Does idealism lead to more compassion ?

[Soul_of_Shu]

Dana,

This confuses me:

... the notion of some transcorporeal, individuated sense of selfhood—i.e. a disembodied sense of a distinct self contra other-than-self, surely integral to feeling compassion, i.e. suffering with the other —is pretty much unfounded and based in 'wishful thinking'.

Why would a fully unified identity between the part and the One NOT also be compassionate, even ultimately so? Although separation may be a precursor to unification and carry its own forms of compassion -- mutualism, reciprocity, charity, caring and sharing, etc -- why would full union between the Father and Son (using Christian lingo) not also be fully compassionate in a Love that is no longer individualized and personal but instead guaranteed as present and available for all as in the notion of Christ Consciousness or Buddha Mind. Aren't there many ways to verbally represent the state of Union, why would any require the representations born of separation?

Well, if it's 'full union', then by definition there is no other-than-self, so 'who' is one 'suffering with'? It seems that only within a relational self><other-than-self dynamic—not of necessity implying separation—is there any possibility of compassion. But perhaps 'other-than-self' is a poor choice of wording here, when what I'm getting at is a relational dynamic between one variation of selfhood and another, notwithstanding each such self is but a transitory partitioning of the Self ... the point being more about why, as BK seems to imply, should that dynamic be limited to corporeal self-expression, given what one knows of encounters of the Empyrean kind?

[AshvinP]

Lou,

I made a criticism of BK's analytic idealism, you responded it was "too harsh", I responded to that, and now we have come full circle to you criticizing BK analytic idealism in pretty much the same way I had in the initial comment you responded to. None of this is about you personally or me personally. Whatever we happen to perceive in Nature, clearly a large portion of the world has not and does not. There is no other sensible explanation for why Nature is in the state that it is in today. Many humans barely treat other humans as living beings right now. But there is no sense pointing the fingers at others, because it all incarnates and reincarnates in our own hearts each and every new day, every new year, every new lifetime. Therefore it is each individual's spiritual responsibility to confront what lives in their own heart and participate in the microcosmic-Macrocosmic evolution through that process. That's all I am saying.

By "too harsh" I meant a sweeping tone that felt quite unlike what you are saying here, which has a generosity toward other ways that I'm very comfortable with. But getting back to the initial theme of the thread, I do not find compassion located in philosophy as much as in relationship. In this sense of mitakuye oyasin (all our relations) one can as easily be compassionate as a materialist as an idealist. And, yes, I believe the relationship approach is just as available to the naive as to the most sophisticated.

One can only conclude that in bold if it's assumed we are fully transparent to ourselves right now. If we are not, and there are actually many layers of our subconscious which exist between our current perspective and our most authentic Self, then all that which remains subconscious will exert undue influence on our expressions of compassion, empathy, love, etc. Don't let the philosophical and psychological terminology throw you off... I am speaking of very simple and concrete experience. It is not those conscious aspects of holding to "materialism" or "idealism" as abstract theory which makes one more or less genuinely ethical, but those living and subconscious aspects of any worldview which exerts the influence that we are mostly unaware of. To put it much more simply, we are not complete beings in experience or knowledge, and it is egoically assuming that we are complete beings, in one aspect of our lives or another, which leads to nearly all ethical bankruptcy of the modern age. It is a pretty sweeping assertion, but that does not make it any less true.

[Lou Gold]

Lou,

I made a criticism of BK's analytic idealism, you responded it was "too harsh", I responded to that, and now we have come full circle to you criticizing BK analytic idealism in pretty much the same way I had in the initial comment you responded to. None of this is about you personally or me personally. Whatever we happen to perceive in Nature, clearly a large portion of the world has not and does not. There is no other sensible explanation for why Nature is in the state that it is in today. Many humans barely treat other humans as living beings right now. But there is no sense pointing the fingers at others, because it all incarnates and reincarnates in our own hearts each and every new day, every new year, every new lifetime. Therefore it is each individual's spiritual responsibility to confront what lives in their own heart and participate in the microcosmic-Macrocosmic evolution through that process. That's all I am saying.

By "too harsh" I meant a sweeping tone that felt quite unlike what you are saying here, which has a generosity toward other ways that I'm very comfortable with. But getting back to the initial theme of the thread, I do not find compassion located in philosophy as much as in relationship. In this sense of mitakuye oyasin (all our relations) one can as easily be compassionate as a materialist as an idealist. And, yes, I believe the relationship approach is just as available to the naive as to the most sophisticated.

One can only conclude that in bold if it's assumed we are fully transparent to ourselves right now. If we are not, and there are actually many layers of our subconscious which exist between our current perspective and our most authentic Self, then all that which remains subconscious will exert undue influence on our expressions of compassion, empathy, love, etc. Don't let the philosophical and psychological terminology throw you off... I am speaking of very simple and concrete experience. It is not those conscious aspects of holding to "materialism" or "idealism" as abstract theory which makes one more or less genuinely ethical, but those living and subconscious aspects of any worldview which exerts the influence that we are mostly unaware of. To put it much more simply, we are not complete beings in experience or knowledge, and it is egoically assuming that we are complete beings, in one aspect of our lives or another, which leads to nearly all ethical bankruptcy of the modern age. It is a pretty sweeping assertion, but that does not make it any less true.

I agree that I, as the imperfect being that I am and subject to forces of which I am not fully conscious, cannot make a sweeping generalization beyond my own limited personal experience. Is not the same true for you? Are you saying that your experience is more general or trustworthy than mine, or what?

[Lou Gold]

Dana,

This confuses me:

... the notion of some transcorporeal, individuated sense of selfhood—i.e. a disembodied sense of a distinct self contra other-than-self, surely integral to feeling compassion, i.e. suffering with the other —is pretty much unfounded and based in 'wishful thinking'.

Why would a fully unified identity between the part and the One NOT also be compassionate, even ultimately so? Although separation may be a precursor to unification and carry its own forms of compassion -- mutualism, reciprocity, charity, caring and sharing, etc -- why would full union between the Father and Son (using Christian lingo) not also be fully compassionate in a Love that is no longer individualized and personal but instead guaranteed as present and available for all as in the notion of Christ Consciousness or Buddha Mind. Aren't there many ways to verbally represent the state of Union, why would any require the representations born of separation?

Well, if it's 'full union', then by definition there is no other-than-self, so 'who' is one 'suffering with'? It seems that only within a relational self><other-than-self dynamic—not of necessity implying separation—is there any possibility of compassion. But perhaps 'other-than-self' is a poor choice of wording here, when what I'm getting at is a relational dynamic between one variation of selfhood and another, notwithstanding each such self is but a transitory partitioning of the Self ... the point being more about why, as BK seems to imply, should that dynamic be limited to corporeal self-expression, given what one knows of encounters of the Empyrean kind?

Excellent question Dana. I am hesitant to comment on another's process -- BK in this case -- but I speculate that my differing view is based on having had differing experiences. One manifestation of this difference is that BK has openly shared that he has anxiety about passing from corporeality to beyond whereas I do not have this anxiety, which proves nothing more than we have differing experientially based faith. My skepticism would come to play in the assertion that the meaning of these differences can be fully or fundamentally revealed by analysis. My belief is that the rubber meets the road in relationship. And beyond the relational? Beyond the beyond? What's to feel anxious about? Unless, of course, one insists on analyzing it.

[AshvinP]

By "too harsh" I meant a sweeping tone that felt quite unlike what you are saying here, which has a generosity toward other ways that I'm very comfortable with. But getting back to the initial theme of the thread, I do not find compassion located in philosophy as much as in relationship. In this sense of mitakuye oyasin (all our relations) one can as easily be compassionate as a materialist as an idealist. And, yes, I believe the relationship approach is just as available to the naive as to the most sophisticated.

One can only conclude that in bold if it's assumed we are fully transparent to ourselves right now. If we are not, and there are actually many layers of our subconscious which exist between our current perspective and our most authentic Self, then all that which remains subconscious will exert undue influence on our expressions of compassion, empathy, love, etc. Don't let the philosophical and psychological terminology throw you off... I am speaking of very simple and concrete experience. It is not those conscious aspects of holding to "materialism" or "idealism" as abstract theory which makes one more or less genuinely ethical, but those living and subconscious aspects of any worldview which exerts the influence that we are mostly unaware of. To put it much more simply, we are not complete beings in experience or knowledge, and it is egoically assuming that we are complete beings, in one aspect of our lives or another, which leads to nearly all ethical bankruptcy of the modern age. It is a pretty sweeping assertion, but that does not make it any less true.

I agree that I, as the imperfect being that I am and subject to forces of which I am not fully conscious, cannot make a sweeping generalization beyond my own limited personal experience. Is not the same true for you? Are you saying that your experience is more general or trustworthy than mine, or what?

I am commenting on my own experience of viewing myself as complete being, but it is only when I reflected on my own habitual tendencies with careful thinking that they become obvious and I wonder "how could I have missed them before?" One can look at themselves, or around at all modern philosophies and sciences, and ask themselves whether my critique holds true in their own experience and careful thinking. I am more than happy to entertain a counter-argument if any exist.

[Lou Gold]

One can only conclude that in bold if it's assumed we are fully transparent to ourselves right now. If we are not, and there are actually many layers of our subconscious which exist between our current perspective and our most authentic Self, then all that which remains subconscious will exert undue influence on our expressions of compassion, empathy, love, etc. Don't let the philosophical and psychological terminology throw you off... I am speaking of very simple and concrete experience. It is not those conscious aspects of holding to "materialism" or "idealism" as abstract theory which makes one more or less genuinely ethical, but those living and subconscious aspects of any worldview which exerts the influence that we are mostly unaware of. To put it much more simply, we are not complete beings in experience or knowledge, and it is egoically assuming that we are complete beings, in one aspect of our lives or another, which leads to nearly all ethical bankruptcy of the modern age. It is a pretty sweeping assertion, but that does not make it any less true.

I agree that I, as the imperfect being that I am and subject to forces of which I am not fully conscious, cannot make a sweeping generalization beyond my own limited personal experience. Is not the same true for you? Are you saying that your experience is more general or trustworthy than mine, or what?

I am commenting on my own experience of viewing myself as complete being, but it is only when I reflected on my own habitual tendencies with careful thinking that they become obvious and I wonder "how could I have missed them before?" One can look at themselves, or around at all modern philosophies and sciences, and ask themselves whether my critique holds true in their own experience and careful thinking. I am more than happy to entertain a counter-argument if any exist.

OK, this is getting interesting. I guess you will need to tell us what "viewing myself as complete being" means. Does it mean feeling no uncertainty, confusion or vulnerability concerning your identity or what? And what triggered your thoughtful review? Was there no relationship or event that forced you to think about yourself in another way?

[AshvinP]

I agree that I, as the imperfect being that I am and subject to forces of which I am not fully conscious, cannot make a sweeping generalization beyond my own limited personal experience. Is not the same true for you? Are you saying that your experience is more general or trustworthy than mine, or what?

I am commenting on my own experience of viewing myself as complete being, but it is only when I reflected on my own habitual tendencies with careful thinking that they become obvious and I wonder "how could I have missed them before?" One can look at themselves, or around at all modern philosophies and sciences, and ask themselves whether my critique holds true in their own experience and careful thinking. I am more than happy to entertain a counter-argument if any exist.

OK, this is getting interesting. I guess you will need to tell us what "viewing myself as complete being" means. Does it mean feeling no uncertainty, confusion or vulnerability concerning your identity or what? And what triggered your thoughtful review? Was there no relationship or event that forced you to think about yourself in another way?

This "viewing as complete being" really happens to everyone at least a few times each day. It is reflected every time we confront phenomena and fail to ask questions about them, or sometimes we even consciously assume that we already understand the phenomena completely. Or maybe we think to ourselves, "this phenomenon needs no further explaining, it's perfect as a beautiful mystery". That is assuming one is a complete being as well - a being who has complete inability to ever get answers to their deeper questions about the phenomena. It is only when we reflect on our own evaluation of the phenomena, like we are doing now, that we realize how often we do this in our daily experience. But it's very easy to snap back and forget all about it during the course of one's day, so we need to constantly remind ourselves of what we already know when we encounter the phenomenal world and its riddles.

[Lou Gold]

Would an example be seeing a stunning sunset and simply enjoying it without any questions or deeper reflections?

[AshvinP]

Would an example be seeing a stunning sunset and simply enjoying it without any questions or deeper reflections?

Yeah, I think that is valid example. But I also know where this is going... as we mention often here, Thinking and "deeper reflection" here is not equated with racing thoughts and verbal chatter in our minds. Since we are so used to that sort of thinking, we assume it must be the only sort of thinking. That is again the complete being fallacy at work (henceforth known as "CBF" from me). What we are speaking of is the qualitative living essence which underlies our everyday thinking. Consider the following:

On no account should it be said that all our action springs only from the sober deliberations of our reason. I am very far from calling human in the highest sense only those actions that proceed from abstract judgment. But as soon as our conduct rises above the sphere of the satisfaction of purely animal desires, our motives are always permeated by thoughts. Love, pity, and patriotism are driving forces for actions which cannot be analysed away into cold concepts of the intellect. It is said that here the heart, the mood of the soul, hold sway. No doubt. But the heart and the mood of the soul do not create the motives. They presuppose them and let them enter. Pity enters my heart when the mental picture of a person who arouses pity appears in my consciousness. The way to the heart is through the head. Love is no exception. Whenever it is not merely the expression of bare sexual instinct, it depends on the mental picture we form of the loved one. And the more idealistic these mental pictures are, just so much the more blessed is our love. Here too, thought is the father of feeling. It is said that love makes us blind to the failings of the loved one. But this can be expressed the other way round, namely, that it is just for the good qualities that love opens the eyes. Many pass by these good qualities without noticing them. One, however, perceives them, and just because he does, love awakens in his soul. What else has he done but made a mental picture of what hundreds have failed to see? Love is not theirs, because they lack the mental picture.

[Lou Gold]

Would an example be seeing a stunning sunset and simply enjoying it without any questions or deeper reflections?

Yeah, I think that is valid example. But I also know where this is going... as we mention often here, Thinking and "deeper reflection" here is not equated with racing thoughts and verbal chatter in our minds. Since we are so used to that sort of thinking, we assume it must be the only sort of thinking. That is again the complete being fallacy at work (henceforth known as "CBF" from me). What we are speaking of is the qualitative living essence which underlies our everyday thinking. Consider the following:

On no account should it be said that all our action springs only from the sober deliberations of our reason. I am very far from calling human in the highest sense only those actions that proceed from abstract judgment. But as soon as our conduct rises above the sphere of the satisfaction of purely animal desires, our motives are always permeated by thoughts. Love, pity, and patriotism are driving forces for actions which cannot be analysed away into cold concepts of the intellect. It is said that here the heart, the mood of the soul, hold sway. No doubt. But the heart and the mood of the soul do not create the motives. They presuppose them and let them enter. Pity enters my heart when the mental picture of a person who arouses pity appears in my consciousness. The way to the heart is through the head. Love is no exception. Whenever it is not merely the expression of bare sexual instinct, it depends on the mental picture we form of the loved one. And the more idealistic these mental pictures are, just so much the more blessed is our love. Here too, thought is the father of feeling. It is said that love makes us blind to the failings of the loved one. But this can be expressed the other way round, namely, that it is just for the good qualities that love opens the eyes. Many pass by these good qualities without noticing them. One, however, perceives them, and just because he does, love awakens in his soul. What else has he done but made a mental picture of what hundreds have failed to see? Love is not theirs, because they lack the mental picture.

So seeing the stunning sunset without naming it as beautiful or wallowing in lovely thoughts about it, just breathing it in-and-out so-to-speak would be complete or incomplete?