Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: [existlist] Re: Polly's brave new psychopathic world

Expand Messages
  • Herman
    Hi Mary, ... Yeah, sorry, I get way ahead of myself regularly :-) ... OK. ... So what appears to happen in the virtual space is that somehow two different
    Message 1 of 4 , Feb 13, 2010
      Hi Mary,

      On 14 February 2010 11:35, Mary <josephson45r@...> wrote:
      > Interesting, Polly, but I wasn't even thinking of empathy.

      Yeah, sorry, I get way ahead of myself regularly :-)

      > More the virtual space that's created in our minds through observation of and listening to others( language as virus concept).


      > I agree the capacity for empathy varies or is non-existent.

      So what appears to happen in the virtual space is that somehow two
      different schisms can occur. What is one becomes self/other self, both
      being realised as being in a relationship of mutual dependancy.

      Another schism that can occur is what is one becoming subject/object,
      with the subject pre-existing and pre-dominating it's object. It is
      only one of these real schisms that occur that is screwed up, IMO, and
      I think it is the latter. It is the misperception that leads to the
      concept of the soul etc. Enough said.



      > --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, Herman <hhofmeister@...> wrote:
      >> Hi Mary,
      >> On 14 February 2010 02:04, Mary <josephson45r@...> wrote:
      >> > Polly, I think through language, we're able to transcend the physical boundary of discrete bodies and inhabit their thoughts and emotions.
      >> Yes, I agree, most humans have the capacity for empathy.
      >> > And though there exists no hard boundary between the individual and society, unchallenged traditions and assumptions continue to maintain borders, rather than softening them. The implicit function of a boundary is to enable observation, then subsequent transference or interaction. Awareness of a border might fascinate and draw us across to expand our experience. Boundaries should be seen for what they are—artificial and temporary. Better to >consider them doors we're able to open and close through human intent and folly.
      >> I agree, and I'm sure it makes sense to anyone with a capacity for empathy.
      >> But there are those who do not have this capacity. There is a whole
      >> spectrum of personality disorders, from Aspergers to autism to
      >> psychopathy, the sufferers of which cannot understand the Other as
      >> Self. When one lacks this capacity but has certain other skills, it
      >> allows one to gravitate to the tops of organisations, because of the
      >> ability to make the "hard decisions". Of course, the decisions so made
      >> are not hard, they simply have fewer constraints affecting them then
      >> if it was one of us who would have to decide. Whereas we would take
      >> the Other as a Self into account, for the average psychopathic GM,
      >> CEO, director, general etc, the Other is only an object that is the
      >> means to an improved bottom line.
      >> I would add that I believe that the lack of a capacity for empathy is
      >> genetic, not environmental in origin, and that from an evolutionary
      >> point of view it is a highly desirable trait for some individuals to
      >> have.
      >> Polly
      >>  Mary
      >> >
      >> >
      >> > --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, Herman <hhofmeister@> wrote:
      >> >
      >> > I think you are quite right. Another way of putting it is we are trying to figure out just where we would like the boundary between self/other to be.
      >> >
      >> >
      >> >
      >> > ------------------------------------
      >> >
    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.