Forgiveness uphill

What follows is an excerpt from the diary of Robert Fripp from Friday, 13 July, 2001.

~~~~~~~

An apology is not enough to neutralise the repercussions of error.

First, there is a mistake.
Secondly, there is the recognition that a mistake has been made.
Thirdly, there is the acknowledgement that a mistake has been made.
Fourthly, we move to address the consequences of that mistake.

The apology is an external & public acknowledgement of error, and the beginning of addressing & redressing its repercussions. In some traditions, this may include confession. And there are degrees of apology. Nixon's apology, following his disgrace, was not properly an apology: it did not admit error, and accordingly did not permit of forgiveness. Forgiving was then placed upon those transgressed against, who had to make all of the effort from themselves: forgiveness uphill, as it were. Not everyone appeared willing to do so.

The "confession of a contrite heart", which places itself at the mercy of those "sinned" against, precedes "penance". What do these words convey, in a post-Christian, post-modernist, materialist world? Perhaps, an intentional undertaking that generates an energy that then becomes available to "repair" the situation? But we are never able, of and from ourselves, to meet all the consequences of our actions. This is where "redemption" is critical: somehow, when we honestly commit ourselves to addressing our errors, something comes in form the "outside" (but more properly, from the deep "inside"). We can't pay all the bill ourselves, so someone else chips in. This is turn allows for "absolution", where one is declared free of the consequences of our error, and then "atonement" - we become one with our community once more. Our error displaced us from that community, and now we are returned to it and accepted by it. Gagging orders, to silence dialogue, and a refusal to accept responsibility for our actions (even when forgiven) places us outside the circle of healing. This is essentially terrible.

So, why a digression into dodgy theology this sunny morning in Mount Juliet?

Firstly, theology has to be made real if it is to have any useful function, as with philosophy. University degrees in both have little to offer unless they are brought within the realm of the living, on the street, perhaps even the backstreet. I am not a theologian, but I do live life close to the street.

Secondly, because I have recently been reading the comments of a person of my professional acquaintance who gave me great offence. To my eyes, it is clear that the event has not registered with them in the same way that it has with me.

The acquaintance made some unfortunate remarks; apologised for making these unfortunate remarks, once they had became aware of my discomfiture; and I accepted their apology. The form of apology was partly qualified, and not itself entirely honest; suggesting to me that my acquaintance was embarrassed in some way, and knowing that their conduct was inappropriate. They seem to have believed that their apology ended the matter, and remain surprised even today that the consequences set in motion by their comments continue, if not in active motion, then to have an ongoing effect.

"I apologised! Clearly Fripp didn't accept my apology because he acts as if the consequences of my mistake continue to resonate!" This is an exaggeration, but is indicative. And the consequences do continue to have resonance.

The acquaintance does not understand that words alone are not enough, although words are considerable: they are actions, after all. "I'm sorry" is only the beginning of repairing a process set off course by error, of returning that process to its dynamic equilibrium and "forward going" motion. Anthropology reports examples of "traditional" communities that go to great lengths to settle & reconcile situations where offence has been given. Where this fails, in some societies the vendetta looks for redress, without much success it seems. So, in accepting the apology presented I gave up my right to seek redress from the "offender". I did not undertake to absorb all the responsibilities & repercussions generated by their actions. That is, I was prepared to do my own work; I was not prepared to take on theirs (in some situations, it would be otherwise).

The offensive comments indicated my acquaintance's way of thinking, feeling, how they saw the world, & how they perceived their place within it. Is this fair comment, to suggest that in our small actions we can decipher a larger agenda? We are surely becoming increasingly sophisticated in "reading" ourselves, and others. Popular works on "body language", and more elaborate processing (such as eye movements in NLP), have been available in the mainstream press for well over 20 years; the Alexander Technique is well known. Our use of language is also informative: we often use language to conceal our meaning, rather than to reveal it. But language conspires to act against our manipulation of it, to indicate our "real" feelings, meaning and intentions.

So, there was an outburst from my acquaintance: something triggered a default programme that, in turn, launched an attack which took verbal form, and "came from nowhere". I continue to have little idea of the outburst's origination; more accurately, what provoked the outburst. The comments were destructive, suggested to me that a point had been missed, that something had not been seen, that came from a particular kind of blindness: this person's Blind Spot. The particular & individual blind spot was an assumption of superiority. In a word, arrogance.

I have seen this individual blind spot "in action", as it were, over a period of time. This person saw themself as being not so much at the centre of their universe, as the centre of their universe, the point around which the universe moved. Long observation suggests to me this Blind Spot emerged partly as a result of supportive family upbringing, partly as the result of their particular (elite) education, partly their individuality & character, partly their success in the world. The effect of these were to confirm their superiority over others. The forms of expression were various: sometimes an astonishing arrogance or breathtaking rudeness; sometimes shared time taken up regardless of the needs of others, as if time also belonged to this person. And this governing feature was not rational. If challenged, this reasonable, decent, honest, likeable & talented person would have denied their superiority, while knowing simultaneously that their natural station have provided them to be set over others lower down the food chain of life.

In the various professional contexts that, from time to time, have put us together I allowed for this tendency, where possible, "turning a weakness to a strength". But after this specific outburst, on one level I recognised that something had changed. And then, eventually, I acknowledged that something had changed. I realised that I was no longer prepared to continue the attempt to "turn a seeming disadvantage to an advantage" when the person remained blind to the feature themself. Part of an adult's education is to know their default programming, and put strategies in place to work with it. This particular blindness generated repercussions which were not mine to accept.

This acquaintance saw my position, in return, as being an overreaction. After all, why read global implications in a small event? An example from another situation, then:

A manager of my long acquaintance, on the telephone to me in 1991, stopped speaking when one of their employees came into their office. This employee had been long entrusted with tasks which furthered the manager's interests at the expense of his artists, not all of which I believe squared easily with the employee's conscience. CK was, I assumed, considered part of the manager's professional family. Then the manager, in low voice & semi-whispering, came back on the line: "C -- is in the office - he's an employee!" The implication was clear: CK, despite years of loyalty, was not actually part of the meaningful world of movers & shakers. The conversation was not simply private - it was above the lower orders. All this in one word - employee - with a hissing emphasis that conveyed a global position.

So, perhaps I see universes in grains of sand. And perhaps the grains of sand are right to comment that I exaggerate their importance.

~~~~~~~