Do you see where you went wrong?
Why don't you ask yourself what motivates this statement:
I am not saying compassion is undesirable or that it should be suppressed. I am simply asking if compassion stifles our ability to utilise our true
strength and achieve greatness.
What does that even mean? If you look at the logic underlying this feeling - it is individualism. Individualism assumes that there is such a thing as
an 'individual' - apart from the social-group they emerge from.
Individualism assumes that "our true strength" lies in "achieving greatness". So the question is - psychodynamically speaking - why do you feel you
If you pay attention to the dynamics of this process, this sense of 'deficiency' is projected into you by others
, so that, for instance, we can
be made to feel deficient if another person - operating from the perspective of individualism, and sincerely believing that life is meaningless
without the "strength" to "achieve greatness", speaks to you in this format; n the process you will unconsciously come to assimilate whats called
their "object-relations". This means the feeling they ascribe to particular ideas (called objects) will be surreptitiously (inasmuch as it is a
process that begins in the body) integrated into your affective state, in turn compelling the same object-relation - or feeling relationship - for you
It is because people do not understand processes such as these that the whole "transmission" aspect of the dynamic is occluded - and the individual -
believing he is some impermeable object - takes the question as a legitimate frame without considering the irrational dynamics that worked to make it
relevant in the first place.
The thing about compassion is that it cannot exist without suffering of some sort.
Many people who live compassion would challenge that point. Indeed - its a subtle point - something emphasized by the Buddhist Monk Matthieu Ricard in
his very interesting book "Altruism", that is seldom noticed, and indeed, unnoticeable for a person with unprocessed trauma.
There is something called "compassion fatigue" - which Ricard rightly understands to be related to empathic identification i.e. the intenalization of
the feeling states of others. Ricard - a Buddhist monk - makes the somewhat (to people who have not experienced this) claim that compassion is
"without limiit" i.e. it does not entail or require a suffering component i.e. some sense of deficiency. Rather, compassion is related to a feeling of
'togetherness' - which is a systems phenomena deeply related to the physical process of centripetal motion. If you understand how your mind works - no
small feat, but something I hope will become a part of our educational system - compassion will not be experienced or known as its deficiently
projected - or considered to be - from the perspective of someone with unresolved trauma.
Unresolved trauma literally means that there are 'forces' existing within you that do not want to die
, so they necessarily compel and motivate
reasoning processes to rationalize the 'necessity of evil'. The tragedy of this is that narcissism and pridefulness blocks a more global and
scientific (accurate, coherent) relationship to the object of your inquiry, so that the 'demon' which compels the rationalization process keeps itself
alive - suckling energy from the physical-matter of a real existent being (you) - in the same sort of way that a virus co-opts the dynamics of cells
to reproduce themselves anew.
People who were raised in normal - spiritually healthy contexts - are far less rebellious and are far less persuaded by the needs of people who feel
that 'individualistic' desires - such as the pursuit of "strength" to "achieve greateness"- even at the expense of other people - is relevant or
What does this tell you other than that feelings control us? And what makes you think asymmetrical feelings which compel asymmetrical attitudes
towards living - wont come back, as it always must, to remove from you the conviction that such beliefs are true? History - your history - would bring
tears to your eyes if you could know it truly. Which means, its only because of an epistemologial blinding - by demons - that you fail to recognize
the troubles we will create for our future state of self by acting in egotistical and immoral ways.
Ethic-Epistemology-Ontology. These are not separate philosophical fields - but very much related to how matter - what we do - changes what we feel,
and so how we come to know the world (and ourselves) and then come to believe what is or isn't real.
I'm trying to provide some light - and wisdom - for the person willing to listen. Egotism is probably wrong. Building a self-in-its-shadows will
likely come back to hurt you. This seems to be a physical process - a function of the ecology of existence. If there is a God who is "punishing you" -
it may in fact be a higher dimension of your being 'purging' itself of the confusions being generated within the actuated realm by a truly abominable
global elite class - equally deranged by the realities of living - and being affected - by what you actually do.
edit on 3-2-2017 by Astrocyte
because: (no reason given)