Originally posted by Starrman
I disagree with his assumption that it is rational to 'let it go'.

How come? How is it rational to cling to mental anguish? And why do you conclude that is an assumption on my part, rather than a conclusion based on experience?

Caveat: I do think that grief is an emotion that serves a natural healing purpose, so long as it is allowed to run its course--but I have known people who cling to it, and sometimes turn it into something else (depression, say). Some psychologists also call the feelings associated with the immediate survival response "primary" anger or fear, but I do not see how they are helpful when not in an immediate survival situation (and I do not use the terms anger and fear to refer to the survival response).

2nd caveat: I do not say that there aren't some forms of mental anguish that are strictly physiologically caused, and require medical treatment.

Originally posted by vistesd
How come? How is it rational to cling to mental anguish? And why do you conclude that is an assumption on my part, rather than a conclusion based on experience?

Caveat: I do think that grief is an emotion that serves a natural healing purpose, so long as it is allowed to run its course--but I have known people who cling to it, and sometimes turn ms of mental anguish that are strictly physiologically caused, and require medical treatment.

'Assumption' can be replaced with 'conclusion based on experience', I merely meant that you assumed a certain position.

It is important to note that mental anguish is by degrees and that there are levels of which it is unhealthy to maintain, as you mention in the second paragraph. However it seems to me that holding a grudge or distrust is there for a very good reason, it safeguards you from further attack. It's a learning experience which is relative to your mental evolution and I believe largely subconscious in aspect. If I were to actively choose to forgive a person I am naturally inclined to maintain hostility with I am going against my natural disposition to safeguard myself from future encounters, not only with that person, but with others whom I may recognise as suspiscious or engendering the same behavioural patterns as previous wrongdoers.

If, on the other hand, I maintain my view of them, witholding forgiveness (let us say in the situation where they are unrepentant and clearly not deserving of reward), I am suggesting to them that they are unable to get away with their acts without repercussions and also guard my psyche up to further abuse.

It is about balancing one's own current behaviour in a more holistic appreciation of the behaviour of others. I would say that it is completely unrational to forgive those who do not deserve that forgiveness. I am all for forgiving if people desrve it, though I am also mindful of my own natural reactions for choosing whether or not to do so. I believe in listening to your instincts on matters of human interaction, if there'sa desire to act a particular way and it is not vastly in conflict with your rational view of the world, chances are there's a reason for it.

Originally posted by Starrman
'Assumption' can be replaced with 'conclusion based on experience', I merely meant that you assumed a certain position.

It is important to note that mental anguish is by degrees and that there are levels of which it is unhealthy to maintain, as you mention in the second paragraph. However it seems to me that holding a grudge or distrust is there for a v ...[text shortened]... y in conflict with your rational view of the world, chances are there's a reason for it.

It is important to note that mental anguish is by degrees...

Absolutely, and an important point. My only comment would be that “terror” and “anxiety,” for example are terms that I would assign to such degrees, and not deny that they are degrees of the same emotion: fear. I only mention that because I had to learn to identify the basic emotion, and not try to deny it, or cover it up under different names. A low-burning anxiety can surge into terror...

However it seems to me that holding a grudge or distrust is there for a very good reason, it safeguards you from further attack. It's a learning experience which is relative to your mental evolution and I believe largely subconscious in aspect.

I don’t disagree with this—except that I think it can be done (though perhaps is not “normally” done) without the emotional content: actually, without any emotional charge at all*—it’s simply vigilance. That’s because, for me, the letting go is internal, and has nothing to do with seeking any kind of reconciliation/relationship (unless I want to, it seems honest, and it seems wise).

If, on the other hand, I maintain my view of them, withholding forgiveness (let us say in the situation where they are unrepentant and clearly not deserving of reward), I am suggesting to them that they are unable to get away with their acts without repercussions and also guard my psyche up to further abuse.

I agree entirely with this.

I know that my use of the word “forgiveness” may not be how most people use it—but then, when I hear people talk about it, I mostly can’t figure out what they mean. I’ve known women who thought that forgiveness meant they had to keep themselves at risk in a relationship with a rage-infected, wife beating cretin. I have given up the emotional content with regard to some people I really prefer never to be around, and avoid contact with; if I am around them, I don’t harbor anger or fearfulness—but I am vigilant. From their perspective, I suspect that my attitude is seen more as “cold” than as “hostile,” I don’t know.

Again, a caveat: When this vigilance is about someone viewed as dangerous to you or anyone in your care, the heightened awareness, adrenaline pump, etc., of the survival response is likely to kick in the next time you see them. It’s supposed to; but sometimes we can let the emotional content over-ride the awareness, which may not be helpful survival-wise.

To a large extent, contrary to popular opinion, we can choose our feelings (emotions). We can also channel the energy that comes with emotions. Many people think not, but for me it is a fact. Notice that I did not say that we can (or ought to) maintain some kind of glassy-eyed, non-emotional existence! I also do label emotions “good” or “bad.” I might label them helpful or unhelpful. Also notice the “to a large extent.” We can do so in order to live a richer, more joy-filled life with less mental anguish. The Zen masters do seem to laugh a lot—and the only person I’ve known that, although not a Buddhist, really is a “Zen” master, does too. He is also one tough-minded person.

The political saying, “The price of freedom is eternal vigilance,” I take as part of my personal credo. That does not mean, however, eternal “stress” or mental turmoil. I know this might sound paradoxical, but I try to live with clarity, harmony, power and joy—and to do so intensely, but without “tension.” The discipline is three-fold: it requires (1) a commitment to at least test the idea, (2) technique(s) that work for you, and (3) practice. Just like learning to play a musical instrument.

You are right in that none of this is strictly “black and white.” If you are trying to decide what’s rational and helpful for you in any given circumstance, that is already part of the discipline.

Thanks to you—and to Ivanhoe—for getting me to “think out loud” about this—that’s a practice, too.

____________________________________

* So many caveats! This statement may not be strictly correct; but I use the word “emotion” (or feeling) fairly narrowly. Emotions are one way that our body records energy. I identify six such “recordings,” regardless of their “degree.” Clinging to that “record” can constrict the energy, and cause anguish (in the Buddhist sense). I’m not wedded to any particular theory of emotions; I am wedded to a way of thinking about it that helps me to live a more eudaimonic life.