The Next Major Human Advancement. HUGE.

reply to post by smithjustinb


Your post was beautiful.

Compassion may one day be as explosive as E=MC2, but we would first have to control the chemical balance of every human on the planet. I could walk down a crowded street and not find one person interested in learning compassion on the level of which you suggest.

Will the staggering alcoholics and desperate druggies take the time to learn comapssion? The uneducated? Doctors with multimillion dollar practices? Lawyers? Politicians? Abusive parents that raise kids to be abusive? How about gang members, murderers, psychotics, pimps, prostitutes, the homeless, the workaholic, the lazy, military leaders, religious fanatics, the selfish, greedy, self-centered, over-emotional, the pessimist, the bully...

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

reply to post by LesMisanthrope


You make mention of various wold animals in your examples.

But see, here's the crux that everyone misses: survivalism.

If you aren't focused on surviving, strictly surviving to the next day, you can AFFORD to be compassionate. But it sounds as though you suggest compassion is unrealistic...this is not so. Compassion enables us to understand the pain of others, the struggles they go through, so that we don't make the mistake of putting them through more pain.

It's more of an agent of understanding than anything else. To condemn compassion is to condemn an understanding of external stress...and without understanding, we cannot hope to coexist.

reply to post by Starchild23


Why not? I would be concerned, empathetic and ensuring, but I wouldn't expect anything in return.

Originally posted by Starchild23
reply to post by LesMisanthrope

 

Logic has nothing to do with morals. If you found a $100 dollar bill on the ground, your logical solution would be to take it. It's money, it's useful.

Morally, you would donate it to a charity, because it isn't yours to spend on personal stuff, and you figure the best solution is to be generous with it.

Logic and moral is not the same. Logic is dedicated to survival and obvious cause and effect issues, whereas moral is dedicated to warm fuzzy feelings by doing what's right.

I disagree sir,

You don't think you can arrive at any morality through logic—but religion? Logic is dedicated to survival—sure—but being socially responsible is also part of survival, especially if you live in a populated area. One should derive from logic what is socially necessary to survive, and base morality around that, not some mythical tablets or ancient doctrines.

Originally posted by ErroneousDylan
I understand the basics of what you are saying but what about the individual cases? What about the subjective definition of what would be considered "good" for someone? Perhaps a person has mental 'problems' and thinks that hurting another person would be 'good' for them because it would perhaps make them stronger?

I see your point. I think.

Ultimately, it is your own relative interpretation of what others are going through. So the question is, "If you are supposed to suffer along with someone, how do you know they are really sufferring?" "How do you know you aren't misinterpreting what they're going through?"

Compassion is about trying to see through the eyes of the one observer. The one observer is in you and sees what you see, but it also sees out of all perspectives. The main thing to know is that there is a state of your own beingness that you can achieve that could have you seeing through the eyes of all that sees. You see? So there is something within me that already sees what you see exactly how you see it. Try to see the part of you in others that others share as a common beingness.

First, you have to allow freedom of expression.

Second, you cannot judge the actions, or expressions, of another.

Third, you have to be open to whatever may come.

Fourth, you have to accept whatever comes.

Fifth, you have to be willing to experience how others might experience.

Sixth, you have to level the playing field. Superiority is a strong illusion. If you have a small dog, you should not act superior to it. You should treat the dog as if it was just as powerful as you. Physically, it is not, but remember, we are talking about existentially. You and the small dog share a common beingness. You cannot be superior to yourself. The common presence that we are trying to see from sees you and the small dog as equally powerful.

Originally posted by Starchild23
reply to post by LesMisanthrope

 

You make mention of various wold animals in your examples.

But see, here's the crux that everyone misses: survivalism.

If you aren't focused on surviving, strictly surviving to the next day, you can AFFORD to be compassionate. But it sounds as though you suggest compassion is unrealistic...this is not so. Compassion enables us to understand the pain of others, the struggles they go through, so that we don't make the mistake of putting them through more pain.

It's more of an agent of understanding than anything else. To condemn compassion is to condemn an understanding of external stress...and without understanding, we cannot hope to coexist.

I feel I'm being misunderstood. I'm not denouncing compassion, only the way it is used for vain reasons. It's not an agent of understanding, it's benevolence and piety. It's to appear compassionate, usually so one can have a reserved seat in the afterlife or for other petty reasons. This is true.

I understand where you folk are coming from, and the intention seems good, but if this was the way the world is supposed to be, then everyone would already be compassionate. But truthfully and obviously we're not that kind of animal.

Compassion wouldn't exist without a need for it, but it does because we're humans.

I think compassion is in our genetics, and I hope that you are right about it increasing with time. I feel I was born into a family that contains a huge amount of compassion, but at the same time I know other families that seem to be completely lacking.

There was one or two arguments on here already saying technology isn't our savior as some believe, but possibly our downfall. I completely disagree, technology allows us to communicate instantly. It is as close as we can get to ESP as a species, and only getting closer to that every day with the increase in technology & computers.

Compassion can easily be hidden in our minds behind other emotions like hate or fear. But through communication it can be found.

reply to post by LesMisanthrope


Compassion exists independently of religion. And no, we wouldn't be compassionate...too much emphasis has been placed on materialism, and there is no room for compassion amongst all the "TAKE TAKE TAKE" and "GIMME GIMME GIMME".

We have to mature first, as a species.

Originally posted by LesMisanthrope
reply to post by smithjustinb

 

Compassion will always remain something people do when they think others are watching; or when they invest in an afterlife. And once the compassionate individual has achieved his piousness, it leaves the sufferer feeling pitied and small.

Being pitied is an awful feeling. I would suggest compassion is not going to be a great discovery.

Compassion isn't about pitying, it's about encouraging. There's a difference.

reply to post by LesMisanthrope


No offense, but I simply think you either don't have, or are denying, how much compassion im sure you have yourself.

Compassion isn't religion. It's not morals. It's not related to survival, but it still exists. Compassion is an emotion, and without it you're not human. It would be like not being able to love.

reply to post by samureyed


I wouldn't say human, so much as alive.

Without compassion, you're not alive.

Originally posted by LesMisanthrope

The problem isn't compassion, only the way it's handed out indiscriminately to everyone. People who give, for the purpose of giving, only do so to receive something. To be compassionate for the purpose of compassion, is the same. Namely: vanity.

Yeah, I mean, sure I want to be compassionate because I know it is a better way of living and will give me a better sense of well being. What's wrong with that? You also have to keep in mind that we're not just talking about giving, we're talking about the full scope of compassion, which is basically a step towards the absolute and a diminishing of relative falsehoods to reveal a more actual objective truth. Even though you begin a compassionate lifestyle with the hope to increase your own well being, the actual act of compassion, if it is actually compassion, is always going to be unselfish.

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.

Originally posted by Starchild23
reply to post by crankyoldman

 

Einsein gave them something to work from. Once they'd proven him wrong, they suddenly had the actual truth, and now they can go from there.

Just as Edison formed the foundation for the modern LED, Einstein formed the foundation for modern physics.

Maybe, there are whole lot of people that suggest Albert was a thief, his patent work was his base and much of his "theory" was taken from Tesla who was then branded a kook.

One thing to know with regard to "stuff." when introduced, things like "lights" etc. are introduced by a many people at the same time in different places. The introduction is inevitable, it really isn't one person that brings it in, but rather one person that gets credit as those who control things wait for the introduction then snap up the rights, usually through coercion, and attach the introduction to one person. The introduction of things to move consciousness along is well to important to leave in the hands, or mind, of one person. Albert may be the poster child for theories of all things, but he was hardly the savior we make him out to be.

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.

Anyone who doesn't have wise compassion, will be like a rotten apple in a barrel of fresh apples.

Originally posted by LesMisanthrope
reply to post by Starchild23

 

Why not? I would be concerned, empathetic and ensuring, but I wouldn't expect anything in return.

Its okay to expect something in return as long as what you are expecting isn't coming from the individual in which you are showing compassion. It would be foolish to think that just because you are showing someone compassion that they somehow owe you now. That's dumb, I agree. But it isn't foolish to know that your compassionate ways are going to give you a better sense of well being as a direct product of being compassionate.

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...

Originally posted by LesMisanthrope

Originally posted by Starchild23
reply to post by LesMisanthrope

 

You make mention of various wold animals in your examples.

But see, here's the crux that everyone misses: survivalism.

If you aren't focused on surviving, strictly surviving to the next day, you can AFFORD to be compassionate. But it sounds as though you suggest compassion is unrealistic...this is not so. Compassion enables us to understand the pain of others, the struggles they go through, so that we don't make the mistake of putting them through more pain.

It's more of an agent of understanding than anything else. To condemn compassion is to condemn an understanding of external stress...and without understanding, we cannot hope to coexist.

I feel I'm being misunderstood. I'm not denouncing compassion, only the way it is used for vain reasons. It's not an agent of understanding, it's benevolence and piety. It's to appear compassionate, usually so one can have a reserved seat in the afterlife or for other petty reasons. This is true.

Compassion is an agent of understanding. Having compassion means to see as others see. That will always bring infinitely more understanding.

I understand where you folk are coming from, and the intention seems good, but if this was the way the world is supposed to be, then everyone would already be compassionate. But truthfully and obviously we're not that kind of animal.

Not that kind of animal yet.

reply to post by smithjustinb


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

reply to post by LesMisanthrope

I, too, can make assumptions:

It wasn't an assumption. It was the only logical inference from what you wrote; if only reputation and concern for the afterlife are what motivates compassion, then that means you do not consider the more selfless universal expressions of selflessness: either because you don't respect it (which would merely imply an emotional dislike for it) or because you are altogether ignorant of it.

Would you show compassion to a fellow who just put harm to another being? Yes you would—out of principle.

You're mistaking consideration of a principle to veneration and worship of a principle: things are NEVER that simple.

I may out of principle, show compassion because it is a good thing to do - but it is not the only principle I seek to live in accord with: For instance, in a case which you just described, I would NOT show compassion to someone who put harm to another being because it conflicts with a more important principle: justice and equanimity. If I feel showing compassion for a scoundrel will only debase the principle and give him some added support which he doesn't deserve, and in fact, would only encourage greater harm, I will not show it.

Because if you didn't, you'd risk your piousness and everything you stand for.

Another fallacy. I'm not a 'compassionite" -- i do not follow the religion of unmitigated compassion. There is no equivalency between compassion and piety: piety means devotion and fealty to a particular belief. You've mistaken my endorsement of compassion for a unqualified adherence to the principle. If compassion was ALL I cared for, that would be true. But fortunately, it is not.

It's time to be honest with yourself: are you compassionate if no one is around to see it?

I generally act without any consideration whatsoever to anyone else's opinion. When I'm with my dog at home, and I see her, I have intense feelings of compassion for her - which i reflect upon often - and it no way becomes diminished if someone is present or not. My feeling - along with my intellectual estimation of it (i.e. the principle) - are all that matters to me. I show compassion to those who deserve it.

Is the lion compassionate? The wolf?

Morality is irrelevant to nature. Man however is manifestly above nature - his very being encompasses it, by having the free will to resist it's inclinations. Man works upon nature, and indeed, is able to transform nature.

Nobody - barring cretans and primitives - should look to nature for moral advice.