How does one return from the final stages of morality?

[Nikolai1]

But if you believe that you have caused the suffering, then whatever you do cannot make amends for that suffering and you are inevitably creating more by any action. You are trapped in a catch 22 and are powerless to do anything about it.

These are the kind of considerations that we leave behind.  We are no longer blind to other's sufferings, but no longer attempting to heal all suffering (and thus creating a whole new set of evils).  We see therefore that either interpration can be made about our moral action.  This all-round vision allows us to act, and to then think no more of it.  It becomes quite spontaneous.  We walk past nine beggars and, for some reason, we give to the tenth.  It just happens. 

 

Why not do your best to promote you own happiness and well being whilst being honest, independent of other men's charity and a productive person. That way, whatever you decide to do regarding a homeless beggar you are personally not a burden on anyone else. Your productive effort enhances the world and you can get a good idea by how much through the exchange received. As long as you are honest and independent in your life then you owe nothing to anyone and may give to whoever you feel is most deserving. The more you have, the more you can give.

Yes absolutely! And the problem with the 'do-gooder' is that they try to promote their own 'happiness and well-being' by giving to others.  A strategy which of course needs, requires and wants people to be less fortunate than they...which does in fact fulfil itself as the needy become the dependent.

 

I'm the first to oppose this professional dogoodery, but at the same time, there is such a thing as a hungry person...and that person needs nothing esle other than food.  Therefore i do not go looking for people to enslave with my hep. but if a hungry person comes my way and I see their need is real, I shall give them my pound and think no more of it.  I think we all do, even you..

[Nikolai1]

What have you seen? What are you aware of?

My path has been very intellectual so it has been all about 'seeing through' what so many others, most others, take to be indusputable facts.  Whether in science, philosophy, medicine, psychology and therapy, I see how most people are transfixed by what are nothing more than superstitions.  This isolates you, and the true thinker is a rather lonely person unable to go along with what the others go along with.

 

But for other types of seekers, there can be a much greater consciousness of their own sinfulness.  For another, they may discover skills or abilities that separate them from the mainstream and force them to develop a different worldview.  There are so many different ways in which the spiritual path isolates us from the mainstream.

 

My main point was: that once we have become aware of these things in ourselves there is no going back.  These events have an authority over us, and we can't reverse what we have come to understand.

[Karl]

These are the kind of considerations that we leave behind.  We are no longer blind to other's sufferings, but no longer attempting to heal all suffering (and thus creating a whole new set of evils).  We see therefore that either interpration can be made about our moral action.  This all-round vision allows us to act, and to then think no more of it.  It becomes quite spontaneous.  We walk past nine beggars and, for some reason, we give to the tenth.  It just happens. 

 

 

Yes absolutely! And the problem with the 'do-gooder' is that they try to promote their own 'happiness and well-being' by giving to others.  A strategy which of course needs, requires and wants people to be less fortunate than they...which does in fact fulfil itself as the needy become the dependent.

 

I'm the first to oppose this professional dogoodery, but at the same time, there is such a thing as a hungry person...and that person needs nothing esle other than food.  Therefore i do not go looking for people to enslave with my hep. but if a hungry person comes my way and I see their need is real, I shall give them my pound and think no more of it.  I think we all do, even you..

 

Why do you assume everyone else is blind to someone's discomfort ? That's just empathy. Normal, ordinary, everyday folk have empathy. However we give because it makes us feel good to know we are helping someone who we believe truly needs it because they are in a short term slump.

 

It is pointless to give to someone who is physically and mentally able to independently produce to feed and house themselves. Those type of people are professional beggars who are either doing it from a sense of indolent victim hood, or because conning people is a way of life for them. They are then no better than petty thieves that use your guilt against you instead of using their skill as a pick pocket.

 

I give only to those who share my own values, but, through no fault of there own have fallen on hard times. If I cannot ascertain that they share my values I don't bother. I feel not a wit of guilt or empathy as I walk past, they are simply stray dogs in a street and I mind them not more or less than that.

 

If you examined your own willingness to give to one and not another you would find it is not at all a random act. It's a rule you have. I don't know what it is, but look closely and see there is one.

[Nikolai1]

Why do you assume everyone else is blind to someone's discomfort ? That's just empathy. Normal, ordinary, everyday folk have empathy. However we give because it makes us feel good to know we are helping someone who we believe truly needs it because they are in a short term slump.

It doesn't feel good to give.  It feels totally neutral.  If it feels good to give then it is clearly some kind of vanity which is very likely to be related to some kind of strategy of do-goodery.

 

 If you examined your own willingness to give to one and not another you would find it is not at all a random act. It's a rule you have. I don't know what it is, but look closely and see there is one.

Well of course that's a philsophical question.  Is there instinct? Or is everything at some level based on rational premises? Maybe if you analysed all the people I give money to you will find that they were all wwearing green because that's my favourite colour.

[Karl]

It doesn't feel good to give.  It feels totally neutral.  If it feels good to give then it is clearly some kind of vanity which is very likely to be related to some kind of strategy of do-goodery.

 

 

Well of course that's a philsophical question.  Is there instinct? Or is everything at some level based on rational premises? Maybe if you analysed all the people I give money to you will find that they were all wwearing green because that's my favourite colour.

 

What's the point if it feels neutral. You may as will give it to a mass murderer, a wealthy person, a drug user or alcoholic. How can you know who to give it to ? There is no way to determine those in the greatest need in the way you describe.

 

The only do gooder strategy is to give you a feeling of happiness to have done something that you feel has been worthwhile, because you could do it. It does not matter if you are giving money, working as a waiter, or building a sky scraper as long as you have pride in what you are doing, that you are beholden to no man for it and it is honestly achieved. If something is not giving you happiness then this is how you can tell if you are going against your own ethical standards.

[Nikolai1]

What's the point if it feels neutral. You may as will give it to a mass murderer, a wealthy person, a drug user or alcoholic. How can you know who to give it to ? 

You never do know unfortunately. Of course you could console yourself by imagining that your deeper instincts are at play, but that would be just another rule.  The bottom line is, our charity arises from us and you, despite your rules, will be exactly the same.  Your neighbour knock on the door and needs to borrow sugar. We give it, don't we? (but perhaps they're diabetic???)

 

 If something is not giving you happiness then this is how you can tell if you are going against your own ethical standards.

Quite a silly statement.  To be honest, I serve my children porridge each morning with a feeling of tired neutrality.  I could only feel happiness in this scenario if for three days we'd been locked in by the flood and on the fourth we get to eat again.

 

It's the same with our charity towards strangers.  We give with a feeling of neutrality, and to be honest it feels cleanest when it is taken with neutrality...no mawkish gratitude. 

[Karl]

You never do know unfortunately. Of course you could console yourself by imagining that your deeper instincts are at play, but that would be just another rule.  The bottom line is, our charity arises from us and you, despite your rules, will be exactly the same.  Your neighbour knock on the door and needs to borrow sugar. We give it, don't we? (but perhaps they're diabetic???)

 

 

Quite a silly statement.  To be honest, I serve my children porridge each morning with a feeling of tired neutrality.  I could only feel happiness in this scenario if for three days we'd been locked in by the flood and on the fourth we get to eat again.

 

It's the same with our charity towards strangers.  We give with a feeling of neutrality, and to be honest it feels cleanest when it is taken with neutrality...no mawkish gratitude. 

 

That's a shame. It sounds like you have lost your zest for living. :-( that you prefer a grey neutrality to the ups and downs inherent in living.

 

I give only to those I share values with which means my charitable donations, both time/money are far more selective.