Forgive, but not forget.
We hear that in connection with tragic events caused by fellow human beings.
You know, it's a lot easier to forget than to forgive. Even when we can no longer recall the details of traumatic or unpleasant happenings, the feelings of agony, anger, torment, and so forth are often still there.
Your pessimism again!
I'm sure you have one of those memories that involve your parents; you don't remember what kind of wrongdoing you committed, but you remember the pain of punishment.
Like inserting a garden hose into the exhaust pipe of the family car and... well, I got locked up.
Most of us have some friends with whom we broke up long time ago. We know what kind of feelings we have for them, but not all that took place.
Sometimes we only remember the worst thing that happened, which is usually the last dealing with that friend. But I think the potential for a break-up usually builds up as small negative experiences accumulate. It is the last one that tips the scale.
Let's say the last experience before the break-up is of magnitude -100. But positive experience of magnitude +100 usually does not tip the scale back. Forgiving does not come that easily.
Why do you think that is?
When you are put under distress, whether corporal or carnal, it's natural to signal that you do not want that to happen again. You can do so by making the "aggressor" uncomfortable.
I think it is also about getting even, or revenge.
My question is why we cannot pretend as if it were trivial. That could be a sign of strength and a deterrent against similar incidents in the future.
The "aggressor" would not be thinking, "Hey, this guy thinks what I did to him is nothing. He must be really tough. I'd better stay away." Instead, it would be, "Ha, he still has not gotten the message. I am going to finish him off by taking a tougher approach."
I guess fending off is always considered weaker than going out and attacking.
That must be how violence is propagated.
It is miraculous that Mahatma Gandhi's non-violence movement succeeded at all. Besides, if you were a victim of a genocide, you can't say "Genocide? Oh, that was nothing."
You may be too dead to utter a word...
That means the guilty party of the most thorough massacre gets off the easiest, because there is nobody left to speak of the tragedy from the victims' side.
What about the so-called unintentional damage? In many cases, the "aggressor" claims that he did not know what he was doing.
Considering that we constantly rewrite history and can easily believe in the version that is most convenient to us, lack of intention is an extremely weak defense.
If we truly do not know what damage we are causing, we continue to engage in that action, too.
In case it is up to the "victim" to make the "aggressor" aware of what he is doing, that is also problematic. The "aggressor" may just tell the "victim" that he needs character building.
That could be genuine lack of compassion and understanding or refusal to acknowledge one's fault.
On a more mundane level, we tend to fault the "victims" who remain angry and vengeful. In my mind, we are asking too much. They had to suffer in the first place, and then, we are asking them to act as if the suffering did not take place.
I think that is simply because it is unpleasant to be with a person who is bitter and angry.
That means, when we urge others to forgive, there is a self-serving element in it.
I wouldn't deny that. But it is also true that anger takes up a lot of energy. Unless the target is not shifted, the energy is wasted.
Sports and arts could be outlets for intense emotions.
Yes, sublimation is what I have in mind. More generally, negative feelings can be transformed into a propeller for achieving difficult goals. If the "victim" does not make that transformation, he may end up wasting his whole life.
How lopsided! We are asking the "victims" to take care of the trauma by themselves.
Is there anything in life that is fair?
We hear that in connection with tragic events caused by fellow human beings.
You know, it's a lot easier to forget than to forgive. Even when we can no longer recall the details of traumatic or unpleasant happenings, the feelings of agony, anger, torment, and so forth are often still there.
Your pessimism again!
I'm sure you have one of those memories that involve your parents; you don't remember what kind of wrongdoing you committed, but you remember the pain of punishment.
Like inserting a garden hose into the exhaust pipe of the family car and... well, I got locked up.
Most of us have some friends with whom we broke up long time ago. We know what kind of feelings we have for them, but not all that took place.
Sometimes we only remember the worst thing that happened, which is usually the last dealing with that friend. But I think the potential for a break-up usually builds up as small negative experiences accumulate. It is the last one that tips the scale.
Let's say the last experience before the break-up is of magnitude -100. But positive experience of magnitude +100 usually does not tip the scale back. Forgiving does not come that easily.
Why do you think that is?
When you are put under distress, whether corporal or carnal, it's natural to signal that you do not want that to happen again. You can do so by making the "aggressor" uncomfortable.
I think it is also about getting even, or revenge.
My question is why we cannot pretend as if it were trivial. That could be a sign of strength and a deterrent against similar incidents in the future.
The "aggressor" would not be thinking, "Hey, this guy thinks what I did to him is nothing. He must be really tough. I'd better stay away." Instead, it would be, "Ha, he still has not gotten the message. I am going to finish him off by taking a tougher approach."
I guess fending off is always considered weaker than going out and attacking.
That must be how violence is propagated.
It is miraculous that Mahatma Gandhi's non-violence movement succeeded at all. Besides, if you were a victim of a genocide, you can't say "Genocide? Oh, that was nothing."
You may be too dead to utter a word...
That means the guilty party of the most thorough massacre gets off the easiest, because there is nobody left to speak of the tragedy from the victims' side.
What about the so-called unintentional damage? In many cases, the "aggressor" claims that he did not know what he was doing.
Considering that we constantly rewrite history and can easily believe in the version that is most convenient to us, lack of intention is an extremely weak defense.
If we truly do not know what damage we are causing, we continue to engage in that action, too.
In case it is up to the "victim" to make the "aggressor" aware of what he is doing, that is also problematic. The "aggressor" may just tell the "victim" that he needs character building.
That could be genuine lack of compassion and understanding or refusal to acknowledge one's fault.
On a more mundane level, we tend to fault the "victims" who remain angry and vengeful. In my mind, we are asking too much. They had to suffer in the first place, and then, we are asking them to act as if the suffering did not take place.
I think that is simply because it is unpleasant to be with a person who is bitter and angry.
That means, when we urge others to forgive, there is a self-serving element in it.
I wouldn't deny that. But it is also true that anger takes up a lot of energy. Unless the target is not shifted, the energy is wasted.
Sports and arts could be outlets for intense emotions.
Yes, sublimation is what I have in mind. More generally, negative feelings can be transformed into a propeller for achieving difficult goals. If the "victim" does not make that transformation, he may end up wasting his whole life.
How lopsided! We are asking the "victims" to take care of the trauma by themselves.
Is there anything in life that is fair?
Posts
