[MD] Problems with Intellectual control of Society

[plattholden at gmail.com]

On 9 Oct 2009 at 11:41, MarshaV wrote:

> Hi Platt,
> 
> Here's a definition of compassion: a feeling of deep sympathy and sorrow for
> another who is stricken by misfortune, accompanied by a strong desire to
> alleviate the suffering.  I don't see covering up an alcoholic's  bad
> behavior as necessarily a compassionate act, but a feeling of deep sympathy
> and sorrow for another's suffering seems natural, whether from a disease
> such as alcoholism or poverty due to illness or job loss, or a military gone
> insane.  Do you think I am wrong?
> 
> 
> Marsha   
> 
Greetings Marsha, 

I don't consider emotions to be either right or wrong. They are primarily 
responses to biological quality, are largely uncontrolable by others, and 
vary widely from person to person. So I tend not to judge them one way 
or another: "The MOQ sees emotions as a biological response to quality 
and not the same thing as quality." (LC, Note 141)

Behavior that results from emotions is another matter. That is 
controlable by others and society imposes many strictures to insure that 
biological emotional behavior doesn't undercut societal bonds.

As I indicated, the  feeling of compassion when acted upon can do harm 
as well as good. Perhaps the most egregious historical example is the 
Spanish Inquisition when heretics were burned at the stake to save their 
souls from eternal damnation. Other horrific actions taken in the name 
of a compassionate "public good" are familiar to all of us. For a less 
bloody but nevertheless telling example is when a children's ball game 
score is changed to 0-0 out of compassion for the losing team's feelings. 
Compassion trumps truth.

When Pirsig wrote the following about suffering perhaps he had in mind  
that there are consequences from behavior, and that those who are 
protected from those consequences out of a feeling of compassion are 
prevented from growing.

"That's why the absence of suffering last night seemed so ominous and 
her change to what looked like suffering today gave Phaedrus a feeling 
she was getting better. If you eliminate suffering from this world you 
eliminate life." (Lila, 29)

A long answer I'm afraid. And as always, I could be wrong. 

Platt





> 
> 
>   
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: moq_discuss-bounces at lists.moqtalk.org
> [mailto:moq_discuss-bounces at lists.moqtalk.org] On Behalf Of
> plattholden at gmail.com
> Sent: Friday, October 09, 2009 11:18 AM
> To: moq_discuss at moqtalk.org
> Subject: Re: [MD] Problems with Intellectual control of Society
> 
> On 9 Oct 2009 at 10:47, MarshaV wrote:
> 
> > Platt,
> > 
> > I cannot imagine how compassion has a tendency to enable self-destructive
> > behavior.  Maybe you can explain.
> > 
> > 
> > Marsha
> 
> Hi Marsha, 
> 
> The classic example is "compassionate" covering up for an alcoholic to 
> "help" her maintain her good standing among friends, neighbors and 
> business associates. The principle applies to many other situations 
> where compassion enables continuance of self-destructive behavior. 
> The largely negative results of the compassionate "War on Poverty" 
> illustrates the enabling principle.
> 
> Remember Hamlet's caution to his mother, "I must be cruel only to be 
> kind." Or Pirsig's observation:
> 
> "If you eliminate suffering from this world you eliminate life. There's no 
> evolution. Those species that don't suffer don't survive. Suffering is the 
> negative face of the Quality that drives the whole process. (Lila, 29)
> 
> Platt