So, @Agustino, through a twisted tunnel of linguistic thorns we have arrived finally at the hidden palace of understanding. And what lies there awakening? Naught but the stunning realization: "To not forgive is neither right nor wrong". Oh, beauteous platitude we have won, forever be our bride!

How's that @Robert Lockhart?

"To not forgive is neither right nor wrong" — Baden

Only in that particular situation you have presented. And I wouldn't necessarily say that if a criminal goes to jail you haven't forgiven them.

I meant "... necessarily right or wrong". Poetic licence. :)

>:O

I don't think it is a very high bar to want to marry someone who you can have a rational conversation with; playing games, nourishing egos, that sort of thing is not for me. I ask for that since you will be spending a lot of intimate time together and most of any relationship is based on the conversations that you will have. If that is too much to ask, then I would rather be alone and face the hardships that come with that rather than be unhappy in a relationship as long as I am not alone. Lesser of two evils. — TimeLine

Here is my advice about how to manage your intimate relationships. This is based on decades of study and experimentation - Whatever guidance I give you, do the exact opposite. I have not been notably successful in this area. You know what you need to be happy. I don't. I would never criticize your judgment on that and I wasn't.

The thing I regret most about my relationships is that I was not friends with my partners before we became lovers. Love and sex are very dangerous. Friendship provides a protected place, a harbor, when there are storms.

I gots problems with my momsies too. I think that forgiveness is for you. It's letting go of hurt and resentment. You no longer feel wronged, or victimized.

Reconciliation is actually getting back on good turns with them, which requires somethings on their part as well. I don't generally talk to my mom, but it isn't as if we're on bad terms or anything. My sister is astonished at how I talk genuinely to her, and say what I think and feel, whereas she doesn't -- but this is mainly because our relationships differ. My sister generally got a lot more help from her than I ever did, it was usually her getting help from me, and I don't really care about not talking to her. She has nothing besides covert insults to reproach me with, and I'm fairly thick skinned, so they don't really work on me.

I don't expect to really hear from her unless she wants something, and she isn't that capable of a conversation, she doesn't really listen, and wants to just talk about how flat the earth is, or her alien blood, and royal lineage and things...

I think that I'm pretty good at forgiveness, but seeing as I'm a loner anyway, I'm not so great that reconciliation. I have broken off relations with many people, and I eventually come to a point where I see my own mistakes, or see where they were coming from, or am simply no longer angry with them so that I no longer feel negatively towards them, or bother to think of them at all anymore, but that usually don't imply a restoration of relations.

Here is my advice about how to manage your intimate relationships. This is based on decades of study and experimentation - Whatever guidance I give you, do the exact opposite. I have not been notably successful in this area. You know what you need to be happy. I don't. I would never criticize your judgment on that and I wasn't. — T Clark

T Clark, I am not asking for your advice, even one as hilarious as this, I am more than capable of being decisive in my decisions with people in my personal space and who I choose to have around. The primary impetus of every decision I make is based on the objective of happiness. I am asking what you think the nature of forgiveness is.

You can attempt to convey your answer philosophically (my preference), religiously, personally, whichever way you feel most comfortable in narrating your opinion as I will endeavour to translate it, but let it be an attempt at the very least.

The thing I regret most about my relationships is that I was not friends with my partners before we became lovers. Love and sex are very dangerous. Friendship provides a protected place, a harbor, when there are storms. — T Clark

Friendship is the fundamental basis of every relationship. People often come confessing their immediate affection and desire for intimacy with me without even knowing who I am, and that frightens the crap out of me because I never allow anyone into my personal space until I feel comfortable knowing that they are friend-worthy. The concept of 'brotherly-love' or the love between two friends, for me, teaches the most powerful lessons of empathy and it makes us care for the person as they are and not what they will give us that once two people have become friends, only then can they move on to become lovers. This then becomes the foundation of the relationship and so you love and respect the person for who they are as an individual and vice-versa while sharing emotions and experiences with one another.

This is why 'building trust' as said by @Baden is fundamental during reconciliation, because it is the same foundation that needs to be structurally applied to ensure that this process is genuine and will be strong enough to hold the weight of the arrow of time.

I think that I'm pretty good at forgiveness, but seeing as I'm a loner anyway, I'm not so great that reconciliation. I have broken off relations with many people, and I eventually come to a point where I see my own mistakes, or see where they were coming from, or am simply no longer angry with them so that I no longer feel negatively towards them, or bother to think of them at all anymore, but that usually don't imply a restoration of relations. — Wosret

I remember Michel Foucault due to the authorship of I, Pierre Rivière, having slaughtered my mother, my sister, and my brother talking about the differences between himself and his brother vis-a-vis their relationship with their mother, who appeared to be a difficult and dominating woman. His brother found it intolerable to a point that it affected his emotions and his capacity to function, possessed and perhaps even somewhat tortured by the profound confusion the emotion wrought, while Foucault himself managed and eventually transcended the emotional grip, perhaps for the same reasons I have, finding that intellectual foundation that enabled me to see things as they were and not entirely what I would like them to be.

I think that is the biggest flaw we have when it comes to familial relationships. We tend to view our parents in an idealistic sort of way, perhaps a result of our childhood cognitive limitations. We are told that 'this is what makes a good parent' or 'this is a woman who epitomises a good mother' and we therefore fail to acknowledge that our parents can also just be human beings with flaws. They are just like you and have little to no skills in raising children, perhaps even being a good person. What distinguishes between Foucault and his brother is this attachment to an ideal.

Those things and because you love her. — Hanover

This may sound absurd, but I love everyone. What I mean is that I believe in everyone, or that I believe everyone is capable of being loving, perhaps in a Rousseau kind of way. Whatever circumstances - being it social, economic, cognitive - that cause people to become evil does not necessarily mean that they have escaped their nature. Evil is psychological.

"ONE year ago today, a shooter entered a one-room Amish school in Nickel Mines, Pa., dismissed all but 10 girls, and fired at them execution-style, killing five before shooting himself.

Within hours, the Amish community forgave the killer and his family. "

Something truly inspiring really. — Hanover

The killer is dead. That changes the nature of this forgiveness.

I meant "... necessarily right or wrong". Poetic licence. — Baden

I'm with the thought police. Can I see your poetic licence, sir? Do you verily have a rhyme for your necessarily? Recite after me:

This Be The Verse

They fuck you up, your mum and dad.
They may not mean to, but they do.
They fill you with the faults they had
And add some extra, just for you.

But they were fucked up in their turn
By fools in old-style hats and coats,
Who half the time were soppy-stern
And half at one another’s throats.

Man hands on misery to man.
It deepens like a coastal shelf.
Get out as early as you can,
And don’t have any kids yourself. — Larkin

That is because a child takes the parent as a model of imitation. Even when the parent hurts the child, the child is still attached to the parent, because the very hurt signals a superior sufficiency of being in the parent that the child is shown to lack, so the child paradoxically seeks to imitate and become even more like the parent. This double bind is painful. The more violent the parent, the more attached the child becomes. The interiorized sense of lack always propels the child forward in seeking dominating models - the masochistic desire of course isn't because the child takes pleasure in pain, but rather because the proximity of the pain signals a self-sufficient model that the child can imitate and hence achieve the same self-sufficiency of being. The child cannot forgive the parent easily because the parent as model becomes rival - it is precisely in its rivalry that the parent is shown to have superiority of being. And the child wants this superiority of being. It is propelled by the desire to become invincible - of course a desire which is impossible and self-defeating. — Agustino

I spoke with you not to long ago about this subject and am quite surprised at your interest, nevertheless pointing out to you the Lacanian mirror phase during childhood is where we first establish an idealised version of personhood (through our parents) when we are children as a way to contrast with our own identity and it is thus the beginning of the formation of our ego. However, this identity is formulated on a rather infantile ideal as represented by our parents, something we start to doubt but we are not sure why and as we grow older we transfer this idealised version to society or other people. The emotive influence that compels us is because during childhood the identification process is emotionally considered the right thing to do that we continue believing that, there is no reasoning behind it, we just immediately and unconsciously believe that we need to contrast ourselves to others. It is how we learn.

We reach a stage where we no longer need to and unfortunately not many people reach that stage or at least transcend it because it challenges their identity and that can be frightening; the transcendence is when idealised versions of ourselves is through universal moral principles. We find that self-sufficiency because we are able to transcend this identification process from other people and start focusing on our own actions and behaviours, ultimately removing ourself from that emotional grip and start using reason.

I already told you - a choice. — Agustino

I feel like you are quietly adapting to the things that I say. It makes me wonder why you always seem to be antagonistic to my views and then sometime later you suddenly have the same ones.


O the magnanimity!

I spoke with you not to long ago about this subject and am quite surprised at your interest — TimeLine

Why surprised?

Lacanian mirror phase during childhood — TimeLine

Lacan was wrong. The mirror phase isn't only during childhood, it is for your entire life. Human beings, as per Aristotle, are imitative creatures. All of life is imitative actually, not just humans. Humans are just more imitative than other animals. What psychoanalytic theory tries to deal with rather unsuccessfully are the results of the decoupling of desire from the object (which Aristotle analyzed) and its refocus on the model of imitation. Its fascination with the model is what gives rise to psychopathology. Kierkegaard had some understanding of this too.

The trouble with Lacan was that he could never drop Freud's reifications to understand things clearly.

I feel like you are quietly adapting to the things that I say. — TimeLine

I don't actually share your view on this issue (at least I don't think so), there are some family resemblances though.

It makes me wonder why you always seem to be antagonistic to my views and then sometime later you suddenly have the same ones. — TimeLine

So you classify yourself as a determinist too? :P

Forgiveness, reconciliation, justice, revenge, anger, hatred, love.

Which is the odd one out?

Have I forgiven her because of my own experiences that enabled me to understand her better or have I forgiven her because she acknowledged her wrongdoing? — TimeLine

I@m reading Levinas at the moment. I think his 'pardon' is generally taken as something very close to forgiveness:

Active in a stronger sense than forgetting, which does not concern the reality of the event forgotten, pardon acts upon the past, somehow repeats the event, purifying it. But in addition, forgetting nullifies the relations with the past, whereas pardon conserves the past pardoned in the purified present. The pardoned being is not the innocent being. The difference does not justify placing innocence above pardon; it permits the discerning in pardon of a surplus of happiness, the strange happiness of reconciliation, the felix culpa, given in an everyday experience which no longer astonishes us. — Levinas

Such a philosophy is clear that pardon/forgiveness is part of a subjective view towards others/the Other. To feel somehow obliged to forgive means that forgiveness is not what's in your heart, or so I'd see it.

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.

I am asking what you think the nature of forgiveness is.

You can attempt to convey your answer philosophically (my preference), religiously, personally, whichever way you feel most comfortable in narrating your opinion as I will endeavour to translate it, but let it be an attempt at the very least. — TimeLine

I'm a little confused. I thought I had already done this. Anyway... Forgiveness doesn't really have any philosophical content for me. Maybe that's because I have been treated pretty well. My brother and I had some nasty interactions when we were kids. In the last 10 years it has turned out we are good friends. I think we were both caught a little by surprise. And then there's my wife, as I've discussed. My mother died when I was 12. That's definitely had a big effect on me, but that was no one's fault. After she died there was never a woman in the house before I left home. I joke now about my father - he was a good father, but a really terrible mother. But that wasn't his fault either. It's the way he was. I wonder how good a mother I would have been if my wife had died. Probably not very good.

I've been unhappy almost all of my life. Maybe that's it - I recognize that my unhappiness is not based on what someone else has done. It's based on my own behavior, failure, weakness, fear.

I guess that's it - I don't get it. Forgiveness, that is. I don't understand it. I don't need it - from either side. I don't find it satisfying when someone forgives me. It never even crosses my mind that someone might need it from me. I guess that might not be a very satisfying response from your point of view.

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.

I agree. The moon landing was a giant step for mankind.

Small step for man, giant leap for mankind. Though, being an astronaut isn't exactly normative, I think that people are generally more concerned with practical wisdom, or phronesis, how to live a good life, and be a good person in a way that is generalizable to all forms of being, and occupations.

Lacan was wrong. The mirror phase isn't only during childhood, it is for your entire life. Human beings, as per Aristotle, are imitative creatures. All of life is imitative actually, not just humans. Humans are just more imitative than other animals. What psychoanalytic theory tries to deal with rather unsuccessfully are the results of the decoupling of desire from the object (which Aristotle analyzed) and its refocus on the model of imitation. Its fascination with the model is what gives rise to psychopathology. Kierkegaard had some understanding of this too. — Agustino

Did you read what I wrote? We carry that with us because it weaves itself into the fabric of our identity, hence the ego, as we contrast and differentiate as part of our learning. It is how we perceive and interpret the external world and why language and communication plays a fundamental role and again why psychoanalysis attempts to articulate this narrative that we have formed. This process of identification is formed from when our language is not yet sophisticated enough to appreciate reason and while we may grow and develop, those emotive and imaginative attachments remain, the desire is the stimuli to this psychopathology.

I don't actually share your view on this issue (at least I don't think so), there are some family resemblances though. — Agustino

When you say love is a choice. Click the link, buddy.

Do you classify yourself as a determinist too? — Agustino

Nah, I like freebies.

Forgiveness, reconciliation, justice, revenge, anger, hatred, love.

Which is the odd one out? — Jake Tarragon

You?

My brother and I had some nasty interactions when we were kids. In the last 10 years it has turned out we are good friends. — T Clark

I can say this is also occurring with one of my sisters, not that we are good friends at the moment, but recent contact and communication has brought me some comfort in that our heartache and experiences are aligned at conscious level for the first time, and there is a sense of relief when someone can actually understand what you are saying. She recently had a baby and I went through some tough experiences that we both came to realise how much our mum suffered at the hands of a very cruel man. Her husband is American and very loving and kind to her that she realised through him that our dad manipulated and confused us into thinking we were bad or that something was wrong with us, whereas I was treated really badly that made me recognise the same thing. We both also decided to educate ourselves and I think this is what allowed us to form clarity to our personal difficulties as we began to appreciate how strong we are as women for having a really bad dad. The others, however, are still stuck in the cycle of thinking that violent behaviour is 'normal' which is what our dad wanted us to think.

I've been unhappy almost all of my life. Maybe that's it - I recognize that my unhappiness is not based on what someone else has done. It's based on my own behavior, failure, weakness, fear.

I guess that's it - I don't get it. Forgiveness, that is. I don't understand it. I don't need it - from either side. I don't find it satisfying when someone forgives me. It never even crosses my mind that someone might need it from me. I guess that might not be a very satisfying response from your point of view. — T Clark

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.

If I say "yes" (to seeking a just punishment) all the criminals in the world will think they're justified in punishing their victims, because their punishment is just (in their minds) - hence more violence. — Agustino

Most justice systems (Western ones to be sure) place little to no authority on the victim to seek punishment. The authority of the prosecution rests with the state, not the victim. Any person personally or emotionally affected would be disqualified from dispensing justice.

The point being that forgiveness and punishment rest in different people's hands, meaning you can openly forgive your oppressor for whatever reason you want, but the District Attorney won't care.

Additionally, the violence exacted by the state as punishment on the victim typically leads to the suppression of additional violence because when a community believes the punishment is fair, they respect the outcome as opposed to rebelling against it. Otherwise, you'd have the absurd conclusion that the eradication of societal violence would be achieved by the release of our most violent criminals.

I'd also point out that just like the state monopolizes the power of punishment, the victim ought monopolize the power of forgiveness, meaning no one can forgive you for your sins against me other than me. That's at least the rule in Judaism, and I suspect it's the rule of other systems as well.

I@m reading Levinas at the moment. I think his 'pardon' is generally taken as something very close to forgiveness:

Active in a stronger sense than forgetting, which does not concern the reality of the event forgotten, pardon acts upon the past, somehow repeats the event, purifying it. But in addition, forgetting nullifies the relations with the past, whereas pardon conserves the past pardoned in the purified present. The pardoned being is not the innocent being. The difference does not justify placing innocence above pardon; it permits the discerning in pardon of a surplus of happiness, the strange happiness of reconciliation, the felix culpa, given in an everyday experience which no longer astonishes us.
— Levinas — mcdoodle

I actually want to read more on Levinas, despite the fact that I had to read the quote several times before understanding what was being implied, which then resulted in an agitation similar to that against Kant or Heidegger where the explanation could have been dramatically simplified to enable accessibility. Nevertheless, the differences in the concluding effects is something to think about, whereby reconciliation needn't actually be 'become friends or associates' but rather being liberated to allow for happiness to be permitted somehow.

Such a philosophy is clear that pardon/forgiveness is part of a subjective view towards others/the Other. To feel somehow obliged to forgive means that forgiveness is not what's in your heart, or so I'd see it. — mcdoodle

When you say 'whats in your heart' are you attempting to imply authenticity, the honesty behind an apology?

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

This returns to my original point where I said the shift in my appreciation for the ethics behind forbearance in relation to reconciliation without necessarily forgiving the said party. The problem is that with forbearance you have to reconcile without forgiveness, to just tolerate that clearly shows - going back to your quote on Levinas - the 'forgetting' which is not really forgetting since there has been no forgiveness but rather nullifying any emotional connection. You shut them out, which is no different to simply keeping them out of your life. This is perhaps what we do with intolerable people in the workplace, but it would be something to think about if you do it with people you know personally. There seems to be some level of the lesser of two evils in a way where some people would prefer to live with someone who has wronged them rather than be alone with your principles.

Socratic notion that evil is ignorance. — TimeLine

Even Buddhism holds to this belief - ignorance is evil. According to Buddhism, ignorance of facts, e.g. not knowing the ephemeral nature of all things, leads to suffering. Now that I think of it, Buddhism takes an indirect route to evil i.e. it's not a well developed concept as is in the Abrahamic religions. Rather, the focus is on suffering and I suppose evil is a type of suffering. So, what I'd like to know is ignorance of what leads to evil?

I was hurt and there is no mistake in that. — TimeLine

Could it be that your ignorance of the facts - of the nature of people - led to your suffering?

Take heed to yourselves. If your brother sins against you, rebuke him; and if he repents, forgive him. And if he sins against you seven times in a day, and seven times in a day returns to you, saying, ‘I repent,’ you shall forgive him.”

The problem with that is clearly the authenticity behind 'I repent' that has always stood firm within me, where a repetition of behaviour clearly outlines that the person is unwilling to actually admit to his/her wrongdoing. — TimeLine

It's helpful to remember that this is a scripture where the Hebrew poetic device of intensification is being used; if he sins once, rebuke and forgive; if seven times, and he repents 7 times, forgiveness still stands. I would interpret that particular scripture as saying that the more chronic the sin, the more in need of forgiveness the perpetrator is. The intensification seems to signify how dire the need for forgiveness is, the more egregious the sin. So no, repetition of behavior doesn't necessarily always mean unwillingness to admit wrongdoing; it signifies an even more intense need for both reconciliation, and then subsequent forgiveness. Jesus seemed to prefer hanging with prostitutes, tax collectors, and lepers. Those at the bottom of the moral well seem to understand the heights above them the best.

Have I forgiven her because of my own experiences that enabled me to understand her better or have I forgiven her because she acknowledged her wrongdoing? — TimeLine

As someone else mentioned, it seems both.

So, why are you asking whether reconciliation and forgiveness are mutually exclusive, in this context, and/or in a philosophical context? Sorry, I was too lazy to read the rest of the thread, so maybe it's been addressed. It seems clear to me that they aren't mutually exclusive; it's just that they often don't accompany one another, due to emotional problems like denial, bitterness, pride, shame... But obviously the ideal reparation would be made up of both. So on a spiritual level, true reparations means reconciliation built out of forgiveness, driven by unconditional love.

Forgiveness is a sort of taboo; it breaks the entire structure of the world. Berdyaev said "pure undistorted truth burns up the world." Forgiveness seems similar; it breaks down the structure of reality. So people's responses to it tend to be polarizing; life changing transformation on the one hand, and violent denial on the other. As much as I'm no longer a Christian, I do feel a real sense of spiritual bondage in the world. The world is literally in bondage to the cycle of oppression and dehumanizing behavior; there are moments where an action like forgiveness attempts to cut the bonds, and a spiritual power fights back and prevents the cut.

Even Buddhism holds to this belief - ignorance is evil. According to Buddhism, ignorance of facts, e.g. not knowing the ephemeral nature of all things, leads to suffering. Now that I think of it, Buddhism takes an indirect route to evil i.e. it's not a well developed concept as is in the Abrahamic religions. Rather, the focus is on suffering and I suppose evil is a type of suffering. So, what I'd like to know is ignorance of what leads to evil? — TheMadFool

My understanding of Buddhism is limited, being more acquainted with the Abrahamic religions and it is a certainly well-developed concept; in Judaism according to Maimonides, evil itself is neither real nor is it a part of creation but rather a formation caused by the material world; ignorance to evil is exemplified in Cain and Abel. Our intelligence is a form that determines our nature and any neglect of this form becomes the source of evil, which is why we were given the scriptures and the commandments. This philosophy is similarly adopted by Ibn Sina vis-a-vis Islam, only evil exists because it is necessary to contrast good or morality as that ultimately maintains the cosmic order but those who are evil are determined by a choice to be ignorant. "Ignorance" is intellectual, a lack of willingness to appreciate the reason required for morality, which is where the capacity to resist the temptation for evil in the material sense exists.

Could it be that your ignorance of the facts - of the nature of people - led to your suffering? — TheMadFool

It is a combination. When you are threatened, for instance, of physical harm, there are a number of effects that this can have on you. You feel rejected, afraid, confused and this can show physically where you feel anxious, your hands shake, things start to go wrong for unknown reasons, weight loss or whatever. You suffer considerably and the reasons are factual, you were actually threatened and this had an impact, however knowledge - of the nature of people - can enable us to reduce that impact by understanding why this said-person threatened you in the first place; they are mentally unstable, or a drug-addict, or it is cultural. Sometimes, trying to find that line between the two can get blurry but it is reason and compassion that empowers us or at least repels the suffering. We also learn to avoid such people, keep them away from us and keep the right people in our lives that ensure the sustainability of happiness.

When you say love is a choice. Click the link, buddy. — TimeLine

Ahh okay. Well I don't remember disagreeing with you about that in the first place :P

It's helpful to remember that this is a scripture where the Hebrew poetic device of intensification is being used; if he sins once, rebuke and forgive; if seven times, and he repents 7 times, forgiveness still stands. I would interpret that particular scripture as saying that the more chronic the sin, the more in need of forgiveness the perpetrator is. The intensification seems to signify how dire the need for forgiveness is, the more egregious the sin. So no, repetition of behavior doesn't necessarily always mean unwillingness to admit wrongdoing; it signifies an even more intense need for both reconciliation, and then subsequent forgiveness. Jesus seemed to prefer hanging with prostitutes, tax collectors, and lepers. Those at the bottom of the moral well seem to understand the heights above them the best. — Noble Dust

I had the chance to experience Yom Kippur when I was in Israel late last year, where my housemate orally translated the somewhat conditional forgiveness in the Tefilah Zaka prayer and explained the meaning of this restoration of life (happiness) attributed by the purity of intention and devotion. One is cleansed by the honesty of admission, however the transgressions here are really those that we make. In a sense, this appeasement for our sins narrates an understanding of when others sin, it gives us compassion to sympathise or at the very least appreciate the possibility for atonement, but there is a reverse attitude in that the wrongdoer should seek forgiveness. Maimonides writes about making an effort to ask for forgiveness when you have wronged, a thousand times if he is your teacher, but in that effort if the victim still refuses to forgive then the victim becomes the sinner him/herself. So, it is not about making the same mistake over and over again and asking for forgiveness each time, but rather making an effort to ask for forgiveness over and over again for the wrong deed committed. That makes sense to me, our responsibility to uphold principles.

The way that I have always interpreted that quote is really about me, my compassion and perhaps even my strategic ability to effect change on a person who clearly has issues; it is not necessarily about forgiveness or to just say that you forgive, but rather one must always subjectively forgive, but act in a way that will enable them to recognise the wrongs in their behaviour (if possible). What I mean is that my heart always forgives but I don't always act on this forgiveness, because sometimes in doing so could result in the opposite effect that I intend.

So, why are you asking whether reconciliation and forgiveness are mutually exclusive, in this context, and/or in a philosophical context? Sorry, I was too lazy to read the rest of the thread, so maybe it's been addressed. It seems clear to me that they aren't mutually exclusive; it's just that they often don't accompany one another, due to emotional problems like denial, bitterness, pride, shame... But obviously the ideal reparation would be made up of both. So on a spiritual level, true reparations means reconciliation built out of forgiveness, driven by unconditional love. — Noble Dust

I think the question really stems from my experience where I came to realise that I have always forgiven her but could never reconcile with her because the latter is a mutual or joint effort that relies on communication, something she was unable to do previously. It needn't necessarily be admission - which is a type of expression that speaks of an honest desire to reconcile - but rather it could also be empathy, that while I may not understand why certain actions hurt you so much, the fact that you are hurting is also hurting me, and I don't want that. Love forms the fundamental basis of any moral action and I came to realise that any suffering I experienced was borne out of the failure to communicate and ultimately reconcile and not the need for forgiveness.

As much as I'm no longer a Christian, I do feel a real sense of spiritual bondage in the world. The world is literally in bondage to the cycle of oppression and dehumanizing behavior; there are moments where an action like forgiveness attempts to cut the bonds, and a spiritual power fights back and prevents the cut. — Noble Dust

I was recently asked to write an article for a hiking magazine about my trip to Hawaii, and I wrote the following about the meaning of Aloha. "It is an inherent respect for the eternal connection between the individual and nature, the fixed relationship between your soul with the very fabric of the world. It is the actualisation of compassion and empathy in every action and decision, in every word where the suffering of others also means the suffering within and where nature, animals, the earth as a whole is a part of who you are. One is committed to take care and protect the environment just as much as they are themselves. Aloha is not about the individual, but an individual consciousness of being a part of the whole."

I myself don't follow any religion, but I believe in God (without anthropomorphic qualities) and I think that the capacity to give love - call it unconditional, namely the capacity to give love to all - is the very moral foundation or consciousness in which we should struggle to achieve, because we are a part of a whole whether or not capitalism and economics would allow us to admit and it is our responsibility to care for others in as much as we would care for ourselves. That is why I appreciate the suggestion that we need to first take the beam out of our own eye first.

Maimonides writes about making an effort to ask for forgiveness when you have wronged, a thousand times if he is your teacher, but in that effort if the victim still refuses to forgive then the victim becomes the sinner him/herself. — TimeLine

I don't know Maimonides, but that lines up pretty profoundly with the attempt at a philosophy of atonement (or whatever) that I've tried to espouse here in general. That specific idea right there seems paramount to this whole discussion: the victim becomes the sinner him/herself.

my compassion and perhaps even my strategic ability to effect change on a person who clearly has issues; — TimeLine

But again, what change can you effect on anyone other than yourself? Even self-change is a mountain that requires immense strategy in it's climbing.

it is not necessarily about forgiveness or to just say that you forgive, but rather one must always subjectively forgive, but act in a way that will enable them to recognise the wrongs in their behaviour (if possible). — TimeLine

This sounds dangerously manipulative to me.

any suffering I experienced was borne out of the failure to communicate and ultimately reconcile and not the need for forgiveness. — TimeLine

Yes.

but I believe in God (without anthropomorphic qualities) — TimeLine

Oh? :P

I think that the capacity to give love - call it unconditional, namely the capacity to give love to all - is the very moral foundation or consciousness in which we should struggle to achieve — TimeLine

So you define unconditional love as the capacity to give love to all?

I don't know Maimonides, but that lines up pretty profoundly with the attempt at a philosophy of atonement (or whatever) that I've tried to espouse here in general. That specific idea right there seems paramount to this whole discussion: the victim becomes the sinner him/herself. — Noble Dust

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 know this from experience of minor things; I have done wrong and I would sincerely apologise and recognise my wrong, but they remain haughty and agitated and feel justified in being dismissive that makes you feel like there is worthlessness to an honest apology. That is just as immoral as it is for a person who fails to see the value in moral principles.

This sounds dangerously manipulative to me. — Noble Dust

It depends; if you cannot communicate with someone through forgiveness, sometimes the best thing to do is to stop talking to them. Your heart may forgive them, but what you desire is to effect change, for them to experience empathy and realise that their actions are hurting you enough to stop you from talking. Empathy is the foundation of moral consciousness. I hardly call that manipulative, though I can see where the danger in that lies. It is true, the only real goal we have is to effect change in ourselves, but the choices we make and how we act with others is a part of us already.

So you define unconditional love as the capacity to give love to all? — Noble Dust

Yes.