Shame

[alyoshka]

Shame is the surest sign of conscience. It may be misguided, i.e., we may feel shame for the wrong things, but a world without shame indicates either a world that doesn’t care about what it does or else a world that does nothing wrong.

The first possibility scares the hell out of me while the second, given the smallest dose of realism, is pure fantasy. Nevertheless I think shame is something that needs to be dealt with. As much as a shameless world is a scary prospect, a world crushed by the weight of its shame is just as unappealing. So this presents a third possibility: a world that feels shame but deals with it, so that its conscience is appeased.

So the question is: How is shame effectively dealt with? Or what are the means to salvation from shame and what method, if any, is ideal?

It seems to me there are a number of responses to shame that can potentially relieve us of it.

1. We can hide the object of our shame so that, well, outwardly at least we have nothing to be ashamed of. This approach comes with constant deception and anxiety over being found out.

2. We can resign ourselves to our shame so that we continue to be ashamed. This response doesn’t deal with the shame though so it’s unacceptable.

3. We can conquer the object of our shame so that we no longer have anything to be ashamed of. The only problem here is some things can’t be conquered. If I’m ashamed of my body I can exercise, eat healthier, etc, but if I’m ashamed of something I did, the event is necessarily unchangeable (unlike the state of my body), and so I can’t conquer the object of my shame when it happens to be a past action.

4. We can make amends. This applies to actions we’re ashamed of whose damage can be repaired. Nevertheless if we kill someone, how can we make amends? This might work in certain cases, such as theft, where the original state can be restored, but it doesn’t work in cases where restoration is impossible (such as murder or rape).

5. We can seek forgiveness. This bypasses the impossibility of restoration but it still suffers from the same problem as 4, i.e., what of those cases where the one whose forgiveness we most desire is unable to forgive (i.e., because they are dead)?

6. Confession. We can tell others what shames us so that at least, in their company, we no longer have anything to be ashamed of. But this assumes they will be forgiving or accepting of it. If they show disgust or scoff at the confession the shame could very well intensify…

7. We can reinterpret the object of our shame so that it is no longer shameful. This strikes me as a dangerous practice, not in all cases, but if arbitrarily applied… For example, it’s great that homosexuals no longer view their sexuality as shameful, but it would be terrible if rapists no longer view their rapes as shameful.

Of these possibilities I’m inclined towards confession coupled with forgiveness (although this isn’t to downplay the merits of 3, 4 and 7). In other words I’d want those who are ashamed to confess and for the confessor to forgive, i.e., to not hold it against them.

There’s still the issue of actions whose results are irrevocable though. i.e., If a murderer confessed to the whole world and the whole world forgave them, would they be free of shame? Not from the responsibility, no, but just from the shame? Should we be free of our shame in such cases?

[Dan1 (Dan~)]

@alyoshka

Shame is the surest sign of conscience. It may be misguided, i.e., we may feel shame for the wrong things, but a world without shame indicates either a world that doesn’t care about what it does or else a world that does nothing wrong.

A world without shame could exist in any sort of ways, because shame is only one of many means to a possable end.
Instead of shame, we could have the prudance of not revealing.

Shame is sympathy with enemies.
The prudance of not revealing, is wisdom applied to the dealing with enemies, or persons which are half-friend and half-enemy.

[capslockf9]

Many many proud people.
They see themselves as good and smart , but most often they are not.
I am proud to be _________. (any nationality)
Then you will deny or supress,or forget, or just you are plain evil and do not give a shit. Shame is of no consequence then stay proud.

[Dan1 (Dan~)]

capslockf9, pride does not necissarily equate to delusions.
Parents can be proud of their children, as that is a dimension of love.
A person can be proud of anything, good or bad.

btw I believe that you are talking shit; for shame.

[capslockf9]

Pride , shame , humility are in the psychic and are hard to find them in the same mind.

[alyoshka]

Obscure postings indeed…

[namelesss]

We are taught shame.
It is not inherent in a healthy personality. It is spread like religion, like a virus!
Many idiot parents have caused their children a dark lifetime of neurosis and pain built around their gift of ‘shame’.
“For shaaaame!! Stop touching yourself you little monster!! God is watching youuu!!!”
‘Shame’ is one tool for manipulating others (children?!?), a vainly prideful and egoic (selfish) endeavor.

[alyoshka]

@namelesss

We are taught shame.

Correction: We are taught what to feel shame for. So I’m not denying we have a history of being taught to feel shame for inappropriate things, such as our sexuality. But what about such things as murder? Are you suggesting that a murderer shouldn’t feel shame for their murderous act? That someone who feels shame for killing isn’t a “healthy personality”??

[The_Paineful_Truth]

@alyoshka

So the question is: How is shame effectively dealt with? Or what are the means to salvation from shame and what method, if any, is ideal?

Shame is the recognition that you have committed evil or not been virtuous. Shame for any other reason is false. Salvation is the same whether you feel shame or not-- repentance.

[alyoshka]

@The Paineful Truth

Shame is the recognition that you have committed evil or not been virtuous. Shame for any other reason is false.

Fair enough.

@The Paineful Truth

Salvation is the same whether you feel shame or not-- repentance.

So a murderer is saved from their murderous deeds if they repent? i.e., If they recognize they were wrong (which you just called shame) and change their ways?

I’m not sure how changing one’s way of life, i.e., a murderer’s ceasing to murder, saves them from their past actions… What is the mechanism at play here? I see how this saves their future victims but I don’t see how it saves them from their sins…

[namelesss]

@alyoshka

@namelesss

We are taught shame.

Correction: We are taught what to feel shame for.

Sorry, hon, they are one and the same. There would be no ‘shame’ if not learned. We are not born with it.

Are you suggesting that a murderer shouldn’t feel shame for their murderous act?

I don’t live in a world of ‘shoulds’ and ‘shouldn’ts’, I live in a world of is!
If that is what they are taught, I repeat, that is what they might feel, if they haven’t dealt with the ‘problem’ in a clinical setting, or any other way.
Some feel ‘shame’ some don’t. No ‘should’.

That someone who feels shame for killing isn’t a “healthy personality”??

‘Shame’ is a manifestation of (the ‘sin’ of) Pride, vanity, ego! Decide for yourself if that is all ‘healthy’ (in the eye of the beholder).

They have already killed. How they feel afterwards is varied; ‘shame’, ‘righteous’, ‘vindicated’, ‘safe’, ‘euphoric’, ‘sad’, etc…
Neurosis (conflicting self-judgements of our actions, words, etc…) is usually not considered ‘healthy’ (but thats only in a 'should/shouldn’t world) as it distracts from the direct perception of the moment by (‘thoughtful’) internal conflict.
I kill all sorts of creatures and species, from viri and bacteria to more complex forms. I do because I do, that is my nature.
I feel no ‘shame’ for the universe being as it is, from moment to moment…
It isn’t like we have any ‘choice’ in the matter, anyway. No ‘free-will/choice’ make the egoic notion of shame (pride!) all the more ‘unhealthy/delusional’ (and still a ‘sin’, from a religious Perspective).

[alyoshka]

@namelesss

Sorry, hon, they are one and the same. There would be no ‘shame’ if not learned. We are not born with it.

There is the capacity to feel shame (this is innate). There is shame itself (this is the real life experience of it, whether we feel it or not). There is what we feel shame for (this is learned). Fair enough? Contrary to what you say there are important differences between these I think…

@namelesss

I don’t live in a world of ‘shoulds’ and ‘shouldn’ts’, I live in a world of is!

I have a sense of good and bad and I suffer when I think I’ve done bad. This sort of suffering is what I refer to when I say shame. It is, as you say, something that happens (or simply is). i.e., Some feel it, some don’t.

But more than this you seem ambivalent toward it, i.e, let be what will be, and you seem to feel this way because, as you go on to say, “there is no choice in the matter”. I can’t accept this attitude. There is no way of knowing that all is determined, if this is what you are saying. So in respect of not knowing, your ambivalence is not justified.

@namelesss

If that is what they are taught, I repeat, that is what they might feel, if they haven’t dealt with the ‘problem’ in a clinical setting, or any other way.

That’s precisely my question in the original post, i.e., how can we deal with shame? If we’ve done wrong, and we’re ashamed, can we just go to a clinic and talk our way out of it? What else can we do?

@namelesss

They have already killed. How they feel afterwards is varied; ‘shame’, ‘righteous’, ‘vindicated’, ‘safe’, ‘euphoric’, ‘sad’, etc…

Indeed; different people feel different things and each killing is a singular event with different motivations and degrees of ambivalence…

I know it seems I want to move from a ‘we could’ to a ‘we should’, but this isn’t entirely correct. What I really want to ask is, because I can’t deny the possibility of choice and therefore responsibility: ‘if we did what would?’. I’m not saying everyone should ask themselves that, but only that I do, because I can’t deny my responsibility. When I apply this question to killing, I don’t like the answer. I don’t like the idea of others suffering and dying because of my deliberate (or even accidental) actions, and so I think killing is shameful. Indeed, it is everyone’s right to think otherwise.

But anyways, you seem to have somehow debunked the notion of choice…

[The_Paineful_Truth]

@alyoshka

@The Paineful Truth

Salvation is the same whether you feel shame or not-- repentance.

So a murderer is saved from their murderous deeds if they repent? i.e., If they recognize they were wrong (which you just called shame) and change their ways?

I’m not sure how changing one’s way of life, i.e., a murderer’s ceasing to murder, saves them from their past actions… What is the mechanism at play here? I see how this saves their future victims but I don’t see how it saves them from their sins…

The mechanism is the choice not to do evil. The best example I can give is where say, a murderer or pedophile is the way he is because of the way he was raised and/or his genes, and sees nothing wrong with their behavior. But someone is able to convince them that what they do is evil, no through some emotional religious injunction but through reason, then they can possibly control their impulses by rationally choosing not to do that evil behavior. I think this is actually harder than someone who reacts to reduce the emotional shame and guilt that they’ve grown up with.

Our emotions must be guided with reason, recognizing that it is the emotions that is the engine that moves us.

[Ingenium]

I view shame as an essential characteristic of our Judeo Christian orientation (being ‘born in sin,’ as is the claim), and really epitomizes the self-centered nature of the culture. It’s a choice to negatively focus on oneself as ‘I’ am bad, ‘I’m’ worthless, etc., as though we’re intrinsically bad. Or to become attached to something we did and therefore focusing on that by wallowing in shame, rather than staying present in the moment.

Shame isn’t necessary in the process of reflecting upon and repenting (and apologizing for) harmful actions. The point is to understand better, to view what we’ve done with concern for the future effects of such actions, so as not to repeat our mistakes.

[Xunzian]

Some things from wiki that might help facilitate the conversation:

The location of the dividing line between the concepts of shame, guilt, and embarrassment is not fully standardized.[4]

According to cultural anthropologist Ruth Benedict, shame is a violation of cultural or social values while guilt feelings arise from violations of one’s internal values. Thus, it is possible to feel ashamed of thought or behavior that no one knows about and to feel guilty about actions that gain the approval of others.

Psychoanalyst Helen B. Lewis argued that “The experience of shame is directly about the self, which is the focus of evaluation. In guilt, the self is not the central object of negative evaluation, but rather the thing done is the focus.”[5] Similarly, Fossum and Mason say in their book Facing Shame that “While guilt is a painful feeling of regret and responsibility for one’s actions, shame is a painful feeling about oneself as a person.”[6]

Clinical psychologist Gershen Kaufman’s view of shame is aligned with that of Affect Theory, namely that shame is one of a set of instinctual short-duration physiological reactions to stimulation of a given kind (i.e., shame is a pre-cognitive affect).[citation needed] Kaufman considers guilt to be a learned behavior consisting essentially of self-directed blame or contempt, with shame occurring consequent to such behaviors making up a part of the overall experience of guilt. Here, by self-blame and self-contempt Kaufman means the application, towards (a part of) one’s self, of exactly the same dynamic that blaming of, and contempt for, others represents when it is applied interpersonally. Kaufman saw that mechanisms such as blame or contempt may be used as a defending strategy against the experience of shame and that someone who has a pattern of applying them to himself may well attempt to defend against a shame experience by applying self-blame or self-contempt. This, however, can lead to an internalized, self-reinforcing sequence of shame events for which Kaufman coined the term “shame spiral.”[7]

One view of difference between shame and embarrassment is that shame does not necessarily involve public humiliation while embarrassment does, that is, one can feel shame for an act known only to oneself but in order to be embarrassed one’s actions must be revealed to others. In the field of ethics (moral psychology, in particular), however, there is debate as to whether or not shame is a heteronomous emotion, i.e. whether or not shame does involve recognition on the part of the ashamed that they have been judged negatively by others. Immanuel Kant and his followers held that shame is heteronomous; Bernard Williams and others have argued that shame can be autonomous.[8][9] Shame may carry the connotation of a response to something that is morally wrong whereas embarrassment is the response to something that is morally neutral but socially unacceptable. Another view of shame and embarrassment, though, is that the two emotions lie on a continuum and only differ in intensity.

A shame society is one in which the primary device for gaining control over children and maintaining control over adults is the inculcation of shame and the complementary threat of ostracism.

A shame society is to be distinguished from a guilt society in which control is maintained by creating and continually reinforcing the feeling of guilt (and the expectation of punishment now or in the hereafter) for certain condemned behaviors.

Paul Hiebert characterizes the shame society as follows:

Shame is a reaction to other people's criticism, an acute personal chagrin at our failure to live up to our obligations and the expectations others have of us. In true shame ­oriented cultures, every person has a place and a duty in the society. One maintains self-­respect, not by choosing what is good rather than what is evil, but by choosing what is expected of one. 

High context culture (and the contrasting ‘low context culture’) are terms presented by the anthropologist Edward T. Hall in his 1976 book Beyond Culture. It refers to a culture’s tendency to cater towards in-groups, an in-group being a group that has similar experiences and expectations, from which inferences are drawn. In a high context culture, many things are left unsaid, letting the culture explain.

High context cultures are more common in the eastern cultures than in western, and in countries with low racial diversity. Cultures where the group is valued over the individual promote the in-groups and group reliance that favor high context cultures. Co-cultures are also conducive to high context situations, where the small group relies on their common background to explain the situation, rather than words. A low context culture explains things further, because those in a low context culture have a wide variety of backgrounds.

High context cultures have a strong sense of tradition and history, and change little over time. Many native societies (such as the Māori of New Zealand and the Native Americans) are high context cultures. The static[citation needed] culture keeps the high context throughout different generations. Low context cultures change drastically from one generation to the next, like the United States.

How do you think these apply to many of the conversations going on here? Is guilt being conflated with shame? Is there really a difference? Is Ruth Bell an idiot (yes)? What about Hiebert and Hall?

[alyoshka]

@Ingenium

I view shame as an essential characteristic of our Judeo Christian orientation (being ‘born in sin,’ as is the claim), and really epitomizes the self-centered nature of the culture. It’s a choice to negatively focus on oneself as ‘I’ am bad, ‘I’m’ worthless, etc., as though we’re intrinsically bad. Or to become attached to something we did and therefore focusing on that by wallowing in shame, rather than staying present in the moment.

Funny, Christ never mentions original sin… I know the idea is part of popular Christian culture, but I don’t think it’s an obvious conclusion by any means. So as to your statement “I am bad”, I think a Christian would only say this if they sinned, i.e., they wouldn’t say it about themselves unconditionally or intrinsically as you suggest…

And regarding shame, I’d say Christ is wholly against it simply because Christ advocates forgiveness. With forgiveness there is no shame; forgiveness forgives offences, so that it is as if they never happened. There is nothing to be ashamed of anymore!

And lastly I think a true Christian is “present in the moment” just as you call for. Christ tells us to live like the lilies of the field and the birds of the air. I can’t think of a better representation of a present-focused life than this!

@Ingenium

Shame isn’t necessary in the process of reflecting upon and repenting (and apologizing for) harmful actions. The point is to understand better, to view what we’ve done with concern for the future effects of such actions, so as not to repeat our mistakes.

This is great, I have nothing against repentence. What my problem is: What about those past mistakes we can’t erase? Do you think once it’s over it’s over and we should just forget about it, and try not to do it again? Do you never have bad conscience for what you’ve done or failed to do? What if you can’t apologize? What if you can’t be forgiven?

[namelesss]

@alyoshka

@namelesss

Sorry, hon, they are one and the same. There would be no ‘shame’ if not learned. We are not born with it.

There is the capacity to feel shame (this is innate). There is shame itself (this is the real life experience of it, whether we feel it or not).

A ‘capacity’ can hardly be given any real consideration. Show me a ‘capacity to feel’ with no feeling involved. Your claim is debateable and there are various Perspectives from which your claim can be seen as true and other Perspectives where it can be seen as ‘incongruous with their perceived reality/truth’. Not necessarily ‘wrong’. I see no ‘capacities’ in evidence without the actual ‘feeling’ by which any ‘capacity’ can be known, experimentally, evidentially.
But, lets continue.

There is what we feel shame for (this is learned). Fair enough?

Of course, fair enough, this is what I said from the start. If the ‘feeling’ is learned (and the feeling IS the ‘capacity’, which is an unnecessary variable), then ‘shame’ is a learned response.

Contrary to what you say there are important differences between these I think…

So, these ‘differences’ are a matter of ‘your thoughts’ as context, Perspective?
Yes, there are contrary Perspectives to mine and yours. All Perspectives are unique, to one extent or another, and all true.

@namelesss

I don’t live in a world of ‘shoulds’ and ‘shouldn’ts’, I live in a world of is!

I have a sense of good and bad and I suffer when I think I’ve done bad. This sort of suffering is what I refer to when I say shame. It is, as you say, something that happens (or simply is). i.e., Some feel it, some don’t.

But more than this you seem ambivalent toward it, i.e, let be what will be, and you seem to feel this way because, as you go on to say, “there is no choice in the matter”. I can’t accept this attitude.
[/quote]
Not a problem. Many people get very emotional very quickly when discussing ‘beliefs’ that they/ego hold so dearly.
You don’t have to ‘accept’, as in incorporating into your world-view, anything that I offer. Understanding, in itself, would be a coup.
But not accepting ‘this’ attitude does not entitle you to ‘correct’ what you cannot accept; an Inquisition, torture, extermination…

There is no way of knowing that all is determined, if this is what you are saying.

What do you mean, exactly, by ‘knowing’?

So in respect of not knowing, your ambivalence is not justified.

You make assumptions, incorrectly, and draw illogical inference.
You are totally clueless as to who and/or what I might be, or what I might ‘know’ or not ‘know’. And you, from this great yawning void of any data, draw conclusions about whether I am ‘justified’ in being who I am? heh Such vanity…

@namelesss

If that is what they are taught, I repeat, that is what they might feel, if they haven’t dealt with the ‘problem’ in a clinical setting, or any other way.

That’s precisely my question in the original post, i.e., how can we deal with shame?

Finally, we get to something that might actually be fruitful!
I imagine that you are cognizant of the various classical psychiatric and psychological methods of ‘healing’ shame. Wait, you said “deal with”, does that mean ‘heal’ or ‘accept’?

If we’ve done wrong, and we’re ashamed,

You have to learn (be ‘other’ programmed’) that doing ‘this’ is (=) ‘bad’ and ‘this’ is ‘good’. Without the programming, what is, is. We are taught to feel ‘shame’ when we disobey these programs (a self-correcting punishment program).

can we just go to a clinic and talk our way out of it? What else can we do?

We can ‘metaprogram’ over the old programing. That is a strong, effective and well used tool and the successes are myriad.

What I really want to ask is, because I can’t deny the possibility of choice and therefore responsibility: ‘if we did what would?’.

I don’t understand your question. “What would” what?
The probability of actual ‘freewill/choice’ is so intinitesimally small, its merely a tiny statistical blip on a universal screen.

and so I think killing is shameful. Indeed, it is everyone’s right to think otherwise.

This is your truth that you add to the ‘Truth/Reality’ of existence, as are all other Perspectives as well.

But anyways, you seem to have somehow debunked the notion of choice…

If I have, for you, then when you actually experience the truth thereof (“that will set you free!”) ‘responsibility’ dissolves in the wind, as does the egoic (pride) judgements of guilt and shame. ‘Shame and guilt’ are not features of the ‘humble’. Abandon the prideful notion of ‘freewill’ for liberation from shame and guilt.
(We cannot turn around, however, and claim credit for ‘this’, and be proud of ‘that’ (so called) ‘accomplishment’.)

[Ingenium]

@alyoshka

@Ingenium

I view shame as an essential characteristic of our Judeo Christian orientation (being ‘born in sin,’ as is the claim), and really epitomizes the self-centered nature of the culture. It’s a choice to negatively focus on oneself as ‘I’ am bad, ‘I’m’ worthless, etc., as though we’re intrinsically bad. Or to become attached to something we did and therefore focusing on that by wallowing in shame, rather than staying present in the moment.

Funny, Christ never mentions original sin… I know the idea is part of popular Christian culture, but I don’t think it’s an obvious conclusion by any means. So as to your statement “I am bad”, I think a Christian would only say this if they sinned, i.e., they wouldn’t say it about themselves unconditionally or intrinsically as you suggest…

Well, it comes from the Christian operating manual: Romans 5:12.

And regarding shame, I’d say Christ is wholly against it simply because Christ advocates forgiveness. With forgiveness there is no shame; forgiveness forgives offences, so that it is as if they never happened. There is nothing to be ashamed of anymore!

Who says it is as if they never happened? Of course they happened. Do you just pretend? How does that enable you to learn from mistakes?

As I said, it’s my view that feeling shame is a self-centered (ego-based) choice.

And lastly I think a true Christian is “present in the moment” just as you call for. Christ tells us to live like the lilies of the field and the birds of the air. I can’t think of a better representation of a present-focused life than this!

I don’t ‘call for it’. And I don’t presume to know what true Christians are. Versus the false ones, I mean. Although it’s my experience that just because one knows and appreciates the Bible saying you referenced doesn’t mean one is actually ‘present in the moment’.

@Ingenium

Shame isn’t necessary in the process of reflecting upon and repenting (and apologizing for) harmful actions. The point is to understand better, to view what we’ve done with concern for the future effects of such actions, so as not to repeat our mistakes.

This is great, I have nothing against repentence. What my problem is: What about those past mistakes we can’t erase? Do you think once it’s over it’s over and we should just forget about it, and try not to do it again?

How does one wallowing in the emotion of shame change anything about ‘those past mistakes we can’t erase’? Thinking we can ‘erase’ some action of the past is like a child’s fantasy, ‘if I just try hard enough, I can pretend it happened differently!’ The past is the past, it’s a done deal. But it doesn’t have to rule the choices we make in the future. If we’ve done harm in the past and repentence and reflection are needed to deal with that, then that’s a way to reduce the chances of doing future harm.

Do you never have bad conscience for what you’ve done or failed to do? What if you can’t apologize? What if you can’t be forgiven?

I don’t dwell on feeling a ‘bad conscience’ because I don’t think that’s productive. I believe in taking responsibility for what I do, meaning that if I do harm, then I make amends as best I can. And reflect and learn and, hopefully, better inform my decisions with wisdom and compassion. I don’t have expectations about forgiveness, that’s up to whomever is harmed and it’s not a condition of what I must do to make amends. Same with my ability to apologize. It’s certainly something that I think would usually be helpful. But if I can’t, then what possible good would come from walking around holding onto that? It makes no sense to me.

[alyoshka]

@Ingenium

Well, it comes from the Christian operating manual: Romans 5:12.

This is the teaching of Paul, not Christ.

@Ingenium

Who says it is as if they never happened? Of course they happened. Do you just pretend? How does that enable you to learn from mistakes?

I said forgiveness makes the event AS IF it never happened. Of course it still happened. Forgiveness doesn’t wipe away the past, it makes the past AS IF it never happened… The ‘as if’ is an important qualifier here… For example, if I say someone acts AS IF they are a pig, I’m not saying they are a pig.

@Ingenium

I don’t ‘call for it’. And I don’t presume to know what true Christians are. Versus the false ones, I mean. Although it’s my experience that just because one knows and appreciates the Bible saying you referenced doesn’t mean one is actually ‘present in the moment’.

Okay. Fair enough. Not sure why you mention “staying present in the moment” over and over again then…

@Ingenium

How does one wallowing in the emotion of shame change anything about ‘those past mistakes we can’t erase’?

If you’ve been reading what I’m writing you should know my goal is to deal with shame, not wallow in it. That’s precisely my question: HOW CAN WE DEAL WITH SHAME?

@Ingenium

I don’t dwell on feeling a ‘bad conscience’ because I don’t think that’s productive. I believe in taking responsibility for what I do, meaning that if I do harm, then I make amends as best I can. And reflect and learn and, hopefully, better inform my decisions with wisdom and compassion. I don’t have expectations about forgiveness, that’s up to whomever is harmed and it’s not a condition of what I must do to make amends. Same with my ability to apologize. It’s certainly something that I think would usually be helpful. But if I can’t, then what possible good would come from walking around holding onto that? It makes no sense to me.

Fair enough! So if you can’t be forgiven your past irrevocable actions, you just let go. i.e, You move on and forget about it because its unproductive.

What good can come from holding onto the past? Good question! I’m not sure any good can come from it. But as you seem to acknowledge here, there are certain things we can’t make up or be released from. My gf told me a story just the other day about her ex who she still talks to. He killed a teenager in a car accident. Ever since he’s been depressed, on medication, etc, from the shame/guilt of it. If this case shows anything it’s that nothing good comes from holding on to it; but it also shows that nonetheless the shame can persist and can cripple us here in the present… All I want to do is explore means of salvation, and it seems your only answer is “move on”. That’s fine… A pretty standard answer!

[Ingenium]

@alyoshka

@Ingenium

Well, it comes from the Christian operating manual: Romans 5:12.

This is the teaching of Paul, not Christ.

Does that matter?

I said forgiveness makes the event AS IF it never happened. Of course it still happened. Forgiveness doesn’t wipe away the past, it makes the past AS IF it never happened… The ‘as if’ is an important qualifier here… For example, if I say someone acts AS IF they are a pig, I’m not saying they are a pig.

That’s true, but I’m not sure what the pretense achieves in terms of understanding the experience of ‘pigness’ when one is a human, lol. The point is, I don’t see how it’s helpful to view something ‘as if’ it didn’t happen, either.

Okay. Fair enough. Not sure why you mention “staying present in the moment” over and over again then…

I only mentioned it once.

@alyoshka

I don’t dwell on feeling a ‘bad conscience’ because I don’t think that’s productive. I believe in taking responsibility for what I do, meaning that if I do harm, then I make amends as best I can. And reflect and learn and, hopefully, better inform my decisions with wisdom and compassion. I don’t have expectations about forgiveness, that’s up to whomever is harmed and it’s not a condition of what I must do to make amends. Same with my ability to apologize. It’s certainly something that I think would usually be helpful. But if I can’t, then what possible good would come from walking around holding onto that? It makes no sense to me.

Fair enough! So if you can’t be forgiven your past irrevocable actions, you just let go. i.e, You move on and forget about it because its unproductive.

Where did I write “move on and forget about it”?

What good can come from holding onto the past? Good question! I’m not sure any good can come from it. But as you seem to acknowledge here, there are certain things we can’t make up or be released from. My gf told me a story just the other day about her ex who she still talks to. He killed a teenager in a car accident. Ever since he’s been depressed, on medication, etc, from the shame/guilt of it. If this case shows anything it’s that nothing good comes from holding on to it; but it also shows that nonetheless the shame can persist and can cripple us here in the present… All I want to do is explore means of salvation, and it seems your only answer is “move on”. That’s fine… A pretty standard answer!

And if you actually read what I’ve written, you see that I’m not giving the answer only as “move on”. I first described my view philosophically (that the emotion of shame arises from ego-self) and second described a means of dealing with past harms one has done. What I’ve written is about a form of ‘salvation’. But I’m expressing the perspective that this ‘salvation’ comes necessarily from the effort made by the person who needs it.