had
And add some extra, just for you.
But they were fucked up in their turn
By fools in old-style hats and coats,
Who half the time were soppy-stern
And half at one another’s throats.
Man hands on misery to man.
It deepens like a coastal shelf.
Get out as early as you can,
And don’t have any kids yourself.[/quote]
I spoke with you not to long ago about this subject and am quite surprised at your interest, nevertheless pointing out to you the Lacanian mirror phase during childhood is where we first establish an idealised version of personhood (through our parents) when we are children as a way to contrast with our own identity and it is thus the beginning of the formation of our ego. However, this identity is formulated on a rather infantile ideal as represented by our parents, something we start to doubt but we are not sure why and as we grow older we transfer this idealised version to society or other people. The emotive influence that compels us is because during childhood the identification process is emotionally considered the right thing to do that we continue believing that, there is no reasoning behind it, we just immediately and unconsciously believe that we need to contrast ourselves to others. It is how we learn.
We reach a stage where we no longer need to and unfortunately not many people reach that stage or at least transcend it because it challenges their identity and that can be frightening; the transcendence is when idealised versions of ourselves is through universal moral principles. We find that self-sufficiency because we are able to transcend this identification process from other people and start focusing on our own actions and behaviours, ultimately removing ourself from that emotional grip and start using reason.
Quoting Agustino
I feel like you are quietly adapting to the things that I say. It makes me wonder why you always seem to be antagonistic to my views and then sometime later you suddenly have the same ones.
O the magnanimity!
Why surprised?
Quoting TimeLine
Lacan was wrong. The mirror phase isn't only during childhood, it is for your entire life. Human beings, as per Aristotle, are imitative creatures. All of life is imitative actually, not just humans. Humans are just more imitative than other animals. What psychoanalytic theory tries to deal with rather unsuccessfully are the results of the decoupling of desire from the object (which Aristotle analyzed) and its refocus on the model of imitation. Its fascination with the model is what gives rise to psychopathology. Kierkegaard had some understanding of this too.
The trouble with Lacan was that he could never drop Freud's reifications to understand things clearly.
Quoting TimeLine
I don't actually share your view on this issue (at least I don't think so), there are some family resemblances though.
Quoting TimeLine
So you classify yourself as a determinist too? :P
Which is the odd one out?
I@m reading Levinas at the moment. I think his 'pardon' is generally taken as something very close to forgiveness:
Such a philosophy is clear that pardon/forgiveness is part of a subjective view towards others/the Other. To feel somehow obliged to forgive means that forgiveness is not what's in your heart, or so I'd see it.
Frankly, though, I think I have achieved reconciliation with many people over my life without forgiveness, either by me of them or them of me. In such cases forgiveness would remove a part of me that I wish to keep: a sense of myself, of the wrong that was done to me. I can however love the person who wronged me. Forgiveness is not some sort of pre-requisite to that, not for me.
I'm a little confused. I thought I had already done this. Anyway... Forgiveness doesn't really have any philosophical content for me. Maybe that's because I have been treated pretty well. My brother and I had some nasty interactions when we were kids. In the last 10 years it has turned out we are good friends. I think we were both caught a little by surprise. And then there's my wife, as I've discussed. My mother died when I was 12. That's definitely had a big effect on me, but that was no one's fault. After she died there was never a woman in the house before I left home. I joke now about my father - he was a good father, but a really terrible mother. But that wasn't his fault either. It's the way he was. I wonder how good a mother I would have been if my wife had died. Probably not very good.
I've been unhappy almost all of my life. Maybe that's it - I recognize that my unhappiness is not based on what someone else has done. It's based on my own behavior, failure, weakness, fear.
I guess that's it - I don't get it. Forgiveness, that is. I don't understand it. I don't need it - from either side. I don't find it satisfying when someone forgives me. It never even crosses my mind that someone might need it from me. I guess that might not be a very satisfying response from your point of view.
Consider that if everyone is imitating everyone else, then it is a closed and finite system where the only introduction of novelty could be a form of error. The fact that "being yourself", "creativity", "originality" and things are held in such high esteem suggests that this isn't true. Imitation is only for followers, but at least the potential for genuine leadership must exist.
Small step for man, giant leap for mankind. Though, being an astronaut isn't exactly normative, I think that people are generally more concerned with practical wisdom, or phronesis, how to live a good life, and be a good person in a way that is generalizable to all forms of being, and occupations.
Did you read what I wrote? We carry that with us because it weaves itself into the fabric of our identity, hence the ego, as we contrast and differentiate as part of our learning. It is how we perceive and interpret the external world and why language and communication plays a fundamental role and again why psychoanalysis attempts to articulate this narrative that we have formed. This process of identification is formed from when our language is not yet sophisticated enough to appreciate reason and while we may grow and develop, those emotive and imaginative attachments remain, the desire is the stimuli to this psychopathology.
Quoting Agustino
When you say love is a choice. Click the link, buddy.
Quoting Agustino
Nah, I like freebies.
You?
I can say this is also occurring with one of my sisters, not that we are good friends at the moment, but recent contact and communication has brought me some comfort in that our heartache and experiences are aligned at conscious level for the first time, and there is a sense of relief when someone can actually understand what you are saying. She recently had a baby and I went through some tough experiences that we both came to realise how much our mum suffered at the hands of a very cruel man. Her husband is American and very loving and kind to her that she realised through him that our dad manipulated and confused us into thinking we were bad or that something was wrong with us, whereas I was treated really badly that made me recognise the same thing. We both also decided to educate ourselves and I think this is what allowed us to form clarity to our personal difficulties as we began to appreciate how strong we are as women for having a really bad dad. The others, however, are still stuck in the cycle of thinking that violent behaviour is 'normal' which is what our dad wanted us to think.
Quoting T Clark
There is such a thing as forgiving yourself and reconciling with your past; some people remain unhappy because they form a habit of unhappiness, it becomes a part of their identity as though the unhappiness itself is a form of happiness. There is a difference between playing the victim - that keeps one stuck in the same cycle - or being ballsy enough to understand your past - that allows you to move on. Real happiness is that peace you talk of, but not just peace around you, but peace with yourself. Unhappiness shows the lack thereof.
Most justice systems (Western ones to be sure) place little to no authority on the victim to seek punishment. The authority of the prosecution rests with the state, not the victim. Any person personally or emotionally affected would be disqualified from dispensing justice.
The point being that forgiveness and punishment rest in different people's hands, meaning you can openly forgive your oppressor for whatever reason you want, but the District Attorney won't care.
Additionally, the violence exacted by the state as punishment on the victim typically leads to the suppression of additional violence because when a community believes the punishment is fair, they respect the outcome as opposed to rebelling against it. Otherwise, you'd have the absurd conclusion that the eradication of societal violence would be achieved by the release of our most violent criminals.
I'd also point out that just like the state monopolizes the power of punishment, the victim ought monopolize the power of forgiveness, meaning no one can forgive you for your sins against me other than me. That's at least the rule in Judaism, and I suspect it's the rule of other systems as well.
I actually want to read more on Levinas, despite the fact that I had to read the quote several times before understanding what was being implied, which then resulted in an agitation similar to that against Kant or Heidegger where the explanation could have been dramatically simplified to enable accessibility. Nevertheless, the differences in the concluding effects is something to think about, whereby reconciliation needn't actually be 'become friends or associates' but rather being liberated to allow for happiness to be permitted somehow.
Quoting mcdoodle
When you say 'whats in your heart' are you attempting to imply authenticity, the honesty behind an apology?
Quoting mcdoodle
This returns to my original point where I said the shift in my appreciation for the ethics behind forbearance in relation to reconciliation without necessarily forgiving the said party. The problem is that with forbearance you have to reconcile without forgiveness, to just tolerate that clearly shows - going back to your quote on Levinas - the 'forgetting' which is not really forgetting since there has been no forgiveness but rather nullifying any emotional connection. You shut them out, which is no different to simply keeping them out of your life. This is perhaps what we do with intolerable people in the workplace, but it would be something to think about if you do it with people you know personally. There seems to be some level of the lesser of two evils in a way where some people would prefer to live with someone who has wronged them rather than be alone with your principles.
Even Buddhism holds to this belief - ignorance is evil. According to Buddhism, ignorance of facts, e.g. not knowing the ephemeral nature of all things, leads to suffering. Now that I think of it, Buddhism takes an indirect route to evil i.e. it's not a well developed concept as is in the Abrahamic religions. Rather, the focus is on suffering and I suppose evil is a type of suffering. So, what I'd like to know is ignorance of what leads to evil?
Quoting TimeLine
Could it be that your ignorance of the facts - of the nature of people - led to your suffering?
It's helpful to remember that this is a scripture where the Hebrew poetic device of intensification is being used; if he sins once, rebuke and forgive; if seven times, and he repents 7 times, forgiveness still stands. I would interpret that particular scripture as saying that the more chronic the sin, the more in need of forgiveness the perpetrator is. The intensification seems to signify how dire the need for forgiveness is, the more egregious the sin. So no, repetition of behavior doesn't necessarily always mean unwillingness to admit wrongdoing; it signifies an even more intense need for both reconciliation, and then subsequent forgiveness. Jesus seemed to prefer hanging with prostitutes, tax collectors, and lepers. Those at the bottom of the moral well seem to understand the heights above them the best.
Quoting TimeLine
As someone else mentioned, it seems both.
So, why are you asking whether reconciliation and forgiveness are mutually exclusive, in this context, and/or in a philosophical context? Sorry, I was too lazy to read the rest of the thread, so maybe it's been addressed. It seems clear to me that they aren't mutually exclusive; it's just that they often don't accompany one another, due to emotional problems like denial, bitterness, pride, shame... But obviously the ideal reparation would be made up of both. So on a spiritual level, true reparations means reconciliation built out of forgiveness, driven by unconditional love.
Forgiveness is a sort of taboo; it breaks the entire structure of the world. Berdyaev said "pure undistorted truth burns up the world." Forgiveness seems similar; it breaks down the structure of reality. So people's responses to it tend to be polarizing; life changing transformation on the one hand, and violent denial on the other. As much as I'm no longer a Christian, I do feel a real sense of spiritual bondage in the world. The world is literally in bondage to the cycle of oppression and dehumanizing behavior; there are moments where an action like forgiveness attempts to cut the bonds, and a spiritual power fights back and prevents the cut.
My understanding of Buddhism is limited, being more acquainted with the Abrahamic religions and it is a certainly well-developed concept; in Judaism according to Maimonides, evil itself is neither real nor is it a part of creation but rather a formation caused by the material world; ignorance to evil is exemplified in Cain and Abel. Our intelligence is a form that determines our nature and any neglect of this form becomes the source of evil, which is why we were given the scriptures and the commandments. This philosophy is similarly adopted by Ibn Sina vis-a-vis Islam, only evil exists because it is necessary to contrast good or morality as that ultimately maintains the cosmic order but those who are evil are determined by a choice to be ignorant. "Ignorance" is intellectual, a lack of willingness to appreciate the reason required for morality, which is where the capacity to resist the temptation for evil in the material sense exists.
Quoting TheMadFool
It is a combination. When you are threatened, for instance, of physical harm, there are a number of effects that this can have on you. You feel rejected, afraid, confused and this can show physically where you feel anxious, your hands shake, things start to go wrong for unknown reasons, weight loss or whatever. You suffer considerably and the reasons are factual, you were actually threatened and this had an impact, however knowledge - of the nature of people - can enable us to reduce that impact by understanding why this said-person threatened you in the first place; they are mentally unstable, or a drug-addict, or it is cultural. Sometimes, trying to find that line between the two can get blurry but it is reason and compassion that empowers us or at least repels the suffering. We also learn to avoid such people, keep them away from us and keep the right people in our lives that ensure the sustainability of happiness.
Ahh okay. Well I don't remember disagreeing with you about that in the first place :P
I had the chance to experience Yom Kippur when I was in Israel late last year, where my housemate orally translated the somewhat conditional forgiveness in the Tefilah Zaka prayer and explained the meaning of this restoration of life (happiness) attributed by the purity of intention and devotion. One is cleansed by the honesty of admission, however the transgressions here are really those that we make. In a sense, this appeasement for our sins narrates an understanding of when others sin, it gives us compassion to sympathise or at the very least appreciate the possibility for atonement, but there is a reverse attitude in that the wrongdoer should seek forgiveness. Maimonides writes about making an effort to ask for forgiveness when you have wronged, a thousand times if he is your teacher, but in that effort if the victim still refuses to forgive then the victim becomes the sinner him/herself. So, it is not about making the same mistake over and over again and asking for forgiveness each time, but rather making an effort to ask for forgiveness over and over again for the wrong deed committed. That makes sense to me, our responsibility to uphold principles.
The way that I have always interpreted that quote is really about me, my compassion and perhaps even my strategic ability to effect change on a person who clearly has issues; it is not necessarily about forgiveness or to just say that you forgive, but rather one must always subjectively forgive, but act in a way that will enable them to recognise the wrongs in their behaviour (if possible). What I mean is that my heart always forgives but I don't always act on this forgiveness, because sometimes in doing so could result in the opposite effect that I intend.
Quoting Noble Dust
I think the question really stems from my experience where I came to realise that I have always forgiven her but could never reconcile with her because the latter is a mutual or joint effort that relies on communication, something she was unable to do previously. It needn't necessarily be admission - which is a type of expression that speaks of an honest desire to reconcile - but rather it could also be empathy, that while I may not understand why certain actions hurt you so much, the fact that you are hurting is also hurting me, and I don't want that. Love forms the fundamental basis of any moral action and I came to realise that any suffering I experienced was borne out of the failure to communicate and ultimately reconcile and not the need for forgiveness.
Quoting Noble Dust
I was recently asked to write an article for a hiking magazine about my trip to Hawaii, and I wrote the following about the meaning of Aloha. "It is an inherent respect for the eternal connection between the individual and nature, the fixed relationship between your soul with the very fabric of the world. It is the actualisation of compassion and empathy in every action and decision, in every word where the suffering of others also means the suffering within and where nature, animals, the earth as a whole is a part of who you are. One is committed to take care and protect the environment just as much as they are themselves. Aloha is not about the individual, but an individual consciousness of being a part of the whole."
I myself don't follow any religion, but I believe in God (without anthropomorphic qualities) and I think that the capacity to give love - call it unconditional, namely the capacity to give love to all - is the very moral foundation or consciousness in which we should struggle to achieve, because we are a part of a whole whether or not capitalism and economics would allow us to admit and it is our responsibility to care for others in as much as we would care for ourselves. That is why I appreciate the suggestion that we need to first take the beam out of our own eye first.
I don't know Maimonides, but that lines up pretty profoundly with the attempt at a philosophy of atonement (or whatever) that I've tried to espouse here in general. That specific idea right there seems paramount to this whole discussion: the victim becomes the sinner him/herself.
Quoting TimeLine
But again, what change can you effect on anyone other than yourself? Even self-change is a mountain that requires immense strategy in it's climbing.
Quoting TimeLine
This sounds dangerously manipulative to me.
Quoting TimeLine
Yes.
Quoting TimeLine
Oh? :P
Quoting TimeLine
So you define unconditional love as the capacity to give love to all?
I said the same thing in an earlier post, whereby people who economise their behaviour with others, seeking forgiveness not because there exists any genuine issue but rather as a display of authority and power, dragging things out unnecessarily to play the victim as an actual method to control. I know this from experience of minor things; I have done wrong and I would sincerely apologise and recognise my wrong, but they remain haughty and agitated and feel justified in being dismissive that makes you feel like there is worthlessness to an honest apology. That is just as immoral as it is for a person who fails to see the value in moral principles.
Quoting Noble Dust
It depends; if you cannot communicate with someone through forgiveness, sometimes the best thing to do is to stop talking to them. Your heart may forgive them, but what you desire is to effect change, for them to experience empathy and realise that their actions are hurting you enough to stop you from talking. Empathy is the foundation of moral consciousness. I hardly call that manipulative, though I can see where the danger in that lies. It is true, the only real goal we have is to effect change in ourselves, but the choices we make and how we act with others is a part of us already.
Quoting Noble Dust
Yes.
Hmmm, we need to draw a fine line here. I'm not talking about the victim abusing their status in order to manipulate. I'm talking about when the victim cannot forgive. This is the "hard problem", if you will, of forgiveness. The irony is that forgiveness is a responsibility that lies solely on the victim; forgiveness is it's own power that lies in the hands of the weak. I mentioned taboos; this is the taboo of all taboos: Only the weak can imbue the world with forgiveness, because only the weak possess the power to forgive. This is the entire crux of the fucking gospel, people.
Quoting TimeLine
Absolutely.
This makes absolutely no sense. You need to explain this better.
First of all, the sentence I quoted from you wasn't a complete sentence, so it's possible I mis-interpreted what you meant. It sounded to me like you were talking about victimhood as an expression of power over others. Was that wrong?
You missed a few things that I said, actually, but I am ok with that, just working with your flow. And yes, I did agree that some people can play the victim as a method of gaining power over others, but only after someone apologises authentically. It is immoral to do this. This is no different to when someone is artificially apologising, where if you continuously and blindly forgive then you are at fault also. It is immoral to do this as well. As for the latter, you become somewhat responsible in effecting change, to make them see that repeating the same mistake is wrong, but this is where it can get dangerous and why ultimately it is not our responsibility. I have always been interested in the latter, how this can be achieved ethically.
Yes - Happiness = Peace. I don't need to forgive myself. I feel a deep sense of responsibility for my life. We're back to forgiveness vs. responsibility again. I'm as happy now as I have ever been because I've learned how to recognize my responsibility. You and I see things differently. Feel things differently. It's not hard for me to imagine how you feel, even if don't feel that way myself. I'm not trying to say my way is better, but It's definitely better for me.
I like this, especially the idea keeping a sense of self by keeping forgiveness out of it. Do you agree that it works the other way too - that I, as the offending party - might want to keep that sense of self, connection, to the wrong that I did?
Welllll...I suppose so. If you stay that connected to it, though, maybe the 'victim' won't want to play. I was thinking for instance of having been bullied. I don't forgive the bullying, but I can engage socially, even in a measure of friendship, with someone who never explicitly apologises for the past bullying.
There's something in Levinas' talk of *time* that has really struck home with me. What matters to both parties is how 'present' the 'wrong' is in the present time - whatever happened in the past. If their past bullying becomes a presence to me now, I don't think I am at all reconciled to them, but if it doesn't become a presence, then I feel we can live together without forgiveness.
There is something in the ritual quality of forgiving that puts me off - I suspect it's a religious residue. Lucy Allais, a South African, writes about forgiveness in a political context, and warns of the pressure victims felt under to forgive, in the reconciliation process, which may not have been a healthy thing.
Yes. I think there are more grades of coming-to-terms than 'shutting them out', though. Some things matter less once you're out of a situation for instance: the ex you hated for a while may become a perfectly tolerable human being again and you might even remember why you liked them, now that you don't have to live under the same roof and negotiate the same deals.
I think maybe this is part of what I was talking about. Being forgiven "puts me off." There is nothing the hurt party can do to take away what I've done, and there shouldn't be. I think feeling guilty and asking for forgiveness, or even accepting it, is a way of avoiding your responsibility for the consequences of your actions. Maybe you and I are talking about different things.
I have been thinking about this and I believe the way that I actually view forgiveness is that the word represents a longing or hope for something that does not come to pass. Say you love someone, your child for instance, but he is a drug-addict and you long that he stops hurting himself and to make himself better but it never happens, that is where the suffering lies, the desire for things to be different to what they are. That is how it is for me anyway; I have not suffered as a victim but rather I have suffered because the said-person is unwilling to acknowledge their wrongdoing, that I cannot reason or communicate with them, that my pain is caused because they don't care about me. It is a fight.
Responsibility is the key. I have always said that I am always there for others, always listening and helping others but no one is there for me; the moment I accepted my responsibility and circumstances, I no longer felt the pangs of loneliness because I no longer hoped or desired a friend to be there for me. I learnt to take care of myself, to take responsibility for my happiness by removing everyone wrong from life.
By the way, you don't know me so you don't need to compare yourself to me.
This is an interesting point. But I can see how novelty can emerge out of progressive imitation.
It is true that "being yourself" and such are praised, but as TimeLine said awhile ago, it is these very people who imitate the most who think they are the most original. So even the desire for novelty and creativity is imitated, which is precisely why these people all think they're original, while they are in truth exactly like everyone else. At this point in our development, the desire for novelty exists, so it will be easily imitated.
As for how novelty can first emerge, this would happen when imitation reaches some critical stage since people don't just follow one another, they want to be better than one another. So at some point, as imitation spirals upward and rivalry intensifies, something new is stumbled upon.
Given that you like JBP, you may like René Girard too if you read him. Violence and the Sacred or Things Hidden Since The Foundation of The World are good beginning places.
Well, I didn't mean to imply that I thought that imitation was opposed to originality, or novelty. I don't think that it is wise, or likely that you'll both reinvent the wheel, and do it better than ever from scratch or anything. I think that you have to move through influences, and surpass them for sure, but my point was only that it isn't all imitation, and can't be, but not that it totally isn't involved or anything.
I also think that you can be original, without being novel. Doing the same thing as someone else isn't necessarily unoriginal, if it did actually originate with you, even if it isn't new, and others have independently come upon the same thing. Both originality and novelty are epistemically, bound, as you can only really say "new to me", as you aren't omniscient.
There are many ancient rites where before the victim was sacrificed, it was treated like a god and allowed to do whatever it pleased - it was given supreme power over the community. So phenomena of leadership are the same - the victim around whom the community is polarized is sacralized in what is effectively nothing but a longer ritual. Many leaders were in fact killed by their own people in the end.
Why do you think originality cannot emerge from imitation? Imitation involves a triangular relationship of self, model/rival and object. What is imitated is the desire of the model/rival for the object. But as this double bind between the model as something to be imitated and the model as rival - someone to be eliminated - is tightened, the emerging actions of both parties can lead to novelty.
For example, the first murder of Cain killing Abel was something new, a novelty - which actually provided the foundation for the Cainite community.
Well, being a leader means taking more responsibility. As power goes up, so does responsibility. The point though, is like Jesus, they take all of the responsibility, but not necessarily any of the guilt.
I never said that. I said that they aren't opposed.
True, but you did say it isn't all imitation - that it can't be all imitation. So my question was why do you think it can't be all imitation?
If desire is imitated then desire has a mechanism of spiralling out of control. The more the rival desires the object, the more you desire the object, and hence the more the rival desires it and so on. This leads to both you and the rival becoming fascinated with each other (because it is your desires which make the object valuable and desirable in the first place), and hence a decoupling of desire from the object to the rival, which, in sexual matters, for example, can lead to homosexuality, a form of novelty. That's why I think imitation by itself can lead to novelty as it spirals and grows. Just like in nuclear physics, there is a critical mass beyond which a new phenomenon can emerge.
Because to do something new, is to no longer be imitating something in existence. You can't have both things. Either it is all a big cosmic closed circle jerk of limitation, or it's open, and there is the possibility for something that isn't just imitating something already in existence.
You seem to be saying that novelty grows out of imitation in varies way or whatever, which is saying that it isn't all imitation. I'm not disagreeing with that.
Exactly! But this is precisely to say that the leader is actually on the path to becoming the sacrificial victim. Because the sacrificial victim is also held responsible for both the crisis that divides the community and the aftermath of healing and regeneration (and hence it is seen as powerful). The victim is held responsible for the internal conflicts that arise out of imitation, and, paradoxically, for their resolution, because the community becomes polarised around the victim and responsibility for their own violence is transferred to the victim. When this happens the community unites once again - this time against the victim. This return of unity is, after the victim is killed, attributed once again to the victim, who is seen as a god.
Quoting Wosret
I can see how what you say would be applicable if it was an imitation of actions, which were copied identically. But if this is seen as an imitation of desires, then I can see how new actions can emerge out of the intensification of desire for the same object on both sides.
Hmm okay.
I've been thinking about your comment. I think my comment was appropriate and responsive. I was specifically talking about how differences in feelings, attitudes, and experiences have a strong influence on our philosophies and ideas. That's something I've thought about a lot. You use your feelings and experiences as illustrations and explanations of your ideas and philosophical positions. You wear your heart on your sleeve. To a lesser extent, so do I. I think the comparison made a legitimate and respectful rhetorical point. Was it too personal? Was I insensitive, It doesn't seem so to me.
As for whether I know you - I know more about the details of your life, history, and feelings than I know for all but my closest friends and family. Do I know you? Maybe not, but I can see you.
The problem is that you don't know me and implying that you do only because I have spoken briefly of my past does not equate to actual knowing, which is what makes you insensitive and highly egotistical.
You did not know that I love hot chocolate and have it every morning, where I add a bit of quick oats inside it to make it thicker and when I reach the end, have this ridiculous sense of red-cheeked happiness and peace as I gulp down the oats and cocoa and quite literally thank God for being so awesome.
You did not know that I find myself singing I Want To Kiss You All Over like Adam Sandler while I am in shower but can never get that high pitched end right.
You did not know that I love putting on the heater full blast in winter while wearing my over sized parachute knickers eating ice-cream and listening to Nina Simone' Love Me or Leave Me or Jimi Hendrix' Bold As Love where I full on air guitar on the floor at 2.55?
You did not know that I love cracking jokes and having laughs and that humour is actually seriously important, that one who loves life is a person who loves to laugh, which is why I cannot stand people who cannot take a joke. I am with Zizek on this heart and soul:
You did not know that though I am strict in my logic and reasoning, I am an idealist. That my decision to wait for the right man rests mostly in my belief that real love exists and that real love is someone I can call a friend. I have never met that friend, but I still believe.
You did not know that my favourite vegetables are pumpkins and broccoli, that I love watching dodgy action movies, that it takes me 10 minutes to get ready for a wedding.
And that is just scratching the surface.
What you have done is a classic interpretative error, where you attempt to articulate my identity by implicitly verifying an abstract belief based on what I write to be somehow legitimate. That is how ideology traps people. At an epistemic level, assumptions are the framework that can solidify uncertainties, contradictions, confusions into a generalised whole and you assume some sort of shared language, but this is manufactured by your ego.
I don't know you because you spoke of your wife, your brother, yourself. So, I say a few things about me, but being right about those few things doesn't legitimise your beliefs as a whole.
Broccolli? Weirdo.
That was the only part I believed. :D
What makes you believe I really believe it was unbelievable, kind lady? I think we really need to take this step by step.
Cheque's in the post. ;)
Serves you right for getting your priorities wrong. :)
Au contraire, I meant replying to me should not be a priority. Yet you persist in repeating the same mistake!
Desire is always fascinated with the obstacle, the rival. What is hardest to attain, what rejects it the most, what humiliates it, that is its attraction. The beloved which insults - the true mirage of desire, the imagination of the contradiction of rejection and acceptance.
Indeed, desire cannot love except the lover who is unattainable. Desire fails in love not because of any failure of the world, but because it sets the rules of the game itself, and then forgets its own role. It is its pursuit of the impossible that guarantees it will fail. And so it goes on through repetition - the whole scenario repeats through its whole life - in the past it was another man, now it's yet another, and so on - its failure is guaranteed, because what it seeks is precisely what is unattainable, and once the unattainable has been attained it can no longer be sought and is thus worthless and must be sacrificed. Onto the next. And on it goes repeating itself, unto its own destruction. From the outside, it looks like a death instinct - indeed, there can be no other end to desire except death. And from the inside it's about pleasure. It's always waiting for the right man, waiting for the right baby, waiting for the right job - on it goes projecting its sought-after self-sufficiency, its narcissism unto each and every object - the harder it is to attain, the more appealing it looks, the greater pleasure it holds in store, the more it must be pursued, the more violent and unrelenting it is justified to be in its pursuit... The attachment to the impossibility to attain is required in order for desire to remain blind to its own vanity and emptiness.
When I first read your response, I didn't understand where it came from, so I went back and read through our posts. I still don't get it. I don't think any further explanation will change that.
No amount of writing can ever express what a person is like and to say that you 'know me' is projecting and exposing your own character. It is no different to a person saying "that's the truth" - what truth? If you 'knew me' you would know what I was like and what I was not like and many people rely on assumptions that they make of others thinking that they "know the truth" about them and getting one or two things right about them somehow increases the probability of this "truth" to absolute fact.
So the point is, always doubt yourself.
To believe in hasty generalisations and assumptions is the very heart of ignorance. Do not ever place me into a box again.
Not really. I am talking about having a sense of humor because aggression is causally rooted in the ego, our self-defense mechanisms provoking our emotions that makes us say and do bad things to others. When two people are in genuine love with one another, the ego dissipates and therefore it is impossible to feel angered at the humour because we know where it is actually coming from.
Some people indirectly insult others, are being malicious or cruel but do so with a smile and then say "I was just joking!" which is a load of garbage. It is actually hostility in this relationship and what hurts is not what is actually being said but rather where it is coming from; it is a disconnection. Two people who are so separate from one another must work really hard to maintain this relationship and they'll come up with their own formula to make it so, whether it is changing homes or rearranging furniture or working late or other projects keeping them preoccupied on a daily basis that they end up becoming the joke.
A connection, however, is fundamentally rooted in happiness and when we violate the "serious" patterns of our perceptions - that is, a relationship itself is serious, life itself is serious - and we turn it into something incongruous, laughter or humour between the two becomes the affection at the subtle recognition of the futility of this seriousness and a mutual understanding.
[quote="Agustino;114181]Indeed, desire cannot love except the lover who is unattainable. [/quote]
I have always found it disturbing how people just do the same thing day in day out until they die as long as they do what everyone else is doing, so afraid of their own feelings and of actually 'living' that a vain pat on the head is enough to keep them happy. Then you have those that become conscious of this and try to escape but end up going back, returning to their unhappy state as long as it is not being alone because they are so afraid to take the challenge until they grow old and regret that they were just cowards.
And of course:
No one understands just how important time is.
[quote="Agustino;114181]The attachment to the impossibility to attain is required in order for desire to remain blind to its own vanity and emptiness.[/quote]
It is intentional when person attaches themselves to something impossible because there are a number - a very large number - of people who do not actually understand what happiness is. They are so comfortable with unhappiness that it becomes the very source of their happiness, indeed when they are presented with the opportunity, they destroy it because they do not subjectively understand what those feelings actually are. That is why they get stuck, they have trouble living and they formulate their environment in such a way that they remain locked in it.
However, if you think the pursuit of happiness is impossible, where you make your decisions based on what is good and right, you may need to think about what is going on subjectively. That is not a vain thing to pursue, even if it means being alone until finding it.
Sorry this is four days old, but what exactly?
Quoting TimeLine
Not a good idea >:O
Quoting TimeLine
Surely playing the victim can be done at any time in a situation. On the contrary, it can be used to extract an apology. Is that apology authentic? Authentic in the sense that the person really feels the need to apologize (emotionally) because of manipulation, sure.
Quoting TimeLine
Do you mean using forgiveness as a form of power over someone?
Quoting TimeLine
Yes, as I've tried to underline, feeling responsible for "effecting change" in anyone is a slippery slope which leads to either manipulation or just burn-out; total emotional exhaustion. "Effecting change" in oneself is task enough; and if you succeed at that, then your actions, your words, and your way of life become an "effecting change" in themselves in a passive way, without any directed will of yours towards a specific person; responsibility is just example. And if you need evidence of this, look at the opposite: irresponsibility is also example; we learn through observation of actions of those above us. Of course, words are powerful, but they have power within context; there are moments where the right words to someone can make a real difference; that's usually based on the emotional context. But we can't will that someone be emotionally ready for certain words; that's actually the definition of manipulation.
Quoting TimeLine
And as I'm trying to emphasize here, it's not just "ultimately" not our responsibility, it just plain isn't.
It was four days ago, how the heck should I know?
Quoting Noble Dust
It is not a good idea doing most things that make life interesting and adventurous. I'll give up if you make me way too dizzy.
Quoting Noble Dust
There is always this clear schism between what is authentic and what is not authentic when you deconstruct the intent. For instance, studies show that attractive women who put themselves down in front of others only do so because of social-psychology, a way of saving themselves from gossip or disdain because an attractive woman who is actually happy with herself is negatively categorised as dangerous. They don't actually believe it but are unconsciously playing the crowd to avoid conflict.
If you have a crazed person who is attracted to you and no amount of anything can get rid of him, to save yourself you present yourself in a way that provokes him to lose interest and eventually he leaves and draws his attention to something else. We act in some ways to save ourselves, but we also act in ways where we try to save those that we love and I learnt from this latter experience that trying to move the conscience of a heartless man is going against an impossible grain. But that is what love is, it is that fight for some moral awakening and it doesn't mean that you are actually a victim, but an attempt to try and get them to feel empathetic and thus transcend.
Have you watched Dead Man Walking? If you haven't, watch it and then you may understand what I am trying to get at. I do understand and agree with you, but I am not referring to the inauthentic.
Quoting Noble Dust
Yes. Every first apology must be quickly accepted. An act repeated, though, is when you need to start thinking a little bit harder as to the causal reasons in order to try and reach an outcome that is righteous, but it should be done with utmost empathy.
Not long ago, I was in my friend's car and the lady parked next to me opened her car door and clipped the side of the car. My friend was immediately like, "what the?!" and the lady was really apologetic. My friend let it slide and went into subway to get food. The lady came back and clipped the car again. When you use the word "sorry" in vain, it is simply a way of escaping from any wrath or possible consequences, but it loses the meaning of why we apologise, the very reasons for actually saying you are sorry. The fact that we actually did something wrong that hurt someone else. This is ethics, empathy, love, moral consciousness.
Sometimes, conversely, people don't accept an apology without necessarily any reason not to (usually it is for the stupidest reasons) and drawing out the apology until they become the reasons why it loses meaning, why people start lying as they become afraid to say sorry. I have often found that men who have domineering mothers tend to be liars.
Quoting Noble Dust
I get that. What I am trying to say is that there are methods to "effect this change" that is different with each individual, but the driving force behind any authentic intent to change is usually for love. If it is manipulation, it is done for the wrong reasons. If you are burnt-out, you used the wrong methods. I have been burnt-out and I understand exactly what you are saying and agree for the most part.
Quoting Noble Dust
If you believe in individualism, then yes. If you are communitarian, a utilitarian, or just someone who believes they are a part of a whole rather than an individual (hence, the Aloha - there you go, I remembered now), then you are wrong about responsibility. It becomes a moral duty, in a way, but a very tricky one.
I think what I wrote, which you called "placing in a box," would not be considered that by most people. Certainly not by me. I can see you're angry. Like I said, I don't get it.
:-} I'm not angry. I am asking you to stop saying things like that and like:
Quoting T Clark
It is highly imaginative of you to continue placing an image of what I am based on what I write. That is the point. You can never "know me" just as much as you can never know "the truth" and to say otherwise is wrong. Get it.
No.
So what's inauthentic here? Obviously the person is acting a certain way because of insecurity; what's inauthentic about that? There's clearly an authentic motive behind the facade of action. The woman puts herself down out of insecurity; that insecurity is the result of the question of whether she's "beautiful", or if she's "just another pretty face", or whatever. And why are those questions for her? Because she has the same desires that the rest of humanity has: acceptance, love, happiness. The will beneath her actions is as authentic as a physically unattractive person. The insecurity is just expressed differently because of the external circumstances.
Quoting TimeLine
I haven't; I'll look it up.
Quoting TimeLine
I pride myself on my honesty. :P
Quoting TimeLine
What are the methods? Are you talking about a mentorship type relationship? In romance, or among equals, or from abused to abuser, for instance, I don't think change can be effected through the will. But obviously a relationship that involves teaching of some sort is different.
Quoting TimeLine
I believe in individualism as well as community. Community is made up of autonomous individuals; again, the responsibility of individuals within a community is to exhibit exemplary behavior, rather than to talk someone into behaving a certain way, manipulate someone's behavior, or otherwise strong-arm someone's behavior. Trust me, I grew up in the Church...I know a lot about this...
You can call it unconditional love. It is cultivating friendship, which forms the nucleus of empathy and a shared sense of value and respect.
The only way I am able to describe this to you is to ameliorate a personal experience. I met this young man who lacked a conscience. He had no empathy. He had such a profound pathology because of a very deep or inherent confusion, like he had absolutely no idea how to live or who he was that he would simply follow others, exhibited by clearly chopping and changing himself with each person that he met; his conformism was severely irrational. If it were suggested that being homosexual was great, despite being heterosexual he would likely choose to do so only because others suggested it, for instance. He himself said that his girlfriend has a "power of him and he does not know why" but he did not realise that everyone can have this power because the problem is in him.
It is as though he were still a child who had reactive attachment disorder, that his internal network was sensitive to all the wrong things where he would respond in a strangely hypervigilant manner as though resisting a non-existent threat, his eyes impassive as he would stare out and say some incredibly vicious comments. His insecurity drowned the screams of the real person he was that he became very nasty to me and others. He excluded me, slandered me, said some pretty vicious comments to me including indirect threats, but somehow my heart believed that I knew the source of this problem and despite the fact that I myself was going through some incredibly difficult experiences at that time, I remained convinced I could help him. So, 1. I was being a friend, I was being empathetic towards his condition and I felt I could help him.
The methods were, in my mind, speaking of friendship and love, I started talking about my own past to make him trust me enough to open up to me, I showed him kindness despite being terrified of him, sometimes I would exhibit anger to try and get him to stop and think, and I would try to work through his lies by pretending that I was not aware of them. He lived "himself" in his fiction writing, his identity could only be articulated when he wrote it in other characters, but he had no idea how to live or apply this real him in reality, the person I identified as being highly intelligent and gentle in nature. So, 2. my intent was to enable him to learn how to be a friend, to learn how to develop and build a conscience (as a child does) and be empathetic towards others. I wanted him to see that any past rejection (likely from a parent) was not going to happen with me and I wanted him to learn to believe in himself because I believed in him, to get him to stop doubting himself.
Unfortunately, nothing worked because he kept on hiding in these characters, kept on lying and misunderstood everything that I was trying to tell him. In the end, he gave up on me and I was so profoundly dejected at my failure that I became really sick and rather sad for a while. So the methods cannot be articulated in some format, it is a process that over time contributes to form a bond or trust and solely dependent on the intent. I can assure you that I have been successful at applying this in many other contexts, especially young girls.
Quoting Noble Dust
Haha, your mum must be awesome. (Y)
Quoting Noble Dust
Please do, amazing movie.
Quoting Noble Dust
I grew up on my own; I had no (proper) family, no church but they are not the basis that make a person moral or immoral. You say the responsibility of individuals is to exhibit exemplary behaviour, but where do they attain any knowledge of what "exemplary behaviour" is? It is as you say either manipulation, or conformism, or fear. Our responsibility is to transcend those incorrect initiatives and the value of moral behaviour as it is universally and indeed that requires an autonomy of mind. If what you say is true, that a community is made up of autonomous individuals, those that have been manipulated to conform through fear are not a part of this "community" and so, where does your obligations lie?
I don't think that's an accurate description of where morality comes from in a community. Sure, it can come from conformity and fear, but I don't think that's the primary source. I think that's a sense of belonging. A willing, but probably not self-conscious, act of surrender to the will of the community. Surrender is not something I'm good at, so that's not really a choice I have. Also, in the US now, there really isn't a community for me to surrender to. Other's have churches, small towns, the military, social groups, large families, and many other institutions. My communities are smaller - my family, friendships, work. This forum is starting to become a community that I value.
This unconscious act of surrendering to the will of the community is conformism, however you are speaking from a Foucauldian angle. Foucault' study on the power of discourse is a process that authenticates social stratification, and ideological positions almost always draw a focus on an opposing force which is used to justify the legitimacy of a social arrangement, be it the inner networks of these communal groups that you mention. But, power in this discourse that enables a person to conform unconsciously because it is automatically processed as "truth" is not always negative, but can actually provide a productive mobilisation that closes an existing gap between culture and society. This is comparatively an opposing view of something like Marxism and the superstructure, that it is inherently the elite exercising dominance over the proletariat, ideology itself existing because the latter desire in order to fulfil the bourgeoisie agenda. In the end, the community itself - should there be this lack of consciousness - may motivate social cohesion, but it is nonetheless imagined and could also be the impetus of injustice and immorality since people are not autonomously committed to morality but simply conform to this deeply rooted sphere of social life used to interpret an imagined communal character.
Unfortunately this more or less underlines what I'm trying to say; of course you weren't able to change this guy; you were in a position of social equality; you were within a friend group. As you said, often when your methods here were successful were with younger women; that's a teachable situation in which that person views you as a role model of some sort. Once again, among equals, the best we can do is exemplify behavior; I can observe the changes over the years in the characters of the guys in my band, for instance, and I know my own influence as the band leader has influenced them; but who am I to say what influence I really had on them? Again, we're social equals, even if I lead the band. I can't try to change anyone's habits or perspectives, all I can do is try to exemplify the lifestyle I think is right (and I fail at that all the time anyway).
Quoting TimeLine
I think you missed my sarcasm. :P
Quoting TimeLine
Surely one's environment during critical developmental stages determine some aspects of a person's moral framework.
Quoting TimeLine
Through community.
Quoting TimeLine
I'm speaking idealistically here; obviously not all members of a community have individual autonomy. Maybe that concept of community isn't correct; I think an ideal community would be made up of autonomous individuals, but I'm well aware that won't happen given the human condition. At least not in this life. But a community made up of autonomous individuals would not be a community in which manipulation and fear would have any power. SO, what I meant to imply (and didn't) is that, in this imperfect life, individual autonomy is more valuable than community because the virtues of individual autonomy are more realistically achievable than the virtues of a community which does not build itself on manipulation and fear; community is a word with good connotations, but the "heard mentality", for instance, a less sanguine way of putting it, will always be built on manipulation, fear, and a lack of intellectual inquiry.
I tried to read Foucault once. It was like beating my head against a wall. You and a lot of people here are a lot more patient and philosophically well-read than I am. I enjoy the chance to learn about philosophy from experienced people without having to read anything myself. The reason my philosophy is so spare is that I am really lazy.
I see the process we are discussing as primarily cultural, not political. It's not about legitimacy to me, it's just the way things are, the way we are. I'm not really sure if you and Foucault are agreeing with some of that or not.
Quoting TimeLine
Again - I see what you call conformism and what I call surrender to a community as a cultural process, not political, ideological, or moral. I think it started before there was civilization, and I guess before there was really society or culture as we think of them.
You say "the community itself - should there be this lack of consciousness - may motivate social cohesion, but it is nonetheless imagined..." Is that you or Marx speaking? I certainly don't agree with that. The idea that a community motivates social cohesion is a bit tautological. A community is social cohesion.
I will try to simplify it, but when you purport that things are just the way that they are, that is the very heart of power and legitimacy; culture, politics, society - all interconnected - require people to believe that the way it is must be true, factual, right otherwise any sustainability of this mobilisation would crumble. Foucault calls this discourse, it makes people believe that things are just the way that they are so that they do not fight the system or doubt it in any way and what differs between him and Marx is that he believes that this can actually make people productive and have a positive effect, so in a way you are agreeing with Foucault. In the end, however, it is still signing the contract. If you are a part of a community, you have conformed in some way or another.
I was going to mention Heidegger, but if you feel dizzy with Foucault :-x
Quoting T Clark
So, I take it that you agree with Rousseau vis-a-vis the state of nature?
Quoting T Clark
It is actually Anderson, not Marx. It is not a community that motivates social cohesion but the ideology that the community believe in that does.
He wasn't a friend, that was what I was attempting to rouse in him because it is only in friendship that a person can begin to experience empathy. He was attracted to me but I had no feelings for him, on the contrary he was just a guy that I was forced to work with and his pathology both frightened and intrigued me. There was a moment where I thought that perhaps the reason I feel so convinced I can help him is because I am attracted to him too, but that came right at the moment he left and in the end, after everything was over, all that was real were memories of a man who bullied me that I wanted to believe could find the courage to be better. I was not able to achieve this because the conditions would not allow it.
As I said, he was caught up way too deep into his own lies that it became a reality to him; to penetrate that required some serious thought, something I could not give. He is long gone, now, and though I see him occasionally, he is no longer worth the effort. I am only ever capable of talking about the past when I am not tied to it emotionally. It is merely an example.
Quoting Noble Dust
I get what you are trying to say, there needs to be a willingness. He needs to want to improve and be motivated to become a better man. Those girls are motivated by seeing me as a role model and I understand how that works. My question here, however, is how I can address that lack of motivation and find ways to stimulate it without being that role model. That is why you need to watch Dead Man Walking to understand that moral position I am trying to find.
Quoting Noble Dust
The critical developmental stages is cognitive, whereas morality requires reason and it is why Epictectus is right when he says reason shapes and regulates all other things, it ought not itself to be left in disorder. You can have a perfectly nuclear upbringing and still lack moral fibre.
Quoting Noble Dust
Where does the community get it from? Perhaps think of the keyword ideology.
Quoting Noble Dust
A neo-Kantian community is what every moral philosopher would want applied to distributive justice, but it is not realistic. You only mention this idealism because you are still not aware of why individualism itself is ideological, a social construct. It is why in the US everyone boasts of this "individualism" and yet blindly moves in masses.
You and your buddies Marx, Foucault, and the rest are projecting your political ideology onto human nature. To a large extent, the ways people are with other people come from inside. Power grows out of social cohesion, not the other way around.
Inside - we are built that way. We are endowed by our creator with certain inherent capabilities and behavioral and emotional tendencies. Everyone is not the same, but we are all human. And communities have their own characteristics. They're organic, they grow from the inside. They aren't imposed from the outside. It's not about power.
This is just silly idealism and a profound ignorance of reality. No different to those privileged people whinging about the most superficial situations in their personal life, using emotional manipulation as they remain completely oblivious that the world is coming to an end. It is like me walking the streets of Mosul plucking daises singing he loves me, he loves me not as people are getting massacred around me. And then you have the audacity to say:
Quoting T Clark
Are you sure we are the ones "projecting" what human nature is? Reality is built on language, and ontology or epistemology are not some fluffy characteristics based on determined inherent tendencies but based your environment and how we communicate to one another. If there is anything determined, it is biological, cognitive. But meaning, interpretation that form emotional and behavioural attitudes don't just pop out of nowhere.
I think I have a good understanding of how people work. I'm sure you think you do too. I think maybe you and I are talking about different things. I'm talking about how communities of all sorts arise when humans get together. I think you're talking how community structures manifest, perhaps as communities get bigger.
Quoting TimeLine
I have no idea what you are trying to say here and how it is relevant in this context.
Quoting TimeLine
I was just having a discussion with BloodNinja over on the "Does Morality presuppose there being a human nature?" discussion. Here's BN quoting Aristotle:
Quoting bloodninja
That makes sense to me. It doesn't make sense to, yes, project 19th and 20th century political philosophies that developed in response to the industrial revolution onto human behavior that has been around for hundreds of thousands, millions, of years.
If we are adapted by nature to receive virtues and are made perfect by habit, "power" is to advantageously utilise this nature of ours until we manipulate it to conform. If we did not have an evil nature - which I personally do not believe that we do - but that evil is a product of the material world, then ideology is a tool that communicates to the community what virtue is according to that ideology, which is thus accepted through habitus. Foucault' discourse or Marxist' superstructure is not "projecting" anything but rather assessing this process.
Quoting T Clark
The point is that your view of the world is limited. Just a head's up that there are wars, violence, crimes, genocide, but you can continue to forget that as you live in complete ignorance of reality.
I think either your approach is too rigid or your definition of ideology is inappropriately broad.
We have a little community going here. Please describe how this works with it as an example. How do Foucault and Marx apply to the PF? If you don't consider this a community, give me another simple, down-home example.
Describe the ideology, the set of beliefs, that applies when I am with my friends or children. Describe the ideology that applies when a bunch of chimpanzees are swinging through the trees.
Quoting TimeLine
And to think I said I admire your pugnacity. You're not supposed to use it against a delicate flower like me. I guess that's the way you do things in Australia.
The theme I'm getting here is a savior complex. Based on your anecdotes, you seem to want to save the people you come into contact with who have severe issues. I know that feeling.
Quoting TimeLine
Again...that's basically my entire argument here...
Quoting TimeLine
It didn't require serious thought; it would have required a super-human ability to change the core of someone's lifetime's worth of experiences.
Quoting TimeLine
I don't think you can. Outside of just exemplifying moral behavior in a passive way. Which is always, eternally, an option to anyone.
Quoting TimeLine
What's the difference between "cognitive" and "reason" here?
Quoting TimeLine
I am nowhere advocating for a nuclear family as a moral litmus test.
Quoting TimeLine
From itself.
Quoting TimeLine
Ok; can you explain it to me? I don't mean that sarcastically; if you're sure that I'm unaware, then surely you can explain to me what I'm missing.
I'm not going to get caught in your slippery slope assertions, you have made me dizzy enough. I tried my best to explain political theory using sophomoric language and even still. I would prefer at this point to simply pat you on the head and say with a Scottish accent that'll do T Clark, that'll do. The OP is about forgiveness and reconciliation and I believe we came to this point as a way to explain how one can be influenced to believe in concepts that are not real or true. I think. As I said, you have made me dizzy.
Quoting T Clark
:D
Yes, and no. The latter because there may perhaps be another subjective reason that consciously pretends to be motivated by an altruism when it is much more selfish then we make it out to be. Perhaps I wanted to believe that a bad person could change. I had a father who had similar behavioural problems and perhaps I unconsciously thought that if I am able to change him, then I could sustain a hope in the possibility of change in people like my father. Hope is powerful, both in a negative and positive way.
Another and perhaps a more plausible possibility is that I cared for him and thus became emotionally motivated to invest in an effort to help him the same way I helped myself as I truly felt I understood his condition. It was visually in my mind like a network but I was proven wrong in his case because he kept on hiding away and lying that it was just impossible to simply talk to him properly. As you say:
Quoting Noble Dust
It is about accessibility. Had he been capable of being my friend, where we could have gone out for a coffee and talked, perhaps I may have been enabled with access to this core.
Quoting Noble Dust
I have noticed how bad people feed on the misfortune of others, those that exhibit a lack of empathy in particular, as a way to contrast the superiority of their position, to make themselves appear to be fortunate and happy. While, eventually, the edifice of this self-deception crumbles and the reality is nothing but an underlying misery, they nevertheless either create problems in others or they despise those that are genuinely content and who do not need to contrast themselves with others. It just helps them prolong that self-deception.
It is not just exemplifying moral behaviour, but also taking care of yourself. I never accept handouts, I work really hard, I am healthy and strong and deeply content, together with holding strong convictions and integrity. You become impenetrable and that shapes a different understanding in this opposing ego.
Quoting Noble Dust
A brain and a mind.
You and I disagree about the nature of human nature, at least in this context. You've called my ideas silly idealism, naïve. You say I'm ignorant of the world. You've told me a should probably see a specialist, although you didn't specify what kind. And, of course, you and your Scottish accent have been thoroughly condescending.
As my brother always said "knock yourself out." Are you familiar with that phrase? It just means have fun with that. So, TL, knock yourself out. Two points:
First - Those comments don't move the discussion forward. Are they good rhetoric? I'm thinking of starting a discussion on whether kindness is a good rhetorical strategy. Does your scorn convince people you're right? I don't think so, but maybe it does. Is your point to convince people or participate in reason. It always surprises me when you are self-righteous and rigid.
Second - I often think your understanding of the way people are is very naïve. Overly critical on one hand and overly idealistic on the other. I don't remember saying that before. I hope I didn't. I like and respect the story you tell about the world. It would feel disrespectful to sneer at it.
You're right. We've taken this as far as we can without driving the original post off a cliff.
What I'm saying is that you can't have access to that core; it's the very identity of the person built up over the years of their entire life. Being able to alter that would be like being able to change someone's mind on a philosophy forum. :P
Quoting TimeLine
I agree. Just be wary of becoming too impenetrable.
It is not his core that I want to access, that is impossible. What I'm trying to tell you is that I wanted to help him access his own core; love, or friendship and a mutual bond, enables empathy and trust, it enables them to communicate, to articulate, to feel and thus begin to consciously understand themselves and their place in the world. Despite him knowing so many people, having tonnes of close friends and even being in a relationship, he was profoundly lonely and I knew that. He didn't. That is why I cared so much, that this vicious exterior had this gentle little boy inside. I know what it is like being completely oblivious to how one really feels, but I learnt how to access this core by exploring my feelings, analysing my thoughts and behaviours and why I knew he was very similar to me.
But, again, I agree with you, his identity has become completely absorbed into this external reality of his, that his life, his thoughts, his decisions are no longer his own though he believes it completely. He cannot see that his escape from that loneliness is all wrong, that there is an alternate way and so there he will remain stuck. Even though he may have wanted to, his decision to go down this unique path would inevitably mean turning his back on this reality, on all these people that helped shape that reality and for what? For me? That is what is impossible, so I let go and moved on.
When a person accesses their own core, they become conscious of their wrongdoing and that enables forgiveness, it enables reconciliation.
Quoting Noble Dust
I have learnt that, unfortunately only quite recently. My door has a security cable and chain, but at least I am now opening it and talking to people. I'll wait a bit before unlocking it completely.
Says the guy with the most posts here. :P
That makes more sense. My arguments about this not being very probable still stand, but I get what you mean now, and I do think it's possibly a worthy goal, if you're willing to face the potential burn out. I'm just speaking from experience within the Church; this sort of relationship, with good intentions or ill, happens al the time in that context; it's often emotionally, mentally, and spiritually draining (if not manipulative) and doesn't warrant the desired result. Which is what you experienced, and I'm not trying to highlight that, I'm just saying it as a general principle. My views on mentorship changed when I learned my youth pastor was suicidal, sexually addicted, and a victim of abuse, and once I knew those things my eyes were opened to how he was carrying on the cycle of abuse (emotional in this case, but there could have been more I wasn't aware of). His faith, principles, and desire to mentor others didn't break the bonds of the cycle of abuse. He still contributed to the cycle, despite his efforts.
Ah, but you reformulated - alas, I liked your first formulation. Bring it back!
Slowly slowly, the results are coming ;)
Haha, I thought it was maybe too harsh. I'm such a nice guy.
Yeah, but that's a little too late after you post it :P - I can always see the original >:)
Eh? How? You ain't a mod.
>:)
Sounds...obsessive and controlling.
No?
Shocking! Why not? :P
Because obsession and control are not good?
Why? :’(
exhibit A
Which one is that? :-O
exhibit B
exhibit C
I have been speaking to my sister and we have not spoken for many years and my time spent with my siblings were really them bullying me into believing that I was very ugly that I actually came to believe it. I had a car accident and lost everything several years ago and everyone turned their back on me, but I pushed through the incredible difficulties (physical injury - could not walk properly for months - mental health and emotionally, financially, professionally and all while on my own), that I have now reached a point where I started my own small NGO that I still have a bit of work to do, moved up the ladder professionally, finished a Masters degree, travelled, working on a doco and became unapologetically happy. I refused to be defeated and above all I refused to give up on my faith in love, despite having none of it given to me (on the friggin contrary I can assure you). She has never admitted to being vicious or cruel to me, but this is what she wrote:
"Just know, I never thought of you as ugly. I always thought you were very beautiful and I envied your perfect nose. I remember I took a photo of you once and you saw it and accused me of keeping an ugly photo of you because I was cruel, but that was not true, I loved that photo because your kind eyes were shining through the picture and you looked so beautiful. You are a good and kind person and I understand that you have been treated unfairly for a long time. I hope you find the love you deserve. I have thought a lot about what you have been through with your health and accident and I am truly sorry that you had to go through that hell alone."
I think it is essential to articulate your pain and there are many methods in doing this, but forgiveness does not exist, rather it is a hope that something like what she has done will happen. It is a hope for the other to acknowledge your pain and the pain itself is really a lack of this acknowledgement. I get what you mean when you are saying that draining feeling, but conversely I fear your experience with your pastor is actually what has locked you to carry this assumption on mentorship. I refused to be defeated and became empowered enough to improve my circumstances independently and that is "speaking" or articulating to others my strength of character without having to say words. You can tell a genuinely good person through the fruits that they produce and it is why parables were spoken because confronting the truth is way too difficult for people because they almost automatically go on the defence. That is why leading by example is a form of communication.
I have never trusted anyone who follows, whether it is socially, religiously, politically, but I look at the decisions that they make, look at the people they choose to have in their lives, see what they find important and not important and make my assessment that way. It is not about spoon-feeding morals or upholding a false image, but simply never giving up on love, on kindness and friendship despite the lack thereof. Unconditional love is giving love, allowing others the opportunity to feel heard and they too start to listen to themselves before doing the same etc. That pastor is in denial, he has - like so many others - not reached this 'core' that I speak of and that is why the cycle continues.
When they reach that core, only then can they genuinely feel and thus apologise or fearlessly open the can of worms and face the music rather than fearfully shutting it away. You lead by example, yes, but you still maintain a firmness or resolve (such as turning your back or not allowing bad people to defeat you) and that is telling people something.
Where did you find this faith?
Quoting TimeLine
I don't understand this at all.
Quoting TimeLine
Yes, it absolutely is that. But how can you or anyone say that that is objectively wrong or right?
Quoting TimeLine
Agreed.
Quoting TimeLine
This brings up the apropos question of where mentorship/leadership is distinguished from equality.
Oh it was just while walking in Aussie land, she found it lying on the ground and just picked it up you know ma dawg? :D
Aussieland? Dude, I found it in Bethlehem. Fo shizzle.
Forgiveness is nothing but a word that attempts to convey hope, a desire for the other to acknowledge either their wrongs or your pain, the latter of which is there - as in, why we feel the burden of pain - because of the lack of empathy, the lack of concern for your humanity, for you as a person. It is pretty straightforward, really.
Quoting Noble Dust
Responsibility.