Guilt
BERNARD POLLARA
If it is accepted that the self is a temporal construction, what we call guilt really refers to a condition of existing in a state of experiencing dissonance in the relation between your present self and a past self (or selves). Guilt is thus, at heart, an incongruence in the self, and has two forms:
A) Shame, passively experienced: Your past self cannot be reconciled with your present self
B) Regret, actively experienced: Your present self cannot be reconciled with your past self
The only solution for solving the condition of guilt, for eliminating dissonance, is self forgiveness. The only reason these terms are helpful is to elucidate the nature of self forgiveness, and why it is paramount to existing in the world and necessary for achieving any degree of happiness, or equilibrium, in one’s life at all.
In order for these statements to mean anything, in order for their language to resonate, it is necessary to clarify the exact measure of what I mean.
I. The Self as a Temporal Construction If one does not understand the self as a temporal construction, this essay will remain completely nonsensical. It is the hinge this argument swings on.
What we designate as “you” is really the you actively experiencing time - your thoughts, desires, and your state of being as a subject affected by the condition of constantly existing, which is just a way of saying your circumstances. At any given present this is the self that is the subject of guilt - when we think of ourselves, as in psychiatry or in therapy, it is as a self removed from the effects of time, conceived of as existing in “the past,” the reason being that otherwise proper analysis becomes impossible.
But the self is constantly shifting because time is constantly asserting itself and new circumstances are born anew each moment. The new present replaces the old every single instant, and so on, perpetually. So in this way when we conceive of a self (especially with regard to guilt) we must conceive of it as a subject in time that is actively experiencing time, that was, and is, having to navigate the condition of constantly existing. A consistent, unburdened self has no trouble navigating the flow of time (this is what we call “being present”) because it is in a state of unity: it is consistent with itself and yet constantly appearing anew as time passes. We think, we act, we move, but we feel largely attuned with ourselves - even in happiness, sorrow, or ecstasy we are certain that it is, beneath everything, the same “you,” as impossible as that is, experiencing it all, in past as in present.
So a kind of impossible consistency appears which is the hallmark of real happiness (in that it creates the conditions that allow one to actually experience things: happiness, revulsion, whichever), “impossible” because time is constantly shifting and a new self is forced to appear each moment, which, if one possesses consistency, is recognizable and recognizes the selves which came before it.
When we identify the self as a temporal construction, it is to emphasize the sense in which you, as a person, have without exception always existed in a moment in time. Never have you been separated from your temporality, and never will you. You are defined, always, by your state of being (what exists within yourself) in a moment in time (the circumstances of your existence at that current point). This is absolutely essential to apprehend the nature of guilt.
II. The Relation between Past and Present Selves Referring to the past as the past is a matter of record-keeping. Its parameters are also constantly shifting: every time a new present exists, the boundaries expand. This is nothing new. Because memory is linear and the present constantly exists at the forefront of a parade of past moments extending further backward into bygone time, we (properly) designate an inherent causality between the past and the present. But it is not as simple as one moment leading, as in a stream, to the next. Because, as we have said, the self is a temporal construction, “the past” is really a large database encompassing actively experienced moments in time although it is often misconstrued as a concretized, static record of deeds and actions, things done or said, sealed away from the instability that characterizes existing in the present. We conceive of the past in this way to make it easier to form an interpretable, human record of what we are, which is generally a positive thing. What this different understanding of the past is trying to tease out is the way in which we, as past selves that have existed, were, despite the way in which we remember, just as subject to time as we are in the present moment. The past, rather than existing as a record of things that are petrified and immutable, is a living, undulating store of moments actually experienced, and (this is critical) the selves that experienced those moments, the people that thought and felt and acted in a certain way because that is how they thought and felt and acted at that moment in time. Memory collapses and reforms and rearranges itself as to reflect its relevance to the experienced present. Now it becomes proper to speak of recollection.
III. Recollection Recollection is the act of remembering, specifically in the sense of comparing a past self to a present self with regard to causality: I was this, and because I was this, now I am this. Giving an example of what I mean, it is thinking (in the moment of right now) about how you have arrived (through the selves of the past, and all they constitute) at the present moment. Although this seems convoluted and obvious, why pains are being taken to establish these definitions will become apparent when speaking about guilt, why it affects us so deeply, and why really the only way to end guilt is through self-forgiveness.
When we recollect, it is as an act of comparison just as much as it is an act of remembering. Simply remembering is looking back placidly from the present on a past that is related to the present only because a record of the scene you are remembering is available, whereas recollecting introduces the active element of trying to reconstitute “who” you were, how you thought, what you felt. Because recollection also involves this element, it cannot escape the inevitable comparison with the present, as the simple act of trying to summon up a bygone self reveals the way in which we have always been (and always are) a subject of time. Recollecting, then, has an influence on the present self, the present moment, because it is proven just as real as right now. And thus two selves appear which have both qualified as “you,” the only difference being their location in time. Now we can speak about guilt.
IV. Shame Guilt is, once again, a condition of existence characterized by an incongruence in the relation between past and present selves. Two forms of guilt exist, passive and active, lesser and greater. It is proper to examine shame first.
A) Shame: A past self is unable to be reconciled with the present self.
This is the passive, lesser form of guilt (the dissonance experienced which results in a feeling, in this case shame) in which a small surge of dissonance arises because a past self is unable to find congruence with the present self - note the difference in article. Because it is the past self which is the subject of the incongruence, which made the mistake, there is some amount of distance that can be taken from the action. This is because the present self, the “you” that is a subject in time, can surmount the past self through remembering, and not recollecting, what has occurred to cause guilt. We wonder, “how is it that I could have done that?” and in that formulation there exist a healthy bit of syntactical gymnastics that muddy the waters between the present self that exists right now (you proper) and the past self which has erred. The way in which we view this form of dissonance is channeled through remembering, not recollecting, because we are not at odds with our present self, simply curious at what our past self was capable of, looking on as if at someone else. A certain fascination at ourselves is integrated into the way we remember whatever incident that occurred that caused whatever behavior. This is ultimately because in cases of shame or embarrassment we feel we have acted in a way that is not in accordance with our present selves (with “you”), which, paradoxically, redeems the past self which had also been existing as “you.” This is possible if one understands the self as a temporal construction. Each moment of the past exists as the veritable center of the line that ties an unbroken chain of selves to the present moment, and precisely because that past self once existed as a present one (as a “you” inhabiting a moment in time). Because each moment of the past is a bygone present, if our present self does not feel a proper association with a past self, that past self can be abstracted outside of the bounds of what you believe to be “you,” and thus becomes another. Cases of shame are dismissed because we can abstract the irreconcilable past self out of the bounds of what we deem to be “you” and accept that although an action originated from ourselves it is not really part of the fabric of what we are. The formulation, ‘I knew I shouldn’t have done x,’ or ‘I should have listened to myself,’ often arises, and is a result of this abstraction, which is only reasonably believed because the present self, and thus, “you,” are not actually the one at fault. But the same logic that allows shame to be dismissed redoubles the pain of true regret.
V. Regret
B) The present self is unable to be reconciled with a past self
This is where we can speak of regret proper. One noting the redemptive powers of the present self in cases of shame should find it easy to understand why an issue with “you,” what we believe to be the fabric of that construction which is responsible for experiencing time, can be so damning, and how it can poison both every waking moment of your life and the past which came before.
The formulation of regret, as seen above, is important to deconstruct carefully. The present self (the you that exists right now) is unable to be reconciled (is found incongruent, not plausibly proceeding from) with a past self (a past self - read: a self which has existed as “you” before - is unable to accept the present self, exists at a juncture of impossible present-ness where it is actually capable of still actively existing despite being located in the past).
If the shame formulation is “how is it that I could have done that,” the regret formulation is “I am wrong for doing that.”
See the marked difference that makes already. The present self actively exists as wrong. The dissonance is so great that it is constantly occurring, at every moment in time redoubling the error that “you” have made despite the fact that it was made in the past. This is exactly because of the reasons that allow one to pass off shame as an abstraction. Because regret deals directly with the temporal nature of how we exist, it is constantly wounding that active subject that is both present and past “you,” that is not only the actor and speaker in time, the concretized remembered self, but the one who is experiencing existence.
But what does this actually mean? Let’s return again to the earlier clarification, that the past self exists at a juncture of “present-ness” and is occupying a second present which is responsible for the extreme degree of dissonance that regret causes us to feel. An easy way of saying it is this: “You” are still stuck in that moment. Because, again, the self is a temporal construction, and what we define as the past is a backward reaching sequence of individual moments, standing like pillars in time, each equally real and experienced, each as valid and rich as the present because they were an experienced present and yet fallen behind the right now, in which you as a subject must navigate time, if the present self cannot, in recollection, establish a reasonable continuum with that which came before it, it is as if we have found ourselves in the wrong self, in the wrong time. The source of that incredible dissonance that is the pain of regret is the present self attempting to claw its way back through time, from the right now to the “you” that existed once in the present but is located in the past. We do this through constant, active recollection of our past self in order to revive that “you,” that subject who was once in time which could only exist in that specific circumstance, who has done something you cannot allow to exist in yourself at the present moment. This dissonance that characterizes regret results from this doomed attempt to reinhabit both the moment in time at which you made a mistake, and, crucially, the self that was in that moment, which was contrived by the moment. The goal of this hopeless search is to attain again some degree of consistency of self by trying to inhabit the “you” which has erred and actively correct the behavior, but due to the fact that the moment in time has gone, dissonance and suffering occur. This warps the present moment you are living in into a desperate search to reimagine the self that can only be located in a bygone moment in an attempt to integrate it into the present, into “you.” This turns your existence into an impossible task, and affects a state of perpetual misery.
VI. Forgiveness All of these terms have been established in order to arrive at the crucial question: How does one escape this condition?
Forgiveness, but specifically self forgiveness. Because guilt is a condition of dissonance and arises from the efforts of the self to reconcile itself and re-establish consistency, forgiveness must be recognized as a self generated action directed both at the past self who existed as a subject in time, and the “you” in the present moment. The formulation for forgiveness is this: “I was always going to do that.”
See how even in the language an effort is made to unite disparate periods of time and make them whole again. “I was,” past, “Always,” continuous, “going to,” future. Forgiveness erases dissonance because it re-establishes the continuum of a consistent self which is necessary in order to exist with any degree of sanity. If the self is a temporal construction, if your life has been an unbroken succession of presents, you always existing as a subject defined by your circumstances and your present self (which are really far closer to the same thing than we believe) it is vital to maintain a degree of internal self consistency. If at any moment you are not able to say to yourself: I (my self existing in a circumstance) was always (at that moment, at that “you”) going to do that (to exist, to be, in that way), you have sundered consistency and are existing under a condition of guilt, either superficial or severe. Forgiveness is simply the name for an active process (and it must be active, most be constant) which seeks to affirm each moment, each “you” that has existed in an effort to establish consistency within, and eliminate dissonance from, the self. Consistency is not happiness, and forgiveness does not excuse mistakes. Nowhere in this equation are good and evil, only unity and discord. Existing consistently merely gives one the foundation to experience the present wholly, and act in a way that is in accordance with the self one believes one’s self to be. It guarantees nothing but the ability to live with the assurance that you have always been, and continue constantly to be, you. And there is nothing more vital.