Wednesday, March 16, 2011

More Water for The Tsunami!


Nothing shows as much that you Really Care as when you Weep!
So here's more Water for The Tsunami:
.....
It may not always be the right things you weep for - often it will be yourself, and that goes for the empaths too. Ouch! Empaths do have a tendency to care a lot about themselves, about keeping themselves unaccountable and about having somebody to blame for all their troubles and issues - the devil, or the psychopaths.

Actually, what I just wrote looks a lot like the things they say and write about us, the psychopaths. I wonder, perhaps we're not so different after all when it comes to doing the wrong thing and having flaws?

But then, they always have a way out: They suffer easily, and that gives them something to weep about - when they're not busy weeping about Tsunamis and people who live at the opposite side of the globe.

.....

I can't help but finding the way most people approach the concept 'Caring' or 'To Care' highly peculiar!

Why is it, f.ex., that if something sad, bad, disastrous, devastating, etc., happens to somebody - it may be an individual, a group of people or a whole nation, and it may be someone you know or it may not be - either way, the moment you learn about it having happened, you're expected to 'care'. Some events demand more caring than others, and some events demand you to care more than others.

It's as if there's a formula for how much and how long you should care for each type of event. - But what happened to spontaneous personal feelings and being genuine and true to yourself and your own feelings?

I think this is where morals come in. You are SUPPOSED to care, not so much because it'll help anyone in any way - it won't! - but because that way you signal your loyalty to the status quo. So it's a type of formalism.
Whenever did formalism become integrated with feelings or emotions? And whenever did formalism become one with 'caring' for people in distress?


The way we're supposed to 'feel' and 'care' for people who live far away and whom we've never met, never will meet and know almost nothing about and, is assumed a naturally and universally 'good human trait'.
And this is while we don't care enough about the poor in our own society to even consider doing something in order to help one of them - because "I don't know them!"

The contradiction and hypocrisy is that the not knowing someone is a legal reason to not care for as long as that someone is so close that you could actually easily make a difference if you so choose. But the second you hear about people you can't reach you're expected to 'care', and perhaps even go out of your way by sending clothes and band aids, etc. to them - half way around the globe, while the poor guy at the corner 50 yards further down the street is 'Someone I don't know' and 'After all, I can't take care of everybody!'


Do my reader see the same discrepancy as your gentle host does?

But hey, maybe if we weep long and loud enough that Tsunami will have never happened when tomorrow comes! And if it doesn't work, then at least we've dutifully shown that we CARE!

.....

When people need to moralize over Feelings and Emotions (the two are allegedly not the same thing) I know something is amiss, and that the Feelings and the Emotions are not what they're portrayed to be.
True Feelings and Emotions need no moralizing. They come naturally and easy, and you need not contemplate them in order to understand them.

When you weep because you've been given a good whipping and are in pain, then you have a natural reason to weep for yourself. And I for one see nothing wrong about that. I don't personally weep much, in fact I loath weeping and I don't think it helps for anything. It doesn't make me "feel better afterwards", it only makes my head ache and my face and eyes swollen and red. That's how I remember it, and I have a good memory, so though it happened last many years ago, I'll rely on my instinct and leave it to others who know how to get the best of it.

And I must say, some people are GREAT weepers!!


Today's music video is for all the Weeping in the world!... -
- And for my Readers!... *S*
___

13 comments:

HavenNyx said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
HavenNyx said...

I think here, a sense of caring is too often confused with a sense of obligation. I don’t have feelings about these natural disasters. I note them. I hear the news about them. I have no feelings for them. I am willing to help in ways that I can because I have the means to, but it’s not an emotionally driven thought process. I don’t really know why I am willing to help. It does seem like an imposed cultural ideology, an imposed moral, to help those less fortunate. Maybe there’s an undercurrent of… because if we help them, hopefully they’ll help us if ever we need it.

No one wants to see the debris surrounding their own home. If they ignore it, they can pretend they aren’t tainted by it. Haven’t contributed to it. Haven’t ignored it. Guilt. People feel guilty that they have done so little for their own, that maybe they overcompensate by doing more for the larger high profile causes. It earns them more exposure and they can point to something and say ‘see, I helped’ while brushing their closer concerns under the rug.

I am the sort to contribute just as much to domestic charities as foreign. Though it is easier to also donate Time as well as money to local problems. Admittedly I’m more willing to donate to environmental and wildlife causes than to human ones.

ZKM said...

I think part of the reason I am so derisive towards emotions and emotional reactions in general is because it seems they are rarely sincere. Hypocrisy is an irritating phenomenon. Were I to be left alone I could care less what people choose to do or not do, but nowadays if you don't display the appropriate amount of 'giveashit', you're spat upon by your peers.

People enjoy feeling superior because they "care' and 'make a difference,' regardless of the fact that they sit idly by while people in their own community suffer in poverty every single day. I like to call these instances like the Japan Tsunami, Fad Empathy. Because of media hype it becomes 'cool' to care and 'callous' not to.

I don't care about the homeless orphans down the street OR the people who have lost their homes in Japan. I do however, associate with the poor. I will never give money to a charity organization, but I do give money to beggars now and then if I initiate a conversation and they amuse me appropriately. Do I go telling people (that I actually know) that? No, why would I? It's ridiculous how these things get out of hand. Japan is a powerful nation, they don't need our pity or our help.

TheNotablePath said...

Fad Empathy and Fad Obligation. Reminds me of the Knights Templar, and that one rap song (currently) on the radio where the chick jokes about feeding the babies in Haiti.

I actually talk and occasionally care for the bums in my neighborhood. Some are too dangerous to deal with, but most are old spent vets, the mentally disabled, or crippled.

The interesting thing is that it's not sympathy. I don't really give a crap about them, and they aren't too numerous to be a hastle, it's a nice balance. They ask for a dollar, or change, or a spare cigarette. Sometimes I'll give them a slice of pizza or share some beer.

You want to know the best part about it?

They do it too. I'll bum them a smoke and they'll offer me a can of beer, or a twinkie, or whatever they have on them. They know I don't need their help, hell I'm the guy that hopped out of the fancy-ish new car. It's a human thing, to help one another in close proximity. But when you throw walls and doors and closed windows into the equation, all the potential for bonding is snuffed out.

They're people too, and I know some of them better than my own damn neighbors. Actually, I don't know my neighbors, ahah!

Zhawq said...

Haven:

"I think here, a sense of caring is too often confused with a sense of obligation."

I think you have a good point there!


"I am willing to help in ways that I can because I have the means to,"

Uhm, Haven, having the means to help is not a motivation for doing so. There must be more, f.x. that you think it's a natural thing to do because you can sympathize with these people, i.e., which is perfectly sensible unless you're a psychopath (don't worry, I know you're not a psychopath!). :)


"Maybe there’s an undercurrent of… because if we help them, hopefully they’ll help us if ever we need it."

Yeah, and that's perfectly natural too. After all, if you have helped someone in the past there is a greater chance they will help you too, seeing that you can be good for them.
Being rational is also a part of being human which helps us survive, and it helps us achieve more comfortable lives in many ways too.


"People feel guilty that they have done so little for their own, that maybe they overcompensate by doing more for the larger high profile causes."

It sounds very likely. I think you're right.


"It earns them more exposure and they can point to something and say ‘see, I helped’ while brushing their closer concerns under the rug."

Yep. That's the self serving slightly part that psychopaths realize to the extreme because it's pretty much all we can understand - I mean, really understand on an emotional level, not just intellectually.


"Though it is easier to also donate Time as well as money to local problems."

It is? I've misunderstood it then. I thought people gave money BECAUSE that is easier and they won't have to invest time and energy on a personal level. Hmm, I guess there are different kinds of perspectives, then.


"Admittedly I’m more willing to donate to environmental and wildlife causes than to human ones."

Well I dare say that no a days wildlife needs assistance WAY more than the human species does, so I'm all with you on that one! :)

Zhawq said...

ZKM:

"I think part of the reason I am so derisive towards emotions and emotional reactions in general is because it seems they are rarely sincere. Hypocrisy is an irritating phenomenon."

I understand what you mean. I used to think that way too... Well, I still think that way. But I've learned that we tend to think this way a lot more than normal, empathic people, because it's in the human nature to project.

In short: This is a prevalent trait in Psychopaths, and it is very common also in those with AsPD, as well as for Sociopaths, because obviously we can't see genuine emotion if we don't really understand it.

I mean, how would we determine what's real and what isn't?
A normal person with capacity for the famed emotion we call Empathy can do it, because they can connect on an emotional level. We cannot. And that makes us understandably paranoid.

That's the fact about it, as well as the part that says a lot of people really ARE hypocrites, and extremely so.

What I have just said here is an understanding I have gained, obviously on an intellectual level, for I cannot understand or see the difference anymore than you can.

I see hypocrisy and faked emotions everywhere!


"nowadays if you don't display the appropriate amount of 'giveashit', you're spat upon by your peers."

Now a days? It has always been like that - at least for the common person. We live in a time that has no aristocracy, and this is what 'we' suffer from. Personally I think it is a large part of why we are so antisocial as is the case. But that's another story. :)


"Because of media hype it becomes 'cool' to care and 'callous' not to."

Of that there is absolutely no doubt (in my understanding)!


"I do give money to beggars now and then if I initiate a conversation and they amuse me appropriately. Do I go telling people (that I actually know) that? No, why would I?"

Heh, yeah I've done it too (this is the first time I mention it, though, lol).

Zhawq said...

Notable:

"Reminds me of the Knights Templar"

The Knights Templar? How come?


"Some are too dangerous to deal with, but most are old spent vets, the mentally disabled, or crippled."

Yeah, a colorful lot indeed.


"The interesting thing is that it's not sympathy."

Hmm, sympathy. Those I recall I gave something... no, it wasn't sympathy. It was an exchange. They gave me something that I knew they could afford, and what Igave them I most definitely could also afford. Both parties were happy.


"It's a human thing, to help one another in close proximity."

I think you're touching on what I replied to Haven above, the rational streak which is very human indeed.


"But when you throw walls and doors and closed windows into the equation, all the potential for bonding is snuffed out."

Hmm, I'm not sure if I understand this one.
Bonding or not bonding because of closed windows or walls? I mean, if you don't close your windows someone will likely rob your house (or you in your sleep), and bonding is out of the equation for good, walls and closed windows or not.
I think I just didn't understand this part.


"They're people too, and I know some of them better than my own damn neighbors. Actually, I don't know my neighbors, ahah!"

Lol. Yeah, I know some bums better than most of my neighbors.
And I know a couple of my neighbors better than they know themselves - without having ever exchanged much more than the occasional 2-min chat or 'Hi!' with them - which I made them do, because here no one even says 'Hello!' to each other in passing.

Basically I like it that way, it's by far the more convenient rather than having someone really getting to like you and then be stuck right beside them when you want them to be a thing of the past. Not a nice scene, I've tried that several times when I was younger. :)

Andreas said...

"Status quo"
I think of it more are reciprocal reinforcement, or a feedback loop. 'Normal people' care, to even a relatively strong amount. So, just being 'yourself' you would care. Not caring would make you strange. Because it is natural, it is ALSO expected. It isn't an unreasonable expectation, if you are part of that group.
Everyone is capable of doing the splits, but it isn't a reasonable request. It would be a reasonable request, however, for a gymnast. Not all gymnasts can do it, and some are much better than others but it is still reasonable. (random, but I've been thinking about gymnastics lately lol)
---------------
http://www.suite101.com/content/how-psychopaths-exploit-others-a62418
(I posted a comment, with my email, trying to contact slickguy21 and that witch didn't post it!!! My comment was neither bad nor good; ass lol)

Read his comment:
Slickguy21

I remember, when the attacks happened, I thought it was utter bull that people 'suddenly cared about people on the other side of the US.' I thought "yeah right, NOW they matter, now we stand together". I couldn't help thinking about even larger numbers of people dying in other countries, on even a regular basis, and how that had no effect on most people, so why would this tragedy be so special?

His comment made me think of my earlier reactions. Learning about socio/psychopathy, it makes more sense to me. I didn't think I was odd for thinking that way. I also didn't think of myself as being particularly cynical, since I pay attention to global affairs. I like to work towards the happiness of others, I just don't have a bleeding heart :P (or much of a heart lol)

-----------
my coworker told me about the tsunami. I later looked at the news and was surprised by how much water there was. (i'm leaving that typo lol, I meant damage). She kept talking about how horrible it was, and how terrible she felt. She was reaching for a reaction, from me. I felt nothing, not indifferent nothing, or shocked nothing, just nothing. I understood, and recongnized that it was terrible, there were just no feeling to draw from. I felt really awkward, since she kind of kept reaching for a response from me, or I should say an appropriate response. Eventually, I gave a half appropriate response, and her mind kind of filled in the blanks, and I was left back to finish my work. Now, if she had needed consoling, I could/would have been sympathetic but she was just looking to relate, and I was Not feeling it :P

-----------
That hypocrisy that you speak of is the hallmark of emotions. Emotions are not logical. We tend to use logic in place of emotions, so we come to these conclusions More easily than they do. They come to them too but there is the conflict between what they feel and what they can reason. All we, pretty much, have is that reason, so the hypocrisy is blaring, (like a freaking super nova) (emotions are the sun glasses lol)

Andreas said...

"Status quo"
I think of it more are reciprocal reinforcement, or a feedback loop. 'Normal people' care, to even a relatively strong amount. So, just being 'yourself' you would care. Not caring would make you strange. Because it is natural, it is ALSO expected. It isn't an unreasonable expectation, if you are part of that group.
Everyone is capable of doing the splits, but it isn't a reasonable request. It would be a reasonable request, however, for a gymnast. Not all gymnasts can do it, and some are much better than others but it is still reasonable. (random, but I've been thinking about gymnastics lately lol)
---------------
http://www.suite101.com/content/how-psychopaths-exploit-others-a62418
(I posted a comment, with my email, trying to contact slickguy21 and that witch didn't post it!!! My comment was neither bad nor good; ass lol)

Read his comment:
Slickguy21

I remember, when the attacks happened, I thought it was utter bull that people 'suddenly cared about people on the other side of the US.' I thought "yeah right, NOW they matter, now we stand together". I couldn't help thinking about even larger numbers of people dying in other countries, on even a regular basis, and how that had no effect on most people, so why would this tragedy be so special?

His comment made me think of my earlier reactions. Learning about socio/psychopathy, it makes more sense to me. I didn't think I was odd for thinking that way. I also didn't think of myself as being particularly cynical, since I pay attention to global affairs. I like to work towards the happiness of others, I just don't have a bleeding heart :P (or much of a heart lol)

-----------
my coworker told me about the tsunami. I later looked at the news and was surprised by how much water there was. (i'm leaving that typo lol, I meant damage). She kept talking about how horrible it was, and how terrible she felt. She was reaching for a reaction, from me. I felt nothing, not indifferent nothing, or shocked nothing, just nothing. I understood, and recongnized that it was terrible, there were just no feeling to draw from. I felt really awkward, since she kind of kept reaching for a response from me, or I should say an appropriate response. Eventually, I gave a half appropriate response, and her mind kind of filled in the blanks, and I was left back to finish my work. Now, if she had needed consoling, I could/would have been sympathetic but she was just looking to relate, and I was Not feeling it :P

-----------
That hypocrisy that you speak of is the hallmark of emotions. Emotions are not logical. We tend to use logic in place of emotions, so we come to these conclusions More easily than they do. They come to them too but there is the conflict between what they feel and what they can reason. All we, pretty much, have is that reason, so the hypocrisy is blaring, (like a freaking super nova) (emotions are the sun glasses lol)

TheNotablePath said...

Fad Empathy and Fad Obligation. Reminds me of the Knights Templar, and that one rap song (currently) on the radio where the chick jokes about feeding the babies in Haiti.

I actually talk and occasionally care for the bums in my neighborhood. Some are too dangerous to deal with, but most are old spent vets, the mentally disabled, or crippled.

The interesting thing is that it's not sympathy. I don't really give a crap about them, and they aren't too numerous to be a hastle, it's a nice balance. They ask for a dollar, or change, or a spare cigarette. Sometimes I'll give them a slice of pizza or share some beer.

You want to know the best part about it?

They do it too. I'll bum them a smoke and they'll offer me a can of beer, or a twinkie, or whatever they have on them. They know I don't need their help, hell I'm the guy that hopped out of the fancy-ish new car. It's a human thing, to help one another in close proximity. But when you throw walls and doors and closed windows into the equation, all the potential for bonding is snuffed out.

They're people too, and I know some of them better than my own damn neighbors. Actually, I don't know my neighbors, ahah!

ZKM said...

I think part of the reason I am so derisive towards emotions and emotional reactions in general is because it seems they are rarely sincere. Hypocrisy is an irritating phenomenon. Were I to be left alone I could care less what people choose to do or not do, but nowadays if you don't display the appropriate amount of 'giveashit', you're spat upon by your peers.

People enjoy feeling superior because they "care' and 'make a difference,' regardless of the fact that they sit idly by while people in their own community suffer in poverty every single day. I like to call these instances like the Japan Tsunami, Fad Empathy. Because of media hype it becomes 'cool' to care and 'callous' not to.

I don't care about the homeless orphans down the street OR the people who have lost their homes in Japan. I do however, associate with the poor. I will never give money to a charity organization, but I do give money to beggars now and then if I initiate a conversation and they amuse me appropriately. Do I go telling people (that I actually know) that? No, why would I? It's ridiculous how these things get out of hand. Japan is a powerful nation, they don't need our pity or our help.

Zhawq said...

ZKM:

"I think part of the reason I am so derisive towards emotions and emotional reactions in general is because it seems they are rarely sincere. Hypocrisy is an irritating phenomenon."

I understand what you mean. I used to think that way too... Well, I still think that way. But I've learned that we tend to think this way a lot more than normal, empathic people, because it's in the human nature to project.

In short: This is a prevalent trait in Psychopaths, and it is very common also in those with AsPD, as well as for Sociopaths, because obviously we can't see genuine emotion if we don't really understand it.

I mean, how would we determine what's real and what isn't?
A normal person with capacity for the famed emotion we call Empathy can do it, because they can connect on an emotional level. We cannot. And that makes us understandably paranoid.

That's the fact about it, as well as the part that says a lot of people really ARE hypocrites, and extremely so.

What I have just said here is an understanding I have gained, obviously on an intellectual level, for I cannot understand or see the difference anymore than you can.

I see hypocrisy and faked emotions everywhere!


"nowadays if you don't display the appropriate amount of 'giveashit', you're spat upon by your peers."

Now a days? It has always been like that - at least for the common person. We live in a time that has no aristocracy, and this is what 'we' suffer from. Personally I think it is a large part of why we are so antisocial as is the case. But that's another story. :)


"Because of media hype it becomes 'cool' to care and 'callous' not to."

Of that there is absolutely no doubt (in my understanding)!


"I do give money to beggars now and then if I initiate a conversation and they amuse me appropriately. Do I go telling people (that I actually know) that? No, why would I?"

Heh, yeah I've done it too (this is the first time I mention it, though, lol).

Laura Potter said...

Hi Zawk,

Very nice article you wrote.
I do see hypocracy and contradiction. I, as an empath, I don't feel great when I see people starving, dying etc...
But I don't cry and proclaim:"Oh my God. That's so bad, so horrible." It won't help anyone.

This evening I saw people in a talkshow complaining and describing, almost in tears, about all the horrible things that happen in Syria these days. It was as if they needed to convince eachother how inhumane and horrible the situation is. The only person in the debate who was rational and calm, was a war journalist.

He was already conditioned to see the images and hear war stories, I think. He was the only one who came up with valuable conclusions and possible solutions, together with the minister from defense.

And still, these two people were put under fire, by the other people on the table. They were like 'Can't you see we have to do something, there are children and women who are suffering and dying!"

Off course they know that!
But they can't do a lot for these people. Not by sitting on a table. And even if they are about taking action, they're quite powerless.


I mean, the government can't even make things right in it's own country, why should my little country waste more money on foreign policy? We don't have enough money to build social domiciles for our own people. (in my country, that is) That's what I think on a rational level. But, as an empath I do think it's sad what is happening to many innocent people.
But I'm not proclaiming it loudly, Because it won't help me or someone else. Most people are swallowed up by emotions so easy. And it happens to me also, way to often.