Gratitude Lounge

I’m grateful for all the ‘Words of the Days’, including this one from 6-1-20: “For us to transform as a society, we have to allow ourselves to be transformed as individuals. And for us to be transformed…we have to allow for the incompleteness of any of our truths and a real forgiveness for the complexity of human beings. ANGEL KYODO WILLIAMS”; yet, I wish to add a few thoughts- if I may. Not. For us to ‘transform a society’ we must be suffering from megalomania and grandiosity in the extreme to have that thought that we can do any such thing; not healthy. One shouldn’t ever allow themselves “…to be transformed as individuals….”. ‘La machine’ machinations of the convolution continue: “allow for the incompleteness of any of our truths”, yes, we always allow for that, yet, that truism doesn’t support the next supposition, which follows in order for us to give credence to it by it’s association with the preceding truth. That is: “…and a real forgiveness for the complexity of human beings….”, the “complexity of human beings needs no forgiveness”, as they suggest; yet, the reason they suggest it does is because they are using this non-starter in association with a defined “realness” of forgiveness- which goes undefined and not communicated on purpose, as to suggest a universialness to their opinion which doesn’t exist. From the convolutionary unnature of their saying, it can be deduced that what they define as “real forgiveness” is what the convolution and it’s tools, orthodox religions, etc., has historically defined it as. And that is a blanket projection of forgiveness draped on individuals or groups, yet, even societies at large. That, historically and in the present is usually no more than a tool of coercion at best, or cowardice at worst. You see there’a actually no such thing as ‘forgiveness’ in reality; this is a human fabrication, a social lubricant if you’ll allow- not without value though. Yet, as it is a relationally defined truism based on individuals experience of compassion, empathy, self and others, etc., it is subjective, while either being real or not, experientially. One can actually only be forgiven is they are at cessation of what has been projected to need forgiving by the forgiver; otherwise the forgiveness isn’t forgiveness, it’s some form of self-denial and/or cowardice on the supposed forgiver’s part. When there’s a supposed extension of forgiveness to people who haven’t directly caused some irritation through to harm to someone, then that’s usually a form of manipulation usually used in a form of coercion. That person is suggesting they’re magnanimous or superior by this supposed extension of forgiveness and neither is the case. For the realism of forgiveness comes from the authenticity of the forgiver actually feeling it and the one requesting forgiveness actually ceasing the actions in question; ergo, it is only an individual experiential process by definition. As well, usually those who would ask for blanket forgiveness are just as manipulative and false, as well as coercive possibly, as the faux forgiver- usually for more devious reasons though. So, the probability of the ‘use’ of lack of definition of what they project “…real forgiveness…” is, suggests they are fallaciously mis-defining it as an extension of the historically already false definition of real forgiveness- as a means to an end. I.m.h.o., a much better saying on the processes of the world as relates change and the individual’s place in those processes would be: “…be the change you wish to see in the world…” and it’s qualified by his next one, “…The root 0f all oppression lies in (supposed) science…”, Mahatma Gandhi. As well as a couple thoughts on the subject by a poet: “…Do not go gentle into that good night, and rage, rage against The dying of the light…”, and “…death (murder) shall have no dominion…”, Dylan Thomas. Thanx for all you do and don’t; have a blessed day 🙂 reality