| | [quote=Jackson "awouldbehipster" Wilshire] Thanks for clarifying. It seems as though you view compassion as a feeling or emotional response as unwise or unhealthy, but you see no problem with what I described as compassionate action. Helping people is OK, but feeling compassion or sharing in their sorrow (which you seem to find synonymous) are to be avoided. Is that right?
Correct. To clarify slightly, I think it is unwise, unhealthy, uncomfortable, inhibits clear comprehension of a situation, and simply does not help.
[quote=Jackson "awouldbehipster" Wilshire] I have a problem with what you wrote above, because I don't see any emotional response as being right or wrong. I think it is very hurtful to think that it is wrong to experience an emotion, which is why I take issue with some forms of conservative Buddhism. Feelings of compassion naturally arise when we are able to take on the perspective of another, and that person is suffering. If someone you love, say a close friend, loses their child in a car collision, and you see them suffering, a natural, uninhibited response is empathy. You feel sad because they feel sad. There is a collective sharing of the grief, and I don't see this as a bad thing at all. Emotions, in my understanding, are not the cause of suffering, as the autonomous human being always has an option of how they will respond to them. So rather than promote a kind of mass anhedonia, I think we'd be better off promoting mass maturation.
I too do not see any emotional responses as being "right" or "wrong." These words carry all sort of connotation regarding reward and punishment, and are often used as charged words to justify a selfish position. Feelings of compassion naturally arise, but I do not think this validates compassion as something to indulge in. I can think of all manner of things which are "natural" which are better off kept under control. Compassion has gotten by thus far through history as an "okay" selfish feeling to partake in, and I'm not really sure why (though I have my guesses). After all, one is called all manner of things when one chooses to no longer share in others' sorrow, such as "cold," "uncaring," etc; which has little to do with why one would choose to no longer feel compassion. My point being that compassion has become sacred and that sacrosanct status is locking humans into a cycle of endless suffering...and for what?
Emotions are not the cause of suffering, specifically. It is the identity which is the source of the instinctual passions, which could be thought of as a conditioned blue-print of the world which says "react to X, Y, Z because of A, B, C." Suffering is nothing more than a term we ascribe to a chemically caused tension-- felt in the brain and/or psyche-- set off by a self-justified imperative to survive (which could be personal or group related) and reproduce. The specifics of these imperatives vary a bit from person to person due to their unique experiences (parents, peers, other influences), but also share staggering similarities due to many of them being endemic. For instance, the instinctual drive to reproduce is part of one's blue-print regardless of where one was born. This is how blind nature equips a species: a rough and ready software package for survival at all costs. It does not care a bit about you or I personally, it is simply what you're born into.
Humans, with their unique ability to "always (have) an option of how they will respond to them," -- which is due to the intellect-- are in a distinct position to rewire the entire blue-print of the human condition until selfishness is gone entirely. Perhaps I am mistaken, but is not human maturation in this context generally seen as a process of becoming less selfish and more sensitive to others? With that in mind, I think that this is very much a promotion of "mass maturation," it is just a radical step in that direction; hence the hesitation / wariness to step away from the tried and true methods we've been passed down since birth.
[quote=Jackson "awouldbehipster" Wilshire] Pardon my asking for "sources". My comment did indeed come off as a bit pretentious. I don't mean to ask for sources of someone else's "teaching". Rather, I highly value empirical scientific research in the field of psychology, though it's not the only thing I care about. Developmental psychology is one of those disciplines that is very well researched and documented, and the conclusions drawn are difficult to refute. Human beings follow are "growth to goodness" course throughout their lives, so long as their development is not arrested along the way due to abuse or other trauma (physical or psychological). Emotions play a large role in that, which is why I have a difficult time finding validity in any view that suggests that certain emotions should be completely cut off.
No problem. There is not, to my knowledge, "official" academic research in the form that I think you are looking for. For one, freedom from the human condition is a relatively new discovery. In this case, though, one's own intellect is plenty enough to validate the claims (rather than deferring to the irrational notion of what has been deemed "credible" by the masses). The entire field of psychology is currently quite a corrupt and confused mess. It is a case of the blind leading the blind. We humans are in a position to ameliorate and end all sorrow from ourselves, and yet our modern day "psychology experts" would much rather keep us all at a "normal" degree of suffering, because it's "natural." After all, ya "can't change human nature," eh? Fortunately, they are incorrect: it is possible. And not only is it possible, but it is necessary. One only needs to open a page of news to see war, rape, murder, abuse, suicides from loneliness and all the like ravaging the otherwise fair people of this earth. Does one dare to care enough to end all of that (personally, which if done by all, is globally) by taking a radical step of self maturation?
[quote=Jackson "awouldbehipster" Wilshire] Anyways, I was asking because I didn't know if the AF model or theory (not just an 'actual freedom from the human condition' as an actual achievement) was based on or at all validated by good science. Science has its limitations, but it is also a very reliable tool when wielded properly.
The methods for gaining an actual freedom from the human condition have been empirically proven to work by humans whom were enlightened and those that were not-- without significant variation thus far-- in other words: "good science."
[quote=Jackson "awouldbehipster" Wilshire]Again, I'm enjoying our conversation. Thank you for taking the time to explain some of your ideas. I've been wanting to gain a better understanding of your ideas for a while now, and this helps.
I'm glad to hear that you're enjoying the conversation. It takes a considerable amount of openness and patience to even begin to question some of the things we're talking about, and I'm glad to partake in that investigation with you.
Regards, Trent |