The Next Major Human Advancement. HUGE.

reply to post by Sahabi


I'm assuming that "kgnow" is a reference to gnostic beliefs.

Gnosticism is simply an acceptance of that which Judaic religions disregard. It is not a solve-all, or even close. It is simply taking that which was thrown aside because it complicated matters, and setting it carefully back into the equation. Sweet. One part solved.

Now for the next dozen parts. Remember, our work in understanding where we come from and where we're going isn't even close to done. We don't even know what our special little ignoramuses-in-office have planned for all of humanity...are we going to sit like lumps on a log, and master technology in our little boxes?

Or are we going to jump outside this little world and see the answers for ourselves?

reply to post by Asktheanimals


Judging by your username, I can see that you are probably very familiar with the ways of compassion.

Here is a Bible verse for all to consider which I'm sure you are probably aware of. All I can see that it does is reveal that this is indeed not a new concept.

JOB 12:

7 “But ask the animals, and they will teach you,
or the birds in the sky, and they will tell you;
8 or speak to the earth, and it will teach you,
or let the fish in the sea inform you.
9 Which of all these does not know
that the hand of the Lord has done this?
10 In his hand is the life of every creature
and the breath of all mankind.

Source: biblegateway.com

What this verse says is basically what I'm saying. When you try to see from the perspective of other beings and learn about what they are learning about and see what they are seeing, then you are basically learning from God and seeing from God's perspective. That sounds very practical to me and much more awesome than any human technological endeavor.

reply to post by Starchild23

"I'm assuming that........"

Stop "assuming" and kgnow instead!


I used to enjoy your replies, but your recent tone of attack, destroy, judge, and belittle is overwhelming.

I am Gnostic, Agnostic, Buddhist, Christian, Muslim, Jew, Hindu, Luciferian, Atheist, Occultist, etc., etc.

But in terms of relativity, I adhere to absolutely no religion, doctrine, dogma, or ideology. No, I am not a gnostic.




When I write "kgnow" it is a simple play on words to better embody what I mean:

• Kgnow: (know + gnosis): - That which is self-evident through direct observation/experience, but can not be properly described by words without corruption.

Originally posted by Starchild23
reply to post by smithjustinb

 

The greatest expression of destructive compassion is gratitude.

To be grateful for that which you destroyed to serve yourself.

To be grateful for that which you destroyed isn't compassion at all. Compassion inolves feeling pain that you caused or joy that you caused or the emotions that exist uncaused by you. In accordance with compassion, you should not be grateful for what you have done as long as there is another being who is sufferring for what you have done. You should make yourself suffer along with them.

On the flip side. Don't bomb a village, give them food. Throw a party. Have compassion in that scenario and celebrate.

reply to post by smithjustinb

To be grateful for that which you destroyed isn't compassion at all. Compassion inolves feeling pain that you caused or joy that you caused or the emotions that exist uncaused by you. In accordance with compassion, you should not be grateful for what you have done as long as there is another being who is sufferring for what you have done. You should make yourself suffer along with them.

On the flip side. Don't bomb a village, give them food. Throw a party. Have compassion in that scenario and celebrate.

Gratitude shows that you have given that life which you've taken value, and that you appreciate that value. Without compassion, you give that life no value, and without that value, there is no gratitude. Gratitude bridges that gap in the presence of destruction.

Is this clearer?

Originally posted by arpgme
What about Altruism, putting other's well-being before your own.

Instead of just compassion, being able to feel another's pain and help them when you can, what about giving whatever you can to make others happy? Always putting others before yourself.?

Compassion requires honesty. If you choose to be compassionate, you're going to have to be compassionate towards joy as well as pain. You're going to have to try to go through what another is going through no matter what it is they go through. So, knowing this, would you not do your best to make sure what they are going through is something you prefer to go through? That's when you do everything you can to make others happy.

Anyway, what do you think of the whole Compassion vs. Altruism thing?

I don't know about putting other people's well being before your own, but I do agree with levelling the playing field. I'd never starve at your expense, but I might starve at the expense of two. Two is greater than one. I don't know, altruism and compassion sound pretty much the same, assuming altruism means what you defined it as in your first sentence. I've never known what altruism meant until I read it there.

reply to post by Dustytoad


That's an entirely negative way to look at it. In a positive (and I use these terms dialectically, not morally) sense, there's much to be said about why the world functions this way: yes, the world becomes as much habituated to our collective relationship to it as our body becomes habituated to our ways of thinking. Now, the real puzzle is: what does this mean morally?

reply to post by Starchild23

Are you talking about changing physical matter with the power of thought?

Yes, that's the implication. But more interestingly, it justifies the age old dictum "as above, so below", or, to put it more philosophically, helps us better appreciate the spiritual significance of the physical world around us: no more is the physical world merely a mindless and empty arena of chance, but the deliberate creation of an intelligent architect - each thing in the world being a MEANINGFUL projection of a spiritual concept (or archetype).

Being able to affect matter with thought presupposes an intuitive knowledge of the correspondences between the conceptual and the physical.

And BTW, that is a total non-issue for me. I could care less about mental or magical tricks - this knowledge may grant us such powers, but the real significance of this scientific breakthrough - probably some years away (hard to guess, but i wouldn't imagine it being longer than a hundred or so years) - is philosophical: it catapults man into a whole new realm of discussion: God exists - the universe implies it: will man interpret this along secular, atheistic terms, ala Buddhism, or Hinduism, or, along more theistic lines, as in Judaism and Christianity.

Originally posted by Starchild23
reply to post by smithjustinb

 

The greatest expression of destructive compassion is gratitude.

To be grateful for that which you destroyed to serve yourself.

It seems like you're talking about destruction in the way of consumption as food. You're basically saying we should be grateful for our food. Instead of being grateful for the food, shouldn't we instead just feel security that we are getting to eat and live another day while simultaneously feeling the perspective of the life we had to take and the lives of those who that life mattered to?

Compassion- trying to see from another's perspective- is seen as important in the way of understanding because we know that to have a single relative perspective is further from objective truth than seeing from more than one relative perspective. So the more you try to understand what others are experiencing on their own relative terms, the more you can understand the elusive objective truth.

I understand the basics of what you are saying but what about the individual cases? What about the subjective definition of what would be considered "good" for someone? Perhaps a person has mental 'problems' and thinks that hurting another person would be 'good' for them because it would perhaps make them stronger?

What do you base morality off of if you aren't a religious type person?

reply to post by smithjustinb


Compassion will always remain something people do when they think others are watching; or when they invest in an afterlife. And once the compassionate individual has achieved his piousness, it leaves the sufferer feeling pitied and small.

Being pitied is an awful feeling. I would suggest compassion is not going to be a great discovery.

Originally posted by ErroneousDylan
What do you base morality off of if you aren't a religious type person?

It's easy. You use reason. If you are aware that others are just as aware as you, you then decide what you don't want to happen to you and apply that same "moral code" to everyone else. I don't want to punch a stranger in the face because I wouldn't like it if it happened to me. No need for religion.

Every time people create morals, they're basically saying This is what I don't want to happen to me.

reply to post by LesMisanthrope


Are there people who are compassionate for egotistical reasons? Yes. Or who perform acts of compassion out an ulterior concern for their afterlife condition? I suppose. But these are the two lowest grades of people - and if to you nothing lies beyond it, it can then only imply that you yourself have not advanced beyond those very superficial and egotistic conceptions of compassion: The totally selfless compassion which I MYSELF and probably many others here experience, is compassion done out of principle: because it is good to show compassion. Good for them, good for myself, good for the world at large. They do it because they love how it makes themselves and other people happy: they do it because at the core of their being, they believe compassion is truly what will set man free from his existential worries.

And as for the possibility of making the one shown compassion feel small and pitiable? In truly esoteric terms, the one who really appreciates the power of compassion understands that to show compassion i.e. to give something to another, is actually to RECEIVE the serene and tranquil blessing that such an action bequeaths on the giver. As for the person on the other side who doesn't know any better - to show compassion for them depends really on the individual. If it's someone like yourself, a morose misanthropic type thinker, I would bet that compassion would be an irksome thing for you to experience: WHY? Because you misread motives, imaging in your cynicism that people only act for the reasons you stated, when as a matter of fact, the vast majority of people, especially those of a more spiritual and cosmic conscious orientation, the compassion they do is for the betterment of the world: themselves, others, and society.

reply to post by dontreally


Compassion has nothing to do with receiving. It has to do with appreciating that person or creature and their struggles in life, and feeling a sort of sympathy for them.

You don't receive anything except understanding.

reply to post by LesMisanthrope


Logic has nothing to do with morals. If you found a $100 dollar bill on the ground, your logical solution would be to take it. It's money, it's useful.

Morally, you would donate it to a charity, because it isn't yours to spend on personal stuff, and you figure the best solution is to be generous with it.

Logic and moral is not the same. Logic is dedicated to survival and obvious cause and effect issues, whereas moral is dedicated to warm fuzzy feelings by doing what's right.

reply to post by LesMisanthrope


If you feel that way about compassion, I never want to be around you when I break my leg...

reply to post by Sahabi



That "kgnow" definition sound like it would very much apply to the concept of God...which is hilarious, considering every definition ever known had to be handed down by words in some form, which means no spoken or written definition will ever be sufficiently accurate.

My most accurate definition of god is this one word: SOURCE. That's what I call it now.

Nice post,

What is interesting is your reference to Einstein and the idea that his ideas led to a greater understand of the Universe. I'd say they didn't, the tangible effect of his work was the ability for man to kill more men, in a shorter time, with less effort then ever before. The nuke is his legacy and not much else. Theory's don't add to a civilization's evolvement, we once theorized the earth was flat, but introductions of "things" that alter the process of living do actually alter the evolutionary process. Some people got ideas from Tesla and Einstein and introduced things to alter our process, but the theories themselves are not as significant as things that touch people in a way they can feel and albert was not an inventor in the way Tesla was.

A theory of compassion would do nothing to change anything. But, as you say, the ability to actually stop the judgment for a moment and actually realize the person doing whatever they are doing in front of you is YOU, and to KNOW this, would change everything. Additions of things that lead further toward the knowingness that all is one are evolutionary triggers, theories - not at all, and things that simply threaten the inhabitants or kill the inhabitants more effectively are a devolutionary trigger, which I would say was Alberts biggest tangible legacy.

reply to post by crankyoldman


Einsein gave them something to work from. Once they'd proven him wrong, they suddenly had the actual truth, and now they can go from there.

Just as Edison formed the foundation for the modern LED, Einstein formed the foundation for modern physics.

Originally posted by dontreally
reply to post by LesMisanthrope

 

Are there people who are compassionate for egotistical reasons? Yes. Or who perform acts of compassion out an ulterior concern for their afterlife condition? I suppose. But these are the two lowest grades of people - and if to you nothing lies beyond it, it can then only imply that you yourself have not advanced beyond those very superficial and egotistic conceptions of compassion: The totally selfless compassion which I MYSELF and probably many others here experience, is compassion done out of principle: because it is good to show compassion. Good for them, good for myself, good for the world at large. They do it because they love how it makes themselves and other people happy: they do it because at the core of their being, they believe compassion is truly what will set man free from his existential worries.

And as for the possibility of making the one shown compassion feel small and pitiable? In truly esoteric terms, the one who really appreciates the power of compassion understands that to show compassion i.e. to give something to another, is actually to RECEIVE the serene and tranquil blessing that such an action bequeaths on the giver. As for the person on the other side who doesn't know any better - to show compassion for them depends really on the individual. If it's someone like yourself, a morose misanthropic type thinker, I would bet that compassion would be an irksome thing for you to experience: WHY? Because you misread motives, imaging in your cynicism that people only act for the reasons you stated, when as a matter of fact, the vast majority of people, especially those of a more spiritual and cosmic conscious orientation, the compassion they do is for the betterment of the world: themselves, others, and society.

I, too, can make assumptions: You are someone who's never been pitied because you're probably always on the giving end. Would you show compassion to a fellow who just put harm to another being? Yes you would—out of principle. Because if you didn't, you'd risk your piousness and everything you stand for. It's time to be honest with yourself: are you compassionate if no one is around to see it? Is the lion compassionate? The wolf?

The problem isn't compassion, only the way it's handed out indiscriminately to everyone. People who give, for the purpose of giving, only do so to receive something. To be compassionate for the purpose of compassion, is the same. Namely: vanity.