The Next Major Human Advancement. HUGE.

reply to post by Starchild23


I meant human as in the stereotypical meaning of having emotions & intellect that allows us to be the most dominant species. You can be alive without emotions, even compassion, but you would be missing a key component of what makes us who we, humans, really are.

Originally posted by Starchild23
reply to post by smithjustinb

 

Actually, compassion needs to reign supreme. Or I should say, WISE compassion. No one benefits from sympathizing or empathizing with a fool.

Compassion should be unconditional. There shouldn't be any being undeserving of compassion. Compassion is about seeing through the eyes of the one observer. The one observer is present in all observing. If you deny one part of the one observer, you effectively deny the whole thing because one is all.

Perhaps the fool benefits from compassion? I don't think there can be a such thing as a compassionate fool. So perhaps being compassionate towards the fool may show the fool a less foolish way. Compassion is about a higher level of being. If being compassionate towards the fool is what is giving you that higher level of being then how are you not benefitting?

Originally posted by Starchild23
reply to post by smithjustinb

 

Understanding is not the same as encouragement. The one may lead to the other, but they are not synonymous.

I never said understanding is the same as encouragement.

OP, the more I think about the subject of compassion I realize that although I fully agree the idea of compassion, I dissagree with the idea that it is our next major human advancement.

Simply because it is not new. Compassion is as old as we are. We didn't advance to it, we have always had it, but are only more aware what it is, how we use it, how others are affected from it and so on. We are more aware through knowledge.

So in that regard, we can become more compassionate, but it can never really be our next big advancement. Regardless, good thread, totally got sucked in haha.

reply to post by dontreally


Compassion must be given freely and given to all unconditionally. For you to pick and choose who gets compassion and who doesn't is being judgmental. Remember, compassion is about becoming the one observer. If you believe there are those not worthy of existence then you are not compassionate at all. If you believe they are worthy of existence then you must also be willing to see through their eyes. That can be scary sometimes but it is compassion.

Compassion is a method of becoming the one observer. To deny one is to deny the whole thing. If you're in denial, you're in denial. It doesn't matter who or what you're denying. The fact is, you would be in denial. Denial is not a path to truth.

Originally posted by samureyed
OP, the more I think about the subject of compassion I realize that although I fully agree the idea of compassion, I dissagree with the idea that it is our next major human advancement.

Simply because it is not new. Compassion is as old as we are. We didn't advance to it, we have always had it, but are only more aware what it is, how we use it, how others are affected from it and so on. We are more aware through knowledge.

So in that regard, we can become more compassionate, but it can never really be our next big advancement. Regardless, good thread, totally got sucked in haha.

Yeah, there has always been compassion, but never to the degree I am describing. I'm talking about unconditional compassion to the extreme. I'm talking about so high a degree of compassion that it enables ESP abilities. Strong compassion. Compassion literally means "put yourself in another's shoes". I think the greatest degree of compassion that most have obtained is trying to put one foot in one shoe. Its never been real compassion and real compassion has never been fully understood. I don't think.

reply to post by smithjustinb


I understand what you mean, and it would be a great step forward, but compassion is an emotion. Emotions cannot be advanced as you're describing. Einstein unlocked some mysteries of the laws of physics and the universe, but by no means did he do anything to our emotions.

Knowledge is key to advancing, and also the reason we understand so much about compassion, which has always been there just as much as it is today. Perhaps we will all become knowledgeable enough to realize that compassion may not be needed for individual & egotistical survival, but survival of an entire species.

But for everyone to even realize that, they need to be compassionate, and that's what we call a catch 22.

Originally posted by LesMisanthrope

Originally posted by ErroneousDylan
What do you base morality off of if you aren't a religious type person?

It's easy. You use reason. If you are aware that others are just as aware as you, you then decide what you don't want to happen to you and apply that same "moral code" to everyone else. I don't want to punch a stranger in the face because I wouldn't like it if it happened to me. No need for religion.

Every time people create morals, they're basically saying This is what I don't want to happen to me.

And what if you are a masochist? What if you thoroughly enjoy getting punched in the face and think to yourself "I really enjoy this. Others should experience this enjoyment." ?

reply to post by ErroneousDylan

And what if you are a masochist? What if you thoroughly enjoy getting punched in the face and think to yourself "I really enjoy this. Others should experience this enjoyment." ?

In this case, the person must give permission, consent, choice, and free-will

Originally posted by smithjustinb

Originally posted by jiggerj
reply to post by smithjustinb

 

Humans have a LONG LONG LONG road to travel before compassion rules the day.

But we don't all have to have compassion. Compassion is approached according to individual understanding and readiness. Some people are either not ready, or are just to pre-occupied in their own self-centered endeavors, which is fine and completely understandable. It makes compassion harder for those attempting it when the group isn't also doing it, but it is still possible and practical on an individual basis. The main thing is each individual's own personal choice to let compassion rule their own day.

Oh, I thought you were going for a world filled with compassionate people. Neh'ver mind.

Originally posted by samureyed
reply to post by smithjustinb

 

I understand what you mean, and it would be a great step forward, but compassion is an emotion. Emotions cannot be advanced as you're describing. Einstein unlocked some mysteries of the laws of physics and the universe, but by no means did he do anything to our emotions.

Knowledge is key to advancing, and also the reason we understand so much about compassion, which has always been there just as much as it is today. Perhaps we will all become knowledgeable enough to realize that compassion may not be needed for individual & egotistical survival, but survival of an entire species.

But for everyone to even realize that, they need to be compassionate, and that's what we call a catch 22.

Compassion isn't an emotion. Compassion is a way of perceiving. Emotions are perceived, but the emotions perceived are not compassion. They are only perceived because of compassion. Einstein understood relativity, and that's what compassion is about.

When there is compassion, there is understanding. It is more obtainable. Understanding is what I call existential knowledge. It is knowledge of the self.

Originally posted by Starchild23
reply to post by crankyoldman

 

Hahaha, that's a load of bunk considering the FBI took the trouble to completely strip Tesla's room after he died. The FBI doesn't get involved unless there's some SERIOUS stuff to be dealt with...and according to reports, they were very thorough. Not a single note left behind, all of his work locked away by the government.

That's not the sign of a thief or a loony, methinks. That's some serious business...

edit on CThursdaypm313134f34America/Chicago03 by Starchild23 because: (no reason given)

Agreed, that's the point. One's a hero, the other, who rejected the bomb making stuff in favor of actually helping the population evolve (through his work) was turned into a kook who's only contribution to the world was a static electricity machine used in classrooms. His bomb contributions were the basis of the whole effort and Albert, rather then rejecting the entire deal was all for it. At least teller feigned mixed feelings by shedding a tear.

Only at the precipice do we evolve.

With that said, we will see a big war/sufferings/destruction/etc that is MAN made (natural dont count),
thennnnn ......you can have compassion.

You are in anger with your love ones, scold scold scold slap!,
after the slap, you have compassion.

Only at the precipice do we evolve.

When I joined ATS, I don't see this kind of topic. Most topics are about doom and gloom. That this kind of topic is regularly being posted in ATS now somehow shows that we are indeed raising our level of consciousness. More people are awakening to this kind of consciousness and moving out of the fear vibration being regularly fed to them.

reply to post by smithjustinb


thanks for the great post!

I think you will find this research done by HeartMath Research Institute interesting. Check it out.

Originally posted by ErroneousDylan

Originally posted by LesMisanthrope

Originally posted by ErroneousDylan
What do you base morality off of if you aren't a religious type person?

It's easy. You use reason. If you are aware that others are just as aware as you, you then decide what you don't want to happen to you and apply that same "moral code" to everyone else. I don't want to punch a stranger in the face because I wouldn't like it if it happened to me. No need for religion.

Every time people create morals, they're basically saying This is what I don't want to happen to me.

And what if you are a masochist? What if you thoroughly enjoy getting punched in the face and think to yourself "I really enjoy this. Others should experience this enjoyment." ?

ha well they have cages for people like that. I think its because they only function on what I like to call the "monkey brain"

I can give you a good example of how compassion can work:

Above the front door of our house was an old piece of artificial Christmas greenery that was chosen by a pair of house finches to nest in year after year. A neighbor of ours came by and told me there was a snake eating the baby finches. At this point I ask you the reader to think for a moment what you would have done.

I may not have done what you would have - I had to grab my camera.
The neighbor asked me why I wasn't stopping the snake from killing the baby birds. I told her "a snake has to eat too, doesn't it?" Who are we to interfere with nature that is not harming us?
When we consider the needs of the other we understand things in a new light.
Jesus taught the same philosophy as Native American shamans - peace through finding self in all things.

reply to post by Starchild23


Not that Im an ignorant... but... whats ESP?

Thanks

I rarely ever flag or star.
This one's for you.

reply to post by knightsofcydonia


This is advocating appreciation, an EMOTION for the person's wellbeing, not actual ACTS of compassion.

Just wanted to point out that difference.


Yes, appreciation is good for your personal health, and doing things for people so that they can have more things to appreciate in their life is good for their health, and compassion.