An Empathic Lens and a Connected Universe

[Paul Mawdsley]

Why not try to drop the premise that intelligent actions (or 'intelligent solutions' observed in nature) always require a highly developed consciousness? That way one woud avoid a too simplistic reductionism, but also the necessity to mentally construct an intelligent designer-god behind it all.

One just needs part to whole reciprocal causation. No designer needed, just the ability to act to maintain integration, a feedback mechanism and the capacity to record and do more of what works. Holistic systems can't be reduced without loosing the properties of there wholeness.

[anthony]

Our ability to reproduce is chemistry in action. The world is physical entirely. It consists of matter and energy in time and space. There is nothing else.

No purpose. No design. It just is as it is.

Ba'al Chatzaf

But the world being physical doesn't meant there can't be any systems observed which operate by what imo one could well call 'intelligent' action. Just think of take such fascinating phenomena as 'swarm intelligence'.

Or if e. g. if you feel thirst, it is an 'message' transmitted via the system running your biological entity ('body') to fill up on fluids. The purpose is to keep your bodily functions working.

Why not try to drop the premise that intelligent actions (or 'intelligent solutions' observed in nature) always require a highly developed consciousness? That way one woud avoid a too simplistic reductionism, but also the necessity to mentally construct an intelligent designer-god behind it all.

Christ, physics determinism takes on biological determinism.

Who will win?

[BaalChatzaf]

Christ, physics determinism takes on biological determinism.

Who will win?

The natural world.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[Paul Mawdsley]

Xray and Bob, Tony considers you determinists. Is this how you see yourselves?

My thoughts are heading off on a tangent that doesn't fit this thread. See here for my response.

Thanks,

Paul

[Xray]

What have particles to do with us?

A lot. "We are all stardust" - as the renowned physicist Lawrence Krauss has expressed it so wonderfully in one of his lectures:

"A Universe from Nothing":

Quantum Entanglement is as much a validation of 'entangled' (or connected) human consciousness, as the "God Particle" proves the existence of God.

Interesting that the original nickname was "goddam particle"

http://en.wikipedia....iki/Peter_Higgs

Higgs is an atheist, and is displeased that the Higgs particle is nicknamed the "God particle",^[31] as he believes the term "might offend people who are religious".^[32] Usually this nickname for the Higgs boson is attributed to Leon Lederman, the author of the book The God Particle: If the Universe Is the Answer, What Is the Question?, but the name is the result of the insistence of Lederman's publisher: Lederman had originally intended to refer to it as the "goddamn particle".^[33]

Lawrence Krauss on the Higgs particle:

http://en.wikipedia....rence_M._Krauss

A July, 2012 article in Newsweek written by Krauss explained that the Higgs particle could get rid of the idea of a supernatural creator permanently. He also wrote a longer piece in the New York Times explaining the science and signficance of the Higgs. ^[10]

[Xray]

Xray and Bob, Tony considers you determinists. Is this how you see yourselves?

My thoughts are heading off on a tangent that doesn't fit this thread. See here for my response.

Thanks,

Paul

Paul,

I replied on the new thread you have opened on the topic of determinism.

http://www.objectivi...showtopic=12349

[Dglgmut]

Paul, you've made me think about a lot recently...

The rejection of empathy as an act of disowning a part of oneself is a powerful idea. I think you could compare it to the guilt Rand spoke of, that one takes on by accepting the code of altruism, blaming oneself for not conforming to a proper morality. Empathy is a tool for knowing reality, but that part of reality, I believe, was not important to Rand, and therefore neither was empathy.

I say that people were not important to Rand in that a human being was not of inherent value to her, and that she held all people to a standard. She valued human potential, but I don't think she saw relationships as beneficial simply for the sake of relationships. Anyone with these premises may feel guilty for wanting people to like them, and disown that part of themselves.

My view now is that we want what we want, and we must be open to what we want and rational in how we pursue those wants. Desire is a feeling, something abstract, that points to something real and concrete... and that's why it can be misinterpreted. A lot of trial and error goes on in life, and it is the interpretation of emotions that I believe takes people so long to feel comfortable with.

[Dglgmut]

Paul, would it be fair to say that Rand, rather than a damaged empathetic development, repressed her empathy?

I have a feeling she was very empathetic and needed a way to deal with it. Why else would someone value justice to the extent she did?

[Paul Mawdsley]

Paul, would it be fair to say that Rand, rather than a damaged empathetic development, repressed her empathy?

I have a feeling she was very empathetic and needed a way to deal with it. Why else would someone value justice to the extent she did?

Calvin, I am following a number of interesting posts right now but do not have time to post any thoughtful replies at the moment. I hope to get some time over the weekend.

I can't help myself though. Your insightfulness has sparked some thoughts in me.

Briefly, yes, I suspect Rand repressed her empathy when she did not feel safe and she did not feel safe unless she was in a power position over the way those around her saw things and felt about her. When she felt the loss of power because someone chose to see things differently to her or expressed a negative feeling about her, she lost her sense of safety and out came the excommunication button.

I would also say that repressing empathy is the path to damaged empathic development. With a few exceptions (thinking about Bob), we all have the capacity for empathy but healthy empathic development is rare in my experience. Most of us grow up feeling it is a choice between holding onto ourselves by living from a place of separateness or losing ourselves to others by living living from a place of connectedness. It is an ugly choice that currently defines our world. We end up seeing a dichotomy that forces us to choose one part of ourselves while disowning another. A damaged self is a necessary result. We end up compartmentalizing ourselves to one orientation or the other depending on context or choosing sides but most find no healthy way to flow between the two as an integrated whole person. I believe we can deconstruct this dichotomy and find a healthier way to live that includes our separateness and our connectedness.

Rand saw the dichotomy between our separateness and our connectedness as a conflict to be resolved by choosing sides. She had a vision of the man who was whole and calm and connected to those he valued, a man "without pain nor fear nor guilt," but didn't know how to attain it. I think we start on our path to realizing this vision in our own lives by breaking down this dichotomy and seeking synthesis between the centred/separate self and the empathic/connected self that exists inside each of us. Rand was good with healthy centred separateness but blind to healthy empathic connectedness. She rightly saw a world of empathic connectedness (what I like to call "The Matrix" out of respect for the metaphorical insightfulness of the trilogy) to be governed by pain and fear and guilt, controlled by those who discovered power over others by keeping them blind to being manipulated by these inside buttons. But her perspective never evolved in this realm to discover a healthier way to exist here, I would say, because she learned disowning her empathy (repression) as a defense mechanism to pain and fear and guilt used against her by others. While she could see John Galt, she couldn't see how to get there.

[Xray]

Paul, would it be fair to say that Rand, rather than a damaged empathetic development, repressed her empathy?

I have a feeling she was very empathetic and needed a way to deal with it. Why else would someone value justice to the extent she did?

Briefly, yes, I suspect Rand repressed her empathy when she did not feel safe and she did not feel safe unless she was in a power position over the way those around her saw things and felt about her. When she felt the loss of power because someone chose to see things differently to her or expressed a negative feeling about her, she lost her sense of safety and out came the excommunication button.

Imo there are indicators that Rand's problem did not lie in repressing empathy, but in (for whatever reason) not being able to feel it in many situations.

I can't see in her work a feeling of empathic connectedness. Just think of e. g. the tunnel scene in AS where she desribes the death of those who happened to have (what she believed to be) 'false premises' ...

[Brant Gaede]

Paul, would it be fair to say that Rand, rather than a damaged empathetic development, repressed her empathy?

I have a feeling she was very empathetic and needed a way to deal with it. Why else would someone value justice to the extent she did?

Briefly, yes, I suspect Rand repressed her empathy when she did not feel safe and she did not feel safe unless she was in a power position over the way those around her saw things and felt about her. When she felt the loss of power because someone chose to see things differently to her or expressed a negative feeling about her, she lost her sense of safety and out came the excommunication button.

Imo there are indicators that Rand's problem did not lie in repressing empathy, but in (for whatever reason) not being able to feel it in many situations.

I can't see in her work a feeling of empathic connectedness. Just think of e. g. the tunnel scene in AS where she desribes the death of those who happened to have (what she believed to be) 'false premises' ...

Their philosophy in its various aspects drove that death train by driving off those who ran safe trains. That Rand the author was playing fanciful vengeance games with that train would be gratuitous psychologizing.

--Brant

[Paul Mawdsley]

Paul, would it be fair to say that Rand, rather than a damaged empathetic development, repressed her empathy?

I have a feeling she was very empathetic and needed a way to deal with it. Why else would someone value justice to the extent she did?

Briefly, yes, I suspect Rand repressed her empathy when she did not feel safe and she did not feel safe unless she was in a power position over the way those around her saw things and felt about her. When she felt the loss of power because someone chose to see things differently to her or expressed a negative feeling about her, she lost her sense of safety and out came the excommunication button.

Imo there are indicators that Rand's problem did not lie in repressing empathy, but in (for whatever reason) not being able to feel it in many situations.

I can't see in her work a feeling of empathic connectedness. Just think of e. g. the tunnel scene in AS where she desribes the death of those who happened to have (what she believed to be) 'false premises' ...

I would say, perhaps, she had selective empathy for those she trusted and respected. The insight that came through her portrait of Francisco's character (among others) showed a very high level of Rand's empathic sensitivity. She had no feeling for those who chose to live what she saw as a less than human life. However, she did have a certain level of philosophical insight into what made even the darkest characters tick. Insight into another's philosophical perspective also comes from a form of empathy. So maybe we could say she had philosophical empathy with most (feeding her insight while not necessarily being in agreement) and emotional empathy with those she trusted and respected, who eventually became few and far between. It seems, in the end, the characters she created may have been the only ones she trusted and respected towards the end. I don't know if she could trust anyone she didn't have power over later in life (which her personality could not respect). But I wasn't there.

[Dglgmut]

I think Rand reserved her empathy for those who deserved it. The people she valued most were those who benefited human existence... not a sign of a sociopath, I don't think.

[Brant Gaede]

Paul, would it be fair to say that Rand, rather than a damaged empathetic development, repressed her empathy?

I have a feeling she was very empathetic and needed a way to deal with it. Why else would someone value justice to the extent she did?

Briefly, yes, I suspect Rand repressed her empathy when she did not feel safe and she did not feel safe unless she was in a power position over the way those around her saw things and felt about her. When she felt the loss of power because someone chose to see things differently to her or expressed a negative feeling about her, she lost her sense of safety and out came the excommunication button.

Imo there are indicators that Rand's problem did not lie in repressing empathy, but in (for whatever reason) not being able to feel it in many situations.

I can't see in her work a feeling of empathic connectedness. Just think of e. g. the tunnel scene in AS where she desribes the death of those who happened to have (what she believed to be) 'false premises' ...

I would say, perhaps, she had selective empathy for those she trusted and respected. The insight that came through her portrait of Francisco's character (among others) showed a very high level of Rand's empathic sensitivity. She had no feeling for those who chose to live what she saw as a less than human life. However, she did have a certain level of philosophical insight into what made even the darkest characters tick. Insight into another's philosophical perspective also comes from a form of empathy. So maybe we could say she had philosophical empathy with most (feeding her insight while not necessarily being in agreement) and emotional empathy with those she trusted and respected, who eventually became few and far between. It seems, in the end, the characters she created may have been the only ones she trusted and respected towards the end. I don't know if she could trust anyone she didn't have power over later in life (which her personality could not respect). But I wasn't there.

Be careful of whom she had "no feeling for." You really don't know this nor does anyone else. I don't and I'm in a better place to know. All experts on Ayn Rand bring perception bias to the table contaminating and augmenting their observations. You have no observations. Those who do will take them with them. Their words will remain, but those will be second-handerism for those who follow them and read them. The trick is not to know her, for down deep we don't, but to know ourselves, which is hard enough. It's a solo trip, that trip down to the center, and ultimately an ineffable experience. If I were to take these words back in time several decades--many decades--to the then me, he wouldn't have any idea what they introspectively meant.

--Brant

[anthony]

I asked "Rand the empathist?" rhetorically. I have no doubts, from first reading, until now,

that she *cared*. If you take empathy to mean insight + compassion (which I do) an impartial

view bears this out. With insight, she observed whole swathes of human history and identified

all the worst principles, which she corrected for men to live as proper according to their nature;

she would also zero in on an individual and (rather gratuitously it should be said) accurately lay bare his premises.

For compassion, what can you say about someone who dedicated her life to showing how man can live at his optimum, and live peaceably other other men? I think that her "lack of empathy' has its roots partly in her impatience with people who couldn't 'get it' - when she knew time was running out. Not from lack of care, but caring in excess.

Disagree with her conclusions all you want, but no quibbling critic is going to convince me of her degree of

sincerity and commitment. Probably leading to her burning out herself, also her relationships, from most accounts.

One sees, one thinks, one cares. You care the more you think, and you think, the more you care.

Such insight and empathy she could draw upon, can only be apparent to me after decades of

insights about Rand in her words - and about life in general. The load -especially when few around you can come close to seeing what you see, and comprehend - must have been unimaginably heavy at times.

So she was no Mother Teresa preaching love, (and hating humanity). Well, tough.

A primary message is left behind in her philosophy: think for yourselves, establish your selfhood, treat others a certain way within society - then compassion and all that is human will have depth and staying- power.

The alternative is that it will be coerced by Authority, eventuating in resentment, guilt, distrust and hatred of other people.

[caroljane]

Oh Tony, yes Rand wore herself out laying bare the principles of the deluded (and mother Teresa whom I dislike btw)wore herself out also, ..

They did not do it so that anyone else would wear themselvelves out,or fail to live life.

[anthony]

Oh Tony, yes Rand wore herself out laying bare the principles of the deluded (and mother Teresa whom I dislike btw)wore herself out also, ..

They did not do it so that anyone else would wear themselvelves out,or fail to live life.

Carol,

Now it occurs to me that I might have suggested that Rand sacrificed her life in some way, to produce her vision. Not so. Everything points to the fact that she did so selfishly, and through all her ups and downs, enjoyed it all.

There is a point, I think, where a fully matured (which implies fully conscious) ego comes full circle to an appreciation - compassion, if you will - of all life.

I really don't enjoy taking up the cudgel on Rand's behalf: she doesn't need it, she would never have wanted it, and anyway, it is not my place to do so. I do however get slightly 'narked' at the injustice of some of her supporters and critics, alike. One bunch treats her as something above human, the other as less than human. They make the identical mistake of expecting her to have lived some 'perfect' life -in keeping with what she advocated.

Only one person in recorded history is supposed to have achieved this, and He had a certain advantage.

I swear, if Jesus had not actually existed, man would have invented him. Such is man's desire for perfection - and hell hath no fury like a true believer, scorned - or disappointed.

One last thought:

I used to have the conviction that Objectivism was a body of knowledge and equally, a methodology. It's become clearer that it is all about a methodology, a means to an end.. No 'revelation', perfection and instant knowledge. One may study it for years, to find that one's real work and effortful thinking, is only just beginning.

.

[Dglgmut]

Tony, I pretty much agree with your #65 post.

If you look at anyone devoted to justice, you know they care. The whole point of justice is making sure that nobody get's treated too badly, and anyone devoted to justice must consider everyone, all the time. Therefore, justice does not come off as empathetic because everyone must be compared to each other... and with the people we meet, it's hard to feel compassion for someone in a relatively good situation.

If you have opportunity to change your situation, I don't believe Rand would waste her empathy. Maybe I should have said I believe she had a huge capacity for empathy.

She drew the line (Paul's terminology) quite readily.

[Paul Mawdsley]

Be careful of whom she had "no feeling for." You really don't know this nor does anyone else. I don't and I'm in a better place to know. All experts on Ayn Rand bring perception bias to the table contaminating and augmenting their observations. You have no observations. Those who do will take them with them. Their words will remain, but those will be second-handerism for those who follow them and read them. The trick is not to know her, for down deep we don't, but to know ourselves, which is hard enough. It's a solo trip, that trip down to the center, and ultimately an ineffable experience. If I were to take these words back in time several decades--many decades--to the then me, he wouldn't have any idea what they introspectively meant.

--Brant

"The trick is not to know her, for down deep we don't, but to know ourselves..." This is very true. It is also the path to higher empathic development. The more you know yourself, the more you learn to trust your insights into others. It also works the other way. The more you see honestly inside others, the more insight you get into yourself.

This is also the path to reducing "perception bias" but we always need to acknowledge it's presence to reduce its contamination. I have noted with various people in my life that there is a wide range of perception bias between people that comes through their insight and a wide range of bias in an individual depending on mental states and context. This tells me people can develop tools to decrease their perception bias. Knowing oneself in general and monitoring oneself in each moment is a key to reducing the flow of hidden needs into one's perceptions. Healthy self-esteem in general and a sense of "being enough" in particular is another key. It is a person's sense of "not being enough" and needing to elevate one's perception of self that is most contaminating when perceiving others.

I never met Rand. However, how she saw the world, who she was and how she felt is the place that shaped every word she wrote. We also have the descriptions of her way of seeing, being, feeling and acting in moments of her life from the writings of some pretty insightful people. These are my observations. Self understanding, empathy and our sense of causality provide us with a map to guide us through the terrain of another's psyche and spirit. It's not an exact science. It's much more an art. But it has value and produces genuine insight.

We first discovered the structure of the inside of atoms through a similar "second handerism." We observe outward behaviours and see the effects something has on those things around it. Then we use our general (ideally more objective) sense of the nature of the universe and our sense of causality to reverse engineer our vision of the underlying nature of a thing...or a person. Then we observe some more, making predictions and testing our theories. As I have said elsewhere, empathy is a tool of perception. It is a lens for observing inside people, animals and possibly things. It has potential for distortion, just like any instrument in science, that must be accounted for and counterbalanced but it is not only an invaluable tool of perception, it is a tool of connection with incalculable value to our lives. Science provides us with a methodology for reducing perception bias when we see the world from the outside-in. Highly developed empathic processing also has a methodology for reducing perception bias to see the world from the inside-out. We need both to include all that exists in our vision of the universe.

IMO, the methods of highly developed empathic processing, of seeing the world from the inside-out, are the methods of philosophy. These represent objectivity in art rather than objectivity in science. One of the things we loose when we see science as in conflict with philosophy, and dominant, is the development of objectivity in our art. Rand brought objectivity in art back. She couldn't do this without some highly developed form of empathy. She also couldn't have been who she was without a deeply diminished empathy in some areas. My reverse engineering of her, using self-understanding and my sense of causality as a map and using empathy as a lens inside her, tells me this. Now, the way I see it, we need to continue to develop our objectivity in art by further developing our empathic processing.

[Paul Mawdsley]

Tony, I pretty much agree with your #65 post.

If you look at anyone devoted to justice, you know they care. The whole point of justice is making sure that nobody get's treated too badly, and anyone devoted to justice must consider everyone, all the time. Therefore, justice does not come off as empathetic because everyone must be compared to each other... and with the people we meet, it's hard to feel compassion for someone in a relatively good situation.

If you have opportunity to change your situation, I don't believe Rand would waste her empathy. Maybe I should have said I believe she had a huge capacity for empathy.

She drew the line (Paul's terminology) quite readily.

Being able to draw the line and cut off empathy is important for survival in a world of perceptions that are hostile to the self. Having control over when and where to draw this line is vital to maintaining the flow of information that is important for our survival in this same world. For me, I have my rules for healthy social space. People who fuck with these rules don't have access to my empathy. I become a true Objectivist in these moments, seeing people from the outside-in as having value in their own existence but they only exist as robotic pylons in terms of their function in my universe.

[Dglgmut]

Yeah, I understand you now, and I see the importance of the balance.

This balance also coincides with my understanding that we want many things at once, and must determine the best course of action considering all that we want, and not just one thing in particular.

[Paul Mawdsley]

Yeah, I understand you now, and I see the importance of the balance.

This balance also coincides with my understanding that we want many things at once, and must determine the best course of action considering all that we want, and not just one thing in particular.

This points to the importance of developing another part of the self...one I am definitely still working on personally. We need a well developed executive-self that sees and manages all our parts, all our ways of seeing and being and feeling and doing, from a place of self-understanding, wholeness and broad vision, for the betterment of the whole self and all our needs. The job of the executive-self is to find dialectical synthesis of all our parts into one self without creating a state of self-judging, owning and disowning within. The added benefit of this approach is to maintain the flow of information about our universe through all our lenses without blinding ourselves to important parts of self and our world.

[Dglgmut]

I may have realized my own problem with empathy. I think this is where i got my supposition that Rand had a great capacity for empathy... and it's that in order to be happy, one must believe they deserve to be happy.

I think, a lot of the time, I don't believe I deserve to be happy, which would stop anyone from trying to be happy (or from achieving anything they don't believe they deserve to achieve). However, while I am judging myself harshly, I am also thrown off by people who feel that they deserve to be happy.

Rand had a problem with people partying just for the sake of it (and I always wondered what the hell those characters talked about at Wyatt's house all night), everything had to be earned. She felt confident enough in herself that she believed she deserved happiness, but thought much lower of pretty much everyone else.

So I think Rand's empathy was reserved for people who deserved happiness, but could not freely pursue it.

Edit: Rand defined two types of abstractions the brain can make: cognitive and normative. A more acceptable term would be descriptive rather than cognitive, but anyway. Emotion is connected to our normative processes, and although she never consciously implied this, I feel her philosophy may entail avoiding normative cognition (and that's why descriptive is a better term). Reason doesn't work with emotion... we can't justify our feelings without getting circular. The closest thing to reason explaining emotions is when we say that human beings are supposed to feel happy in certain types of circumstances, and therefore it is reasonable for me to strive for those types of circumstances.

When we feel in the moment we are taking in our surroundings in terms of what they can offer us. I think empathy is indirectly a part of this. When we evaluate another person based on our emotional response, rather than descriptively, and decide there is value (to us) in the other person (because we feel it, and not because the other person has proved it somehow), we are able only then to empathize.

[Paul Mawdsley]

When we feel in the moment we are taking in our surroundings in terms of what they can offer us. I think empathy is indirectly a part of this. When we evaluate another person based on our emotional response, rather than descriptively, and decide there is value (to us) in the other person (because we feel it, and not because the other person has proved it somehow), we are able only then to empathize.

For me, empathy comes first, before judgement. It acts as a lens that brings in information and feeds understanding before judgments are made. In fact, I would say putting judgement before empathy is the cause of a lot of disconnection and problems in our culture, and is a major factor in what Barbara once called "Objectivist Rage."

In my life, when there is a sense of a safe space and connection, I experience an opening and deepening of mutual empathy, creating a shared space. When I experience a sense of danger and coldness, or when I experience perception manipulation, power games or attempts at codependent ploys, I experience a closing and withdrawing of empathy. This is a protective, though not defensive, mechanism that has taken shape over my lifetime at the level of conditioning rather than thinking. While it works at the level of conditioning rather than thinking, I do see it and understand it conceptually so I have the power to shape my own conditioning, to shape my own unconscious flow around empathy. It works for me.

Another point I feel the need to make, it seems many people think you need to choose between, say, empathic processing or more objective processing. I don't find this. There is more to our capacities than our ability to focus. We have the ability to do both at once if we turn the process over to our more holistic, unconscious flow. It doesn't have the same limitations as conscious processing. Unconscious processing can be trained to process both empathically and objectively at the same time, alerting consciousness to certain patterns that need more focused attention. Objectivism does a great job of encouraging focused objective processing but completely devalues our more holistic, unconscious flow processes, I assume, because they are seen as out of our conscious control. They are only out of our conscious control insomuch as we don't understand them and know how to shape their flow.

I tend to see conscious and unconscious processes as operating very differently, each with their own strengths. Our biggest problem understanding unconscious processing is that we can't observe it directly and it operates on different causal principles from those we have established with things we can observe directly. Anything we cannot observe directly is like a black box. We can only see inside it by observing its outward effects and reverse engineering its underlying structure and causation. My own explorations of unconscious processes suggest they operate by the same causal principles as quantum events. Since the current level of causal understanding in our culture is not able to model reciprocal whole-to-part causation, we are at a loss seeing inside the black box of quantum events or unconscious processes, and we are not able to reverse engineer our vision inside these processes.

The first step to seeing inside these things is to re-engineer our model of causation. Aristotle, Rand and N. Branden point the direction of another model but their entity-to-action causation isn't complete, is set to compete with the standard action-to-action causation that is well established in our culture and still doesn't account for reciprocal whole-to-part causation. Synthesis and development is needed. Only then can we start reverse engineering our vision inside quantum events and unconscious processing.

[caroljane]

When we feel in the moment we are taking in our surroundings in terms of what they can offer us. I think empathy is indirectly a part of this. When we evaluate another person based on our emotional response, rather than descriptively, and decide there is value (to us) in the other person (because we feel it, and not because the other person has proved it somehow), we are able only then to empathize.

For me, empathy comes first, before judgement. It acts as a lens that brings in information and feeds understanding before judgments are made. In fact, I would say putting judgement before empathy is the cause of a lot of disconnection and problems in our culture, and is a major factor in what Barbara once called "Objectivist Rage."

In my life, when there is a sense of a safe space and connection, I experience an opening and deepening of mutual empathy, creating a shared space. When I experience a sense of danger and coldness, or when I experience perception manipulation, power games or attempts at codependent ploys, I experience a closing and withdrawing of empathy. This is a protective, though not defensive, mechanism that has taken shape over my lifetime at the level of conditioning rather than thinking. While it works at the level of conditioning rather than thinking, I do see it and understand it conceptually so I have the power to shape my own conditioning, to shape my own unconscious flow around empathy. It works for me.

.

What a fine insight. For some reason it makes me think of Aristotle's description of friendship as a high value.