Thoughts on forgiveness?

Post #17,164 by Another Scott 11/7/01 2:08:44 PM Reply	Thoughts on forgiveness? Hi, This isn't meant to be a leading question. It's just a topic I've been thinking about for a few days. Without digging through Google and the like, what's your gut feeling about forgiveness? I think the word has two meanings. 1) One person forgiving another for an offense against the other; 2) God (or your deity of choice) forgiving a person for a sin/transgression/etc. Forgiveness, in the #1 sense, it seems to me, affects both the person forgiving and the person receiving. It can be highly beneficial for both. But is it meaningful if the person being forgiven doesn't ask to be forgiven? I guess my view is that forgiving an offense is only meaningful for both sides if the transgressee offers forgiveness in response to a freely given admission of offense and a genuine request to be forgiven by the transgressor. For me, for forgiveness to be meaningful, it must result from a "coming to terms" between people, not a gift bestowed upon another from on high. So to speak. :-) There are various subthreads which could be considered (e.g. Can a person who's not mentally or emotionally fit be forgiven under my stated view? I'd say yes, because they may not be capable of knowing proper behavior, controlling their behavior, etc.), but let's restrict it to the broad outline presented here. The #2 sense, as in Jesus on the cross asking "forgive them Father, they know not what they do" is, it seems to me, a wholly different issue (one that I don't want to consider here). So what do you think? Am I making a false distinction between the two meanings? Thanks. Cheers, Scott.
Post #17,195 by Brandioch 11/7/01 4:05:25 PM Reply	Forgiveness vs restitution no text
Post #17,217 by hnick 11/7/01 5:29:49 PM Reply	Forgiveness is wonderful; just get even first :)
Post #17,241 by tseliot 11/7/01 7:38:15 PM Reply	Not a false distinction, but is it a worthwhile one? ;) I guess my view is that forgiving an offense is only meaningful for both sides if the transgressee offers forgiveness in response to a freely given admission of offense and a genuine request to be forgiven by the transgressor. For me, for forgiveness to be meaningful, it must result from a "coming to terms" between people, not a gift bestowed upon another from on high. So to speak. :-) Seems to me the distinction you're making is whether the forgiveness is in response to 1) a genuine perceived hurt inflicted upon you by the other party or 2) a broken law. In case 1, your paragraph above makes sense, but not under case 2, because the existence of Law starts with the assumption of retribution--interpersonal forgiveness does not. Am I right? Forgiveness, in the #1 sense, it seems to me, affects both the person forgiving and the person receiving. It can be highly beneficial for both. I think your Jesus-on-the-cross example is a good example where both cases coexist in one situation. So if you believe there IS a God "bestowing forgiveness" (what a wonderfully churchy term), it is highly beneficial for both in this case, as well. So yes, you can make that distinction, but I don't think the two are as far apart as you're making them out to be. It all depends on the parity between the two parties and the expected level of retribution. --------------------------------- A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly by the chain of their own ideas;...despair and time eat away the bonds of iron and steel, but they are powerless against the habitual union of ideas, they can only tighten it still more; and on the soft fibres of the brain is founded the unshakable base of the soundest of Empires." Jacques Servan, 1767
Post #17,581 by Another Scott 11/9/01 5:16:20 PM Reply	Yes, I wasn't thinking of legal issues. Hi, Seems to me the distinction you're making is whether the forgiveness is in response to 1) a genuine perceived hurt inflicted upon you by the other party or 2) a broken law. In case 1, your paragraph above makes sense, but not under case 2, because the existence of Law starts with the assumption of retribution--interpersonal forgiveness does not. Am I right? In a way. I think it's good to have a consistent view about things whether the law is involved or not, whenever practical. But I don't think, e.g., that a person convicted of a felony should escape punishment for sincere expressions of regret and sorrow. I had in mind more interpersonal situations as you surmised. So yes, you can make that distinction, but I don't think the two are as far apart as you're making them out to be. It all depends on the parity between the two parties and the expected level of retribution. I hope my reply to Ben clears the situation up a bit, even though it's really hypothetical. Really. No I mean it... If punishment and retribution are involved, then it gets more muddled because of the legal and societal aspects, IMHO. I was more concerned with the personal. Sorry I didn't make that clearer. Thanks for your thoughts! Cheers, Scott.
Post #18,109 by tseliot 11/13/01 4:06:29 PM Reply	Not a question of punishment, but of power imbalance Retribution and punishment take on completely different meanings in a democratic police state (such as our own) as opposed to the first century Judea of the Jesus-on-the-cross example. We cannot but think of forgiveness in peer-to-peer situations; those in Jesus' day could not conceive of such a thing. People in his day functioned agonistically: every social interaction was a contest for honor. If you really were social equals, you were expected to fight (socially) to win. If you were not equals, there was no contest; the more powerful party didn't even have to respond to honor-challenges. In such a context, the word "fool" means "someone who challenges a superior for honor", and the word "forgive" means "forgo"; i.e. do not demand the very real repayment of honor. But I don't think, e.g., that a person convicted of a felony should escape punishment for sincere expressions of regret and sorrow. I had in mind more interpersonal situations as you surmised. Neither would those in the first century. But recall if you will the parable of the servant whose lord forgave his massive debt; then that servant went out and throttled a fellow-worker for the much smaller sum he owed. The forgiveness from the lord was retracted, not because of any lack of apparent sincerity of the man's plea, but because the servant's behavior did not reflect that "sincerity" (this is getting into Ben's discussion a bit). Why is that an issue? Does it mean we should forgive convicted felons? Well, no. Foucault exposes quite well in Discipline and Punish that we have moved from punishment-as-power-display (reinforcing the power imbalance via public floggings, etc.) to punishment-as-discipline (reinforcing norms of behavior). So you have to see forgiveness, when spoken of pre-1900, as graciousness on the part of a higher power; cf. Les Miserables, where Valjean is forgiven the theft of the abbot's silver; the abbot is clearly in a position of power over Valjean and chooses not to exercise that power, choosing instead to grant him honor and status, so that his behavior might change. Contrast that to today, where such forgiveness makes no sense, since the punishment is not only meant to castigate behavior outside the norm (thereby bringing it back in line with the norm), but also "pay back" the wrong (which includes terms like "debt to society"). Often, the victim has the option of "dropping the charges", but the state grinds on--this is because the victim is usually only concerned with redress; the state is responsible to return the criminal to a state of behavioral normality, at the least via social isolation. The state cannot forgive, since it is just as bound to the norm as is the criminal. The two have become idealized to the point of formulaic interaction. Have we then institutionally excised the ability to forgive? --------------------------------- A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly by the chain of their own ideas;...despair and time eat away the bonds of iron and steel, but they are powerless against the habitual union of ideas, they can only tighten it still more; and on the soft fibres of the brain is founded the unshakable base of the soundest of Empires." Jacques Servan, 1767
Post #18,135 by Another Scott 11/13/01 5:35:15 PM Reply	Interesting historical context. Thanks. You threw in a good word too - agonistic. Kudos to you. :-) The legal system and our ideas about law and punishment, etc., certainly has changed over time. I think I've mentioned on IWeThey (on ezboard) that [link\|http://www.history.org\|Colonial Williamsburg] in Williamsburg, VA has recreated the 1775-ish Virginia capitol and has recreations of things like public trials and the like. Things like "pinning the ears" (nailing ear-lobes of a person convicted of a misdemenor to a post as a punishment. When the punishment time is up (a few hours or a few days), the person is removed by ripping the ear from the post. Thus a torn ear lobe was a sign to others that the person had been punished for some misdemenor. They tell a story of someone who had to petition the Governor for a letter verifying his good character - his ear had been torn in a farming accident.), trial by a jury of one's peers (people who knew you and knew your character - not totally impartial people from the community as we use it today), all felonies were punishable by death, etc., are very different from what happens now. Often, the victim has the option of "dropping the charges", but the state grinds on--this is because the victim is usually only concerned with redress; the state is responsible to return the criminal to a state of behavioral normality, at the least via social isolation. Yes and no. The state prosecutor usually has wide discretion as far as which crimes will be prosecuted and with what level of vigor, due to the volume of cases, etc. This can be good and bad. Good because the prosecutor can act as a proxy for community and attempt to serve in their "best interests". Bad because it can lead to unequal protection under the law. The state cannot forgive, since it is just as bound to the norm as is the criminal. The two have become idealized to the point of formulaic interaction. See above. And Governors and Presidents can forgive an offense in certain circumstances. It's not often used though. Have we then institutionally excised the ability to forgive? Maybe. But maybe not. I'll have to think on this some more. Certainly in state-to-state relationships, forgiveness of debts is increasingly common. E.g. loans via the World Bank and the like. And bankruptcy - forgiveness of most monetary debts - is (or was depending on your view of the recent changes) an institutional form of forgiveness (though many consequences remain). Even with its consequences, its certainly more forgiving than debtors prisons. Thanks for your thoughts. I greatly appreciate it. Cheers, Scott.
Post #18,157 by Ashton 11/13/01 8:30:24 PM Reply	Heh.. agonistic as in on alt.anything and elsewhere (but Never at ZiWE natch), the prolonged pro-forma contest of endurance* till last post: the grail, in cases where illumination has been subordinated to winning. Who says Greek tradition does not live! * save perhaps re umm OOP, say.. But I thank you for the excellent point. It indeed connects to the origins of many social concepts, though I'd wonder still re the personal attitudes towards cohorts, family. The overlapping ideas of compassion, magnanimity (which of courses ceases - whenever one attributes that to self; as with wisdom..). That is, then - personal theology of the time - whether dominated by flavors of Christianity or Pagan or other models: was there no personal concept akin to points raised by Scott, others in this thread? Surely hypocrisy was ever with us; the lip-service of niceness, smoothing-over (IMhO more visible in the intricacies of UK customs than Murican, since an outsider sees more of 'what often we do'). "You Must come visit again".. this after an exquisitely subtly-barbed exchange indicating more like, fuck off asshole .. as the actual intent. But again - you don't do this with intimates or: they aren't! Now of course if we go back even further ... do we not enter the world postulated by Mr. Jaynes? and can a one of us momentarily adopt That bicameral mind which - preceded all the Tower of Babel consequences? That which brought us to where we are today: post lingua -not so- franca? No wonder no one can 'splain this species; enigma wrapped in a quandary and often - tautology.. under analysis. :-\ufffd
Post #18,266 by tseliot 11/14/01 1:09:24 PM Reply	Honor ...was there no personal concept akin to points raised by Scott, others in this thread? Which points, specifically? Understanding of "personal" behavior in that age/place revolves around the embedding of the individual in an honor-hungry continuum: everyone had their superiors and their inferiors. You expected (and were expected by others) to bring honor to your local superiors and get honor from your inferiors. You fought for honor only with your equals. Nobody "had honor" outside of that embedding in a social group. Dishonoring your superior often took a lot of work to "recoup" the damage. Some patrons used the social tactic of forgiveness when dealing with a transgressing inferior; the idea being that they have so much honor it's not worth getting even over; therefore, they are ascribed more honor by the community. This could backfire, of course, just like it does for Microsoft every day. They are foolish because they try to claim honor they have not earned/been ascribed. OT a little bit, the word "shame" often comes up in the same discussion: in a lot of societies, shame is a good thing--"having shame" means knowing your place in the social hierarchy. It is the direct opposite of being a fool. Only we could take that concept and make it an evil to be abolished. ;) --------------------------------- A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly by the chain of their own ideas;...despair and time eat away the bonds of iron and steel, but they are powerless against the habitual union of ideas, they can only tighten it still more; and on the soft fibres of the brain is founded the unshakable base of the soundest of Empires." Jacques Servan, 1767
Post #18,362 by Ashton 11/14/01 9:19:07 PM Reply	Ah.. said well enough that I begin to feel the shackles of serfdom creeping upon me: imagine Billy as Laird! (Consequently.. who would not want to ride off and slay Infidels vs fawning over a Billy and his lieutenant Bally - at home?). No I cannot guess if that was a major incentive for Crusades - but it would have been mine. I must ponder and revise all recalled history - a cinch for the massively talented and humble.. Cheers, Ashton who - via some sort of reincarnation model - prolly died repeatedly at ~17, for insubordination :(
Post #18,165 by brettj 11/13/01 9:32:31 PM Reply	Re: Sincerity & Forgiveness Thanks for helping me to further understand what Ben was getting at. I knew he was on-the-mark but didn't exactly understand why. But even if someone is not sincere in caring about being forgiven, there is still value in giving forgiveness to them, even if they never knew you forgave them, isn't there?
Post #18,273 by tseliot 11/14/01 1:28:46 PM Reply	Value to me? or to our imaginary 1st-century folk? But even if someone is not sincere in caring about being forgiven, there is still value in giving forgiveness to them, even if they never knew you forgave them, isn't there? For the Biblical authors and their contemporaries, no. Forgiveness without recognition is nonsensical, in the same way that "+4^=" is a nonsensical arithmetic statement. In the extreme case, it's obvious that those who do not acknowledge God's forgiving acts are not going to be recipients of his mercy. Hence the parable (of the unforgiving servant)--one way you show your "acknowledgement" is by showing mercy to others. In the "modern" era, it's easy to confuse "forgiving" (the act) with "forgiveness" (the mood or tendency). We don't seem to be able to act without predisposing ourselves (cf Ashton's reference to Jaynes), and we generally prefer the predisposition to the action; another way to say that is, "but he meant* well...", or in this case, "I'm really a forgiving person, but circumstances deny me the opportunity to demonstrate that in this particular situation..." We "forgive" then, but not in action, only to soothe our own egos (which obviously need a lot of soothing) in an attempt to maintain a coherent persona** we can live with. * Thank you very much, Mr. Kant. >:( ** Or, for Ash, if you're reading this, a "meta-actor" a la bicamerality. :) --------------------------------- A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly by the chain of their own ideas;...despair and time eat away the bonds of iron and steel, but they are powerless against the habitual union of ideas, they can only tighten it still more; and on the soft fibres of the brain is founded the unshakable base of the soundest of Empires." Jacques Servan, 1767
Post #18,288 by ben_tilly 11/14/01 3:11:15 PM Reply	Fascinating And to put the conflict into perspective, it was the older sense of forgiveness that RMS used when he plead for copyright holders to [link\|http://linuxtoday.com/news_story.php3?ltsn=2000-09-05-001-21-OP-LF-KE\|forgive KDE] their GPL transgressions past. However the reaction of most people was to understand what RMS meant in terms of more modern notions of forgiveness, and get upset about it. The other thing I find fascinating is the amount to which people make their notions of Deity in their own images. As I already said, I don't much relate to the modern notions of forgiveness. Similarly I don't really relate to the society in which the older notion came from. But I can see how to someone from that society it would be natural to think of God as being like someone in power, only more so. With that in mind I much better understand the desire for sacrifices, and the concept of begging for forgiveness for sins committed, even if said being may arguably be ultimately at fault for said sins (see the problem of Evil). Note that understanding does not mean any feeling within myself of wanting to go out and believe, but at least the descriptions make more sense than they did before. Cheers, Ben
Post #18,302 by tseliot 11/14/01 4:35:04 PM Reply	Great! I don't mind disagreement... ...I just hate it when it's for the wrong reasons (e.g. poor interpretation) :D Both applications you pointed out were very appropriate, btw. And yes, God (or gods) were usually at the top of those social hierarchies. --------------------------------- A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly by the chain of their own ideas;...despair and time eat away the bonds of iron and steel, but they are powerless against the habitual union of ideas, they can only tighten it still more; and on the soft fibres of the brain is founded the unshakable base of the soundest of Empires." Jacques Servan, 1767
Post #17,242 by brettj 11/7/01 7:40:57 PM Reply	Forgiveness is divine. Those that forgive, freely and without condition, gain far more than the ones who have trangressed, imo. Forgiveness frees us from hatred and evil thoughts. Those that know how to forgive are usually much happier than those that hold grudges. I'm not sure if that answers your question. If not, you'll have to forgive me, even if I am not directly asking for forgiveness nor do I require it. (:
Post #17,251 by Ashton 11/7/01 8:14:11 PM Reply	A possible distinction. Though it may be a corollary of (actual?) forgiveness. Test case: I can forgive you but I can never forget.. Some observers of the homo-sap scene suggest that, "holding accounts" signifies some feeling remaining across the spectrum from, Nemesis..........Loving Friendship - and of course it is all about emotional judgment; facts have little to do with it all - they're so malleable. Now as in, don't think of an elephant, for the next 30 minutes! - we realize we cannot command 'forgetting' - but the desire to 'close the books', just might be how that gets started. ie. a desire to 'remember' is tantamount to not really 'forgiving'. Forgiving, I'd think, is an emotional judgement that an issue is closed / resolved. It may or may not signify a wish for further friendship - if that was tenuous before some incident. I doubt the concept can be parsed or grokked to fullness, in any event. Prose can't transmit emotion very well, and too few of us are reliable poets. Hell, look at the wannabe and actual suicides (at least those ones characterized as over, ~not forgiving Oneself!) HTH, but not sure if it does. Ashton
Post #17,269 by boxley 11/7/01 9:54:29 PM Reply	reminds me an irish elephant can never forget a grudge. :) thanx, bill tshirt front "born to die before I get old" thshirt back "fscked another one didnja?"
Post #17,268 by boxley 11/7/01 9:53:14 PM Reply	The best example of how I think about forgiveness Is discussed by Flashman during the siege of cawnpore getting ready for the last charge that will mean the end. I will lift this whole from his book. Scud East Please bear with me I know you are bitter, because you think I abandoned you in Russia, left you to die while I escaped. Oh I know it was my duty, and all that to get to Raglan... but the truth is" he broke off and had a gulp to himself"-the truth is I was glad to leave you. There! its out at last ... oh if you know how it has been tormenting me these two years past! That weight on my soul -- that I abandoned you in a spirit of hatred and sinful vengeance. No ...let me finish! I hated you then because ... because of the way you treated Valla ... when you flung her into the snow! I could have killed you for it!" Flashman He was in a rare taking, no error; a Rugby concience pouring out is a hell of a performance. He wasnt telling me a thing I didnt know or guess at the time-- I know these pious bastards better than they know themselves you see. Scud East skipping ahead I wanted to tell you and shake your hand old schoolfellow, and here from you that my sin is forgiven, If you can find it in your heart, I trust you can.... Flashman skipping ahead "Well you could go fart in a bottle" Scud East skipping ahead "I only need a word! I know I wronged you! I wondered if you too loved Valla? Did you love her? Flashman "About four or five times a week" I replied"but you neednt be jealous; she wasnt nearly as good a ride as her Aunt Sara, you should have tried a steambath with that one" Scud East Oh God Flashman!! You are unspeakable! Vile! God help you! Flashman "Unspeakable and vile I may be but at least I am no hypocrite like you; the last thing you want is god to help me. You dont want my forgiveness either; you just want to be able to forgive yourself. Well run along and do it, Scud and thank me for making it easier on you. After what you heard tonight your concience shouldnt trouble you a bit. ******************************************************** Forgiveness is a gift freely given, not earned. thanx, bill tshirt front "born to die before I get old" thshirt back "fscked another one didnja?"
Post #17,591 by Another Scott 11/9/01 5:30:28 PM Reply	Thanks. Thanks for the excerpt. It certainly clarifies the problems with giving out forgivness too easily. Forgiveness is a gift freely given, not earned. I sort-of agree. But it reminds me of cases where especially pious people have forgiven their attackers without any expression of regret by the attackers. I don't understand that - from a purely human perspective. I mean, I can point to lines in religious texts which describe the actions, and I can recall stories of people who were eventually moved by such forgivenss to change their lives, but it seems to me that too often such forgiveness is comparable to inattentive parents who let their kids grow up without supervision. It seems to me that it can often be destructive as far as helping to build a civil society. That's why I think it's best that forgiveness result from a meeting of the minds between the two parties - not be freely given, but not earned as a reward either. Thanks again. Cheers, Scott.
Post #17,526 by ben_tilly 11/9/01 2:24:55 PM Reply	I don't hold with forgiveness As a concept it simply doesn't make sense to me. A fuller explanation takes some doing. You can find such an explanation at [link\|http://www.perlmonks.org/index.pl?node_id=105921&lastnode_id=3989\|this link]. Please note that there I try to lay out in words what I have believed at a gut level for a long time. If you understand what I say there, then you will understand why for me personally the entire Christian story of Jesus dying to save the world makes zero sense to me on any level, from emotional to intellectual. I won't say that it is why I am an atheist. Despite feeling that way from a young age, as a teenager I looked into several religions, some quite seriously. But it is the biggest reason why I am not a Christian. In fact even when I was conducting my own personal religious search, Christianity never attracted me. I would look at it, because so many people believed, and then put it down again in puzzlement. Cheers, Ben
Post #17,539 by ChrisR 11/9/01 2:58:57 PM Reply	Clartification... As a concept it simply doesn't make sense to me. Are you saying that the concept of forgiveness is not useful for you personally? Or are you saying that forgiveness as a concept is not valid? A fuller explanation takes some doing. You can find such an explanation at this link. As I read it, you have two main points. First is tied to whether the forgiven person changes their behavior - those who say they're sorry and then repeat the behavior. This argument basically says that because some people have relapses, that one should never exercise forgiveness. The second argument has to do with one's predictability of future behavior based on past behavior. The idea is that the person doesn't really need forgiveness but rather needs to change the underlying behavior. Problem with such a behaviorilist approach is that it doesn't factor in that we are dealing with social interaction. In social interactions, a person saying that he forgives another for transgressions may well make the difference in determining the future interaction. A person that is shown love (perhaps that's a nebulous concept as well) is more likely to examine their conscience than one who is simply told to alter their behavior.
Post #17,550 by ben_tilly 11/9/01 3:57:24 PM Reply	All of the above It makes no sense to me. Literally. I cannot see the sense of forgiving others. If others offer to forgive things I have done, I am left puzzled. When others tell me they are sorry, I am left genuinely baffled at what I should do. What you are saying about the social value doesn't ring true to me, except in the most trivial ways. There are people who expect you to accept their apologies, and will get upset if you don't. This is true. However the vast majority of the social value is, in my experience, captured if people understand that they really can change my impression of them. I may not forget a negative interaction, and I certainly didn't forgive it. But still I am generally left willing (at least the first few times) to be polite to you, and I stand ready to learn that either said event was non-representative for you, or that you have changed. In other words the actual substance of what people seem to be asking from getting forgiveness I offer fairly freely. Furthermore I have far too often seen the opposite tendancy. People who do things, regret them, ask for forgiveness, get it, then do the same things again. For a classic example, alcoholic parents are infamous for acting this way. (Ditto with domestic violence.) When you give forgiveness, what lesson are you handing out? Too often it is apparently that, "I can do anything I want, as long as I sincerely ask for forgiveness later." Is that really the lesson I want to give? A related concept that is nonsense to me is "fault". Assigning blame seems to me to be supremely useless. Here is an example. My light turns green, and I start across the street. Some speeding bozo runs his red light and slams into me at full speed. My car is totaled. Whose fault is that? Well obviously his. I was driving, within the speed limit, according to the posted rules and lights. He was speeding, disobeyed traffic signals, and hit me. If my thinking stopped, as too many people's thinking does, at the idea of "fault", this is the end of the thought process. But the fact is that half of all accidents in the US happen at intersections, and half of those within 5 seconds of a light change. So by the simple act of not being in the middle of an intersection within 5 seconds of a light change, I can avoid a quarter of possible accidents. In other words it wasn't my fault that I was in that accident, but there is something proactive that I could do to avoid more accidents. Which is why to me fault is useful when dealing with legal situations written in terms of fault, and is otherwise a useless concept. I don't care if it was my fault, your fault, or beyond human control. I want to know whether there is anything useful which can be learned to prevent there being a next time. Cheers, Ben
Post #17,558 by boxley 11/9/01 4:09:24 PM Reply	Cheese! whats yer thoughts on TP up or down? :) tshirt front "born to die before I get old" thshirt back "fscked another one didnja?"
Post #17,564 by ben_tilly 11/9/01 4:31:22 PM Reply	You really want to know? I leave the seat on the toilet down, and the only case where I think the toilet paper alignment matters if if you have a cat. If the TP comes over from the top, kitty can empty the roll really easily, but not if it comes out of the bottom. So if I had a cat, I would have it come out of the bottom, but I don't so it is random. Cheers, Ben
Post #17,580 by boxley 11/9/01 5:12:10 PM Reply	Well small chirrun have the same effect seats should be left up until male chile aim=inside the toilet. After that default is down so you dont fall in in the middle of the night. thanx, bill very well thought out on position forgiveness tshirt front "born to die before I get old" thshirt back "fscked another one didnja?"
Post #17,671 by brettj 11/10/01 9:39:32 AM Reply	Not assigning fault and the relation to forgiveness. In your intersection accident scenario, both people can be seen at fault: One driver for not being offensive enough and one for not being defensive enough. Certainly the maniac speeder is more at fault if you really want to get into it but the point is that both people must look at themselves as being responsible for their well-being. The same can be said for forgiveness, perhaps? You may think forgiveness is not important because it will not change the other person, but it could change you! You can choose to keep negative thoughts about others or you can choose to get rid of them. How do you get rid of negative thoughts about others? Forgiveness is one way. Moving to another state, job or relationship are other ways. One problem solving lesson I learned early on is: "Remove the cause or dampen the effect". In my opinion, forgiveness is a way to remove the negativity from a perception (right or wrong) that someone has wronged you. Of course you may still need to take legal/defensive action against the wrong-doer but that doesn't eliminate the need to remove the negative feelings that exist, unless of course one likes to harbor negative feelings towards others. In summary: Sometimes it isn't the other person that will benefit by changing, sometimes it's important that we change/grow/adapt. Sometimes, our change will cause others to change, sometimes not. Without change, everything stays the same. (:
Post #17,681 by ben_tilly 11/10/01 1:50:57 PM Reply	I think you missed my point My point is that fault goes hand in hand with concepts of blame. But there are multiple layers and kinds of causes for every action, and I think the relationship between blame and cause is tenuous at best. In that example you say that the person who was driving within the traffic rules was at fault, if just less? To me that is just stretching the concept of fault beyond the breaking point. If everyone drove like that person, most intersection accidents would not happen. I didn't stipulate that said person was aware of how much they could reduce their odds of being in an accident with a simple change in driving habits. In fact driving within the laws is reasonable. Millions of people drive exactly like that person and don't get into an accident. There is an element of bad luck there. So how then are they at fault? Does it help any to walk up and say, "That accident is partly your fault. You can blame yourself for never having taken a defensive driving course." I have known people who seem to think that way. Every time they learn how to do something better they spend so much time kicking themselves for mistakes past that it is a miracle they ever learn. In fact some don't. Now perhaps my point will be better made with an example with more emotional impact. So let's take the example of rape. Clearly the rapist is at fault for raping. But that doesn't mean that there are not proactive things that a potential victim can do to avoid being raped. I don't think that many would say, "It is your fault you got raped, you didn't take a self-defence course!" But taking a self-defence course will reduce a woman's chances of being (successfully) raped. You see, being able to separate thinking about what can be done proactively from notions of blame and fault makes it possible to discuss and think more calmly about things. As for your comments about forgiveness, please read the rest of what I have written in this thread. I think you will find that for me the traditional notions of forgiveness tend to be far less relevant in that way than they apparently are for most people. Cheers, Ben
Post #17,711 by brettj 11/10/01 8:17:35 PM Reply	Re: I think you missed my point I think we are arguing the same point. There is no such thing as an accident, there is only cause and effect. Assigning fault is not the point in our conversation. I think the point is that if you want to protect yourself from certain types of problems then you need to learn about causes and effects in order to reduce the chances that you will suffer from such problems. This does not guarantee that you won't get into an "accident" or suffer an attack by a criminal but it should improve your odds of survival, as opposed to someone who has not had prior education. Of course, no one can prepare for everything so we have to adapt to our environment, eh?
Post #17,716 by ben_tilly 11/10/01 8:59:56 PM Reply	Um, not quite My point is that concepts like blame and fault obscure our thinking about causes and possible actions. (Here where I say "cause" I really mean "contributing factors".) Blame and fault are tied up with the concept that there are one or more identifiable actors that caused the event to happen. Find who caused it, and that is your problem. But this only takes into account the most blatant level of cause and effect. Often it is useful to think in terms of more remote contributing factors. For a programming example, in many languages you compare elements with ==, and assign with =. Well a certain amount of the time you are going to miss one of the ='s signs. That is just a common human typing error. This is why many wise programmers deliberately write things like this odd-looking: if (5 == $variable_here) { ... } Yeah, it looks odd. But if you make that typo now, it will be more likely to be caught by your compiler or interpreter. (I have seen people point out that if you turn on warnings, it can catch a missing ='s sign in what looks like a comparison. So why have the habit? But now to a different compiler or different language, and the warning stops working, but the habit still does.) This is orthogonal to the question of whether there is an element of luck and accident in the world. Whether or not you are ultimately fatalistic or think that chance is real, from a practical point of view we don't know the future or the rest of the world, and we will have accidents. But the fact that things are random and unable to be predicted in detail doesn't mean that they are uncharacterizable. Above in the programming example, the tip is valuable even if you regard all typos as accidents. It doesn't matter why you make typos. The fact is that you do. And certain typos are more common than others. Cheers, Ben
Post #17,718 by brettj 11/10/01 9:45:55 PM Reply	Life is sorta like an onion It has many layers. (you'll have to forgive me for digressing, I saw Shrek last night.) I think I finally see your point. The journey was quite intriguing. P.S. Do you agree with Asimov's statement that "Luck is the laymen's term for genius"? Just curious.
Post #17,774 by ben_tilly 11/11/01 4:05:24 PM Reply	I am mixed on the Asimov quote I do believe that there is an element of luck in life. However I also believe that those who are prepared for it are more likely to notice and fully use things that come their way. Furthermore it is also true that people like to protect their egos . One of many ways is to avoid comparison with people they think more successful. This can be done by putting them on a pedestal, cutting them down to size, or ascribing their successes to luck. For all of these reasons, even though I believe that some things just happen, I agree with Asimov that people who seem to have "all of the luck" generally don't. And people often ascribe things to luck that aren't really luck. But a final note. One point made in [link\|http://www.jimcollins.com/ViewPub.asp?id=186\|this article] by Jim Collins is that the very best CEOs always look to outside forces to ascribe success to. That means people around them, circumstances, and if all else fails, luck. So even the very best, it seems, may confuse their own accomplishments with sheer luck. :-) Cheers, Ben
Post #17,782 by Ashton 11/11/01 5:09:50 PM Reply	Karma? No, I have no slightest illusion that this concept (either) might be 'discussed' in any profitable manner. Mean only that - within context of above and your cite: One may make as good a case for 'Luck' being merely an (only seemingly 'logically' inexplicable) Other process, a super- (er meta- ?) process atop the other appearances we imagine are random.. or realize we have no clue about. At least Karma connotes an internally consistent metaphor, tied into other phenomena: no matter the impossibility of 'proving' (!) the ephemeral (or at least metaphysical, by def'n). 'Luck' is just so... conceptually sloppy! Y'know? :-\ufffd Ashton
Post #17,801 by ben_tilly 11/11/01 8:18:57 PM Reply	Which type of karma? There is something like karma that I can accept. Then there is the popular version. The two are diametrically opposed. The popular version of karma is that we are rewarded or punished in this life for the sins and good deeds of lives past. The world is fundamentally fair, we just don't see in this life the full causes. This is a theory that is very comforting for the powers that be, and is good for soothing the downtrodden masses. Who after all must deserve a little downtrodding, else they would not be in the downtrodden masses! But I can't buy it. Then there is another version of karma. It is the idea that your actions establish patterns that the world reacts to. Your actions create ongoing patterns with their own consequences. This isn't a theory that says that what happens is based on any cosmic fairness. Just patterns. The world is how it is because that is a stable pattern, and not out of any cosmic fairness. This is a theory which the rulers don't like so much. It says that they rule because someone somewhere decided to enforce power and managed to succeed and hold it. Armed with a theory like this, the downtrodden masses are liable to think, "Hey, we are downtrodden because we accept downtrodding. Doing something about it may be dangerous, etc. But it is up to us to do something about it if we want to avoid remaining downtrodden!" But from my (admittedly limited) reading of Eastern religions, this interpretation of karma is in perfect accord with what they say. (But note that the explicit goal of Buddhism is to try to break all of the patterns you are involve with. I do not think this possible, nor do I think that attempting it is good. But then again I am not a Buddhist.) BTW karma is not just an Eastern concept. While Western religions may not believe in life after life with karma ongoing, karma is the concept encapsulated in popular sayings like, "You reap what you sow", "What goes around, comes around", "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you", and so on. Cheers, Ben
Post #17,832 by Ashton 11/12/01 5:39:14 AM Reply	Between the two, the latter. The first idea - reincarnation (with 'forgetfulness' of some prearrangements made, pre-birth: of what is to be 'worked out on the Wheel? this time around') - does, as you suggest, mollify the Untouchables [cosmic plan and all] and facilitate the maintenance of privilege for the few. There are many reasons why I also find that model mechanistic and unconvincing. The second view is ~ close enough to work with as a replacement for Luck, IMhO. Undeniably (per historic records) certain individual persons have profoundly altered civilization's next course. Their behavior, discoveries - sometimes their general wisdom and.. altogether - what else but charisma? might be the common denominator. Thus "a One" Can affect all others, near-term and/or indefinitely. Agreed - any 'cosmic definition of fairness' is likely a Red Herring. While this branch of 'Karma' suffices as replacement for Luck IMO: it certainly doesn't settle metaphysical questions, reveal Truth - or any of those other wishful-things we imagine can be achieved with enough words (or a few Good Ones, even). That's the best we can do though - given common referents for words. So I'd leave it there re Karma/Luck. If 'the world' is indeed maya/illusion: most things we'd say about 'it' would be circular anyway. Odd consequence though: all the 'physical, measurable' becomes evanescent and without any permanence; the impalpable er ineffable, becomes: that literally timeless [Reality] whose attributes we can't fathom, decribe! yet (some say) ... might be 'reachable', from life (never mind the 'death' bugaboo -- that might not be Real either). :-\ufffd And people imagine Chess to be a challenging game (!) Now were there any sense of the rules for a Master Game - hmmm maybe there are. Namaste Y'all Ashton
Post #18,163 by brettj 11/13/01 9:10:16 PM Reply	Just being aware of the question is worthwhile. And, once again, I appreciate your detailed answer. Sorry for not getting back to you sooner but biz is getting a little hectic lately. With regards to luck, I prefer to consider the "luck" part of luck to be "random chance". I agree that being aware and prepared for random chance improves the odds of a person being "lucky". I've read your CEO article before (you posted it back in 1999?) and I think that level 5 CEO's were merely being humble when they credited their, er the company success, to luck. Humility is definetely an attribute of top-notch CEO's. IMO, luck more likely applies to Level 1 CEO's that just happen to be in the right place at the right time than it does to those that reach Level 5 status.
Post #17,543 by Another Scott 11/9/01 3:19:03 PM Reply	Thanks. And a little story. I appreciate all the responses I've seen. Perhaps there are semantics buried in what I'm asking and what we're saying. In your PerlMonks piece you wrote, As for forgiveness, I won't give it, and you hopefully don't need it. This is not personal. I simply do not agree with the word "sorry". I have seen too many people who will do mean things, say, "sorry" - and then having been forgiven will go ahead and do the same mean things again. After all, why not when forgiveness is so easily come by, what value does "personal responsibility" have? This paragraph helps me understand you a bit better. I think I understand what you're saying, but it seems to me that you're mixing up perfunctory and true expressions of regret. Just because others may be insincere in their expressions of concern or love or regret doesn't mean that yours need to be. My opinion is that forgiveness (again in the #1 sense) isn't something to be asked for nor given lightly. It should come after reflection and a true meeting of the minds. You also wrote, However I also try to avoid grudges. I try to seperate the person from the event. If your behaviour from now on indicates improvement, you will never hear from me about this again. I won't forgive you, but I also won't hold it against you. Because while I don't believe in repentance, I do believe in learning. Avoiding grudges seems to me to be a form of forgiveness. I don't view forgiveness as being a wiping clean of the slate. I don't think it's possible to "forgive and forget" but I think we should try to if the offender is sincere. Let's consider a, purely hypothetical, example. Really. No, I mean it.... Say it is your wife's birthday. You've picked up a piece of cake for her from the bakery on the way home. She's had a really bad day at work. After dinner that you prepared, you get the piece of cake ready for her, but she's tied up for a few minutes. You sit down to watch some TV or read IWeThey for a few minutes. She finishes what she was doing and comes in. You've gotten engrossed in the show or don't want to lose your train of thought and want to wait a couple of minutes. She gets upset, storms off and yells at you, bringing up some of the previous things you've done to annoy and upset her, etc. You know she's had a bad day so she's on edge, but you don't feel that you've been as bad as she says. An argument ensues. You're both angry and hurt and upset. You try, without much success, to calm each other down and say let's have the cake. She's still upset and says, multiple times, no she doesn't want it. More argument for a few minutes. She storms off. You get so hurt and frustrated you throw the cake away. She comes back on hearing the noise and bursts into tears. Even after sincerely apologizing, and trying to make it up to her, she's still angry and hurt by the incident more than a year later. You know she has an amazing memory and she'll be hurt by the incident as long as she lives. You know it will come back every time you do something to annoy or anger her. What do you do? You can't change the past. You can try to understand each other better and treat each other better, but that incident will always be there. Unless it can be forgiven. Is something like this unforgivable? :-( Cheers, Scott.
Post #17,559 by boxley 11/9/01 4:12:25 PM Reply	To a woman yes I said something a tad thoughtless on how aparticular woman addressed me. I tend to be sarcastic sometimes. Its been 12 years and she wont say it out of spite to this very day. Par for the course bud, get used to it. thanx, bill tshirt front "born to die before I get old" thshirt back "fscked another one didnja?"
Post #17,563 by ben_tilly 11/9/01 4:28:10 PM 11/9/01 5:11:48 PM Reply	Put it this way... There are three times when I say I am sorry. There was something I didn't know/couldn't predict etc which caused things to work out as I did not intend. In which case I will say what that thing was. I am sorry about bumping into you, I didn't know you were right behind me! I regret what happened and have something specific I will work on to avoid that happening in the future. In which case I say what I have to work on. I am sorry, while I am involved in things, I am not very attentive. But just tell me when you want my attention, and I will make a point of focussing on you so I respond to whatever you have to say. I sympathize with someone for some grief they have or are going through. In which case I allude to the grief. I am so sorry for what your daughter is going through. I wish there was something I could do... Only in the third case do I consider my expression of my feelings to be important. In the first one the explanation is what counts. In the second it is the specific resolution to keep it from happening again (or at least to have it happen less often). In other words it is not my sincerity or desire that matters. Instead it is the demonstration of willingness to learn. As for the specific example, the only thing I can say is that the most important thing for married people to work out IMHO is how to resolve conflicts. Because it is a certainty that you will have conflicts, and no other kind of conflict hurts so much. But I will admit to this. My wife and I had certain fights that came up over and over again for years. What they were doesn't matter. That they hurt, does. That they happened time and again also does. Then we managed to stop having those fights. Completely. It took me a while to believe that they were really stopped. But they were. Without going into details, the very fights that were the cause of the most grief became by their resolution proof to both of us that when it counts, we really can change. So I believe that it is possible to get beyond an issue. Cheers, Ben PS My actual phrasing for point 2 is similar to something my wife and I have worked out. If she is willing to specifically ask for my attention up front, I will make a point of giving it. An agreement like that may help with the issue that you described. Edited by ben_tilly Nov. 9, 2001, 05:11:48 PM EST Expand All History
Post #17,579 by Another Scott 11/9/01 5:08:29 PM Reply	Thanks. :-)
Post #17,618 by Ashton 11/9/01 7:53:52 PM Reply	Thanks for some lucid prose. It would seem that, while you 'keep accounts' (see no point in imagining you could.. forget, anyway?) there is an unusual aspect to your remembering. That is - you don't periodically 'stick pins in the effigy' (!) If that is too obtuse, I could expand. I do not doubt that you indeed 'work' as described - only I would wonder if, 'forgiveness' may not be so alien to you as you assert: it is / appears to be the periodic internal "dredging up and reexperiencing of a slight" - which is what many mean by - 'not forgiving'. Instead, you also notice periodically: if improvement has occurred. But all human relationship is based on the sum of all exchanges, some recalled more strongly than others. I see here a weighting which occurs - as naturally as the integral of the curve.. with inflection points noted :-\ufffd (Nahh - math will never apply re humans) Not trying to be cute here - but your view is more akin to ~ "a wiser 'forgiveness'" than not, as I perceive your words. Ashton
Post #17,749 by brettj 11/11/01 7:40:46 AM Reply	Compassionate feelings that support a willingness to forgive The 3rd definition provided by Dictionary.com seems to fit the closest to my interpretation of what forgiveness is all about. True forgiveness is much more than a simple pardon. Forgiveness is more important for the giver than the givee, if you asked me. forgiveness n 1: compassionate feelings that support a willingness to forgive. The 2nd definition at Dictionary.com has ties closer to the religious definition of forgiveness, along the lines of "forgive them, they know not what they do".
Post #17,771 by Ashton 11/11/01 3:28:45 PM Reply	Another incentive for developing that 'compassion' er common passion? Someone named Picard (no, not That Picard) wrote a book, Hitler in Ourselves. Got it somewhere.. Theme is evident, of course: nothing that is common to man is alien to me.. Less'n one is a hybrid that is.. I guess. A.
Post #17,985 by static 11/12/01 10:18:09 PM Reply	Yes, that occurred to me, too. After seeing Ben's post, I went looking in my dictionary, then went back and re-read the whole topic. I think forgiveness is in the first instance more important to the forgiver, because it should represent something they are giving up: namely some sort of claim of redress on actions by another. The importance of forgiveness to the recpient is that the forgiver has intentionally foregone this claim and thus can proceed to interact with the forgiver largely as if the prior transgression had not occurred. If the recipient of forgiveness makes the same transgression, than they are abusing the forgiveness. This is likely to make the other party either reluctant to forgive, or completely prevent forgiveness until restitution is met. Note that I don't believe forgiveness can be offered "instantly". Sometimes it may take a long time to forgive someone something. Wade. "All around me are nothing but fakes Come with me on the biggest fake of all!"
Post #18,164 by brettj 11/13/01 9:18:05 PM Reply	Maybe that's the real question? Who needs forgiveness more? I say the forgiver. You appear to think the forgiver also? (at least before the forgivee needs it) Someone else will say that it is situation dependent. Maybe it all depends on the disposition of the individuals involved? So what do you really think? Who needs forgiveness?!
Post #18,169 by static 11/13/01 9:42:31 PM Reply	I think that is situational. To put it another way: If I steal something from you as a result of a trust you had placed in me, then I need your forgiveness if I am to have that trust again. But you need to forgive if you want any benefits of giving me that trust. Now, if I do something against some random person whom I've never met before and am unlikely to encounter again - then I have little use for their forgiveness. But their forgiveness will enable them to enter the same situation with another stranger that I abused. Wade. "All around me are nothing but fakes Come with me on the biggest fake of all!"
Post #18,639 by orion 11/17/01 1:33:40 PM Reply	My thoughts God hates the sin, but loves the sinner. Sinners like Hitler who sin so bad end up in that bad place. The sinners that are more good than bad end up in purgatory to purge them of the sin-stains from the soul, then after they are cleaned up, can go to Heaven. Goody goodies who hardly ever sin get that special treatment and free ticket to Heaven. To error is human, to forgive is divine. Treat people like you want to be treated, forgive them if you want to be forgiven. If you forgive them, they are forgiven, if you hold them bound they are held bound. You cannot keep someone down without also holding yourself down as well. So it is better to forgive than to always seek revenge and payback. *Picking up the pieces of my broken life.*

Welcome to IWETHEY!