We form ideology from the knowledge we acquire and we acquire knowledge from observation, the thing about ideology is it becomes a state that no longer depends on observation. This is a flaw that can develop in human perspective because that state is no longer open to exploration and growth. Compassion and efficiency are natural values because they exist without a conceptual basis, we identify them automatically in observation, not by way of the evaluation of knowledge.
So knowledge has its place in serving our senses, not in substituting them. This is plain and simple logic to me but then most people already exist in a conceptually designed reality and so when I speak in terms of observation others tend to miss my point, it is a paradigm difference and with a paradigm difference English is not always English.
An example is evolution; it is nature proving by trial and error to build efficiency, the more efficient something becomes the better chance it has to survive, but this depends more on adaption than strength or intelligence.
Then there are a number of animals that display compassion, despite being incapable of advanced conceptual reason, something like a mother protecting its young is a sign that evolution has developed beyond simple self preservation, in a sense it is love that expands to encompass family and friends, sometimes other members of the species in general, sometimes interspecies expressions of this phenomena occur.
So compassion is related to evolutionary efficiency; it is the natural result of trial and error that developed before reason hit its singularity event. Compassion isn’t an ideology sourced of the acquisition of knowledge, it is already in our genetics, what acquired knowledge can threaten to do is diminish our natural sense of it, in essence we reason around compassion despite having proven its advantages to survival.
Things like fear and desire have two incarnations; instinctive compulsion, which is a natural value, and conceptual compulsion, which is designed by our psyche. They are associated but without observation of how they can apply in relation to compassion and efficiency, where they are appropriate and where they have consequence, they can prove to be destructive compulsions.
So I consider fear and desire to be natural values also, just that they need to be measured in accordance to other natural values, and ideology simply threatens to replace our ability to observe where those natural values apply.
I agree with everything, especially the difference between ideologies, principles and beliefs. The only thing I’m having doubts about is fear and desire. For fear and desire to exist there must be some kind of stimulation first, they are not profound like our senses/stressors are so without stimulation they won’t be ‘compulsed’. I’m arguing that we are the ones designing our psyche and after we do we can observe the consequences.
You can’t be so sure that is how we form ideologies. There’s a lot of factors. Anyone who is exposed to some form of media is surely affected by some kind of ideology. Even a simple commercial can pack so much info. Unless we truly know the whole scope of how our brains work, I don’t think you can just put it as that.
“This is plain and simple logic to me but then most people already exist in a conceptually designed reality and so when I speak in terms of observation others tend to miss my point”
Too tooty… It could just be a difference in expression. You live in Australia. I’m sure there’s a lot of slight differences.
Yeah, I’m not trying to toot my own horn with that, I am acknowledging a difference in expression with it, not being condescending. I don’t think it has anything to do with me being Australian, I speak more to other Australians than anyone else and they have the same issue with me.
What I am saying is that people judge things by way of an ideological design, what they can do is just simply observe; in a state where people are not compelled to justify behaviour 24/7, they only see how reality really is. People talk their way out of addressing issue, talk their way into sustaining issues, but that is ultimately contrary to progress. That I try to just observe and put it into words, while everyone else first observes then filters it through their ideology before putting it into words. I’m not saying I have this mastered, just that it makes a big difference with how it is seen. I am saying thing how I see them, not how I want them to be (idealism) and not how I want others to see them (conditioning).
There is the idea that if you could go back to when Hitler was a baby and kill him, we basically bomb The West Bank for the same reason; making excuses to behave horribly doesn’t change the fact we are behaving horribly.
Everyone tweaks thought and situations to fit their narrative. I don’t think it’s ideals vs non-ideals. It’s just what kind of ideals or what combination of ideals (Even if personal bias would like to believe that it’s not). Meeting people of different beliefs and walks of life, the more I believe this. The more people you meet and get to know, the more you see parallels. I don’t know how to explain it, but it is kind of like a “meta-sterotype” or whatever. It all has to stem from somewhere.
Personal observations are often useless in a group because only you can see it. It doesn’t mean that others don’t, it’s just different from yours, for all you know they are probably thinking the same thing towards you.
In terms of political, yes I do agree largely. Identity politics kills any sort of progress, and this is probably the popular theme of what you are talking about.
For sure, what makes us all different is our ideological filter, but what makes us all the same is we observe, our ideological filters simply process those observations in a way we can come to terms with them. That is the thing; a lot of the time we simply find it easier to solve our way around the issue in our head rather than in action, imagine getting a thorn in your foot but deciding to brace through the pain rather than removing it? If you try hard enough you can rationalise justifiable cause for leaving the thorn there.
That is an example of what I am talking about, but granted removing a thorn is much more within our power than something like ending poverty, but overcoming the pain with reasoning is also much more difficult due to its simplicity, it is relativity; suffering children is far more important than a sore foot. :)
“If you try hard enough you can rationalise justifiable cause for leaving the thorn there.”
Seeing as a lot of aspects of life are built this way, I also don’t see it as a bad way to go. Humanity has gone this direction(whatever direction this is) with a billion thorns.
I think compassion is related to observation and ideology is related to reason; you would think the ideal is that both remain strong and active in your life, but we could get tired of either one, or even both, there is a danger in all those possibilities and I think a lot of people fall into them.
If that is just the way it goes I don’t know, I am optimistic that there is an easy way to make sure it doesn’t, I am certain more people are capable of seeing that than we give credit for.
We get better at what we practice. Good point, though compassion is not comparable to ideology. Conflicting ideologies have honed civilization.(Back when politics really mattered and people weren’t content.)
Each side just showed both contempt and compassion on different things.
Yes, it is true that people’s views, once having arisen from sound reason and experiential verification, can become seared into our minds so irremovably, that we do all we can to deliberately reinforce it, and as we attempt to apply it constantly to everything, we can do mental gymnastics to see it as always applicable/relevant, when in reality we have trapped ourselves in a bias. We have become idealistic, and don’t even remember how we got there to begin with. It is important to keep your views and ideas in a state of submission, so you may always make way for new ones.
Everyone tweaks thought and situations to fit their narrative. I don’t think it’s ideals vs non-ideals. It’s just what kind of ideals or what combination of ideals (Even if personal bias would like to believe that it’s not). Meeting people of different beliefs and walks of life, the more I believe this. The more people you meet and get to know, the more this becomes obvious. It all has to stem from somewhere. Personal observations are often useless in a group because only you can see it. It doesn’t mean that others don’t, for all you know they are probably thinking the same thing towards you.
In terms of political, yes I do agree largely. Identity politics kills any sort of progress, and this is probably the popular view of what you are talking about.
You must also remember that compassion is an altruistic behavior. Time and time again we have seen how altruism, while appearing selfless, is truly a selfish survival behavior. For the sake of the perpetuation of ones genes, you may sacrifice your own life for that of a relative. I believe compassion to be an extension of this phenomenon to those with whom we may share little or no genes. Likewise, self-sacrifice is not always as drastic as having to die for someone. There are great advantages for being altruistic or compassionate knowing that there may come a time when you may also require such compassion.
I think that is rationalising an instinct, that is not how instinct works; why do animals have eyes? Because they thought about it and decided they would be useful? No, trial and error, trial and error, over millennia, millions of failed mutations for that one successful evolution. I’m talking about compassion evolving like that, it isn’t a case of connotation, subjective bias didn’t come along until conceptual reason did, compassion emerged before that, what made it successful was it simply proved so in function, it naturally enhanced the chances of survival.
The idea of selfishness is a concept, it didn’t exist when compassion evolved. What you are talking about is the logic of compassion, explaining why it has proven successful, but before we had logic we didn’t know why it worked, just that is how it is. Like a dog; it will perform a trick, it knows it will get a treat, a rudimentary understanding of cause and effect makes the dog trainable, but as for why it works, why it gets the treat it doesn’t know, it just knows it works so it does it.
So ultimately I agree with you; if you arrive at compassionate behaviour because it is your nature, or you walk around the block and logically deduce your way to compassionate behaviour, basically sounds like the same result, except the logic way is ideological, the nature way is intuitive; knowledge can serve nature or replace it, one way you have both the other way you only really have one.
Ideology is like a shadow of nature, an interpretation of it, with definitions, applications, theories, this is the stuff about Form and Substance; the idea of nature is form in our minds, nature is actually substance outside of our minds, substance is the actual thing, form is our perception of it. So I am saying compassion is substance, confusing because it is in us and we form concept of it in our minds, and then while wrestling with the form we lose touch with the substance, concept becomes our identity, that is the ideological way.
I am finding it hard to explain but it is about awareness and understanding, not knowledge (and somehow there is a difference), it is a sense not an idea, like sight will allow information in to be rationally processed, compassion works in that process. The best words I like are efficient function and appropriate consideration, striking the wisest balance in personal V’s collective, economical V’s social, logic V’s compassion, where they serve as compliment of each other.
I’m not saying that compassion is greater, just that it is deeper, the mind and heart are a team, equals, both have their strengths and weakness to bring to the table and they fill each others holes as best you can without allowing that equality to be compromised. Compassion is like the wise old man and reason is like the young wiz kid; the old man has guidance and the kid has energy and a range of mad skills, trust and respect in that relationship.
(sorry about how psychotically long this turned out, I think I need my meds)