The new forums will be named Coin Return (based on the most recent vote)! You can check on the status and timeline of the transition to the new forums here.
The Guiding Principles and New Rules document is now in effect.
This isn't going to be directly helpful, but I highly suggest planning a well-thought out first post, and starting a thread in Debate and Discourse. You seem to be looking for some thoughts and philosophies, rather than help.
I think the folks over there would be better suited (and happier to oblige) to provide some thought processes about the subject.
In my case if someone breaks that trust at a fundamental level. Then there is no going back. I can't just forget it. I can forgive. but I can never forget. I've never been in love though so thats never been an issue I've had to deal with but on the flip my experience is that you have to be willing to move on from a relationship or you might get stuck in something that you already know is doomed to fail but you hang around because you feel you have to or should for some reason.
Raziel078 on
I would like to put something clever and about me but I fear my company will find it
There is a relationship between forgiveness and trust, but it isn't one-to-one. You can forgive fully, but trust is something that needs to be built -- especially when it has been broken. This takes time, and the person who is trying to regain your trust should understand that. If the relationship means enough to them, then they will be willing to endure some suspicion on your part on the way to rebuilding the trust between the two of you.
Remember, trusting someone "fully" isn't being naive. It doesn't mean that no matter what happens, by golly you're gonna' believe what they tell you. There are a few people who I trust fully -- that means that I take them at their word, and I believe in their intentions unless I am forced by evidence/facts to think otherwise. I don't suspend logic in the name of trust; I trust unless given reason not to.
Right now, you've been given reason not to -- you have to ask yourself whether or not you can build your relationship with this person (or these people) up to the point where once again they'd have to give you more reason not to trust them.
Trust and forgiveness are two very broad fields that apply to many things. Each one has varying levels, and are not always associated with each other. In essence, both of these things are not defined by any one aspect, but rather consist of several themes of action all running in parrallel towards the same end. This is much like 'love' or 'faith', which do not contain just one definition or identity, but consist of many thoughts, feelings and ideals sharing similarities with each other.
Just off the cuff, I would say that Trust falls into three basic catagories, Honesty, Dependability and Co-operation. Honesty determines if you will believe the idea presented by that source, like a good friend or teacher, and extends to in-animates as well, like textbooks or wikipedia. If the information from a source is found out to be incorrect, a normal person will evaluate how often that source has been correct in the past, and judge whether or not they will trust that source in the future. Sometimes, depending on the subject, a significant percentage of mistakes is tolerable, and at other times virtual perfection becomes an expectation.
Dependability does not always relate to consistancy, but relates to availibility; how often that resource is there when you need it. For example, it does little good to have a friend who is always right never be there, and so a second friend, not always as correct but is at least around when you need him, may be given a higher status in this regard. Wikipedia for example, is often docked on complete honesty but scores very high on dependability. The usefulness of a wiki then depends completely on the specific needs of the person who uses it.
Co-operation involves active resources, usually goverend by people. It is a value that measures how much in line with your own goals that resource is. If its goals are your goals, then it becomes possible to pool resources and acheive more things than by working on your own. This value is important, because if you share your resources (your time, effort, money, creativity, etc.) with someone who does not serve your goals or interests, then you lose those resources and are actually worse off than if you just went solo.
These values can be grouped together all at once. A good friendship is an example of this, where you have honesty, dependibility and co-operation working together to make life easier. If you remove one of these values, such as dependabilty, you can still have a relationship, but it becomes something less, like associates or aquaintances.
Honesty is often a huge component of trust, but is not strictly needed. The actual information exchanged in a conversation may not be nearly as important as simply having that conversation. Two people telling tall tales in a back corner at a business conference for example. Neither one is to be believed, but since the goal is socialization, dependability and co-operation become the trust components and honesty can sometimes be left behind.
Co-operation again may not be needed to trust someone. You can trust an enemy for example, as long as they are predictable. You may not trust that their goals are yours, but you can trust that they will act according to thier own needs, and in understanding those needs, use the actions of that person to accomplish your own tasks. Actions are probably the most honest things a person does in thier lives, and so with predictable action comes Honesty and Dependability, and another useful type of relationship can be formed.
When we talk about forgiveness, it is also important to understand the concept of faith. People are organic beings, and as such are so exceptionally complex that they cannot deliver the same exact experience each and every time. There is always a slight variance in behaivor, depending on the state of mind of that person. It is unrealistic to expect perfection from people, and so to learn and grow with others requires us to ignore slight variations and recognize the cognitive themes that each person imbodies and takes part in in thier daily lives. Faith is a type of willful ignorance, the suspension of disbelief, that allows us to ignore small details in favor of understanding a larger picture.
On occasion, these details are not so small and breech that suspension of disbelief, causing us to re-evaluate that person or set of actions. The act of concluding in favor of our previous assessment is termed forgiveness. For we are Giving them back our belief in them. When that re-evaluation turns the other way, that suspension of detail, that ignorance we gave to them is re-formed into a new embodiment of faith, a new evaluation.
We cannot exist as members of an interactive society without making these evaluations. Although it may seems as though that trust is lost, it actually reforms as a new level of trust almost immediately. When betrayed by a close friend for example, it may seem as though we are completely enlightened to thier true character. In actuality, we have re-formed that suspension to now favor the negative, ignoring the little details that might suggest they are good to favor our understanding of them as a Bad Person.
When hit by these sudden shocks and realization, the mind suddenly reconfigures its associations and evaluations, temporarily giving up cognizance in favor of reorganization. The body responds alongside involuntarily, this is what crying and laughing is and why they are so closely linked, the only difference is the nature of the realization: one destroys and one creates. This is why it would be natural to have a good cry after someone betrays your trust, and why it would be healthy to do so, when the process is completed, your body will return to normal processing, slightly different than it was before.
This brings me to my conclusion, which is that absolute forgiveness is impossible. You cannot unlearn or unchange, and there is no way to ever go back to the way you used to think of things before. After a reassessment of a person, your mind has physically altered and your predisposition to that person changed forever. It may be possible to experience things that would yet again change those assessments, possibly in favor of that person, but you'll never think of them the same way again.
As with all these things, considering the theme of a person, rather than their details holds the key in making accurate assessments and evaluations. Getting to know someone is a good idea before trusting them completely, but establishing a positive base level and being trustworthy yourself will allow trust to grow and mature naturally. Take each person as an individual, but be aware of thier friends and situations- they are parts of the same themes and same experiences or they would not be together. If you are mistaken in your assessments, and find you have misplaced your trust, allow your self time to assess and observe that person in action and thier lives before trusting them again.
Be willing to walk away if your judgement of them is consistantly unfavorable. Be aware that convienience will often masquerade as dependibility, producing false and exaggerated results. Desperation will hide in co-operation, and spite will present itself as honesty. In all things be the person you wish you had to trust and depend on, and others like you will join you on your way. Good luck.
Posts
I think the folks over there would be better suited (and happier to oblige) to provide some thought processes about the subject.
Remember, trusting someone "fully" isn't being naive. It doesn't mean that no matter what happens, by golly you're gonna' believe what they tell you. There are a few people who I trust fully -- that means that I take them at their word, and I believe in their intentions unless I am forced by evidence/facts to think otherwise. I don't suspend logic in the name of trust; I trust unless given reason not to.
Right now, you've been given reason not to -- you have to ask yourself whether or not you can build your relationship with this person (or these people) up to the point where once again they'd have to give you more reason not to trust them.
Trust and forgiveness are two very broad fields that apply to many things. Each one has varying levels, and are not always associated with each other. In essence, both of these things are not defined by any one aspect, but rather consist of several themes of action all running in parrallel towards the same end. This is much like 'love' or 'faith', which do not contain just one definition or identity, but consist of many thoughts, feelings and ideals sharing similarities with each other.
Just off the cuff, I would say that Trust falls into three basic catagories, Honesty, Dependability and Co-operation. Honesty determines if you will believe the idea presented by that source, like a good friend or teacher, and extends to in-animates as well, like textbooks or wikipedia. If the information from a source is found out to be incorrect, a normal person will evaluate how often that source has been correct in the past, and judge whether or not they will trust that source in the future. Sometimes, depending on the subject, a significant percentage of mistakes is tolerable, and at other times virtual perfection becomes an expectation.
Dependability does not always relate to consistancy, but relates to availibility; how often that resource is there when you need it. For example, it does little good to have a friend who is always right never be there, and so a second friend, not always as correct but is at least around when you need him, may be given a higher status in this regard. Wikipedia for example, is often docked on complete honesty but scores very high on dependability. The usefulness of a wiki then depends completely on the specific needs of the person who uses it.
Co-operation involves active resources, usually goverend by people. It is a value that measures how much in line with your own goals that resource is. If its goals are your goals, then it becomes possible to pool resources and acheive more things than by working on your own. This value is important, because if you share your resources (your time, effort, money, creativity, etc.) with someone who does not serve your goals or interests, then you lose those resources and are actually worse off than if you just went solo.
These values can be grouped together all at once. A good friendship is an example of this, where you have honesty, dependibility and co-operation working together to make life easier. If you remove one of these values, such as dependabilty, you can still have a relationship, but it becomes something less, like associates or aquaintances.
Honesty is often a huge component of trust, but is not strictly needed. The actual information exchanged in a conversation may not be nearly as important as simply having that conversation. Two people telling tall tales in a back corner at a business conference for example. Neither one is to be believed, but since the goal is socialization, dependability and co-operation become the trust components and honesty can sometimes be left behind.
Co-operation again may not be needed to trust someone. You can trust an enemy for example, as long as they are predictable. You may not trust that their goals are yours, but you can trust that they will act according to thier own needs, and in understanding those needs, use the actions of that person to accomplish your own tasks. Actions are probably the most honest things a person does in thier lives, and so with predictable action comes Honesty and Dependability, and another useful type of relationship can be formed.
When we talk about forgiveness, it is also important to understand the concept of faith. People are organic beings, and as such are so exceptionally complex that they cannot deliver the same exact experience each and every time. There is always a slight variance in behaivor, depending on the state of mind of that person. It is unrealistic to expect perfection from people, and so to learn and grow with others requires us to ignore slight variations and recognize the cognitive themes that each person imbodies and takes part in in thier daily lives. Faith is a type of willful ignorance, the suspension of disbelief, that allows us to ignore small details in favor of understanding a larger picture.
On occasion, these details are not so small and breech that suspension of disbelief, causing us to re-evaluate that person or set of actions. The act of concluding in favor of our previous assessment is termed forgiveness. For we are Giving them back our belief in them. When that re-evaluation turns the other way, that suspension of detail, that ignorance we gave to them is re-formed into a new embodiment of faith, a new evaluation.
We cannot exist as members of an interactive society without making these evaluations. Although it may seems as though that trust is lost, it actually reforms as a new level of trust almost immediately. When betrayed by a close friend for example, it may seem as though we are completely enlightened to thier true character. In actuality, we have re-formed that suspension to now favor the negative, ignoring the little details that might suggest they are good to favor our understanding of them as a Bad Person.
When hit by these sudden shocks and realization, the mind suddenly reconfigures its associations and evaluations, temporarily giving up cognizance in favor of reorganization. The body responds alongside involuntarily, this is what crying and laughing is and why they are so closely linked, the only difference is the nature of the realization: one destroys and one creates. This is why it would be natural to have a good cry after someone betrays your trust, and why it would be healthy to do so, when the process is completed, your body will return to normal processing, slightly different than it was before.
This brings me to my conclusion, which is that absolute forgiveness is impossible. You cannot unlearn or unchange, and there is no way to ever go back to the way you used to think of things before. After a reassessment of a person, your mind has physically altered and your predisposition to that person changed forever. It may be possible to experience things that would yet again change those assessments, possibly in favor of that person, but you'll never think of them the same way again.
As with all these things, considering the theme of a person, rather than their details holds the key in making accurate assessments and evaluations. Getting to know someone is a good idea before trusting them completely, but establishing a positive base level and being trustworthy yourself will allow trust to grow and mature naturally. Take each person as an individual, but be aware of thier friends and situations- they are parts of the same themes and same experiences or they would not be together. If you are mistaken in your assessments, and find you have misplaced your trust, allow your self time to assess and observe that person in action and thier lives before trusting them again.
Be willing to walk away if your judgement of them is consistantly unfavorable. Be aware that convienience will often masquerade as dependibility, producing false and exaggerated results. Desperation will hide in co-operation, and spite will present itself as honesty. In all things be the person you wish you had to trust and depend on, and others like you will join you on your way. Good luck.