I said the same thing in an earlier post, whereby people who economise their behaviour with others, seeking forgiveness not because there exists any genuine issue but rather as a display of authority and power, dragging things out unnecessarily to play the victim as an actual method to control. I — TimeLine
It depends; if you cannot communicate with someone through forgiveness, sometimes the best thing to do is to stop talking to them. — TimeLine
Hmmm, we need to draw a fine line here. I'm not talking about the victim abusing their status in order to manipulate. I'm talking about when the victim cannot forgive. This is the "hard problem", if you will, of forgiveness. The irony is that forgiveness is a responsibility that lies solely on the victim; forgiveness is it's own power that lies in the hands of the weak. I mentioned taboos; this is the taboo of all taboos: Only the weak can imbue the world with forgiveness, because only the weak possess the power to forgive. This is the entire crux of the fucking gospel, people. — Noble Dust
First of all, the sentence I quoted from you wasn't a complete sentence, so it's possible I mis-interpreted what you meant. It sounded to me like you were talking about victimhood as an expression of power over others. Was that wrong? — Noble Dust
There is such a thing as forgiving yourself and reconciling with your past; some people remain unhappy because they form a habit of unhappiness, it becomes a part of their identity as though the unhappiness itself is a form of happiness. There is a difference between playing the victim - that keeps one stuck in the same cycle - or being ballsy enough to understand your past - that allows you to move on. Real happiness is that peace you talk of, but not just peace around you, but peace with yourself. Unhappiness shows the lack thereof. — TimeLine
Frankly, though, I think I have achieved reconciliation with many people over my life without forgiveness, either by me of them or them of me. In such cases forgiveness would remove a part of me that I wish to keep: a sense of myself, of the wrong that was done to me. I can however love the person who wronged me. Forgiveness is not some sort of pre-requisite to that, not for me. — mcdoodle
I like this, especially the idea keeping a sense of self by keeping forgiveness out of it. Do you agree that it works the other way too - that I, as the offending party - might want to keep that sense of self, connection, to the wrong that I did? — T Clark
When you say 'whats in your heart' are you attempting to imply authenticity, the honesty behind an apology? — TimeLine
There is something in the ritual quality of forgiving that puts me off - I suspect it's a religious residue. Lucy Allais, a South African, writes about forgiveness in a political context, and warns of the pressure victims felt under to forgive, in the reconciliation process, which may not have been a healthy thing. — mcdoodle
Yes - Happiness = Peace. I don't need to forgive myself. I feel a deep sense of responsibility for my life. We're back to forgiveness vs. responsibility again. I'm as happy now as I have ever been because I've learned how to recognize my responsibility. You and I see things differently. Feel things differently. It's not hard for me to imagine how you feel, even if don't feel that way myself. I'm not trying to say my way is better, but It's definitely better for me. — T Clark
This is an interesting point. But I can see how novelty can emerge out of progressive imitation.Consider that if everyone is imitating everyone else, then it is a closed and finite system where the only introduction of novelty could be a form of error. The fact that "being yourself", "creativity", "originality" and things are held in such high esteem suggests that this isn't true. Imitation is only for followers, but at least the potential for genuine leadership must exist. — Wosret
Why do you think originality cannot emerge from imitation? Imitation involves a triangular relationship of self, model/rival and object. What is imitated is the desire of the model/rival for the object. But as this double bind between the model as something to be imitated and the model as rival - someone to be eliminated - is tightened, the emerging actions of both parties can lead to novelty.Well, I didn't mean to imply that I thought that imitation was opposed to originality, or novelty. I don't think that it is wise, or likely that you'll both reinvent the wheel, and do it better than ever from scratch or anything. I think that you have to move through influences, and surpass them for sure, but my point was only that it isn't all imitation, and can't be, but not that it totally isn't involved or anything. — Wosret
True, but you did say it isn't all imitation - that it can't be all imitation. So my question was why do you think it can't be all imitation?I never said that. I said that they aren't opposed. — Wosret
Exactly! But this is precisely to say that the leader is actually on the path to becoming the sacrificial victim. Because the sacrificial victim is also held responsible for both the crisis that divides the community and the aftermath of healing and regeneration (and hence it is seen as powerful). The victim is held responsible for the internal conflicts that arise out of imitation, and, paradoxically, for their resolution, because the community becomes polarised around the victim and responsibility for their own violence is transferred to the victim. When this happens the community unites once again - this time against the victim. This return of unity is, after the victim is killed, attributed once again to the victim, who is seen as a god.As power goes up, so does responsibility. — Wosret
I can see how what you say would be applicable if it was an imitation of actions, which were copied identically. But if this is seen as an imitation of desires, then I can see how new actions can emerge out of the intensification of desire for the same object on both sides.Because to do something new, is to no longer be imitating something in existence. — Wosret
By the way, you don't know me so you don't need to compare yourself to me. — TimeLine
I think the comparison made a legitimate and respectful rhetorical point. Was it too personal? Was I insensitive — T Clark
The one measure of true love is: you can insult the other
― Slavoj Žižek
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.