Empathic

[Lorikeet]

5.jpg (39.32 KiB) Viewed 402 times

Empathy = objective.
Sympathy/Antipathy = subjective.

From consciousness towards self-consciousness.
An evolutionary process....from first-person, to second-person, and then third-person perspectives.

Sympathy is easier to evolve.
The mind simply projects itself - or what it knows of itself - into another's circumstances and them imagines how this other feels.
The next step is towards the third-person perspective - god perspective.
A projection of ego into a perspective independent from oneself and another - as a detached observer.

Here is where I believe nihilism emerges to protect the ego from this new source of anxiety and suffering.
In Abrahamism this position is occupied by 'god.'
Inspired by Judaism that has collectivised god to include all those who are believers. The chosen, in Judaism, or the faithful, in the other two Abrahamic variants.
God = collective humanity.
Humanity = God.

Jung called it the collective unconscious. Species memories binding all members of the same species - gradually expanding to include all life-forms in a collective identity.
Ego is outsourced - abstracted.
DNA = rudimentary form of memories, passed on from generation to generation.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Empathy is generally a good thing.

But there are nuances to the concept of empathy, i.e. blind empathy which can lead to very negative consequences.
There are parents who empathize with their child for reason X but that could compromise on Y which could be negative.
For example a parent may empathize a child [adult son or daughter] sufferings from hunger pangs which often get compounded and that leads to obesity and potential fatality. Such fatality has already happened.
see on Youtube, the series, My 600-lb Life | TLC
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ihch2b_xTvY

So we need a rational basis of empathy not just empathy.

[Age]

Empathy is generally a good thing.

But there are nuances to the concept of empathy, i.e. blind empathy which can lead to very negative consequences.
There are parents who empathize with their child for reason X but that could compromise on Y which could be negative.
For example a parent may empathize a child [adult son or daughter] sufferings from hunger pangs which often get compounded and that leads to obesity and potential fatality.

But 'this' is, obviously, not empathy at all.

Such fatality has already happened.
see on Youtube, the series, My 600-lb Life | TLC
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ihch2b_xTvY

So we need a rational basis of empathy not just empathy.

[Harbal]

So we need a rational basis of empathy not just empathy.

[Walker]

So we need a rational basis of empathy not just empathy.

- Of course. Empathy can be either spontaneous occuring, or it can be a deliberate practice.

- Empathy is to imagine oneself as the other life-form, experiencing what the other person is experiencing or will experience, and observing the effects of that experience upon your own psyche as if you were that person or creature.

- There is no rational basis (motive) for Spontaneous Empathy (SE).
- Spontaneous empathy hits one directly in the heart, and then goes to the head for rational processing. For example, TV commercials featuring suffering, neglected pets are likely to generate spontaneous empathy, but by the time that reaches the noggin for rational processing one may be less inclined to visit the animal shelter and spend one’s own remaining life as a caretaker for animals.

- However, Practicing Empathy (PE) makes for better communication, than no-empathy.
- The motives for better communication can range from helping, to hurting.

Helping: For example: using better communication in order to relieve suffering, usually mental suffering.
Hurting: For example, a con-man or con-woman hurts people by taking from them, and this is done when demonstrating trust as a tactic in order to receive demonstrated trust. Empathy enables the conman to determine what will constitute trust.
- The victims of the best con-men, don't feel conned. The man gives money to a con-woman, and the woman in return gives the man feelings of ... helping.
- Compromise: Capitalism, where two in relationship know what the other needs because of empathy, and then they trade from one another for mutual benefit.

The rational basis for practicing empathy is to generate compassion, because compassion clears away clouds of ignorance regarding what folks do.

[Walker]

5.jpg

Empathy = objective.

Yes.

I never looked at it that way, but by golly, I think you're right.

[Lorikeet]

Empathy is essential to the social instinct.
It cultivates an inclusive identity that promotes cooperation and self-sacrifice.
Selfish memes, extending the effectiveness of selfish genes.

Sympathy binds. Antipathy repulses.

But empathy is also used to get into the mind of the enemy or a prey.
Hunters utilize it to become successful, leading to the new source of anxiety and suffering I spoke of - primordial sin is based on the guilt an empathic being can only feel.
Ouroboros....life must consume life.
The necessity of killing must be reduced through ritual - thanksgiving.
The hunter pays homage to the prey he just killed - thanking it for its 'sacrifice'.
Empathy is not always sympathetic.
A talented warrior must empathize with the enemy he is tasked to destroy - get into his mind, think as he thinks, judge as he judged, perceive the necessity of his choices before he makes them.

Quote - Harrris,Thomas (1).jpg (49.52 KiB) Viewed 343 times

Empathy begins as sympathy/antipathy - subjective projections - and evolves, moving towards increasing objectivity - third-person perspectives.
The movement - evolution - is what exposes the ego to disconcerting awareness of itself relative to others - and so nihilism emerges to shelter the ego using language.
The first step is essential to social behaviours - reinforcing the cooperative bonds that can make a group competitively effective.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Empathy = objective.

Yes.
I never looked at it that way, but by golly, I think you're right.

Empathy [an evolutionary default] is objective in the sense it it a neural system that exists in ALL humans in the DNA but expressed in different degrees of activeness. Empathy [whatever the name] exist regardless i.e. independent of subjective opinions and judgment of it.

The basis of empathy is mirror neurons;

A mirror neuron is a neuron that fires both when an organism acts and when the organism observes the same action performed by another.[1][2][3]
Thus, the neuron "mirrors" the behavior of the other, as though the observer were itself acting. Mirror neurons are not always physiologically distinct from other types of neurons in the brain; their main differentiating factor is their response patterns.[4] By this definition, such neurons have been directly observed in humans[5] and primate species,[6] and in birds.[7]

Neuroscientists such as Marco Iacoboni have argued that mirror neuron systems in the human brain help humans understand the actions and intentions of other people. In addition, Iacoboni has argued that mirror neurons are the neural basis of the human capacity for emotions such as empathy.[17]
-WIKI

How it works is;
when an entity capable of empathy faces and anticipate pains and suffering in another, the mirror neurons spontaneously generate the same pains and suffering within his brain.
Since all humans want to avoid pains and sufferings, the empath will try of alleviate the source of the external pains especially do not act to generate pains and sufferings to others.
Here is where sympathy and compassion are generated to alleviate and prevent first the empath own pains and sufferings, and thereafter to assist the others to alleviate their own pains.

The objective empathy system within the brain is not exclusively within the domain of the objective moral system within the brain, it is merely a mechanism to facilitate to prevent evil acts upon any moral judgments.

Because the empathy is instinctual and spontaneous, one need be mindful [pause], reason and assess whether to proceed with the empathic related act.
There are parent and spouses who naturally empathize with the withdrawals pains and sufferings of a drug addict, and proceed to by drugs for them subconsciously to alleviate one own mirrored pains within oneself.

In the case of morality, a reasonably empathized person will feels the potential pains and sufferings of the others whom he intend to kill or harm instinctively within himself, thus will not proceed to kill or harm others.

A highly morally competent moral agent need not be driven by empathy to avoid killing and harming others, but rather the indifference to evil act is just naturally moral as driven by the objective moral system within.

[Age]

'Empathy', in a sense, is having the ability to understand, and/or feel, 'the other'.

This ability only happens fully when one is Truly 'listening' to 'the other'.

Ever expressing, 'I know how you feel', 'I understand how you must be feeling, 'I understand what you must be feeling', 'I understand what you must be going through', or anything else that means more or less the same, before actually ever fully 'listening' is not 'empathy' at all. you are only just expressing/telling 'the other' what you understand and/or feel. you are, in fact, wanting 'them' to understand and know 'about you' instead. Which is about the worst one can do in 'this situation'.

you are not 'listening' to 'the other' at all, which is what is Truly needed in order for True 'empathy' to occur and happen. Only once one knows, exactly, how 'the other' is Truly 'feeling' and 'thinking', then 'that' is Empathy.

See, how you people see, think, and feel about 'any situation' can be completely different and even the exact opposite among you.

What is 'abuse' to one can be 'love' to another, and conversely, what is 'love' to one can be 'abuse' to another. And, if one does not allow 'the other' to express, fully, about how they saw, thought, and/or felt about 'a situation' for absolutely anyone else to 'assume' something "them self" here, prior, is, besides not being 'empathy' at all it is in fact just another form of abuse that you adult human beings put on and do to 'others'.

[Lorikeet]

'Empathy', in a sense, is having the ability to understand, and/or feel, 'the other'.

This ability only happens fully when one is Truly 'listening' to 'the other'.

Listening and....wathing.
Watch what the other does, despite what he says.
What he does, his actions, are expressions of his will - what he says are expressions of his training, his indoctrination, his ideals....his pretences.

Ever expressing, 'I know how you feel', 'I understand how you must be feeling, 'I understand what you must be feeling', 'I understand what you must be going through', or anything else that means more or less the same, before actually ever fully 'listening' is not 'empathy' at all. you are only just expressing/telling 'the other' what you understand and/or feel. you are, in fact, wanting 'them' to understand and know 'about you' instead. Which is about the worst one can do in 'this situation'.

Yes...this is sympathy.
The sympathetic observer projecting himself in another's circumstances and imagining how it must be.
Subjectivity fails.

True empathy tries to eliminate the subject's projections of his own self-awarness upon another, to attain an objective understanding.
A true empath can know another better than he knows himself, just as a human can know a dog, or a chimpanzee better than it can ever know itself.

you are not 'listening' to 'the other' at all, which is what is Truly needed in order for True 'empathy' to occur and happen. Only once one knows, exactly, how 'the other' is Truly 'feeling' and 'thinking', then 'that' is Empathy.

Watching.....not only listening.
Watching over a long period of time, determines your understanding of another....despite what he says.

See, how you people see, think, and feel about 'any situation' can be completely different and even the exact opposite among you.

Huh?

What is 'abuse' to one can be 'love' to another, and conversely, what is 'love' to one can be 'abuse' to another. And, if one does not allow 'the other' to express, fully, about how they saw, thought, and/or felt about 'a situation' for absolutely anyone else to 'assume' something "them self" here, prior, is, besides not being 'empathy' at all it is in fact just another form of abuse that you adult human beings put on and do to 'others'.

An inscription on a temple in Delphi....Know Thyself.
Few people know themselves.
They simply repeat what they think they know of themselves.
The majority emotionally corrupted hyperinflate or hypodeflate themselves, in their own eyes.
The express their over- under-estimaitons of themselves to validate them.

But, their actions, over time....speak the truth, despite what they say and think of themselves.
Words express beliefs....actions express the will.
Self-deciet makes a deception more convincing..... so self-deception has evolved as a survival strategy.

[Age]

'Empathy', in a sense, is having the ability to understand, and/or feel, 'the other'.

This ability only happens fully when one is Truly 'listening' to 'the other'.

Listening and....wathing.
Watch what the other does, despite what he says.
What he does, his actions, are expressions of his will - what he says are expressions of his training, his indoctrination, his ideals....his pretences.

I agree wholeheartedly here, except that not just 'hes' are involved here.

I also say, 'watch and see with the ears', and, 'listen and hear with the eyes', also.

Sometime one can 'see', and understand more, by 'seeing' what one is really saying, and meaning, by their actions/behaviors rather than just the words that they are saying and using, and conversely, one can 'hear', and learn more, by just 'listening' to what is really be said, and meant, behind just the words being expressed and presented.

This deeper or Truer way of being 'empathic' is called 'reading between the lines', or what was once referred to as, 'reading minds'.

Ever expressing, 'I know how you feel', 'I understand how you must be feeling, 'I understand what you must be feeling', 'I understand what you must be going through', or anything else that means more or less the same, before actually ever fully 'listening' is not 'empathy' at all. you are only just expressing/telling 'the other' what you understand and/or feel. you are, in fact, wanting 'them' to understand and know 'about you' instead. Which is about the worst one can do in 'this situation'.

Yes...this is sympathy.
The sympathetic observer projecting himself in another's circumstances and imagining how it must be.
Subjectivity fails.

True empathy tries to eliminate the subject's projections of his own self-awarness upon another, to attain an objective understanding.
A true empath can know another better than he knows himself, just as a human can know a dog, or a chimpanzee better than it can ever know itself.

But, once one knows the True and ultimate 'Self', then 'this One' can never know a perceived "another" better.

you are not 'listening' to 'the other' at all, which is what is Truly needed in order for True 'empathy' to occur and happen. Only once one knows, exactly, how 'the other' is Truly 'feeling' and 'thinking', then 'that' is Empathy.

Watching.....not only listening.
Watching over a long period of time, determines your understanding of another....despite what he says.

See, how you people see, think, and feel about 'any situation' can be completely different and even the exact opposite among you.

Huh?

What do you mean by, 'Huh', here?

What is 'abuse' to one can be 'love' to another, and conversely, what is 'love' to one can be 'abuse' to another. And, if one does not allow 'the other' to express, fully, about how they saw, thought, and/or felt about 'a situation' for absolutely anyone else to 'assume' something "them self" here, prior, is, besides not being 'empathy' at all it is in fact just another form of abuse that you adult human beings put on and do to 'others'.

An inscription on a temple in Delphi....Know Thyself.
Few people know themselves.

Can you name one person who knows "them" 'self'?

If yes, then who is that, exactly?

And, how do 'they' define/describe "them" 'self', exactly?

They simply repeat what they think they know of themselves.
The majority emotionally corrupted hyperinflate or hypodeflate themselves, in their own eyes.
The express their over- under-estimaitons of themselves to validate them.

But, their actions, over time....speak the truth, despite what they say and think of themselves.
Words express beliefs....actions express the will.

Words only express beliefs when one has beliefs.

If one has no beliefs, then what is being expressed is, obviously, not beliefs.

Self-deciet makes a deception more convincing..... so self-deception has evolved as a survival strategy.

Again, can you name one person who knows "them" 'self'?

When, and if, 'you', ever actually come to know, who and what the, One and only, Self is, exactly, then get back to 'us'.

Until then could 'you' be imagining things here, which are not actually True and Right? Or, is this not possible from 'your' perspective?

[Lorikeet]

This deeper or Truer way of being 'empathic' is called 'reading between the lines', or what was once referred to as, 'reading minds'.

Yes...all evaluations are triangulations.

In this case an unknown other is compared to a relatively known self, the goal being understanding.
The degree one objectively knows oneself - Know Thyself - is determined by the degree of his over- under-estimation.
This corrupts an understanding of another.

In sympathy/antipathy - the first evolutionary step - an individual simply projects what he knows/understands of himself into another's circumstances and then imagines how he would perform or feel.
Sympathy is easier because minds ten d to over-estimate themselves or they tend to focus on the positive.
Antipathy is the unloading of one's own acknowledge negative assessments of self upon another, requiring self-critique.

Empathy moves beyond this sympathy/antipathy projection - from subjective projections towards objectivity.
Empathy necessitates an attuning of projections, perception of details, to adjust and differentiate.

But, once one knows the True and ultimate 'Self', then 'this One' can never know a perceived "another" better.

Don't know what "ultimate self" means....because 'self' is a process, not a htings....or multiple processes, to be more precise, guided by underlying pattern.
This is why people adjust their inherited traits, over time, or due to environmental pressures - adapt.

Can you name one person who knows "them" 'self'?

Omniscience is an idea that cannot be realized.
Know Thyself is a lifelong process....never to be completed.
Gnosis is a measure of ignorance, just as strength is a measure of weakness, and independence is a measure of dependence.

No absolutes = no indivisible, immutable, complete, final, singularities.
All is process - energy.
All is movement, change.
Ergo, free-will is not an absolute state, but a active process - a will is never completely free, it is always relatively free.

Know thyself is a continuous process, helping an individual evaluate which options are available and which one it can attain.
The degree one can know himself determines the degree he can evaluate other.

And, how do 'they' define/describe "them" 'self', exactly?

Self, represented by "I" = not a hting....but a continuum held together by memories - DNA (inherited) and experiential.
Self is a dynamic process unified by known and unknown, conscious and unconscious memories.
Therefore, to know thyself is to recollect....to re-memeber.
This requires courage because not everything is positive. the negative aspects of oneself are the ones many usually dismiss or want to forget, using nihilism to shelter them from themselves.
Most don't really want to know themselves. they want to know only what is positive, flattering, comforting about themselves.

This is why I say that nihilism is a school of thought emerging to protect the ego - lucid part of self - from a new source of pain/suffering, exposed by the mind's evolving ability to perceive oneself in the third-person - objectively.
Intersubjectivity is where they seek shelter from their own emerging self-awareness.

Words only express beliefs when one has beliefs.

If one has no beliefs, then what is being expressed is, obviously, not beliefs.

No....words represent representations of reality.
To put it another way....words refer to mental abstractions which are created in the brain. These abstractions may refer to external phenomena or may refer to other abstractions......
The mind can synthesize and even invert sensory data....giving it the air of a divine creator of reality.
When abstractions, using words, refer only to other abstractions, existing in other brains or in books, then they are disconnected from reality.

A centaur, for example is a synthesis of two perceptible phenomena ....only existing in the minds of those who have linguistically shared this abstraction - existing nowhere but in their collective minds.

To know oneself one must begin by knowing and understanding how he thinks; what the words he uses are, or what is their utility; how to determine what is more probable....and it requires courage to acknowledge what he comes to know as being more probable.
High IQ is often corrupted by a feeble spirit...a fragile ego.

[Age]

This deeper or Truer way of being 'empathic' is called 'reading between the lines', or what was once referred to as, 'reading minds'.

Yes...all evaluations are triangulations.

In this case an unknown other is compared to a relatively known self, the goal being understanding.
The degree one objectively knows oneself - Know Thyself - is determined by the degree of his over- under-estimation.
This corrupts an understanding of another.

In sympathy/antipathy - the first evolutionary step - an individual simply projects what he knows/understands of himself into another's circumstances and then imagines how he would perform or feel.
Sympathy is easier because minds ten d to over-estimate themselves or they tend to focus on the positive.
Antipathy is the unloading of one's own acknowledge negative assessments of self upon another, requiring self-critique.

Empathy moves beyond this sympathy/antipathy projection - from subjective projections towards objectivity.
Empathy necessitates an attuning of projections, perception of details, to adjust and differentiate.

But, once one knows the True and ultimate 'Self', then 'this One' can never know a perceived "another" better.

Don't know what "ultimate self" means....because 'self' is a process, not a htings....or multiple processes, to be more precise, guided by underlying pattern.
This is why people adjust their inherited traits, over time, or due to environmental pressures - adapt.

Can you name one person who knows "them" 'self'?

Omniscience is an idea that cannot be realized.
Know Thyself is a lifelong process....never to be completed.
Gnosis is a measure of ignorance, just as strength is a measure of weakness, and independence is a measure of dependence.

No absolutes = no indivisible, immutable, complete, final, singularities.
All is process - energy.
All is movement, change.
Ergo, free-will is not an absolute state, but a active process - a will is never completely free, it is always relatively free.

Know thyself is a continuous process, helping an individual evaluate which options are available and which one it can attain.
The degree one can know himself determines the degree he can evaluate other.

And, how do 'they' define/describe "them" 'self', exactly?

Self, represented by "I" = not a hting....but a continuum held together by memories - DNA (inherited) and experiential.
Self is a dynamic process unified by known and unknown, conscious and unconscious memories.
Therefore, to know thyself is to recollect....to re-memeber.
This requires courage because not everything is positive. the negative aspects of oneself are the ones many usually dismiss or want to forget, using nihilism to shelter them from themselves.
Most don't really want to know themselves. they want to know only what is positive, flattering, comforting about themselves.

This is why I say that nihilism is a school of thought emerging to protect the ego - lucid part of self - from a new source of pain/suffering, exposed by the mind's evolving ability to perceive oneself in the third-person - objectively.
Intersubjectivity is where they seek shelter from their own emerging self-awareness.

Words only express beliefs when one has beliefs.

If one has no beliefs, then what is being expressed is, obviously, not beliefs.

No....words represent representations of reality.
To put it another way....words refer to mental abstractions which are created in the brain. These abstractions may refer to external phenomena or may refer to other abstractions......
The mind can synthesize and even invert sensory data....giving it the air of a divine creator of reality.
When abstractions, using words, refer only to other abstractions, existing in other brains or in books, then they are disconnected from reality.

A centaur, for example is a synthesis of two perceptible phenomena ....only existing in the minds of those who have linguistically shared this abstraction - existing nowhere but in their collective minds.

To know oneself one must begin by knowing and understanding how he thinks; what the words he uses are, or what is their utility; how to determine what is more probable....and it requires courage to acknowledge what he comes to know as being more probable.
High IQ is often corrupted by a feeble spirit...a fragile ego.

When, and if, you ever get to actually knowing the 'Self', then back to 'us' with what 'you' uncovered and found.

Until then, could what you believe here be possibly wrong in any way?

[Lorikeet]

You are an absolutist.

Everything I or anyone says might be wrong....

No completions.
No perfection.
All is a measure of degrees.
All value-judgments are triangulations - estimations, approximations - within an objective reality which can never be completely known.
No omnipotence - strength/power is a measure of weakness/powerlessness.
No omniscience - knowledge/understanding is a measure of ignorance.
No absolute freedom - a man is as independent as his power/strength allows.

Know Thyself is never completed......yet some know themselves more than others....and the wise can know another more than he can ever know himself.
Low I can never know what a high IQ is, but a high IQ can know what a low IQ is more than it knows itself: can a chimpanzee know what a human is?
Yet, a human can know what a chimpanzee is and use this knowledge to predict its behaviour.

[Lorikeet]

Self-awarness is this endless pursuit of an identity through knowledge, and the acceptance of one’s past.
Without the courage of acceptance all knowledge is rendered useless.