Does idealism lead to more compassion ?

[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.

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?

Incomplete, yes. There is always the cognitive element in perception, which is what gives rise to "enjoyment", "inspiration", "beauty", etc.. Breathing in-and-out is itself a physical reflection of cognitive integrating-differentiating activity (I mean the literal respiratory process here). But we are still incomplete as long as that element along with the source of our feelings and desires remain subconscious. The problem is not the fact that we are incomplete, but the fact that we do not consciously recognize that we are incomplete and all the implications of that recognition.

[Lou Gold]

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:

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?

Incomplete, yes. There is always the cognitive element in perception, which is what gives rise to "enjoyment", "inspiration", "beauty", etc.. Breathing in-and-out is itself a physical reflection of cognitive integrating-differentiating activity (I mean the literal respiratory process here). But we are still incomplete as long as that element along with the source of our feelings and desires remain subconscious. The problem is not the fact that we are incomplete, but the fact that we do not consciously recognize that we are incomplete and all the implications of that recognition.

I do get that the creative act occurs through naming, which can be equated with thinking and that this naming is different than a merely intellectual mental process. I do get that naming enables or blocks feeling and that it can be employed to sanctify or to rationalize, which is a double-edged sword. The human mind can rationalize anything and its projections can as easily release unfelt wonders or block ones that should be felt. Just as there exists an authentic and a false self, there is, as with all technologies, the opportunity for use or abuse. The carpenter builds the house, not the hammer. One name for the carpenter is "awareness".

Connecting back to the original theme about Idealism and Compassion, I would conclude that it depends on the way it's used by the idealist and that much the same might be said for Materialism and materialists. No! Ontology is not "complete" ethically. It can be used or abused. It offers choice. But what determines our self reflections and projections? What triggers one toward new awareness? The archetypal story is that it is triggered by a revelatory experience that shakes one's tree and drops a whole new set of apples. This is why I asked you, Ashvin, if there was a revelatory event/experience that shook you out of your old false sense of completeness?

I believe that self-inquiry is triggered by relational experience. Since science is the favored approach here on the forum, listen to Monica Gagliano describe her transformation from an animal ecologist to a plant ecologist (between minutes 22 and 38) in the video below. There's a feeling, then comes an experience, then a deep meditation and a whole new awareness. Please check it out.

[AshvinP]

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?

Incomplete, yes. There is always the cognitive element in perception, which is what gives rise to "enjoyment", "inspiration", "beauty", etc.. Breathing in-and-out is itself a physical reflection of cognitive integrating-differentiating activity (I mean the literal respiratory process here). But we are still incomplete as long as that element along with the source of our feelings and desires remain subconscious. The problem is not the fact that we are incomplete, but the fact that we do not consciously recognize that we are incomplete and all the implications of that recognition.

I do get that the creative act occurs through naming, which can be equated with thinking and that this naming is different than a merely intellectual mental process. I do get that naming enables or blocks feeling and that it can be employed to sanctify or to rationalize, which is a double-edged sword. The human mind can rationalize anything and its projections can as easily release unfelt wonders or block ones that should be felt. Just as there exists an authentic and a false self, there is, as with all technologies, the opportunity for use or abuse. The carpenter builds the house, not the hammer. One name for the carpenter is "awareness".

You are not quite following the distinction, because otherwise you would not call it "rationalizing". Rationalization presupposes abstract representational intellect. Intuitive thinking, for ex., is for our thinking what immediate sense-impression is for our perception. It is self-evidently real perception of ideal meaning. So there is no room for "rationalization" in that sort of Thinking which perceives prior to all intellectual distinctions and divisions.

Connecting back to the original theme about Idealism and Compassion, I would conclude that it depends on the way it's used by the idealist and that much the same might be said for Materialism and materialists. No! Ontology is not "complete" ethically. It can be used or abused. It offers choice. But what determines our self reflections and projections? What triggers one toward new awareness? The archetypal story is that it is triggered by a revelatory experience that shakes one's tree and drops a whole new set of apples. This is why I asked you, Ashvin, if there was a revelatory event/experience that shook you out of your old false sense of completeness?

I believe that self-inquiry is triggered by relational experience. Since science is the favored approach here on the forum, listen to Monica Gagliano describe her transformation from an animal ecologist to a plant ecologist (between minutes 22 and 38) in the video below. There's a feeling, then comes an experience, then a deep meditation and a whole new awareness. Please check it out.

What I am trying to illustrate to you, as Steiner did in that quote, is that our Thinking-Knowledge provides the spiritual motivation i.e. "revelatory experience" to remain virtuous, i.e. humble, compassionate, empathetic, etc., when approaching the vast ocean of unknown natural phenomena. That is what shakes the tree for modern man, and loving attention-devotion is also a key aspect of deepening one's Thinking. Revelatory experience was gifted upon the ancient soul from without, but that no longer holds true. Again, it is the CBF which assumes what worked for ancient experience will also work now, because it fails to see we are all beings-in-process of becoming who we are, i.e. that we are all spiritually evolving. That evolutionary process reveals to us that Wisdom must be earned through careful and precise Thinking and Self-knowledge for the modern soul. It does not really matter what the impulse is "triggered by" to begin with, along as it is manifested and maintained.

[Lou Gold]

What I am trying to illustrate to you, as Steiner did in that quote, is that our Thinking-Knowledge provides the spiritual motivation i.e. "revelatory experience" to remain virtuous, i.e. humble, compassionate, empathetic, etc., when approaching the vast ocean of unknown natural phenomena. That is what shakes the tree for modern man, and loving attention-devotion is also a key aspect of deepening one's Thinking. Revelatory experience was gifted upon the ancient soul from without, but that no longer holds true. Again, it is the CBF which assumes what worked for ancient experience will also work now, because it fails to see we are all beings-in-process of becoming who we are, i.e. that we are all spiritually evolving. That evolutionary process reveals to us that Wisdom must be earned through careful and precise Thinking and Self-knowledge for the modern soul. It does not really matter what the impulse is "triggered by" to begin with, along as it is manifested and maintained.

Yes, to the bolded and this is true for all spiritual paths. Revelation is a port of entry and the practical work of maintaining is ongoing. This why the differing paths involve practices. Jesus continues to pray. Buddha continues to meditate. The dervish continues to whirl. And all advise a great humility.

[Lou Gold]

What I am trying to illustrate to you, as Steiner did in that quote, is that our Thinking-Knowledge provides the spiritual motivation i.e. "revelatory experience" to remain virtuous, i.e. humble, compassionate, empathetic, etc., when approaching the vast ocean of unknown natural phenomena. That is what shakes the tree for modern man, and loving attention-devotion is also a key aspect of deepening one's Thinking. Revelatory experience was gifted upon the ancient soul from without, but that no longer holds true. Again, it is the CBF which assumes what worked for ancient experience will also work now, because it fails to see we are all beings-in-process of becoming who we are, i.e. that we are all spiritually evolving. That evolutionary process reveals to us that Wisdom must be earned through careful and precise Thinking and Self-knowledge for the modern soul. It does not really matter what the impulse is "triggered by" to begin with, along as it is manifested and maintained.

Yes, to the bolded and this is true for all spiritual paths. Revelation is a port of entry and the practical work of maintaining is ongoing. This why the differing paths involve practices. Jesus continues to pray. Buddha continues to meditate. The dervish continues to whirl. And all advise a great humility.

I'm not a Buddhist but I really love this chant (below) of the name of the great bodhisattva of compassion. The recommended preparation for the chant says:

The Sangha is invited to come back to our breathing, so that our collective energy of mindfulness will bring us together as an organism, going as a river, with no more separation.
Let the whole Sangha breathe as one body, chant as one body, listen as one body and transcend the boundaries of a delusive self, liberating from the superiority complex, the inferiority complex, and the equality complex.

Perhaps we also need to be liberated from the completeness complex.

[Eugene I]

The Sangha is invited to come back to our breathing, so that our collective energy of mindfulness will bring us together as an organism, going as a river, with no more separation.
Let the whole Sangha breathe as one body, chant as one body, listen as one body and transcend the boundaries of a delusive self, liberating from the superiority complex, the inferiority complex, and the equality complex.

Perhaps we also need to be liberated from the completeness complex.

Good point. Here are the excerpts from Thich's Fourteen Mindfulness Trainings

Openness
Aware of the suffering created by fanaticism and intolerance, we are determined not to be idolatrous about or bound to any doctrine, theory, or ideology, even Buddhist ones. We are committed to seeing the Buddhist teachings as a guiding means that help us learn to look deeply and develop understanding and compassion. They are not doctrines to fight, kill, or die for. We understand that fanaticism in its many forms is the result of perceiving things in a dualistic or discriminative manner. We will train ourselves to look at everything with openness and the insight of interbeing in order to transform dogmatism and violence in ourselves and the world.

Non-Attachment to Views
Aware of the suffering created by attachment to views and wrong perceptions, we are determined to avoid being narrow-minded and bound to present views. We are committed to learning and practicing non-attachment to views and being open to others’ experiences and insights in order to benefit from the collective wisdom. We are aware that the knowledge we presently possess is not changeless, absolute truth. Insight is revealed through the practice of compassionate listening, deep looking, and letting go of notions rather than through the accumulation of intellectual knowledge. Truth is found in life, and we will observe life within and around us in every moment, ready to learn throughout our lives.

Freedom of Thought
Aware of the suffering brought about when we impose our views on others, we are determined not to force others, even our children, by any means whatsoever — such as authority, threat, money, propaganda, or indoctrination — to adopt our views. We are committed to respecting the right of others to be different, to choose what to believe and how to decide. We will, however, learn to help others let go of and transform fanaticism and narrowness through loving speech and compassionate dialogue.

Awareness of Suffering
Aware that looking deeply at the nature of suffering can help us develop understanding and compassion, we are determined to come home to ourselves, to recognise, accept, embrace and listen to our own suffering with the energy of mindfulness. We will do our best not to run away from our suffering or cover it up through consumption, but practice conscious breathing and walking to look deeply into the roots of our suffering. We know we can realise the path leading to the transformation of suffering only when we understand deeply the roots of suffering. Once we have understood our own suffering, we will be able to understand the suffering of others.

[Lou Gold]

Ashvin,

(lou) I do get that the creative act occurs through naming, which can be equated with thinking and that this naming is different than a merely intellectual mental process. I do get that naming enables or blocks feeling and that it can be employed to sanctify or to rationalize, which is a double-edged sword. The human mind can rationalize anything and its projections can as easily release unfelt wonders or block ones that should be felt. Just as there exists an authentic and a false self, there is, as with all technologies, the opportunity for use or abuse. The carpenter builds the house, not the hammer. One name for the carpenter is "awareness".

(Ashvin) You are not quite following the distinction, because otherwise you would not call it "rationalizing". Rationalization presupposes abstract representational intellect. Intuitive thinking, for ex., is for our thinking what immediate sense-impression is for our perception. It is self-evidently real perception of ideal meaning. So there is no room for "rationalization" in that sort of Thinking which perceives prior to all intellectual distinctions and divisions.

I do get your drift. "Justify" would possibly be better word than "rationalize." It's well portrayed at a "popular" level in this song from Jacob Collier:

[Lou Gold]

The Sangha is invited to come back to our breathing, so that our collective energy of mindfulness will bring us together as an organism, going as a river, with no more separation.
Let the whole Sangha breathe as one body, chant as one body, listen as one body and transcend the boundaries of a delusive self, liberating from the superiority complex, the inferiority complex, and the equality complex.

Perhaps we also need to be liberated from the completeness complex.

Good point. Here are the excerpts from Thich's Fourteen Mindfulness Trainings

Aloha Eugene,

Thanks for the additional elaborations from Thay.

One thing that I really like about my own eclectic way, which is surely not for all, is how it has increased my ability to appreciate (view with increased value) the many ways. The Divinely Integral Diversity is a Glorious Great Mysteriousness.

[AshvinP]

Ashvin,

(lou) I do get that the creative act occurs through naming, which can be equated with thinking and that this naming is different than a merely intellectual mental process. I do get that naming enables or blocks feeling and that it can be employed to sanctify or to rationalize, which is a double-edged sword. The human mind can rationalize anything and its projections can as easily release unfelt wonders or block ones that should be felt. Just as there exists an authentic and a false self, there is, as with all technologies, the opportunity for use or abuse. The carpenter builds the house, not the hammer. One name for the carpenter is "awareness".

(Ashvin) You are not quite following the distinction, because otherwise you would not call it "rationalizing". Rationalization presupposes abstract representational intellect. Intuitive thinking, for ex., is for our thinking what immediate sense-impression is for our perception. It is self-evidently real perception of ideal meaning. So there is no room for "rationalization" in that sort of Thinking which perceives prior to all intellectual distinctions and divisions.

I do get your drift. "Justify" would possibly be better word than "rationalize." It's well portrayed at a "popular" level in this song from Jacob Collier:

Well... I think "rationalize" was the right word for what you meant, but it's not the right word for what I am talking about. We have to communicate these things to each other in abstract concepts and, moreover, in plain typeface which eliminates a whole lot of the possibilities for meaning in speech. This is related to the phenomena of mechanism I have been writing about. Anyway, it is always going to sound like I am trying to "justify" some purely intellectual approach to you, just like it seems like you are trying to "justify" another intellectual approach to me. The main difference I see is that one way is a bit more self-aware of its "justifying" tendency than the other. You assume that your approach is less intellectual, less cognitive, and more "direct experiencing" or "awareness" or appreciation of nature, and I say there is absolutely no warrant for that assumption.

[Lou Gold]

Ashvin,

(lou) I do get that the creative act occurs through naming, which can be equated with thinking and that this naming is different than a merely intellectual mental process. I do get that naming enables or blocks feeling and that it can be employed to sanctify or to rationalize, which is a double-edged sword. The human mind can rationalize anything and its projections can as easily release unfelt wonders or block ones that should be felt. Just as there exists an authentic and a false self, there is, as with all technologies, the opportunity for use or abuse. The carpenter builds the house, not the hammer. One name for the carpenter is "awareness".

(Ashvin) You are not quite following the distinction, because otherwise you would not call it "rationalizing". Rationalization presupposes abstract representational intellect. Intuitive thinking, for ex., is for our thinking what immediate sense-impression is for our perception. It is self-evidently real perception of ideal meaning. So there is no room for "rationalization" in that sort of Thinking which perceives prior to all intellectual distinctions and divisions.

I do get your drift. "Justify" would possibly be better word than "rationalize." It's well portrayed at a "popular" level in this song from Jacob Collier:

Well... I think "rationalize" was the right word for what you meant, but it's not the right word for what I am talking about. We have to communicate these things to each other in abstract concepts and, moreover, in plain typeface which eliminates a whole lot of the possibilities for meaning in speech. This is related to the phenomena of mechanism I have been writing about. Anyway, it is always going to sound like I am trying to "justify" some purely intellectual approach to you, just like it seems like you are trying to "justify" another intellectual approach to me. The main difference I see is that one way is a bit more self-aware of its "justifying" tendency than the other. You assume that your approach is less intellectual, less cognitive, and more "direct experiencing" or "awareness" or appreciation of nature, and I say there is absolutely no warrant for that assumption.

Lemme see if I can get beyond our "stuckness." A saint was once asked if everyone viewed him as holy. The saint said "No, a thief would see me as a thief." I'm making an effort here both to reveal how I am and to take care not to project that onto you, which is why I continuously ask you about your story. My story is there's a strong jurist in me as well as a creative child. My revelation that I am a Child of God plunged me into wanting to bring these aspects of my nature into balance, which turned out to be a lifelong work of grokking lots of previously unconscious stuff. It is in this context that makes the Jacob Collier song lyric "Sanctify don't Justify" very sensible to me. I try not to project this onto you by asking, "how it is for you?" You respond, "You assume that your approach is less intellectual, less cognitive, and more "direct experiencing" or "awareness" or appreciation of nature, and I say there is absolutely no warrant for that assumption." Where do you get that I am saying that I am more complete (or whatever) than you? I'm not offering a counterargument, I assume that I am in a great diversity within a glorious mysteriousness. That's as close to perfect as I can be. What about you?