RoR: Forum

Thinking about this a little more, I think Rand was saying she didn't think of them after she made her judgement. That makes more sense to me.

Post 21

Monday, December 24, 2012 - 3:44am

That is what I got from it as well Tess.

Post 22

Monday, December 24, 2012 - 5:42pm

Nice post, Tress! Thanks. Your original blog post is careful, concise, and complete. Thanks.

The discussions that followed revealed some problems. Oddly enough, for a user of at least three different languages, Ayn Rand seemed to generally accept words at the dictionary level, at the "street" level. Now, yes, some words, such as selfishness, capitalism. etc., she really dug into and reconstructed. But "irrational" was not one of those. Contrary to Ed's statement, a stone cannot be "irrational." As he said, it is incapable of rationality; it is non-rational. US Foreign Policy is irrational.

The ir-prefix generally shows a veering off course. English has complex origins, absorbing many influences, so this is generally, but not always true. The ir-prefix has come to mean "not" as in irrevocable. The word "irrigate" was "inrigate" but we glided that into something easier to say. Those examples of ir- do not follow the rule: they are irregular. But if you look at all of the ir-words in the dictionary, you will see that generally, they refer to some kind of wrong path.

A weak verb makes its past tenses with -ed: stop, stopped, have stopped.
A strong verb shifts its vowel: ring, rang, have rung.
An irregular verb has a different rule entirely: go, went, have gone; am, was, have been.
But an irregular verb cannot take just any forms. They have rules, just widely different -- and they must be followed, though they veer from the norms.

Now to irrational. Someone who is irrational thinks that they are perfectly rational. They can apply logic, and point to facts. Think of a wild conspiracy theory, or a paranoid delusion, or the platform of the Democratic Party... creationism... existentialism.... take your pick. These are not non-rational, or you would not be able to understand them at all. They are irrational.

I think that the Superbowl is an example of cultural irrationality. Is it evil? Yes, in that the mania for spectator sports reflects a fundamental lack of objective values in millions of people, the Superbowl is an example of rampant evil in our society. But evil comes in degrees and the Superbowl can be tolerated as an annoyance compared to fallacies much worse.

Irrationality cannot exist independent of an irrational mind. Irrationality is not a metaphysical given. Ignorance is a metaphysical given: to learn, we discover. We know less yesterday than we do today (hopefully) but our earlier state of ignorance was not irrationality.

(Edited by Michael E. Marotta on 12/24, 5:46pm)

Post 23

Thursday, December 27, 2012 - 7:52am

Deanna/Teresa:

How can it be that you are both right in your assessment of forgiveness? And yet, I think you both are.

It is as if the concept itself is too monolithic; we need a term to describe the act of releasing that grasp that some trespasses hold over us, without actually forgiving the trespasser.

The Christian idea(not that I am one, but in theory, I was once standing in a long line to be one as a child), is to hand over the judgment and retribution and consequences to some unseen higher power, as a means of releasing oneself from the grasp of the transgressor/transgression. And there is a kind of real relief in that release, tangible.

When so much of us is consumed by the acts of others that might require forgiveness, we lose limited mental bandwidth to devote to other aspects of our living our life. This is especially true when the one we need to forgive is our self, for what we do to ourselves and others.

Maybe Steve knows of such a term; it would be like a kind of healthy schizophrenia, the ability to separate the transgression from the hold that transgression has over you. If we can bifurcate those two, we can release the hold without forgiveness. There are some acts which are unforgivable; we should know that in advance and avoid them like the plague. Forgiveness may be too broad an axe; it does release ourselves, as well, but it also absolves that which should sometimes not be forgiven.

A scheme which says all such acts including unforgivable acts are inevitable and unavoidable and the only solution is absolution is like carte blanche for endless strife. After all, in the aftermath lies forgiveness.

I'm struck by how many times life makes it clear that it is a mistake to lump too many things together at one time. Things seem to be easier to deal with in a universe of pluralities, not singulars. Free association, not forced association, even for concepts such as forgiveness.

regards,
Fred

Post 24

Thursday, December 27, 2012 - 12:30pm

MEM,

Thanks for keeping me honest. I agree I was playing too fast and loose with the term "irrationality."

Ed

Post 25

Thursday, December 27, 2012 - 3:04pm

I'm pressed for time now, so I'll just say that Steve described what I meant, and he is correct that we need a different word for it.

Post 26

Friday, December 28, 2012 - 7:59pm

Isn't what we actually do in reality called "compartmentalization?" Wouldn't a healthy view of life from the start help enable this psychological trait faster?

Post 27

Saturday, December 29, 2012 - 10:53am

Teresa:

I think that is certainly closer; maybe something like 'conscious compartmentalization.' Something deliberate, acknowledged, faced.

I don't know if compartmentalization, by itself, is always conscious or deliberate or acknowledged.

In the instance of forgiveness, of isolating the grasp of the transgression from forgiveness of the transgressor, I think we need to actually direct and see ourselves do those things.

Here is me releasing the irrational grasp of that transgression over a part of my life.

Here is me rationally holding the transgressor responsible and accountable for the transgression.

Including, when the transgressor is ourselves.

But true evil is unforgivable. I think that is what distinguishes evil from bad manners and misbehaving.

There should be mental police barricades surrounding evil; clear signs not to go there, because there is no redemption beyond. Murder. Torture. Rape.

Forced association is a slippery slope.

Not all of us heed the signs, that is why there is evil in the world. Or, we see the barricades as worn and wobbily, easily blown past. Because after all, some claim there is yet redemption beyond.

Perhaps it is a kind of evil to encourage others to ignore those barricades, or to suggest they don't even exist.

regards,
Fred

Post 28

Saturday, December 29, 2012 - 11:09am

Fred,

Maybe Steve knows of such a term; it would be like a kind of healthy schizophrenia, the ability to separate the transgression from the hold that transgression has over you. If we can bifurcate those two, we can release the hold without forgiveness.

Nope, I don't know of a term. I agree with your focus on the separation and that is what I'd pay attention to. There are different contexts here: The practical/legal/political, the moral, and the psychological.

Under the law, and with commonsense, we look to fix a wrong by seeing that the victim is made whole again. We want reparation, repayment, repair. Major crimes have so much harm that it can't be undone. The focus here is on the well-being of the victim and not the wrong-doer. Under this context, 'forgiveness' would only be open for considerations after there was a satisfactory effort by the wrong-doer to put things back to the way it was before. In this practical context, there is no 'forgiveness' for truely heinous acts. That would be one reason for the law to have life sentences, or executions.

The moral context is about a focus on the wrong-doer and change. Has the person changed from someone who behaved badly to someone worthy of forgiveness? I think it is always wrong to even consider someone for forgiveness when the crime is bad enough. The balance on that issue is about being able to have clear concepts of evil, which you can't do if you are going to turn around and forgive evil acts. Forgiveness, to be rational, has to be about a change in the person but it can't erase what has been done. Morality has a practical need for forgiveness as a path of perfecting one's self - as a way to move past honest errors, and small transgressions. It is part of moral growth, but it has to be balanced with the need for moral judgment and clarity on the issue of evil.

There is a psychological context for forgiveness for the victims (or spectators) that is totally different from the context for the transgressor. For the victims, it is about the healing. It is about the release of saying I'm not going to focus on this anymore. It has to come after a period of grieving. And it is not really about forgiveness at all. It is just moving on. In our Christian culture people might get there faster by 'forgiving' the criminal, but I don't think that's the best way to go.

For the transgressor, it isn't the act that is forgiven, it is the transgressor - the act stays wrong. And 'forgiveness' shouldn't be done unless the person has done all that is possible to make things whole, and has changed from the kind of person that would do such a wrong, and the wrong wasn't heinous - because some things must remain unforgivable, hence the person is never forgiven.

The forgiveness shouldn't be the goal of the wrong-doer, the restoration and the change of character are the goal and forgiveness would just be a milepost that might or might not occur. No one should feel an obligation to grant any forgiveness and it is wrong of society to make it feel like a moral obligation.

Fred wrote, "...we need a term to describe the act of releasing that grasp that some trespasses hold over us, without actually forgiving the trespasser." The heart of that is understanding that holding tightly to the anger at the trespasser is usually a part of the grieving, a part where we are still holding onto what has been lost. It is as if letting go of the anger (which means the trespasser leaves our focus) would be like letting go of what was lost. Acceptance of the loss is accepting, not just intellectually, but also emotionally, that something is no more. Acceptance is a full change from the world where we had that value to a world where it has ceased to exist and we are focused on other values. Emotions come from the subconscious and it is a powerful engine for the symbolic. Children symbolize the best of human possibility - all that could be in happiness and joy and unlimited achievements to come. And evolution has hardwired us to reinforce the valuation of children. The willful destruction of a child could never be anything but the worst form of evil. It is wrong to ask for forgiveness of those who harm children... and we want those who grieve to find peace. They are separate things.

Post 29

Sunday, December 30, 2012 - 8:38am