Liberating Minds


 
HomePortalCalendarFAQSearchRegisterMemberlistUsergroupsLog in
Share | 
 

 Molyneux's Philosophy of (un)Forgiveness

View previous topic View next topic Go down 
Go to page : Previous  1, 2, 3 ... 5, 6, 7 ... 10, 11, 12  Next
AuthorMessage
Guest
Guest



PostSubject: Re: Molyneux's Philosophy of (un)Forgiveness   Fri Feb 13, 2009 2:11 pm

Watch your tongue there! Any more of that and we'll have you BANNED!!! lol!

- NonE
Back to top Go down
Conrad



Number of posts: 5647
Location: Amsterdam, the Netherlands
Registration date: 2007-07-22

PostSubject: Re: Molyneux's Philosophy of (un)Forgiveness   Fri Feb 13, 2009 8:37 pm

NonEntity wrote:
Watch your tongue there! Any more of that and we'll have you BANNED!!! lol!

- NonE
'we', NonE, 'we'?

don't forget that I alone am the Decider
Back to top Go down
View user profile http://koenswinkels.weebly.com/index.html
Phlogiston



Number of posts: 640
Location: NOLA
Registration date: 2007-10-25

PostSubject: Re: Molyneux's Philosophy of (un)Forgiveness   Fri Feb 13, 2009 8:44 pm

I can't accept your de-FDR until you give me 10 days more of happiness

That sounds as bad as it is. Your true suppoters will be there when you go back to them with a simple apology and not 10x over.

Welcome to the boards How did you get excomunicated? What did you challenge/
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Forget Me Not



Number of posts: 30
Registration date: 2008-11-18

PostSubject: Re: Molyneux's Philosophy of (un)Forgiveness   Sat Feb 14, 2009 2:36 am

nelle - I very sorry to hear what has been going on between you and your friend, I'm finding it very hard myself to understand the cutting off contact so strongly side to FDR. When I was a teenager sometimes my mum drove me mad with her nagging and I'd avoid her as much as I could but so did most of my friends with their parents. I recall feeling hatred at times and I didn't feel guilty, I promised myself I would not be like that. Anyway I never lost contact with her but probably if I had of listened to Stef and his podcasts read his books joined the site made loads of new friends with so much in common I would have fallen into the FDR trap. But luckily he wasn't around then and I wouldn't of been bought a computor I'm sure. The boring old moral of the story is I may not have had a great relationship with my mum, but by staying in contact with her I stayed in contact with my brothers and sisters which I have a fantastic relationship with and at this moment in time I have been really glad of.

I really do hope all goes well for you!
Back to top Go down
View user profile
nelle



Number of posts: 628
Registration date: 2009-02-09

PostSubject: Re: Molyneux's Philosophy of (un)Forgiveness   Sat Feb 14, 2009 7:38 am

None - I'm sorry - I wasn't showing enough empathy.....wait! I think I was engaging in self attack! Oops....Let me try again...I feel that would be unfair if you had me banned........oh NOOOOO...that was not a feeling....ummmmmm.....brain explodes! lol!
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Guest
Guest



PostSubject: Re: Molyneux's Philosophy of (un)Forgiveness   Sat Feb 14, 2009 8:24 am

I love you

- NonE
Back to top Go down
Guest
Guest



PostSubject: Re: Molyneux's Philosophy of (un)Forgiveness   Mon Apr 06, 2009 2:09 pm

QuestEon wrote:
No, that's completely wrong. If forgiveness were restitution, then we wouldn't need two words for it! If I forgive a debt, that doesn't necessarily mean someone has made restitution. It often means just the opposite! Molyneux's idea that it is a "restoration of a prior situation" is, again, the definition of restitution, not forgiveness. The common definition of forgiveness is that it is a pardon granted whether or not full restitution has been made. So before the first minute of the podcast is up, Molyneux has it completely backwards.

Forgiveness is emotional restitution. I think he makes that pretty clear later on as he speaks about not being able to will forgiveness, but feel it as an involuntary response to someone's empathy.

QuestEon wrote:
The bare minimum. If it is the bare mininum, Molyneux is saying that more restitution--at the discretion of the offended party--must follow. This is someone who loves you, right? Should such a person be content in giving you the bare minimum? So now--in the opening alone--he has taken the definition of forgiveness to almost to the polar opposite of its actual definition.

This is pretty confusing reasoning. You appear to view love as some sort of a generator of obligation rather than a naturally emerging feeling for someone based on his or her traits. Then love is supposed to oblige one to forgive more easily? That doesn't make sense. It is exactly the loved one who can hurt your feelings the most, because by loving you invested most of your emotional self into that person.

Of course then that a bare minimum is emotional restoration to the point of equalization to a prior state, but more may be necessary to make up for the very fact that you were hurt in order for you to be able to feel confident that you wont be hurt in the same way again by the offending person.

QuestEon wrote:
"If I cut down a tree that falls on your house, clearly I've done a bad thing that I need to restore your house to its original state....the feelings of being wronged...these occur after the willed and malevolent actions of someone else."

He was apparently referring to a case where tree was cut down deliberately to fall on your house since he says that feelings of being wronged occur after a willed or malevolent actions of someone else, which is true, or at least one is to feel far more offended if he thought it was willed than if he knew it was an accident. In the latter case it would require material restitution, but due to knowledge that it was an accident emotional hurt would be neutralized and emotional restitution (forgiveness) may not even be necessary. Material restitution would be enough.

QuestEon wrote:
Perhaps Molyneux is suggesting a Freudian "there are no accidents" point of view? No, I think it's an insight. Molyneux appears to live in a tit-for-tat world, where every offense--from the most innocent to the most heinous--is a bad act that requires restitution. With the haughty grandeur of a true narcissist, it appears that he considers even accidental offenses against him malevolent.

You seem biased so this isn't surprising, but you're conjecturing. Of course all offenses require restitution. However purely material offenses require only material restitution whereas emotional offenses require emotional restitution, which is a distinction you apparently (conveniently?) missed. In case of accidents, as explained above, emotional hurt is not present and thus forgiveness becomes unnecessary because no malevolence was intended.

QuestEon wrote:
Again, that is insanely untrue. It is the very definition of and the only way forgiveness can exist. One must often make the choice to forgive despite lack of restitution because, as Danny so eloquently said:

This again stems from failure to make a distinction between material and emotional restitution. Of course material restitution isn't always necessary. Emotional restitution is, and it is always possible in relationships with mutual empathy.

QuestEon wrote:
Again, completely wrong. Molyneux describes forgiveness as an uncontrollable emotional reaction. Yet the heart and soul of forgiveness is granting pardon regardless of your feelings. If you no longer feel wronged, there is nothing to forgive! Forgiveness is making the decision not to hold a grudge and moving forward. Why does Molyneux not understand something so simple? Answer, next section....

And now you confirm the lack of making the distinction between emotional and material restitution.

What exactly is the basis of forgiveness at all if neither material nor emotional restitution is required?

You're in fact right when saying If you no longer feel wronged, there is nothing to forgive! but for a different reason then you think. If you no longer feel wronged, you already forgave, because if you no longer feel wronged emotional restitution was completed! Duh!

QuestEon wrote:
If you choose--if you make an intellectual choice--to forgive, it is only because you have fallen into the habit of self-attack. Choosing to forgive is weakness. Choosing to forgive is an act of self-loathing.

Yes actually, just as you cannot choose to feel happy if you in fact feel sad and just like you cannot choose not to feel pain if you in fact experience tooth ache. You cannot will the emotional and sensory input away, only repress it temporarily, which IS a form of self-abuse or self-attack, because you only ensure that the cause of your pain is never resolved.

QuestEon wrote:
So let's wrap our minds around that. In the Molyneux world, when someone offends you, you must remain at the whim of your emotions, nursing your anger and hurt until the offender (and let's keep in mind we're primarily talking about people we allegedly love) super-compensates enough that your negative emotion fades away. And you must fiercely stand your ground, hanging onto those emotions with both hands, because to do otherwise would be self-attack. Worse, you would be a victim of manipulation.

Conjecturing again. Nobody talks about "nursing your anger". That's again the same thing as willing a pain away except instead of willing pain away you are willing more pain in. Stef advises neither. He merely advises to be true to your feelings just as they are, not encouraging any more or any less.

But the way you speak of this reveals in plain sight just how biased and imbalanced you are in this so called "analysis", full of sarcasm and deliberate misrepresentation.

QuestEon wrote:
(By the way...now that you've read this far. According to Molyneux, it is impossible to grant forgiveness--but did you notice in the 02:41 - 04:13 section above, he suggests you can "withhold" it?)

That makes your bias as obvious as the morning sun. Never did he say that forgiveness is impossible. You simply inferred this from your own bias and now use it to project a false contradiction in Stef between the impossibility of forgiveness yet possibility of withholding it.

Your intellectual dishonesty stands revealed.

QuestEon wrote:
This sick way of looking at relationships is the "heart" of defooing. Despite appearances to the contrary, most defooed family and friends are rarely given an explanation why they have been kicked to the curb (Molyneux often encourages such action). After the defooing, most of Molyneux's followers receive letters from those friends and family with a reasonable, very sad request: "We apologize for whatever we did wrong--can we at least talk about it?" And these letters are met with stony silence--all because of the Empathy Catch-22. The argument is "you didn't empathize enough with me to even understand what you did wrong. This proves you do not love me, so I will not speak with you, (so now you will never know)."

He simply doesn't say that. This is another example of conjecture. If you've read Real Time Relationships you would know that he in fact encourages people to confront those whom they feel wronged them explaining what they find wrong. This is a way of simply communicating that they even feel offended.

Empathy does not refer to knowing that someone was offended or why before this was even communicated, but knowing what one needs to do to cause emotional restoration once they realize they've caused harm. As he said, it is about emotional understanding. Such understanding can only exist in truly mutually understanding relationships, obviously. If you love someone, you will KNOW how to make her feel better, but of course only after she told you she was hurt (which IS necessary).

QuestEon wrote:
Any attempt to communicate, to understand what the offended person needs, in Molyneux's view, "drives the possibility for forgiveness even lower," which he compares to asking a woman how to be the kind of man she'd be attracted to. It's a ridiculous analogy.

You can't buy love and emotional understanding dude. It's not a ridiculous analogy. You're just in denial. And for an "analysis", saying something is a ridiculous analogy simply doesn't cut it.

QuestEon wrote:
So, now, Super Restitution includes one more thing. Not simply material restitution. Not just additional compensation to encourage you to stop hanging onto your emotions. The offender must also have the mental/emotional synchronicity to know exactly what kind of additional compensation you require. If you simply tell the offender what you want, Molyneux says, "they haven't learned anything."

You are talking as if he was piling up additional upon additional requirements for forgiveness when in fact he is all the while explaining a single requirement: emotional restitution dependent on emotional understanding. Material restitution is irrelevant, it is emotional restitution to which he focuses all along and here further clarifies.

So far you're blowing up a hyperbole based on conjecture, misrepresentation or simple ignorance in what is supposed to be a logical "analysis". Pathetic.

QuestEon wrote:
This section starts with a couple minutes of rambling before we get to the quote above at 14:36. Molyneux starts by talking a bit about knowing when a relationship is over. It's just a hint of the need to defoo your friends. He offers up a dandy relationship calculator (10 good times for every 1 bad time). At about 13:30 minutes in, I think you're getting the clearest picture of how Molyneux views his relationships.

If you didn't have your head so deeply rooted up your behind you might actually realize that he was demonstrating the effect of having piled up unresolved emotional conflicts in a relationships where instead of attaining true mutual emotional understanding you merely blurted out some sort of a "I forgive" statement, if even that, while covering up rather than neutralizing your emotional hurt. It's clear that this builds up in time to the point where a lot more is required to win back full emotional understanding and with it a relationship that isn't based on pretension.

I was making the same kind of point to my parents back when I was around 18 years old when they were still fighting each other while somehow hoping that divorce wont be necessary. They had so much emotional baggage piled up that it was impossible for them to look at each other without feeling extreme anxiety. They couldn't stand each other.

This was years before I even knew FDR existed. When I've read RTR it perfectly explained what I've seen back then.

Conclusion:

You call this an analysis? I call it a hyperbolic rant of someone who from the get go had absolutely no interest in objective and rational evaluation of what was being analyzed and instead was already bent on portraying a particular caricature of the popular scapegoat on these forums.

Given that you were "analyzing" a podcast for which you say importance cannot be overestimated and is "the "heart" of defooing" and the core of Molyneux' philosophy you've done a pretty good job at DEFENDING that same philosophy. Since if this garbage of an analysis is the best you can come up with against the "core of Molyneux'" philosophy then I know that you have nothing of consequence to offer.

Thank you very much.
Back to top Go down
Phlogiston



Number of posts: 640
Location: NOLA
Registration date: 2007-10-25

PostSubject: Re: Molyneux's Philosophy of (un)Forgiveness   Mon Apr 06, 2009 5:44 pm

I don't get emotional restitution. If someone betrays my trust my emotional acceptance of them again needs 10x times of trust?
It seems to me that emotional re-acceptance of someone is qualified and not quantinfied. 0 or a billion appologies mean nothing. A ture change in behavior or charater mean everything. But how is that emotional restitution?
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Guest
Guest



PostSubject: Re: Molyneux's Philosophy of (un)Forgiveness   Tue Apr 07, 2009 12:54 am

It is indeed about quality and not quantity, however when speaking specifically of the difficulty to heal grudges which have been for months or years piling up because a person never actually forgave, but merely pretended to forgive, paying shallow lip service to the concept by simply saying they forgive and pretending everything is ok - that difficulty becomes greater the more times one exercised such pretension.

I would doubt that Stef is taking this 10x thing as some sort of a universally applicable formula. I see it more as a metaphor than anything else. He could've easily said 5x or 50x, the point would be the same.

Emotional restitution is gaining an understanding at an emotional level that both parties can feel so neither feels like they're pretending or "buying" forgiveness, but in fact truly know that this is it, he is truly sorry and wishes to make me feel whole again. So it isn't necessarily a change in behavior or character (since that change could be to the worse or to something irrelevant to the offended person), it is about mutual emotional understanding which cannot happen without empathy.

This is of course how true love should work, truly honest relationships between people of integrity. But that is so rare in this world that it is not surprising that people don't even quite know what forgiveness is and ascribe it to what essentially amounts to a big nothing - a verbal statement that is backed by neither physical nor emotional restitution and is even made despite what one actually feels. So many people today would call themselves forgiving persons simply because they can often utter the words "I forgive", regardless of whether they actually FEEL forgiveness, whether they actually FEEL whole and whether they still hold some sort of a repressed grudge or not.
Back to top Go down
T.E.M.



Number of posts: 281
Registration date: 2008-12-05

PostSubject: Re: Molyneux's Philosophy of (un)Forgiveness   Tue Apr 07, 2009 1:56 am

I'll second Phlog; emotional restitution seems like an incoherent concept to me.

This is why I think Stef's philosophy of forgiveness fails. Say I damage the relationship by being late for something; do I make up for it by being early ten times? A monetary payment? You define it as "gaining an understanding at an emotional level that both parties can feel so neither feels like they're pretending or 'buying' forgiveness."

That doesn't sound like restitution. It sounds like knowing (believing) that your friend/parent/whatever, isn't trying to screw you over. In a sense you seem to be agreeing with QuestEon because your 'restitution' is not really restitution; so you are saying that forgiveness does not require restitution-- which is at the heart of his critique.
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Guest
Guest



PostSubject: Re: Molyneux's Philosophy of (un)Forgiveness   Tue Apr 07, 2009 2:21 am

Making it up by being early ten times is again just missing the point. It's not some sort of a mathematical formula, but a metaphor for the increasing difficulty of reconciliation with increasing number of instances where true forgiveness was not granted and instead a mere appearance of forgiveness and repression of offended emotions was done.

How is it not restitution if the result is neutralization of negative emotion and thus a restoration to the prior emotional state? Emotional understanding is mutual, but the offender is the one who must show empathy to the offended and demonstrate to him that he truly cares and is truly sorry on an emotional level. This demonstration is an act of restitution. It just doesn't happen on a physical level or verbal level without any actual honest emotion behind it. It's not about just fixing a physical damage or saying "I'm sorry" a bunch of times without actually demonstrating that there is genuine feeling behind your words. You're giving him a piece of your emotional self as a restitution and demonstrating honest unwillingness to ever do the offending act again.
Back to top Go down
T.E.M.



Number of posts: 281
Registration date: 2008-12-05

PostSubject: Re: Molyneux's Philosophy of (un)Forgiveness   Tue Apr 07, 2009 11:25 am

That is not restitution. If I break your favorite croquet mallet, restitution means getting you a new mallet or something of equal value, not honestly feeling sorry and "demonstrating honest unwillingness to ever do the offending act again." If that is all I give you and it is good enough for you, you are forgiving me. This is why I believe "emotional restitution," is an incoherent term.

I do agree that keeping resentment bottled up and faking forgiveness should be avoided. However, keep in mind that the people Stef is talking to, may be people who have kept relations with such passivity very long so that it a large part, sometimes even all of it is their fault, the false forgiveness that is.
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Guest
Guest



PostSubject: Re: Molyneux's Philosophy of (un)Forgiveness   Tue Apr 07, 2009 11:31 am

You're talking about material restitution, not emotional restitution. Also note that emotional restitution isn't easily quantifiable. It depends on the kind of relationship you have, the degree of depth to which you're involved with a person and so on. But the point is restoration of a prior emotional state by an emphatic expression of the offender, which by definition is restitution (in the realm of emotions).

I basically keep repeating myself. If you can't understand it, well.. doesn't mean it's an invalid concept.
Back to top Go down
T.E.M.



Number of posts: 281
Registration date: 2008-12-05

PostSubject: Re: Molyneux's Philosophy of (un)Forgiveness   Thu Apr 09, 2009 2:33 am

I'll concede your point; it is a coherent concept-- though perhaps not that useful.

Still, I don't accept that in all cases it is impossible to forgive without emotional restitution-- especially given that it's so difficult to quantify. Most perhaps, though emotional restitution seems to almost blend together with forgiveness in some cases.

The other point I was making is one you should consider. Most of these people have been going through these relationships very passively-- that they have done so is their fault. Sure they should try to change it, but I think what Stef is telling them is similar to what you have a problem with when people blame their problems on FDR's influence. If people aren't assertive for a long time, and clear about what sort of "emotional restitution" they need, it may not be the best idea for them to start thinking about all the times they've forgiven someone but still felt resentment, since that is their doing.
Back to top Go down
View user profile
QuestEon



Number of posts: 842
Registration date: 2008-03-25

PostSubject: Re: Molyneux's Philosophy of (un)Forgiveness   Sun Jun 28, 2009 6:51 pm

mmvrs wrote:
What exactly is the basis of forgiveness at all if neither material nor emotional restitution is required?

Hi, mmvrs! I'm sorry it took so long for me to respond to your query. I hope you didn't get banned from FDR for posting here. Perhaps you had permission first? Or perhaps Molyneux forgave you (after you made proper restitution, of course).

Just kidding.....

Since this thread is old and dead, I don't think we need to tear into it too much again--I think we can pinpoint our difference in the one question I quoted above. This is where I think you disagree with what I believe to be the sickness in Molyneux's point of view.

The words "forgiveness" and "restitution" never have to appear in the same sentence. Forgiveness is something you give freely. It is exactly what Molyneux says it is not--something you will. Material, emotional--makes no difference. People often choose it because there is something more important to them than the reparation of a perceived slight.

I'm not saying it's something you should do or not do--that's up to you. I'm saying that's what forgiveness is.

And that's what makes Molyneux's twisted re-definition of it so revealing.
Back to top Go down
View user profile http://www.fdrliberated.com
 

Molyneux's Philosophy of (un)Forgiveness

View previous topic View next topic Back to top 
Page 6 of 12Go to page : Previous  1, 2, 3 ... 5, 6, 7 ... 10, 11, 12  Next

 Similar topics

-
» Twelve Principles of Native American Philosophy
» Philosophy of Chabad
» Forgiveness poem
» Full text of "Om Namasivaya" - Philosophy of manthra - includes 5 elements
» Asking Forgiveness of sins and ignorance

Permissions in this forum:You cannot reply to topics in this forum
Liberating Minds ::  :: -