Everything is not connected, but we are connected to the things that around us, and those are in turn connected to the things around them
Pain is a feeling of disconnection
Love is a feeling of connection
Connection is you seeing yourself in another, which is empathy, the ability to see something else, and then imagine yourself in that place
Therefore, connection is both false and self-centered, and yet also real and impactfull
False because it is you feeling what you think someone else feels, and only caring because you see yourself in another. In other words, you only care because you care about yourself
True, because with that feeling, you act in such a way as to create connections, and if you act in a certain way, for a a reason other than purely wanting to help another person, is the affect really different? Is the action really different? It doesn't seem so. The evidence seems to point that way.
So, it seems, that connections are real, but only external to us. We can only experience these connections in a isolated sort of way.
Yes?
no?
Maybe?
Thursday, March 13, 2008
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
6 comments:
Question - do you think that seeing yourself in another is the only reason we act? Do you think it's enough? Or do you think we have to go beyond recognizing ourselves? I wonder because ok, you can recognize yourself in the other and feel empathy because you know how they feel. But this doesn't necessarily have to compel you to action, because you also have the realization that you are not them. I think you must take it a step further and recognize that you both are of the same essence, and nature - your common humanity, and THIS is what compels action and connection. Somehow, this is still selfish but it's more than that because it's recognizing that you are more than yourself and so are they...does that make sense?
Anyway, I watched I Heart Huckabees again the other day with your post in mind and then re-read it, and I think you get the movie's message right for sure :)
I think that it is possible to explain most if not all actions with that framework, or theory. However, that being said, it still does feel like it lacks a little. As if, by explaining purely platonic acts, as well as pure empathy, it is stretching the theory a little thin.
I think this is somehow related to the idea of whether or not there is a soul. If there is no soul, in my estimation, it means that we are simply a combonation of different peices, all our characterstics are bound together to make us, but ther e is nothing in the middle, it's just bound together peices. If there is a soul, then it mean that there is something at the center.
While I don't think there is any evidence for there being a soul, just as there is no evidence for there being anyhing more than the theory presented in I heart huckabees, I do, personally, feel like there is something more to it. Because both ideas, feel like they fall a little flat.
This of course could be explained as some sort of built in mechanism that humans have to try and find some greater meaning than the apparent parts. The reason for us having such a mechanism of course would be that it serves some sort of evolutionary advantage.
This is the place that I always get stuck, and don't really know how to go forward with my thinking, because both sides seem to have strong cases, though one is more intuitive and one is more logical.
What do you think? does that make any sense? It's kinda late and I have a head ache :-P
Well, you certainly give me a headache!!!!!
I think that whatever the reality is it will encompass both of those - soul and your framework. And I think whatever the combination is, is completely incomprehensible to us now. I have this theory, which is not my own, that nothing is as it seems - it's inconceivable and all our ways to understand are merely parts of the whole.
Sorry it took me forever to respond. :)
Oh, but yes your post made total sense! :)
I like smilies!
:D:D:D:D:D:):):):):D:D:D:D
Post a Comment