Why do people get vaccines? Don't they research the ingredients?

"

Boem wrote:

Maybe i should clarify why i think compasion is still derived from pity(which they don't disclaim) and this in itself is a bad thing.

they utilize the compasion of angelina jolie in that piece and her aid to suffering parts.

Now, there is no doubt in my mind that the people she reached out to and helped have great gratitude towards her, at the same time i believe they also "look up" to her and not in the sense of "i can become like her one day".

In my mind, what she did in the context of the people she helped out was "inhuman", she singlehandedly achieved what would probably take the local people a couple thousands to realize.

In the intellectual sense of that article "it is a poorly thought out form of compasion derived from pity".

I can understand why you'd think that about someone like Angelina Jolie. She's an A-List American-born Hollywood actor, for god's sake! Strikes me that neither of us will know what her manner is like on the ground with local people who she's aiding. Being an actor, I imagine Jolie's great at connecting with other people and making them feel special. But I'm not so cynical about the sources of that skill, especially when it's being used for good.

Beyond having compassion and doing something to act, what others make of it is beyond anyone's control. I imagine some people are inspired by her, some jealous, some cynical, some indifferent, some angry, and so on - none of them change the source.

"

Boem wrote:

If i had to connect a positive form of compasion using that article as a foundation, it would correlate to the passage where the dalai lama discusses "respect".
It recognizes the other as a potential "you" given the right conditions(former,current,future) which makes you strive for their betterment without mental heightening.(or lowering)

This makes whatever your ego has assembled/identified with pre-aiding that person irrelevant, since the other is "you" just with a different composition, enabling superfluous empathy.

The suffering is you, the aid is you, the one helped is you, the gratitude is you.

"

“God help us!” said Holmes after a long silence. “Why does fate play such tricks with poor, helpless worms? I never hear of such a case as this that I do not think of Baxter’s words, and say, ‘There, but for the grace of God, goes Sherlock Holmes.’”

"

Boem wrote:

I'll have to reread the previous post about the short therm goal part, because i fail to recollect how we got to that part.

My instinct says "short therm goals are not in the interest of the species, but for the group and as a result of that group surviving, the species survives as a whole" but i would have to re-read context.

Peace,

-Boem-

I think the moment has passed, really.

"

Charan wrote:

Not yet. Not yet. Thanks for the reminder though.

You think this is slow-paced? You've been here too long.

The Malouf thing sounds interesting. Naturally I know his name but I can't say he's ever been placed forcibly on my radar (as most modern literature has to be). Shall investigate.

That's ok, with the movie, all in good time. Eager recommendations tend to evoke a pushback in most of us, or at least those of us with more introverted personalities. The right-timed stuff is discovered together, or alone spontanously, so eager recommendations need to sit a while and be somewhat spontaneously self-discovered.

I'm not sure what you mean by I have been here too long if I think this is slow paced. Would it help to clarify that I like the slow pace of the forum just fine? You know that I enjoy the backwater, pretty sure.



Yes, great, I think you'll enjoy An imaginary Life.

MTG Swamps are pretty grim-looking places, not places to meander and daydream, gotta say, so didn't capture quite the slow pace vibe. However, this is fantastic and evocative, too:



That swamp is fairly new, and unnatural-looking. Either it's impractical fantasy art (heaven forbid!) or there's a story behind it.

^i'm not cynical about her actions.

I can perfectly believe she is acting on what would be called "good faith", without distrust for those motivations.

It's not the same as commenting that compassion is born from the emotion of pity and thus the end-result will not be desired in the long run.

I don't question the motives, but the emotion itself as being "good".

"

erdelyii wrote:

I imagine some people are inspired by her, some jealous, some cynical, some indifferent, some angry, and so on - none of them change the source.

I disagree.

And perception, history books and recording will favor my observation i think.

Peace,

-Boem-

"

Boem wrote:

^i'm not cynical about her actions.

I can perfectly believe she is acting on what would be called "good faith", without distrust for those motivations.

It's not the same as commenting that compassion is born from the emotion of pity and thus the end-result will not be desired in the long run.

I don't question the motives, but the emotion itself as being "good".

Right, I see now.

I think that ideally, compassion in action would be a rare event and mostly we all just get along with our days, interacting as equally and respectfully as possible.

Do you know there's Compassion Fatigue?

"

Did you know?
"Compassion Fatigue is a state experienced by those helping people or animals in distress; it is an extreme state of tension and preoccupation with the suffering of those being helped to the degree that it can create a secondary traumatic stress for the helper."

Dr. Charles Figley
Professor, Paul Henry Kurzweg Distinguished Chair
Director, Tulane Traumatology Institute
Tulane University, New Orleans, LA


Caring too much can hurt. When caregivers focus on others without practicing self-care, destructive behaviors can surface. Apathy, isolation, bottled up emotions and substance abuse head a long list of symptoms associated with the secondary traumatic stress disorder now labeled: Compassion Fatigue

While the effects of Compassion Fatigue can cause pain and suffering, learning to recognize and manage its symptoms is the first step toward healing. The Compassion Fatigue Awareness Project© is dedicated to educating caregivers about authentic, sustainable self-care and aiding organizations in their goal of providing healthy, compassionate care to those whom they serve.

"

Boem wrote:

"

erdelyii wrote:

I imagine some people are inspired by her, some jealous, some cynical, some indifferent, some angry, and so on - none of them change the source.

I disagree.

And perception, history books and recording will favor my observation i think.

Peace,

-Boem-

I think we're having another misunderstanding Boem.

I know what I felt at a given moment, but my actions can be interpreted a dozen ways by others. That feelings and motivations are complex in the first place (pure altruism is the unicorn of human psychology), well -

What is the difference between how we perceive ourselves, and how others see us?

As a side note, I love people's quora credential taglines.

What is your first language, Boem?

Also! Funnily enough, I found the source of the Boem/Rexeos confusion, looking through some old posts.

This thread page 4.

And Charan didn't correct me on page 5.

Ha!

Might I suggest This? :3

/smartass (also fully aware I mix posters up all the damn time).

"

erdelyii wrote:

Do you know there's Compassion Fatigue?

I wasn't actively aware of it, but i knew of it's effects. That is to say, when i discuss "the helping of others" with people i always suggest they behave selfish first and secure their own happiness before even attempting to contemplate interference with other people's lives.

Granting happiness to other people at the expense of your own, just doesn't make any logical sense.(if the underlying aim is to increase happiness across the board)

I know some people that are conditioned towards self-sacrifice and it is not a pretty sight at all. No mater how culture puts self-sacrifice on this "high pedestal" virtue thing.
It is entirely destructive/reductive to their own person.

"

erdelyii wrote:

I think we're having another misunderstanding Boem.

I know what I felt at a given moment, but my actions can be interpreted a dozen ways by others. That feelings and motivations are complex in the first place (pure altruism is the unicorn of human psychology), well -

What is the difference between how we perceive ourselves, and how others see us?

As a side note, I love people's quora credential taglines.

What is your first language, Boem?

Well, i would say, the world gives absolutely no fucks about your emotions at any given point in time.

Things like "good" "bad" are simply judgements made by people on past events.

If you want things to turn out "good", you don't teach people "good" actions because those do not exist,(only uppon reflection of something do they come into being) you give them the tools to create themselves.
In this instance you would give them tools to create a moral compass.

One could argue i think, that religion is the attempt of trying to do this.
Though failing and corrupted by time.

My main language is Dutch.

Peace,

-Boem-

..doublepost

"

Boem wrote:

I wasn't actively aware of it, but i knew of it's effects. That is to say, when i discuss "the helping of others" with people i always suggest they behave selfish first and secure their own happiness before even attempting to contemplate interference with other people's lives.

Granting happiness to other people at the expense of your own, just doesn't make any logical sense.(if the underlying aim is to increase happiness across the board)

I know some people that are conditioned towards self-sacrifice and it is not a pretty sight at all. No mater how culture puts self-sacrifice on this "high pedestal" virtue thing.
It is entirely destructive/reductive to their own person.

I think that's true to a point, however we always learn and be enriched from those we help out especially when we approach it respectfully and with the attitude we will learn from them.

"

Boem wrote:

Well, i would say, the world gives absolutely no fucks about your emotions at any given point in time.

Things like "good" "bad" are simply judgements made by people on past events.

If you want things to turn out "good", you don't teach people "good" actions because those do not exist,(only uppon reflection of something do they come into being) you give them the tools to create themselves.
In this instance you would give them tools to create a moral compass.

One could argue i think, that religion is the attempt of trying to do this.
Though failing and corrupted by time.

My main language is Dutch.

Peace,

-Boem-

Hm.

Emotional Contagion is worth considering, for use in being around others, and self-protection.

So the world should give a shit, for that reason if not more.

Consider an extreme case.

Thanks for sharing that. I don't speak any Dutch aside from Atoomenergie? Nee bedankt! (from an old metal button I found at a market and translated). So, you're way ahead there.

Well, internet!

"

erdelyii wrote:

Hm.

Emotional Contagion is worth considering, for use in being around others, and self-protection.

So the world should give a shit, for that reason if not more.

Consider an extreme case.

Thanks for sharing that. I don't speak any Dutch aside from Atoomenergie? Nee bedankt! (from an old metal button I found at a market and translated). So, you're way ahead there.

Well, internet!

Things like mass hysteria/mass dillusion have been documented many times.
I think it's one of the reasons why eye-witnesses are so prone to error.

From a self preservation stance, it's better to assume the worst and behave in a manner that reflects that reality when in danger then to be that fool running towards a lion going "it's just a big kitty".(<-- that dude, no longer around)
Everything we know so far suggests that our perception and senses are far more prone to negative events then positive.



We use morality to orient ourselves on an axis of good/bad, it's fair to say for example(thought despicable even if accurate) that the nazi's where behaving "good" when they where mass murdering people.
Since their moral compass allowed that behavior to be placed on the "good" axis(from what we know so far, they adjusted the morality axis little by little by indoctrination and forcing cruel and more cruel acts on the people in question, not forcing a destruction of the ego but a slow altering of it instead)

Obviously, we no longer think like that, but that is a result of our moral compass adjusting to the past and going "that stuff, we don't want that again".

The actions themselves are deemed good/bad by contemplation on them and then forced into the collective morality.(in the best case or if the event is traumatic enough)

An interesting notion though is the fact morality is ever changing and from what i can tell it depends very much on how "alive" certain dangers are.
Like the "weight" of a concept, for example how we see people going for communism and nazi regimes in the current day and age.

Obviously those notions where extremely weighted after WWII in the global morallity compass but i think that weight decreases following natural entropy.

One could consider how we should act as a community to keep the weight of certain events static over time as to never gradually move towards them again, something i think is easier said then done, but still worthwhile contemplating.


I think we had a miscommunication on the word "world". I was talking purely biological but i assume your implying "the human collective on the world".
In my sense, the world is a living creature which we inhabit, but it doesn't have morality.(i assume arche-types like "the great mother" are derived from this notion, endlessly giving and never judging)



Peace,

-Boem-

edit : added spoiler

This is pure anti-vac with complete disregard that there are vaccines (ex. polio vaccine) that saved many lives. Of course not all vaccines have the same efficacy and safety but a well studied,researched,and manufactured vaccine is a great help to humanity. Imagine a world where humanity will be less reliant to antibiotics because of immunization.

"

鬼殺し wrote:

Oh shit, we got a tourist who took the OP seriously.

THIS is why the thread needs to be locked. To prevent disasters like that.

Thanks Charan, for making what I take as a polite cough.

It's also hit my "enough woolly philosophizing" limit.

This, not so much -

"

Boem wrote:

Things like mass hysteria/mass dillusion have been documented many times.
I think it's one of the reasons why eye-witnesses are so prone to error.

From a self preservation stance, it's better to assume the worst and behave in a manner that reflects that reality when in danger then to be that fool running towards a lion going "it's just a big kitty".(<-- that dude, no longer around)
Everything we know so far suggests that our perception and senses are far more prone to negative events then positive.

Spoiler

I remember cases in ireland where children would run out en mass into parks looking for leprecons, convinced by a random event that they existed, this continued for a week or so and no rational was ever found behind the behavior.
(the thought had started it's own live and formed a sort of short lived cult)

Another case i remember was in america where idea's of satanic rituals where sugestively placed in children of a day-care. The children ran with the concept and it became more vile as time progressed ending up with confesions from the children of being raped by the people who ran the day-care and sacrifice rituals and the like etc...

None of it actually happened. Just creative children inplanted with an idea.

While emotional contagion works with negative emotions, and we are prone to get all up in our amygdalas, contagion works for positive emotions too. Charismatic, self-aware people know this well, as do happy people and excited crowds (though not so consciously, I guess, which is also nice in its way).

I had that in mind when I first wrote the words.

This though -

"

We use morality to orient ourselves on an axis of good/bad, it's fair to say for example(thought despicable even if accurate) that the nazi's where behaving "good" when they where mass murdering people....

TIME ! I can't believe it took until here?!

"

Boem wrote:

...Since their moral compass allowed that behavior to be placed on the "good" axis(from what we know so far, they adjusted the morality axis little by little by indoctrination and forcing cruel and more cruel acts on the people in question, not forcing a destruction of the ego but a slow altering of it instead)

Obviously, we no longer think like that, but that is a result of our moral compass adjusting to the past and going "that stuff, we don't want that again".

The actions themselves are deemed good/bad by contemplation on them and then forced into the collective morality.(in the best case or if the event is traumatic enough)

An interesting notion though is the fact morality is ever changing and from what i can tell it depends very much on how "alive" certain dangers are.
Like the "weight" of a concept, for example how we see people going for communism and nazi regimes in the current day and age.

Obviously those notions where extremely weighted after WWII in the global morallity compass but i think that weight decreases following natural entropy.

One could consider how we should act as a community to keep the weight of certain events static over time as to never gradually move towards them again, something i think is easier said then done, but still worthwhile contemplating.

Spoiler

another interesting notion while re-reading this, is it even desired to do such a thing?
If for example in a future not yet apparent to us something like a nazi or commustic regime is the best way forward would we rather go extinct as a species then betray our moral compass?
The sweet irony of questions, you ask one and the answer gives another five in return.

I think we had a miscommunication on the word "world". I was talking purely biological but i assume your implying "the human collective on the world".
In my sense, the world is a living creature which we inhabit, but it doesn't have morality.(i assume arche-types like "the great mother" are derived from this notion, endlessly giving and never judging)

Spoiler

Funny fact, solar power kills more people then nuclear energy.
:p

Peace,

-Boem-

edit : added spoiler

"

The sweet irony of questions, you ask one and the answer gives another five in return.

Exactly. Godwin's Law joke aside, you have found my amateur philosophizing limit here, Boem. I have not the fortitude in this thread.

It's against my values to stymie the questioning spirit, and clearly you enjoy pondering on deep matters. Perhaps the Ask a Question Backwater thread? It may prevent the poor, done creature from dying a natural death but could be a place to ask one of these especially interesting questions, so worth kicking it on.

I'll reply in there, no doubt, and others will too, if you post. Speaking of which, what happened to l453R?

Or, someone else might pick it up here. You're enough of a forum vet to find your way around.

Solar energy I can believe. The sun is hot.

Peace, mate.