Post #17,241
11/7/01 7:38:15 PM
|
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
11/9/01 5:16:20 PM
|
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
11/13/01 4:06:29 PM
|
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
11/13/01 5:35:15 PM
|
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
11/13/01 8:30:24 PM
|
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
11/14/01 1:09:24 PM
|
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
11/14/01 9:19:07 PM
|
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
11/13/01 9:32:31 PM
|
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
11/14/01 1:28:46 PM
|
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
11/14/01 3:11:15 PM
|
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
11/14/01 4:35:04 PM
|
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
|
