Hello, Caliope. Welcome to our class. I'm responding here to all four of your contributions to this week's discussion questions. Forgiveness, as I am sure you know, is a very individual thing. For instance, some people find those they love to be among the hardest to forgive, a la "How could you do this to me?" Yet there is far more agreement on the difficulty of forgiving the deepest hurts, and also a rather consistent experience of the necessity for spiritual assistance in the forgiveness of these matters, such as your Jesus prayer. Your envious friend brings to mind Jesus' commandment to forgive seventy times seven in those cases where forgiveness is not experienced once and for all the first time. He recognized that ultimate forgiveness is a form of impersonal love that is no respecter of persons. As to confronting only situations that are likely to change, my experience has been that I can change only my relationship to situations, not situations themselves - and that situations tend to change of themselves after I have changed my relationship to them. Welcome, Sandy from "down-under." Far from being a form of denial, foriveness is the one of the most developed forms of acceptance. One way of approaching the ethics of forgiveness is to ask the question, when is unforgiveness ethical? Fortunately for your quest, Dr. Luskin's book is based on supportive empirical evidence. Thank you for your detailed description of your forgiveness "caseload," Dilys. From a legal perspective, what seems most relevant to me forgiveness-wise is the fact that nowhere in the dictionary definitions and "responsibility" and "accountability" does the word "blame" appear. It is not possible, therefore, to hold someone someone legally responsible and accountable for his/her actions without blaming his/her as a person? In other words, does litigation necessarily have to be so blamefully endeavoring to make a person bad in support of his/her actions being wrong? Or is this just further evidence of the legal principal that what can be proven takes precedent to the truth? You have correctly identified forrgiveness as a matter ot the heart, Caliope. As I have experienced forgiveness, it is the process of restoring my primary nature. It is unforgiveness that became my second nature. Zimbabwe chocolates, eh? Do you market only locally/regionally, or is your business international/global? Does it have a website? Your objective of being a forgiving person, Monica, is one that I share. In fact I'm writing an entire book on how to be a generically forgiving person by nature, rather than an unforgiving person who makes case-by-case exceptions. My forgiveness caseload tends to remain current that way, instead of getting ever more backlogged over time. There is no doubt that, in Christian terms, the priest in question "sinned." Yet so long as holding someone accountable for harmful actions and preventing him/her from being able to continue them is perceived as "punishment" rather than the assignment of due consequence, there will be those who are reluctant to hold "sinners" to their consequences. From my perspective, "sin" is the commission of moral error and "punishment" is the appropriate consequence of doing so. Accordingly, the Archbishop in question here was ignoring, if not morally ignorant of, appropriate consequence. The quientessence of forgiveness is to be compassionate of those whom one nevertheless holds to the consequences of their errors. As I see it, legal procedures cannot be morally civil (even in so-called "civil" cases) so long as casting blame is the prosecution's moral strategy. The legal system has effectively excluded forgiveness as a morally relevant alternative, and tends to institionalize unforgiveness instead. I am as yet unaware of any law or legal system that in practice allows for the exercise of forgiveness. Thank you, Susan, for being so up front about your forgiveness challenges. There is no substitute for the support of an understanding spouse when it comes to working through one's grievances. I trust, nonetheless, that this course will provide at least a meaningful fraction of such support. I was likewise disappointed, Janice, when the March class fell short of adequate enrollment. You have provided me the occasion to ackloweldge that I am also a minister, albeit of a spiritual philosophy rather than a religion. I am an ordained minister of Religious Science (also known as "Science of Mind"), which is based on the spiritual philosophy of a man named Ernest Holmes. His philosophy is more forgiving than that of any religion I know of, and is based on Jesus' teachings unencumbered by churchianity. As to "perfect set-ups," I am reminded of John Lennon's observation: "Life is what happens while we are making other plans." In my life the "perfect set-ups" have turned out to be life's insteads, from which I have learned and grown (even when groaning) far more than I would have learned and grown from what got insteaded. I am moved to respond the Power of Forgivness class' first week of activity as a whole, with which I am quite pleased. The quality and extent of your entries and exchanges with one another has been excellent. I notice that they have tended to perceive forgiveness as contingent primarily on the actions of other people, as if forgiveness is a responsive rather than proactive mode of expression. This has moved me to raise an additional inquiry about forgiveness challenges, which I am posting as a fifth discussion topic in the first week's roster under the heading "FORGIVENESS AND THE DO-BEE FACTOR": Is forgiveness primarily something we do, or is it primarily a way of being? Is it primarily the exercise of forgiveness that makes one forgiving, or is there such a thing as a forgiving nature that facilitates such exercise? Just as some people are naturally athletic, while others have to work more diligently to become that way, is a similar factor involved in forgiveness? Are some people more readily forgiving by nature, while others have to make greater effort to be forgiving? And if there is, indeed, a range of predisposition to forgiveness, on a scale of one (least forgiving) to ten (most forgiving) where would you place yourself? NOTE: Please see also my overall response to your discussion entries in the post under "FORGIVENESS: EASY OR DIFFICULT" entitled "Concerning the Nature of Forgiveness"; my response to Dilys and Monica in the post under "MY GRESTEST FORGIVENESS EXPERIENCE" entitled, "Forgiveness and life's 'heavies'"; and my response to the CONSTRUCTIVE AND DESTRUCTIVE ANGER posts entitled "The factor of resolution." Your assessment of action relative to words reminds me of an Emersonian axiom: "What you are speaks so loudly, I cannot hear what you say." Thank you, Sandy, for calling this project to my attention. It illustrates what is invariably discovered in what some people call "the search for common ground," i.e., that our common ground is to be found in our emotional responses to experience rather than in our experiences per se. There is also a growing movement in the U.S. for what is here called "restorative justice." See http://www.restorativejustice.org , http://www.restorativejustice.com , and http://www.restorativejustice.net . I rather envy your ambient writing atmosphere, Nan, having once had a year to write while living in Aspen, Colorado. I did what I consider the be my best single piece of writring there, a poem that has circulated worldwide though it has never been formally published. I actually did less writing while living in Aspen than I might have, because I was experimenting with a lifestyle based on my musical expression via guitar (in street-singing and coffee-house venues) and piano (in restaurant - and occasionally lounge- settings. I also hitchhiked from Aspen to both Portlands and other places that year, for a total thumb-trippage of 10,000 miles, while sorting myself out between wife-times. I find the title and overall concept of your column intriguing. Are you willing to send me via e-mail a couple of your entries? Once my book on self-forgiveness has been published, I intend to do a column as well. As to facilitating trust in the workplace, during forty years of sampling major works on leadership and management (beginning with the works of Peter Drucker and Warren Bennis) I have concluded that the sine que non of elciting trust in the workplace is trustworthy leadership. I am responding to your post, Dilys, because in doing so I can simultaneously touch upon many of the concerns that others have raised in response to this week's discussion questions overall. 1) Concerning what forgiveness is: I have added a fifth discussion topic to this week's roster that relates to this question. 2) Dr. Luskin specifically addresses the relationship of forgiveness to reconciliation, though with a viewpoint that not everyone agrees with. 3) I have contrasted the relationship between "punishment" and the forgiving excercise of holding people responsible and accountable for their actions, as well as with reference to "restorative justice," in other posts. 4) The issue of expectations will be directly addressed later in this course. 5) The "damage assessment" perspective on forgiveness is also relative the this weeks new (fifth) discussion topic. I think you're on to something here, Janice. In my experience, forgiving oneself precedes all other forgiveness. Why else would Jesus have commanded, "Forgive thy neighbor as thyself"? Thank you, Dilys and Monica, for demonstrating the possibility of forgivingly transcending life's heaviest challanges. I feel that this also bears significantly upon the fifth discussion topic I have added to this week's roster. There seems to be considerable agreement in the foregoing posts that there is a correlation between forgiveness and anger that is resolved. I am moved to respond the Power of Forgivness class' first week of activity as a whole, with which I am quite pleased. The quality and extent of your entries and exchanges with one another has been excellent. I notice that they have tended to perceive forgiveness as contingent primarily on the actions of other people, as if forgiveness is a responsive rather than proactive mode of expression. This has moved me to raise an additional inquiry about forgiveness challenges, which I am posting as a fifth discussion topic in the first week's roster under the heading "FORGIVENESS AND THE DO-BEE FACTOR": Is forgiveness primarily something we do, or is it primarily a way of being? Is it primarily the exercise of forgiveness that makes one forgiving, or is there such a thing as a forgiving nature that facilitates such exercise? Just as some people are naturally athletic, while others have to work more diligently to become that way, is a similar factor involved in forgiveness? Are some people more readily forgiving by nature, while others have to make greater effort to be forgiving? And if there is, indeed, a range of predisposition to forgiveness, on a scale of one (least forgiving) to ten (most forgiving) where would you place yourself? NOTE: Please see also my overall response to your discussion entries in the post under "FORGIVENESS: EASY OR DIFFICULT" entitled "Concerning the Nature of Forgiveness"; my response to Dilys and Monica in the post under "MY GRESTEST FORGIVENESS EXPERIENCE" entitled, "Forgiveness and life's 'heavies'"; and my response to the CONSTRUCTIVE AND DESTRUCTIVE ANGER posts entitled "The factor of resolution." Winston Churchill once said that "Democracy is the worst form of government, except for all the others that have been tried." Sometimes I feel that the same can be said for democary's legal justice systems. I'm so glad you were finally able to make it, Lakiba. I would say you are here on good authority, given that you had a trinity of signs. I'd say you've come to the right place to advance all of your interests. One thing the world can use, for instance, is more songs on forgiveness. You are on to something with number 4, as well as your "Greatest Challenge" post, that many people don't stop to think about - that their unforgiveness is displaced self-dissatisfaction. You have articulated a major forgiveness principal, Caliope. The secret to being a forgiving person is to take nothing personally, even when it is intended to be personal. In terms of presenting forgiveness to children as a "happiness-increasing possibility," it is best presented in such a way that it is caught rather than taught, i.e., modelled in adult behavior. As you consider Sandy's question, keep in mind Dr. Luskin's statement that forgiveness is less a matter of one's relationship to the other person than it is a matter at becoming at peace with yourself. (See Luskin text, page 75) Therefore, another way of phrasing Sandy's question is, "Are there some grudges, hurts, etc. that are worth one's remaining in life-long turmoil over, at the expense of one's own well-being?" As I read Dr. Luskin's material, I get the distinct impression that forgiveness is only incidentally about other people and is first and foremost a healthy relationship with oneself. On "Wiring and Forgiveness" You need not feel apologetic for your response, Janice, which goes a long way toward making up for any prior nonparticipation on your part. Your reference to "wiring" is astute. Among those who address the complementarity of nature and nurture, it is generally understood that nurture develops what nature endows. This means that we can't develop what we don't have (such as the ability to fly without mechanical means), nor can we have what we don't develop (as for instance the occasional feral child who somehow survives in the absence of human contact, and as a consquence does not acquire language as we know it). Current estimates of the interaction of natural and nurturing influence tend to gravitate toward a 1/3 nature-2/3 nurture ratio. In other words, the predisposition of our genetic "wiring" is greatly subject to conscious nondisposition. Another way of looing at all this is to realize that just as I cannot give what I don't have, neither can I have what I don't give. The latter insight is embodied in the folk wisdom that advises "use it or lose it." Only as I DO forgiving can I BE forgiving. The more forgiving I do, the more forgiving I become. (Grudge-holding) I was once like your husband, Janice, thinking that I had to join in the blame-game in order to be supportive. I now realize that NOT joining in that game is the truly supportive option . . . even if I tend to agree that the person being blamed is nonetheless responsible for the action or inaction at which the blame is directed. Blame is defamation of character. Holding someone responsible is the equilibration of deed and consequence, which may be accomplished without defamation. (Personally) (Janice) I either missed the Biblical story about David that you have cited, or else the point of it. Your citation of it is what initially reminded me of Benjamin Franklin's "Parable against Persecution." Of your three suggested not-taking-it-personally responses, I like most "You've really given me something to think about." Of the three, it is least likely to perceived as having sarcastic overtones. (Intending to Forgive) I am in essential though not absolute agreement with everything you have said here, Dilys. For instance, even as I was making the comment about powerlessness and fear I recognized the chicken-egg relationship between the two, which makes it ultimately impossible to specify either of them as THE cause or THE effect of the other. The ultimate nature of causality is a non-linear relationship whose evidence shows up sequential juxtapositions. In their non-sequential (i.e., non-linear) relationship as a dual unity, powerlessness and fear are the contractions of a state of mind (attitude) called "negation." Only from the perspective of linear duality may either powerless or fearful contractions of negating attitude be deemed THE cause or effect of the other. In other words, as Martin Luther King, Jr., put this: "Forgiveness is not an occasional act; it is a permanent attitude." Powerlessness and fearfulness are mutually reinforcing, unforgiving contractions of negative attitudinality, which many choose to maintain permanently. By contrast, forgiveness is an expansion of appreciative attitudinality. [You will note that from the perspective of my outlook on the world of my experience, there are two meta-attitudes: contractive negation and expansive appreciation. (The term "appreciation" refers to the increase of something's value, as any real estate broker or appraiser knows.) Everything else that we call "attitude" is an expression either of negation or of appreciation.] Concerning both the Luskin and Enright-Reed models: I experience each of them to be procedural means to an end, i.e., the end that we call "forgiveness." Letting go of grievances is what we DO as a means, so that forgiving is what we BE as an end in itself. The more we BE forgivingly appreciative, attitudinally speaking, the more readily and easily we UNdo our negating grievances, operationally speaking. Concerning the communal dimension of forgiveness: One of the most negating statements of attitude ever made is Jean Paul Sartre's proclamation that "Hell is other people." The forgivingly appreciative attitudinal alternative to this hellacious perpective is embodied in the progression of statements that follow: "[I]s it sensible to think that the vast cosmos was created for the purpose of producing happiness for a single species on one planet? Humans have not yet discovered any other species anywhere with the ability to plan for progress and for the expansion of information. Does this raise the question of whether we may have been created to serve as helpers in the acceleration of divine creativity?" (Sir John Templeton) "The only ones among you who will be really happy are those who have sought and found how to serve." (Albert Schweitzer) "Not everybody can be famous, but everybody can be great because greatness is determined by service." (Martin Luther King, Jr.) "I slept and dreamt that life was joy; I awoke and saw that life was service; I acted and behold, service was joy!" (Rabindranath Tagore) "At the center of the Universe is a loving heart that continues to beat and that wants the best for every person. Anything that we can do to help foster the intellect and spirit and emotional growth of our fellow human beings, that is our job. Those of us who have this particular vision must continue against all odds. Life is for service." (Fred Rogers [a.k.a., "Mister Rogers"] 1928-2003) "The religious power of the Earth will undergo in us a final crisis: that of its own discovery. We are beginning to understand, and for ever, that the only acceptable religion for man is the one that will teach him first of all to recognize, love and passionately serve this universe of which he is the most important element." (Teilhard de Chardin) I consider all of the foregoing as testimonials to the "so what" of the inexorable "what's so" of cosmic order: "Everything in the universe exists for the harmonious good of every other part. The universe is forever uniting what is harmonious and dimishing what is not." (Ernest Holmes) In the light of all this "so what" and "what's so", I experience forgiveness as the fragrance of love, i.e., as the evidence of life's highest form of appreciation, which is operationally known as "service." (Assessing Self-Efficacy) The objective to be attained in circumstances such as those you describe, Dilys, is to maintain a high level of expectanCY even when expectaTIONS are not met. Expectancy is a global attitude of aspiration. Expectations are finite aspirations. It is not necessary that an expectant attitude be more than transiently at the effect of one's unmet expectations. Forgiveness, a la the reappoinment of disappointment via the creation of a new story, is what makes one's grievances over unmet expectations transient. (Intending to Forgive) I have forwarded your inquiry to Dr. Luskin himself, and will let you know of his reply. In the meantime, all methods that effectively facilitate the release of grievances - i.e., forgiveness - are similar. (The Politics of Grievance) As I tend to see things, Caliope, politicians often feul some grievances while endeavoring to resolve others. And both Gandhi and King are examples of the risk that accompanies the effective resolution of grievances, namely that of being a target of those who wish to keep their grievances alive. This is perhaps in part why the Gandhi's and King's of this world are so few and far between. (The Politics of Grievance) Your statement about encouraging politicans with respect is in part, it seems to me, what forgiveness in the political arena is all about. (The Politics of Forgiveness) Your two foregoing posts, like your June 3rd post in "INTENDING TO FORGIVE", raise some of the most important practical questions concerning the release of the grievances that inform political action in so much of the world today. The short answer to this worldly dilemma is Buddha's: "You cannot travel the path until you become the path." Operationally, this means that my only real hope of moving others to be forgiving (i.e., grievance-releasing) is for me to be forgiving of those who inhabit my immediate experience. In other words, any effective answer on my part to your questions begins with my forgiving the world for being the way it is. I do most effectively by being, both IN and AS myself, the way that I would have all of the world's unforgiving people be, in accordance with Gandhi's statement (similar to Buddha's), "You must be the difference you wish to see in the world." You may notice that both Buddha's and Ghandi's statements are variations on the theme of the Golden Rule. Doing unto others as I would have them do unto me functions as a moral statement only because it is an accurately practical statement of how the world works. Embodying this rule as a way of life is the only way that others' unforgiveness may be meaningfully mitigated via my influence since, as Emmet Fox also similarly observed, “As within, so without. You cannot think one thing and produce another." The way of the world is to think peace by producing violence. To be in the world yet not of it is to think peace, speak peace, and be peace. As Ghandi's wife said when asked how he was able to speak publically for several hours without notes, yet never stray from his point or unduly repeat himself: "You and I, we think one thing, say another, and do a third. With Ghandiji it's all the same." (Reclaiming Space) Since I am also a minister (and thus a person who grows in public) I have likewise been subject to my fair share of others' abusive perceptions - and then some. I also understand where it is coming from. Congregants tend to act out in their church family all the "games people play"-ing that they did in their family of origin, their minister now being played with as their parent. Since my second wife was also a minister, with whom I shared the pulpit and overall leadership of our church, such parental substitution was especially apparent in our congregants' playing of us against one another. One time this all became so wearing on us that my wife declared, "I'm tired of raising adults!" In any event, over time I have coached myself into responding to such situations by praying for the wisdom to discern the gift that is being obscured by the abuse. I think what David was initially detecting (before he defected) was God's tendency to wrap our gifts in ways we least expect. (Perspectives on Forgiveness) Your question about the relationship between ill will and forgiveness is an excellently pertinent one, and I will address it from my own experience, which generally accords with Dr. Luskin's findings. In a nutshell, my experience has been this: the way to forgiveness is difficult until forgiveness becomes my way. (A recent post from Monica has assisted me in clearly seeing this to be the case.) Accordingly, when forgiveness is complete, ill will evaporates. When forgiveness is still in process, some residue of ill will remains. The degree to which I experience ill will is a barometer of my UNforgiveness. So long as there is any such reading, forgiveness is incomplete. Those who take an all-or-nothing moralistic stance tend to compare forgiveness to pregnancy or virginity, saying that one can no more be somewhat forgiving than somewhat pregnant or somewhat virginal. My own experience is that forgiveness prevails at the point I am able to set aside remaining feelings of ill will as I forgivingly respond. Such response, in turn, attenutates the ill will I have set aside. The acid test of forgiveness is my ability to transcend feelings of ill will by no longer dwelling in such feelings. My feelings of ill will have a season of passage, are eventually make their passage so long as I do not entertain them as either the focus or the fuel of my intention and attention. As to the relationshiop between love and forgiveness - and again in my own experience - forgiveness is love in expression, while unforgiveness is an expression of my being out of touch with my humanKINDness. (Forgiving myself . . .) Thank you, Monica, for making such effective use of this course in your own life and that of others. (And you can't, of course, just make use of it in your own life without impacting others.) Making forgiveness a way of life is something about which little has been written, and is therefore the subject of my forthcoming book on self-forgiveness. (Perspectives . .) I have appreciated your contributions to the course as well, Dilys, and am grateful that it is, through you, serving your immediate community. I will be announcing an additional chat schedule for the coming week, even though the course is over. Perhaps you can make it to another session. (Perspectives . .) Your gratitude is appreciated by me, Monica. For the benefit of those who never made it to a chat session - or would like to have another, I am scheduling another set of chats this week, even though the course is offcially over as of Sunday, June 15. (Politics of Grievance) Does it seem to you, Janice, as it does to me, that almost all political campaign ads are based on grievance against the opposition? Election campaigns tend to institutionalize the country's grievances - and therefore its unforgiveness. As I see the political situation overall, prevailing election strategy in the U.S. consists of offending everyone equally, while pretending to please everyone, thereby avoiding the alienation of any constituency. In other words, the political system specializses in the equalization (a.k.a. "democratization") of grievance. (Politics of Forgiveness) South Africa's Truth and Reconciliation Commission was notable in that it set up a system whereby it acted on behalf of the public's arriving at forgiveness, rather than on behalf of forgiveness per se. (Forgiving Myself . . .) I am delighted to know that this course has supported you professionally as well as personally. Concerning self-forgivenesss: one's exoneration from require nothing less than a thorough perceptual makeover. The nature and process of that makeover is the subject of my forthcoming book. (Perspectives . . .) Your point is so well taken, Janice, that I am inspired to suggest to Dr. Luskin that the course be renamed "Forgiving for Your Own Good" (which might also have been a more powerful book title). This may increase its appeal to the masculine psyche without putting off the feminine one. If the change of title works for him, I will then propose it to AllLearn. If it goes through, I will tweak the course outline accordingly. [ETTY HILLESUM] Another woman who chose to be forgiving of the Holocaust, even in the midst of it and on her way to her certain death, was Etty Hillesum, as evidenced in the journals and letters she left behind. Etty demonstrated one of the greatest examples of forgiveness while in extremis that is presently on record. Her remarkable response to the Holocaust provides such a contrast to Wiesenthal's that some hard questions are thereby posed: Is forgiving only what is forgivable all that forgiveness is about? Is there more than one right way to respond to the unforgivable? See http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/quotes/e/q133536.html http://www.metroactive.com/papers/metro/08.14.97/cover/lit4-9733.html http://www.math.umn.edu/~ferretti/etty.html http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0805050876/qid=1020955302/sr=1-1/ref=sr_1_1/102-8507617-9648937 (I am also sending this post to everyone in the class via e-mail.) E-mailed version: Dear Power of Forgiveness Participants, Because of its extraordinary content, I am sending this message to all of you, as well as posting it in response to Dilys' reference to Corrie Ten Boom in THE IMPACT OF WEISENTHAL'S GRIEVANCES . . . thread. That it was possible for at least one person, even in the midst of it and on her way to her certain death, is evidenced in the journals and letters of Etty Hillesum. Etty demonstrated one of the greatest examples of forgiveness while in extremis that is presently on record. Her remarkable response to the Holocaust provides such a contrast to Wiesenthal's that some hard questions are thereby posed: Is forgiving only what is forgivable all that forgiveness is about? Is there more than one right way to respond to the unforgivable? The following websites are in remembrance of Etty Hillesum: http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/quotes/e/q133536.html http://www.metroactive.com/papers/metro/08.14.97/cover/lit4-9733.html http://www.math.umn.edu/~ferretti/etty.html http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0805050876/qid=1020955302/sr=1-1/ref=sr_1_1/102-8507617-9648937 Stay in the grace! Noel McInnis noelmcinnis@choosingforgiveness.com Here are some perspectives on grudge-holding that may be helpful. I have also added them to the DYNAMICS OF GRUDGE-HOLDING thread under the title, "Perspectives on grudge-holding." 1. The quotation that heads up Chapter 7 of Dr. Luskin's book. 2. Someone's observation that holding onto a grudge is like picking up a burning ember to throw at another and never releasing it. 2. A statement by Dale Carnegie: "When we hate our enemies, we are giving them power over us: power over our sleep, our appetites, our blood pressure, our health, and our happiness. Our enemies would dance with joy if only they knew how they were worrying us, lacerating us, and getting even with us! Our hate is not hurting them at all, but our hate is turning our own days and nights into a hellish turmoil." 3. A statement by Della Reese: "God said that the only way I can be forgiven is by my forgiving you. If I don't forgive you, and I hold some kind of resentment or grudge inside of me, it's not going to bother you. You'll go right on with your life, but I'll be suffering. I'll have backaches, nervous tension, or disease from the festering sore of this unforgiveness of you in me. My attitude about that is that . . . I won't give a person free rent in my mind when I don't even like that person." 4. A statement by Joseph Murphy: "You can't afford to harbor ill will or resentment, or seek to get even with someone else. Remember, you are the one thinking and feeling the hostility.This mental attitude robs you of vitality, enthusiasm, and energy, and leaves you a physical and mental wreck. Release the other person mentally, bless him, and walk on. If another is doing something wrong, the law of his own mind takes care of him. What you wish for another, you wish for yourself, so it is best to surrender him to God and wish for him all the blessings of life. As you do this, you will eradicate the sting in your mind." What all of these statements have in common is the recognition that grudge-holding is self-destructive. Accordingly, I have coined a phrase in this regard: "Seek not to know for whom your unforgiveness tolls, it takes its toll on thee." As it is with all learning, I am learning not to take things personally through PRACTICE! In situtations like the one you describe, I am learning to respond sincerely in a number of ways that are pertinent to the nature of the given circumstance, with statements such as: "What you think of me is none of my business." "I am willing to live with your having that perception of me, even though it hurts." "What you say doesn't match my experience." None of these statements is blameful, thereby returning hurt with unforgiveness. They are so unexpected that they tend to de-fuse the insulting person's negative energy, leaving him/her unfilfilled by his/her insult's intended "gotcha!" Does anyone else have similar rejoinders that you use when you are affronted by others. If not, can you think of some others that would serve the same de-fusing purpose? Dear Power of Forgiveness participants, You may find helpful what some previous students in this class have said about the difference between constructive and destructive anger. I have also added these statements to the "HOW I DISTINGUISH BETWEEN CONSTRUCTIVE AND DESTRUCTIVE ANGER" discussion thread under the title "Further Perspectives on Anger." "When anger festers and has no outlet, harm is done to the person, on many levels, and to the "other" involved. To express pain and anger through some creative medium--prose, poetry, painting, dance-- can ameliorate that pain and anger; plus, one ends up with an expression that may help someone else release their pain or anger." "Constructive anger is that which motivates us to change, or to action. Destructive anger is that which accomplishes no positive change." "Anger can be constructive when it helps me to feel better about myself after I've been wronged." "The main difference between constructive and deconstructive anger for me is the ability to express it, to act on it, perhaps to resolve it. Another difference is when the anger is in response to something that threatens my core values. I tend to gauge this type of response as being more constructive - or perhaps it just makes it easier for me to respond.The hard part about anger is expressing it appropriately, working it thru, making an impact, letting it go. If you can't express it or can't use it productively, then it's destructive. But, no matter what, you have to know you're angry." "Destructive anger will usually lead to revenge. Constructive anger will lead to a quick 180o turn toward a more positive place." "Anger that searches out an object is definitely destructive anger. Constructive anger can be very energizing." "Anger can be self-destructive when it is suppressed or repressed and not given any voice. Giving anger a destructive voice is not the solution, but not giving it any voice can be destructive too." "Destructive anger for me personally tends to be directed inward."