It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by korgmeister
im kinda analytical type of person, compassion might not work very well.. what about its the environment and social condition that change the people? for instance, people might steal and we often see them as 'bad', but do we ever consider solving the environment that causes stealing instead of punishing people?
Originally posted by smithjustinb
It seems compassion, in the manner I was talking about in the original post, is best realized by taking into consideration the relative power of an animal. I was watching some kittens play fight with each other the other day, and while watching, I took into consideration that they probably feel pretty powerful when they do that. What I observed was their own social hierarchical structure that accounts for much of their personality. By observing the group dynamic, I was able to get a better view of each individual kitten, as if I was a cat myself and could understand that life.
Originally posted by iWantToBeelieve
reply to post by smithjustinb
Waste of a read. Everyone knows for humanity to succeed there must be compassion. You put the most basic of a sentence in to a rant.
You want more, and still more,
Until you get more than you ever bargained for.
Now its plain, clear as rain,
I've seen your symptoms many times before.
Lying on your bed of pain
What will you have now?
What of riches are told in a life without compassion?
For there's no winter as cold
as a life without compassion.
There's no prescription that's sold
that can heal you like compassion.
Well you tried and you cried,
Don't let your disappointment make you hard inside.
You have doubt, you reach out,
Still you're the only one you care about.
Hiding in your sack of woe
What do you need now?
For there is nothing so sad
as a life without compassion.
And even love has turned bad,
it was love without compassion.
And you don't need what you had
'Cause you did not have compassion.
Dying on your bed of pain
What will you have now?
You'll get no judgment from me,
I can only feel compassion.
And if that's what you need,
I will give you my compassion.
Just don't forget about me
'Cause we all need some compassion.
Open up your heart
so you can start to feel compassion.
Get down on your knees,
pray to heaven for compassion.
Everybody needs compassion.
If you want to be healed
then you know you got to feel compassion.
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.
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.
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.
I'm sorry, but that's such a ridiculous cop out.
Look up from space and tell me what you see: You see lights - not natural lights - but lights created by men. Only from this 'cosmic' perspective does it become clear that man is the only terrestrial being with a cosmic origin: the only being, as the ancients say, created in "Gods image", which is to say, a microcosm of the macrocosm, a creature which possesses within his being, both physically and spiritually, all the essential qualities present at all levels in universal manifestation.
You can search and try to 'find' explanations, and obfuscate the inherent wonder - though not obviate - of natures theophanic wisdom, but you will never arrive at a final explanation. You can only satisfy a temporal curiosity at how 'animals evolve', but to rest at this knowledge, self satisfied, thinking you've "cracked the code" is to testify against all that is innate in the human condition. It only shows how circular logic can be: you can peruse the contours of creation all you like, but it will eventually lead us back to square one, to the place you started.
In a city of 50,000, or a country of 33 million, or a planet of 7 billion, when you have minds that all think alike, perpetuating a particular point of view, the entire 'collective consciousness' of mankind acts a major sun, which every individual through sheer force of gravity, ineluctably revolves around.
It is nothing but arrogance to find a solution through 'logic' - to leave that natural and innate state of awe - and settle with the absurd: life is inherently meaningless, so man must artificially create meaning.
ScienceDaily (Mar. 15, 2012) — It's normal to not always act on your sense of compassion -- for example, by walking past a beggar on the street without giving them any money. Maybe you want to save your money or avoid engaging with a homeless person. But even if suppressing compassion avoids these costs, it may carry a personal cost of its own, according to a new study published in Psychological Science, a journal of the Association for Psychological Science. After people suppress compassionate feelings, an experiment shows, they lose a bit of their commitment to morality.
Any theory that tries to explain away consciousness as being contingent on the body, and not as an ontological reality, is simply irrational.
It doesn't account for occult phenomena, synchronicity, metaphysical theories (and their persuasive implications)..... I just cannot for the life of me understand how anyone could ignore this. You may ignore the last subject - as hinayana buddhism does - but how the first two?
When an external event lines up perfectly, at a precise moment, with an internal thought, what other explanation can be proffered that doesn't postulate an ontological force as it's catalyst?
And again, this easily explains the mind blowing feats of shamans - holding red hot coals in their hands, or in their mouths, without getting burned: what's so wrong with the traditional explanation of an ontological reality - an 'angel' or 'god' - but in more technical jargon, we could call it the abstraction of an emotional reality, the principle itself, which suffuses the shaman or initiate with it's energetic substance; this after all is what occultists and magicians base their science on.
Therefore, consciousness is a thing to itself which the physical world is patterned after. Based on this very reasonable assumption, everything found in the physical sciences must then have an ontological cognate; the law merely being the translation of a higher or more etheric pattern in neurological, chemical or physical terms.