|
In Reply to: Re: Where's that right found in the social contract? posted by Moderate Systemite on September 13, 2007 at 07:47:51:
You said:
<Sorry, I can’t share much of your perspective. You sound very vindictive and vengeful and those attributes often hurt the bearer more than the perceived perps. That was Ricky‘s real problem and it ended awful. Don’t let it happen to you.>
The thing is, if we merely live our lives in conformance to (limited to) what other people (anyone) do or don’t do, it is already a lost battle, and we have proven that we are of a subordinate state of mind - have a servile attitude - the mind of a slave to put it crudely.
Essentially, this is what we are doing when we refuse to forgive, ‘just’ because someone else did not apologize the way we require, because the rule is that it is a good thing to forgive. (This is irrespective of whether we are right or not in regards to this point.)
In addition, as long as we hold on to this rather inferior mindset we – by our own volition – have cut ourselves off from effectively moving on anywhere.
To rise above the situation and to move on may in some cases be to do just what we intensely dislike to do. In my dictionary, to rise above the situation (in this situation) means to understand and to take advantage of the positive spiritual dynamics in effect when we decide to forgive.
You said:
<I still believe in forgiveness and letting bygones be bygones. What disturbs me often on our xmember sites is the extreme degree of self-righteousness and hyperbole with which some judge matters.>
A few things.
I would think almost everyone (?) believe that sincerely forgiving and forgetting would by far be the best solution for all parties concerned. And to do so in the face of a halfbaked apology (which is what we so far have seen from TF) is not at all impossible, nevertheless an admirable and good move.
When someone abuse and take advantage of your trust, how you respond depends largely on who did it. If it was someone you consider your friend and trusted, you will naturally feel much worse about it than if it was some stranger. In extension, when you expect a straight forward apology and what you get is a piece of lawyer drafted legalese, a non admission much less a sincere apology, as a human you naturally would feel hoodwinked. In such a situation insult is added to injury, and it would clearly be better not to apologize at all.
Family politics:
Not that this is news, and not to defend TF policies, but it is important to know that neither as a group nor as individuals, can TF allow themselves to make apologies to which they can be held legally liable, because that would create a handle for a lawsuit (class action or otherwise). That's part of the reason why F members (by TF leadership) were forbidden to apologize to individuals 'in writing' but only verbally, and even if technically your spoken words are just as legally valid, the problem is proving what was really said. So most likely these are the reasons why TF apologies are always worded in such a way as to never hold water in a legal setting – they always have to consider a third party listening in, that of the judicial system.
You said:
<I’m all in favor of everyone being able to express their opinions. But it can’t be healthy. >
Then you are ‘all in favour’ of unhealthy living.(?)
You said:
<I still have to chuckle at the all too common line, now almost a stereotype, of “we didn’t know it was abuse until we found out to the contrary”. Sorry, I don’t really share this argument either. I believe if you’re abused, you know. Nobody has to tell you that you were.>
Well, this is potentially a big question. We were individuals with many different backgrounds, and thus very different, not to speak of the children born in TF who did not have anything else to calibrate against. So although you naturally are free to believe whatever you want, I cannot but disagree with you in your above rather sweeping statement.
The human psyche is very interesting indeed, and in a setting such as this (elitocracy with theocratic undercurrents) I believe most can be taught to believe white is black and up is down, an inverted world if you will. If you take a look at what junk is being taught as fact on any level in (mainly) public schools, you may see what I mean.
If you take a look at most of the folks on movingon.com they appear to have traded almost all Family doctrines with the ‘system’ counterpart. Knowing that not by far everything we were taught in TF is per definition wrong or substandard, in itself that speaks volumes that the underlying reason for that ‘trade’ event, is ideology and philosophy rather than a personal conviction for what’s right or wrong in any given case.
The dynamics in TF is such that as an insider you will have to support any new teaching and trend and ‘swing with it’ (especially because you as a human being want recognition, promotion and sometimes perhaps just survival) or else you won’t be there very long. By the same token once you are in the ‘system’ (for lack of a better term) the exact same dynamics kick in – you HAVE to adopt the ideas and tenets that have the highest going rate, or you might as well go live in the backwoods.
You said:
<For the record: the Family did not invent child abuse, it’s also very rampant in the new world we’ve embraced, they did not invent coercive persuasion either – it’s to be found everywhere in society as well and brainwashing is something we’re subjected to every god damn day out here as well, just in a much more sophisticated and sinister way. Let alone pedophilia, it’s just about everywhere. Yes, it’s subject punishment, but just like in the Family or amongst Catholic priests, it’s rarely ever prosecuted.>
Nothing, absolutely nothing in TF is new. Looking through my spectacles, it is somewhat sad how apparently the vast majority of both FGA and SGA (xfam) have traded – lock stock and barrel - one tyranny for another. The ‘system’ is in effect a tyranny, and every perceivable degenerate attribute in effect in TF is in existence, compounded, in the system. Of course, we’ve got to exist somewhere in a world such as the present, so wherever we choose to be, there are compromises of various degrees to live with.
