An Empathic Lens and a Connected Universe

[Paul Mawdsley]

This is tough... but let me try.

I really do think self-efficacy is more than just an aspect of self-esteem. Self-efficacy is our understanding of our relationship to reality. It's about the nature of our existence--what we can do, and what we can't.

If we want to affect people positively (positive for us, just like when we affect the physical world "positively"), we will inevitably fail, at least occasionally. I think this is the vulnerability: revealing the power another person has over your emotions.

Brant, you said that affecting people in a particular way is not a motive for your actions. According to this, you don't want to affect people positively. In fact, I take it that you all together don't care how you affect people... as long as you know you are in the right. Right?

That doesn't mean you don't use the feedback you get from people to help you grasp reality, but that reality takes precedence. And this completely removes vulnerability from the equation, because the vulnerability comes from the idea that reality can change based on someone else's apparent perspective.

So actually, a better definition for vulnerability would be: revealing to another person that they have power over your view of reality.

Bit of a sloppy post, but I'll leave it as it is because I think my understanding improved while writing it.

Calvin, you are speaking as though your insides are absolute and apply to all cases. They are not. The way I see it: we all have a relative perspective of an absolute reality.

My experience of my vulnerability comes when I break from the power game perspective that you mention. The only power over my view of reality is my vision and creative volition. Others provide information that helps to expand my vision, not a replacement for my vision. I can include other people's relative perspectives alongside my own to increase my vision of the underlying realities through a process of dialectics. It is like a hologram where a lot of little pictures, each focused on some detail from a particular unique perspective, come together to create a view of a three dimensional whole reality. We get closer to the truths of reality by including more perspectives in our inner hologram. I approach what people say about reality with the belief that there is some element of truth (even if the truth is that they are sometimes deluded...lol). The challenge is to find where the truth lies inside their vision, feelings, stories and defenses against seeing the truth or between different visions of reality. Causality is my guide, the standard and measure, the rock that gives me sure footing, through both my own creative perspective processes and my dialectical treatment of other perspectives. This is why causality is so important for me.

Vulnerability is about opening to all the information, all the perspectives, all the feelings that flow through me without censoring, without defenses and without stories to make myself feel more valued or more efficacious. It is simply allowing the dots of experience to line up for themselves and being open to what I see and feel. It is the experience of allowing conscious awareness to open to the information contained in my unconscious flow without blocks. It is key to integrating conscious with unconscious processes and being more whole and integrated.

Paul

[anthony]

This is tough... but let me try.

I really do think self-efficacy is more than just an aspect of self-esteem. Self-efficacy is our understanding of our relationship to reality. It's about the nature of our existence--what we can do, and what we can't.

If we want to affect people positively (positive for us, just like when we affect the physical world "positively"), we will inevitably fail, at least occasionally. I think this is the vulnerability: revealing the power another person has over your emotions.

Brant, you said that affecting people in a particular way is not a motive for your actions. According to this, you don't want to affect people positively. In fact, I take it that you all together don't care how you affect people... as long as you know you are in the right. Right?

That doesn't mean you don't use the feedback you get from people to help you grasp reality, but that reality takes precedence. And this completely removes vulnerability from the equation, because the vulnerability comes from the idea that reality can change based on someone else's apparent perspective.

So actually, a better definition for vulnerability would be: revealing to another person that they have power over your view of reality.

Calvin: This might help.

"I want to emphasize that the desire for visibility is not an expression of a weak or uncertain ego or of low self-esteem. On the contrary, the lower our self-esteem, the more we feel (at least in part) the need to hide, and the more ambivalent our feelings toward visibility are likely to be - we both long for and are terrified by it. The more we take pride in who we are, the more transparent we are willing to be. I might also add: the more transparent WE ARE EAGER TO BE.

One of the characteristics of a self-esteem deficiency is an excessive preoccupation with gaining the approval and avoiding the disapproval of others, a hunger for validation and support at every moment of our existence. Some people dream of finding this validation and support in "love."

But because the problem is essentially internal, because the person does not believe in him-herself, no outside source can ever satisfy this hunger, except momentarily. the hunger is not for visibility;

it is for self-esteem. And this cannot be supplied by others.

To the extent that we have successfully evolved toward good self-esteem, we hope and expect that others will PERCEIVE our value, not CREATE it ."

[Honoring the Self - N. Branden.]

I think you are mixing too many things, and mis-identifying others. What you call self-efficacy, is closer to the Randian virtue of 'pride', contained within rational egoism. i.e. conscious and objective concepts. Branden took further Rand's largely unexplored and implicit "self-esteem", and produced his whole new ball-game - taken to edge of consciousness, and past it. I suggest that even if you cannot accept egoism, at least acknowledge it. Or else, all our discussion is at cross-purposes.

For instance, I've tried to point out that self-esteem is not primarily result-orientated, but you've continued with your own representation of it.

For evidence - after establishing the two components of self-esteem to be self-worth and self-efficacy, Branden explains:

"To experience that I am competent to live means that I have confidence in the functioning of my mind. [self-efficacy]

To experience that I am worthy of living means that I have an affirmative attitude toward my right to live and to be happy. [self-worth]

[...]

"Of course, I may elect to judge myself by such relatively superficial criteria as success or failure at specific tasks, my ability to elicit love, admiration, or approval, and so forth.

But to do so is to already have a problem in self-esteem, as we shall see when I discuss pseudo-self-esteem." [NB]

My nut-shell take-out on Paul's 'radical empathy' is that it presupposes 1. a conscious conviction of rational egoism 2. good self-esteem.

Under these circumstances - only, I'd say - can one possess the strength and confidence to be visible and vulnerable, and 'visit' the vulnerability and visibility of others - via empathy lens. I hope to be corrected by Paul, if wrong, or over-simple.

Anyway, there's stuff here you can't work out on your own, and as I keep advising everyone, it seems:

Read Branden! (If only so we're all on the same page.)

For all my pushing of his work, I'm not receiving a cent in commission, btw!!

[Paul Mawdsley]

"I want to emphasize that the desire for visibility is not an expression of a weak or uncertain ego or of low self-esteem. On the contrary, the lower our self-esteem, the more we feel (at least in part) the need to hide, and the more ambivalent our feelings toward visibility are likely to be - we both long for and are terrified by it. The more we take pride in who we are, the more transparent we are willing to be. I might also add: the more transparent WE ARE EAGER TO BE.

One of the characteristics of a self-esteem deficiency is an excessive preoccupation with gaining the approval and avoiding the disapproval of others, a hunger for validation and support at every moment of our existence. Some people dream of finding this validation and support in "love."

But because the problem is essentially internal, because the person does not believe in him-herself, no outside source can ever satisfy this hunger, except momentarily. the hunger is not for visibility;

it is for self-esteem. And this cannot be supplied by others.

To the extent that we have successfully evolved toward good self-esteem, we hope and expect that others will PERCEIVE our value, not CREATE it ."

[Honoring the Self - N. Branden.]

[...]

For evidence - after establishing the two components of self-esteem to be self-worth and self-efficacy, Branden explains:

"To experience that I am competent to live means that I have confidence in the functioning of my mind. [self-efficacy]

To experience that I am worthy of living means that I have an affirmative attitude toward my right to live and to be happy. [self-worth]

[...]

"Of course, I may elect to judge myself by such relatively superficial criteria as success or failure at specific tasks, my ability to elicit love, admiration, or approval, and so forth.

But to do so is to already have a problem in self-esteem, as we shall see when I discuss pseudo-self-esteem." [NB]

My nut-shell take-out on Paul's 'radical empathy' is that it presupposes 1. a conscious conviction of rational egoism 2. good self-esteem.

Under these circumstances - only, I'd say - can one possess the strength and confidence to be visible and vulnerable, and 'visit' the vulnerability and visibility of others - via empathy lens. I hope to be corrected by Paul, if wrong, or over-simple.

Anyway, there's stuff here you can't work out on your own, and as I keep advising everyone, it seems:

Read Branden! (If only so we're all on the same page.)

For all my pushing of his work, I'm not receiving a cent in commission, btw!!

Tony,

I'd like to second your recommendation: Read Branden. NB's work was central to my own self exploration and growth through my 20s. The person I became while following NB's guiding vision is central to who I am today. In many ways I consider his work in identifying the structure and dynamics of the psyche to be the jumping off point in how I see things today. You will find the roots of what I say about connecting conscious awareness to our unconscious flow in his discussions on the sage-self. The negative side of stepping inside the empathic lens and the mutually connected empathic universe I see as being the underpinnings of what NB identified as "social metaphysics." I've explored these concepts in ways that NB didn't write about. Radical empathy and social connectedness is an exploration of the half of the universe not covered well by Objectivism or NB, the healthy self esteem, positive side of the social metaphysical coin. It grew in me from what I sensed was missing in AR and NB's work.

I think you have me captured in your nut-shell...from an Objectivist/NB lens. I would describe it in different ways, both broader and deeper, that requires language that goes deeper into the causal dynamics of the psyche than AR and NB went but I feel comfortable with your classification.

My only real comment from within the NB lens I already know you know based on your past comments: The actions that are an expression of healthy self-esteem are the same actions that produce and sustain it. Practicing visible and vulnerable is the path to healthy self-esteem as well as the expression of it. This is why we need safe people in our lives that care and understand and guide before judging us. We need a safe space to practice visible and vulnerable. This is also why I think our cultures parenting practices are so fucked up. Instead of a safe, well defined space based on a respect for facts, for our kids to grow into their independence and autonomy, we give them shame and blame and guilt and intimidation and skewed stories used to control and manipulate (and often, indoctrinate) them. A well defined safe space produces independent and autonomous kids (and adults) with radical empathy and healthy social connectedness. The ill defined space of guilt, intimidation and skewed stories produces either broken codependent kids or radically rebellious kids, each with broken empathy and broken social connectedness. Taken causally to an extreme of this is what NB described as social metaphysics. (It gives us power games filled with narcissistic traits and people pleasing traits on two sides of a broken soul.) This is what keeps therapists in business.

Note: The first job of a therapist is to make the client feel safe and seen. It is to create the safe space where being truly visible and vulnerable can be practiced. It is to start to undo the damage done by our poor parenting culture.

Paul

[Xray]

Xray, It's true that there must have been a time empathy was all we had as an inter-'personal' survival tool, and then I guess it was supplanted gradually by Man's strengthening consciousness.

I think with Paul's model, he takes it to whole new level. In two ways that I can tell: one as an 'informed' tool of enquiry and connection (informed by experience and consciousness); second, critically, as a complement to a strongly-individuated self. I kind of see it as 'egoistical-empathy',projected to people and entities, as a ways and means of heightened comprehension and involvement.

In a sense I feel he has rescued it from a simple biological instinct where it has been languishing after man's reason ousted it, magnified and focused it, and re-instated it without contradiction to rationality OR ego.

"Super-empathy", which comfortably supplements rational selfishness, as best I can see.

Tony/Paul,

Maybe it is helpful, for clarificiation purposes, to differentiate between the capacity for empathy (the biological equipment we are born with), and what we make of it; how and why we put it into effect (or how and why we can also suppress it in certain situations).

[Dglgmut]

Thanks for the replies.

That last post of mine was a disaster... I wanted to answer Brant, but got distracted by the connections I made without really completing a thought.

Paul, vulnerability means exposure to harm... right? What harm are you talking about exposing ourselves to? I assume, what you called, "tough truths".

"Tough truths" are self-perceived weaknesses, according to me--something we don't want to be true, although we know it is. If we have no weaknesses, we can't be vulnerable.

Tony, I'm still having trouble with the idea of a right to happiness. I don't think that's as clear as it should be.

Edit: Tough truths is not the only harm we can expose ourselves to; we can hurt someone with an honest opinion (which in turn hurts us), or we could simply be disliked... Being honest leaves us open to judgment. Tough truths are things we don't like about ourselves, but people could dislike us for other reasons. The only way these things can hurt us is if we want to affect people a certain way... if not, there is no potential for harm.

Also, Tony, I'll explain my confusion about the "right" to happiness, or alternatively, the concept of self-evaluation. Value, as Rand said, presupposes the question, "Of value to whom and for what?" When we decide we are worthy of happiness, does this not mean we find value in ourselves? If we find value in ourselves, does that not mean we see a use for ourselves, for the benefit of ourselves, and does that not lead us back to self-efficacy?

[Brant Gaede]

Thanks for the replies.

That last post of mine was a disaster... I wanted to answer Brant, but got distracted by the connections I made without really completing a thought.

Go ahead and rewrite it.

--Brant

[anthony]

Tony/Paul,

Maybe it is helpful, for clarificiation purposes, to differentiate between the capacity for empathy (the biological equipment we are born with), and what we make of it; how and why we put it into effect (or how and why we can also suppress it in certain situations).

Xray, Alright, a distinction - but surely more of an evolution, man made. One had to have

the donkey cart before the Maserati, but they both have wheels. Don't tell me you would rather

ride the cart?

Suppressing empathy is interesting. Where and why would you do this? with the old, biological

model, I'm presuming. For self-protection?

[Dglgmut]

Thanks for the replies.

That last post of mine was a disaster... I wanted to answer Brant, but got distracted by the connections I made without really completing a thought.

Go ahead and rewrite it.

--Brant

Weakness - An inability to obtain what you want.

That's how I'm using the word, or more specifically what I've been talking about are self-perceived weaknesses.

So a weakness is dependent on a desire. The reason I got so sidetracked was because I realized most of these desires involve affecting people (as is most common with the "not enough" Paul was talking about).

Of course another example could be a kid who aspires to pursue a particular career, but his parents tell him, essentially, that he will never be good enough. There was real vulnerability in revealing what he wanted, and a weakness was created in acknowledging what his parents thought.

An example of a weakness dependent on a desire to affect people would be a flaw in one's appearance. If someone were to notice the subject's flaw, the subject would be reminded of the limitations on their ability to affect others.

Does that answer your question? I think my dilemma in the post you replied to was when do you stop wanting what it is that makes you feel weak? In We The Living, Rand never touched on the possibility of finding happiness within the characters' ridiculous limitations, so she obviously thought that in that situation acceptance was never the answer... but where do we draw the line?

Edit: So I think my usage of "weakness" entails an unsureness of an aspect of reality pertaining to a desire. If we know that something is unattainable, we will accept it. I think I'm wrong about We The Living, perhaps Leo did accept it, and that's as happy as he could possibly be in that reality. Maybe Andrei accepted reality too..

[Xray]

Tony/Paul,

Maybe it is helpful, for clarificiation purposes, to differentiate between the capacity for empathy (the biological equipment we are born with), and what we make of it; how and why we put it into effect (or how and why we can also suppress it in certain situations).

Xray, Alright, a distinction - but surely more of an evolution, man made. One had to have

the donkey cart before the Maserati, but they both have wheels. Don't tell me you would rather

ride the cart?

Tony, I don't quite see what exactly you want to convey by using the 'vehicle' anology in the context of empathy.

The Maserati is a more powerful and sophisticated vehicle than a donkey cart - are you suggesting that man-made evolution has made us use empathy in a more powerful and sophisticated way?

Suppressing empathy is interesting. Where and why would you do this? with the old, biological

model, I'm presuming. For self-protection?

Self-protection plays a crucial role. For example, we would not feel empathy toward someone who is threatining our life.

But what can also also suppressed, in certain situations, is the impulse to act on feelings of empathy humans would normally have. The infamous 'Milgram experiment' is a classic example.

[anthony]

Tony/Paul,

Maybe it is helpful, for clarificiation purposes, to differentiate between the capacity for empathy (the biological equipment we are born with), and what we make of it; how and why we put it into effect (or how and why we can also suppress it in certain situations).

Xray, Alright, a distinction - but surely more of an evolution, man made. One had to have

the donkey cart before the Maserati, but they both have wheels. Don't tell me you would rather

ride the cart?

Tony, I don't quite see what exactly you want to convey by using the 'vehicle' anology in the context of empathy.

The Maserati is a more powerful and sophisticated vehicle than a donkey cart - are you suggesting that man-made evolution has made us use empathy in a more powerful and sophisticated way?

Suppressing empathy is interesting. Where and why would you do this? with the old, biological

model, I'm presuming. For self-protection?

Self-protection plays a crucial role. For example, we would not feel empathy toward someone who is threatining our life.

But what can also also suppressed, in certain situations, is the impulse to act on feelings of empathy humans would normally have. The infamous 'Milgram experiment' is a classic example.

You didn't appreciate my metaphor? Could it be you prefer Porsches..?

Roughly, a primitive biological necessity that bonded early humans -so they wouldn't kill each other off, and to instinctively protect one another -

is now given a turbo boost, *consciously*, to benefit the empathizer, as well as the empathizee.

It means empathy would be less reliant on the vagaries of instinct, and now be a

consciously applied instrument to deepen the understanding one has of others.

The ancient mode doesn't disappear - it just, well, gets overtaken.

.

[Dglgmut]

Sorry to bump this, I've had a couple more thoughts on empathy recently...

Firstly, empathy is a tool for cooperation because it allows us to appeal to other people's rational self-interest. Rand's heroes were quite empathetic in this sense, weren't they? Being aware of when your own self-interest and another persons' overlap creates opportunity.

The other thing I was thinking, more importantly, is about when we feel like empathizing. I brought up humility before, and I see a connection once again. First I should define humility as I'll use it: acceptance of one's own honest estimation of objective self.

We have two selves to consider, the self we know most intimately: the self of future potential, and the self of what we already are and have already done. Other people cannot see the potential we are aware of in ourselves, unless they get quite intimate with us...

A humble person accepts the self that already is and has already done, and interestingly enough, Rand's heroes demonstrate this trait. Being too attached to the self of potential makes it difficult to empathize with people, and makes us feel unseen because of the contradictory feedback we receive.

Of course these two selves are not really separate; talking about it made me anticipate Paul's, or someone else's correction. I also feel like the answer is to connect these two selves, denying neither one's existence. (This sounds sort of like the lens switching Paul was talking about, but it is not specifically about empathy and selfishness, I'm feeling like it's between humility and ambition... and it isn't deliberate, but automatic--the acceptance or rejection is deliberate.)

The disconnection, I think, is not being able to see the potential in the "as-is" self, and therefore creating a totally separate, private self.

I hope this post was comprehensible.

[Guyau]

.

Bringing Babies to the Classroom to Teach Empathy

Watch the video of the report on this one. Watch the children.

Roots of Empathy

[Xray]

.

Bringing Babies to the Classroom to Teach Empathy

Watch the video of the report on this one. Watch the children.

Great link! Thanks for sharing, Stephen.

[BaalChatzaf]

Awwwwww! That is sooo cute!