The Next Major Human Advancement. HUGE.

reply to post by ErtaiNaGia


If that's all you have to say on the topic, and as far as you're willing to go in this thread, then you should seriously reconsider taking part in this discussion.

This is meaningful exchange, not half-hearted banter.

reply to post by Starchild23

If that's all you have to say on the topic, and as far as you're willing to go in this thread, then you should seriously reconsider taking part in this discussion.

Honestly, what I said, was all that I was planning on saying.

This is meaningful exchange, not half-hearted banter.

I agree, which is why I posted something meaningful.

I'm sorry if you didn't "Get It"

Compassion is nice. One man was so compassionate that he would let a mosquito bite him several times. Then he swatted the mosquito dead when it came back for more of his blood. Once can only have so much compassion. Imagine a society that is totally compassionate with its wealth. That would be a socialistic society, hated by even compassionate people.

reply to post by ErtaiNaGia


Me and this guy simply stated opinions and starchild jumped down our throats. talk about "compassion"


EDIT:Also earthdude has some good points as well.

reply to post by LesMisanthrope

"Morality is irrelevant to nature," I love that statement. I suppose then, since everything—including man—is indeed nature, morality too is irrelevant. Something to ponder.

I already made the distinction between man and nature. When one says nature, he could mean many things: I defined nature earlier as the external world. Thus, the external world teaches man no moral lessons, and in fact, it would support a Nietzschian ethic, if anything.. But, since man is something additional - a surplus - to nature, inasmuch as he is able to resist it's impulses an act outside it, he therefore evinces a nature different from that shown by the external world: Mans conscience is an expression of his own superior organization of natures functioning; man, who recognizes a disparity between himself and nature, also possesses within himself a function which eludes natures logic: to show compassion for those less fortunate; to be fair, kind, considerate, etc.

Man brings these attributes, which are found in nature only between members of species, and generally, only between a mother and her young, to the universal: everything is harmonized and made consonant by mans living in accord with justice, equanimity and compassion.

I see you use the term 'compassion' alot in your OP.

May I suggest that you think more in the term 'empathetic'?
I say this because of the ESP/psychic motivation behind your reasoning.
There is a form of psychic called an 'empath'. Which I happen to have great strength in.

Everyone has empathetic abilities, just some are stronger than others. Kinda like singing.

So for those, including yourself, that wish to get more information on the ideas proposed in the OP, you should check out info on empaths.

S&F

reply to post by Talltexxxan


You raise a good point there. I agree...not compassion, but empathy.

Empathy, is a mechanism of thought base on what we think others are thinking. The essence of it can also lead to some crossed wires.

Originally posted by rom12345
Empathy, is a mechanism of thought base on what we think others are thinking. The essence of it can also lead to some crossed wires.

Well, that train of thought goes along with anything, when your trying to do something for someone else. Im sure your not suggesting we dont even try to help for fear of a few "crossed wires".

The more I am empathetic toward others the better I become at doing so.

Originally posted by dontreally
reply to post by LesMisanthrope

 

"Morality is irrelevant to nature," I love that statement. I suppose then, since everything—including man—is indeed nature, morality too is irrelevant. Something to ponder.

I already made the distinction between man and nature. When one says nature, he could mean many things: I defined nature earlier as the external world. Thus, the external world teaches man no moral lessons, and in fact, it would support a Nietzschian ethic, if anything.. But, since man is something additional - a surplus - to nature, inasmuch as he is able to resist it's impulses an act outside it, he therefore evinces a nature different from that shown by the external world: Mans conscience is an expression of his own superior organization of natures functioning; man, who recognizes a disparity between himself and nature, also possesses within himself a function which eludes natures logic: to show compassion for those less fortunate; to be fair, kind, considerate, etc.

Man brings these attributes, which are found in nature only between members of species, and generally, only between a mother and her young, to the universal: everything is harmonized and made consonant by mans living in accord with justice, equanimity and compassion.

Now I understand what you mean. I too would support the Nietzschain rather than a Kantian ethic. I, however, disagree that we are a surplus to nature. Yes, we are different than every other species, but so is every other species. To group all "other" animals together, even with such vast differences between them, is absurd.

I would also disagree that man brings his attributes to the universal and everything is harmonized or made consonant by man living in accord with justice, equanimity and compassion. Man makes himself believe he is making harmony of disharmony, nothing more. We are only happy in the illusion that we are in control of things. In my eyes, compassion is still done in the pursuit of vanity, or at least to make himself feel good about himself. Or to paraphrase Nietzsche: he gives a little here, so he can have little more there.

Thank you. Such insight is difficult to find these days.

reply to post by LesMisanthrope


What about empathy? Any clever quotes to throw in for that?

reply to post by Starchild23


I have nothing against empathy; but lets remain on topic shall we?

reply to post by LesMisanthrope

Yes, we are different than every other species, but so is every other species. To group all "other" animals together, even with such vast differences between them, is absurd.

It's not absurd at all.

In traditional metaphysics (before kantian, which is not 'traditional') the world of appearance is divided into 4 kingdoms: Mineral (aka inanimate), Vegetable, Animal and Human. These divisions are by no means arbitrary and they DO NOT, as is often prosaically assumed, codified on biological data, but rather, their essential or archetypal dynamism: The mineral plane or the inanimate, has no movement, and is purely stationary. It's completely one dimensional. The vegetative, unlike the mineral, stretches into a different dimensionality; compared to the popular geometric illustration which conveys the same point: the dot corresponds to the inanimate, the line to vegetative. The animal kingdom possesses the ability to move in multiple directions, which would correspond to the area. Humans, the most 'evolved' of animals, possess an additional characteristic not present in animals: the power of speech. By speech is not meant the ability to communicate with members of the same species - animals possess this ability as well, and even more more subtly, even vegetables 'communicate' via complex processes - but rather, the ability to create, which animals do not possess (and procreation is not to be confused with concepts, inventions etc).

The very Bible describes God's creation of the world with the power of speech. As do the Hindu scriptures, the Puranas and many others.

Man makes himself believe he is making harmony of disharmony, nothing more.

And perhaps belief is the substance of life? Or is that too subtle an idea for your mind to comprehend, or rather, to rest easy with.

In my eyes, compassion is still done in the pursuit of vanity, or at least to make himself feel good about himself. Or to paraphrase Nietzsche: he gives a little here, so he can have little more there.

I don't deny the presence of a selfishness in almost all acts. God made man a NEEDY creature - a creature with a craving for life, and this so, because he created the concept of scarcity. Man needs because God made him need, so isn't it natural, nay, logical, that the needer look to the giver - God - to quench his need for good? The Rabbis, unlike Christ, are more realistic: When it's said "love your neighbor as yourself" they do not mean it literally; literally, it is simply cockamamie trite, that sounds super nice on paper, but in actual fact, is simply untrue. What the Bible really means, the Rabbi's explain, is to love your neighbor AS YOU LOVE YOURSELF: in others, through analogy, as you love yourself, and know what your own needs as a human being are, from this knowledge are you to learn how to love your neighbor.

Mystics tend to interpret this idea way too literally, to the point where it begins to mean absolutely nothing. Love everyone? It is impossible to love everyone, EQUALLY, and if you claim to love everyone equally, it can also be said that you love no one at all. Only preferential love is meaningful, and since only preferential love is meaningful, there can be no absolute truth to the universal, since the universal only has enough room for universal truths. Preferential love is a schism within the system, which basically says: I love my wife more than that woman, I love my children more than yours, I love my people more then some guy in Sweden. This is so because love becomes meaningful only in the context of relationship between individuals, and more largely, between those who share common interests.

Notwithstanding what I've said above, I still concede a remarkable metaphysical current running beneath the world of appearance in which we live. I truly do believe that this world was Created - or intelligently designed - and emanates profound symbolic wisdom to those with the humility to look and ponder its immortal truths. But, I also think these truths need to be reconciled with the personal world in which we live: so, the dichotomy of my philosophy (which is rooted in Judaism) is the impersonal cosmic forces and the personal social reality: they can get along great, but compromise must be made on both sides.

Also, as for compassion, I think you are ignoring, or unwilling to admit the presence of something ineffable; I can't quite quantify what it is, but there is something there in all acts of true compassion which transcends any self interest; that love and intense gratitude one feels when he is with those he loves and cares for, it's as if something ontologically has changed in his being: yes, the sense of self and the cognizance of ones own interests are present, but beyond this, or, in spite of this, there is a faint sense of the original unity that existed before one became; It's this subtle, marvelous intuition which underlies all real religion. You, for reasons only you know, don't put much stock into this feeling, or rationalize it away as some superstitious 'wishful' thought --- but, ontologically - since I speak of this state as bearing metaphysical objectivity - you could very well be wrong, persuaded by feelings so deep within your own unconscious being that denies a truth which may seem too good to be true.

Very interesting topic but i beleive this compassion you speak of will not be possible to that extent and as far ESP will be horrible for humanity. Look into serial killers they enjoy knowing how there victims feel during there acts. What a good person sees as compassion an evil person sees as an advantage. Imagine if terrorist could feel the gratification of the terror they would cause before they even do it it would cause them to become more evil because they will be come numb to mentally seeing or feeling more then what they were used to.

Originally posted by smithjustinb
Compassion is like looking at a smaller animal and knowing you are more powerful than it is and you could probably kill it easily for food, but instead, you look past that and also see how powerful it is on its own relative terms. You see that its just as powerful as you are relatively to itself. Then you imagine what it is like to walk around as this creature with its own relative power and glory. Then you kinda start to ACTUALLY feel what it is like to be that creature. I can't put the experience's value in words. For one thing, there is a greater understanding of God. But what is understood can only be understood by doing compassion yourself. The value is in the understanding.

Originally posted by Dustytoad
Isn't it nice? People always wonder why animals like me so much, and how do you talk to them??
I imagine their life and their views and then decide what it is they are doing to communicate with me and I react back.
my cat just asked for food. He doesn't ask by meowing. He has many different ways of saying it, but hes always nice about it. Just now he paused looked at me, and made a certain cat eye look that means something like this:
"Please feed me, like sometime, in the next hour."

You guys might be interested in the scientific field of biosemiotics. It goes pretty much hand in hand with what you are talking about.

Biosemiotics is biology interpreted as a sign systems study, or, to elaborate, biosemiotics is a study of

signification, communication and habit formation of living processes
semiosis (changing sign relations) in living nature
the biological basis of all signs and sign interpretation

This field has been an interest of mine, especially as a former poker player. It's the study of "signs" (subtle body language hints/"tells" in poker). The field encompasses all life not only complex animals and humans, even plants.

In a nutshell, to catch all the little signals that life gives off and understand them. AKA a realistic "intellectual" form of ESP; your friends, your animals, even your lawn... are telling you far more than you ever realized and they don't even know it themselves.

I also agree with the OP about compassion, the lack of compassion in lots of people is a MAJOR hurtle in human spiritual progression... and well... everything.

In traditional metaphysics (before kantian, which is not 'traditional') the world of appearance is divided into 4 kingdoms: Mineral (aka inanimate), Vegetable, Animal and Human. These divisions are by no means arbitrary and they DO NOT, as is often prosaically assumed, codified on biological data, but rather, their essential or archetypal dynamism: The mineral plane or the inanimate, has no movement, and is purely stationary. It's completely one dimensional. The vegetative, unlike the mineral, stretches into a different dimensionality; compared to the popular geometric illustration which conveys the same point: the dot corresponds to the inanimate, the line to vegetative. The animal kingdom possesses the ability to move in multiple directions, which would correspond to the area. Humans, the most 'evolved' of animals, possess an additional characteristic not present in animals: the power of speech. By speech is not meant the ability to communicate with members of the same species - animals possess this ability as well, and even more more subtly, even vegetables 'communicate' via complex processes - but rather, the ability to create, which animals do not possess (and procreation is not to be confused with concepts, inventions etc).

You obviously know your philosophy and are well-read, for that I commend you. Your insight is valuable even though I disagree

For all you and I know, animals could also possess the same ability to create. They may just lack the necessary equipment—for example the opposable thumb—to manifest their creations. Birds make nests, bees build hives and ants take slaves. Man is not the most evolved animal, he only thinks he is. Put a man in a cage with a lion. Even with his concepts and ideas, which can only exist in his head, man is nothing more than another mammal.

And perhaps belief is the substance of life? Or is that too subtle an idea for your mind to comprehend, or rather, to rest easy with.

Belief is the substance of life? Not to me. It is a bi-product of our language. Without our language and context, belief wouldn't exist. Life would move on without belief. That idea is not subtle at all. I find it absurd and laughable.

Also, as for compassion, I think you are ignoring, or unwilling to admit the presence of something ineffable; I can't quite quantify what it is, but there is something there in all acts of true compassion which transcends any self interest; that love and intense gratitude one feels when he is with those he loves and cares for, it's as if something ontologically has changed in his being: yes, the sense of self and the cognizance of ones own interests are present, but beyond this, or, in spite of this, there is a faint sense of the original unity that existed before one became; It's this subtle, marvelous intuition which underlies all real religion.

I think you are ignoring, or unwilling to admit, that compassion can be an act of self-interest. Can a completely empathetic human not show compassion? Yes. Can someone void of empathy still show compassion? Yes on both accounts. But why would they do that? Simply because it serves their self-interests. Is the man who is void of empathy and feels no instinctual empathy towards others—but who nonetheless shows compassion for his own self-interest—still a compassionate human being? Yes, because he shows compassion and is compassionate.

You, for reasons only you know, don't put much stock into this feeling, or rationalize it away as some superstitious 'wishful' thought --- but, ontologically - since I speak of this state as bearing metaphysical objectivity - you could very well be wrong, persuaded by feelings so deep within your own unconscious being that denies a truth which may seem too good to be true.

You're wrong here. You're confusing compassion with empathy. Compassion is only part empathy because it also involves a need or wish to alleviate the suffering of others. At that point, empathy loses its purity and becomes compassion. I put plenty of stock into Empathy.

Here's a comparison of the definitions of Empathy and Compassion (from dictionary.com):

empathy: the intellectual identification with or vicarious experiencing of the feelings, thoughts, or attitudes of another.

compassion: a feeling of deep sympathy and sorrow for another who is stricken by misfortune, accompanied by a strong desire to alleviate the suffering.

The compassionate man chooses to determine who is worthy of his compassion, according to his own definitions of suffering. The empathetic man doesn't get to determine who is worthy of his empathy.

reply to post by WILAWAI

Another author trying to promote himself. Reported for spam.

I'm all for compassion and understanding and respect for all things, but, seriously bro, it's going to take awhile for natural selection to weed out the douche bags.

reply to post by Xaphan


Good day to you. Now, I'm not trying to get into a debate here, but I feel your reporting my post as spam is a bit harsh. Firstly, I actually wrote a reply- a self contained thought that was completely relevant to the thread. Second, I didn't once ask to buy my book nor did I link a page where it could be purchased. The page I linked was a discussion page- where people can discuss any topic. I'm not asking you to agree with me, I'm just asking that you don't judge too harshly. If you think I'm spamming still, then fair enough. It's your opinion and you are entitled to it. However, the way I have read the rules on this site I don't feel that I am in violation. In any event, I am sorry that you feel that was all I was trying to do.