An Open Letter to Charles Griswold about Forgiveness

I thought you might be interested to read my letter to Charles Griswold, Ph.D., Professor of Philosophy at Boston University, him having sent me a copy of his book, Forgiveness. This is the most in-depth, rigorous and searching philosophical examination I have seen yet on the topic on (traditional) forgiveness that I have seen.

And yet I think the whole book, cogently and eloquently argued as it is by an obviously accomplished philosopher, is basically flawed. And that’s because his whole theory rests on an assumption that I think is fundamentally wrong. Read the letter to find out what that is and see where you might stand on the issue.

Charles and I have been corresponding back and forth and have developed a good relationship. He has been very gracious about wanting to read my book, Radical Forgiveness, and actually quoted from it in an article that he wrote in the esteemed Tikkun magazine. [They have since asked me to contribute an article. I am very happy about that since this a magazine that I really respect.] He is still trying hard to bring me around to his point of view! Here’s the letter:


Hi Charles,

I know I said I was going to save reading your book for my trip in December but I couldn’t resist dipping in a little bit. I have enjoyed reading the little I have read so far but couldn’t help but giggle to myself at how you might be receiving my book which, while yours is so meticulous in its academic rigor and commitment to all details of the argument about forgiveness as you see and define it, mine is so full of assumption and broad sweeps of metaphysical possibilities that no one can refute or support by any rational argument or logical analysis.

All that aside, we are clearly coming from very different angles on the whole topic of forgiveness, each based in entirely different cosmology.

As I see it, your entire approach is what I have referred to as traditional forgiveness, based in the traditional, objective, scientific-rational and psychological framework. This is of course exactly how I would expect the subject to be treated by a distinguished academic and most of what I have read in your book so far I would agree with, (bar one - see below), so long as we are talking about traditional forgiveness and all the other concepts that go with it.

Radical Forgiveness, as you will see, is not a religious approach but one that is secular/spiritual and metaphysical in orientation. That immediately puts it beyond ‘normal’ logical, scientific or even philosophical inquiry probably, though you might tell me of an acceptable form of such which would deal with it philosophically. I would say myself that it has its roots in Eastern philosophy which is anyway, as I understand it, closely bound up with spiritual interpretations of reality.

If you haven’t already dismissed my book as ‘new-age psycho babble,’ and you wouldn’t be the first to do so, so it wouldn’t hurt my feelings, then maybe it would be interesting to discuss these differences further. For my part I would be happy to.

I am very comfortable with most of what I have written though, as I tell people, I don’t really believe a word of it. None of us really know the Mind of God, or the reality on the other side of the veil, nor even whether there is a veil, or even a God. There is very little proof of either. I tell people straight out that I am making a whole set of assumptions for which there is no proof of their veracity. It’s just a story, I tell them.

However, what I am able to claim through more than a decade of observation of results in thousands of people who have used the Radical Forgiveness technology, is that in the practical application of these assumptions in everyday life, there are effects which are measurable, subjectively experienced, sustained, and anecdotally recorded. The results are very similar and consistent across the spectrum of intelligence, race, gender, country of domicile, and any other variable that one might apply.

The results which are anecdotally reported by people, even those who have simply read the book and done one worksheet, include such things as a marked decrease in feelings of resentment, anger, rage and all those emotions associated with a belief in having been victimized by someone, and a corresponding uptick in the opposite kinds of emotion such as a sense of peace, acceptance, understanding, empathy and even love. People also report feeling more energy, decrease in physical symptomology, regression of disease such as cancer, weight loss and other problems.

The problems that might have caused an upset between two people also seem to become dissolved (not solved) which indicates that the energy shift that occurs between people when forgiveness takes place in one or both of them (usually only one), then the energy has an effect beyond the two individuals and actually impacts physical reality and other people. This is why I am now teaching the technology to corporations so it can contribute to raising the culture of an organization if enough people use it.

I have also noticed that, in people who use the Radical Forgiveness technology regularly, that there is a tendency for them to begin operating at a higher level in terms of human virtues, such as humility, tolerance, integrity and honestly. The reason for this I believe is the development of a more profound understanding of and respect for spiritual law. They become answerable to a higher authority and more accountable for having created the circumstances of their lives. Once you begin operating from that idea, finger pointing and blaming has no validity at all. You are immediately out of integrity with yourself if you revert to those strategies.

The reason why I think Radical Forgiveness works so well on a practical level is that I believe that when we are using the tools, we are activating a faculty of mind that I call ‘spiritual intelligence.’ It therefore bypasses the rational mind and ignores the subconscious mind which harbors all the negative beliefs and attitudes we have learned over the years, and deals directly with Universal Intelligence and knows the truth of who we are at the spiritual level. This is why people who use the tools find forgiveness to be surprisingly easy, almost instantaneous, therapy free and so simple anyone can do it. Neither belief or high IQ is needed.

I contrast this with traditional forgiveness which by universal agreement is seen to be very difficult to do, takes years and years to achieve if it ever happens, and has no methodology attached to it to help people go through the process. Basically, you wait and hope that one day the resentment will subside. Those who do manage to forgive something serious usually end up on Oprah which is a good indicator of how rare it is.

If you were up for it, I would be willing to come to the University and have a discussion with your students about my approach and give them the opportunity to try it for themselves. In fact that would be a condition. Let me know if that is something that would be attractive.

Now let me come to one of your themes central to the book and your ideas on forgiveness with which I strongly disagree. It came up early, right there in the Prologue and it surprised the heck out of me. This was:

“forgiveness is to be understood as a moral relation between two individuals, one of whom has wronged the other, and who (at least in the ideal) [is that a get out clause?] are capable of communicating with each other.” You go on to say, “forgiveness requires reciprocity between injurer and injured.”

For me this is the definition, not of forgiveness but of reconciliation, which clearly required both parties to be in broad agreement to reconcile and therefore definitely requires reciprocity. Forgiveness, on the other hand, seems to me to be something that occurs primarily within the injured, and is not dependent on whether the injurer feels any obligation whatsoever to apologize, atone or even acknowledge the crime. This idea takes the power away from the forgiver by making his forgiveness dependent on the other, which for me simply compounds victim consciousness. “If it wasn’t for you, I could forgive!” Reciprocity in the form of an apology may help the injured person forgive, but I cannot see that it is required. This idea takes the power away from the forgiver by making his forgiveness dependent on the other, which for me simply compounds victim consciousness. “If it wasn’t for you, I could forgive!”

What if the person is dead or otherwise unavailable for the interpersonal moral relationship you say is required? You dismiss all such questions that are raised and cripple the very notion of forgiveness by calling them departures from the definition of forgiveness. In my workshops, even in the context of traditional forgiveness, I have a lot of people who wish to forgive God, George Bush, someone who is long dead and so on. What do I do with them? What chance do they have of having a moral relationship?

I look forward to reading more of the book and maybe this will become clearer to me but I have certainly found this to be the most difficult things in your writings to swallow so far.

I must resist the temptation to keep writing but I must get on with some work here. And I don’t need to labor the point, I’m sure.


Blessings,

Colin