Does idealism lead to more compassion ?

[AshvinP]

Ashvin,



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?

Lou,

I appreciate your efforts to get beyond the stuckness, since I know it isn't your preferred approach.

But I don't think I am projecting onto you when you write the bold above, which is the CBF I am speaking of. CBF manifests in two main ways - 1) we assume we have already gained all the knowledge and wisdom we will ever need to know, 2) we assume a lot more knowledge and wisdom is beyond our cognitive reach in this lifetime. I say you are expressing #2 above, and generally throughout all of your comments here. Practically, the end result of #1 and #2 are the same - we stop asking questions with an expectation they can be answered.

When we say that we "want" to bring things into balance and grokk the previously unconscious stuff, we are obviously presupposing cognitive activity which provided the motivation for that desire. A "mystery" only confronts us when we understand that what we are perceiving and thinking about is incomplete. The most natural urge is to solve this mystery, but in the modern age that has been flipped, especially by the fact that all our material needs (but not soul-spiritual ones) can be provided for without solving it. So we say, why bother?

I know you are asking for a more personal account of what makes me tick, so to speak, and I am trying to relate that to you in terms of transpersonal knowledge of Nature. Because, in my view, what my particular individuality expresses at any given time is completely irrelevant for this topic. None of what I am writing should be related only to you personally or me personally. What is important is how the transpersonal and eternal manifests in any given individuality - as Goethe remarked, "Everything transient is but a parable". That six word sentence is what truly makes me tick right now.

[Lou Gold]

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?

Lou,

I appreciate your efforts to get beyond the stuckness, since I know it isn't your preferred approach.

But I don't think I am projecting onto you when you write the bold above, which is the CBF I am speaking of. CBF manifests in two main ways - 1) we assume we have already gained all the knowledge and wisdom we will ever need to know, 2) we assume a lot more knowledge and wisdom is beyond our cognitive reach in this lifetime. I say you are expressing #2 above, and generally throughout all of your comments here. Practically, the end result of #1 and #2 are the same - we stop asking questions with an expectation they can be answered.

When we say that we "want" to bring things into balance and grokk the previously unconscious stuff, we are obviously presupposing cognitive activity which provided the motivation for that desire. A "mystery" only confronts us when we understand that what we are perceiving and thinking about is incomplete. The most natural urge is to solve this mystery, but in the modern age that has been flipped, especially by the fact that all our material needs (but not soul-spiritual ones) can be provided for without solving it. So we say, why bother?

I know you are asking for a more personal account of what makes me tick, so to speak, and I am trying to relate that to you in terms of transpersonal knowledge of Nature. Because, in my view, what my particular individuality expresses at any given time is completely irrelevant for this topic. None of what I am writing should be related only to you personally or me personally. What is important is how the transpersonal and eternal manifests in any given individuality - as Goethe remarked, "Everything transient is but a parable". That six word sentence is what truly makes me tick right now.

OK. This is my last shot. I have not asserted that I am not incomplete. I have not asserted that I have stopped asking questions with an expectation that they can be answered. I agree with Goethe that "Everything transient is but a parable". (Many spiritual paths make this assertion.) Because it is my nature to be a storyteller I consider parables as an especially powerful tool for further delving into a wondrous mysteriousness that constantly invites further inquiry. You obviously somehow and for some reason disagree which I speculate but hesitate to project may be because of a lawyerly nature. I also recognize this nature in myself and that to free myself into greater understanding I've had to release myself from its hold in order to arrive at more creativity in my view of myself, others, life in general and the mysteriousness. This freeing or liberation includes grokking a Divinely Integral Diversity with appreciation and gratitude for its many ways. When I say "That's as close to perfect as I can be" it is a process statement in the here-and-now and includes no sense of a final solution. Indeed, now in the end zone of elderhood, I comfortably say with appreciation and gratitude that I know less than ever and the mysteriousness has become evermore glorious in its invitation toward more understanding. If it is your nature to doubt the truth or validity of what I say about myself, so be it.

[AshvinP]

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?

Lou,

I appreciate your efforts to get beyond the stuckness, since I know it isn't your preferred approach.

But I don't think I am projecting onto you when you write the bold above, which is the CBF I am speaking of. CBF manifests in two main ways - 1) we assume we have already gained all the knowledge and wisdom we will ever need to know, 2) we assume a lot more knowledge and wisdom is beyond our cognitive reach in this lifetime. I say you are expressing #2 above, and generally throughout all of your comments here. Practically, the end result of #1 and #2 are the same - we stop asking questions with an expectation they can be answered.

When we say that we "want" to bring things into balance and grokk the previously unconscious stuff, we are obviously presupposing cognitive activity which provided the motivation for that desire. A "mystery" only confronts us when we understand that what we are perceiving and thinking about is incomplete. The most natural urge is to solve this mystery, but in the modern age that has been flipped, especially by the fact that all our material needs (but not soul-spiritual ones) can be provided for without solving it. So we say, why bother?

I know you are asking for a more personal account of what makes me tick, so to speak, and I am trying to relate that to you in terms of transpersonal knowledge of Nature. Because, in my view, what my particular individuality expresses at any given time is completely irrelevant for this topic. None of what I am writing should be related only to you personally or me personally. What is important is how the transpersonal and eternal manifests in any given individuality - as Goethe remarked, "Everything transient is but a parable". That six word sentence is what truly makes me tick right now.

OK. This is my last shot. I have not asserted that I am not incomplete. I have not asserted that I have stopped asking questions with an expectation that they can be answered. I agree with Goethe that "Everything transient is but a parable". (Many spiritual paths make this assertion.) Because it is my nature to be a storyteller I consider parables as an especially powerful tool for further delving into a wondrous mysteriousness that constantly invites further inquiry. You obviously somehow and for some reason disagree which I speculate but hesitate to project may be because of a lawyerly nature. I also recognize this nature in myself and that to free myself into greater understanding I've had to release myself from its hold in order to arrive at more creativity in my view of myself, others, life in general and the mysteriousness. This freeing or liberation includes grokking a Divinely Integral Diversity with appreciation and gratitude for its many ways. When I say "That's as close to perfect as I can be" it is a process statement in the here-and-now and includes no sense of a final solution. Indeed, now in the end zone of elderhood, I comfortably say with appreciation and gratitude that I know less than ever and the mysteriousness has become evermore glorious in its invitation toward more understanding. If it is your nature to doubt the truth or validity of what I say about myself, so be it.

As I said before re: BK, there is just a lack of straightforward dialogue going on here. BK says he has no idea whether our individuated perspective continues after death, but he also claims he draws motivation for compassion in this lifetime from his knowledge we will experience all other memories after death. You suspect my disagreement is due to some "lawyerly nature" (which is just fine to put forward as an explanation, perhaps with a bit more fleshing out), but you also want to make clear you "hesitate to project". You say your current understanding of the glorious mysteriousness is "as close to perfect" as you can get, but also want to make clear that's a "process statement" which is not "final solution". You dispute my argument in your comments but also say you are "not offering a counter-argument". All of this waffling I view as an expression of those who want to avoid confronting the natural impications of their own view. But that's fine... not everyone needs to engage in rigorous logical debate of these issues... but then I feel it's best to say that up front (or not respond to my original argument at all) so at least I understand there is absolutely no point in me making logical arguments in response.

[Lou Gold]

[idlecuriosity]

Here is an excerpt/preview from another recent BK interview (full version only available to Patreon benefactors), wherein he once again emphasizes that 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'. As well, he reiterates his admittedly biased resistance, indeed aversion, to the so-called paranormal—a category so broad as to include, would it not, even Jung's notion of synchronicity, and personal events described DJM. One does have to wonder what is at the root of this self-contradiction.

I'm morbidly curious. If someone is heavily neurotic and has a phenomenological difference from other humans in terms of how their brain functions, would the prescription of their responsibility in understanding any of this change? If their object inherently wasn't 'harmony' to begin with. Let's say there's no way this human would experience the same consciousness as another human by default, such as that one guy who had a pole through his head or those who're born just a little loopy

[Lou Gold]

Here is an excerpt/preview from another recent BK interview (full version only available to Patreon benefactors), wherein he once again emphasizes that 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'. As well, he reiterates his admittedly biased resistance, indeed aversion, to the so-called paranormal—a category so broad as to include, would it not, even Jung's notion of synchronicity, and personal events described DJM. One does have to wonder what is at the root of this self-contradiction.

Dana,

Like you and others I would need to have more elucidation from BK to more fully grok his understanding. My own tentative speculation is that Jesus transcends the earthly story to become an eternally vital Christ Consciousness and that Gautama similarly transcends as an eternally vital Buddha Mind that is available to all and thusly carries an embedded Compassion that no longer requires a dualist definition of self-and-other. In my naive way I sense this intuitively and not as a result of philosophical analysis. My personal confusion or difficulty in accepting the BK assertion is that I communicate with transcorporeal entities who seem as a different kind of "other", a consciousness more than a person. Indeed, the words of my signature line were given to me by such an entity.

[Soul_of_Shu]

Dana,
My personal confusion or difficulty in accepting the BK assertion is that I communicate with transcorporeal entities who seem as a different kind of "other", a consciousness more than a person. Indeed, the words of my signature line were given to me by such an entity.

Daemon in disguise in the skies ... "Every evening I talk to the stars"

[Lou Gold]

Dana,
My personal confusion or difficulty in accepting the BK assertion is that I communicate with transcorporeal entities who seem as a different kind of "other", a consciousness more than a person. Indeed, the words of my signature line were given to me by such an entity.

Daemon in disguise in the skies ... "Every evening I talk to the stars"

I like it. Cool song!

In this forum post discussion context it also causes me to think of Monica Gagliano's story about a recent translation into French of her book, "Thus Spoke the Plant." Monica explained that she could not stop the publisher from changing the title to, "The Woman Who Speaks to Plants." She laughed, rolled her eyes and noted, "That seems very French."

Might it be too weird to think of the Light speaking to us? Again, I'm reminded of the words of a much-loved received hymn in the Santo Daime tradition:

I am the shine of sun
I am the shine of moon
I give shine to the stars
Because they all accompany me

I am the shine of sea
I live in the wind
I shine in the forest
Because she belongs to me