Poetry is the heart of literature. A story is fine, a poem reaches the soul quickly eliciting raw emotion, and a Poem that is story Rules!
Why does it happen that one person is offended because another person is offended because the first person mistakenly accused him or her of something wrong that spawned a negative reaction? This parabolic tale begs at reason when details of certain negatives burden people to don yokes of flaxen, which grow into cords with each application.
Two parties stood disputing as a third party approached...
Two parties stood disputing as a third party approached to help bring resolution to what appeared to be a complicated situation demanding a direct line to the initial offender to justify the offended’s response to the initial offender’s offensive accusation offending the initially offended person, who became offensive in kind--creating a circular function of offense that fed itself into perpetuity!
The first accused of offense said, “How dare you get upset and offended because I became upset and offensive about you being upset and offended about me responding upset and offensive because I said something upsetting and offensive because I thought you said something upsetting and offensive? Though I was mistaken about you saying something upsetting and offensive about what I thought you were upset and offended about when you were not upset and offended but became upset and offended about me being upset and offensive about me being upset and offended in the first place about saying something to you that upset and offended you, all you had to do is not be offended in the first place and neither of us would be offended or saying offensive things about being upset and offended right now!
“So,” responded the second accused of offense, “you’re upset at me for being upset when you upset me by responding in an upsetting manner, to an upsetting accusation mistakenly, which further upset you when all you had to do is say you were mistaken, and not be upset that I was upset about you being upset and upsetting because I was upset intentionally by something you thought I did which I didn’t do? Though you became offended when I became upset that you were upset because I responded offensively about being falsely accused of being offensive though you caused the offense in the first place, it wouldn’t have happened if you would not have been offended responding offensively initially to a statement of agreeance neither of us would be offended or saying offensive things being upset and offended right now!"
...offense is foolish and not worth entering into...
Both offenders turned to the third party and said in unison, “Who is justified?”
The third-party judged, “Both of you are equally at fault.”
“How,” said the Offended in chorus.
Third-party replied, “If you are offended when no offense is intended it is a foolish thing that leads to foolish outcomes. When offense is intended and offense is taken it is a foolish thing because it leads to foolish outcomes. Therefore, offense is foolish and not worth entering into, otherwise, all who enter therein become foolish and therefore, fools.”
Therefore, offense is foolish...
“He started it by responding offensively,” Offended One protested, defending his position. “When I thought he was being offensive about something I accuse him being offensive about though he was not being offensive I admit, but he was offensive with his reply when I discovered he was offended because I was offended about thinking he was offended about the offensive thing I thought he meant when I rashly responded to the offensive thing I thought he said because any sane person would have been upset about the offensive response he gave because of the offensive reaction I gave to the supposed…”
“Never would offense have come,” simultaneously protested Offended Another, “had he not first accused me of being offensive for reacting offensively to his offensive accusation to a statement with which I agreed but was misunderstood leading me to offense, and offensive posture when he could have simply understood initially my position--which would have resulted in me never positioning a defensive refutation to his offensive accusation to which he took offense because it called into question his moral justification for offensive license to censure me when his premise base on an assumption that he supposed…”.
...amusing, which traditionally is the jester’s role...
Both Offended One and Another in unison realizing that Third-party indirectly implied an offensive assumption regarding them when he to them related that being offended when no offense is intended or even when offense is intended leads to foolishness, determined now he, therefore, made fools of each of them.
“So, in essence,” Offended One and Another spoke in tandem, “You are basically calling us fools, which is an offensive position to take when you are not aware of the initial reason this all began.”
“The fact that both of you said those words in tandem,” responded Third-party, “is amusing, which traditionally is the jester’s role, to amuse that is. Another name for jester is a..”
“Fool,” both Offended One and Another sang rancorously offended at Third-party’s conclusion.
“Not that I suggested that you were fools nor did I say it,” Third Party calmly offered with a raised hand of decorum. “Does it settle things between the two of you now that there is another possibility of offense in the mix?”
“No,” Offended One and Another growled together.
“Do you recall why either of you are offended by each other’s conversation,” Third Party queried as Offended One and Another shook their heads in tandem with furrowed brows and flint-flustered faces of disgruntlement?
“Good, then,” concluded Third-party. “You have successfully redirected your offense away from each other towards me, which unfortunately does make you fools indeed because offense is foolishness and I too am a fool not because I take offense but because I, along with you, play jester to whoever observes the foolishness of this episode.”
“Can we agree,” continues Third Party, “that to argue in circles is the fool's game and that we can forgive, move on to other things?”
“How many times should we do that,” Offended One queries defiantly. “No one would ever be accountable.”
“Well,” Third Party plotted to squelch the episode. “It has been said to do so seventy times seven by the Great Teacher.”
“That would take too much time to account of,” Offended Another expressed to which Offended One agreed.
All three agreed that it was foolish to make a list of that length. Frank Forgiveness was Third-party’s name and Love became of One and Another. Some actually make the list of seventy times seven to realize too late it is a fool's errand to make the list because the Devil is in such detail.
Then came Peter to him, and said, Lord, how oft shall my brother sin against me, and I forgive him? till seven times? Jesus saith unto him, I say not unto thee, Until seven times: but, Until seventy times seven.
— [Matthew 18:21-22]
Frank Forgiveness... Love... One... Another...
© 2021 Rodric Anthony