Perspective. Hear the scream.
Us
Our life is not what happens to us.
Our life is about how we respond to what happens to us.
When this is understood, there is never the need to feel a 'victim'.
Giving in to the desires of this world can tug us away from acting with Love.
The feeling of hate is the
feeling of hate. It is not hate.
The action of hate is hate.
The feeling of anger is the
feeling of anger. It is not anger.
The action of anger is anger.
The feeling of lust is
the feeling of lust. It is not lust.
The action of lust is lust.
Forgiveness
is not a feeling.
Forgiveness is a decision.
A feeling of hate and anger might
persist when you decide to forgive.
This is OK. Feelings are feelings,
they come, they go. Actions are
decisions. Actions define you.
What does it mean to forgive?
Think of what you would do if you
chose not to forgive. Then don't do
that.
Think of what you would do if you
chose to forgive. Then do that.
Don't ignore your feelings, but
don't act on your feelings. Let your
feelings instruct.
It is a greater thing to forgive
when you feel so sore.
Act on your decisions.
Forgiving someone does not mean you
can now trust them.
Love is intelligent, it is not
naive.
Your
life is how you respond to what
happens to you, not the feelings
you get from what happens to you.
Response is action. Response is
your decision.
Feelings are not your decision.
Feelings are what happens to you.
They might be pleasant or
unpleasant, but they are not
morally good or bad.
The feelings you have are not your fault. Nature gives you your feelings.
Do not worry about
your feelings. Do not be upset
about your feelings. Do not be
afraid of your feelings.
Listen to your feelings. Share
your feelings with God. The
happy good ones and the base
ones. All of them, always.
The random thoughts you have are not morally good or bad.
There is nothing
wrong with feelings. In
this sense all feelings
are good - even the
unpleasant ones, even the
painful ones, even the
'evil' ones.
The same can be said about
thoughts. Random thoughts
- but if you were to
choose to entertain random
'evil' thoughts so much
that they lead you to do
evil actions, this is
wrong.
It is what you do that can
be bad. What you do that
can be good.
Hate is real.
It does not help.
Lust is real. It does
not help.
Anger is real. It does
not help.
But the feelings of
these things are useful.
They can instruct you
about you.
Forgiveness helps. This
does not mean that the
State shouldn't lock up
or expel the
uncivilized. If running
the State is your job
then do your job. Will
you do it with Love or
will you do it without
Love?
Do not
be naive. Be
intelligent.
Love is intelligent.
It is not naive.
We
are in charge of our
life.
If we say we are
not, we have given
our life away.
It is never too late
to take it back.
What
should we strive
after?
We should strive
after Love.
Do you have to
strive after Love?
You do not have to
strive after Love.
But what would you
strive after?
Love
is not desire.
Desire is
desire.
Love does not
possess.
Love suffers
others.
Love does not
cling to this
life.
Love does not
cling to things
in this world.
Love does not
cling to people
in this world.
Love does not
cling to
objects.
Love does not
cling to
pleasures.
Love does not
cling to power.
Love clings to
truth,
integrity,
fairness, honor,
respect, hope,
honesty, and
brings freedom
and joy.
Love is a
choice. Love is
an action.
There is no
lust, anger,
envy, greed,
laziness or hate
in Love.
When
a person who
has chosen to
act with Love
is done wrong
by another,
that person
suffers the
pain caused by
the wrong
doing, but
chooses not to
hate the
other.
Love suffers
others. (for
Love's sake).
God exists for you if you choose this.
gods exist for you if you choose this.
My God is Love. This is a choice. What is yours? What will you choose?
If you have no god, this is your choice.
But you will believe in something and this will give you your values. What is it?
Would you want to say you believe in nothing? I would say that you do not know what you believe in.
Call Him God, or call Him the Most Merciful. Whichever name you use, to Him belong the Best Names. And here I call Him Love and this is one of the Best Names.
Fear
is real. Fear
is a feeling.
It is not a
pleasant
feeling but it
is a good one.
All feelings
can be seen as
good.
Feelings can
instruct if
you choose to
listen to
them.
Courage is an action. Courage is good.
Can
we
courageously
do something
bad?
It is not
courageous to
do a bad
thing.
It is cowardly
and selfish to
do a bad
thing.
All
the evil
things that
have happened,
you could do
them too. But
would you?
How would you
know until you
have to make
that choice?
You might say
that you
couldn't do
the evil
things others
have done.
I say there is
more to you
than you know.
This is why we
should be
quick to
forgive
others.
But be slow to
trust others.
Love is
intelligent.
The
powerful of
this world are
weak.
They are
powerful
because they
give in to
their great
desire.
They are
powerful
because they
want to
possess and
they work hard
to possess.
They are
powerful
because they
cling to what
they possess.
They have much
desire. They
are nothing
without their
things. They
are the
powerful weak.
Truly
strong people
do not seek
power, do not
want power, do
not need power
of this world.
They do not
want to
possess.
They have
everything
with nothing.
The
powerful weak
do not want
what the truly
strong want.
The truly
strong do not
want what the
powerful weak
want.
If
the powerful
weak get what
the truly
strong want,
the truly
strong will be
happy and
rejoice in
them.
If the truly
strong get
what the
powerful weak
want, the
powerful weak
will be angry
with envy and
want to take
it from them,
and perhaps
even kill
them.
The powerful weak do not understand or see the power of the truly strong.
Needy
and insecure
people, who
can't see Love
and have much
desire, seek
power over
others and
things to feel
safe.
These needy
and insecure
people want to
keep what they
have to feel
safe.
Honest
people have
joy from Love
and do not
seek power.
The Love helps
them feel
safe.
So which of these two will end up with power in our society?
Although choices are black and white, yes and no; People are changing shades of grey.
When it comes to seeking truth are you a spectator or a disciple?
As a spectator you might have all the advanced academic degrees in philosophy, ethics, religion, sciences, and know nothing of truth.
Disciples can learn.
Do you understand this?
Are you noise without Love?
We
are what we
do. But what
we do is not
all of what we
are.
If I act
without
integrity, my
actions are a
lie. So when I
act without
integrity I am
a liar. Yet I
can act with
integrity and
when I act
with integrity
I am not a
liar.
We are what we
do in that
moment.
And in another
moment we can
be something
else. We can
be hateful. We
can be loving.
We can act
with
integrity, we
can act
without
integrity.
Yet either way
we are not
what happens
to us.
We are what we
choose to be.
What happens
to us is done
by another
person or
another thing.
That is not
our life, it
is their life.
Our life is
not what
others do, our
life is what
we do.
We are not
just white. If
we are born
white this is
something that
has happened
to us.
We are not
just black. If
we are born
black this is
something that
has happened
to us.
We are not
just
female. If
we are born
female this is
something that
has happened
to us.
We are not
just male. If
we are born
male this is
something that
has happened
to us.
We are not
just disabled.
If we have
disability,
this is
something that
has happened
to us. .
We are human.
We are human
and we respond
to what has
happened to
us. Under the
shell is the
human
struggling to
do well.
We are all
human.
Do not see a
woman and
think that is
all she is.
See a human in
a woman's body
having to live
with all that
that involves.
If you were
born a man,
what do you
think it would
be like to be
born a woman?
Do not see a
man and think
that is all he
is.
See a human in
a man's body
having to live
with all that
that involves.
If you were
born a woman,
what do you
think it would
be like to be
born a man?
Do not see a
person with a
disability and
think that is
all that
person is.
See a human in
a body that
has a
disability
having to live
with all that
that involves.
If you had
that
disability,
what do you
think it would
be like?
Whatever that
has happened
to us, we can
choose to hate
or love, to do
good or bad.
All these
things that
can happen to
us are not
that
important.
What we do is
important.
Death happens
to us. That is
not important.
How we live,
how we die,
how we face
death, that is
important.
Does it sound
flippant to
say death is
not important?
What does
'important'
mean here?- it
means can I do
anything about
it? What
choice do I
have about it?
My life is
what I do; my
choices. But I
have no choice
as to if I
die. I can
make no
decisions
about it. I
can make
choices about
how I live and
how I look
after myself
and others.
Death happens
to me, I have
no choice in
this. It is
therefore not
me doing it,
it is nature
or the Will of
God. I have no
say in the
inevitability
of death and
in this sense
I am not
important in
it's
happening. And
as I have no
say in it, it
is not
important to
me. But
knowing that I
will die and
how that
affects my
choices is
important to
me.
When these
things are
understood it
becomes
ridiculous to
define others
by color,
gender or
looks and such
things.
All we see
around us is
other humans
trying to cope
with their
lot.
And there is
Love,
but you
have to choose
to see it.
And don't be
afraid to see
it, after all,
it is what you
want.
Love
answers our
needs.
Hate separates
us from Love.
Why hate?
Forgiveness
does not mean
that you think
what was done
is now
acceptable.
Forgiveness
does not mean
that you
should ever
forget what
was done.
Forgiveness
does not mean
that you will
now trust the
other or think
they are now
ready for your
trust.
Forgiveness
means that you
will not hate
the other,
that you will
not do things
to them that
you would not
want done to
yourself, and
that you will
help them and
wish to help
them according
to your
abilities and
resources.
Helping
another does
not mean you
do what they
want. It means
doing what you
think is best
for them
according to
your abilities
and resources.
Then you might
think that to
help this
person or
people you
should judge
and punish
them according
to what you
see as God's
Law. But this
is not God's
Will. Only God
knows the
heart and so
only God can
judge. It is
not for you to
judge, it is
for you to
recognise that
you too are
not perfect,
it is for you
to forgive.
For those who
run the State
it is for them
to protect
others from
dangerous
people and
perhaps lock
them up, but
help them in
prison to the
best of your
abilities and
resources,
even if it is
thought safest
to keep them
there for life
no matter how
much they
plead. This is
not
punishment,
this is
maintaining
safety and is
in their best
interests as
well as others
if they
continue to
pose a real
threat. You
who run
States, it is
not for you to
judge, and not
for you to
punish. It is
for you to
protect and
help.
When it comes
to God's
judgement
perhaps you
don't know
what this
means? It will
come. God is
Love and if we
reject Love
and choose
Hate, if we
choose Death
and not Life,
well what do
you think will
happen?
Not to forgive
is to choose
to hate.
Hate separates
us from Love.
Why hate?
Feelings
are good.
Some are
enjoyable.
Some are
painful.
Endure
feelings.
Enjoy
feelings. Do
not hide from
feelings. They
instruct.
Do not shy
from pain.
Pain will come
your way, you
do not have to
seek it.
Accept it and
be happy with
it. Be
grateful. You
will not grow
if you run
from it.
Do not seek
pleasure, it
will come your
way. Accept
it and be
happy with
it. Be
grateful. You
will not grow
if you run
from it.
Seek truth.
Pain happens.
Suffer the
pain. Be
grateful. Be
patient. There
is more joy
than there is
pain. (If you
do this).
Does this mean
you should do
nothing to
alleviate
pain? No. You
should try and
alleviate
pain, but not
at the expense
of Love. And
the pain you
can't
alleviate;
suffer this
with Love.
Where
do we seek
this Love that
gives us joy
and that power
to forgive and
defeat hate?
It is already
within.
It's a journey
of honesty
discovering
what we are.
We cannot be
told this for
this to be
truly
understood. We
have to
journey
ourselves and
find out for
ourselves.
And no, of
course we
don't have to
journey this
path of
enlightenment.
We can choose
to stay as we
are and miss
out on life.
Don't we see
this around
us?
There is no
joy in hate.
There is joy
in Love.
Where is God?
God is within,
without, all
purveying,
everywhere,
nowhere. We
are made for
God. We are
made for Love.
This is the
discovery.
------------------------------
Interview with
Fr Aiden
Fr Aiden:
This
reads like a
personal
philosophy or
spiritual
manifesto,
something that
sits at the
intersection
of ethics,
faith, and
self-mastery.
There’s a
strong
internal
coherence to
it, and a few
key ideas
carry most of
the weight.
At its core,
you’re making
a sharp
distinction
between what
happens to us
(feelings,
circumstances)
and what we
choose to do
(actions,
responses).
That’s a
powerful
framing. It
echoes
traditions
like Stoicism
and certain
religious
teachings: you
don’t control
what arises in
you, but you
do control
what you act
on. In your
version, that
becomes almost
a moral law,
feelings are
neutral,
actions define
you.
Your treatment
of emotions is
especially
interesting.
You’re not
denying anger,
hate, lust, or
fear, you’re
demoting them.
They’re
signals, not
commands.
That’s
psychologically
sound in many
ways:
separating
feeling from
action is a
core skill in
emotional
regulation.
Where you go
further is
moral, saying
that only
actions can be
good or bad.
That’s a
strong claim,
and not
everyone would
agree, but
it’s
internally
consistent
with your
framework.
Forgiveness,
as you
describe it,
is also very
deliberate:
Not a
feeling
Not
forgetting
Not
trusting again
But a
refusal to act
with hate
That’s a
grounded,
practical
definition. It
avoids the
common trap of
confusing
forgiveness
with
reconciliation
or emotional
resolution.
The idea that
“love is a
choice, not a
feeling” is
really the
backbone of
everything
you’ve
written. You
define love
not as
attachment or
desire, but as
a set of
principles:
truth,
integrity,
fairness,
restraint, and
non-possession.
In that sense,
“love” becomes
almost
synonymous
with right
action. That’s
philosophically
close to agape
in Christian
thought or
certain
interpretations
of divine love
in other
traditions.
A few tensions
or questions
worth pushing
on.
You say
feelings are
not morally
relevant, only
actions are.
But what about
cultivating
certain inner
states over
time? If
someone
repeatedly
indulges
hateful
thoughts (even
without
acting), does
that shape who
they become in
a morally
relevant way?
You emphasize
personal
responsibility
strongly, “we
are in charge
of our life.”
That’s
empowering,
but real life
includes
trauma, mental
illness, and
structural
limits. How
does your
framework
account for
people whose
capacity to
“choose their
response” is
impaired?
You frame love
as having no
anger or hate
in it. Some
traditions
would argue
that a form of
anger, like
righteous
anger at
injustice, can
coexist with
love, or even
arise from it.
Do you see all
anger as
something to
transcend, or
can it ever be
part of love
when
disciplined?
Your
distinction
between
“powerful
weak” and
“truly strong”
is compelling,
but idealized.
In practice,
people often
contain both
at once. How
do you see
someone moving
from one to
the other?
What stands
out most is
that this
isn’t abstract
for you, it
reads like
something
meant to be
lived, not
just believed.
The repeated
emphasis on
choice,
action, and
discipline
suggests
you’re aiming
at a kind of
moral
training, not
just
reflection.
It’s a clear
and serious
attempt to
answer a hard
question: how
should a
person live
when they
don’t control
what they feel
or what
happens to
them?
----------------
Br Nicholas:
Let
me respond to
your questions
and tensions.
Your first
about
cultivating
negative inner
states over
time is
addressed in
the reflection
itself when it
says, "but
if you were to
choose to
entertain
random 'evil'
thoughts so
much that they
lead you to do
evil actions,
this is
wrong." It is
a choice, a
decision, to
cultivate
negative inner
states by
repeatedly
indulging in
hateful
thoughts. This
is coherent
with the
reflection.
Your
second about
personal
responsibility
is addressed
by the
proposition
that we are
not in a
position to
judge others.
The decision
of a person is
their decision
and their
responsibility,
but they are
only as
responsible as
far as they
are a
responsible
adult. There
are two things
going on here.
Firstly there
is the
immaturity of
the
compromised
person who
does not have
the
responsible
maturity to
cope under
whatever
stress (be
that coercion,
bullying,
threat). As we
don't judge
but assess, we
say to this
person, "we do
not condemn
you, but you
have committed
a crime and
you do not
have the
maturity to
say no to such
an action due
to your
impaired
mental health
in tandem with
your
psycho-social
history. There
is no
condemnation
here, but this
does not mean
that you are
no danger to
society. In
fact your
impairment has
shown you to
be a danger to
society and
you will be
incarcerated
not to punish
you, but to
attempt to
help you and
also to
protect
society. This
is truly done
with
compassion and
love. We care
about you, and
we care about
all you might
affect." The
second thing
going on is
that bad,
hateful
behavior is
the product ot
a lack of
insight
(enlightenment)
into the Truth
that Love is
right action.
Regardless if
it is
unrealistic to
expect and
impaired
person to act
maturely, an
action of hate
is never good.
So it is known
that many can
not behave
with such
integrity, but
because there
is never
condemnation
and only the
will to help
heal and grow,
the resulting
actions can be
assessed and
society given
appropriate
protection.
Your
third point
about anger: I
said all
feelings are
good. In the
reflection the
action of
anger was
defined as
negative, but
not the
feeling. I
concede that
the feeling of
anger can be a
positive
motivation to
confront
injustice.
When I said
that Love has
no anger or
hate it would
have been more
accurate for
me to have
said that Love
has no hateful
anger.
Your
forth point
about the
powerful weak
and the truly
strong is of
course fair.
But my
statement
refers to
those who rely
on material
power and
wealth for
status and not
the Love of
God. Those
whose status
and self worth
is knowingly
dependent on
the Love of
God, even if
rich and
powerful,
would
understand
this.
------------
Fr Aiden:
That
clarification
actually
tightens your
framework a
lot, you’re
not patching
holes so much
as making the
underlying
logic more
explicit.
On your first
point, the key
move you’re
making is
this: the
moral boundary
isn’t at the
appearance of
a thought, but
at the
decision to
entertain and
cultivate it.
That’s a clean
distinction.
It keeps your
original claim
intact
(feelings and
spontaneous
thoughts
aren’t moral)
while still
holding people
accountable
for what they
do with those
thoughts over
time. In
modern
psychological
terms, you’re
distinguishing
between
intrusive
content and
rumination.
Your system
places
responsibility
at the level
of attention
and
reinforcement,
not raw
emergence.
Your second
point is where
your
philosophy
becomes more
than personal
ethics, it
becomes a
theory of
justice.
You’re drawing
a line
between:
Condemnation
(rejected)
Assessment
and
containment
(accepted)
That’s a
serious
stance. You’re
essentially
arguing for a
justice system
grounded in:
protection
of society
rehabilitation
where possible
zero
moral hatred
toward the
offender
That’s
difficult to
live out in
practice, but
it’s
philosophically
consistent
with your
definition of
love as
intelligent,
not naive.
You’re also
implicitly
redefining
responsibility
as graded
rather than
absolute,
depending on
maturity and
capacity. That
avoids the
common
criticism that
“pure personal
responsibility”
frameworks
ignore real
human
limitations.
One subtle
tension
remains,
though, not a
contradiction,
but something
worth
refining:
If someone
lacks the
maturity or
capacity to
act
differently,
and their
harmful action
is the product
of that
limitation,
then in what
sense is the
action still
fully theirs?
You’ve said:
no
condemnation,
but still
containment.
That works
practically.
But
philosophically,
you’re holding
two ideas in
balance:
actions
of hate are
always wrong
some
people cannot
yet fully
choose
otherwise
You resolve it
by shifting
the response
(compassion +
protection),
rather than
softening the
moral claim
itself. That’s
a strong
stance, it
preserves
moral clarity
without
turning it
into moral
hostility.
On anger, your
refinement is
important. The
phrase
“hateful
anger” vs.
“non-hateful
anger” (even
if you didn’t
label it that
way) gives you
more
precision. It
allows for:
anger as
signal and
energy aligned
with justice
but
rejects anger
that seeks
harm,
domination, or
revenge
That aligns
well with your
earlier
principle:
feelings
instruct,
actions
define. The
anger can
remain; the
action must
still pass
through Love.
On your final
point about
“powerful
weak” vs.
“truly
strong,” your
clarification
removes the
oversimplification.
You’re not
condemning
wealth or
power
themselves,
you’re
targeting
dependence on
them for
identity and
security.
That’s a more
nuanced claim.
It shifts the
issue from
what someone
has to what
they are
rooted in.
If I were to
distill your
entire
framework into
its strongest,
most
defensible
form, it would
look something
like this:
Feelings
arise; they
are not chosen
and not moral.
Attention
and
cultivation of
inner states
are chosen.
Actions
are the
primary site
of morality.
Love is
not emotion
but
disciplined,
principled
action.
Justice
without
hatred;
protection
without
condemnation.
Human
beings vary in
capacity, so
responsibility
is real but
not uniform.
True
strength is
independence
from
possession and
status; rooted
instead in
Love (or
Truth).
The most
compelling
part of what
you’ve written
isn’t any
single claim,
it’s that
everything
points in the
same
direction: a
demand for
inner
discipline
without
self-hatred,
and moral
clarity
without hatred
of others.
If you wanted
to push this
even further,
the next step
wouldn’t be
adding more
ideas, it
would be
pressure-testing
it against
edge cases:
betrayal
by someone you
love deeply
repeated
injustice with
no
accountability
situations
where
protecting
others
requires
severe force
or when
forgiveness
seems to
conflict with
self-respect
That’s where
philosophies
either
fracture or
become
something
real.
If you’re open
to it, we
could take one
of those and
see how your
framework
actually holds
up under
strain.
----------------
Br Nicholas:
Yes, I like this challenge, do so. Pick one of those and put my framework under strain.
------------
Fr Aiden:
Alright,
let’s put real
pressure on
it.
Scenario:
Repeated
betrayal with
ongoing harm
Someone close
to you,
family,
partner, or a
lifelong
friend, has
betrayed you
in a serious
way. Not once,
but
repeatedly.
They lie,
manipulate,
and when
confronted,
they apologize
just enough to
keep access to
you, then do
it again. Over
time:
You are
emotionally
damaged
Your
trust is
eroded
Their
behavior
begins
affecting
others around
you (children,
mutual
friends, etc.)
They are not
mentally
incapacitated.
They
understand
what they’re
doing at some
level, but
they lack the
will or depth
to stop.
Now
let’s apply
your framework
step by step
Firstly,
feelings arise
(not your
fault)
You feel
anger, hurt,
maybe even
hatred. Your
framework
says:
These
feelings are
not morally
wrong
You
should not
suppress them
You
should listen
to them as
instruction
So far, solid.
In fact, those
feelings are
accurate
signals: “This
situation is
unsafe /
unjust.”
Secondly love
equates to
right action,
not naive
attachment
Your framework
explicitly
says:
Love is
not naive
Forgiveness
does not
equate or
imply trust
Love is
intelligent
So continuing
to trust this
person blindly
would actually
violate your
own definition
of Love.
Thirdly,
forgiveness =
refusing to
act with hate
So you decide:
You will
not seek
revenge
You will
not try to
harm them
You will
not dehumanize
them
But here’s the
pressure
point:
What do you do
about the
ongoing harm?
The strain. If
you:
Keep
them in your
life, this
harm continues
(to you and
possibly
others)
Cut them
off completely
then you may
feel like
you’re
abandoning
them, or
failing to
“help”
Your framework
says:
“Helping
another does
not mean doing
what they
want. It means
doing what you
think is best
for them
according to
your abilities
and
resources.”
So here are
your real
options:
Continue
engaging, try
to help. You
stay in their
life, set
boundaries,
try to guide
them. But the
problem here
is that they
keep violating
boundaries.
Your continued
presence
enables the
cycle. At some
point, your
“help” becomes
participation
in their
dysfunction.
This clashes
with
protecting
others and
acting with
truth and
integrity.
Or you could
withdraw (set
hard
boundaries or
cut contact).
You remove
access, no
contact, or
very limited
contact you
protect
yourself and
others. You
still do not
hate them,
would help if
they genuinely
changed and
wish for their
good. But they
may spiral
further, they
may accuse you
of cruelty and
you may feel
guilt.
Where your
framework is
tested is that
your
philosophy
holds that
Love helps,
Love does not
abandon, Love
is not naive,
and Love
protects. But
in this
scenario,
helping and
protecting
come into
conflict. So
the hard
question is,
is it an act
of Love to
walk away from
someone who is
actively
harming you
and others,
even if that
means they may
get worse?
If you say no,
you must stay
and help, then
you risk
enabling harm
and you
undermine
“Love is
intelligent”.
If you say
yes, you can
walk away,
then Love
includes
refusal of
access and
Love may look
like distance,
not closeness.
But then we
refine your
idea by saying
that Love is
not always
relational
presence.and
sometimes Love
is principled
separation.
What if the
only way to
protect others
is to expose
them publicly
or ensure
serious
consequences
(loss of
reputation,
legal action,
etc.)?
You don’t hate
them, but your
action will
harm their
life in a real
way. Is that
still Love?
To remain
consistent,
your
philosophy
would need to
accept that
Love can
inflict
consequences
without
hatred, Love
can withdraw
completely,
Love can
prioritize
protection
over
rehabilitation
when necessary
and Love does
not guarantee
the other
person’s
wellbeing,
only the
integrity of
your action.
In this
situation do
you believe
Love sometimes
requires
cutting
someone off
entirely, even
if they suffer
because of it?
And do you
believe Love
can justify
actions that
foreseeably
damage another
person’s life
(e.g.,
reporting
them, exposing
them), if done
without hatred
and for
protection/truth?
Your answers
to those will
determine
whether your
framework
stays
idealistic, or
becomes
something
difficult,
grounded, and
fully lived.
----------------
Br Nicholas:
OK,
I don't find
this too hard.
It reminds me
of a situation
where a
domestically
abused female
partner can't
get herself to
leave her
abusing
partner
because he
says he will
commit suicide
if she does.
So how to
answer. The
simplest way
to answer this
is to use the
words of Jesus
when telling
others who his
brothers and
sisters are,
"For whoever
does the will
of my Father
in heaven is
my brother and
sister and
mother". So
Love will not
attach or
cling to any
person as all
belong
primarily to
God, and if
one turns to
the dark side
we leave them
if we can't
help them,
even if they
say they will
be hurt by the
move. That
hurt that they
are
experiencing
is the
breaking of a
selfish habit
they have
worked
themselves
into, so it is
not a good
habit to keep
any case. Then
there is the
concern that
they might
suffer, but it
is an untruth
to label
suffering as
evil or bad.
Leaving that
person is not
what is
causing the
suffering. The
suffering is
coming from
the person's
own struggle
in not being
able to
continue the
abuse, because
that
opportunity
has now been
removed. And
suffering is
part of life
and growth and
not in itself
a bad thing,
although
unpleasant.
And if this
person would
go and hurt
others, yes
the right
thing might
well be to
report them to
the police and
expose them.
This action
might be a
painful thing
to do, but
that does not
mean it is not
the Loving
thing to do.
So this close
person I would
have to
confront and
say the
present
relationship
has to end.
Another 'good'
one might be
able to be
formed, but if
not there has
to be closure
because that
relationship
with me is the
very thing
that is wrong.
Love lets go.
And if they
kill
themselves,
this is sad,
but not
something to
be guilty
about. We help
according to
our abilities
and resources,
but beyond
that, we
can't.
We can of
course refer
to others that
might be able
to help. It is
a bit like the
terrorist or
kidnapper who
takes a
hostage and
kills them and
then blames
you. It is
they who did
the killing.
We still help
where we can.
Love is easier
when you look
at these
impaired
people and see
a scared lost
soul
struggling,
but that
doesn't mean
you trust them
or let them
continue in
causing
strife.
------------
Fr Aiden:
This
is one of the
strongest
parts of your
framework,
you’re willing
to follow it
through to
consequences
that many
people
instinctively
resist. And
importantly,
you’re not
using “Love”
to justify
passivity.
You’re letting
it justify
clear, even
difficult
action.
A few things
you’ve
articulated
here are
especially
solid:
Non-attachment:
You’re
grounding this
in the idea
that no person
“belongs” to
you, which
prevents love
from turning
into
possession or
dependency.
That protects
against
enabling
abuse.
Separation
without
hatred: You’re
holding the
line, leave,
protect,
report if
necessary, but
without
turning the
other person
into something
less than
human. That’s
difficult, and
it’s
consistent
with your
earlier
principles.
Responsibility
clarity: Your
hostage
analogy is
doing real
work. You’re
drawing a firm
boundary: you
are
responsible
for your
actions; they
are
responsible
for theirs,
even if they
try to
emotionally
coerce you.
Suffering
reframed:
You’re
refusing the
idea that all
suffering is
inherently
bad. In this
context,
you’re
interpreting
it as the
breaking of
destructive
patterns
rather than an
evil to be
avoided at all
costs.
All of that
holds
together.
But you said,
“If they kill
themselves,
this is sad,
but not
something to
be guilty
about.”
There’s truth
in that, but
it can be
misunderstood
or misused if
we’re not
precise.Because
there are two
different
claims hidden
inside it.
Firstly you
are not
morally
responsible
for another
person’s
autonomous
destructive
act. Secondly,
therefore, you
bear no moral
weight at all
in how you
disengage.
Your framework
clearly
supports the
first. But the
second one is
where things
can get
slippery.
Even if you
are not
responsible
for their
choice, you
are still
responsible
for how you
leave, whether
you made
reasonable
efforts to
reduce harm,
and whether
you acted with
care, clarity,
and honesty.
So Love, as
you define it,
would still
ask did you
communicate
truthfully and
clearly? Did
you avoid
unnecessary
cruelty or
indifference?
Did you point
them toward
help where
possible? Did
you act in a
way that
preserves your
integrity, not
just your
freedom?
If yes, then
your
conclusion
stands firmly,
You are not
guilty of
their outcome.
If no, then
even if they
are ultimately
responsible,
your action
may still fall
short of Love.
Another point.
You say,
“The suffering
is coming from
the person's
own struggle…
not from
leaving.” This
is mostly
true, but not
entirely. Your
leaving is the
triggering
condition,
even if not
the root
cause. So a
more precise
version (which
strengthens
your
philosophy)
might
be, “My
leaving
reveals and
confronts a
suffering that
already exists
within them,
it does not
create it, but
it may
intensify it.”
Why does this
matter?
Because it
keeps you
honest (you
don’t deny
impact), but
still clear of
false guilt
(you don’t
claim
responsibility
for their
internal
state). That
balance is
crucial if
your
philosophy is
going to hold
up in real
life.
Where your
framework is
now very
strong. With
your
additions,
your
philosophy can
now coherently
say:
Love
does not
enable harm
Love
accepts
separation
when necessary
Love
permits
consequences,
even severe
ones
Love
does not take
responsibility
for another’s
destructive
choices
Love
still requires
care in how we
act, even when
withdrawing
And
importantly:
Love is
not measured
by whether the
other person
ends up okay.
Love is
measured by
whether your
action remains
true, just,
and without
hatred.
One final edge
to consider.
You’ve handled
extreme harm
well. Now
consider a
quieter
version. What
about someone
who isn’t
abusive, but
persistently
drains,
manipulates
subtly, or
lives in
low-level
dishonesty? No
crisis. No
clear “crime.”
Just erosion.
Do you apply
the same
principle,
Love lets go,
even when
there’s no
dramatic
justification,
others might
judge you as
cold, and the
harm is harder
to prove. If
your answer is
yes, then your
philosophy
fully commits
to this idea
that Love is
guided by
truth and
integrity, not
by
appearances,
guilt, or
social
expectation.
And at that
point, your
framework
becomes not
just moral, it
becomes
practical,
even in the
grey areas
where most
people get
stuck.
If you want,
we can test it
against that
quieter, more
ambiguous kind
of situation
next.
----------------
Br Nicholas:
So
now let's look
at this
quieter test
you suggest.
------------
Fr Aiden:
Good,
this is
exactly the
kind of
refinement
that makes a
philosophy
real rather
than just
persuasive.
You’ve
tightened two
important
things:
You accept
responsibility
for how you
act, even when
you’re not
responsible
for outcomes
You recognize
your action as
a trigger
without being
the root cause
That balance,
honest about
impact, clear
about
responsibility,
is what keeps
your framework
from becoming
either cold or
self-deceptive.
Now let’s
apply
pressure: the
“quiet
erosion” case
scenario.
Someone in
your life is
not overtly
abusive.
But over time:
they
subtly
manipulate
(guilt,
passive
pressure,
emotional
withdrawal)
նրանք
are often
dishonest in
small ways
they
drain your
energy
they
avoid
responsibility
but never
enough to
clearly
confront
when
challenged,
they deflect
just enough to
avoid
resolution
There’s no
dramatic
event. No
clear “crime.”
Just a slow
erosion of
your clarity,
peace, and
integrity.
Other people
might say:
“They’re
not that bad.”
“You’re
being too
harsh.”
“Just be
patient, this
is what love
is.”
Where your
framework is
tested
differently is
that in the
previous case
(abuse), your
path was
clear,
harm is
obvious and
separation is
justified.
Here, the
danger is
subtler. You
can
rationalise
staying
without
violating your
stated
principles
outright. Why?
Because you’re
not being
clearly
harmed,
they’re not
clearly evil,
and your
suffering is
ambiguous.
Applying your
framework step
by step
Feelings as
instruction
You feel:
drained
uneasy
slightly
resentful
internally
“off” around
them
Your framework
says:
“Feelings
instruct.”
So the
question
becomes what
are these
feelings
pointing to?
Not “they are
bad,” but:
something
is misaligned
something
is not
truthful
something
is not clean
Love equates
to truth and
integrity (not
endurance)
Here’s the
difficult
point:
Many people
interpret
“Love”
as
tolerance,
endurance, and
staying
despite
discomfort.
But your
definition
rejects that.
So we ask if
continuing
this
relationship
is aligned
with truth and
integrity? If
the answer is
no, then
staying begins
to look like
avoidance,
fear of
conflict, and
desire to be
seen as
“good”. Not
Love.
The temptation
to
spiritualise
passivity.
This is where
your framework
could fail if
misapplied.
You could say,
“They are just
struggling”,
“I should be
patient” and
“This is my
opportunity to
love”. All of
which sound
consistent
with your
philosophy…But
may actually
be enabling
through moral
language. So
the real test
becomes, are
you staying
because it is
Loving,
or because
leaving is
uncomfortable,
unclear, or
socially
costly?
What does Love
do here? There
are three
possible
paths. Honest
confrontation
by you naming
the patterns
clearly, you
set
boundaries,
and you give
opportunity
for change.
This aligns
with
truth and
helping
according to
your ability.
Continued
engagement
with
boundaries
only if there
is genuine
response and
change,
otherwise this
becomes
self-betrayal.
Letting go
(the real
test). No
drama. No
accusation of
“evil.” Just
clarity,
“This
relationship
is not aligned
with truth and
integrity. I
am stepping
away.” The
difficult
question is
can you
justify
leaving
someone who
isn’t “that
bad”? Because
here they will
likely feel
hurt, others
may judge you
and you may
doubt
yourself.
There is no
obvious moral
high ground.
To remain
consistent,
you would need
to affirm that
Love is not
measured by
how much you
tolerate, Love
is measured by
alignment with
truth and
right
action.
You are not
required to
stay in
relationships
that erode
integrity,
even
subtly.
Letting go can
be Loving even
without clear
wrongdoing.
In this
quieter case,
your
philosophy
would have to
say, “I
do not need
dramatic
justification
to act with
integrity.
Subtle untruth
is still
untruth. Slow
harm is still
harm. Love
does not
require me to
remain where
truth is
compromised.”
In the absence
of clear harm
what threshold
tells you it’s
time to
leave?
How do you
distinguish
between
your own
impatience or
lack of
compassion,
and a
genuine
misalignment
with truth and
Love? Because
this is where
most people,
very sincere
people, either
stay too long
and call it
Love or leave
too quickly
and call it
integrity.
Your framework
is strong
enough to
handle
extremes. This
quieter case
tests whether
it can handle
ambiguity
without
self-deception.
----------------
Br Nicholas:
This
is a good and
more difficult
challenge to
answer. There
is a third
person in this
scenario
relationship
(there always
is) who is not
mentioned, and
that is God. I
stand with God
in front of
this person
and relate and
refer to God
for Truth and
direction, and
not, and
never, to this
person for
that whoever
they are. This
scenario
sounds more
like a
committed
close
relationship
such as in a
marriage or in
a religious
order where we
have both
taken vows to
stay. If this
scenario is
not as such,
and let's say
a work
relationship,
I don't see
why all
personal
emotion can
not be
withdrawn from
the
relationship
and I act
solely in a
professional
way, keeping
track of all
correspondence
with this
person, and
confronting
inappropriate
behavior with
evidence
(email,
recorded phone
calls, having
agreed to
record) in the
company's
meetings. Such
slightly
inappropriate
behavior can
then,
eventually, be
called out by
management and
dealt with
accordingly.
Here there is
a clear path
to deal with
the problem.
If the
scenario is
one of a
marriage or
religious
brother or
sisterhood it
is different.
My primary
relationship
is with God.
So I sit with
God and ask
what
should I
do. I have
committed
myself to care
for this
person(s) for
life and it is
so that no one
is perfect.
But in a good
relationship
one is open to
realize
mistakes and
repent of them
and forgive
others'
mistakes. If
the person has
become a 'bad
egg' and can
no longer
repent or
forgive and is
always just
not right and
being false
then there is
a problem.
I've
said that Love
equates to
truth and
integrity (not
endurance),
and you
pointed out
that many
people
interpret
“Love”
as
tolerance,
endurance, and
staying
despite
discomfort,
which by my
definition I
do reject. But
Truth and
integrity can
demand that I
keep tolerant,
endure and
stay despite
discomfort as
(although to a
far greater
extent) Jesus
did when he
'stayed' with
the process
unto execution
when he could
have lived as
a hermit
somewhere away
from all human
falseness.
Love is not a
feeling (of
course our
present
society mostly
says it is
only feelings)
and it is not
false to Love
another when
they can't
love back.
Even within
the close
quarters of a
marriage or
religious
order one can
simply not
play the
manipulative
games the
other might
play (these
games always
need two to
play) and I
think it fair
to say that if
the other
doesn't get
the feedback
looked for
from their
games, the
games will dry
up. But maybe
things don't
get better and
the other
thing to
remember about
'love let's
go' is that it
doesn't just
mean I leave,
but it gives
permission for
the other to
leave if this
is what they
want. If they
can't play
their games
any more they
might want to
leave. One has
to be firmly
with God to do
this and not
reliant on the
other person
to Love them.
I say be
firmly with
God because
there is
simply not the
strength to do
this without
this Love. So
in a marriage
I would not
see it correct
to abandon the
other, but
much maturity
is needed for
this stance.
If the problem
became truly
abusive and
life
threatening
then we would
have to revert
back to the
first scenario
outcome. Have
I answered
this question?
------------
Fr Aiden:
Yes,
you’ve
answered it,
and you’ve
also exposed
where your
framework
becomes most
demanding.
What you’ve
done here is
introduce a
hierarchy of
relationship:
The primary
relationship
is God (source
of truth and
grounding),
and the
secondary
relationships
are human
(marriage,
work,
community).
That move is
decisive. It
explains how
someone can
remain present
without
becoming
dependent,
endure without
becoming
passive, and
love without
requiring
reciprocity.
Without that
anchor, what
you’re
describing
would collapse
into either
enabling, or
emotional
burnout.
Where your
answer is
strong is that
you
distinguish
contexts
clearly. You
don’t apply
one blunt rule
everywhere.
Work and
non-committed
relationships
act with
professionalism,
boundaries,
documentation,
escalation.
Whilst
committed
relationships
(marriage,
religious
life) require
endurance,
patience, and
deeper
responsibility.
That prevents
your
philosophy
from becoming
simplistic.
You’re
allowing role
and commitment
to shape what
Love requires.
You reject
“playing the
game”. This is
one of your
most
psychologically
sharp points.
“These games
always need
two to play.”
That’s real. A
lot
manipulation
collapses when
it’s not
rewarded, it’s
not engaged
with
emotionally
and it doesn’t
produce the
desired
feedback.
You’re
essentially
saying is
don’t fight
the
dysfunction
and don’t feed
it either.
Stand in
truth, and let
the dynamic
either correct
itself or
reveal itself
fully. That’s
a disciplined
stance.
You refine
“Love lets go”
and this is an
important
evolution.
“Love lets go…
also gives
permission for
the other to
leave.” That
prevents
“staying” from
becoming
control.
You’re not
trapping them
or fixing them
or forcing
transformation.
You’re
removing the
conditions
that sustain
falseness
and allowing
reality to
take its
course.
But
a risk of
self-deception
remains.
The key
statement,
“In a marriage
I would not
see it correct
to abandon the
other…” This
is principled,
but it needs
precision.
Because
history (and
real life) is
full of people
who stayed in
harmful
relationships
and called it
duty,
faithfulness,
sacrifice, and
love, when in
reality it was
fear (fear of
leaving),
identity
dependence or
moral pressure
The real
tension is
that I see
you’re holding
two truths
which are that
commitment
matters deeply
and that Love
is truth and
integrity, not
endurance
alone. So I
question at
what point
does staying
stop being
truth, and
become
falsehood? Not
abuse. Not
crisis. Just
ongoing
dishonesty,
manipulation
and refusal to
grow.
So what
happens if,
You stop
engaging in
the games
You
remain calm,
truthful,
grounded
You do
not retaliate
You do
not enable
But over
years, nothing
changes.
The other
person:
does not
grow
does not
repent
does not
leave
continues
subtle erosion
Now are you
still acting
in Love by
staying? Or
has
“commitment”
quietly become
tolerance of
untruth and a
normalisation
of
dysfunction.
This
matters
because you’ve
defined Love
as truth,
integrity
and
non-falseness.
So if a
relationship
becomes
structurally
false, then
staying
indefinitely
risks
contradiction.
A possible
resolution
(within your
own logic)
could be to
stay and
endure as long
as truth is
still being
actively lived
and offered,
or withdraw
(internally or
externally)
when the
relationship
becomes a
permanent
structure of
untruth.
And
importantly
withdrawal
doesn’t have
to mean hatred
and,or,
abandonment in
spirit. It can
mean a change
in form of
relationship
or even
physical
separation if
necessary.
The deepest
insight you
touched on and
this line is
actually
central:
“One has
to be firmly
with God… not
reliant on the
other person
to Love them.”
That’s the
safeguard.
Because the
real danger
isn’t staying
or leaving,
it’s needing
the other
person in a
way that
distorts
truth, If you
don’t need
them you
can stay
without
illusion or
leave without
hatred.
So, have you
answered the
question? Yes.
But more
importantly,
you’ve
narrowed it to
the real
decisive
point:
Not “Do I stay
or leave?”
But “Am I
remaining in
truth, or
quietly
compromising
it in the name
of Love?”
To take this
even deeper
let’s strip
everything
back:
If you knew
with certainty
that:
the
person will
never change
the
relationship
will remain
subtly false
and no
external
crisis will
force a
decision
Would you
still choose
to stay? And
if yes what
exactly makes
that Love,
rather than
endurance?
Your answer to
that will
define the
final shape of
your
philosophy.
----------------
Br Nicholas:
You say that if I knew with certainty (which of course I could not) that the person will never change and then say that the relationship will remain subtly false due to this. I do not agree with this position. The honesty of my relationship with another is not dependent upon their honesty with me. The relationship is not false. I continue to care, the other continues to be false. the other's falseness I can see, recognize and point out, but it is not my falseness. It is a known. Again I want to refer to Jesus' Love for us. He did not choose to abandon us even though he knows our falseness, even though he realized we would execute him, even though we did execute him. His relationship with so many of us who do not change our ways is not false. We might be false, but he his not false and his relationship with us is not false, even if we are false. He does not abandon, he does not give up.
When you say
that: