I didn't know you give gifts at an engagment party....

Thought that was just showers and the actual wedding.

Sheesh...getting married has gotten expensive FOR THE GUESTS!

Wookie pursued the ****** out of me and it didn't stop till the A. Come to think of it, he's doing it again.

TTFN - he's taking me to lunch.

- Kimmy

Well then, enjoy the lunch.

So happy for you Kimmy. Worried for a long time.

SS

nc - you crack me up.

e-mail me if you'd like at westwing@whitehouse.gov

WAT

NCW:

"Forgiveness is to remove stress. Sort of like marijuana, only legal. It is the means to combat obsession over a wrong. It is the stop-gap for righteous indignation."

I'm not 2uite sure I even get this. Stop-gap for righteous indignation? What the heck does that mean?

I don't disagree that forgiveness removes stress (which can perhaps improve, or at least not contribute 2 the deterioration of physical, and certainly mental, health), but comparing it 2 drug use suggests it's an artificial remedy.

Sort of reminds me of the arguments about whether monogamy is or isn't na2ral. Same kind o' deal, in my view. Sure, testosterone might have me jumping bones on every purdy chick I meet, or at least contemplating it. So, is it na2ral or no that I choose not 2 act?

Is it na2ral or artifical 2 forgive someone for wronging us? Primitive or evolved?

Guess I just feel indignant right now...

-ol' 2long

Got it WAT.

2long - it was a meager attempt at being poetic.

I took the "campfire" thread to be a bit on the artsy side, and that was a little dramatic license.

What I mean by stop-gap for rightgeous indignation is that if you are so indignant at the actions of another, forgiveness can stop that. (Like anger, indignation can be a good thing if CONTROLLED AND HARNASSED).

BTW - 2long, if I have offended you with that analogy to an artificial remedy, well I apologize. <img src="/ubbt/images/graemlins/laugh.gif" alt="" />

As to wether or not it is natural? I would guess at this point based on personal, non-statistical information, that forgiveness in learned behavior, counter to our nature.

NCW

(Faith - still got you out there).

Maybe 2long meant indigent, instead of indignant...

Thank you SS.

Seems we had a flotilla of prayer saints...We've been blessed.

(contented sigh)

- Kimmy

ncw:

Well, I'm not really offended. Was more confused than anything, I suppose.

"As to wether or not it is natural? I would guess at this point based on personal, non-statistical information, that forgiveness in learned behavior, counter to our nature."

Ah, here's where things get interesting (or complicated, I suppose). My W's an anthropologist, and they and much of the rest of the science community will tell you that humans (unlike other animals - which opens up another can of worms) don't have instincts, so everything we do must be learned behavior. So, what's in our "na2re" then?

I think the boundaries are gray (and so it's appropriate 2 talk about them on graycloud's thread), and our placement of those boundaries is based more on expedience than reality.

So, it's na2ral 2 be indignant, but it may be as na2ral 2 choose 2 forgive. Either one may make us feel good for a time, but forgiveness has the potential 2 sustain that goodness.

-ol' 2long

2long, I feel a discussion of rational ethics coming on.

But I'll resist. Our secretary is retiring and becoming a snowbird, and we're supposed to leave the lab early and drink beer with her.

Today a stranger asked me for help.

I've never gotten a request like this.

The man has asked me to help him investigate the mysterious disappearance and death of his son.

For real.

I see parallels to my own loss. Like people see faces in every murky blob, maybe, but I'm still a little overwhelmed.

GC

2long,

Didn't figure you were (offended). I was being sarcastic because of another issue.

Humans and instinct, huh? Assuming we are ruling out reflexive responses, scientifically I have always been taught that there is nothing in our "nature." Homo sapiens, that is. Spiritually, I am taught we have a sin nature. But it is unclear as to what that means we will do "naturally". One says sin, but to that I ask why don't the heathens commit ALL the sins, if that were the case. So let's drop the spiritual argument.

I did recently see a show about how chimps comitted murder. A behavior that had previously been thought wholly a characteristic of Homo sapiens. (And I'm no anthropologist.) From that, they surmised that there are possibly behaviors that are natural...

I guess the only real way to know would be to allow a population of Homo sapiens to come up WITHOUT the benefit of "nurture." In fact, you would probably need two to see interactions of two groups.

Interesting proposition. "Hey everybody, in the name of science, we need you to hand over your one year olds and we are going to throw them out in the bush and see what happens." Heck. My kids would probably volunteer.

Don't know if we can answer that empirically. (And I may have just used the wrong word.)

I am remined of the remake of War of the Worlds. Which I did not see. But my son said there was a troubling scene where the protagonist was trying to get away in a car and the rest of the crowd were getting pretty nasty trying to take the car. He wanted to know why people were like that.

Mob studies I find fascinating. CLEARLY it is easier to choose to to wrong in a mob than right. Disaster response being the possible exception, where large crowds of people show up to "do right." But still, there are looters in THOSE situations.

I liked what you said about forgiveness being long term. I do think, almost universally, that anything "good" (in the grayest sense of the word) comes with effort.

I do think that the "needs of the many outweighing the needs of the few" is MOST LIKELY learned behavior. Hopefully it is TAUGHT behavior, if you understand the nuance of the difference. Left to our own devices, I would expect us to be pretty selfish and hedonistic. But I have no proof. Other than, personally, I have to CHOOSE to be unselfish. Give me an ice cream, and that is a no brainer. Then ask me for a lick .... well, I gotta think about that one.

And I am right there with you champ. But I would point out that indignation is a feeling, whereas forgiveness is a choice. At least in my world view. And I think feelings are "natural." The impetus of them is probably learned. Case in point, as I travel to other countries, there are things that make people in other cultures blush that don't here. Etc. etc.

This entire discussion really lends itself to a few home brews on a cool evening. Who's with me?

You know for me I think it is natural to forgive, unnatural not to, because when I withold my forgiveness (if only in my mind) I feel awful, I feel sick, angry, bitter, ugly and it makes me look at the person whom I perceived as doing me wrong as ugly, sinful, etc...and that hurts. I don't know why but it hurts me to see people in a bad light.

I overcame this when I realized that anything that I ever perceived as being done "to me" was where the misperception occured. They didn't do it to me, even if their actions affected me...they really did it to themselves because all attacks on another are really attacks on oneself.

This is where for me the "and I realized there was nothing to forgive" comes into play...I finally get it. And I am at peace, or coming closer to it then I ever have before.

Thank God! Because this feels so much better then the alternative did.

And you know I think it must be more natural then not, to want to see the good in people as evidenced by NCW's son who was upset at the mob scene in "War of the Worlds" (I hated that movie), because he was clearly upset that people would act that way. He wants to see the good in people, because his ego's defense system is not yet that strongly developed.

This is where the "effort" must come into play for us...to unlearn our egos defense system.

And on that "mob scene" note, my daughters favorite saying "beware of stupid people in large crowds" <img src="/ubbt/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" />

Forgiveness regarding the LTA is three dimensional in my case:

1. FWW - I knew early on I would eventually forgive her. I did, fairly rapidly, too. I guess because I love her. I could not see me not forgiving her, actually. Not even if we D’d, which I was sure we were going to. I forgave her in stages, though. Partly because D-Day was such a long, drawn out can of worms and I kept getting lied to over and over for so long. Partly because the betrayal was just too huge and long and all encompassing and we’d already been through this after D-Day 1 for me to digest it all in one sitting. Perhaps I still have some forgiving to do but I think it’s more like keeping my resentment and sadness in check so I don’t backslide.

2. OM – forget is more like it. You know the old saying, “forgive and forget?” I jumped right to the forgetting. Just like the above, though, I am forgetting in stages. So, someone tell me if forgetting is good enough without the forgiving. Gets you to the same place, doesn’t it?

3. Me – I had to accept some forgiveness. From FWW for love busters over the years I didn’t even know I was doing. To this day I do not understand why FWW thought they were LBs, it was so much less than she did, always as a reaction to what she did first, and there weren’t many of them in any case. But she brought them up as big deals early in recovery, and perception is reality after all. So, I had to ask for then accept her forgiving me when I didn’t think I needed it in the least. This was the most difficult of the three, actually.


With prayers,

PS: Re pursuit – I would like to explore this thought further. Maybe next week. I’m heading up to the slopes right now.

Now everyone might disagree with me here AP, but I don't believe you can forget without forgiving, and I don't believe you can forgive without forgetting. I think the two go hand in hand, but that is just me.




This is huge to me Ap, as a LB/DJ is in the eye of the beholder. If she thinks they were LB's then you better believe that to her they were. And I remember when I was in the R with Dan, whenever he would point out my faults and how I was unloving/deceitful my defense(in my own mind and to him) was always...but look what you did????? You lied, you cheated how can you say this to me, I was only reacting to what YOU did, blah, blah, blah. He was right...I was equally as unloving only in a more socially/ethically (?) acceptable way. The point is, I still hurt him.

Remember there are no "degrees" of hurt...only hurt.

Weaver: "If she thinks they were LB's then you better believe that to her they were"

Oh, yes. I get that completely. Now. It took Retrouvaille and MC and a lot of introspection on my part though.

And it helped that FWW eventually put them in perspective. One of the things she understands now is what she dislikes the most in other people is what she dislikes in herself. In other words, what she perceives as LBs (from me or anyone) is in fact what she does in spades herself. Her gain is amped way up in those areas. That was a huge breakthrough, at the time, and helped me understand why I needed to ask her forgiveness no matter what I rationally believed.

Remember there are no "degrees" of hurt...only hurt.

So if I am 5 minutes late for a date, and she has to wait for me, that's the same as me going to some other womens home over night and skipping the date all together?

No difference in the hurt to my W?

I don't agree with there not being degrees of hurt. I think we can equate emotional pain, with physical pain.
There is the sliver in the finger, and then there is the kidney stone, or labor and delivery. I can tell you they are not the same.

Some hurt we can get over easily, some we would divorce because of.

I think some of this stuff is written because the writer has an idea, and I don't always think that they are correct.

OK Weaver, now it's your turn - grin.

SS

I don't think I would liken physical pain to emotional pain, because the question of intent is not involved with physical hurt normally, and with emotional hurt there is always that element of intent and the fear of being unloved/unlovable. And even if someone physically hurts us on purpose it is the emotional pain which really hurts us... of not being loved/valued/cherished, not whether they beat us a little or beat us a lot.

Someone can hurt you just as badly with a cruel/uncaring tone of voice as they can by messing around on you. It just depends on what that person perceives as being the thing which makes them feel unloved.

If your being late made your wife feel she was not valued/loved then her emotional pain would probably be the same as if you made her feel unloved/unvalued by cheating on her.

I know when I remember the coldness with which my ex left me... that hurt me just as much as the cheating did. I also know that that emotional pain (inflicted on me by someone I loved and thought loved me) hurt me much more then the person(who I had no emotional ties with and so couldn't make me feel unloved) who attacked me physically (to the point I had blood running out of my ears) did.

When someone tells you you hurt them with your coldness,ignoring ,uninvolvment in your marriage, I don't think there is too much difference then when someone shows the same lack of caring in having an affair. There might be more intense drama, more chaos, more loss but I think the emotional hurt is probably the same.

Of course being cheated on might be a bigger threat to the ego then being ignored, but I am not convinced the hurt is any different.

If you call me a stupid sl*t, or smack me in the head, or ignore me, or cheat on me... what is the difference?...all cause me intense emotional pain because they show me that you don't value me... and underneath that, that I am unlovable.

And as far as the degree's in terms of ethics...when you made marriage vows you not only vowed to forsake all others you also vowed to love, honor and cherish...so what is the difference in degrees of which of these vows you chose to dishonor?...the faithfullness part or the love, honor or cherish... as they are all the same.

SS, I just think people make a big mistake by trying to label the hurt in degrees of which is worse. Hurt is hurt, and if you are convinced that your spouse's cheating is much worse than the lack of caring on your part perceived by your spouse... you cannot move forward, and you cannot except the fault which you need to except in order to forgive.

You get caught up in the "what do you mean I hurt you because I wouldn't take a vacation with you all those years, and I parked my [censored] in front of the computer and buried myself in my work....YOU CHEATED ON ME, and that makes you more guilty, me less guilty and ME MORE HURT!"

That kind of thinking is just a lie we tell ourselves to keep from looking at our own faults and our own guilt. It is not going to help us with our relationship...it will infact destroy our relationship where it might otherwise be salvageable.

I always used to look at degrees of guilt/hurt until I realized that hurt is hurt. I know now that it is just as hurtful of me to hurt your feelings by calling you stupid, as it is for you to lie to me. Even though lieing may seem like it is the more contemptable offense...what difference is the hurt inflicted?

weaver:

I agree with you completely.

SS, it isn't that you can't measure degrees of hurt associated with particular events if you wish. You certainly can.

But 'hurts' like a WS' infidelity (and perhaps the failure by the BS 2 meet the WS' needs), are long term, festering things that are largely fueled (or not) by our imaginations - our identifying with the hurt. Sort of the worst kind of "mirrored" or "borrowed identity" (from Schnarch, I think).

This is why self-forgiveness needs 2 precede forgiveness of those we feel have wronged us. If we're going 2 carry around emotional baggage, let's make sure there's some clean emotional underwear in there 2 get us on a healthy emotional footing (maybe that should include socks, then).

-ol' 2long
P.S. It's Giovanni Schiaparelli's birthday 2day (though some sites say it was the 14th). He's 171 2day.

Hmmmmm…this discussion reminds me of a philosophical dissertation that was on CBC (Canadian Broadcasting Corporation) radio one day. The author of the premise put forward that all human life has the value of “one”. That killing….even to save ones own life, is no more justified than murder as “one” is the net loss of the event.

To follow his philosophy it would be no more justified, other than via societal statute, to kill someone that is attempting to kill your child than to kill your child to prevent the occurrence as the loss of “one” is equal.

Hmmmmmmmmmmm……….road apples.

To disregard any of societies traditions, laws, social contracts and rights to self determination to come up with such a premise may be a fun game of mental gymnastics, but it really has no application to anyplace outside of a philosophy class.

Same goes for “hurt”. This is sort of a tree in the forest argument as “hurt” can only be quantified by the recipient of any real or perceived transgression. If my wife is as hurt by my failure to scrape her windshield as my ménage et trios with her girlfriends I guess they are in effect the same regardless of societal taboos, commandments, marriage vows etc.

This smacks of the same rationalization that she used to “even the playing field” when she was spending her weekends as the receptacle for OM’s secretions. That any deviation from the absolute truth on my part…..ever….was the same as her spending the night in a cheap motel room with the OM two days after spending Christmas with their families.

Bovine excrement.

I so agree with you, Binder. Ah the WS justifications <img src="/ubbt/images/graemlins/rolleyes.gif" alt="" />