Forgiveness - How Much?

"Learn to forgive yourself and to forgive others. Ask for forgiveness from others. Forgiveness can soften the heart, drain the bitterness, and dissolve your guilt."

The above quote is from the movie, "Tuesday's with Morrie". It's a delightful film about a dying man mentoring his young student on the secret to living life... delightful may not have been the best word, but I quite enjoyed it.

This aphorism stuck out above the others and I really wanted to look at it deeper. It makes a lot of sense that forgiveness is good for the very reasons mentioned. It softens the heart, drains bitterness and releases guilt... wait guilt? (I'll tackle that in a bit) In a perfect world everyone would forgive everyone else, but when you hear it in our world it asks the question... we should forgive any injustice?

After years of MADD Campaigns, I find myself jumping straight to the families influenced forever by a drunk driver. Watching actors depict unbelievable sorrow or rage the family must have experienced over such an easily preventable incident. One occasion in particular however I remember was hearing about a drunk driver finding the mother of the victim and apologising. A gutsy move, but what I found even more astounding was the mother actually ended up forgiving the man. He now does talks with students. I cannot even fathom the magnitude of strength it must have taken to do that.

Don't quote me on this, but I remember having a conversation and being absolutely disgusted at a shooting in an Amish Village years ago. Several people died and though the police caught the suspect, the families could not press charges because it was not part of their beliefs... no words. To be forced to forgive despite what happened... just disgusting.

I mean I can completely understand forgiveness being a way of acceptance, but how much is within human capacity? Moreover, if someone forgives every little injustice, what's to stop them from being walked over by others? Lawsuits handed out like candy on Halloween before in the world are suddenly gone. Is there a point where it's better to cut someone out of your life opposed to forgiving them?

I think we should try to find a balance. Life's too short to be angry at everyone who has ever hurt you, but your forgiveness should not be something given out on a whim. Hating someone has a very negative effect on our health and well-being. The "guilt" referred to is likely the bad feeling associated with hating someone in that you want to let go, but feel unable to forgive. Forgetting and forgiving are too different things (hiding from your feelings will only make them resurface again at some point) and forgiveness is only truly effective when it is a conscious personal decision, but it really is the best route to happiness in my eyes. Forgiveness allows one to move on and it's something I do not associate with weakness or being a push-over when implemented properly (standing up for yourself, not pushed aside), but strength.

At times forgiveness may seem greater than human capacity, but are we not striving to be greater than merely human? I like to think so. It is alright to dip into hate and sorrow at times when life seems unfair, but it should never be lingered in. A life consumed with hatred is a huge loss. Morrie himself wished he could have forgiven his father before he had passed on. I have been fortunate enough that forgiveness has been extremely difficult at times, but never out of my capacity. I cannot speak for those who have witnessed unspeakable atrocities, however I hope it may one day be achieved, even if it does take months or even years. No one deserves a life of sorrow, and forgiveness is how we may leave it behind for good.

Never stop questioning.

Epigenetics - Nature vs. Nurture

Ghost in your Genes: http://video.google.ca/videoplay?docid=1128045835761675934#

Very cool video on the study of epigenetics and how the turning off or on of certain genes can have huge effects on human development.  More than that, it brings up how we aren't just blank faces passing on genetic code in each generation, but our actions and influences will influence our genome. As the video said, we really are the caretakers of our genetic code now. Which definitely makes us feel much more important, like we really will leave an imprint on the next generations of the world. Makes us less reluctant to be abusive to our bodies, such as smoking, abusing alcohol, etc. At the same time though, this principle applied to our ancestors as well, meaning that we may be the product of their life decisions... both the good and the bad.

Good thing my dad didn't join the Dark Side...

From an evolutionary standpoint it is really interesting to see the effects of a famine my grandfather experienced carry on to my generation, but what about the negative decisions our ancestors made before we were even conceived? I'm not talking about the klutzy nature of my mother, serious issues such as depression, addiction, mental illness, eating disorders, etc.

According to the documentary, it's like our the "nurture" characteristics our parents experience become our "nature". While the potential to pass on good traits is certainly present, it seems really unfair that their problems can plague us. So it begs the question, can we escape their decisions or are we locked in the natures established at birth? It adds another level to the "nature vs. nurture" argument.

I've personally believed that we're 30% nature, 70% nurture, however the fact that we may be forced to face our parents mistakes as well may make nature have a bigger impact than I first believed. However, I don't think that people whose families have suffered from negative influences should count themselves out. It really still all comes down to doing the best with the cards you're dealt. Yes, there will be people who are given a better hand in life, but it's how you play those cards that truly matters. Never assume that you are going to become your ancestors, because in reality you are your own unique person.

You may be created partially in their image, but you face your own unique experiences in life to create and shape you. I'm not saying it won't be difficult at times, however I truly believe we have the ability to take the helm and chart our own course in life. Don't let a history you never had a say in define who you are.

Never stop questioning.

Memories of the Heart

Transplanting Memories http://www.viddler.com/explore/hawker1009/videos/4/
The above video is rather long so you might want to avoid it. I can summarize it pretty well.

Quick Summary:
-heart transplant recipients have reported characteristic changes (tastes, personality, fears, charisma, music tastes, etc.) quite similar to those of their donors (approx. 5%-10%)

-presents the idea that memories have the potential to be transferred from donor to recipient

-researchers at the institute of HeartMath have discovered a grouping of neurons present in the heart with its own nervous system (behaves similarly to the brain)

-though still not an accepted concept in mainstream science, the heart may play a greater role in our emotions than we originally believed

First off, if you're skeptical just try to open your mind to the possibility for a moment to how this might be possible and what implications this might have on us if it does prove to carry weight. I'm not here to defend one side or the other, but to present possibilities. Yes the figure may appear low, but the level of coincidence between the changed behaviours being eerily similar is too large to be dismissed as merely trauma from the operation.

It's true all of the body is connected to the brain, but for the heart this is doubly true. In the video, the idea is that we learn through a never-ending cycle of feedback. We get better at shooting a basketball through the feedback of what technique works and what doesn't. The brain and heart are in connection more than any other organ and scientists propose it is so strong, information is able to be passed through the heart and even partially retained there in a unique grouping of neurons. It may even generate its own information about emotion apparently.


...there are no words to describe this



A fantastic analogy my friend Cam made to this idea of the heart transplanting memories is that it is in a way the same idea as transplanting a plant from one garden to another. Say the soil is the mind and the plant is the physical heart and you move that plant from one patch of soil to another. That plant may hold on to some of the soil from the original garden on its roots, which would mix in with the new soil. If the heart is able to retain information from the brain it actually seems possible, like the brain leaving an imprint on the heart. Then as the new organ is introduced to the brain-heart feedback, that residual information may be drawn upon.

For some reason I really like the idea of the brain being able to leave an imprint on the body and it kinda draws back to the whole, "Which is more important? The body or mind?" concept. Personally, I believe the mind governs the physical body, but again it's really interesting seeing how the mind may influence the body. It's almost like giving two people the same empty bedroom and they each customize it based on their own unique personalities. If our ideas and thoughts can influence the world around us, who's the say that they can't affect our physical shells? If the documentary is true, perhaps we should be paying closer attention to the heart instead of focusing exclusively from the neck up. As the video said, it's not about the idea of limiting our being to the cognitive abilities of one or the other, but exploring the possibility of "and".

Never stop questioning.

Compliments

A few days ago we were assigned the task to write a random compliment on a slip of paper (happiness chips) to give to each person in the class. It was actually more difficult than I thought it would be. Not because giving a compliment is difficult, but simply because I like to make compliments personal (instead of just "you're smart" or "nice shirt"), which is difficult to do when you barely know the names of some of the people in the class, let alone much about them.

So we got our happiness chips and I actually caught myself smiling at a few of them. In that sense I suppose our little class experiment was a success. Some of the ones I got were,

"Devin Brooks. I like how you are very energetic."

"You are a very original person. - Devin"

"Devin Brooks: You're hilarious and so nice!"

"Devin Brooks, You are really funny and you can make anyone laugh. You are awesome."

"Devoin. Very personable. Always in character."

"Devon. You don't speak the obvious and have a lot of interesting things to say."

"You will be next U.S. President."

Smile while you still can Obama.



The experiment came up with quite a few interesting observations. One for me personally was that I rolled my eyes at the comment whenever I saw someone had spelled my name with an "o" instead of an "i". It just put a bit of a damper on the compliment following. Looking back now I realize just how stupid that was. A lot of the people in this class have never felt the need to spell my name before, but the comment that they gave was still quite nice. Why couldn't I just accept the compliment? I think it might be just because many people just don't know how to take a compliment. Even when a kind sentiment is given to us we feel the need to scrutinize it, even twist it like the real truth is the worst manipulation. (Exp. Why did they write "good" instead of "great"?).

Another example of how we seem driven to negative comments is when Luke found comment that said something along the lines of him being bad smelling (someone had changed the original comment). Despite all of the other great compliments on his desk, he seemed fixated on that negative one. As we said in class, it's almost like getting a happiness chip makes us feel great, but getting a single negative comment is like taking ten of those chips away. It just seems so odd when we look back on it. Are we so obsessed with pleasing everyone that one insult can knock us down?

The reason that I feel that the more personal the compliment, like I really know the person, the better the other person feels is because if they can see the connection to themselves, they are less likely to analyze it to pieces. One of the people I gave a chip to actually posted a thank-you status on facebook to the anonymous contributor (aka me) saying it her day.  Which really made me feel great. 

A random compliment can make a huge difference in someone's life and it really isn't difficult. I mean there are a lot of times when you see complete random strangers and mentally compliment them (really clear skin, bright eyes, cool jacket, hairstyle, etc.) so how hard is it to actually vocalize it? Kind gestures have a bigger impact than we realize. Apparently there are times at Tim Hortons where someone will pay for the order of the person behind them as well. That person will be surprised and actually pay for the person behind them. This continues for hours.

The secret to happiness.

Random acts of happiness, compliments, they're both great to do and see. To be honest, when I hear or see such things it gives me a little more faith in humanity. Take a risk and compliment a complete stranger. The worst is they shrug it off. The best is you make their day. It's not rocket surgery.

Never stop questioning.

Talking about Happiness

One of our more interesting assignments in class was to try and discuss happiness with complete strangers, just to see what happens. I was presented with a unique opportunity last Friday at a nursing home and thought, "Who better to know about how we find happiness in life than old people? (my mind apparently isn't very "politically correct"). But in all seriousness, it makes sense. Asking about it wasn't all that hard surprisingly. Nobody was completely shocked or off put, but gave me an answer after we shared a bit of dialogue. So here's really briefly what I learned from different individuals.

#1 Woman: "Happiness is what you make of it, you just have to look hard enough for it."

#2 Woman: "You know it when you find it." (First woman agreed)

#3 Woman: "It's in your heart dear."

#4 Woman: "You work with what you're given and be thankful for your health." (she was recovering from a car accident and would soon walk again)

These are women I more or less approached at their tables and after a short "what're you up to?"-esque dialogue popped the question to. The next woman was really interesting because she actually called me to her table to help her with the English spelling in a letter to her son in New Zealand. I got her life story about coming to Canada from Iraq after being a teacher there. Unfortunately, though her English was quite good, however I lost a word or two. She really was a lovely woman. So when I finally asked her, she opened by saying that she has lost her home, her husband, friends and hasn't seen the son in New Zealand for 9 years. So when it came to getting happiness she said,

Iraqi Woman: "You have to make your own happiness." She said that a lot of the people there were happy because they were surrounded by people in a similar state. They had friends here and friends are important to happiness. (Which we touched on in class)

The last group I spent a great deal of time with were WWII veterans, so I thought it would be interesting to see what made these men happy after seeing such atrocities in the world. These were men who buried their brothers in arms and (in the case of #2), were even talking on the radio with them when their planes exploded... just... wow.

#1: "Fun" (plain and simple)

#2: "There being just enough fuel in your plane for one last passover to land safely. Moments where good things happen."

#3: "Three pristine, untouched, high quality joints." (when he realized I was serious he said) "Happiness is a mental state. It's just about putting yourself into that state. We sometimes look at each day with depression, but when you actually look back on the calender month you'll find that you actually have more happy days than sad days. All you have to do is realize it."

#4: "Happiness is what happens in small, fleeting moments." (He was an incredibly quiet man, who had clearly been through a lot of pain. Though I wished I could have asked a bit more before being interrupted, I'm surprised I got as much as I did and wouldn't have wanted to push him on it.)

It's hard to analyze all of the comments at once, but it is cool how there appears to be some repeated ideas of happiness and how to find it.

1) Just being happy by doing what's in your heart.
2) Working with the hand you're dealt and being thankful. Create happiness.
3) Small events, temporary where good things happen.

You can usually find it somewhere on every beach.

Interestingly, it seemed the simpler it was for someone to find happiness (based on their definition) the happier they appeared. When you just had to do what's in your heart or could manufacture it people were happier. Those that made happiness seem totally out of their control (a lot of the war veterans) appeared more solemn as a result.

A part of me wonders if the reason these people may seem happier compared to others is just because they've experienced so much and, as a result, have merely accepted things the way they are. I feel for people my age, where the future is still a series of blank chapters, it might not be so easy to accept. Anything can happen right now in our lives and there's a lot more stress on what that future may be opposed to the people who have already lived the majority of their lives.

But maybe some of these life veterans really do have a point. Perhaps life is only as complicated as people make it out to be. Yes there are things that are out of our control, but if we always strive to do what makes us happy and right in our hearts, I feel we're much less likely to end up in unhappy situations. And even when life throws you a curve ball out of nowhere, we shouldn't wallow in sorrow or complain. We should roll with the punches and accept things as they are.

If the entire purpose of our life is to strive for happiness, then suddenly life becomes much more simple when it's just within your grasp. It's easy to say, and in the grand scheme of things even true, but then why does life seem so complicated at times? Is it really just a matter of simplifying things? What happens if you don't know what you want? Perhaps part of what makes life complicated is just overthinking things constantly. If you want to try simplifying, give your mind a break and act instead. You might not know what happens, but if you just do what feels right you might eventually find what makes you happy. Just an idea.

Never stop questioning.

Philosophy and Government

Just to kick things off, I am not an expert when it comes to politics, nor will I ever claim to be. That said, at the "political party showoff" I think the student body may have jumped a bit too quickly at the Libertarian Representative's political beliefs. I'll admit that a great deal of the ideas seem quite odd; no taxes, the right to bare arms and the general freedom to do whatever we please, but the platform of the Libertarians to essentially dispose of the government entirely may not be as ridiculous as we think. In fact, there are a few key figures who would even agree with this stance...

"No man's life, liberty, or property are safe while legislature is in session."
                                                                                 - Mark Twain

"A wise and frugal government which shall restrain men from injuring one another, which shall leave the otherwise free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of the labor the bread it has earned. This is the sum of good government." - Thomas Jefferson

"A government which robs Peter to pay Paul, can always count on the support of Paul"
                                                                                 - George Bernard Shaw

"Government is not reason; it is not eloquence; it is force. Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master."
                                                                                 - George Washington

Remember democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts, and murders itself. There never was a democracy yet that did not commit suicide."
                                                                                 - John Adams

"The more corrupt the state, the more it legislates."
                                                                                - Cornelius Tacitus

All of the above statements reflect a quite Libertarian way of thinking, either by dismissing the government due to corruption or encouraging the freedom of the individual.  Now not all of these names may be familiar, but for me personally the two that stuck out the most (after Mark Twain of course) were none other than Thomas Jefferson and George Washington... past Presidents of the United States. It really is quite interesting how the first leaders in North America can speak against the foundations of the very government they run. John Adams is non-other than the 2nd President of the United States and he's essentially saying his government is doomed to fail (or perhaps already had).

If you take a minute to theoretically picture a Libertarian government, one maximizing the freedoms of the hardworking individuals and minimizing the governments power over them, it doesn't seem so bad. In fact such a view of the world would actually be optimistic of human nature. I mean the assumption made by such a government relies solely on the belief that human beings are inherently "good" and therefore they can not only survive, but thrive in harmony when unburdened by government.

Personally, I believe that this idea is similar to Communism only in the matter that it looks fantastic on paper, but doesn't necessarily work in practice. It's a great view to have, but I'm not necessarily sure that our wants can mesh perfectly with one another without any flaws. Could a hunter and an animal rights activist really ever see eye-to-eye? (random example I know) Although corrupt at times, government provides a bit of security where otherwise we would all be left to fend for ourselves.

This is just my opinion. After all, this view has apparently become much more mainstream in the United States in recent years. My point is that we shouldn't be so quick to dismiss a new perspective just because it's different than our own. In fact by allowing the consideration of new ideas we can build on our thoughts; picking and choosing what makes the most sense opposed to blindly believing a singular idea out of ignorance.  In terms of political parties, I don't really believe there is any one party that has all the answers.  There are weakness to each and that's why we have many parties in legislature, so they may cover the weaknesses of one another. No party is perfect, so there is always room for improvement, which is only done by allowing new ideas to have a chance to shine.

You don't necessarily have to agree with a radically different line of thought (Libertarianism for instance), but you should at least honour it with some consideration.

Never stop questioning.

Rhetoric in Action

Taking a brief break from the analysis of happiness, our school recently had what we informally called a  "show-off" period, featuring the various political candidates running in the current election. Earlier in the year we learned that the key to any successful presentation (literary work or in general anything aimed to prove a point) is the use of Ethos, Logos and Pathos.

Quickly, any effective argument is all about targeting your opponent and the above three elements of rhetoric accomplish precisely that. First is Ethos, which is used to demonstrate to the audience the character of the speaker. It appeals to the audience so they are aware the presenter knows precisely what he is talking about and therefore becomes willing to trust their argument. Next up is Logos. This is plainly and simply a presentation of the facts with evidence to prove the point. The last weapon of rhetoric is Pathos. This is a part of the argument targeting the audience emotionally to convey their argument. Often in the form of some sort of story or analogy, but not necessarily.

Why use a fancy photoshop program when you can use Paint?

This image best describes the elements of rhetoric (think in terms of a debate). Ethos targets the heart of the opponent by revealing the character of the speaker. Logos attacks the head (i.e. logic) utilizing supported evidence and Pathos goes straight to the gonads (attacking the pride of the individual through an appeal to the emotions). An effective master of rhetoric knows precisely when he/she is using any of these elements and often in debate it's not the better point that wins, but the one that is argued most effectively.

"That's the beauty of argument, if you argue correctly, you're never wrong." - Nick Naylor

Anyways, it was interesting to analyze several presenters back-to-back, not only judging their effectiveness personally, but also seeing the crowd's reaction and even responses to one another.

The Libertarian representative you could tell was a little inexperienced, which isn't her fault, but though her introductory and conclusions were strong in my opinion, as people pointed out, it was pretty much read from paper. When it came to student questions she seemed a little uncertain. Issues quite pertinent to us as students (i.e. lowering cost of college/university) she didn't seem prepared for, when she likely could have voiced her position a little better.

Personally, I believe the Liberal Party was one of the best represented. He was bold, straight to the point and confident, although perhaps a tad impersonal. Interestingly enough, what Baker pointed out was he had an odd mannerism to finish a number of negative statements with "quite honestly". Exp. "The cost of university is just going to increase, quite honestly." He used it as if the suffix created by using those two words would soften the blow of any negative statement he put forth. I'm a little embarrassed to say that I didn't catch on to it because details are crucial when analyzing any argument.

The Green Party was interesting by opening with a clear use of Pathos in his "Trying to find a rhinoceros" story. It was a little hard to follow, but he managed to tie it back to his party by relating it to the environment issues also being large, but often remain unseen (in a nutshell). He had a great intro. by choosing to stand because it was different and felt much more personal. On the other hand his "green initiative" (arguably the whole aim of his party) fell largely on deaf ears as all of the parties mentioned some form of green movement. Also, this is just my personal opinion, but between talks he just seemed bored, which took a lot away from his position.

Bev Oda... yeah. Experienced politician no doubt, but she has the ability to talk a great deal without really saying anything. I mean she said the Conservative Party had many specific ideas to create change, however only mentioned two. Maybe it's just me, but whenever she said that I thought "Alright... well what are they?" As for the "not" issue, part of me wishes it wasn't asked because it ate up valuable question time, but at the same time I'm glad that it raised awareness for anyone who didn't know what happened.

At least it wasn't in crayon

I'm not going to get into it in detail. Her answer was nothing unexpected and, as the NDP representative pointed out, it was likely the product of several months spinning the issue.

The NDP were fairly well represented although perhaps appearing slightly less confident and professional than their Conservative and Liberal counterparts.

Though these talks are great for comparing the ideals of the various parties, but I don't believe that a demonstration like this is what one person should base their vote completely upon. I had the opportunity to speak to both the NDP and Liberal representatives on matters I was perplexed with and surprisingly enough the NDP rep. was quite knowledgeable, while the Liberal rep. was much more personal (despite stating the contrary to both above). In the end, this demonstration should merely spark an interest in certain parties so one may further investigate their respected platforms. One person's word isn't enough to critique an entire political party for the worse or even for the better.

Yes, it is crucial for anyone with the right to vote to make use of it. I'm a firm believer that if you willingly choose not to be a part of the political process you withdraw all right to complain about it. At the same time, your decision shouldn't be the product of "eenie meanie minie mo", but by making an informed decision about who should truly be running our country. A random vote is as useless as a blank one.

Never stop questioning.