Forgiveness

[David Conner]

From time to time, ideas come to me and I write them down in a notebook to preserve them. I don't know what to do with these things. I dont want to throw them away, but I doubt that they will ever get published. So, I thought I'd throw one out here to see what kind of response it brings. I'm open to feed-back. I prefer compliments, of course, but I know that valid criticism will help me more in the long run.

Here goes:

"I cannot condemn others without condemning myself, because at the deepest level, I judge both by the same standard. The insight that I have into others is a reflection of myself to some greater or lesser degree. Accordingly, I cannot forgive myself until I have forgiven others. The transgressions of others that I forgive is proportionate to the darkness in myself that I stop pushing away, but rather, begin to manage from a position of growing self-awareness. Whether the power to manage, or transcend my destructive and useless behavior patterns comes from within, or without, it only comes to bear if I perceive it as coming from without. The light of increasing awareness casts, in ever growing relief, the shadow of the darkness that remains. And I see clearly now that when I least thought I needed help from without, was when I needed it the most."

[Ruv Draba]

There's no forgiveness without compassion. If we see compassion in the eyes of someone who's hurt us then that counts more than apology or retribution. There are few things more healing than to see genuine understanding and sorrow in those who've done us harm.

But mostly, those who hurt us don't have compassion for us and never will, so what we do instead is fake forgiveness. Armour up and feign having moved on. The fakery in that sort of forgiveness is evident when you talk to people about their hurts. You'll see stiff masks, hear euphemisms, and get flashes of hidden anger.

The only forgiveness is through compassion -- our transgressors' compassion for us, or our compassion for them. But compassion requires understanding and sympathy. Understanding someone who's hurt us can take a long time and is often scary and hurtful. Many people don't attempt it.

Self-forgiveness is meaningless without self-knowledge. Just as we can deny the hurts that others have done, we can deny the hurts that we do: reset our self-judgement time after time, each time saying that we'll never make the same mistake again. But if we don't take the trouble to understand our mistakes and learn from them we can't possibly have the compassion to forgive ourselves. Instead, we comfort ourselves with denial. Often our self-delusion is so strong that denial looks a lot like self-forgiveness. But again, look for avoidance, euphemisms and hidden shame.

Forgiveness of others won't teach us self-forgiveness. Compassion alone teaches us forgiveness of others and self-forgiveness.

My suggestion then: don't get hung up on forgiveness. If there's enough compassion in you to forgive then you'll know straight away. If there's not then there's no point straining for it. Strive for compassion instead. Seek understanding and sympathy.

At its best forgiveness is a side-effect of compassion. At its worst the idealisation of forgiveness is a distracting deceit that holds back our wisdom, and creates an excuse to feel moral and superior while we secretly keep a slate.

[AMCrenshaw]

A philosopher who has impacted me quite a bit speaks about love and forgiveness:

http://www.janushead.org/8-1/Ricoeur.pdf

AMC

[Ruv Draba]

A philosopher who has impacted me quite a bit speaks about love and forgiveness:
It lost me in para 2 when he said that:

the problem of forgiveness concerns a request addressed to others.
This is like saying that the problem of love concerns how to milk it from others.

We don't actually need forgiveness from others to conduct our affairs. If they're strangers, their indifference suffices. If they're loved-ones, their fond delusions about us are quite adequate. Ask for forgiveness from others and by and large indifference and fond delusions are what you'll get; or else fake posturing as I've mentioned before.

Forgiveness of others is an artefact of compassion. It may or may not be requested; we can still give it.

Forgiveness by others can't actually be given on request. It's either given regardless, or faked, or not given at all.

Why might we need forgiveness by others? Heres my account: because sometimes the people we hurt hold a mirror of truth toward us by their very existence. That mirror can be very hard to face at times. Forgiveness by others allows us cover the mirror again before we're obliged to see what it shows.

My suggestion: never, never seek forgiveness from others. Seek rather compassion for those your errors have hurt; wisdom from your mistakes.

[zornhau]

Were you raised atheist?

It's just that I really don't worry about these things.

I forgive or not forgive based on an instinctive version of Prisoners Dilemma. I try not to hate too much, because it distracts me from other more pleasant experiences like love. I do feel guilt, but am more concerned with learning and moving on, than with getting forgiveness (which however is nice).

[Ruv Draba]

I do feel guilt, but am more concerned with learning and moving on, than with getting forgiveness (which however is nice).I quite agree. Guilt is sometimes just fear in disguise, but it's also often a symptom of compassion. Its cure is not to seek forgiveness but to make our compassion more useful.

[willfulone]

To my thinking:

We do not forgive just for one holds sorrow/compassion in their deed wrought upon us when they make an apology. We forgive for we have the ability/desire to do so. And even does another not wish our forgiveness or ask for it? We forgive for we have ability or desire to do so. We do not have to tell them on it if they are not receptive to hearing we forgive. Tis the action of forgiving that holds meaning, not giving the words to those who do not wish to hear them.

Truthful forgiving is done regardless of the other.

We only control ourselves and our responses and actions.

In living on a path that allows us to truly "do unto others..." we forgive.

[Don Allen]

For the record I'm very, actually overly agnostic, but I kept thinking "do on to others" as I read the disertation, can you explain where or why its' different?

[Ruv Draba]

I kept thinking "do on to others" as I read the disertation, can you explain where or why its' different?"Do unto others" is generally recognised as an ethic. Ethics are principles of behaviour we hold ourselves to, regardless of motive. If you believe that forgiveness is just a behaviour but not a motive then there might not be much difference in the two for you.

But if forgiveness is a question of motive as well as behaviour then it becomes a moral question: a question about what motives are good or bad for us as people and why they're good or bad. I feel that David's reflection in the OP is concerned with morality more than ethics.

[willfulone]

For the record I'm very, actually overly agnostic, but I kept thinking "do on to others" as I read the disertation, can you explain where or why its' different?

I do not speak for another - only myself. I am NOT a religious person per se' in a conventional sense. I do not attend organized religion facilities, have had very little religious instruction in my lifetime.

I believe that we should be good/caring/giving for humanity's sake alone. Thus, what I say may not be viewed correctly by anyone practicing a particular religious faith. But, it is right for me. And the life I live and how I choose to live it.

When I think "do unto others" it means that I actually "do" what I can, when I can, IF I can. Regardless of reward, regardless of it being noticed, regardless of anything outside me. It is borne of something within me, a wish for Peace to all. I do what I can/when I can/IF I can. And, I do it with faithfulness that it is right for me to do so. For the sake of humanity.

For, it is kindness/giving/caring that are cornerstones (in my mind) of humanity. And, humanity can always use good spread about.

So, I always try act in a manner to others, with others that shows them kindness/caring/giving. (I am human, do err)

And, I would not expect, but hope that such is returned to me. So, I "do" as I would hope would be given in the same measure. NOT things. Just kindness/respect/caring.

If one does it for it is expected by someone else, a societal standard, they were told to do so, or they do it for their religion requires it? Then, they are really not "doing unto," they are merely paying lip service to the idea of it.

To me, that is the difference.

Christine

[AMCrenshaw]

The thing about this article is that I'm not into it 100% either (nor about every detail I'll write here myself). Like any philosopher, Ricoeur just gives me a lot to think about. One thing I'll try to do here is address sincere requests for forgiveness.

We don't actually need forgiveness from others to conduct our affairs.

This is true, quite obviously. But when we feel we've done something really utterly wrong to someone else, it's often due to the pangs of our conscience. It can go so far as extreme guilt, or a sort of self-hatred. I think here is when one should seek forgiveness-- even if from one's self. The reason I say that is because "doing something wrong" in our own eyes is a violation of a) who we think we are or b) who we'd like to be. In performing a "wrong" action, from our own perspectives, we create a split, an inner divisiveness. Forgiving oneself or being forgiven is a way of healing the wound, so to speak.


If they're strangers, their indifference suffices. If they're loved-ones, their fond delusions about us are quite adequate. Ask for forgiveness from others and by and large indifference and fond delusions are what you'll get; or else fake posturing as I've mentioned before.

You know, Ruv, I agree. The thing is, indifference is related to the amnesia Ricoeur discusses. The difference between indifference and forgiveness is the healing. Many people, admittedly might function regularly if the "wrong" action they've committed is not-so-bad, and they receive indifference toward their actions. But come with me next time I visit people in jail who've wrecked their families because of drugs, people who have no visitors, and no one to ask for forgiveness (not even God). Do you really think that indifference heals them or suffices to allow them to function even according to their conscience? I mean, is there anything colder than a jail cell?

Based on stats given by the PATRICK Crusade: As of 1999, in California, prisoners with no visitors were six times more likely to re-enter prison during the first year of parole as those with three or more visitors from "family interest programs," i.e., those seeking to repair familial relations. Slowly, after these initial visitations, the family is re-introduced to renew communication. The communication's main function was to soften and eventually clear the anger, shame, and resentment of both sides. My one curiosity is whether or not forgiveness was really involved, encouraged, and if so, in what ways. But the stats, obviously, didn't specify.

Forgiveness of others is an artefact of compassion. It may or may not be requested; we can still give it.


I agree, but I wonder (not assert) if forgiveness is in part an act of communication. And so I wonder whether or not "forgiveness" is possible without a request. My account: if a daughter hates her father for the wrongs he's done to her and the rest of her family, but she never shows her hatred (a sort of indifference), but eventually says or concludes that she forgives him, has forgiveness actually taken place? Ricoeur wrote that forgiveness and justice are tied up with one another, and I suppose in this regard I happen to agree.

Forgiveness by others can't actually be given on request. It's either given regardless, or faked, or not given at all.


I disagree in part with this statement based on the "faked", but only because I don't think forgiveness is a one-time action. We have memories and we have emotions. An act of forgiveness is ongoing, and as such, begins upon the request (if agreed to), and may be shaky at best, but still has time to grow. An agreement to forgive is also an agreement, I think (in this moment), to continue to forgive that wrong action.

Why might we need forgiveness by others? Heres my account: because sometimes the people we hurt hold a mirror of truth toward us by their very existence.


Yes.


That mirror can be very hard to face at times. Forgiveness by others allows us cover the mirror again before we're obliged to see what it shows.

No. The act of asking for forgiveness must stem from the understanding that one has done wrong, otherwise, why ask for it? I think asking for forgiveness in this regard comes from seeing the mirror. The act of being forgiven allows us to see what more is in the mirror.

Seek rather compassion for those your errors have hurt; wisdom from your mistakes.

What's interesting is in a way I don't see too much of a difference here. But that's because I do not equate forgiveness and forgetfulness.


AMC

[Ruv Draba]

come with me next time I visit people in jail who've wrecked their families because of drugs, people who have no visitors, and no one to ask for forgiveness (not even God). Do you really think that indifference heals them or suffices to allow them to function even according to their conscience? I mean, is there anything colder than a jail cell?Setting aside the rhetoric, the core of this statement is the point that people need to belong, with which I agree. But there's a big difference between being included and belonging. And the gap in that, I'd suggest, is largely one of compassion. If our society has compassion for us, we'll feel that we belong there. If our society has no compassion for us, we quickly feel that we don't belong. That can be a terrible feeling.

Arguably, a lot of criminal activity stems from a lack of sense of belonging in the first place. It's even harder to build that sense of belonging after someone has a criminal record than before.

But I think that the forgiveness you're describing is the development of mutual compassion. "I don't belong with you but I have compassion for you" and "You don't belong with me but I have compassion for you" become "We belong".

I don't see that as inconsistent with anything I've said earlier. I would however note that it's not always possible to create belonging from compassion. Since you're arguing that forgiveness is about belonging, I think I'm saying that sometimes forgiveness isn't possible, or even desireable. That's a miserable truth, but I still think it's true.

[Ruv Draba]

Some afterthoughts on the question of forgiveness/belonging...

I think that many requests for forgiveness are actually 'rebelonging' requests in disguise -- motivated not so much by guilt as loneliness, fear and dismay at being cast out. Whether it's a betrayal of a confidence, say, or theft from a friend or loved one, or a spouse's infidelity, each incurs loss of trust and belonging; a request for forgiveness is a request to restore the old status quo.

Remorse need not be a part of that request; a mere appearance of remorse suffices. Guilt need not be part of it; it's enough to feign guilt. Our news is full of prepared statements feigning guilt and remorse, asking for forgiveness. There are whole industries (like public relations, defence law and civil law) built around such fabrications.

But compassion isn't enough to grant a request for 'rebelonging'; there must also be trust. Can you forgive someone without restoring trust to them? I think not. Is it wise to restore trust to someone who has betrayed it and lacks compassion for the impacts?

Hardly.

[AMCrenshaw]

But I think that the forgiveness you're describing is the development of mutual compassion.

Mutual compassion+. Compassion does not equal healing. Forgiveness is an active-action, while compassion a static one. Compassion is an agent of action, but not action itself.

In fact, it means the opposite (suffering with, remember) of healing. Mutual compassion may be necessary, but the extra step I'm actually discussing is the realm of forgiveness.

Likewise forgiveness without compassion is amnesia, which is certainly-- in my opinion-- what those fabrications are after. Nor do I think forgiveness restores an old status quo-- if that's the case, what wisdom has been learned? None.


AMC


ETA:

First I'd like to apologize to the OP. Your post is interesting, as you can tell. If anything work it into a short story as a theme. You won't need it verbatim.

Secondly, an important part of my spirituality and my ethics, for that matter, center around healing (psychological, spiritual, physical :)), which may clarify or confuse my responses concerning forgiveness.

[Ruv Draba]

Mutual compassion+. Compassion does not equal healing. Forgiveness is an active-action, while compassion a static one. Compassion is an agent of action, but not action itself.Actually I think it depends on what sort of healing you're talking about. Loneliness, for instance, can be healed by compassion alone. I think that some Buddhists would disagree that compassion is static or passive; I'm not sure whether I agree with them, but I do think that compassion is a motive, not simply an emotion. Therefore it evidences in behaviour.

If you're talking about the hurt of not-belonging then I'd suggest that it's healed by adoption into a respectable group that holds us in compassion. (Respectable meaning a group that we respect, regardless of whether it's respected in general). If that's a group we used to belong to, then presumably they've forgiven us whatever transgression got us ejected (even if we didn't transgress but were only thought to have done so). If it's some new group then clearly this is not about forgiveness.

I'd like to echo AMC's apology to David for dragging this off into abstruse directions. In an attempt to dig it out of philosophical reflection and into constructive writerliness...
I cannot forgive myself until I have forgiven others

This is a theme for a possible story. You could maybe articulate it thus:
Blame/judgement/resentment leads to XX, but forgiveness leads to peace.
Then you could write a two-arc story that shows this. You could fit two arcs to the one character, or one arc to each of two characters and show them in contrast. You could include the quotation or not, depending on how well it fit the exposition.

[AMCrenshaw]

Actually I think it depends on what sort of healing you're talking about. Loneliness, for instance, can be healed by compassion alone.

Like I said, compassion alone isn't action. It's an emotion. It definitely leads to action, but compassion alone won't really do anything. Compassion is only a motive when it directly leads to action (which is in fact what the Buddhists think, but their word for compassion can transliterate to wisdom and sometimes lovingkindness). And yes, I think when it's strong enough, it does. To state again, I don't think it does universally. I have compassion for those abused dogs on those damn commercials, but I can't give them my time or my money, just a feeling which is much stronger than empathy, but which isn't enough to motivate me into action.

The rest of what you write, Ruv, I can only speculate about, since until this point I haven't fully considered the feeling of belonging. Which I will now. :) But the wound that needs healing during moments where forgiveness is in question, it's too multi-faceted to reduce it to belonging alone-- I know that, unless one can feel they belong in one's own skin. That might be an aesthetic question, for another time or place.

AMC

[fullbookjacket]

"I cannot condemn others without condemning myself, because at the deepest level, I judge both by the same standard. "

I can't disagree more.

I don't know you and but it's quite easy to see that you're thoughtful and compassionate. So why be so hard on yourself? Certainly you can condemn Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot, Jeffrey Dahmer, et al, without condemning yourself.

[AMCrenshaw]

Is there a point in condemning these people further than they have been? Is it possible (or even desirable) to move on from their actions with wisdom without forgetting them? Curious what you think, Fullbookjacket.


AMC

[fullbookjacket]

Is there a point in condemning these people further than they have been? Is it possible (or even desirable) to move on from their actions with wisdom without forgetting them? Curious what you think, Fullbookjacket.


AMC

Yes, there absolutely is a point, even an imperative, in condemning these people without end. The reason being, societies and individuals have short memories. There is a ready market for hate in this world, and a ready source for spreading disinformation about heinous crimes against humanity. As we speak, there are millions who swear that the Holocaust is a myth.

If crimes against humanity are not talked about, they are simply forgotten.

Seriously, is Pol Pot even remembered? I would bet the mortgage that 90% of Americans have no idea who this monster was. How do you keep the memory alive? By telling the story and condemning the man.

[AMCrenshaw]

Yes, there absolutely is a point, even an imperative, in condemning these people without end. The reason being, societies and individuals have short memories. There is a ready market for hate in this world, and a ready source for spreading disinformation about heinous crimes against humanity. As we speak, there are millions who swear that the Holocaust is a myth.

That's what I'm wondering about. Is condemnation a form of hatred? Is our imperative to sling the second arrow, prolong the hatred?

If crimes against humanity are not talked about, they are simply forgotten.


Agreed, but understanding and talking about crimes does not alone equate to condemnation nor hatred.

AMC

[benbradley]

That's what I'm wondering about. Is condemnation a form of hatred?
Is it bad to hate "evil" acts and those who relentlessly perpetrated them?

[AMCrenshaw]

and those who relentlessly perpetrated them?

This is the part I question the most. And I have no satisfactory answer.

AMC

[zornhau]

Is it bad to hate "evil" acts and those who relentlessly perpetrated them?

I would have said that - from an evolutionary POV - that is exactly what hate is for.
20,000 BCE
Caveperson 1: Ungabungah. Ungabunga? [Hello, might I share your fire and the meat from your kill]
Caveperson 2: Ungabungah! Ungabunga! Ungabungah. Ungabunga! [You #####! Last time somebody share their fire with you, you slit their throats and stole their womenfolk! Get the ##### #### lads!]
SFX: THOCK! THOCK! THOCK! THOCK! THOCK! THOCK! [Sound of multiple flint spearheads penetrating Caveperson 1.
Or, looked at the other way around, what harm is there in hating evil people? (As long as the hate doesn't become an self-destructive obsession.)

[AMCrenshaw]

Or, looked at the other way around, what harm is there in hating evil people?

I shudder every time I might have to use the word evil in any way other than absolute. If I say there is no evil, someone will be sure to cite Hitler, Stalin, or some other psychopath. But maybe we need our villains, to stand as symbols of what holds back the collective wellbeing of a civilization.

What can hating evil do wrong? If it turns to violence. If we perform violence, we do essentially what our villains do. If we perform violence against "the evil" only, we do essentially what our villains do. Other and destroy.


AMC

[zornhau]

What can hating evil do wrong? If it turns to violence. If we perform violence, we do essentially what our villains do. If we perform violence against "the evil" only, we do essentially what our villains do. Other and destroy.
AMC

So I'll ring my great uncle - ya'know? - the Spitfire pilot who lost so many friends in the 1940s and tell him that it was all rather a waste of time. And this Jewish mate of mine whose family fled Europe in the 1930s...

[AMCrenshaw]

Yeah my grandparents are Polish, I have gay and lesbian relatives, friends-- does violence do justice against Nazi crimes or stop them from happening? I'd say the latter only. I don't think the Nazis will ever know justice or mitigation for their crimes and rightfully so.

WWII is a haunting, emergency situation that even as a nonviolence activist, I don't have the imagination to come up with any alternatives to stopping the Holocaust immediately except through violence. War was necessary, and I find that unfortunate.

But that's that. WWII is in the past (kinda, I say this with regards to your family and friends), and what's important is to stop those things from happening again-- here I think of the more "latent" racist, sexist, anti-gay, nationalist tendencies. Hatred toward 1940 Nazis is a matter of clinging to the past without seeing to the present and future. Hatred, remember, is the backbone of the Nazi movement. Hatred of an "other". We see that today, now, and doing violence against them usually fuels the fire, rather than quenches it. Aren't there better, more advanced ways of handling people who hate humanity than hating them back?

And that's all I meant by what I said: When we "other" a group of people and perform acts of violence against them, are we heroes when that "other" group is evil? Are there no better ways of dealing with evil than to other it and destroy it? Where do we draw the line (I ask that because Nazis, KKK, etc. are all obviously against humanity, but what about other forms of evil)? Are evil people... people? I.e., In violating the rights of others have they lost their own rights? Evil people deserve no compassion? No reeducation? No rehabilitation?

Nah. Just hate em and get rid of them, by the most convenient means... This isn't what you really mean, is it?

It just feels less and less evolutionary, and more phony Old Testament to me.

AMC

[fullbookjacket]

I'm basically a pacifist and promoter of nonviolence, so we probably don't differ all that much. However, I'm confused by your argument. If you adhere to nonviolent approaches to problem-solving, that pretty much leaves us only with talk, diplomacy, and negotiation. So if that's all we're left with, why are you reluctant to talk about the crimes and criminals of the past?

Doesn't shining a light on Nazi atrocities of the past keep neofascists of today in check? Are we afraid of offending them? If we don't talk about it, we surrender the pulpit to deniers and revisionists. And the whole damned thing starts all over again.

You have a moral compass. Use it. You seem to be talking yourself out of a clear distinguishing between the good, the bad, and the ugly.

[AMCrenshaw]

I'm basically a pacifist and promoter of nonviolence, so we probably don't differ all that much. However, I'm confused by your argument. If you adhere to nonviolent approaches to problem-solving, that pretty much leaves us only with talk, diplomacy, and negotiation. So if that's all we're left with, why are you reluctant to talk about the crimes and criminals of the past?

No, no, no. The past is useless if it isn't used to better the present and the future. Hatred of 1940 Nazis is, to me, not beneficial. Understanding their history isn't just useful, but morally necessary.

Doesn't shining a light on Nazi atrocities of the past keep neofascists of today in check? Are we afraid of offending them? If we don't talk about it, we surrender the pulpit to deniers and revisionists. And the whole damned thing starts all over again.


Exactly. I'm not saying we shouldn't speak of these things, inform each other, keep each other educated. It's necessary. But we can do so without hatred. Shining light on Nazi atrocities has absolutely nothing to do with hatred. Nonviolence has nothing to do with hatred. Understanding the past in terms of what is happening now should never equate to hatred. Stopping these atrocities protects the perpetrators as much as the victims, and so is not an act of hate, but an act of love and compassion. I'm speculating here that very few people really desire to go to their deathbeds knowing they've caused so much suffering to so many people. And it might be more appropriate to say, that my life as a peacemaker is to help make it that so people don't wish to commit atrocities-- to educate, inform, and beware of hatred and its links to violence, on interpersonal and societal scales. So that we don't have to, out of necessity, go to war to stop a Holocaust. Because, hopefully, we changed and advanced and evolved so that Holocausts are not reasonable to any person.

In my opinion, when we are more capable of seeing the other in ourselves (which the Nazis were incapable of doing) we can build relations that don't rely on hatred or condemnation as sources for education and socialization.


If I'm not clear, by now, I'll try again. :)

AMC

[Ruv Draba]

Or, looked at the other way around, what harm is there in hating evil people? (As long as the hate doesn't become an self-destructive obsession.)
I believe that evil is just about taboo, tribal and personal animosities, which makes hatred of evil not much different from xenophobia.

Distaste for bad however, is very understandable. Fear of bad too I understand. But distaste and fear together are not hate any more than bad is evil.

What harm to hate? Mainly, it binds us to unquestioned taboos, prejudices, ignorance and to our own unacknowledged badness. Hatred itself may not be bad, but it excuses many badnesses -- after all, you broke a taboo, you deserve no compassion, and while I hate I need not doubt my own desires, no matter how selfish and cruel they may be.

The German society of the 1930s and 1940s perpetrated genocide. So too has my own society in the 1770s through to 1969. So too did the Anglo-Saxons to the Britons and the Europeans to the native Americans. In fact, if you tally all the genocides in history (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genocides_in_history), it's hard to find a modern country whose people haven't been guilty of it at some time, and the genocides in WWII Germany are a tiny fraction of them all. So if we're to hate genociders justly then we really need to serve up hatred to just about everyone.

But nobody wants to hate justly, and that's exactly the point: our hatred lets us set aside justice for a while, and work at our tribalism, and personal animosities and rivalries and greeds and lusts and vengeance instead.

I don't know whether hatred is always avoidable, but it seems to me that if justice and compassion are important to our sense of good, then hatred has no good place beside them.

[zornhau]

I think a measure of cold hate is required to validate necessary actions which would otherwise be (even more) traumatic. Returning soldiers need victory parades or mental hospitals. For the former, some hate of the enemy is required.

[AMCrenshaw]

I don't know whether hatred is always avoidable, but it seems to me that if justice and compassion are important to our sense of good, then hatred has no good place beside them.

This is the conclusion of my point, and I couldn't articulate it so well.

AMC

[zornhau]

I don't know whether hatred is always avoidable, but it seems to me that if justice and compassion are important to our sense of good, then hatred has no good place beside them.

My take: If we don't hate those who are unjust and sadistic, then we don't care enough about justice and compassion.

[Ruv Draba]

I think a measure of cold hate is required to validate necessary actions which would otherwise be (even more) traumatic. Returning soldiers need victory parades or mental hospitals. For the former, some hate of the enemy is required.I can share the little I know about hate and war.

My grandfather died a few years ago. He and my grandmother lived through WWII, and at that time he served as a stoker in the Australian navy. Born in cool green farmlands, he was a gentle, modest, hard-working man who wanted to do the right thing for his country and his monarch, and he found a role in the service that I think suited him. In those days the ships were real steamships, and a stoker spent his days belowdecks, stripped to the waist, shovelling coal into a furnace. When the ship saw action, a stoker seldom saw it, just noise and fear and incessant toil. In betweentimes he'd swim off the side of his ship, or box (he loved boxing), or sit somewhere shaded and marvel at the tropical heat.

On 19 Feb 1942, he survived the first of the Japanese bombing attacks, events which were popularised by Baz Lurman's movie Australia (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0455824/). Darwin was barely a strategic target for the Japanese, but two carrier divisions were thrown at it anyway, and more bombs were dropped on it than Pearl Harbour. He was there when the bombs fell, and ships sank, and men dived into the water. He was there when oil storage tanks exploded, spilling burning oil over the harbour, killing his friends whom he was trying pull from the water.

Until that time, I think he feared the Japanese but didn't hate them. When Churchill turned his back on Singapore and it fell a week earlier, many Australians thought they'd be invaded, so the fear was understandable. But my grandfather wasn't a man who hated easily. For instance I never heard him speak ill of his first wife, or treat any stranger other than courteously. He certainly didn't need to hate to go to war -- love and fear and a sense of responsibility I think, are what sent him so far north in the first place.

For comparison, my grandmothers hated the Japanese too. They never went to war, never saw action. They just lost friends and family to war, and soaked up the propaganda -- and of course, living in a white British colonial society they knew that every other race was somehow deficient anyway.

But one grandmother hated Arabs too. I doubt that she ever met one, but that didn't stop her vilifying them whenever the topic came up. Tribal opinion can be immensely compelling.

Here's my point: you don't need hate to fight, but fear and trauma can cause hate and as I said earlier, I'm not sure that's always avoidable. But hate can also arise just because it's there in our tribal or personal identities.

I don't believe that there's anything efficient or effective in hate. I certainly don't think it's noble. Whatever use hate might have, it long survives that use. Mrs Draba and I used to make exotic lunches to celebrate my grandparents' birthdays, for example. Even sixty years later here was no way we could ever get them to eat sushi: Australian rice, Australian fish, Japanese cuisine.
My take: If we don't hate those who are unjust and sadistic, then we don't care enough about justice and compassion.That's almost the same as saying that if you don't hate whom the tribe hates then you're not of the tribe.

I don't believe that it's justice or compassion that trigger hate so much as protection of our property: our persons, our dignity, our homes, our jobs, our children, our friends, our food, our fertile menfolk, our breeding women. And the trauma that comes when we can't.

[Higgins]

Aren't there better, more advanced ways of handling people who hate humanity than hating them back?



I'm guessing the term "hate" here covers that ideologically orchestrated (or "tribal") hatred that motivates people to do as various forms of propaganda recommend and buy war bonds or drive trains full of people to concentration camps or death camps or pick up their machetes and chop up the other "tribe" down the road. What is advanced is that kind of ideologically orchestrated "hate"....what stops that kind of hate lately has been relatively decent armies. The Tutsi army stopped the genocide against the Tutsi and moderate Hutu in Rwanda. The North Vietnamese army stopped the genocide in Cambodia. Darfur is as much the result of Chad and southern Sudan putting decent armies in the field as it is anything in Darfur. NATO eventually stopped the genocides in the former Yugoslavia and one might even credit the Regular US army to some degree for stopping the genocide against the Native Americans (despite one bad incident at Wounded Knee).

[zornhau]

That's almost the same as saying that if you don't hate whom the tribe hates then you're not of the tribe.

Yes.

[Ruv Draba]

Yes.:(

And so when a tribe decides to scapegoat a part of itself... to call that part evil because it's different... Too rich or too poor, too educated or not educated enough, too liberal or too conservative, that they eat the wrong foods, live the wrong way, worship the wrong gods or no gods at all... presumably, those who don't join in throwing the stones are themselves complicit in fostering the evil.

I think that the history of atheism, among many minority beliefs, tells very well what sort of justice and compassion hatred creates.

[zornhau]

:(

And so when a tribe decides to scapegoat a part of itself... to call that part evil because it's different... Too rich or too poor, too educated or not educated enough, too liberal or too conservative, that they eat the wrong foods, live the wrong way, worship the wrong gods or no gods at all... presumably, those who don't join in throwing the stones are themselves complicit in fostering the evil.

I think that the history of atheism, among many minority beliefs, tells very well what sort of justice and compassion hatred creates.

But that's the great challenge. To keep that hate moral.

[AMCrenshaw]

And it's my experience, empirical and personal, that hatred is never moral. It leads too often to unreasonable or dated resentment, inability to communicate, and, at its worst, ethnic cleansing. Hatred has too close a link to violence, in all its forms, to ever be moral. One should never wish the destruction of another: or, those who wish to harm another are guilty of the same self-righteousness of those they wish to harm. The challenge, in my opinion, is making compassion moral. By which I mean also practical, and sensible.


AMC

[Ruv Draba]

But that's the great challenge. To keep that hate moral.But is the point to enhance morality or to find some redeeming feature to make hate morally defensible?

If it's to enhance compassion or justice then there are many things one could consider other than hate that might work better. If it's an attempt to make hate morally defensible, then surely our first question must be: what self-interest does this serve?

[zornhau]

But is the point to enhance morality or to find some redeeming feature to make hate morally defensible?

If it's to enhance compassion or justice then there are many things one could consider other than hate that might work better. If it's an attempt to make hate morally defensible, then surely our first question must be: what self-interest does this serve?

Keeping the hate moral, as in pointed in the right direction. Hate begets anger begets action.

[Ruv Draba]

Keeping the hate moral, as in pointed in the right direction. Hate begets anger begets action.And arson engenders reconstruction, so keeping the arson moral means only burning ugly buildings? :) Or is it always possible to demolish and reconstruct without arson?

Anger is a tactical, transactional emotion. We get provoked and we either do something about that or we get over it. We can be angry but still love and thus I think that it's possible to manage anger responsibly. But hate is potentially life-changing. Find one reason to hate cats say, and you'll find a thousand more. Ultimately, nothing will satisfy our hatred but the destruction of the hated. So hatred engenders a thousand angers, and often on the flimsiest pretexts. One anger might possibly be constructive, but a thousand surely won't be.

I said before that I don't think that hate is always avoidable, so what is the moral thing to do with it? The best thing I know of to do if you're hating is to go away if you can, and hate hate hate until you're over it. Don't eat, don't sleep, just hate. That way it doesn't contaminate anything else you do. And eventually you'll get over your hate and then you'll be open to other views of the situation -- which means that you'll make better decisions.

[Melisande]

"I cannot condemn others without condemning myself, because at the deepest level, I judge both by the same standard. The insight that I have into others is a reflection of myself to some greater or lesser degree. Accordingly, I cannot forgive myself until I have forgiven others. The transgressions of others that I forgive is proportionate to the darkness in myself that I stop pushing away, but rather, begin to manage from a position of growing self-awareness. Whether the power to manage, or transcend my destructive and useless behavior patterns comes from within, or without, it only comes to bear if I perceive it as coming from without. The light of increasing awareness casts, in ever growing relief, the shadow of the darkness that remains. And I see clearly now that when I least thought I needed help from without, was when I needed it the most."

I believe that I've expressed this before, in some other thread, but I'm also convinced that it can be said again; (and as always; this is my very personal point of view)

I do not believe in forgiveness at all! I believe in acceptance! To me the hard part of being abused was always how it made me feel. Then, one day, I finally realized that it was all about how it made the counterpart feel. And somewhere, somehow, I found strength enough to understand that emotion, and I suddenly realized that it was acceptable to me; not to be abused, but the persons reasons for doing it. And I accepted it. There was no need for forgiveness; acceptance was the key.

To accept the fact that negative feelings like envy, jealousy, anger and sheer shadenfreude exist, in my book also means that I have to accept that the people expressing these emotions are probably hurt themselves. So I accept the fact that this exists.

To forgive, however, (since it is such a wide spread misconception that forgiving equals that it's OK) is not up to me. The person who does me wrong can not expect forgiveness (i.e. my supporting the wrong by saying that it's OK) from me, since I don't believe in it. That person can only expect that I will accept the fact that the wrong has been done; I will go on with my life without taking on his/her burden, and complying to carry it henceforth - which to me forgiveness seems to be all about; to relieve someone of guilt and responsibility.

By accepting I merely acknowledge a fact. I do not take responsibilty. My life is too short - and too precious - to take it upon myself to carry other peoples mistakes on my shoulders.

[deathwizard]

The best reason not to hate, in my opinion, is a collective one. If some of us don't hate, this will have a positive effect on the world. If many of us don't hate, this effect will grow enormously. If all of us don't hate, then violence will be eradicated and we will all live in peace. As a species, we seem incapable of the the two latter statements. But the first of the three might be attainable. Violence begats only violence, hatred only hatred. But these are tough concepts to live by when there's so much of both.

[Ruv Draba]

My life is too short - and too precious - to take it upon myself to carry other peoples mistakes on my shoulders.I don't believe that forgiveness is to say that a wrong or a bad thing is okay. Forgiveness is to tell a person: "you did wrong and bad, but that is not all you are".

True forgiveness is to know what else a person is, and to remind them that this is what they are. To be truly forgiven by someone we have wronged is deeply humbling and life-changing. To forgive another who has wronged us is to transcend the hurt they did, to leave it behind us. Because our hurt too, is not all that we are.

Accepting that the hurt occurred is a very important step to surviving and thriving after our hurts. It is also a very important step toward realising that our hurt does not define who we are, or those who hurt us.

Melisande, I celebrate what you know and where you are going. I feel that you're right that you don't have to hate those who hurt you. Also, perhaps deep inside you is an awakening realisation that your compassion is bigger even than who you are, and who you can ever find the time to be. Life is indeed short, but the Melisande inside you is bigger than the whole span of your own life.

:LilLove:

[fullbookjacket]

I've just returned to see what's come of this discussion. Somewhere it morphed from being about forgiveness and condemnation to hating.

My point all along has been that you cannot condemn these actions and these men too much. It's impossible. But because I don't shy from condemnation of evil acts and evil persons doesn't mean I go around hating whole groups of people. I'm the first to preach diplomacy and good will.

Anyway.

I've been doing a lot of reading and research about fascism and the horrific bloodletting it caused. We want to pin it all on Hitler. We don't want to look in the mirror and recognize that we were an inspiration to Hitler in numerous ways.

Don't think it can't happen here. It can. And that's why I'm unrelenting in my condemnation of this kind of thing.

[AMCrenshaw]

I'm the first to preach diplomacy and good will.

In what degrees, really? And in what degrees toward fascism? Unrelenting condemnation of a particular person (in a particular tribe) seems to me to have more in common with fear and eventually hatred than with forgiveness and justice. In a system of unrelenting condemnation, (and maybe resentment? bitterness? anger?) who heals?

AMC

[fullbookjacket]

In what degrees, really? And in what degrees toward fascism? Unrelenting condemnation of a particular person (in a particular tribe) seems to me to have more in common with fear and eventually hatred than with forgiveness and justice. In a system of unrelenting condemnation, (and maybe resentment? bitterness? anger?) who heals?

AMC

And if I swallow anything evil
Put your finger down my throat

--Pete Townshend

[AMCrenshaw]

Well that answered all my questions. Only one thing left to say: Food for thought!


AMC



ETA: If condemnation and hate are intertwined, then I opt for actions that exclude condemning people as a form of justice. I don't believe hate and justice belong together, in an ethical sense, at all. The conversation led into discussions about hatred when I asked if condemnation was a form of hatred. Still haven't figured that out, yet.

[Higgins]

Well that answered all my questions. Only one thing left to say: Food for thought!


AMC



ETA: If condemnation and hate are intertwined, then I opt for actions that exclude condemning people as a form of justice. I don't believe hate and justice belong together, in an ethical sense, at all. The conversation led into discussions about hatred when I asked if condemnation was a form of hatred. Still haven't figured that out, yet.

I think you're overloading the idea of hatred. What I think you all mean by "hate" is ideologically orchestrated programs against various groups of people.

[Ruv Draba]

My point all along has been that you cannot condemn these actions and these men too much. It's impossible. But because I don't shy from condemnation of evil acts and evil persons doesn't mean I go around hating whole groups of people. I'm the first to preach diplomacy and good will.The word 'condemn' derives from the Latin damnare/damnum which means 'loss, hurt, damage'. The 'con' prefix here means 'strong or intense' loss, hurt or damage. By contrast, the word 'denounce' comes from the Latin de 'down' and nuntius 'a messenger'. So to denounce is to say 'this is bad', while to condemn is to say 'this one should suffer strong harm'. The latter bespeaks either hatred or a desire for vengeance.

Being 'peaceful and diplomatic' in condemnation just means working through someone else to do the harm rather than seeking to doing the harm directly ourselves. We see this for instance, in social condemnation of iconic criminals. In condemnation, the public will say things like 'if I was alone in the room with X, for just ten minutes, I'd show him...' Fantasising harm is pretty convincing evidence of hate.

I also think that using the word 'evil' at all is evidence of hate. We say 'bad' when we're willing to forgive. We say 'evil' when we're not. Evil is taboo-bad; irredeemable-bad; no-punishment-is-enough-bad; and so, hateable-bad.
I think you're overloading the idea of hatred. What I think you all mean by "hate" is ideologically orchestrated programs against various groups of people.
Except that it can be against an individual not a group (though it often spills to similar individuals), it can be unplanned and unorchestrated (e.g. because someone has hurt us deeply), and it may not be ideological -- it may simply be personal and emotional (e.g. kids hating their parents or siblings).

Perhaps the reason that hate has come up in the context of forgiveness is that they're countervailing motives, just as vengefulness and forgiveness are. We know that you can't forgive while you hate, because to hate is to desire harm and forgiveness does not desire harm.

[fullbookjacket]

The word 'condemn' derives from the Latin damnare/damnum which means 'loss, hurt, damage'. The 'con' prefix here means 'strong or intense' loss, hurt or damage. By contrast, the word 'denounce' comes from the Latin de 'down' and nuntius 'a messenger'. So to denounce is to say 'this is bad', while to condemn is to say 'this one should suffer strong harm'. The latter bespeaks either hatred or a desire for vengeance.

P

This might be a good argument if we were speaking Latin. Sadly, we're communicating in English, wherein "condemn" is defined in Webster's as "to declare to be wrong," "censure," and "to pronounce guilty." Can't find a definition that approximates the one you're trying to give it.

[Ruv Draba]

From Merriam-Webster (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/condemn) on-line:

1: to declare to be reprehensible, wrong, or evil usually after weighing evidence and without reservation <a policy widely condemned as racist>
2 a: to pronounce guilty : convict b: sentence , doom <condemn a prisoner to die>
3: to adjudge unfit for use or consumption <condemn an old apartment building>
4: to declare convertible to public use under the right of eminent domainI believe that 1) and 2) are applicable in the context. Even in modern usage it's all about the right to punish. This is why 'condemn' is a much stronger word than say 'protest' or 'denounce'. It still carries its mediaeval associations. In international relations 'protest' means that a country will make noise but doesn't expect to take punitive action. For this reason, 'condemn' is often avoided in political language -- e.g. here (http://www.un.org/News/Press/docs/2004/sc8063.doc.htm). In domestic policy, if we 'protest' the AIG directors getting big termination payouts we're saying 'this isn't right', which might mean 'stop doing it'. But if we 'condemn' them then we want to enforce retribution, e.g. here (http://www.hispanicbusiness.com/news/2009/3/24/most_americans_condemn_aig_bonuses_poll.htm).

[Melisande]

I don't believe that forgiveness is to say that a wrong or a bad thing is okay. Forgiveness is to tell a person: "you did wrong and bad, but that is not all you are".

True forgiveness is to know what else a person is, and to remind them that this is what they are. To be truly forgiven by someone we have wronged is deeply humbling and life-changing. To forgive another who has wronged us is to transcend the hurt they did, to leave it behind us. Because our hurt too, is not all that we are.
:LilLove:

I can not agree! Reason; Most people have deep under-lying emotions for what they do. As do I. I'm sure that I do a lot of stuff that might be considered a "wrong" towards others. Sometimes I realize this, sometimes not. This, however, does not mean that I am going to ask for the counterpart to analyze my reason for doing whatever and post judgement on me, as I wouldn't post jugdement on others. Mostly I am not even interested enough to find out more about 'who' they are, and I guess this might be the truth about the contrary.

In life we make choices. Most of these choices are bound to hurt someone somewhere. That doen't mean that our choises are not right - for us! To be too considerate only means that we pass on important choices.

Sometimes in life we get stuck with being hurt by someone who's made a choice that conflicts with our lives. To accept these choices is essential, and I really see no need to analyze thier reasons for the choices made. Way better to accept the fact that this person is now moving on, and to do the same.

To forgive, in my book, very much equals passing judgement and then saying; "It's OK! You did wrong and I am able to determine that, and I now release you from guilt and responsibility." I.e. to put oneself in a place of being 'better'. It also equals giving the right to others to pass judgement over me.

I have learned that accepting other peoples choices, and expecting the same, is way more honest and fair, because guilt is then taken out of the equation for both parts.

[AMCrenshaw]

To forgive, in my book, very much equals passing judgement and then saying; "It's OK! You did wrong and I am able to determine that, and I now release you from guilt and responsibility." I.e. to put oneself in a place of being 'better'. It also equals giving the right to others to pass judgement over me.

This is why Ricoeur thinks that requests for forgiveness are the beginning of forgiveness. It is, ideally, by coming to face to the truth of one's harmful actions, that one can seek the compassion of another. So while the power to forgive is within the victim's hands, it is not they who create right and wrong. That when the person who has done wrong actually 'suffers with' their victims puts them in the natural position to seek forgiveness. Ruv pointed out earlier, however, that's not always or often exactly how we put forgiveness into practice. So, on one hand, I agree with you. If by accepting a fact you also mean to learn from it. Otherwise, I would argue that accepting an injustice as mere historical fact without learning from it dooms us to recreate those injustices in new guises. Again, if condemnation is actually distinct from its punitive connotation, then it is precisely the wisdom procured, it is what we learn from the "accepted facts". But if condemnation includes forms of hate, orchestrated on a social level or carried out on an individual level, I can't be sure if apathetic acceptance is worse than fanatic, self-righteous indignation. Is it worse to be complacent or complicit (are they different)?

I think forgiveness is an acceptance of a greater fact than one alone. It sees the immoral act as being tied up with the whole of the person, who as a person still has human rights, and like each of us, deserves compassion and justice. Who is really only part and parcel (rather than the totality) of their actions? Don't people victimize themselves when they victimize others?

AMC

[Ruv Draba]

In life we make choices. Most of these choices are bound to hurt someone somewhere. That doen't mean that our choises are not right - for us! To be too considerate only means that we pass on important choices.Neither morality nor ethics are just about our self-interest. Morality is about recognising what is good for others as well as ourselves; ethics are about what we owe one another -- in other words, how we seek to bridge our self-interest with our sense of responsibility to others.

It makes no sense to apologise to other people for behaviours that have just hurt ourselves. In our sincere apologies, we express our regret when we recognise that we have not held integrity between our self-interest and our external responsibilities; when we have not acted to our moral or ethical capacity. I believe that sincere apology is not a request for forgiveness but an expression of sympathy, regret and contrition. As I mentioned before, forgiveness comes or it doesn't but that's not what a sincere apology is about.
I'm sure that I do a lot of stuff that might be considered a "wrong" towards others. Sometimes I realize this, sometimes not. This, however, does not mean that I am going to ask for the counterpart to analyze my reason for doing whatever and post judgement on me, as I wouldn't post jugdement on others.I don't agree. We all judge one another all the time. To survive at all we become experts in knowing whether others are caring for us, neglecting us or trying to harm us. If we didn't judge, we'd leave our children with strangers, our doors unlocked, we'd all buy into Nigerian bank scams, and we'd have no friends and confidantes.
Mostly I am not even interested enough to find out more about 'who' they are, and I guess this might be the truth about the contrary. [...]
I have learned that accepting other peoples choices, and expecting the same, is way more honest and fair, because guilt is then taken out of the equation for both parts.I believe that guilt is about knowing that we've done bad; shame is about knowing that we've betrayed a trust or responsibility. In other words, guilt and shame come from self-knowledge, not other peoples' opinions. (Though humiliation is another matter -- that depends entirely on others' opinions).

We can only accept what we understand; if we don't understand it then we're ignoring it, not accepting it. That strategy may work okay when a stranger bumps into us, say (actually I think that it doesn't even then), but it certainly fails in some other situations:

We can't learn from our hurts by ignoring them. If there was something we did or failed to do that helped bring our hurt about, we'll never know;
We may overlook sources of conflict lying behind the hurt;
Because ignoring hurts is a pain-avoidance mechanism, each time we ignore the hurts others do us, we lose a bit of courage. On the other hand, facing our hurts helps win us courage;
When people see us ignoring our hurts, they can perceive that we're weak. This can make us subject to bullying and intimidation;
Understanding why other people do bad or wrong helps us to see the bad and wrong that we do. In ignoring our hurts, we lose valuable moral and ethical lessons for ourselves.I.e. to put oneself in a place of being 'better'. It also equals giving the right to others to pass judgement over me.Actually they will pass judgement whether we're aware of it or not. They'll decide how much they like us, trust us, and respect us. They also (often) have the ability to hurt us -- especially if they're people on whom we must depend. Turning everyone into an island over the horizon the moment they become inconvenient is a great way to lose any sense of belonging, any sense of trust, and to walk around with pebbles falling constantly into our shoes without ever understanding how they got there. :)

Dealing with our hurts -- especially our more malignant hurts -- is among the most traumatic things a human must ever bear. Learning from them isn't simple, easy or painless. Any time we think we've found such a solution I believe that we should ask whether we've solved the problem or merely found a way to dodge it.

The best advice I ever had on this came from my shiatsu (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shiatsu) teacher. He said: Stop trying to avoid hurt. Feel the hurt, then heal.

It's hard advice to take, but I've found it extremely valuable.

Hope there might be some use in this.

[Melisande]

Neither morality nor ethics are just about our self-interest. Morality is about recognising what is good for others as well as ourselves; ethics are about what we owe one another -- in other words, how we seek to bridge our self-interest with our sense of responsibility to others.



Otherwise, I would argue that accepting an injustice as mere historical fact without learning from it dooms us to recreate those injustices in new guises. Again, if condemnation is actually distinct from its punitive connotation, then it is precisely the wisdom procured, it is what we learn from the "accepted facts". But if condemnation includes forms of hate, orchestrated on a social level or carried out on an individual level, I can't be sure if apathetic acceptance is worse than fanatic, self-righteous indignation. Is it worse to be complacent or complicit (are they different)?



I've just returned to see what's come of this discussion. Somewhere it morphed from being about forgiveness and condemnation to hating.

It is beyond me how a thread that started about 'forgiveness' can end up in such rigid thinking.

I have no moral aspects, feel no hatred, do not consider world-peace (or war for that matter) simply because I choose to accept the fact that someone does something that might not be 'right' with me at the time.

All I am expressing here, is the fact that people have their different reasons for doing whatever they choose to do. I do not blame them for the suffering of the world; I do not compare them to Hitler (an exhausted and worn out target of hatred anyway - considering Stalin, Pol Pot, Idi Amin and Kim Jomg-il and the likes of them).

It is also not a passive, fatalistic, detached point of view I am expressing. It is actually an engaged, compassionate, well-thought-through, and emphatical standpoint I have chosen to take; that of a person who can understand, emphathize and respect whatever choice has been made, and to accept it for what it is - a necessary part of life; though I might not always comply with it - especially when it hurts.

I give this - and expect it - acceptance as an acknowledgement that no one - NO ONE - is better or worse, no matter what.

I guess that it also appropriate to express that true crimes do not fit in the category of neither my understanding, nor acceptance.

I am simply talking about the average person's ordinary life here.

[Ruv Draba]

I give this - and expect it - acceptance as an acknowledgement that no one - NO ONE - is better or worse, no matter what.That's a fine principle for courtesies, but I think that it fails with commitments. To illustrate the difference, if two people are drowning and you swim out to save one and cheer on the other then you're extending commitment to the first, and courtesy to the second.

Courtesies include considerations like giving people the benefit of the doubt, offering everyone opportunity when those opportunities are abundant. Such courtesies encourage inclusivity, plurality and tolerance and I entirely support them. We should be generous with our courtesies, even to those we don't like.

But courtesies are fairly cheap. If you want to know whom someone really cares about, check out their commitments. Our commitments show our biases.

To try and commit equally to everyone is the same I think, as living through courtesy, without commitment at all. There's a bit of an urban trend to live this way -- making everyone a replaceable commodity. We could talk about the pluses and minuses of that, but my main concern for this thread is that a courteous but uncommitted life is not very impactful.

How does this relate to forgiveness? Well I think it's fundamental.

The polite form of forgiveness is the courtesy form -- 'I'm sorry/It's okay.' We use that form even when it's not okay. We get around such hurts by largely ignoring them. (From what you've said, I've been putting your 'acceptance' form in this category Melisande.)

The sincere form of forgiveness is the commitment form -- 'I'm sorry/What the hell were you doing?/I was being stupid./You sure were./Well, I'm sorry./Well I forgive you, but that won't make you any smarter.' This form takes compassion and understanding. To forgive a stranger in the commitment form, they can no longer be strangers; they must somehow be friends.

This is why it's so rare of course. Most people don't want to commit to people who've hurt them. I've made an argument above (http://absolutewrite.com/forums/showpost.php?p=3444463&postcount=55) as to why I think there can be deep good in doing so, even though it's difficult and expensive.

[AMCrenshaw]

Sorry, Melisande. I was arguing on the basis of semantics again. I have a problem with "acceptance" because of its relationship to the word "accept":

1 a: to receive willingly <accept a gift> b: to be able or designed to take or hold (something applied or added) <a surface that will not accept ink>

2: to give admittance or approval to

3 a: to endure without protest or reaction <accept poor living conditions> b: to regard as proper, normal, or inevitable <the idea is widely accepted> c: to recognize as true : believe <refused to accept the explanation>

4 a: to make a favorable response to <accept an offer> b: to agree to undertake (a responsibility) <accept a job>

You mean, of course, 3c: to recognize as true. The rest I suppose wouldn't apply, would it?


that of a person who can understand, emphathize and respect whatever choice has been made

Yeah, and I thought it might be clear that these are all elements of what I've been calling "forgiveness". Understanding and empathy and respect generally (not always, of course) translate to compassion. Also, I'm not too 100% certain "forgiveness" can be a one-way thing-- that is, perhaps it's only when you are asked to forgive you would forgive. Otherwise, maybe it is as you suggest: we accept, learn, have compassion, but need not have the communication involved with forgiveness.

It's true, I'm sure, there are situations in which we've felt wronged, but had to nevertheless heal and move on from those situations without ever seeing or knowing the person(s) who harmed us, much less open dialogue with them.


AMC

[Melisande]

That's a fine principle for courtesies, but I think that it fails with commitments. To illustrate the difference, if two people are drowning and you swim out to save one and cheer on the other then you're extending commitment to the first, and courtesy to the second.

If I was ever in that situation I would swim out to save one, and forget about the other. (No point in cheering on, is there?)

[Melisande]

Sorry, Melisande. I was arguing on the basis of semantics again. I have a problem with "acceptance" because of its relationship to the word "accept":


Yeah, and I thought it might be clear that these are all elements of what I've been calling "forgiveness". Understanding and empathy and respect generally (not always, of course) translate to compassion. Also, I'm not too 100% certain "forgiveness" can be a one-way thing-- that is, perhaps it's only when you are asked to forgive you would forgive. Otherwise, maybe it is as you suggest: we accept, learn, have compassion, but need not have the communication involved with forgiveness.
AMC


I guess we might be (though I do not take it for granted) on the same track here. I too, do believe that acceptance is a two-way-street kind of thing; not easily obtained, or given, without some kind of recognition of the counterparts sentiments.

To accept is to recognize that one would be perfectly able to make the same mistake or mis-judgement or whatever. It is accepting in the name of one's own short-comings and seeing that we all sometimes do make so called faulty judgements.

[Melisande]

How does this relate to forgiveness? Well I think it's fundamental.

The polite form of forgiveness is the courtesy form -- 'I'm sorry/It's okay.' We use that form even when it's not okay. We get around such hurts by largely ignoring them. (From what you've said, I've been putting your 'acceptance' form in this category Melisande.)

The sincere form of forgiveness is the commitment form -- 'I'm sorry/What the hell were you doing?/I was being stupid./You sure were./Well, I'm sorry./Well I forgive you, but that won't make you any smarter.' This form takes compassion and understanding. To forgive a stranger in the commitment form, they can no longer be strangers; they must somehow be friends.

Again, I wish to state that 'acceptance' does not mean "/yeah, but I don't care/" kind of accepting that 'things' happen. To me it is deeper. It's about recognizing that nobody is above flaws; about accepting the fact that everyone has their issues, as do I.

To accept, to me, is not an easy task. It is to admit that I am equally inclined to make mistakes, but to accept that fact and move on. Who am I to pass judgement?

To accept, to me, is not;

There's a bit of an urban trend to live this way -- making everyone a replaceable commodity. We could talk about the pluses and minuses of that, but my main concern for this thread is that a courteous but uncommitted life is not very impactful.

How does this relate to forgiveness? Well I think it's fundamental.

The polite form of forgiveness is the courtesy form -- 'I'm sorry/It's okay.' We use that form even when it's not okay. We get around such hurts by largely ignoring them. (From what you've said, I've been putting your 'acceptance' form in this category Melisande.)

It is to participate in the exchange of feelings, to recognize the hardships of the counterpart, to choose not taking things personally etc, To prefer 'accepting' rather than 'forgiving', because by 'forgiving' (still, IMO) meaning to put myself in a position of 'passing judgement'.

I never judge! My acceptance is not uncommitted, though. It is a consciencious choice I make to be able to go on with my life! I leave the choice to them; (to redeem themselves if you wish) - however without my so called blessings; i.e. my 'forgiveness'. I move on; whatever they like to do, or learn, from this (whatever) experience is entirely up to them. That choice is not mine!

[Ruv Draba]

It is beyond me how a thread that started about 'forgiveness' can end up in such rigid thinking.
I never judge!
Or perhaps you're not accepting of your judgements, or just not aware of them. I certainly felt judged by your comment above, and if I'd made such a comment myself I'd know that I was being judgemental.

An important part of acceptance is self-acceptance. Part of that is to recognise our deep-seated self-interest in making ourselves the hero of our own narrative. Experience has taught me that the stories we tell about ourselves -- especially the ones we hold sacred -- are self-serving, and generally false.

Idealism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Idealism) is the theory that mind can change reality. But another, more objectivist (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Objectivity_(philosophy)) viewpoint is that idealism doesn't change reality at all -- it just messes with how we perceive it. My personal view is that while ideals offer nice aspirational goals, making them sacred and imminent is a good way to blunt the tool of mind, to blind ourselves to what is going on, and how we actually participate in that.

It's easy to hide our judgements from ourselves, but quite hard to hide them from others. My suggestion: if people feel that you're judging them, you probably are.

[Melisande]

Or perhaps you're not accepting of your judgements, or just not aware of them. I certainly felt judged by your comment above, and if I'd made such a comment myself I'd know that I was being judgemental.



I responded in accordance to my feelings (though perceived as judgemental). I guess that I stepped on your toes, and maybe outside my boundries. My intention was not to hurt your feelings, but to try and explain mine.

Your experiences and mine are probably way different. If I misunderstood your post I really AM truly sorry, though I am not asking for your forgiveness. I ask you to accept the fact that I was trying to express the fact that my sincere wish to accept peoples choices is not a courteous or cheap, lazy way of 'getting by' without personal engagement.

I will try and better my language, however, in order to avoid future misunderstandings like these again.

I appreciate your response, as it made me very aware that expressing a point is very much similar to walkimg on glass; One skip and one ends up with bleeding feet. Hopefully the blood is all mine, though.

Again; my aim was not to judge.

[Ruv Draba]

I responded in accordance to my feelings (though perceived as judgemental). I guess that I stepped on your toes, and maybe outside my boundries. My intention was not to hurt your feelings, but to try and explain mine.Since the early 13th century (http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?search=judge&searchmode=none), the word 'judgement' has meant 'to form an opinion'. This doesn't mean that our opinion is right, or more important than anyone else's. (However, if you're looking for a stronger word than judgement, you might seek 'condemn', which comes from the same root word as 'damn'; it's possible to judge an act as bad without condemning the perpetrator.)

So if you say that 'this thinking is rigid', that's an opinion and hence by definition it's also a judgement. That's a matter of fact and not perception. Whether expressing such a judgement is courteous or not is a matter I won't address here. I'd rather stay on topic.
I ask you to accept the fact that I was trying to express the fact that my sincere wish to accept peoples choices is not a courteous or cheap, lazy way of 'getting by' without personal engagement. If you're saying that every time you try and accept something you first try and understand it then we're in strong agreement, but that still doesn't prove that you've accepted things without judging them.

I don't know how we can understand something without forming and testing opinions along the way. Also whenever we have strong feelings (especially about abstract matters), they're a sure sign that we're having judgements too. For example...

Let's say that someone offered me two new foods: camel cheese and fried cockroach. I may have two very different reactions to these. Camel cheese I might be cautiously interested in (because I view camels as mammals, and mammals make cheese and I view cheese as edible); fried cockroach might have me wrinkling my nose in disgust (because I've grown up to view cockroaches as vermin, and we don't eat vermin).

In reality, the cockroach might be hygeinic, nutritious and tasty while the camel cheese might not be. So if I were to overcome my initial judgements and try both, and learn a bit about how they were made, my judgements might change. But I'd still have held them, however briefly. They'd be evident in my thoughts, my opinions and my emotions. I could pretend that I'd had no judgements about either food, but analysis of my body's reactions would reveal another story.

Judgements are an essential part of how we learn, how we shape our behaviours. I don't believe that there's any problem with them -- we could never survive without them. The problem comes when we place the value of our opinions above the value of truth.

[Melisande]

Since the early 13th century (http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?search=judge&searchmode=none), the word 'judgement' has meant 'to form an opinion'. This doesn't mean that our opinion is right, or more important than anyone else's. (However, if you're looking for a stronger word than judgement, you might seek 'condemn', which comes from the same root word as 'damn'; it's possible to judge an act as bad without condemning the perpetrator.)

So if you say that 'this thinking is rigid', that's an opinion and hence by definition it's also a judgement. That's a matter of fact and not perception. Whether expressing such a judgement is courteous or not is a matter I won't address here. I'd rather stay on topic.
If you're saying that every time you try and accept something you first try and understand it then we're in strong agreement, but that still doesn't prove that you've accepted things without judging them.

Judgements are an essential part of how we learn, how we shape our behaviours. I don't believe that there's any problem with them -- we could never survive without them. The problem comes when we place the value of our opinions above the value of truth.

But 'truth' is such a relative notion.

My truth might not be the same as yours, but true to me none the less.

I might fall into the group of judgementals, I guess you are quite right there, but doesn't that apply to you also? We humans tend to see things from our own perspective - how else can we exist? We tend to get personal, and who is to be put in charge of which opinion is supposedly 'right'?

Your right might contradict mine, and vice versa. Fine. It is not up to me to decide whether my 'right' is better - or more true - than yours. It is up to me, however, to try and respect the fact that your 'truth' is just as valid as mine; to accept that fact and move on.

I might pass judgement in my way of thinking - you are quite right about that. But then again; so are you!

Do I find it necessary to ask your forgiveness because I might have a different stand-point than you? No! Do I find it important to 'forgive' you for the values you have that I might not be able to share? No! I accept the fact that you and I most likely come from different cultures, or back-grounds or what have you; accept and move on.

This does not mean disrespect, au contraire; I am glad that other people have other values and opinions. Human kind would suffer immensly had that not been a fact.

If you prefer camel cheese over fried roaches - that's your prerogative. Not for me to judge either way. Wouldn't try either (goodness) and that would be my right - without passing judgement on yours. I'd simply accept the fact that you are curious enough (and most certainly braver than I) to try something that is outside my realm of interest.

I would say that you are right about my passing judgement in the sense that I try and understand other peoples behavior before I decide to try and accept their reasons for certains things they do. I try to stay objective, though, even if I have to admit that I often fail in doing this. I've learned, however, to accept that their motives are sometimes beyond my understanding, but not beyond my accepting that they exist. And I move on.

Whatever reason someone has to hurt me is their own! Thier own! If I can not understand - I am sure as hell not going to dig deeper into their lives to make things better - fot them! There's a limit to good-will. I will accept the fact, though, that their reasons are as valid for them, as my reasons are for moving on.

[Ruv Draba]

But 'truth' is such a relative notion.Facts aren't relative. An apple has either fallen from a tree or it has not. I either took money from the cash-register or I didn't. Either you ate today or you didn't. As long as we agree on our terms, truths that are fact-based are not at all relative. They're verifiable independently.

Not all opinions are subjective either. Fact-based opinions for instance, can be tested. Because they can be tested they become reliable. And once they're reliable we can do extraordinary things with them -- like perform heart surgery and fly in steel tubes through the sky. So we often treat highly tested, fact-based opinions as though they're truths because they're about as reliable as truths.

We have opinions that aren't fact-based too. They might be based on our imaginations, our prejudices, our guesses, our hopes or fears, or the opinions of others. Sometimes such opinions are reliable; sometimes they're not. We use them to judge when we have nothing better.
But the truth of an opinion (really its reliability) isn't based on how much we like or believe that opinion. It's based on how robust that opinion is in the face of facts.

I might fall into the group of judgementals, I guess you are quite right there, but doesn't that apply to you also? We humans tend to see things from our own perspective - how else can we exist? We tend to get personal, and who is to be put in charge of which opinion is supposedly 'right'?I'm very judgemental, because facts and logic dominate how I view things. But even people who don't much care for facts or logic still form opinions -- and those opinions are still judgements.

For me, the question isn't 'is this person judgemental'? All people are. A better question is 'does this person make reasoned, accountable, benign judgements'? In other words, how much can I trust the judgement of this person?

It is not up to me to decide whether my 'right' is better - or more true - than yours. It is up to me, however, to try and respect the fact that your 'truth' is just as valid as mine; to accept that fact and move on.Actually, if we want to be trusted then I think it is up to us to decide whether our opinions are better than someone else's -- at least for those opinions that derive from facts.

In his book The Trusted Advisor (http://books.google.com/books?id=2bW2PPxfFnQC&dq=The+Trusted+Advisor&printsec=frontcover&source=bn&hl=en&ei=ep3cSdqVF4vW6gP9mIWuDA&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=7), David Maister proposes a formula for trust -- in the sense of 'can I trust this person's advice'? The formula for Trust is:
T = (C + R + I) / S

Where C is your credibility -- how much do you seem to know? R is your reliability -- how much of what you say can be verified? I is your intimacy -- how well do you see it from my perspective? S is your self-interest -- how much of what motivates your communication is concern for you vs. concern for the people around you?

If you believe this formula then the more credible, reliable our opinions are, and the more that we can see others' points of view, and the more our opinions exist to serve others and not just ourselves, then the more trustworthy are our opinions.

I don't believe that we can build high levels of trust by accepting everyone's opinions at face value, and insisting that our own opinions are equally true. We build trust by constantly testing our opinions for veracity and alternative perspectives, and by constantly challenging our self-interest.
Do I find it necessary to ask your forgiveness because I might have a different stand-point than you? No! Do I find it important to 'forgive' you for the values you have that I might not be able to share? No!I've already argued that there's no point in asking forgiveness, but I think that there is value in seeking to forgive, and one reason is that in seeking to forgive we learn to be more reliable in our opinions of others, more intimate with their circumstances, more credible in dealing with our own failings and less self-interested in the opinions we form. In other words, people who genuinely understand other people and forgive them can become very trustworthy people to know. The dominant term in Maister's equation is S -- our selfishness; the more we can reduce S, the more trustworthy become our opinions.

That's not to say that we must forgive or always can forgive (for how can we forgive what we don't understand)? But I feel that there are distinct benefits in exercising our attempts to forgive -- among which are that we can trust ourselves more, and others can trust us better.

[Dommo]

Remember Dommo's rules of truth.

1. Provable truth only exists in mathematical or logical constructs.
2. The limit of experimental truth approaches truth, as the number of experiments grows large.(e.g. you know the apple you're dropping will fall down, because it's happened enough times that you can safely play the odds and call it true). Thus something could be considered experimentally true in the same sense as one would consider the house having an edge in a casino(allows for a more general truth statement as some things could vary a bit).
3. That which isn't provably true, may be falsifiable, and in that case can be called false. So consider this the inverse rule of rules 1 and 2.
4. Everything else is "undetermined", unlikely, or likely(the latter two are based on the experimental data sets not having a large enough sample to make a set in stone determination). As you get more data and samples, you can become confidant in your predictions of things being true or false.


I'm engineer by training, and in order for me to trust someone, I tend to look at quantifiable things, and I tend to evaluate things people say by applying my "truth rules". If someone says something, I'll ask them for data. Let me see what led you to your conclusion, and I'll see if I get the same thing. If they can show a logical thought process in how they came to their opinion, then it'll definitely make me trust their opinion more. This is why I'll tend to trust a person who has more experience than me, because they typically have accumulated more data over a course of time on a certain subject. Heck I don't criticize doctors as they're looking me over, because I trust them to know more about the way my body functions, than I do. Just as I'd expect them to trust my opinion on the handling characteristics of a car, or how big of a pump you need to raise water to such and such height etc.

The only thing I absolutely trust is mathematics because by it's nature it can't lie. It can be used to create an illusion, but if one looks deep enough and understands the numbers well, then it's very hard for someone to lie with numbers(hence why you periodically get scientists who get caught fudging numbers). If there's one thing in the world that can be trusted, it's math. If you understand it well, then you'll laugh your ass off when 90% of news sources cite statistics, or when you read a science article because the people who are writing them don't understand what they're talking about.