Does idealism lead to more compassion ?

[AshvinP]

Papanca,

I like how Lou put it. I typically find that when somebody is explaining their compassion with reference to how they intellectually grasp their own ontology, that the cart is being put before the horse.
...
I know that as I type this there is probably a person who has held some form of idealism and by dropping it is about to experience strong new steps forward in their moral life. And the opposite is certainly true. To understand how dropping any world-view can be a necessary step forward, we have to dive into the the phenomenology behind taking up world-views, modifying them, and, often, not knowing at all.

In my encounters with clients over the years, but especially over the last few months, many are searching for, not only legal counsel, but also some psychological-spiritual counsel. They seem to respond the best when someone listens intently to them and then displays understanding of what they are going through. It is easiest for me to simply nod my head in agreement with everything they complain about, parroting back to them what they want to hear every so often, but I have a sense that they inwardly dismiss the value of any such approach quickly. I doubt any comfort it brings them in the moment continues much longer after they leave the office. That parrot-back approach is the typical one to "compassion" in modern society, where we buy some absolution for ourselves by throwing spiritual change at those we have been given the responsibility to counsel. True listening and understanding of their situation, though much more effortful and even painful, is the compassion enriched by knowledge and thinking. It is true that mere intellectual and mechanical thinking will have diminishing returns in this regard, so eventually a new vertical effort towards the enriching power of higher cognition should be undertaken as well.

[idlecuriosity]

@Topic starter

This isn't a disparity between the two competing philosophical frameworks imho as much as it is more of a symptom of how our society fosters us to perceive things as the end result of a cascading matroshka of hierarchy that started with top down tribes, became abrahamic religion and finally has converged now on globe spanning ideologies. The more I read and think about this, the more I feel it's important to understand that while the gift of cognition might be best purveyed from a monist consideration, we do have an individual sense and feelings atop of that and need to account for the idiosyncrasies between us this results in - as well as the ones created by how congruently someone is or isn't able to interpret idealistic monism in their thought. 20 and 19 may both be numbers that're conceptual representations of volume and are very close to one another but only one of them is the right answer to 10 plus 10 and that same answer (20.) is at least closer to 25 than 19 is, so the end result of a person like me being unwieldy in my ability to discern or conjugate philosophy is obviously going to produce a different end result individual.

Religion and later laws and even later still, ideological materialism, attempt to tar us all with the same feather for the physical end goal of upholding order. I'd argue compassion from a stranger on a practical basis doesn't really help someone too much unless you're in dire need of materialistic assistance because our society has egregiously ill considered the drawbacks of seeing everyone as equal to oneself, (referring to our physical existences purely.) When I have kids I'll make it clear I don't expect them to love me (though I'd appreciate it heartily) but I do expect them to be competent and able to be ready for any fits and starts of fortune that life can visit upon them. In terms of materialistic concerns, having a bunch of strangers lavish empathy upon you isn't going to help you in the long run pragmatically. As far as people here have talked about spiritual considerations, a lot of them seem to say the journey must be undertook individually anyway so there's little reason or need to expect that idealism would (or needs to) serve that duty.

The reason you feel the world may run afoul of losing compassion is that you're expecting this from two perceived competing ideas that represent broad groups of people, most of whom you've never met personally. Build a net of friends and a family and then see if your view merits your current skepticism of meaning.

I'll dutifully abscond from the sisyphean feat of proselytizing further since I do not even know if this concern was an abstraction or something borne of doubts about your own future, but my offering is just an absolution for any existential burdens you might have if it's the latter and it's potential is to be discovered by choices only you can make.

[idlecuriosity]

I also want to add one last thing; the quality of life being so luscious has assisted in this deficit of meaningful compassion by making living so easy that gestures of kindness cost proportionately little. Someone can make the trip 99% of the way to your heart in a manner that would easily dissuade psychological defenses developed in the same epoch that we evolved to despise and fear spiders and yet they'll leave the castle of chips to fall upon you the moment they're down because it (it being that last percent: sacrificing some time or money to pay someone back or care for them) is the only part left difficult by modern life. When we had to care for ourselves, compassion became meaningful and it was truly noble to be kind because it represented someone valuing another above themselves; now anyone will just erroneously commit to the appearance of this on something like Twitter and get all the rewards with none of the drawbacks.

[AshvinP]

@Topic starter

This isn't a disparity between the two competing philosophical frameworks imho as much as it is more of a symptom of how our society fosters us to perceive things as the end result of a cascading matroshka of hierarchy that started with top down tribes, became abrahamic religion and finally has converged now on globe spanning ideologies. The more I read and think about this, the more I feel it's important to understand that while the gift of cognition might be best purveyed from a monist consideration, we do have an individual sense and feelings atop of that and need to account for the idiosyncrasies between us this results in - as well as the ones created by how congruently someone is or isn't able to interpret idealistic monism in their thought. 20 and 19 may both be numbers that're conceptual representations of volume and are very close to one another but only one of them is the right answer to 10 plus 10 and that same answer (20.) is at least closer to 25 than 19 is, so the end result of a person like me being unwieldy in my ability to discern or conjugate philosophy is obviously going to produce a different end result individual.

Religion and later laws and even later still, ideological materialism, attempt to tar us all with the same feather for the physical end goal of upholding order. I'd argue compassion from a stranger on a practical basis doesn't really help someone too much unless you're in dire need of materialistic assistance because our society has egregiously ill considered the drawbacks of seeing everyone as equal to oneself, (referring to our physical existences purely.) When I have kids I'll make it clear I don't expect them to love me (though I'd appreciate it heartily) but I do expect them to be competent and able to be ready for any fits and starts of fortune that life can visit upon them. In terms of materialistic concerns, having a bunch of strangers lavish empathy upon you isn't going to help you in the long run pragmatically. As far as people here have talked about spiritual considerations, a lot of them seem to say the journey must be undertook individually anyway so there's little reason or need to expect that idealism would (or needs to) serve that duty.

The reason you feel the world may run afoul of losing compassion is that you're expecting this from two perceived competing ideas that represent broad groups of people, most of whom you've never met personally. Build a net of friends and a family and then see if your view merits your current skepticism of meaning.

I'll dutifully abscond from the sisyphean feat of proselytizing further since I do not even know if this concern was an abstraction or something borne of doubts about your own future, but my offering is just an absolution for any existential burdens you might have if it's the latter and it's potential is to be discovered by choices only you can make.

Much, if not all, of the confusion surrounding these things in the modern age is our refusal to take evolution, a scientific framework adopted by idealists, materialists, and generally anyone who claims to do science, seriously. We forget about evolution as soon as we move from the domain of biology to anything else, including cognition, culture, and ethics. The individual, with ego-consciousness, is a product of this evolutionary process. So we do definitely need to undertake our moral development as individuals who are sovereign and responsible for ourselves, yet we don't need to throw out any Wisdom from the past in that undertaking. We only need to become more discerning of how that Wisdom was conditioned on the past evolutionary states of our ancestors and, in distinction to that, what essential principles were underlying it. As usual, the key tool for modern man's moral imagination and spiritual freedom resides in discerning judgment i.e. Thinking.

The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant’s existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. The ceaseless activity of their own inherent nature makes these stages moments of an organic unity, where they not merely do not contradict one another, but where one is as necessary as the other; and constitutes thereby the life of the whole.

[Soul_of_Shu]

So by lurking/scrolling a lot of topic in this forums and the old, defunct metaphysical speculations googlegroup, i often see this idea come often that the current paradigm of materialism is responsible for lack of compassion, lack of meaning etc.

Not sure if in your searching through past topics that this thread came to your attention, in which BK actually commented, however brief, as follows ...

Post by bkastrup » Fri Jun 18, 2021 8:13 am

In proposing that our individual minds are mere segments, or aspects, of an all-encompassing mind, analytic idealism offers solid ontological ground for compassion. The idea that, when you and I die, I'll experience the memories of your experiences, and you of mine, is almost a definition of compassion, and certainly justifies the latter while we are alive.

Alas, BK never did address the followup questions/comments put to him in that thread.

[idlecuriosity]

@Ashvin

Agreed. Thanks much for the insight. And yeah, I did address evolution in my follow up. Sorry I am slow at keeping up with a lot of these responses and sometimes hipfire a poorly conceived response when I do not know much else to say (though that's more the other thread than here); I'm still very green to philosophy but I do salivate in learning more from every bit I read

[AshvinP]

So by lurking/scrolling a lot of topic in this forums and the old, defunct metaphysical speculations googlegroup, i often see this idea come often that the current paradigm of materialism is responsible for lack of compassion, lack of meaning etc.

Not sure if in your searching through past topics that this thread came to your attention, in which BK actually commented, however brief, as follows ...

Post by bkastrup » Fri Jun 18, 2021 8:13 am

In proposing that our individual minds are mere segments, or aspects, of an all-encompassing mind, analytic idealism offers solid ontological ground for compassion. The idea that, when you and I die, I'll experience the memories of your experiences, and you of mine, is almost a definition of compassion, and certainly justifies the latter while we are alive.

Alas, BK never did address the followup questions/comments put to him in that thread.

I have to say... this comment really highlights the ethical bankruptcy of analytical ontology, both materialist and idealist. First, BK claims to have no idea what happens after death in terms of individuated consciousness and memory, so the above makes no sense. One cannot claim a pure speculation as the basis for motivating compassion in the here and now. Second, there is no warrant for saying the holding of the mere abstract "idea" of something happening after death motivates ethical behavior in this lifetime. This is no different than saying the abstract idea of a God who sends one to hell after death will motivate genuinely ethical behavior. Or the idea that experience ceases after death will motivate one to live a good life now. These notions defy all experience and empirical observation of human psychology.

But, that being said, what other option does BK have? He must make this claim because a philosophy which does not speak to ethics is practically worthless, yet his philosophy does not allow him to claim any genuine knowledge about the experience of physical death and what comes after and, most importantly, why that comes after. This "critical idealism" makes it impossible for itself to speak to ethics, so it must resort to abstract ideas which naturally fail to make any sense to a discerning mind. It's the exact same dynamic as materialism - the demotion of the thinking mind, and therefore the imaginative substance of all mythological and spiritual traditions, forces the materialist to conjure up some other explanation for why we should live in accordance with our ethical intuitions, and naturally whatever that is will make no sense because it is purely abstract and not tied to experience.

[Lou Gold]

@Topic starter

This isn't a disparity between the two competing philosophical frameworks imho as much as it is more of a symptom of how our society fosters us to perceive things as the end result of a cascading matroshka of hierarchy that started with top down tribes, became abrahamic religion and finally has converged now on globe spanning ideologies. The more I read and think about this, the more I feel it's important to understand that while the gift of cognition might be best purveyed from a monist consideration, we do have an individual sense and feelings atop of that and need to account for the idiosyncrasies between us this results in - as well as the ones created by how congruently someone is or isn't able to interpret idealistic monism in their thought. 20 and 19 may both be numbers that're conceptual representations of volume and are very close to one another but only one of them is the right answer to 10 plus 10 and that same answer (20.) is at least closer to 25 than 19 is, so the end result of a person like me being unwieldy in my ability to discern or conjugate philosophy is obviously going to produce a different end result individual.

Religion and later laws and even later still, ideological materialism, attempt to tar us all with the same feather for the physical end goal of upholding order. I'd argue compassion from a stranger on a practical basis doesn't really help someone too much unless you're in dire need of materialistic assistance because our society has egregiously ill considered the drawbacks of seeing everyone as equal to oneself, (referring to our physical existences purely.) When I have kids I'll make it clear I don't expect them to love me (though I'd appreciate it heartily) but I do expect them to be competent and able to be ready for any fits and starts of fortune that life can visit upon them. In terms of materialistic concerns, having a bunch of strangers lavish empathy upon you isn't going to help you in the long run pragmatically. As far as people here have talked about spiritual considerations, a lot of them seem to say the journey must be undertook individually anyway so there's little reason or need to expect that idealism would (or needs to) serve that duty.

The reason you feel the world may run afoul of losing compassion is that you're expecting this from two perceived competing ideas that represent broad groups of people, most of whom you've never met personally. Build a net of friends and a family and then see if your view merits your current skepticism of meaning.

I'll dutifully abscond from the sisyphean feat of proselytizing further since I do not even know if this concern was an abstraction or something borne of doubts about your own future, but my offering is just an absolution for any existential burdens you might have if it's the latter and it's potential is to be discovered by choices only you can make.

Much, if not all, of the confusion surrounding these things in the modern age is our refusal to take evolution, a scientific framework adopted by idealists, materialists, and generally anyone who claims to do science, seriously. We forget about evolution as soon as we move from the domain of biology to anything else, including cognition, culture, and ethics. The individual, with ego-consciousness, is a product of this evolutionary process. So we do definitely need to undertake our moral development as individuals who are sovereign and responsible for ourselves, yet we don't need to throw out any Wisdom from the past in that undertaking. We only need to become more discerning of how that Wisdom was conditioned on the past evolutionary states of our ancestors and, in distinction to that, what essential principles were underlying it. As usual, the key tool for modern man's moral imagination and spiritual freedom resides in discerning judgment i.e. Thinking.

The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant’s existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. The ceaseless activity of their own inherent nature makes these stages moments of an organic unity, where they not merely do not contradict one another, but where one is as necessary as the other; and constitutes thereby the life of the whole.

I think the question is not about the realities of evolution but rather whether evolution is progressive or simply adaptive to multivariable change. I think that Nature clearly sides with diversity rather than monoculture as the better long term guarantee of survival. However, an honest look will reveal both a Dissociated Identity Disorder and a Divinely Integrated Diversity as well as a Bridge Over Troubled Waters called Compassion.

[Soul_of_Shu]

Post by bkastrup » Fri Jun 18, 2021 8:13 am

In proposing that our individual minds are mere segments, or aspects, of an all-encompassing mind, analytic idealism offers solid ontological ground for compassion. The idea that, when you and I die, I'll experience the memories of your experiences, and you of mine, is almost a definition of compassion, and certainly justifies the latter while we are alive.

I have to say... this comment really highlights the ethical bankruptcy of analytical ontology, both materialist and idealist. First, BK claims to have no idea what happens after death in terms of individuated consciousness and memory, so the above makes no sense.

I must concede that BK seems to revert to some degree of aporia here, as he continues to insist in his most recent interview that there is no evidence that any sense of some transcorporeal state of individuated selfhood persists when the corporeal expression of the dissociated alter dissolves. In which case, what is this "you and I" that experiences each other's memories when we die?

[Lou Gold]

Post by bkastrup » Fri Jun 18, 2021 8:13 am

In proposing that our individual minds are mere segments, or aspects, of an all-encompassing mind, analytic idealism offers solid ontological ground for compassion. The idea that, when you and I die, I'll experience the memories of your experiences, and you of mine, is almost a definition of compassion, and certainly justifies the latter while we are alive.

I have to say... this comment really highlights the ethical bankruptcy of analytical ontology, both materialist and idealist. First, BK claims to have no idea what happens after death in terms of individuated consciousness and memory, so the above makes no sense.

I must concede that BK seems to revert to some degree of aporia here, as he continues to insist in his most recent interview that there is no evidence that any sense of some transcorporeal state of individuated selfhood persists when the corporeal expression of the dissociated alter dissolves. In which case, what is this "you and I" that experiences each other's memories when we die?

Well, "aporia" was a new word for me. Wikipedia explains that it's used philosophically to express doubts, which may be a good antidote to certainty. However, the rich trove of reincarnation reports as well as the spiritual discipline of mediumship surely challenges this view. Here's another possible framing: Memory itself might depend on a corporeal presence for its manifest articulation. In the unmanifest noncorporeal realm there may be more options, which is why a non-corporeal being or entity can appear simultaneously in different manifest locations through different corporeal mediums. I guess this can only make sense to one who has had the somewhat "amazing" experience of mediumship or perhaps someone who has worked with "channeling" receiving messages or music through spiritual communion. Ramana denies reincarnation because he denies the separate self. But what do I know as neither a saint or a philosopher?

PS, the Bernardo quote above seems quite reasonable to me as an expression of the common "life review" process widely reported by those near the passage from corporeal to non-corporeal. This reversal of perceptions seems as an aspect of the dissolving one's projections or what Saint Francis referred to as the "second death". Living close to this passage while alive is surely a "portal to compassion" as expressed in the great poem of Thich Nhat Hanh.