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

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.

It depends; if you cannot communicate with someone through forgiveness, sometimes the best thing to do is to stop talking to them. — TimeLine

Absolutely.

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

This makes absolutely no sense. You need to explain this better.

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?

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

You missed a few things that I said, actually, but I am ok with that, just working with your flow. And yes, I did agree that some people can play the victim as a method of gaining power over others, but only after someone apologises authentically. It is immoral to do this. This is no different to when someone is artificially apologising, where if you continuously and blindly forgive then you are at fault also. It is immoral to do this as well. As for the latter, you become somewhat responsible in effecting change, to make them see that repeating the same mistake is wrong, but this is where it can get dangerous and why ultimately it is not our responsibility. I have always been interested in the latter, how this can be achieved ethically.

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

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.

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?

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

Welllll...I suppose so. If you stay that connected to it, though, maybe the 'victim' won't want to play. I was thinking for instance of having been bullied. I don't forgive the bullying, but I can engage socially, even in a measure of friendship, with someone who never explicitly apologises for the past bullying.

There's something in Levinas' talk of *time* that has really struck home with me. What matters to both parties is how 'present' the 'wrong' is in the present time - whatever happened in the past. If their past bullying becomes a presence to me now, I don't think I am at all reconciled to them, but if it doesn't become a presence, then I feel we can live together without forgiveness.

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.

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

Yes. I think there are more grades of coming-to-terms than 'shutting them out', though. Some things matter less once you're out of a situation for instance: the ex you hated for a while may become a perfectly tolerable human being again and you might even remember why you liked them, now that you don't have to live under the same roof and negotiate the same deals.

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

I think maybe this is part of what I was talking about. Being forgiven "puts me off." There is nothing the hurt party can do to take away what I've done, and there shouldn't be. I think feeling guilty and asking for forgiveness, or even accepting it, is a way of avoiding your responsibility for the consequences of your actions. Maybe you and I are talking about different things.

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

I have been thinking about this and I believe the way that I actually view forgiveness is that the word represents a longing or hope for something that does not come to pass. Say you love someone, your child for instance, but he is a drug-addict and you long that he stops hurting himself and to make himself better but it never happens, that is where the suffering lies, the desire for things to be different to what they are. That is how it is for me anyway; I have not suffered as a victim but rather I have suffered because the said-person is unwilling to acknowledge their wrongdoing, that I cannot reason or communicate with them, that my pain is caused because they don't care about me. It is a fight.

Responsibility is the key. I have always said that I am always there for others, always listening and helping others but no one is there for me; the moment I accepted my responsibility and circumstances, I no longer felt the pangs of loneliness because I no longer hoped or desired a friend to be there for me. I learnt to take care of myself, to take responsibility for my happiness by removing everyone wrong from life.

By the way, you don't know me so you don't need to compare yourself to me.

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

This is an interesting point. But I can see how novelty can emerge out of progressive imitation.

It is true that "being yourself" and such are praised, but as TimeLine said awhile ago, it is these very people who imitate the most who think they are the most original. So even the desire for novelty and creativity is imitated, which is precisely why these people all think they're original, while they are in truth exactly like everyone else. At this point in our development, the desire for novelty exists, so it will be easily imitated.

As for how novelty can first emerge, this would happen when imitation reaches some critical stage since people don't just follow one another, they want to be better than one another. So at some point, as imitation spirals upward and rivalry intensifies, something new is stumbled upon.

Given that you like JBP, you may like René Girard too if you read him. Violence and the Sacred or Things Hidden Since The Foundation of The World are good beginning places.

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.

I also think that you can be original, without being novel. Doing the same thing as someone else isn't necessarily unoriginal, if it did actually originate with you, even if it isn't new, and others have independently come upon the same thing. Both originality and novelty are epistemically, bound, as you can only really say "new to me", as you aren't omniscient.

And with regards to leadership, the phenomenon of leadership would be the sacralization of the victim (or scapegoat) by the crowd. It would be a prolonged part in the sacrificial ritual itself.

There are many ancient rites where before the victim was sacrificed, it was treated like a god and allowed to do whatever it pleased - it was given supreme power over the community. So phenomena of leadership are the same - the victim around whom the community is polarized is sacralized in what is effectively nothing but a longer ritual. Many leaders were in fact killed by their own people in the end.

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

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.

For example, the first murder of Cain killing Abel was something new, a novelty - which actually provided the foundation for the Cainite community.

Well, being a leader means taking more responsibility. As power goes up, so does responsibility. The point though, is like Jesus, they take all of the responsibility, but not necessarily any of the guilt.

I never said that. I said that they aren't opposed.

I never said that. I said that they aren't opposed. — 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?

If desire is imitated then desire has a mechanism of spiralling out of control. The more the rival desires the object, the more you desire the object, and hence the more the rival desires it and so on. This leads to both you and the rival becoming fascinated with each other (because it is your desires which make the object valuable and desirable in the first place), and hence a decoupling of desire from the object to the rival, which, in sexual matters, for example, can lead to homosexuality, a form of novelty. That's why I think imitation by itself can lead to novelty as it spirals and grows. Just like in nuclear physics, there is a critical mass beyond which a new phenomenon can emerge.

Because to do something new, is to no longer be imitating something in existence. You can't have both things. Either it is all a big cosmic closed circle jerk of limitation, or it's open, and there is the possibility for something that isn't just imitating something already in existence.

You seem to be saying that novelty grows out of imitation in varies way or whatever, which is saying that it isn't all imitation. I'm not disagreeing with that.

As power goes up, so does responsibility. — 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.

Because to do something new, is to no longer be imitating something in existence. — 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.

You seem to be saying that novelty grows out of imitation in varies way or whatever, which is saying that it isn't all imitation. I'm not disagreeing with that. — Wosret

Hmm okay.

Responsibility is taken on, it's what adults do for children, and what the children hopefully eventually do for themselves.

By the way, you don't know me so you don't need to compare yourself to me. — TimeLine

I've been thinking about your comment. I think my comment was appropriate and responsive. I was specifically talking about how differences in feelings, attitudes, and experiences have a strong influence on our philosophies and ideas. That's something I've thought about a lot. You use your feelings and experiences as illustrations and explanations of your ideas and philosophical positions. You wear your heart on your sleeve. To a lesser extent, so do I. I think the comparison made a legitimate and respectful rhetorical point. Was it too personal? Was I insensitive, It doesn't seem so to me.

As for whether I know you - I know more about the details of your life, history, and feelings than I know for all but my closest friends and family. Do I know you? Maybe not, but I can see you.

I think the comparison made a legitimate and respectful rhetorical point. Was it too personal? Was I insensitive — T Clark

The problem is that you don't know me and implying that you do only because I have spoken briefly of my past does not equate to actual knowing, which is what makes you insensitive and highly egotistical.

You did not know that I love hot chocolate and have it every morning, where I add a bit of quick oats inside it to make it thicker and when I reach the end, have this ridiculous sense of red-cheeked happiness and peace as I gulp down the oats and cocoa and quite literally thank God for being so awesome.

You did not know that I find myself singing I Want To Kiss You All Over like Adam Sandler while I am in shower but can never get that high pitched end right.

You did not know that I love putting on the heater full blast in winter while wearing my over sized parachute knickers eating ice-cream and listening to Nina Simone' Love Me or Leave Me or Jimi Hendrix' Bold As Love where I full on air guitar on the floor at 2.55?

You did not know that I love cracking jokes and having laughs and that humour is actually seriously important, that one who loves life is a person who loves to laugh, which is why I cannot stand people who cannot take a joke. I am with Zizek on this heart and soul:

The one measure of true love is: you can insult the other
― Slavoj Žižek

You did not know that though I am strict in my logic and reasoning, I am an idealist. That my decision to wait for the right man rests mostly in my belief that real love exists and that real love is someone I can call a friend. I have never met that friend, but I still believe.

You did not know that my favourite vegetables are pumpkins and broccoli, that I love watching dodgy action movies, that it takes me 10 minutes to get ready for a wedding.

And that is just scratching the surface.

What you have done is a classic interpretative error, where you attempt to articulate my identity by implicitly verifying an abstract belief based on what I write to be somehow legitimate. That is how ideology traps people. At an epistemic level, assumptions are the framework that can solidify uncertainties, contradictions, confusions into a generalised whole and you assume some sort of shared language, but this is manufactured by your ego.

I don't know you because you spoke of your wife, your brother, yourself. So, I say a few things about me, but being right about those few things doesn't legitimise your beliefs as a whole.

Broccolli? Weirdo.

Dude, after all that I said, that was what came across as weird?

That was the only part I believed. :D

8-)

What makes it unbelievable, kind sir?

What makes you believe I really believe it was unbelievable, kind lady? I think we really need to take this step by step.