November 5, 2015

This morning I lay in bed, awakening, reflecting on the “meme” a friend had posted on Facebook, to this effect: “Imagine a true miracle: decide to forgive yourself.”   (I forget its source, though it may have been Buddhist.)

I’ve wondered about, and then tried, to do that. As I undertake the effort, I’m pondering its ramifications. To forgive means letting go, I presume, not of the responsibility or objective guilt of one’s offenses, but of the negative, repressive, discouraging effects of the ensuing guilt that inhibit one from taking up life with confidence that a purer, more productive and wholesome way of living can be achieved.

Forgiveness says to me:  don’t be controlled by the past, or by your fear that the past will repeat itself.  It therefore means committing oneself to a future unalloyed by a repetition of whatever one repents, and for which one receives forgiveness. I am trying to live in the confidence that I have indeed forgiven myself for all that is past.  Therefore, I try to live without so much of the self-centeredness I have known.   Overcoming the habit of self-centeredness is, of course, a fairly large undertaking.   How much of self-care and self-protection is necessary?  How much of self-indulgence, of self-promotion and unselfconscious social relations (especially with women) stems from healthy self-regard (self-love,) and how much is narcissistic, presumptuous, or even “boundary-crossing” flirtatiousness?   I do not find it easy to identify strict lines.

The difficulty of living morally, and at the same time “freely,” may be the rationale for a great many traditional religious regulations of human behavior.   As I’ve been told, ancient Hebrew tradition put a “fence around the Torah” so that one would be warned well in advance not to break barriers of respect protecting others in the community, nor to break one’s obedience to the Holy One.

But these “fences” which protect may also hamstring freedom, and limit life’s joy.   Legalism itself may separate one from life’s goodness.   When legalism imposes severe penalties for violating norms, such punishments may become life-denying and cruel.   Persons who internalize them may become cruel to themselves. This is so, I believe, because lawgivers—convinced they speak for God—may be mistaken.   In the arguments between “legalists” and “scofflaws,” where is true virtue to be found?   The answer seems not to be self-evident.   Whether the arena is war, criminal law and penalties, abortion, or child discipline, perfect balance is elusive.   How much more elusive, when each individual strives for balance in personal decision-making every day!

Shall I eat meat, or refrain? Shall I fish, or eat fish, and what limits shall I impose on how the fish is handled?   Shall I thread living worms onto fish hooks?   Shall I respect living things besides humans, and what will that mean in terms of personal behavior and communal law?

Will I work at controlling my temper?   How completely loving must I be?   How completely loving do I wish to be?   What is my goal, with respect to income, to accumulating wealth and giving it away?

What do I owe the descendants of those whom my ancestors chased away, enslaved, or killed?   What do I owe those peoples whom my government has helped other governments to subdue, disinherit, disenfranchise, or annihilate?

Why must life be so complicated?   Why must I think so hard?   Why can’t I just have a good time?   Humanity101 –it’s not a gut course.