Letter of Redemption.

A few musings:

I have decided to be fore giving and not to indict you for your errors. We can let it go. I am happy to be making music today with my new band and I hope to see you again soon. I try not to hoard my pain either. Yet some wounds still sting. For instance, it is unsettling that you seem averse to calling them errors, even though you agreed from the out's set that it had hurt me and you failed to prove how this could possibly have been 'necessary'. Your behaviour all so seems symptomatic of a guilty conscience: accusing me of harbouring feelings that I do not feel, et al. But that does not bother me so much. What really upsets me is your attempt to indict me for a wrong that I did not commit. THAT messed me up. I could not understand it. But I tried to accommodate your view point and modus operandi. And it proved mutually inefficient. And why did you ever indict me? An attempt to hold me to YOUR pragmatic standards. Yet it was precisely my holding Kresten to my own standards that seemed to 'upset' you. Well you never proved to me how those standards were ineffective. In fact, you could not. For he failed to comply with them. And YOU did as well. I at least TRIED your way. So how could you be angry with me?

My argument was simple enough to begin with. I was hurt though I had not committed a wrong; Kresten was rewarded though he HAD.
I do not find the fault in my reasoning. The calm of a sunny day lends me clarity. So I can answer simply for your errors: *I* would not have done as you had. So obviously it was wrong. And that is of course not a matter of personal preference that can be made Absolute. It is true in context. How could you possibly do such violence as to dismiss my standards as individually relative? After all: if all behaved as I did then there would be more fairness, and even if more people suffered the suffering would never reach the same fever pitches in any one individual case. So it is TOTALLY possible to Universalise and to have expected of you. There can be no denying that the fair and generous course would have been NOT to date Kresten. And in your place I would have followed that course. So how could you harbour hostility towards me, when I am no hypocrite? You failed to demonstrate that I WAS one. So why not agree to my standards? They are sensibly superior to individually relative ethics. If *I* can live up to them, so can you. Would you not want that? Would the answer to the moral question not put your heart at peace, admitting simply the error? After all: Kresten CLEARLY sinned for I could not follow in his foot steps; you Refused to let me do so! And he showed no intent of permitting me to or persuading you to do so. And I certainly could not follow in YOUR foot steps. At least we could ALL have followed my standards! And Erotic Love, which you had hypocritically disavowed, is permissible but only if the entitlement can be proven. You never proved to me what entitled him not me. And I find the suggestion prima facie insulting. So why bother to defend your actions or his? Why bother to indict mine, if not out of insecurity?

Like I said: I agree to say no more of the Nature of the error. But I would prefer the freedom to speak plainly and calmly of its Being.

Love, Dmytri.

P.S. If I have not only demonstrated a superiority of virtue but all so the privilege of the disadvantaged, am I not the authority?