Subjective experience, Objective reality, and isms

QueeneMUSE@aol.com
Fri, 12 Sep 1997 10:55:52 -0400 (EDT)


In a message dated 97-09-12 09:28:08 EDT, you write:

> But we know all about the sociological and psychological issues; crop
> circles, UFOs etc are just new religions by different names.
>

What I am interested in is not bragging that I "know" everything there is to
know about the motives that cause this kind of thinking... we have our
opinions, sure... and some very valid theory about why that stuff is
destructive. Answers are not always the answer. ; )

Look, I have long ago labeled all of that as hogwash and "crap". But my
labeling it does not do one damn bit of good. People still believe in it.
Everyone is so quick to criticize, but we are back to the compassion issue
again. If people are to change, they need to feel safe and able to listen to
what we have to say. Communication begins with listening and empathizing.

No one will respond to that blatant denial of other's reality that i have
been harping about. Telling a poor person they are richer than the poor peole
before them denies them their feelings. Deny a person that, they won't hear
you.
( please note: We are not talking about external, immutable raelity. We are
talking about an "internal", imagined, reality-not the natural, physical
mechanical one. Not that it is a good or a bad thing, but most people enjoy
THAT part of their life experience and have no interst in denying it's
existance.It is our imaginings, filters, feelings, reactions, muse-ings etc.
it very much affects how efficacious we are the world. Optimism is one such
subjective trait.)

This is the problem with original Randian objectivism, it tries to negate
that rather than change people's "subjective" experience. No wonder it is
unpopular, only a small percentage of the population wants to live without
that!
Also, IMO, it condones and rationalizes an outrageous amount of meanness
and enforces a stubborn passive message: " I cannot, will not, change,
emotionally". Even more importantly, I find it boring. It must be repeated
endlessly, because it is a justification. It is not colored with the richness
of lifeís most precious gifts.
Perhaps it is nothing but a dangerous and costly mental game, a
self-righteous way to explain and exalt a sad lack of empathy and emotional
depth. Studies show that empathy and an ability to deeply identify with
otherís suffering (compassion) is a "hardwired" human trait, but some
people seem to be born without it, or lose it because of neglect or abuse.
However it is an emotional skill that can be developed with practice. It's
guru suggests we donít need it, that we are above it. How pathetic an example
of this theory she presents by her life example.