So, I thought this would be an interesting question to ask.  When confronted with the extreme suffering that can happen in the world, how do you feel?  Is there, maybe, a difference between pity, empathy, and compassion?  Also, if it's a good feeling, isn't there something perverse about that, or is there some way to justify feeling positive in the face of other's suffering, like an increased capacity to be helpful?

There are definietly different kinds of compassion. For example, compassion which arise from understanding causes of dukha and how to remove it. If you remove dukha and become happier, you feel compassion for people who are not enlightened. You can feel compasion for them even when they try to hurt you. Strangely this kind of compassion doesn't cause any suffering to you. Rather it make you feel only positive emotions.

Of course there is also ordinary kind of compassion which couses suffering to you. It's human empathy, an ability to put oneself in somebody's situation and feel bad because of it.

So first kind of compassion arise when you remove dukha and second one is coused by dukha.

The question i ask myself is; do i need to reward myself with a warm fuzzy compassionate feeling before i will be motivated to help (even myself)?  if yes then the negative side of compassion is the inaction of an intelligent mind without it.  If no and one can help regardless, then whats it's purpose?  

There are many dhamma talks that mention this subject

First you can see compassion as the abssence of hate and deluision (of self ect) so it feels great not to hate others and not to think your better than them  - your not feeling great about their suffering

Like i said there are many talks that refer to this issue (it would be hard for me to find an example talk)  if i remember correct they say stuff like its not about you crying and feeling bad but you helping others

For instance a doctor - if he crys when he encounters a bad case instead of treating the patient he dosnt act with right compassion

Or  not eating meat ... you can be sad about the fact animals are killed for meat (sometimes this sadness is not noticable but exist in a very very deep level) - and still eat meat than  this is not right compassion    -  edit : that is a bad example 


An important part of buddhism is on doing the right aspect of things : like right concentaration right effort   - the right there is a very important part of the path 

I remember a story (not accurate might be wrong)  of a monk meditating in a hut when it was raining and his hut roof was broken but he didnt fix it cause he "practiced equanimity"  and when he come to his teacher he told him about it he said that its the same equnimity of a water bufflo - so its wrong equanimity - its not true wisdom

And lastley the : near and far enemis  http://www.dhammawiki.com/index.php?title=4_Brahma_Viharas


If you cehck the table the near enemy is pity -  the far enemy if compassion is cruelty    -    both are not right compassion  

Near enemy of equanimity is indifferance and the far is craving, clinging


As in every aspect of buddhism its all very logical  metta is loving everyone - karuna/compassion is wanting them to not suffer - upekkha/equanimity is well equanimity to the reality there is suffering - and mudita/joy for others is being happy others dont suffer   

lots of this stuff are the absence of their oposite like greed,hate,envy,being attached to things  ,  again buttom line its down to being logical to the max -   and making sure you think without diffiments  - lots of times what we might think is logical is just a difilment - so if your logical and make sure that your not thinking with a difilment than you probobly have a right type of compassion

Pity, sadness for another's situation, Negative  i.e.  Awww, you poor thing 

Schaudenfreude, pleasure from another's pain, Positive  i.e. Haha, you fell 

Compassion, Understanding the person's situation because you have been through the same, Neutral  i.e. Yes, indeed, that is how it is 

So, I would say Compassion is  Neutral, no judging, no criticizing. no conceit, just understanding and awareness of the situation.  Helping for the sake of helping, not expecting a reward.  No greed, no ulterior motives,  No hating the way things are, Not wishing things were different, Not feeling bad or sorry for someone, Understanding things are how they are, and being Compassionate, Understanding and helpful or not hindering because of that.  People want to be treated the same as everyone else, generally speaking.

Just my penny's worth

Psi

Karuna, non harm or compassion goes in line with sila/virtue/morality. By undertaking and keeping precepts (at least 5) we are compassionate and offer safety to all beings, including ourselves. We can save all beings from at least our bullshit... Sabbe satta sabba dukkhapamuccantu - may all beings be free from stress and pain. Brahmavihara jhana can influence basic elements. We, by stilling our minds can project still energy vibrations. Our mirror neurons don't need for our eyes to see to mimic. Theres a desire for safety and happiness in everyone...

Speak for my understanding as well, expressed this way by sentients regardless of tradition/traditionlessness.
Compassion is the natural mode of equanimous mind when there is the presence of dukkha. To me, it is the actual measure of equanimity to know for oneself if mental equanimity is suffusive, look at my own actions. 

Or  not eating meat ... you can be sad about the fact animals are killed for meat (sometimes this sadness is not noticable but exist in a very very deep level) - and still eat meat than  this is not right compassion 

An important part of buddhism is on doing the right aspect of things : like right concentaration right effort   - the right there is a very important part of the path -Water Drop

The irony of this is that the Buddha was not a vegetarian. Of the few things that can be known about him this is one. How is it that you have come to understand better than he what he meant, and also that your undertstanding contradicts his own behavior.

That paragon of western ideas of Buddhist compassion, the Dali Lama: also not a vegetarian.

Many people would feel compassion upon seeing an insect die. Despite Not Tao's claims in the other threads ants are a very sophisticated species and there is no reason to think they, or other insects, don't suffer. But most people don't get indignant every time someone goes for a walk in the woods. Do you grieve every time you go for a walk knowing you are killing insects? If not, why not? 

Feeling compassion is one thing. It is the body's response to seeing pain openly. I believe this is why karuna is sometimes translated as "quivering heart". It's very physical. It doesn't say "the minds lament" or something similarly conceptual. What one does or doesn't do with that is another story entirely. In case it's not clear from this, in response to the original question, I would say: neither. It is outside of box a or box b.

The question i ask myself is; do i need to reward myself with a warm fuzzy compassionate feeling before i will be motivated to help (even myself)?Alin Matthews

Yes. 

 if yes then the negative side of compassion is the inaction of an intelligent mind without it.  If no and one can help regardless, then whats it's purpose?  

Just feeling good i guess, like feeling happy inside.

About the buddha  just read this wiki   http://www.dhammawiki.com/index.php?title=Diet_of_Buddha

a choosen part but for full detail... read the intire wiki its not much
im not sure exactly what the dalai lama thinks - but dont forget a very important fact : his a monk !!  monks should eat whatever is given to them  - its very different than lay people !

also see "animals and the buddha" video in youtube - it has pleanty of tibetian monks like the daly lama who speak against eating meat

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S0MWAAykFuc    - great video

What im saying about karuna is that its a deep thing and not fake - so if you have true karuna you tend to act by it  - if you have true karuna for a living being you wont hurt it -

If you feel bad for your friend for example but still steal his money than what you feel is probobly not true and strong enough karuna 

when you have real compassion your actions are in line with your compassion   - if a king sees a poor man in his kingdom and feels bad and because of it kicks him away from his kingdom so he wont have to see him again than thats not true compassion even though he truly felt bad seeing that poor man

about stepping on insects - this can be a huge debate its not easily explained but i answered you on it in another thread for the same question exactly (you asked about car driving) i dont want to derail this thread cause of it especially cause i allready answered it in detail  

in the path there are 2 things who push each other (this is from a dhamma talk not my invention)  true compassion  and wisdom  -    when you act with true compassion you gain wisdom   - and when you gain wisdom it increases your compassion

You avoided my question: Do you grieve when you go for a walk knowing insects will die? If not, why not, and how is this right compassion?

The dalai lama is a monk, but if the suggestion is that he couldn't have vegetarian cuisine prepared for him that is ludicrous. The Dalai Lama does not do alms rounds daily. He has chosen to eat meat. And even if you say, "it's ok, he's a monk", why not just eat the food given that's not meat out of compassion, and give the meat back? If a monk takes meat the provider will have to buy more meat, more animals will die. Why is it difficult to see what is not right in front of you? Things are connected. Your food does not just suddenly show up on your plate.


The sutta mentions that the Buddha ate "out of pity" apparently suggesting that he wanted to please the layman by accepting his food.

Huh? So if I want to support the children of factory farmers out of pity is that then acceptable? Why not just not eat it? Now that dudes gotta kill another animal.


im not sure exactly what the dalai lama thinks - but dont forget a very important fact : his a monk !!  monks should eat whatever is given to them  - its very different than lay people ! 

This is also blatantly incorrect. There are no vegtarian precepts for diet in traditional Theravda among lay practitioners. Where did you learn this?

Bill up until recently i never talked about people personally in forums - it seemed to me unimportant but you keep ignoring the things i say

you really seem to have an anti for me or my ideas -  try to understand me instead of trying to find where im wrong 
 
About the monks imagine monks not accepting food for health reasons  ect    (plus some monk rules might be wrong who knows - did you know nuns are not equal to monks in some cases) 
 
by the way about the insects i edited my reply and than saw your remarke in the post after me - i dont ignore you i actually wrote a long reply and than remembered i answered you allready about this a day or two ago (same question different cases)

Hey guys,

There's probably no need to have two threads debating about vegetarianism at the same time. 

if you try to understand what im saying you wouldnt say this : i never said there are vegeterian precepts in theravada - although now you mention it i did see and hear (dont remember where) interpretations that the first is actually about vegeterianism  BUT  i never said that   - and if you would actually try to understand what im saying and not try to "win" some "debate"  you would have understood it .... what i said was monks should eat whatever they get  -  and lay people choose what to it - and when they do there is an intention behind it - i didnt mention the precepts in this didnt think of them even (though that is a valid point)

all this things i said in the thread about meat eating and you ignore what im saying again and again - this is about compassion and i dont want to derail this thread - and i seem to say the same things to you again and again

 

Thanks for the replies, guys.  The reason I was asking was because I was having a really hard time dealing with some videos I watched and trying to work through it.

I felt terrible about what I was seeing, and I knew I was holding on to the feelings (I could see exactly how I was), but it seemed wrong to let go of them.  Like I was letting myself off the hook.  I've realized recently that I've been incredibly selfish my whole life, and I didn't want to lose this quality where I actually cared about something else.  I also felt like the individuals I was watching deserved someone to mourn their pain, since it was obvious that no one was in the videos.  The truth is, though, the feelings themselves were not doing any good for anything out in the world, and they weren't doing me any good either.

I think that there is a divide between feelings and intellect, and the intellect is what creates feelings.  So I don't have to fear the loss of who I am by letting go of the feelings.  It will probably make me more able to do what the intellect wants, as well, since I was in no state to be at all helpful.  I just felt completely at a loss...

by the way about the insects i edited my reply and than saw your remarke in the post after me - i dont ignore you i actually wrote a long reply and than remembered i answered you allready about this a day or two ago (same question different cases)

You are avoiding. It was a different question with an answer that would not be applicable in this case, which you answered indirectly in the third person in that case. How do our compassionate ideas line up with our actions? It is an important question. I can't make you answer it but I think your repeated evasion of such questions is telling.

you really seem to have an anti for me or my ideas -  try to understand me instead of trying to find where im wrong  

I read you as being arrogant, judgmental, hypocritical and moralistic. I do not believe you are in the position of moral authority you believe you are, or that your vision of what is right and wrong is to be trusted. Trying to understand you seems foolish as your arguments thus far have been flimsily supported, and your inabilitity to acknowledge that harm connected to decisisons you make while telling others how they should live is off putting and makes it difficult to take you seriously. The more you talk about your ideas the less appealing they seem. To put it bluntly: You don't seem to know what you're talking about and you seem to think it's appropriate to assert your ideas with poor evidence to back them up. You also don't seem willing to take yourself to task for the things you would like to take others to task for. You have responded to almost none of what I've brought up. I just want to acknowledge that ethics are complex, but as soon as I try to take it there and point out contradictions in your opnions, you just check out. I believe it is willful. 

About the monks imagine monks not accepting food for health reasons  ect    (plus some monk rules might be wrong who knows - did you know nuns are not equal to monks in some cases)  
Yeah they might be. But then why did you rely on blatantly Buddhist jargon like "right compassion" to foster your opinion.

Once more, if it is appropriate for the buddha to accept food because he pities the provider of the meat why is it wrong for me to do the same in order to support factory farmers and their families? 


I am moving this to the vegetarian thread since it belongs there, and Not Tao's question is a good one. Apologies Not Tao for any way I personalized your thread. I hope you will respond (water drop). If not you should consider giving up that your ideas are a universal and useful barometer for measuring what is right and just in the world. 


 

Bill   you asked me if i would avoid riding a car to prevent hitting insects and i replied in detail  - now you ask about avoiding walking in the forest to prevent killing insects -  i started to reply to you in a long way and it turned out to be the eact same repsonse

You say im arrogant though i repetdly told you im not morally perefect and i do unmoral stuff   - and that the goal is to minimize the bad deeds and maximize the good

its about right compassion so i try to use the jargon and return the talk on the subject of compassion

if you notice i gave not eating meat as an example (and only cause i know this is what tao is thinking about ) - i also gave an example of a doctor    

you made this about vegeterianism

 
When you watch someone helping another and your happy for him helping another than you develope mudita - if you watch a video of it its also good like the random act of kindness videos

I think i was unclear sorry -    i gave the example of the meat eating and the doctor as just a messaurement  to see if its true comapssion or not  -

  If you feel true compassion than its a good thing ! no doubt !  if a movie helps you gain compassion for someone you didnt have before its a good thing

If you watch a movie about a prisoner or farm animals and you see his not completly evil you gain compassion to him - thats a good thing - even if it dosnt push you to action 

although  compassion has a tendncy to affect our action even if you dont know it  - you might stop saying to your vegan friend his crazy or lower a little your meat consumption or include more easily the prisoners in your metta circles

EDIT : ok so i will try to summerize i hope im clear : yes the movies you watched are good to watch they have lots of good sides to them - even if you dont change your actions (although you will change them a bit subcounsiciosly in not noticble tiny ways)

Figithing sad emotions is aversion - wanting them is greed - accepting them is the right way 

and buttom line the 4 brhama viharas are all important   - compassion needs to have equanimity -and equanimity needs to have compassion
 
 

 

Actually, Psi, I wish to amend my reflection above: I feel that compassion is gratifying/satisfying/relieving action when the action can reduce/remove causes of suffering. I suppose those are mirror neurons? But sometimes there can be no removal of suffering and the brain is still identifying rightly with a crappy condition. Then there is an overarching compassion for that and the tense sensations that are likely there, too.

A good question to ask oneself is, "what type of breathing would be compassionate right now?". Or how can I look after myself harmlessly. The western judeo-Christian psychologized meaning of compassion has a different tone than that of the buddha. Karuna in light of brahmaviharas (dwelling of God(s)) is in my opinion is a healthier way of considering compassion. So good practice is the non harbering of ill intentions.

If you wish to respond to me do it in other thread as I requested out of politeness to Not Tao. I'm not going to continue this on Not Tao's thread.

? I did not respond to you   edit : ok sorry - now i see your message i started to tpey it before seeing your reply - (time might change cause of edit)  notice i didnt continue to talk about vegeterianism so there is no need to talk about it in a new thread i just responded to your behaviour in general

After my last message you responded 15 minutes later though I requested you do so in other thread. 

Until intelligence (benevolent consideration) is fully functioning i wouldn't drop the compassion. its the emotional intelligence you use when youre still not intelligent enough to be benign without giving yourself an emotional buzz first.

when actual intelligence (not the intellectualising, conceptualising, fabricating, emotion driven kind) is fully functioning, thoughts are automatically benign thus actions beneficient, and one more human has become a highly intelligent harmless tool of the universe. 
 


  

I agree completly

when actual intelligence (not the intellectualising, conceptualising, fabricating, emotion driven kind) ..... this is what i called wisdom

not my inventions this is how many monks refer to it   -  they call  intelligence = knoledge of mundane stuff   and wisdom = knoldege of supermundane

and i will repaet now maybe it will be clearer  true compassion causes wisdom and wisdom make us have true compassion - and they feed each other

The truth is, though, the feelings themselves were not doing any good for anything out in the world, and they weren't doing me any good either ,,,,,,,     i belive your "feelings" - while also being actual feelings  are also mixed with true compassion - notice i edited the example on meat i gave -  karuna is very real  - even if its not strong enough to lead to action its still very good  - if i made you think otherwise i apologize

Haha, me too, guess I had a second think on it, there is within a wholesome guiding feeling when one acts out of compassion.  And if I do not act out of compassion, I get an arising of a dirty gritty feeling, so, better to do what is right, for me anyway.  The path should feel right and harmonious, and one should walk away from interactions clean, if  one was in line with the Dhamma, and of course there is a spectrum to how much one is in alignment with the Dhamma or not , and that correlates to the karmic residue one leaves, either profitable or non-profitable.  Am I sounding Taoist?  No Matter.

I think I was originally trying to make a distinction between compassion and pity.  Where when one acts out of pity there is a kind of self pride involved which can give that warm fuzzy, "hey look at me, I did something good!"  As compared to an act out of compassion, where one does something wholesome and helpful and it leaves a more wholesome rightness feeling behind, maybe not exactly neutral, but a cleared out heart feeling, a non-obstructive goodness quality.

Well, anyway, these  mind states are kinda hard to describe, and I suppose we all experience things a little differently.

Psi

P.S.  One more thought to add, perhaps an act of compassion reduces dukkha, so that the absence of dukkha may seem pleasurable.

Schopenhauer has said there is no pleasure, there is just the temporary absence of pain...

Hi Psi and Not Tao,

When Not Tao writes: 
I think it's important to observe clearly a few conditions when something horrific is happening.

One, we apparently react immediately with fight, flight or freeze when there is a threat happening.

Compassion is a secondary or a simultaneous reaction to flight-fight-and/or-freeze.  

We could talk about locations in the brain and brainstem where these things happen in terms of older, primitive brainstem and newer more complex brain...

Compassion is not itself a clouded mental state-- it is just happening in a context of threat where the newer mind is competing with the brainstem for time and reaction. The brainstem has priority in general.

This is the value of so-called "clearly seeing", as expressed in several Buddhist schools. That compassion (possibly an altruistic self-interested outcome of evolution, possible intelligent design-- this can't be known to the point of a falsability test so I'm not going to speculate what is compassion and its origin, but do we want it?) is a feeling like soft, higher-order, more complex brain function of simplisitic brainstem's "fight".

So if one attempts to become dissociative to the disturbing sensations of the overwhelming brainstem reactions (those of fight-flight-freeze)-- which brainstem reactions DO short-circuit out the mind's complex, reflective thinking and which brainstem reactions DO cause immediate reaction of the body (fight-flight-freeze)-- then a person has actually just performed a form of reactive "flight"; "Compassion was overwhelming, helped no one and I also suffered." A person manages to be used by their brainstem to flee the situtation and also to demote "compassion" as an agent being part of the suffering. That is brainstem self-protecting, demoting future occurences of compassion, which compassion can put a living being in situations that threatent the living being actually or just stimulate the living being's native threat detections on the brain stem.


But if you accept some form of basic causality/evolution, I gather many of us want the sophistication of knowledge: "This is my brainstem fighting-fleeing-freezing in response to a threat to well-being; and, over here, this is my brain-- higher order compassion, altruism, seeking how can I fix this threat for myself/other? How can I prevent this threat for myself/other?" 

One (brainstem) is a simplistic, reactive, effective protection system taking in information nearly all the time upon waking (even at times in sleep, such as how dreams assimilate unknown sound-threats and rule them in or out for the sleeper in dreams). Another (higher order brain) is highly connected to that which humans are well known for: language systems, problem-solving systems, complexity and symbolic thinking systems. We are group problem solvers, in large part, seeking more comfort as a consistent problem our species solves, in addition to being very curious.

I speculate we'd want our children/re-birth successors/future generations (where "/" means "and/or") to experience an increasingly knowledgeable community/environment  which focused on taming the reactive brainstem and unsafe conditions that inflame-trigger the brainstem; I speculate that we'd want future generations to experience more of the newer brain's magnificent potential and a curious, friendly system.

However, promoting a very reactive brainstem and demoting a complex brain may result in the kind of long-term apex predator that survives for millions of years, not a mere hundred thousand.


So, basically, the point I'm making is if we conflate the flight-frigth-freeze reactions with higher-order complex thinking (like, compassion's link to problem-solving, for example) we allow our brainstems to caste our "vote" for the future of a species to evolve more brainstemishly. If we wise up to what we are, at least, neurologically speaking-- a brainstem and a higher-order newer brain-- then we can also actually cast our "votes" in a manner that leads to evolving a species that is slower thinking, more curious, less threatening/derailing, safer-feeling and, I wager, is more fun. 


____ 
editx3, punctuation clarification, "our" and "at least"

Pity: It comes from a sense of being better than the other. Taking pity on someone etc.
Empathy: This is just being able to understand the emotional state of another being. It has no value in and of it self. Psychopaths are also very empathic.
Compassion: Ah yes. this is a tricky one. Compassion as I see it is being empathic, and whishing to help another being without any gains for oneself and taking account for the consequences of ones actions. JUst helping for the sake of helping is not compassion, helping others to feel better one self is not compassion. You need to relate to the other, act according to this relation, and then move on from it. For example where I live we have a lot of beggers that come from Romania. Romania is somewhat racist towards this group. Thing is lot of people says we should show compassion and give money and welfare to these beggers. However this behavior enforces stereotypes of the beggers, increases the social stigma in Romania of this group, it lessens the responsibility that Romania feels towards this group etc etc. Giving money to help on the grounds of being compassionate and not wanting people to suffer, increase the suffering for others and the begger himself etc. Being compassionate and acting on it is a tricky thing indeed.

i agree handouts makes beggars. Sweden needs to up their social equality campaigns to quit their discrimination. same goes for all nations immigrants included. all kids no matter which family or which area theyre born need to be offered the same quality education *in the same classrooms*. likewise for job support systems and subsidised apprenticeships. no compassion needed just commonsense. 

if people have managed to migrate to another country then that nation needs to treat them with integrity and dignity. if they can't afford to employ them then they need to send them back to where they came from and BROADCAST that fact *in that country*.  if a country can't use it's own resources because its culture is a psychological mess they need to *stop running from that* and use their intelligence to bring their own nation to its senses. likewise no compassion needed just commonsense. 

and we need Leaders and Heads of State to openly SAY THESE THINGS! 

sometimes i wonder whether war and racial discrimination is some kind of malicious hobby the human condition entertains itself with and i wonder whether people just pretend to be social morons so they can keep playing their bullshit mindgames that obvious perpetuate pathological suffering. it's beyond blind it's sick. most people really do live in a dangerous imaginary world. so i'm trying a new tac. i'm shutting down the imagination (as something to live by) and relating all thoughts back to the senses since they aren't out to kill each other.          

There was a buddhist geeks talk about mother Teresa. (couldn't find it sorry) On how she had only the compassion of the second kind, empathy, a seeming abundance of it which motivated her to do so much good in the world. But it overwhelmed her and she died of a broken heart literally. It's called descending spirtuality because you descend into the world, but it should be balanced with compassion derived from insight that comes from seeing the 3Cs, ascending spirituality, so you don't kill yourself with empathy.

read The Missionary Position, it destroys the illusion that mother Teresa's compassion did anything other than ensure the poor stayed poor and the vatican got richer. billions were donated for her work, yet her hospitals stayed as deprived and unhygienic as WWII concentration camps.  

Oh really? Didn't know that. I don't really know anything about her though. Just the story that she was "saintly" and did good things. But I guess she didn't. I'll check that out.

Alin there is no discrimination our welfare system is just too good combined with high start salaries which requies skills to get job. And sweden has very high social responsibilty, to the detriment of the country. We have more Iraqi refugees in one city than the USA have total.
Some of these romanian migrants want work but they have no skills and speak no english. We have hih demands on the labour here. They have essentially pushed out Swedens own homeless and drain the efforts meant to support them food, shelter, clothing etc. They also build camps in parks and what not. In some cases they have gotten rights to live on private property because the land owner did not throw them out directly. This results in the land owner getting fines for not cleaning up all the junk they spread about. He cant evict them either unless he knows their names etc. Which they dont reveal. If the migrants want to go home in some cases they get the bussfair paid, then they return latern on. They are only allowed to stay 3 months and look for work. So they leave and return .

Yep my country's the same. no welfare discrimination once you get in, but plenty of denied racial discrimination or rather my human condition hates your human condition so fuck off or i'm all love so either assimilate or get out. as for discussing the facts wow that takes a whole defence force lest some nation's ego or some individual *feelings* get hurt hearing them. Yawn. 

Nah aint much racism. Its just a highly effective and demanding society, high barriers to entry and high welfare checks. We are among the least racist countries in the world. But due to how labor market and welfare system is constructed you either cant get a job(if you are low skilled,also due to high entry salaries which requires you have skills even for mundane stuff. Changing soda cans in vending machines requries college level english education =)) or really need to get one.

i live in one of the most diverse multicutural countries on the planet and we were mighty proud of our compassionate tolerant nation ... till the documentary ... big surprise. hundreds of immigrants exposed the bashings, the subtle put downs, job losses, school bullying they were copping everyday. worse, every culture was doing it. like i said, as though it were some kind of fun hobby. maybe even plants do it  we know insects do. is that our limit too? getting ripped to shreds if you don't carry the correct molecules. or are we just not using the full potential of this new tool yet, this self reflective consciousness?