An Empathic Lens and a Connected Universe

[anthony]

Sorry guys, I'll drop it. I was wrong.

If it makes you feel any better I wasted way more of my time than yours.

? I didn't waste my time. If you were wrong, why were you wrong--and about what?

--Brant

Me neither - it is never a waste of time to think, and see things from a different

perspective. Only, I do think you are conflating two distinct areas: give to philosophy

that which is philosophy's; and give to psychology that which is psychology's.

It becomes hard to follow you when you combine them in debate, as you have been.

(Later, one can re-combine them.)

Also, there is plenty more to "explore" with the 'empathic lens', and we've gone off-topic.

[Xray]

To take a risk, we must believe we are doing the right thing. Is this premise true?

Just test the premise with some concrete examples.

A heavy chain smoker for example takes a risk, but may not believe at all that he/she is doing the right thing.

Another example: someone who embezzles money also takes a risk but can have the feeling that the act of embezzling is not the right thing at all.

[Dglgmut]

Okay, back towards the topic, then, is there a connection between empathy and humility? I think they are almost the same thing. When we empathize we imagine that someone else is the most important thing in the universe, rather than ourselves, as it would naturally seem.

Without empathy we cannot see ourselves as anything less than the center of the universe. Perhaps empathy does not help us at all, but is a part of us to be accepted or rejected. And this is basically what Paul was saying from the beginning, I think.

This leads me to self-honesty, but that's another topic, I guess.

[Paul Mawdsley]

Okay, back towards the topic, then, is there a connection between empathy and humility? I think they are almost the same thing. When we empathize we imagine that someone else is the most important thing in the universe, rather than ourselves, as it would naturally seem.

Without empathy we cannot see ourselves as anything less than the center of the universe. Perhaps empathy does not help us at all, but is a part of us to be accepted or rejected. And this is basically what Paul was saying from the beginning, I think.

This leads me to self-honesty, but that's another topic, I guess.

Calvin,

I don't know if anyone else is seeing this but I am watching as you inch your way back to being more centred, more real, more connected to your genuine insightfulness. IMO, this is where your strength is.

There is some you say here I don't agree with and some I do agree with but I find my agreement or disagreement to be of little importance. It is your journey that is important. I am getting a sense of you returning to a genuine struggle to see for yourself and use your own thinking to understand, rather than just throwing stuff out you have spent little effort considering simply to get a response. You are showing the angst of an artist striving to tap into his unconscious flow and genuinely give form to his vision. I say keep struggling to create your inner vision, keep working to make it clear, keep striving to find the words that communicate it accurately to others and check with their feedback to see how clearly your message received. I see a gift and a passion in there. Keep it focused and develop the skills to release them.

Paul

[Dglgmut]

A heavy chain smoker for example takes a risk, but may not believe at all that he/she is doing the right thing.

I'd argue that in the moment they believe that their emotional well being is more important than their health. They choose to smoke for the emotional affect, not because it shortens their life.

The smoker example is perfect for looking at self-honesty. There is no such thing as lying to oneself, as honesty and dishonesty both imply relationships, which when dealing with one person entail a duality.

What mental evasion really is, is not a way of picking an choosing what we know and don't know, but a way of choosing to focus on or avoid an idea because of the automatic emotional response. So a smoker can make the decision to smoke while knowing that it's bad for his health, there is no evasion of the knowledge, he just chooses not to focus on it so that his brain doesn't have the opportunity to go, "Fuck, I don't want that."

Not caring is a popular idea. A lot of people take pride in how little they care, and all they have to do is focus on the arbitrary and always avoid the important.

So, we don't control what knowledge we have, and we don't control our emotions; we control our focus.

Rand saw art as an artificial source of inspiration. She claimed that man needed to see the benefit of work, of effort, to be able to live properly. Well, I think you can say the same thing about self-expression.

When this mental evasion occurs, it is not an evasion of information, but an evasion of emotion. However, the smoker is already aware of the emotion, or else he wouldn't know which thought to avoid. So it's not reality he is evading, but a part of himself.

Self-expression is a connection between our emotions and actions. We can have emotions without allowing them to affect our actions, which we sometimes have to do, but that doesn't erase the emotion.

Sorry I wanted to connect this back to empathy somehow but I ran out of time...

[Dglgmut]

Thank you for the encouragement, Paul. I am pursuing an art, actually, but that's secondary to my pursuit of personal philosophical soundness.

Anyway, to tie what I was saying back into the topic of empathy:

The reason we avoid emotions is not even the emotion itself, but the self-expression that accepting the emotion would lead to. Why would the smoker allow himself to make an emotional decision based on the health risks of smoking when that would entail an entire commitment to health?

The reason anyone chooses not to look for the best in another person is because they want to avoid the expression of the resultant emotions. It's not that anyone doesn't want to like things, but that they feel vulnerable showing that they like certain things.

Back to Paul's example of throwing snowballs at his sons face... that sounds bad... sorry Paul but it was your example... The fear of watching a snowball come at you, when you know fully that it is really coming at you whether you watch or not, is not an attempt to avoid the reality of the snowball, but an attempt to avoid the emotional reaction to watching it come at you. It's a distrust of your automatic emotional response... as it is automatic. That is the epitome of vulnerability--something about yourself that you can't control, but can only accept of reject.

The truth is that the automatic emotional response is often good enough, if not reliable. Rand put reason above emotion, and maneuvered a bit to postulate that emotion is properly the result of reason; that we can control our automatic emotional responses by conditioning them over time, by resolving fundamental ethical issues consciously to train our subconscious.

At this time I have to disagree, and I think it is this belief--that we can control what we are to such an extent--that creates more fear of what we actually are.

[anthony]

The truth is that the automatic emotional response is often good enough, if not reliable. Rand put reason above emotion, and maneuvered a bit to postulate that emotion is properly the result of reason; that we can control our automatic emotional responses by conditioning them over time, by resolving fundamental ethical issues consciously to train our subconscious.

At this time I have to disagree, and I think it is this belief--that we can control what we are to such an extent--that creates more fear of what we actually are.

With you up to this point.

But emotion is always "reliable". It exists as a result of something- the only questions remaining is what was its cause?, and what are we to do about it? It comes about mainly (with negative emotions)as a result of dis-ease and unease with some action or inaction - which in turn, comes about by evasion, in a fundamental way.

To evade that emotion, is to create a double evasion, I think: i.e. The avoidance of your early-warning system that's letting you know you are escaping reality, and the reality of your self.

I don't think Rand "maneuvered" much here. She specified mainly that emotions are not a cognitive tool, and should not be used in assessment. True. It is unfair to

interpret her as advising curtailment of emotions - though sometimes O'ists have read it that way. Joy or happiness was a common refrain of hers.

Self-evidently then, if one is living by reason (in touch with reality) one's emotions

follow suit - not "conditioning them" as much as pre-empting them, and bringing about

a peaceful state of mind.

[Dglgmut]

Yes, emotions arise for a reason, but I was talking about the reliability of letting emotions affect our actions. If we don't block off parts of reality in our mind from emotional assessment, we allow ourselves to react naturally, according to what we are.

We cannot predict our next impulse, but we can decide to be welcoming or unwelcoming before it happens.

Edit: I think this is where faith was coming into my mind... faith in the parts of ourselves that we can't necessarily control. Not a religious faith, but semi-blind trust.

[anthony]

Calvin, I never know if you're asking, informing or speculating.

What does blocking off parts of reality, and reacting naturally - mean?

Concrete examples that don't involve smoking would help. Are you taking

all this from introspection or observation?

[Paul Mawdsley]

Calvin, I think I do get you on this. Tony, think Pink Floyd- The Wall.

[Paul Mawdsley]

Calvin, are you thinking of faith as conscious trust in our unconscious processes and capacities?

[Xray]

Okay, back towards the topic, then, is there a connection between empathy and humility? I think they are almost the same thing. When we empathize we imagine that someone else is the most important thing in the universe, rather than ourselves, as it would naturally seem.

Where do you get this idea? Empathy is an ability humans are biologically equipped to develop (we possess so-called 'mirror neurons'), and we have this 'natural' ability because it serves our survival.

As for imagining that either "ourselves" or "someone else" is "the most important thing in the universe" - would you agree that this perspective cannot be called 'objective'?

[Dglgmut]

Calvin, are you thinking of faith as conscious trust in our unconscious processes and capacities?

Yeah, basically. Like not knowing how you will react, but allowing yourself the freedom to do so.

We don't always have the time to decide a best course of action, but have to go with the first thing that comes to us, or avoid action all together.

[Dglgmut]

Calvin, I never know if you're asking, informing or speculating.

What does blocking off parts of reality, and reacting naturally - mean?

Concrete examples that don't involve smoking would help. Are you taking

all this from introspection or observation?

What I mean by blocking off parts of reality is that we can create boundaries in our minds, as to limit the freedom of our focus. We don't want to focus on certain things because of the emotional response, and what we would become as a result of that emotional response.

The natural reaction I was referring to is the emotional response we have when focusing on a concept, and how that affects our behavior. Do I need a specific example for this?

Here's an example that I find interesting, though:

People around me have been talking about this video on YouTube that's supposed to be really heart-wrenching. Now, I couldn't watch it. Not because it was too sad, but because I wasn't interested. It's a comedian telling a story about how he was finally having success in his career, and at the same time his daughter was dying of cancer.

Now, the thing is, I didn't want to watch it, not because I wouldn't have been moved, but because I didn't want to be (in that direction). I know there's a lot of bad shit happening in the world, and one guy's daughter dying isn't even that bad relative some of the stuff going on in other countries.

I didn't allow myself to get curious about the video and to possibly get into it, because I don't think that emotion is going to help me. I wouldn't attempt to trivialize the situation, I just don't want to think about it... because there's nothing I can do about it. (This is, in a way, how the smoker feels. There's no sense thinking about the health risks, because there's nothing he can do to stop.)

You could say that the reason some people avoid empathy is to avoid an emotion that makes them feel weak. This may be where Paul's point comes in, that perhaps it's not a weakness at all, but a tool to help us see and deal with reality.

[anthony]

Empathy is an ability humans are biologically equipped to develop (we possess so-called 'mirror neurons'), and we have this 'natural' ability because it serves our survival.

As for imagining that either "ourselves" or "someone else" is "the most important thing in the universe" - would you agree that this perspective cannot be called 'objective'?

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.

[Dglgmut]

Nice reply, Tony.

[anthony]

Calvin, I never know if you're asking, informing or speculating.

What does blocking off parts of reality, and reacting naturally - mean?

Concrete examples that don't involve smoking would help. Are you taking

all this from introspection or observation?

What I mean by blocking off parts of reality is that we can create boundaries in our minds, as to limit the freedom of our focus. We don't want to focus on certain things because of the emotional response, and what we would become as a result of that emotional response.

The natural reaction I was referring to is the emotional response we have when focusing on a concept, and how that affects our behavior. Do I need a specific example for this?

Here's an example that I find interesting, though:

Now, the thing is, I didn't want to watch it, not because I wouldn't have been moved, but because I didn't want to be (in that direction). I know there's a lot of bad shit happening in the world, and one guy's daughter dying isn't even that bad relative some of the stuff going on in other countries.

Yes, we can block off, and create boundaries. I think this is a "I don't want to go there" thing.

Personally, from long practice of reviewing them, there is no idea or concept that can bother me - but, a few memories of past mistakes and observances still can.

How much should we - selfishly - protect ourselves from unnecessary discomfort, and when does doing

that become a source of discomfort and pain of its own? From the evasion?

Certainly, anything that has potential for self-alienation is most harmful. Looking into one's

consciousness and focusing on the uncomfortable elements usually dissipates their effect, and is

by far the best way, I believe.

[Paul Mawdsley]

You could say that the reason some people avoid empathy is to avoid an emotion that makes them feel weak. This may be where Paul's point comes in, that perhaps it's not a weakness at all, but a tool to help us see and deal with reality.

Bingo! This, I believe, nails one of the most important obstacles to self-actualization. The fear of vulnerability that comes from a sense of being "not enough" in other people's eyes, experienced at a core level in our unconscious flow, is a key force shaping our inner patterns of owning and disowning, our personalities, our behaviours and our lives. We are built around our fear of "not enough."

Since other people are psychological mirrors, able to give us a lens into our nature as beings in a state of flow (I'm not overly comfortable with the standard spiritual language in this area because of its supernatural spin), when our sense of not enough in other people's eyes triggers the anxiety (fight or flight) associated with empathic vulnerability, we shut down to empathic information about who we are. I witness this in people every day, even people who are highly oriented to empathy. They can't handle hearing what they experience as "tough truths" about themselves without shutting down their empathic flow. Instead, they live inside a story they have created about who and what they are, which protects them by filling the space left by blocking real information from others. And don't challenge that story! It, and all their defense mechanisms, are built to avoid the anxiety of feeling not enough. Challenge their story about themselves and you bring out their monsters, their protectors and their warriors.

Every one of us grows up with some degree of feeling not enough. We live in a culture that uses shame and blame and guilt and intimidation as standard parenting practices to get inside and twist kids to the will of the parents. (Where would religion and parenting and taxation be without guilt and intimidation?) This creates much of the state of not enough when we are growing up. It is this anxiety of not enough that stops the integrating of the conscious and unconscious parts of the self. It is this anxiety that causes us to dump the unwanted parts of the self into unconsciousness. It is this anxiety that drives addictions. Anyone who has been through a twelve step program will recognize the importance of facing the anxiety of not enough. This is the source of the dark side of the human spirit.

The path to personal growth, to wholeness and to self-actualization requires that we go through fully experiencing and embracing the anxiety of not enough, with all its monsters, protectors and warriors. It requires that we cut through all the structures and defenses that had survival value at an earlier time but, now, cut us off from ourselves. It requires that we go through all the layers of defenses to get to ground zero at our core where we discover our deepest aloneness and vulnerability. I've lived it and I've helped others through it (people close to me who were struggling with shit and striving to grow). It feels and looks very much like an exorcism, or rather a series of exorcisms. All the body's systems go into defense mode in the face of our deepest fears as our defenses fall, right down to producing a fever and sweats to to get rid of an unwanted invader.

On the other side of this process, of fully experiencing and embracing the anxiety we have carried with us since childhood, there is calm and peace inside. There is no place inside us we are scared to go, no part of us we don't have access to. We can reclaim the parts of us we have disowned. We can discover who we are through the eyes of others without the fear of being overwhelmed or consumed. We can let go of our self-deluding stories that push uncomfortable facts to the unconscious dumping ground and, instead, just be open to experiencing the flow of information and how the facts line up. We can connect our conscious and unconscious processes to be more whole, more present, more in a state of flow. Then we get to do all the shit we did before...but in a new, healthier way.

Paul

[Paul Mawdsley]

Nice reply, Tony.

I second that.

Paul

PS: I call it radical empathy. :-)

[Dglgmut]

That was awesome. Thanks for writing that; it bridged a lot of gaps in my mind.

So, it's our weaknesses that we generally avoid thinking about. If other people reflect our weaknesses to us, we emotionally remove ourselves from the interaction.

Hmm... I wonder if it is possible to accept a weakness, or do you have to stop seeing it as a weakness? I think it's the latter.

Edit: Sometimes I like to compare self-evaluation to our evaluation of other things. For example, if I really like a piece of music, and people give me the sense that they don't like it, I'm not too bothered. This puts other people's opinions into perspective for me. Yes, we do get a reflection of ourselves when we interact with people, but some people are like funhouse mirrors.

We can avoid getting the reflection of weakness by hiding ourselves. As for the apparent trend among many Objectivists, I guess the idea here is that kindness is weakness--that accepting something as it is, flaws included, is a demonstration of weakness.

[Paul Mawdsley]

That was awesome. Thanks for writing that; it bridged a lot of gaps in my mind.

So, it's our weaknesses that we generally avoid thinking about. If other people reflect our weaknesses to us, we emotionally remove ourselves from the interaction.

Hmm... I wonder if it is possible to accept a weakness, or do you have to stop seeing it as a weakness? I think it's the latter.

Edit: Sometimes I like to compare self-evaluation to our evaluation of other things. For example, if I really like a piece of music, and people give me the sense that they don't like it, I'm not too bothered. This puts other people's opinions into perspective for me. Yes, we do get a reflection of ourselves when we interact with people, but some people are like funhouse mirrors.

We can avoid getting the reflection of weakness by hiding ourselves. As for the apparent trend among many Objectivists, I guess the idea here is that kindness is weakness--that accepting something as it is, flaws included, is a demonstration of weakness.

I'm short on time so I'll have to be short on detail. Vulnerability may be a state of weakness but it takes great strength and courage to go there. It is not a sign of weakness, but of strength to go to vulnerability. This is where we need to put understanding and caring before judgement for ourselves.

It is interesting that there is a large segment of the Objectivist culture that fights to not see the vulnerabilities and limits of Objectivism. It is possible, that in identifying with Objectivism, some people defend it using the same tools they use to defend their own sense of weakness and vulnerability.

[Paul Mawdsley]

Could you illustrate this "reciprocal whole-to-part view of causality" with a concrete example where you demonstrate and explain "how non-local effects can emerge from local relativistic interactions"?

Xray,

Just want you to know I did catch this question. I have a very complex answer but this is not the space for such an answer. I am creating a more simplified thought bubble and just need some time to write it out. Thanks for your patience.

Paul

[Dglgmut]

So much of Objectivism is about getting what you want; earning it. It takes strength to acknowledge our weaknesses and limitations--but when you can see what you want on the other side of an impassable fence, how do you move on?

In We The Living, Rand answered this question: kill yourself, kill your brain, or die trying to get what you want. Yes, she was talking about dictatorship, but the essence of the problem was an impassable obstacle.

How do you accept the reality of not being able to have something you want? You stop wanting it--either by distracting yourself with things within your realm of possibilities, or naturally in time. If you cannot stop wanting it, you cannot accept the reality... and must continue to challenge it without success (unless you surprise yourself).

We can only be vulnerable when we are aware of a weakness. If we are unaware of any weaknesses, we are not consciously exposing ourselves to anything. Now, what is better, to be open to the idea of vulnerability, and expose our weaknesses even though they, as I implied, necessarily bother us, or do we focus on what we do have and try to discover desires that can be satisfied on our side of the fence?

[Brant Gaede]

So much of Objectivism is about getting what you want; earning it. It takes strength to acknowledge our weaknesses and limitations--but when you can see what you want on the other side of an impassable fence, how do you move on?

In We The Living, Rand answered this question: kill yourself, kill your brain, or die trying to get what you want. Yes, she was talking about dictatorship, but the essence of the problem was an impassible obstacle.

How do you accept the reality of not being able to have something you want? You stop wanting it--either by distracting yourself with things within your realm of possibilities, or naturally in time. If you cannot stop wanting it, you cannot accept the reality... and must continue to challenge it without success (unless you surprise yourself).

We can only be vulnerable when we are aware of a weakness. If we are unaware of any weaknesses, we are not consciously exposing ourselves to anything. Now, what is better, to be open to the idea of vulnerability, and expose our weaknesses even though they, as I implied, necessarily bother us, or do we focus on what we do have and try to discover desires that can be satisfied on our side of the fence?

You have these seemingly very sophisticated evaluations. I think they need better grounding with actual examples. Even made up ones might do.

--Brant

it's too hard to understand what you are talking about--I'm not that smart

[Dglgmut]

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.