A key component of compassion is to constructively help others overcome their problems and to actively wish them free from suffering. In recent weeks I have dedicated large chunks of written thought to compassion and I have encouraged compassion toward those whose choices may negatively impact others. I have additionally went so far as to claim, that in part, each of us as individual beings must take some responsibility for other's choices and any resulting impact, harmful or otherwise.

I have found resistance to both of the thoughts presented above, so this week I want to look at two questions that challenge the ideas of 'Compassion for the Oblivious' and 'Communal Responsibility':

1. If compassion is intended to help free another from their suffering, or at the least ease their suffering, how is this applicable to an individual freely choosing and acting in ways that harm others, yet is ignorant of that harm and/or feels they are working for a greater good, thus nullifying or mitigating their own personal suffering? In other words, if one does not perceive oneself as suffering, is compassion for this individual deserving, necessary, or helpful? Corollary Question - In the case of a greater good, how do we determine 'acceptable' casualties?
2. How do we show (and justify) a communal responsibility for current circumstance (both harmful and beneficial) in a practical way that will encourage more widespread compassion which in turn will drive mutually beneficial learning and growth?

1. Compassion for the Oblivious:

In Question #1 above I did not include one doing harm due to apathy or for the sake of doing harm, because I believe these individuals (sociopathic or evil/psychopathic) are a very small minority that absolutely deserve compassion, and may more easily elicit it than the majority. This majority of individuals doing harm are (as stated above) either ignorant/unaware and/or misguided (typically) by groupthink leading one to an easy comfort. This comfort may encourage and perpetuate apathy but most individual sheep are not sociopathic; (though a flock of sheep as a whole may exhibit those tendencies). So, if for purposes of this post we exclude the minority as defined above, we are left with working at easing the suffering of individuals whose choices result in harm, yet they appear not to suffer, and yet again they appear to be capable of rational choice. My Humanity makes this effort difficult.

To find compassion:
First, I must realize that all individuals are equally deserving of the right to attenuate suffering. Then I must acknowledge that all individuals suffer (as that is the nature of one's Humanity) regardless of public persona. And though I have a tendency to exaggerate the importance of my personal suffering (again, the nature of my Humanity) and diminish the importance of another's suffering, I must remind myself that my suffering is no more (or less) elevated in standing than the personal suffering of any other individual being. This is a very hard concept to assimilate, needing (if not constant) consistent reminders (awareness) and persistent thoughtful action (practice) for one to truly live it. (I believe for many of us there are times when it is more difficult to remember that our personal suffering is 'no less' important than another's; the equality must run both ways.)

Once I have acknowledged and begun to absorb this concept of equality, it is more obvious why this compassion is necessary and how it is (or may be) helpful. First it is necessary for my well-being. If I do not work at this compassion, I will at best become an apathetic ignorant sheep, and/or at worst feel anger, hatred, and a divisiveness that will only perpetuate/worsen the status quo. And though this may thwart an adversary, it will do more harm to my personal physical and mental well-being. Second it is necessary for the well-being of others in two ways: (a) on some level, compassion will always find a way through and have some impact, even on the oblivious; and (b) it is the first step toward an application of communal responsibility that will gradually and ultimately lead to advanced mutual learning and growth. But we cannot even consider this sort of communal or global beneficence without widespread individual responsibility.

Based on these thoughts, the corollary question ("In the case of a greater good, how do we determine 'acceptable' casualties?") becomes somewhat irrelevant in that the greatest 'greater good' is to strive for communal responsibility which will leave individual suffering to those numerous factors that impact outside the bounds of individual choice. Anyone who believes in any 'greater good' specific to any individual or group numbering less than the global community of sentient beings is delusional. There are no 'acceptable' casualties. These are strong statements and I know many (if not most) may consider this position unrealistic, but I believe we must start down this long road, and 'Compassion for the Oblivious' is the first step. Without this first step, 'Communal Responsibility' will not be possible.

2. Communal Responsibility:

When first confronted with a concept of communal responsibility, one might think it 'Universal Consciousness BS' in that it encourages one to recognize the connections between one's own personal choice, other's choices, and numerous (in-the-moment) factors beyond individual control and across all cultures and systems of belief. I maintain that it is not as much a universal consciousness (though I see how it could be mistaken as such) as it is an unavoidable interdependence. Like the proverbial ripples on a pond or the butterfly effect, I cannot help but be empirically impacted and in turn take some small bit of responsibility for other's choices, the same as (and because) others are empirically impacted by and minimally responsible for my choices; this circularity is indeed unavoidable. (In a previous post I ascribed a parallel of 'literally feeling a loved one's pain' to aid in understanding this connection.) Focusing on the everyday empirical perspective and avoiding the transcendental or spiritual perspective, may help to keep the BS factor at bay because it is more practical and it is less subject to debate or disagreement. But as stated in the previous section, if one cannot actively accept (through acknowledgement, consistent awareness, and persistent practice) 'Compassion for the Oblivious' then it will be difficult to understand and move on to 'Communal Responsibility.'

Two weeks ago I narrowed my definition of 'free will' down even further, from 'conscious, quantifiable effort that impacts' to 'the empirical importance of conscious choice as it applies to an individual being' (and today I am adding) 'in the practical construct of day-to-day living.' Without rehashing that entire post (Quantum Happiness): as an empirical practicality I (as an individual being) must often think, act, and react as an intrinsically, absolute entity even though an intrinsically, absolute entity (in this world) is not possible. This Human delusion of 'me' is practical and (to this point in our evolution) even necessary, but we must recognize it as exactly that - an empirically practical delusion - and begin to incorporate the forward-thinking practicality of Communal Responsibility into our empirical existence.

I understand how one may feel the need of an anchor in the comforting framework of a 'me' or of an 'us' - it is more than a bit frightening to float objectively free; but it is necessary and practical if we are to advance compassionately and grow exponentially. It may even - (some day, down the road) - be necessary and practical if this world is to survive.

There is one other practicality we must consider. If 'Compassion for the Oblivious' is the first step toward 'Communal Responsibility', and if 'Communal Responsibility' is necessary and practical (perhaps even for our survival), it is illogically impractical for anyone to wait for someone else to begin. The work will most certainly not be easy, the culmination will be far, far down the road, and perfection is (as always) likely unattainable, but the reward for beginning this effort can be felt now... in this moment... and in this moment... and in this moment...

Free-Floating, Circular Compassion:

This week I read about the beauty of the tulip (in 'The Botany Of Desire' by Michael Pollan) as interpreted by its Form, Contrast, and Variation both within a single flower and within a field of flowers:

• Form - shape and structure, symmetry and organization, pattern and placement;
• Contrast - color and luminance and juxtaposition;
• Variation - generational change and transformation and elaboration.

These aspects of beauty project nicely onto free-floating, circular compassion:

• the shape and structure of an individual being and our global community;
• the symmetry and organization found in the shared circularity of compassion;
• the pattern and placement of individual and communal choices made for the beneficence of all sentient beings;
• the color of character;
• the luminance of culture;
• the juxtaposition of striking differences side-by-side;
• the generational advancement of mutual learning and growth;
• the gradual transformation of me-us-them to we as one whole consisting of color, luminance, and juxtaposition; and
• the enlightened elaboration of exoteric goodness, inner peace, and global tranquility.

John Keats said, "Beauty is Truth, Truth Beauty."

Free-Floating, Circular Compassion is the Beauty of Truth and the Truth of Beauty.