Post by avax on Oct 17, 2007 11:29:35 GMT -5
So I've been thinking of this lately.
Forgiveness. Does it necessarily have to do with forgetting? It's probably been well-established that one usually does not include the other. That we may forgive but not forget. The essense of forgiveness seems to be in acceptance and a willingness to move on from certain troubles. When someone says they are sorry, and assuming it is a genuine apology, they are essentially surrendering to a wrong (ideally). Or it could be that they have accepted the situation as being no other and upon finding that it can no longer be discussed, "sorry" ensues in an attempt and a desire to move to the next step, without grudges, without sadness, with or without the expectation that things would snap back to the way they were.
When a person surrenders or admits that they are wrong, it may or may not be with the expectation of being forgiven. But in many instances, a person may realize they will never truly be forgiven. When someone admits they're wrong, an apology is accepted, and they're forgiven, the wrong comes full circle even though scars are left. Provided no one has dementia or Alzheimer's.
Shackleton wrote that "by endurance we conquer". He was also an early explorer. The same way Livingstone became iconic to the British after he died, despite accounts of him being an insufferable wretch on many of his expeditions in South Africa. If we remove the heavy hegemonic contexts, Shackleton's thought can be applied to other areas. Why? Because in forgiveness, the act of asking forgiveness, we are already asking to be conquered in order to conquer. Conquest being the ability to resolve and endure. Consider the cliche, "in order to take two steps forward, we may take one step back". It is all part of the exchange but in asking for forgiveness, we are already expressing that we are aware and expectant of a greater good that can come out of a not-so-great situation. The greater good may not be for you (the one apologizing), but in speaking (in good faith) outloud to the other person for the other person's benefit. Sometimes it must be to just the thin air too and an act that must be done or voicing even if it's to deaf ears and nothingness. Do you believe in a god?
Believing doesn't seem easy. I believe it was McLuhen who said something along the lines of "existence should be violent". Violent in the sense that a body and a mind (preferably belonging to the same individual) manifests levels of agency in order for an individual to be dynamic. Existence should be violent equates to initiative and action, ideally with considerable thought. The desire for forgiveness doesn't happen with a voicing. It happens with a thought that begins and the mental conviction that a wrong has been committed. And it becomes violent with an individual who finds his or her voice. It is ironic that in most cases violence is met with disapproval (and for good reason) but don't confuse it with the desire to live so expansively, with or without being at the expense of others.
It's rather funny too. For most of my life I've always thought there was something "more", regardless of whatever situation. That a disgust for complacency and the lack of questions are unavoidable. I think I must have done it at the expense of others. I wonder if forgiveness has a meaning deeper than a simple apology, if it is simply a question of endurance in the most Machiavellian of ways. Is forgiveness something known and unspoken, or should it be a 'violent' act, with an expectation in the voicing?
I'm also plagued by the idea of miscommunication, lack of communication, and I think to be conscious without faculties, agency and the ability to expand or absorb this world must be a heinously despicable feeling. How strange it is that we take that forgranted.
Oh yeah, and that Eagles song gives me no rest.
Forgiveness. Does it necessarily have to do with forgetting? It's probably been well-established that one usually does not include the other. That we may forgive but not forget. The essense of forgiveness seems to be in acceptance and a willingness to move on from certain troubles. When someone says they are sorry, and assuming it is a genuine apology, they are essentially surrendering to a wrong (ideally). Or it could be that they have accepted the situation as being no other and upon finding that it can no longer be discussed, "sorry" ensues in an attempt and a desire to move to the next step, without grudges, without sadness, with or without the expectation that things would snap back to the way they were.
When a person surrenders or admits that they are wrong, it may or may not be with the expectation of being forgiven. But in many instances, a person may realize they will never truly be forgiven. When someone admits they're wrong, an apology is accepted, and they're forgiven, the wrong comes full circle even though scars are left. Provided no one has dementia or Alzheimer's.
Shackleton wrote that "by endurance we conquer". He was also an early explorer. The same way Livingstone became iconic to the British after he died, despite accounts of him being an insufferable wretch on many of his expeditions in South Africa. If we remove the heavy hegemonic contexts, Shackleton's thought can be applied to other areas. Why? Because in forgiveness, the act of asking forgiveness, we are already asking to be conquered in order to conquer. Conquest being the ability to resolve and endure. Consider the cliche, "in order to take two steps forward, we may take one step back". It is all part of the exchange but in asking for forgiveness, we are already expressing that we are aware and expectant of a greater good that can come out of a not-so-great situation. The greater good may not be for you (the one apologizing), but in speaking (in good faith) outloud to the other person for the other person's benefit. Sometimes it must be to just the thin air too and an act that must be done or voicing even if it's to deaf ears and nothingness. Do you believe in a god?
Believing doesn't seem easy. I believe it was McLuhen who said something along the lines of "existence should be violent". Violent in the sense that a body and a mind (preferably belonging to the same individual) manifests levels of agency in order for an individual to be dynamic. Existence should be violent equates to initiative and action, ideally with considerable thought. The desire for forgiveness doesn't happen with a voicing. It happens with a thought that begins and the mental conviction that a wrong has been committed. And it becomes violent with an individual who finds his or her voice. It is ironic that in most cases violence is met with disapproval (and for good reason) but don't confuse it with the desire to live so expansively, with or without being at the expense of others.
It's rather funny too. For most of my life I've always thought there was something "more", regardless of whatever situation. That a disgust for complacency and the lack of questions are unavoidable. I think I must have done it at the expense of others. I wonder if forgiveness has a meaning deeper than a simple apology, if it is simply a question of endurance in the most Machiavellian of ways. Is forgiveness something known and unspoken, or should it be a 'violent' act, with an expectation in the voicing?
I'm also plagued by the idea of miscommunication, lack of communication, and I think to be conscious without faculties, agency and the ability to expand or absorb this world must be a heinously despicable feeling. How strange it is that we take that forgranted.
Oh yeah, and that Eagles song gives me no rest.