[MD] Problems with Intellectual control of Society

[plattholden at gmail.com]

On 9 Oct 2009 at 17:11, MarshaV wrote:

> 
> Hi Platt,
> 
> I posted this quote earlier, but it may be appropriate in this post also as
> the most important response to compassion:
> 
> "Causes and results are infinite in number and variety.  Everything affects
> everything.  In this universe, when one thing changes, everything changes.
> Hence the great power of man in changing the world by changing himself."
> 
> Mr. Pirsig states something similar where he sites the first place to
> improve the world is in one's heart:
> 
> "The social values are right only if the individual values are right. The
> place to improve the world is first in one's own heart and head and hands,
> and then work outward from there."
>    (RMP, ZMM: Chapter 25)
> 
> 
> Marsha
> 

Hi Marsha,

Can't argue with that. As you know, I support individual freedom. And I 
think you'll agree that heart, head and hands must all work together. 
Emotions won't put food on the table.

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 4:07 PM
> To: moq_discuss at moqtalk.org
> Subject: Re: [MD] Problems with Intellectual control of Society
> 
> 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