The salon topics this week are really, REALLY good ones. I would love to hear your thoughts. Also, I realized that though the comments at the salon are usually very well thought out, the delivery of the comments is not usually of any significant length. In other words, if you want to contribute a wordy response - like I usually do - that's fine, but also just a one sentence, initial thought is completely good, too.
Everyone is welcome to contribute! Here are the topics:
1. What are the limits of forgiveness?
2. Is desire for freedom natural and universal?
3. Mass denial of impending catastrophe: any way around it?
10 comments:
I am only going to comment on the first one because I have thought about this topic many times through out my life. I think from a Godly perspective we should forgive everything just like Jesus does but I think our humaness gets in the way of this. Sometimes it is out of our control to fully forgive someone and only Christ can help us accomplish this.
1. It depends on what you mean by forgiveness. Transgressions have natural consequences. The family of a murder victim may forgive the murderer. That is, they may move beyond the inner animosity towards the killer, but the victim is still dead, and the murderer should go to jail. Should society forgive the killer and set him free? What would stop him from killing again? So, as an inner state I think forgiveness should be infinite, but as an outward amnesty? Not so much.
2. No. More specifically, everyone has a desire for freedom, but it is in direct conflict with their desire for security and stability. The balance between these two is different for every individual in every society. Some individuals are much more likely to allow someone else to hold the reins in return for perceived safety.
3. No. We will always have to fight against social inertia to get any action on any issue.
When you told us about the first topic the first thing that came to mind was a traumatic experience from middle school (ah teenage girls and all their glory).
When I was in middle school. My friends decided to play a 'funny' trick on me. They knew the guy I liked and decided to mess around by sending me notes. They even ended up paying him to pretend along. The day they told me I locked myself in the girls bathroom to cry for half an hour. This was most likely one of the most traumatizing events ever for me. Today my best friend was one of those girls. Although I have forgiven them, I will never forget.
I think that to an extent we can forgive anyone for what they have done because in their place, we would want to be forgiven also. However, we can never forget what happened. The relationship changes.
1. So this is a very interesting question and I think that the idea of forgiveness can be thought about on many different levels - inner personal, interpersonal, societal, and global - and it seems that the defined "limits" of forgiveness change with each level.
Before I discuss the levels, I have to say that I think that forgiveness tends to have a religious connotation associated with it, or really, a New Testament connotation since the Old Testament is not about forgiving so much and is more about smiting. We associate forgiving with divine providence since, well, true forgiveness is REALLY difficult -the whole "to err is human, to forgive, divine" thing. And there is an element of generosity associated with forgiveness (similar to forgiving a debt), as in one chooses to forgive out of the kindness of his or her heart. In fact, generally what is expected (and natural?) is the grudge
So apply that to the different levels:
Inner personal - forgiving myself is the one I find the MOST difficult because of my tendency toward self-loathing. The limit is rather restrictive because of who I am - the girl who hasn't forgiven herself for misspelling a word on her 6th grade history project.
Interpersonal - This one is the easiest for me because I don't want people to feel badly. I very much want to be the girl who finds it in her heart to forgive, even when it is difficult. The limitations here are rather broad, and even after having been kicked way too many times, I still forgive and honestly forget, because I'm not careful in my remembering.
Societal - This one fits somewhere in between the first two. Forgiveness is more difficult (and less likely) for me when we are talking about something that has no face. I can hold a grudge against a group that is racist, but I can forgive my friend who has racist tendencies.
Global - We tend to think of debt forgiveness when we think of global forgiveness, but at the same we hold grudges for past offences and this tends to be the MOST justified reason for the lack of forgiveness.
2. I don’t know. Freedom is an interesting word, and the answer to this question has everything to do with its definition. I do not think freedom is natural since most people (including our own) end up fighting to be free, or to attain/embody whatever their definition of freedom might be. We certainly need parameters (as children and as a society) to exist cohesively, but the existence of parameters means the absence of total freedom. So I guess my answer is yes and no. Freedom is only natural and universal in that we all assign a definition to what we think freedom is, and we work at attaining our personal ‘freedom’ goals.
3. I’ll save this one for next time…
1. What are the limits of forgiveness?
2. Is desire for freedom natural and universal?
3. Mass denial of impending catastrophe: any way around it?
1. Forgive Sinner not the Sin.
Problem though with letting state justice system take the place of genuine community led, post modern enlightenment compassionate but tough response (still to be discovered)
Locking up more and more killers is to ignore the societal reasons for murder and other crimes. No real justice, no real peace and therefore more crime
Basic principle is let God judge and to ignore the whole story of the person is to ignore your complicity (through allowing the present system to continue) in his or her crime
2. The only healthy desire is the desire to be free from desire
But also, in another more worldly sense freedom properly understood in political and democratic terms means that one day people together - and not the Man (whether that Man be CEO McDonalds, Tony Blair, George Bush, Ronald Dumsfeld or, the Man behind all of these, who is Satan) - will make the laws they agree to be bound by. And in that sense the desire for freedom, meaning democratic revolution is very important, wise and yes natural and universal. Anything less is imperialism disguised
3. Probably that same desire for freedom, coupled with the urge to forgive?
or, in other words a movement for Love and War, blended to make Harmony
Fragmneted bits heard at the salon (presented as statements -some of which I agree with, some of which I don't)
1. * The first person to speak directly linked forgiveness to Christianity - as in we can only forgive through God who can forgive wholly. That idea was disputed as in people are NEVER able to forgive wholly, that only God can, and that forgiving has to do with judging, also a task for God only.
* Offering forgiveness and/or not forgiving is associated with responsibility, esp. in cases of abuse
*Forgiveness is more personal - it is a freeing of yourself - but becomes a responsibility, esp. politically
* In a secular sense, the individual soul is disconnected with the soul of the world - we have to forgive in order to purify the soul
* To not be able to forgive is to suffer, and anger is a burden
* We are far too casual with forgiveness in America - it becomes a scapegoat (see celebrity apologies)
* Forgiveness is impossible for some
* Retribution and reconciliation are often words we confuse with forgiveness
* You can't forgive someone unless they are open to being forgiven "I come seeking..."
* "Prepare a cup of poison for an enemy and you end up drinking it yourself."
* An eye for an eye leaves us all blind - Ghandi That's why it is important to forgive
* The universals (love, religion, etc) are fine for reconciliation but not for forgiveness.
*John Donne - "No man is an island in and of itself.." We are all connected - forgiving or not forgiving affects the whole
Fragmented bits heard at the salon (presented as statements -some of which I agree with, some of which I don't)
2. *"desire" means I can choose
* Logic leads to freedom. Restriction leads to itself. Freedom is utilitarian
* Aristotle's definition of freedom is contemplative, a striving for virtue. The definition has changed. It has become more to do with self-pleasure
* Freedom must be associated with virtue
* Freedom is understanding your responsibility. It isn't a menu that you get to choose from
* Democracy and freedom are not synonymous(!) Democracydoes not always provide freedom.
* Freedom is learned (it has to be taught) and unlearned.
Fragmented bits heard at the salon (presented as statements -some of which I agree with, some of which I don't)
3. Impending catastrophe has to be in one's face in order for one to "do something about it" (especially if that something-in-your-face has to do with finances)
But also we tend to buy into the chicken little effect (see Y2K).
To: Mark :)
From: Rich and Ginger
We get what you are saying and aren’t disputing it, but we have some questions.
1. You say that instead of a state justice system, we must have a genuine, community led response, but a lot of the problems with the US judicial system come from just that. In the 80’s, the local grass roots majority called for tougher sentencing laws and the three strike rule, but those failed miserably in that our country has a higher percentage of inmates locked up than any in the entire world.
2. People’s desire for freedom is always balanced with their desire for comfort. (a possible definition of capitalism?) Maybe we are dealing with an exploitative imperialist system, but (for example) most people naturally buy products wherever they are cheapest, even if the product comes from a polluted and exploitative system. People have to be reminded of the exploitation because they work really hard at justifying their actions in an effort to save a couple of (hard earned) bucks. Otherwise intelligent people choose the imperialist system over freedom, and because they choose this, doesn’t that fit into the democratic system?
So how do you get people to make enlightened decisions, and how do you decide what enlightened even means?
How do you get people to not want the maximum return for their investments (whether we’re talking about capital, time, or thought process)?
1. There are different definitions of “ forgiveness”. A trickery, murder, making someone cry, etc. I believe the limits of forgiveness is more personal. All of us can be shallow and be stubborn at times. It really depends on what the topic of forgiveness is. We have to free ourselves from that forgiveness and have a broader perception of life. It also depends how much it affects us internally and we use our judgment to determine our forgiveness. We might forgive but we will never forget what hurt us deep down.
2. Freedom can have many different meanings. No, I do not think freedom is natural since most people end up having the desire to be free. I agree with the other quote that said “ Freedom is only natural and universal in that we all freedom is, and we work at attaining our personal ‘freedom’ goals”. I don’t think we can ever really achieve freedom in this world.
3. No. We will always have to fight against it if we ever want to get it done.
Post a Comment