Forgiveness

[Dglgmut]

Thanks, you two. D. - it wasn't violation; it was full-blown abuse. Brant - I like your style.

D, you have the right take on forgiveness. It involves you and creating physical and emotional distance. Yeah, did that. There are occasional lapses (normal), but the trick is to look out for yourself. Haven't seen the abusers in 30 years; still some effects, but made it through. That's what forgiving is all about. Looking out for yourself. Do I hear the word selfish?

Well, I was just defining forgiveness, not justifying it.

It's not even a choice, really. You can try to forgive if you want, but whether or not you ever accomplish it depends on your honest evaluation of the people involved and/or the violation.

Acceptance and forgiveness are not the same thing. I accept that there's sharks in the ocean; I'm still not happy about it.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

I've said this before, but I'll repeat it.

When I truly forgive someone for doing me wrong, I feel clean inside, I stop worrying about it, but I lose some of my love for them. It doesn't matter whether they are repentant. If there was love at the start, it starts going away.

I'm talking about major wrongs, not day-to-day trivial matters. I navigate those by cutting slack for my friends and loved ones. That's not forgiveness per se, though, It's identification and acceptance of flaws because I love the person.

That's the way it has worked for me over the years.

Michael

[BaalChatzaf]

I would not expect anyone to forgive me for something for which that I would not forgive myself.

[Brant Gaede]

I would not expect anyone to forgive me for something for which that I would not forgive myself.

That won't stop us.

--Brant

[moralist]

However, the transgressor's apology pays the moral debt. And forgiveness, as defined, depends on an unpaid moral debt. That in turn depends on the recognition of the debt. Not counting it in the first place would be forgiveness and would be the act of the bigger person.

Wouldn't forgiveness be the acceptance of the transgressors payment of the moral debt?

I think of forgiveness as letting go of the negative emotions associated with the transgression. This is not necessarily done for the sake of the transgressor, but for the personal benefit of the transgressed.

Forgiveness is a selfish act.

[Selene]

If you substitute "abuser" for customer, you can get a lot of rewards out of practicing verbal Aikido...

The basic strategy in Verbal Aikido, called ‘reaching Ai-ki’ (or balancing the energy of an exchange) is centered on a simple three-step approach:

1. Receiving the attack with an 'Inner Smile' (see below),
2. Accompanying the attack to a point of destabilization,
3. Rebalancing the attack so the attacker may save face.

The above quote is from a different article on verbal Aikido.

The following article is impressive:

She starts with rule 1:

1. An Aikidoist strategically calms down the attack. This is done by both the use of relaxed body posture and open hands. Verbal attacks from irate customers also need the same calming strategy. In Aikido, the master will step aside rather than confront the attack. This takes the power and speed out of the attack and allows the master to stay centered and calm. When you respond to your customer with "Clearly, we've upset you and getting to the bottom of this is just as important to me as it is to you." anger begins to dissipate. You've addressed the anger directly and non defensively and you haven't been pulled into the drama of the attack.

http://ezinearticles.com/?Verbal-Aikido:-7-Ways-to-Handle-Difficult-Customers&id=417396

[moralist]

If you substitute "abuser" for customer, you can get a lot of rewards out of practicing verbal Aikido...

The basic strategy in Verbal Aikido, called ‘reaching Ai-ki’ (or balancing the energy of an exchange) is centered on a simple three-step approach:

1. Receiving the attack with an 'Inner Smile' (see below),

2. Accompanying the attack to a point of destabilization,

3. Rebalancing the attack so the attacker may save face.

The above quote is from a different article on verbal Aikido.

The following article is impressive:

She starts with rule 1:

1. An Aikidoist strategically calms down the attack. This is done by both the use of relaxed body posture and open hands. Verbal attacks from irate customers also need the same calming strategy. In Aikido, the master will step aside rather than confront the attack. This takes the power and speed out of the attack and allows the master to stay centered and calm. When you respond to your customer with "Clearly, we've upset you and getting to the bottom of this is just as important to me as it is to you." anger begins to dissipate. You've addressed the anger directly and non defensively and you haven't been pulled into the drama of the attack.

http://ezinearticles.com/?Verbal-Aikido:-7-Ways-to-Handle-Difficult-Customers&id=417396

That's very interesting and thought provoking...

Whatever emotionally upsets us also controls us.

For a fight to ensue, there first has to be an agreement, and that agreement is both parties each angrily blaming the other. If one person is not angrily blaming, a fight is not possible because there is no prior emotional agreement to fight.

[KacyRay]

That's very interesting and thought provoking...

Whatever emotionally upsets us also controls us.

Maybe this explains the tendency is some apologists to loudly and proudly declare their opponents to be ANGRY, PISSED OFF, HOPPING MAD, LOSING-THEIR-MINDS-FURIOUS when they are actually quite ambivalent. It is a false signal to the tribe that they control the other person.

For a fight to ensue, there first has to be an agreement, and that agreement is both parties each angrily blaming the other. If one person is not angrily blaming, a fight is not possible because there is no prior emotional agreement to fight.

You've clearly never been subject to an unprovoked assault. Believe me, if someone begins whooping on you, you'll fight. No emotional contract required.

[Brant Gaede]

That's very interesting and thought provoking...

Whatever emotionally upsets us also controls us.

Maybe this explains the tendency is some apologists to loudly and proudly declare their opponents to be ANGRY, PISSED OFF, HOPPING MAD, LOSING-THEIR-MINDS-FURIOUS when they are actually quite ambivalent. It is a false signal to the tribe that they control the other person.

For a fight to ensue, there first has to be an agreement, and that agreement is both parties each angrily blaming the other. If one person is not angrily blaming, a fight is not possible because there is no prior emotional agreement to fight.

You've clearly never been subject to an unprovoked assault. Believe me, if someone begins whooping on you, you'll fight. No emotional contract required.

You've heard of the Bubble Boy. Meet the Bubble Man.

--Brant

reality can hurt

[KacyRay]

???

[Selene]

That's very interesting and thought provoking...

Whatever emotionally upsets us also controls us.

For a fight to ensue, there first has to be an agreement, and that agreement is both parties each angrily blaming the other. If one person is not angrily blaming, a fight is not possible because there is no prior emotional agreement to fight.

Apparently KacyRay disagrees..

[moralist]

For a fight to ensue, there first has to be an agreement, and that agreement is both parties each angrily blaming the other. If one person is not angrily blaming, a fight is not possible because there is no prior emotional agreement to fight.

You've clearly never been subject to an unprovoked assault. Believe me, if someone begins whooping on you, you'll fight. No emotional contract required.

There is no such thing as an unprovoked assault... just an open invitation.

When the weakness of unawareness of your surroundings is perceived by a potential attacker, it offers them a ripe opportunity to pick the lowest hanging fruit. But if you make yourself inaccessible through your own awareness, they simply go find someone weaker.

Greg

[moralist]

You've heard of the Bubble Boy. Meet the Bubble Man.

--Brant

reality can hurt

Your awareness actually does form a protective sphere around you. Evil people opportunistically feed upon those who lack awareness of their surroundings.

Greg

[PDS]

For a fight to ensue, there first has to be an agreement, and that agreement is both parties each angrily blaming the other. If one person is not angrily blaming, a fight is not possible because there is no prior emotional agreement to fight.

You've clearly never been subject to an unprovoked assault. Believe me, if someone begins whooping on you, you'll fight. No emotional contract required.

There is no such thing as an unprovoked assault... just an open invitation.When the weakness of unawareness of your surroundings is perceived by a potential attacker, it offers them a ripe opportunity to pick the lowest hanging fruit. But if you make yourself inaccessible through your own awareness, they simply go find someone weaker.Greg

What if you're tired or frail? Give me a break.

[moralist]

That's very interesting and thought provoking...

Whatever emotionally upsets us also controls us.

For a fight to ensue, there first has to be an agreement, and that agreement is both parties each angrily blaming the other. If one person is not angrily blaming, a fight is not possible because there is no prior emotional agreement to fight.

Apparently KacyRay disagrees..

I'm ok with that.

It's our differences that make for lively discussions.

Greg

[moralist]

What if you're tired or frail? Give me a break.

Evil people won't. It's your own personal responsibility to be fit and aware of the world around you. Also, don't indulge angry thoughts in your head. Ill will attracts evil people to you like a magnet attracts iron filings because they sense that you are their own kind.

[KacyRay]

For a fight to ensue, there first has to be an agreement, and that agreement is both parties each angrily blaming the other. If one person is not angrily blaming, a fight is not possible because there is no prior emotional agreement to fight.

You've clearly never been subject to an unprovoked assault. Believe me, if someone begins whooping on you, you'll fight. No emotional contract required.

There is no such thing as an unprovoked assault... just an open invitation.

When the weakness of unawareness of your surroundings is perceived by a potential attacker, it offers them a ripe opportunity to pick the lowest hanging fruit. But if you make yourself inaccessible through your own awareness, they simply go find someone weaker.

Greg

Wow... you might be the most hardcore victim-blamer I've encountered in my life.

Have you heard of the Knockout Game? It's all the rage these days. I'm interested how you could consider that anything other than an unprovoked assault.

[Robert Baratheon]

There is no such thing as a "victim" in Greg's personal religion.

[moralist]

For a fight to ensue, there first has to be an agreement, and that agreement is both parties each angrily blaming the other. If one person is not angrily blaming, a fight is not possible because there is no prior emotional agreement to fight.

You've clearly never been subject to an unprovoked assault. Believe me, if someone begins whooping on you, you'll fight. No emotional contract required.

There is no such thing as an unprovoked assault... just an open invitation.

When the weakness of unawareness of your surroundings is perceived by a potential attacker, it offers them a ripe opportunity to pick the lowest hanging fruit. But if you make yourself inaccessible through your own awareness, they simply go find someone weaker.

Greg

Wow... you might be the most hardcore victim-blamer I've encountered in my life.

They call me "Mr. Compassion".

Have you heard of the Knockout Game? It's all the rage these days. I'm interested how you could consider that anything other than an unprovoked assault.

Watch the videos. The stupid knockout victims are oblivious to their surroundings. That's what the n-words look for... a stupid unaware mark. If you're aware, they move on to someone else.

It's your responsibility not to give evil people the opportunity to get at you. Otherwise you're fair game. In a dog eat dog world, it's in your best interest not to be a dog. If you can learn how to live in the world without being of the world, you'll be perfectly safe.

Greg

[KacyRay]

Greg, I have to say... I have spent maybe the last 2-3 years in various forums arguing against feminists who accuse me of being a victim-blamer because I think that we all have have a personal responsibility to look out for our own safety while still acknowledging that 100% of the responsibility for victimization falls on the criminal. I have fought those charges despite the fact that I consistently insist that no victim is to blame for their victimization (despite the fact that they often shoulder some blame for irresponsible behavior).

You are unlike anyone I've ever encountered. You are the archetype victim-blamer.

If you can learn how to live in the world without being of the world, you'll be perfectly safe.

I can't believe I have to point this out, but this statement is so far removed from reality that I can't believe it has been uttered. First of all, it's demonstratably false. Do you realize how easily you could have been in the WTC on 9-11? Or a passenger on one of the planes? Or a pilot on one of them? The only thing your awareness would have gotten you is that you'd have been keenly aware that you were about to die.

Do you realize that many "impenetrable" men such as you clearly imagine yourself are lying in the graves right now? Do you think maybe Chris Kyle was aware of his surroundings? Or did he invite his own victimization? How about Christina Taylor Green, 9, who was shot by the deranged lunatic that shot Gabrielle Giffords? Is she to blame for being too soft a target?

Do you think Michael Landsberry was just too tragically unaware of his surroundings?

The stupid knockout victims are oblivious to their surroundings.

First of all, you have zero knowledge of every knockout victim. Secondly some of them have been elderly, and you have no context in which to be able to speak with authority on the capacity of an elderly person to be aware of their surroundings OR their ability to affect their surroundings no matter how aware they are. You seem to have no problem flinging around moral judgments based on information you can't possibly know.

You have exposed a seriously demented side of yourself here. You're literally blaming *every* victim for their victimization. I can't imagine the malevolence of your worldview. I am beginning to suspect you are one of those dangerous people.

Oh, and then there's this...

Also, don't indulge angry thoughts in your head. Ill will attracts evil people to you like a magnet attracts iron filings because they sense that you are their own kind.

Is anyone else seeing this? Magic thought magnetism?

[Robert Baratheon]

Kacy,

Greg describes himself as a fundamentalist.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Kacy,

If you look at Greg's dogmatic statements through a metaphysical lens, I can see how you get to your evaluation.

If you look at them more like epistemological rules of thumb, there's a lot of good advice in them.

You're free to look as you please, but since Greg openly invites differences of opinion and does not get offended by them, I sense no danger in him whatsoever.

btw - I treat religions the same way as I do Greg's dogmatic statements. Rather than argue with them, I frame them in a manner that brings me value and discard the rest.

Michael

[KacyRay]

Don't mean to sound dramatic, MSK, but RB was right when he said that Greg (apparently) doesn't recognize the concept of victimization.

Call it a hunch, intuition, whatever... a man who does not recognize the legitimacy of the concept of victimization cannot recognize the legitimacy of the concept of victimizing. He said himself that he recognizes no act as an "unprovoked assault".

I realize he's a regular here and I don't him too well and you've hung out for a while (virtually), but I hope you'll understand why I would put myself immediately at a position of contention with someone who believes that all victims are to blame for their own victimization, who doesn't recognize that innocent people are often harmed by evil people just because the evil people are evil rather than because he innocent are weak and therefore morally culpable, and I hope you'll understand why I would regard a person who admittedly considers all assaults justified (or at a minimum - "provoked").

I hope you're able to connect the dots from what he's saying to what I'm hearing. When you say that there is no such thing as an unprovoked assault, you are saying that all assaults are provoked. When one believes an act is provoked, one typically believes the act is, to some degree, justifiable.

And when one believes that, one believes all acts of evil are ultimately justified, to varying degrees.

This isn't rocket science, man. This is reason 101. I am shocked no one else is catching this.

[KacyRay]

Greg, do you have any idea how disrespectful it is to the victims of unprovoked attacks to suggest that they are somehow morally responsible for what happened to them?

I wouldn't wish this sort of thing on you at all, but what are you going to say if you are ever victimized in a situation where you've been as vigilant as you could reasonably expect to have been? (for example, you're standing in a bank line and the bank gets robbed, you get robbed, and your teeth get smashed in at gunpoint). Are you going to blame yourself? Are you going to claim you weren't aware enough? Are you going to blame evil thoughts you might have been having?

Or are you going to do what I expect and insist it simply couldn't happen to you?

[Brant Gaede]

Greg, do you have any idea how disrespectful it is to the victims of unprovoked attacks to suggest that they are somehow morally responsible for what happened to them?

I wouldn't wish this sort of thing on you at all, but what are you going to say if you are ever victimized in a situation where you've been as vigilant as you could reasonably expect to have been? (for example, you're standing in a bank line and the bank gets robbed, you get robbed, and your teeth get smashed in at gunpoint). Are you going to blame yourself? Are you going to claim you weren't aware enough? Are you going to blame evil thoughts you might have been having?

Or are you going to do what I expect and insist it simply couldn't happen to you?

Don't try to hard to reason with Greg, Kacy. You'll find yourself in an infinite loop as he keeps repeating himself. Epistemologically there is nothing there except God. That said he does put out some good stuff if you refine it somewhat--that is, if you care to. The opposite of victimization is self responsibility and the latter is what he is good at, but he takes it to your noted extreme through gross rationalizations.

--Brant