As someone involved in KWH, of course I remember when your son was killed. I have no new words to offer, except to say that as a fellow victim of a hate crime, you can undoubtedly come closer to understanding Primo Levi.
May Blaze's memory be for a blessing.
I'm not sure if you had a chance or a desire to watch Al and me discuss my post on Primo. Here it is for your convenience.
Thanks for the thoughtful comment. I'm glad to have a comment from a Christian theological POV as it can only deepen our collective understanding and knowledge.
Isn’t forgiveness from a Christian standpoint, a very personal endeavor? A person who has wronged another person is expected to go to the victim and ask for forgiveness. Without this interaction, forgiveness is not even on the table. Thus your comment about letting go of resentment is much more appropriate and practical.
I could never understand the criticism about a victim not forgiving their abuser. Mostly because the act of forgiveness is, first, so personal, and second, can almost be a betrayal of one’s self. It is such an abstract concept that is interpreted in a variety of ways.
It is absolutely very personal and very much about the specific circumstances.
In Jewish law if you ask for forgiveness three times and the victim still turns you down, then the "sin" is supposedly passed on to the victim. Maybe that was to prevent an escalation of blood feuds in times when society was organized into tribes of extended families. (That's a guess!)
But contrary to that "law," I agree with you that the victim should have free agency as to whether to forgive.
“As Primo’s fame grew as an author about the Holocaust, he was besieged by requests that he forgive his enemies as an act of Christian mercy.”
Complete and entitled absurdity, given that first and foremost, Primo Levi is a Jew. And Jews don’t simply forgive like this.
It’s frankly entitled to ask at all for forgiveness. Both on an individual level and as a society.
Offering any forgiveness without the person who did the wrongdoing doing any attempt at reconciliation or self reflection or an abnegation of the self is to make a mockery of forgiveness itself.
It is both appalling and of a piece that any Christian would not recognize this of the forgiveness process, and Christian society would shy away from the simple recognition of that fact.
You remind me of the time I told my father how much something he had done hurt me. Instead of saying he was sorry, he said, “ we were young…” (meaning both of my parents). And, in all fairness, I do think we go through a time when we are young and still uncertain. We make mistakes, we say and do things we later wish we could take back. I’m not trying to diminish some of the truly awful things done by people who should have known better. But, I think it’s hard or impossible for a lot of people to acknowledge how awful they were. How do you explain that, especially when it’s so obvious now, years later, that you weren’t just wrong, but you’re behavior was something you can’t even justify to yourself?
The only thing we have left, for ourselves, is to accept the falibility of being human.
Your comment makes me think that remembering our own awful youthful behavior and the awful youthful behavior of others can be salutary, if with age we realize that we've all become wiser. Fallibility, yes, but ability to grow as well.
If "we were young" was meant to explain, then it also implies a recognition of the mistake made. Perhaps he was offering that but was unable to go a step further and make an apology, which would have been a more direct acknowledgement of what he did. Sometimes, indirect is all we can get. But, he did indicate he knew what he had done and even if it was in some sort of youthful ignorance, he was aware and he had to live with it. Had he been able to be more direct in acknowledging it, he, too, would have benefited. But that was his burden and this is where letting go comes in, to allow yourself to live a better life not having forgotten, but having put it down for your own sake.
Thanks, Josh. It wasn’t anything all that bad, actually. He thought he was being protective, but the way he handled things could have been a lot better. I think I just wanted him to say, “I’m sorry,” but that was something he seemed incapable of doing. It was always like that.
Truthfully, I had really kind and loving parents, but neither were particularly good at communicating. Most of the time, when they were upset, they’d stop talking for awhile, and gradually (we’re talking the same day), things would thaw, and it was as if it never happened! 🙄
My brothers and I have struggled with bad communication ever since I can remember. I know I’ve talked about “not talking” to my brothers at various times in our other forums, and I’m sure this is a big part of the problem. Unfortunately, all of us can hold out a lot longer because we aren’t under the same roof.
However, we are much more likely to apologize. I think both of my brothers have a harder time with that than I do, but they still do a better job of mending fences than my parents did. It’s interesting to realize how much our upbringing impacts our behavior, and even our beliefs. Thank goodness for therapy!
Not living under the same roof unfortunately makes it easier for things to be left unaddressed for too long. However, living under the same roof is no guarantee that communication is any better. More on this, one day perhaps, in private.
It seems to me that to forgive someone is to change ourselves, not wait on someone else to be better. It is looking past the person to something higher. An impossible thing if you don't believe there is anything higher. It seems to me to be an act somehow beyond morality.
That's an interesting point of view and takes us back to the Alexander Pope couplet that to forgive is divine. I worry that to forgive is often followed by "to forget" and forgetting can lead to continuing toxic situations and relationships. But that is on a practical level and not the higher level you reference. Thanks for the thoughtful comment.
1. I think Vanadium is the only element in the periodic table that exists in a form with a positive charge, a negative charge and a neutral charge. This is why something called a "flow battery" has neutral vanadium split into two parts- one negative and one positive, and when you combine those opposite liquids, energy is released and you get the original neutrally charged vanadium. In theory, unlike most batteries, this can have a virtually unlimited number of charge cycles. Something in the description about the prison guard relates to these properties of vanadium, so I wonder if it is a coincidence that the chapter was named for that element.
2. I was recently told that holding anger for another person is like taking poison and hoping the other person will die. Dissipating anger and forgiving are not the same, but a failure to move on (also not the same as failure to forgive) can be as corrosive or more to the person who "won't let go", regardless of whether the apology sought is ever given.
My understanding is that the elements were carefully chosen to match the chapter, although sometimes the connection is obiovus and sometimes much more obscure to me. Partly due to my not having a good grasp on chemistry.
I can see based on your explanation of Vanadium how its ambivalence matches the some of the mabivalence of Primo's feelings about meeting Muller.
I agree completely about anger and letting go. I have long thought that anger is a terrible waste of energy. Beyond a moment when it may serve us in self defense, it is a destructive force. Letting go does not have to require either forgetting or forgiveness. Letting go of anger is what is needed as a first step and the lack of it prevents subsequent steps.
We are all imperfect judges of character! You certainly can have forgiveness without continuing the relationship and without forgetting any lessons learned. Your "formula" is a great one, because I think it provides the maximum value to the victim of the damage.
Your comment sparked this thought as well: Assuming other people in one's"circle" know the person who caused the damage, does one have a responsibility to warn?
Beautiful piece. Forgiveness comes with the byline-- it depends. It truly depends on the circumstances. Some actions are unforgivable. Murder, rape, pedophilia, etc. No excuse for these actions.
Forgiveness is a nice idea, possibly good for the forgiver, but I think letting go is even more important. Sometimes, the long-lasting trauma is worse than the trauma causing event. I will not speak of it here, but someone close to me has told me that what angers her is not the act that was committed, but what it left her with that has informed the rest of her life for that has been what she has wrestled with for decades. Had she been able to let go long ago, her life would not have been as plagued by the event as has been the case. Letting go is something we can do and it does not require us to forgive. If we can find a way to let go, we can move on. Sure, we will be scarred and letting go does not erase those scars, but it allows them to fade a bit and makes it easier for us to focus on our present. Forgiveness can certainly help us, but it is not necessary. As to who can forgive, I agree completely. I cannot forgive someone for what they did to another. One further note: Forgiving does not mean that it was okay.
David, I'm glad you were able to have a good relationship with your mother in the winter of her life.
I found tragic that Primo took his own life, was not expecting that. And I find the example you provide very thought provoking.
We are all flawed human beings, and every will let us down at some point or another. Matthew 18:21-35 deals with forgiveness and Jesus telling Peter to forgive seventy-seven times, which I will be the first one to admit, it is a very difficult thing to do.
I don't have a definitive answer but thought I'd share that small piece of scripture in order to contribute to this very interesting conversation. Definitely something I'll continue to ruminate for a while.
This: "It is possible, however, to let go of anger without forgiving." Either one understands this or does not. Right now I'm working on it. Isn't that "not forgiving" a simmering anger? Ready for when you meet the cause of that anger again (Muller)? It is very Jewish, this erasing of an evil doer (think Amalek). Then again, we are remembering through the erasing. It's a conundrum!
David, this is a beautiful piece, and it is nudging me to read Levi - regarding forgiveness by victims, Levi’s response brought to mind a long feature about reparations in Rwanda by Phillip Gourevitch, “After the Genocide” (New Yorker). He also wrote a book about reporting in Rwanda at the time.
Thanks Martha for the comments and the recommendation.
I did a video discussion with a professor friend who really knows Levi cold. It's more of a time commitment at 25 minutes, but if you're going to tackle The Periodic Table or other Primo books, it might be a useful intro.
I have many times forgiven. Forgiving acknowledges that an offense was committed by the forgiven, whether or not the offender asks for—or even wants—forgiveness. I have forgiven people who did not ask for it, people who haven't even apologized. What I will not do is forget.
You raise a fascinating question: the relationship between forgiving and forgetting. If you don't forget and the action is active in your memory so that your view of the forgiven person is altered, is that modified forgiveness?
Maybe "qualified" forgiveness? But I truly believe I have forgiven. My attitude is that if an individual commits an offense that I forgive and then forget, and then that individual commits the same type of offense again, I've learned nothing. It's the old "burn me once..." maxim. If someone continues to commit offenses against me, I want them out of my life. Consider the Catholic Church's child abuse legacy. An offending priest abuses. He confesses, promises repentance (meaning, to change his ways), he's given a penance, he's forgiven, and his slate is clean. The church doesn't send him back to the same parish, because the parishioners aren't seen to be as forgiving. So he's sent to another parish, where he abuses again. And again he confesses, etc., and the cycle repeats. I think forgetting is more likely to be a mistake than a benefit.
Jeanne,
As someone involved in KWH, of course I remember when your son was killed. I have no new words to offer, except to say that as a fellow victim of a hate crime, you can undoubtedly come closer to understanding Primo Levi.
May Blaze's memory be for a blessing.
I'm not sure if you had a chance or a desire to watch Al and me discuss my post on Primo. Here it is for your convenience.
https://robertsdavidn.substack.com/p/primo-levi-the-holocaust-and-forgiveness
Sincerely,
David Roberts
Thanks for the thoughtful comment. I'm glad to have a comment from a Christian theological POV as it can only deepen our collective understanding and knowledge.
Isn’t forgiveness from a Christian standpoint, a very personal endeavor? A person who has wronged another person is expected to go to the victim and ask for forgiveness. Without this interaction, forgiveness is not even on the table. Thus your comment about letting go of resentment is much more appropriate and practical.
I could never understand the criticism about a victim not forgiving their abuser. Mostly because the act of forgiveness is, first, so personal, and second, can almost be a betrayal of one’s self. It is such an abstract concept that is interpreted in a variety of ways.
It is absolutely very personal and very much about the specific circumstances.
In Jewish law if you ask for forgiveness three times and the victim still turns you down, then the "sin" is supposedly passed on to the victim. Maybe that was to prevent an escalation of blood feuds in times when society was organized into tribes of extended families. (That's a guess!)
But contrary to that "law," I agree with you that the victim should have free agency as to whether to forgive.
Thanks for the thoughtful comment.
Excellent piece today.
Making amends to those we have aggrieved defintely benefits the dinner more than the sinned.
Hopefully it also helps the sinned carry less resentments which are also very unhealthy.
Thanks Bob.
So Complicated. After ready this it makes me realize that in some cases forgiveness is impossible.
“As Primo’s fame grew as an author about the Holocaust, he was besieged by requests that he forgive his enemies as an act of Christian mercy.”
Complete and entitled absurdity, given that first and foremost, Primo Levi is a Jew. And Jews don’t simply forgive like this.
It’s frankly entitled to ask at all for forgiveness. Both on an individual level and as a society.
Offering any forgiveness without the person who did the wrongdoing doing any attempt at reconciliation or self reflection or an abnegation of the self is to make a mockery of forgiveness itself.
It is both appalling and of a piece that any Christian would not recognize this of the forgiveness process, and Christian society would shy away from the simple recognition of that fact.
Agree with everything you wrote. Thanks for the insightful comment.
You remind me of the time I told my father how much something he had done hurt me. Instead of saying he was sorry, he said, “ we were young…” (meaning both of my parents). And, in all fairness, I do think we go through a time when we are young and still uncertain. We make mistakes, we say and do things we later wish we could take back. I’m not trying to diminish some of the truly awful things done by people who should have known better. But, I think it’s hard or impossible for a lot of people to acknowledge how awful they were. How do you explain that, especially when it’s so obvious now, years later, that you weren’t just wrong, but you’re behavior was something you can’t even justify to yourself?
The only thing we have left, for ourselves, is to accept the falibility of being human.
Your comment makes me think that remembering our own awful youthful behavior and the awful youthful behavior of others can be salutary, if with age we realize that we've all become wiser. Fallibility, yes, but ability to grow as well.
If "we were young" was meant to explain, then it also implies a recognition of the mistake made. Perhaps he was offering that but was unable to go a step further and make an apology, which would have been a more direct acknowledgement of what he did. Sometimes, indirect is all we can get. But, he did indicate he knew what he had done and even if it was in some sort of youthful ignorance, he was aware and he had to live with it. Had he been able to be more direct in acknowledging it, he, too, would have benefited. But that was his burden and this is where letting go comes in, to allow yourself to live a better life not having forgotten, but having put it down for your own sake.
Thanks, Josh. It wasn’t anything all that bad, actually. He thought he was being protective, but the way he handled things could have been a lot better. I think I just wanted him to say, “I’m sorry,” but that was something he seemed incapable of doing. It was always like that.
Truthfully, I had really kind and loving parents, but neither were particularly good at communicating. Most of the time, when they were upset, they’d stop talking for awhile, and gradually (we’re talking the same day), things would thaw, and it was as if it never happened! 🙄
But it did and it left an impression that could have been washed away with a simple, timely apology. All to often, we don't do that.
My brothers and I have struggled with bad communication ever since I can remember. I know I’ve talked about “not talking” to my brothers at various times in our other forums, and I’m sure this is a big part of the problem. Unfortunately, all of us can hold out a lot longer because we aren’t under the same roof.
However, we are much more likely to apologize. I think both of my brothers have a harder time with that than I do, but they still do a better job of mending fences than my parents did. It’s interesting to realize how much our upbringing impacts our behavior, and even our beliefs. Thank goodness for therapy!
Not living under the same roof unfortunately makes it easier for things to be left unaddressed for too long. However, living under the same roof is no guarantee that communication is any better. More on this, one day perhaps, in private.
Sounds good. Thanks.
It seems to me that to forgive someone is to change ourselves, not wait on someone else to be better. It is looking past the person to something higher. An impossible thing if you don't believe there is anything higher. It seems to me to be an act somehow beyond morality.
That's an interesting point of view and takes us back to the Alexander Pope couplet that to forgive is divine. I worry that to forgive is often followed by "to forget" and forgetting can lead to continuing toxic situations and relationships. But that is on a practical level and not the higher level you reference. Thanks for the thoughtful comment.
We can’t forget. That’s why forgiveness is so powerful. Anyway, thanks.👍🏼
David- 2 Things
1. I think Vanadium is the only element in the periodic table that exists in a form with a positive charge, a negative charge and a neutral charge. This is why something called a "flow battery" has neutral vanadium split into two parts- one negative and one positive, and when you combine those opposite liquids, energy is released and you get the original neutrally charged vanadium. In theory, unlike most batteries, this can have a virtually unlimited number of charge cycles. Something in the description about the prison guard relates to these properties of vanadium, so I wonder if it is a coincidence that the chapter was named for that element.
2. I was recently told that holding anger for another person is like taking poison and hoping the other person will die. Dissipating anger and forgiving are not the same, but a failure to move on (also not the same as failure to forgive) can be as corrosive or more to the person who "won't let go", regardless of whether the apology sought is ever given.
Best Michael
My understanding is that the elements were carefully chosen to match the chapter, although sometimes the connection is obiovus and sometimes much more obscure to me. Partly due to my not having a good grasp on chemistry.
I can see based on your explanation of Vanadium how its ambivalence matches the some of the mabivalence of Primo's feelings about meeting Muller.
I agree about their anger and letting go.
Thanks for the informative comment!
I agree completely about anger and letting go. I have long thought that anger is a terrible waste of energy. Beyond a moment when it may serve us in self defense, it is a destructive force. Letting go does not have to require either forgetting or forgiveness. Letting go of anger is what is needed as a first step and the lack of it prevents subsequent steps.
Thank you for this. I shall be thinking about it for quite a while.
We are all imperfect judges of character! You certainly can have forgiveness without continuing the relationship and without forgetting any lessons learned. Your "formula" is a great one, because I think it provides the maximum value to the victim of the damage.
Your comment sparked this thought as well: Assuming other people in one's"circle" know the person who caused the damage, does one have a responsibility to warn?
Beautiful piece. Forgiveness comes with the byline-- it depends. It truly depends on the circumstances. Some actions are unforgivable. Murder, rape, pedophilia, etc. No excuse for these actions.
Forgiveness is a nice idea, possibly good for the forgiver, but I think letting go is even more important. Sometimes, the long-lasting trauma is worse than the trauma causing event. I will not speak of it here, but someone close to me has told me that what angers her is not the act that was committed, but what it left her with that has informed the rest of her life for that has been what she has wrestled with for decades. Had she been able to let go long ago, her life would not have been as plagued by the event as has been the case. Letting go is something we can do and it does not require us to forgive. If we can find a way to let go, we can move on. Sure, we will be scarred and letting go does not erase those scars, but it allows them to fade a bit and makes it easier for us to focus on our present. Forgiveness can certainly help us, but it is not necessary. As to who can forgive, I agree completely. I cannot forgive someone for what they did to another. One further note: Forgiving does not mean that it was okay.
Thanks for the thoughtful comment, Josh.
I agree about letting go. In most cases, much more salutary than forgiving , which may mean continuation of a bad situation.
David, I'm glad you were able to have a good relationship with your mother in the winter of her life.
I found tragic that Primo took his own life, was not expecting that. And I find the example you provide very thought provoking.
We are all flawed human beings, and every will let us down at some point or another. Matthew 18:21-35 deals with forgiveness and Jesus telling Peter to forgive seventy-seven times, which I will be the first one to admit, it is a very difficult thing to do.
I don't have a definitive answer but thought I'd share that small piece of scripture in order to contribute to this very interesting conversation. Definitely something I'll continue to ruminate for a while.
His writing was a triumph of hope and persistence, so it was indeed so sad for the world to have lost him.
Thanks for your comment and adding that selection of scripture.
This: "It is possible, however, to let go of anger without forgiving." Either one understands this or does not. Right now I'm working on it. Isn't that "not forgiving" a simmering anger? Ready for when you meet the cause of that anger again (Muller)? It is very Jewish, this erasing of an evil doer (think Amalek). Then again, we are remembering through the erasing. It's a conundrum!
David, this is a beautiful piece, and it is nudging me to read Levi - regarding forgiveness by victims, Levi’s response brought to mind a long feature about reparations in Rwanda by Phillip Gourevitch, “After the Genocide” (New Yorker). He also wrote a book about reporting in Rwanda at the time.
Thanks Martha for the comments and the recommendation.
I did a video discussion with a professor friend who really knows Levi cold. It's more of a time commitment at 25 minutes, but if you're going to tackle The Periodic Table or other Primo books, it might be a useful intro.
https://robertsdavidn.substack.com/p/primo-levi-the-holocaust-and-forgiveness
I have many times forgiven. Forgiving acknowledges that an offense was committed by the forgiven, whether or not the offender asks for—or even wants—forgiveness. I have forgiven people who did not ask for it, people who haven't even apologized. What I will not do is forget.
You raise a fascinating question: the relationship between forgiving and forgetting. If you don't forget and the action is active in your memory so that your view of the forgiven person is altered, is that modified forgiveness?
Maybe "qualified" forgiveness? But I truly believe I have forgiven. My attitude is that if an individual commits an offense that I forgive and then forget, and then that individual commits the same type of offense again, I've learned nothing. It's the old "burn me once..." maxim. If someone continues to commit offenses against me, I want them out of my life. Consider the Catholic Church's child abuse legacy. An offending priest abuses. He confesses, promises repentance (meaning, to change his ways), he's given a penance, he's forgiven, and his slate is clean. The church doesn't send him back to the same parish, because the parishioners aren't seen to be as forgiving. So he's sent to another parish, where he abuses again. And again he confesses, etc., and the cycle repeats. I think forgetting is more likely to be a mistake than a benefit.