[FairfieldLife] Re: Narcissistic Personality Disorder in a spiritual context
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, ruthsimplicity [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: A good person will do good works. But a person can learn goodness by doing good works. Exactly. Why do we teach our children to share? To give? To say please and thank you? We are teaching them to do good and to be good. I would phrase it differently. I would say that we are teaching our children to recognize what FEELING GOOD feels like. You do something nice for someone else, and it makes you FEEL GOOD. That feeling encourages you to do nice things for other people, so that you will feel good again. It's a state of attention thang. Do something nice (even if it's only nice in your mind) for another person, something you didn't have to do but did anyway, and your state of attention rises. And that feels good. Spiritual traditions teach their kids to do good works because they want those kids to learn to recognize this shift of attention, from lower to higher, from less happy to more happy. If the kids get this early in life, they will establish a tendency TO do good things for others. For people with intact empathy, doing good is rewarding and encourages you to do more good. In the end, you are a good person. But for people without any empathy, doing good probably is just a means to an end. From my point of view, IT DOESN'T MATTER if doing good is just a means to an end. It's a better way of life -- for all concerned -- than not doing good.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Narcissistic Personality Disorder in a spiritual context
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, ruthsimplicity ruthsimplicity@ wrote: snip There are many who say some variant of good works are not the way to heaven. I think that they are wrong, or at least wrong in implying that good works are not a necessary part of the path. Martin Luther said (paraphrased): Good works do not make a good person, but a good person will do good works. Which is pretty much Maharishi's perspective. (Good person = enlightened person; good works = spontaneous right action. By [his] definition, you can't do *spontaneous* right action if you aren't enlightened.) Yes, I have heard this before. I think that both can be true. A good person will do good works. But a person can learn goodness by doing good works. Why do we teach our children to share? To give? To say please and thank you? We are teaching them to do good and to be good. For people with intact empathy, doing good is rewarding and encourages you to do more good. In the end, you are a good person. But for people without any empathy, doing good probably is just a means to an end. Of course, it isn't always easy to know what right action or good works are. Some are obvious--feeding the poor, etc. Others may not be. Even the person doing them may not recognize them as such. True. Justice in particular is difficult to know. The danger lies in assuming that we know what is right in all circumstances. Back to narcissism or egoism again. Instead, I consciously try to be empathetic. Putting myself in the other's position when I am making a decision that effects someone else.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Narcissistic Personality Disorder in a spiritual context
I heard Maharishi actually say: All actions are done to the Self. The meaning, in context, was very clear: don't be deluded, even your good intentions are impure if one is still thinking one is an ego. My woman has the heart of Mother Mary and couldn't resist giving/loving for a nanosecond -- it's so hard wired in her that my low self-esteem simply writhes from her hot blue flames of love with which she ceaselessly tsunamis me. I'm a narcissist, so natch, I welcome all forms of appreciation, but I'm here to tell ya that this woman's adoration is agony -- the pain, the pain -- when she blows past my egoic attachment to me-me-me with nary a sideways glance as she hones in on my heart. See? She cheats! Yet, even she is satisfying an inner need to manifest as a person -- a loving person, but, still just a person, a mask for the soul. She gets off scott-free of course cuz she hardly adulterates the blasts of light with faint pastels of ego, and most folks can't even look at such love without sunglasses on. I'm a dead duck over here. Edg --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, claudiouk [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Judy you said you always got your money's worth, as it were, from doing good, in the form of feeling better (or less bad) about yourself--there was always some reward, as you suggest, some element of selfishness involved, no matter how profound one's capacity for empathy. Surely with altruism there is a polarity from the conscious, calculated, devious intentionality on the one hand (I better do X so as to benefit from Y) to the more spontaneous flow of good intentions (X just is the appropriate thing to do, even if this means discomfort or some personal sacrifice). The fact that the latter makes one feel good does not invalidate altruism, surely.. The key point is not that some good feeling reward contaminates the process but that the good intention/action came NATURALLY, as an impulse (selfishness is firstly an impulse which is then indulged in, in spite of our better judgement). Just a thought/reaction I thought I'd share. Not thoroughly thought through, of course.. but something I've noticed within myself. What one feels naturally, spontaneously that is good may well be affected by all sorts of unconscious processes and defence mechanisms which ultimitely might seem selfish, but then it becomes tautological - a denial of the possibility of goodness, just a world view based on one permissable principle, of badness! It doesn't have to be like that necessarily, in my view.. but the spontaneity and naturalness of the emerging feeling is the key. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, ruthsimplicity ruthsimplicity@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, ruthsimplicity ruthsimplicity@ wrote: snip There are many who say some variant of good works are not the way to heaven. I think that they are wrong, or at least wrong in implying that good works are not a necessary part of the path. Martin Luther said (paraphrased): Good works do not make a good person, but a good person will do good works. Which is pretty much Maharishi's perspective. (Good person = enlightened person; good works = spontaneous right action. By [his] definition, you can't do *spontaneous* right action if you aren't enlightened.) Yes, I have heard this before. I think that both can be true. A good person will do good works. But a person can learn goodness by doing good works. Why do we teach our children to share? To give? To say please and thank you? We are teaching them to do good and to be good. For people with intact empathy, doing good is rewarding and encourages you to do more good. In the end, you are a good person. But for people without any empathy, doing good probably is just a means to an end. I don't know that it's quite so simple. I remember in junior high school we had to write an essay on altruism. I said I didn't think there was such a thing; you always got your money's worth, as it were, from doing good, in the form of feeling better (or less bad) about yourself--there was always some reward, as you suggest, some element of selfishness involved, no matter how profound one's capacity for empathy. Obviously that doesn't mean doing good based on empathy is a *bad* thing, but it's not the same as spontaneous right action as long as there's some expectation of a quid pro quo, even if it's just getting to feel magnanimous. Of course, when I wrote the essay I didn't know anything about the nature of enlightenment, but I think my reasoning holds up with regard to those in ignorance. Luther, in any case, was thinking in terms of salvation, not just
[FairfieldLife] Re: Narcissistic Personality Disorder in a spiritual context
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, ruthsimplicity [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: snip There are many who say some variant of good works are not the way to heaven. I think that they are wrong, or at least wrong in implying that good works are not a necessary part of the path. Martin Luther said (paraphrased): Good works do not make a good person, but a good person will do good works. Which is pretty much Maharishi's perspective. (Good person = enlightened person; good works = spontaneous right action. By [his] definition, you can't do *spontaneous* right action if you aren't enlightened.) Of course, it isn't always easy to know what right action or good works are. Some are obvious--feeding the poor, etc. Others may not be. Even the person doing them may not recognize them as such.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Narcissistic Personality Disorder in a spiritual context
Judy you said you always got your money's worth, as it were, from doing good, in the form of feeling better (or less bad) about yourself--there was always some reward, as you suggest, some element of selfishness involved, no matter how profound one's capacity for empathy. Surely with altruism there is a polarity from the conscious, calculated, devious intentionality on the one hand (I better do X so as to benefit from Y) to the more spontaneous flow of good intentions (X just is the appropriate thing to do, even if this means discomfort or some personal sacrifice). The fact that the latter makes one feel good does not invalidate altruism, surely.. The key point is not that some good feeling reward contaminates the process but that the good intention/action came NATURALLY, as an impulse (selfishness is firstly an impulse which is then indulged in, in spite of our better judgement). Just a thought/reaction I thought I'd share. Not thoroughly thought through, of course.. but something I've noticed within myself. What one feels naturally, spontaneously that is good may well be affected by all sorts of unconscious processes and defence mechanisms which ultimitely might seem selfish, but then it becomes tautological - a denial of the possibility of goodness, just a world view based on one permissable principle, of badness! It doesn't have to be like that necessarily, in my view.. but the spontaneity and naturalness of the emerging feeling is the key. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, ruthsimplicity ruthsimplicity@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, ruthsimplicity ruthsimplicity@ wrote: snip There are many who say some variant of good works are not the way to heaven. I think that they are wrong, or at least wrong in implying that good works are not a necessary part of the path. Martin Luther said (paraphrased): Good works do not make a good person, but a good person will do good works. Which is pretty much Maharishi's perspective. (Good person = enlightened person; good works = spontaneous right action. By [his] definition, you can't do *spontaneous* right action if you aren't enlightened.) Yes, I have heard this before. I think that both can be true. A good person will do good works. But a person can learn goodness by doing good works. Why do we teach our children to share? To give? To say please and thank you? We are teaching them to do good and to be good. For people with intact empathy, doing good is rewarding and encourages you to do more good. In the end, you are a good person. But for people without any empathy, doing good probably is just a means to an end. I don't know that it's quite so simple. I remember in junior high school we had to write an essay on altruism. I said I didn't think there was such a thing; you always got your money's worth, as it were, from doing good, in the form of feeling better (or less bad) about yourself--there was always some reward, as you suggest, some element of selfishness involved, no matter how profound one's capacity for empathy. Obviously that doesn't mean doing good based on empathy is a *bad* thing, but it's not the same as spontaneous right action as long as there's some expectation of a quid pro quo, even if it's just getting to feel magnanimous. Of course, when I wrote the essay I didn't know anything about the nature of enlightenment, but I think my reasoning holds up with regard to those in ignorance. Luther, in any case, was thinking in terms of salvation, not just everyday goodness. To him, a good person was one who had achieved righteousness through faith, and good works were an effect, not a cause. He even thought striving for righteousness through works was detrimental to salvation.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Narcissistic Personality Disorder in a spiritual context
On Feb 8, 2008, at 2:54 PM, authfriend wrote: Was that before or after he said this, about witches: Uh, Sal, I wasn't endorsing Luther. Take a breath. Where did I say you were, Judy? Non-sequitur. Sal
[FairfieldLife] Re: Narcissistic Personality Disorder in a spiritual context
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, ruthsimplicity ruthsimplicity@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, ruthsimplicity ruthsimplicity@ wrote: snip There are many who say some variant of good works are not the way to heaven. I think that they are wrong, or at least wrong in implying that good works are not a necessary part of the path. Martin Luther said (paraphrased): Good works do not make a good person, but a good person will do good works. Which is pretty much Maharishi's perspective. (Good person = enlightened person; good works = spontaneous right action. By [his] definition, you can't do *spontaneous* right action if you aren't enlightened.) Yes, I have heard this before. I think that both can be true. A good person will do good works. But a person can learn goodness by doing good works. Why do we teach our children to share? To give? To say please and thank you? We are teaching them to do good and to be good. For people with intact empathy, doing good is rewarding and encourages you to do more good. In the end, you are a good person. But for people without any empathy, doing good probably is just a means to an end. I don't know that it's quite so simple. I remember in junior high school we had to write an essay on altruism. I said I didn't think there was such a thing; you always got your money's worth, as it were, from doing good, in the form of feeling better (or less bad) about yourself--there was always some reward, as you suggest, some element of selfishness involved, no matter how profound one's capacity for empathy. Obviously that doesn't mean doing good based on empathy is a *bad* thing, but it's not the same as spontaneous right action as long as there's some expectation of a quid pro quo, even if it's just getting to feel magnanimous. Of course, when I wrote the essay I didn't know anything about the nature of enlightenment, but I think my reasoning holds up with regard to those in ignorance. Luther, in any case, was thinking in terms of salvation, not just everyday goodness. To him, a good person was one who had achieved righteousness through faith, and good works were an effect, not a cause. He even thought striving for righteousness through works was detrimental to salvation. Maybe our difference is that I do not know that I believe in spontaneous right action. The problem with spontaneous right action is one another poster pointed out. You don't know it was right until you die. I sometimes shudder when I hear the words because I have heard people who firmly believe that what they are doing is right and good because they had a vision, or just came back from a course, or whatever. Certitude can be dangerous. Vaj, I think, said he trusts his experience. I take the opposite view. I have seen in the course of my life many people whose experiences have led them astray. Serendipity happens and suddenly it is a sign and all subsequent experiences are interpreted in that context. Feedback is vital. I think maybe children do good things in large part because they are rewarded for it, maybe first directly from positive feedback and then through feeling good about it. I think one sign of being an adult is that you do good whether or not there is a perceptible reward. Even if there is a touch of selfishness in altruism, I don't think it is the primary driver of altruism in adults. After all, some die for others. You could argue even that is selfish as it may preserve your genes (in the case of family) or preserve the social order. But, at least today, I am not inclined to take evolutionary biology that far. I strongly disagree with Martin Luther that striving for righteousness through works is detrimental to salvation. A hypothetical: If Hitler instead of committing suicide began meditating, could he have reached enlightenment in this life? I say no. I say that he was incapable of spontaneous right action and incapable of good.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Narcissistic Personality Disorder in a spiritual context
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Sal Sunshine [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Feb 8, 2008, at 2:13 PM, authfriend wrote: Luther, in any case, was thinking in terms of salvation, not just everyday goodness. To him, a good person was one who had achieved righteousness through faith, and good works were an effect, not a cause. He even thought striving for righteousness through works was detrimental to salvation. Was that before or after he said this, about witches: Uh, Sal, I wasn't endorsing Luther. Take a breath.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Narcissistic Personality Disorder in a spiritual context
On Feb 8, 2008, at 2:13 PM, authfriend wrote: Luther, in any case, was thinking in terms of salvation, not just everyday goodness. To him, a good person was one who had achieved righteousness through faith, and good works were an effect, not a cause. He even thought striving for righteousness through works was detrimental to salvation. Was that before or after he said this, about witches: One should show no mercy to these women; I would burn them myself, for we read in the Law that the priests were the ones to begin the stoning of criminals. Or this: He argued that the Jews were no longer the chosen people, but were the devil's people. They were base, whoring people, that is, no people of God, and their boast of lineage, circumcision, and law must be accounted as filth.[74] The synagogue was a defiled bride, yes, an incorrigible whore and an evil slut ...[75] and Jews were full of the devil's feces ... which they wallow in like swine.[76] He advocated setting synagogues on fire, destroying Jewish prayerbooks, forbidding rabbis from preaching, seizing Jews' property and money, smashing up their homes, and ensuring that these poisonous envenomed worms be forced into labor or expelled for all time.[77] He also seemed to sanction their murder,[78] writing We are at fault in not slaying them.[79] Yep, just filled to the brim with goodness and salvation. Sal http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martin_Luther#Luther_on_witchcraft
[FairfieldLife] Re: Narcissistic Personality Disorder in a spiritual context
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Sal Sunshine [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Feb 8, 2008, at 2:54 PM, authfriend wrote: Was that before or after he said this, about witches: Uh, Sal, I wasn't endorsing Luther. Take a breath. Where did I say you were, Judy? Non-sequitur. Well, if you weren't, then your post was a non sequitur!
[FairfieldLife] Re: Narcissistic Personality Disorder in a spiritual context
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Ruth earlier posted the DSM-IV definition of Narcissistic Personality Disorder: The DSM-IV elements of narcissistic PD are at least five of the following: 1. has a grandiose sense of self-importance 2. is preoccupied with fantasies of unlimited success, power, brilliance, beauty, or ideal love 3. believes that he or she is special and unique 4. requires excessive admiration 5. has a sense of entitlement 6. is interpersonally exploitative 7. lacks empathy 8. is often envious of others or believes others are envious of him or her 9. shows arrogant, haughty behaviors or attitudes I'm not a shrink, just an observer of the smorgasbord of spiritual practice, but I see these descriptions/categorizations as fairly significant, because they accurately describe a LOT of spiritual teachers, and a LOT of their students. I might add a tenth criterion, one that IMO is important to recognize when dealing with products of the TM movement: 10. has difficulty knowing the difference between this is the truth and this is how I see it. To me, that's probably THE most defining aspect of narcissism -- the *assumption* that how one sees things *equals* how things really are. And that's one of the most recurring themes here on Fairfield Life with regard to the TM TB (True Believer) phenonmenon, and with regard to occas- ional claims of enlightenment. Nabby and some of the other rare TBs who appear here seem incapable of seeing that there is any *possible* way of seeing things other than the way that they see it. It's probably the characteristic that defines them the most. Any way other of seeing things than the way they see things is by definition wrong. Some of those who have claimed enlightenment on this forum have trotted out the same assumption: if they perceive it or believe, it's not only true, it's TRUTH. Because they are enlightened (or consider themselves enlightened), they *assume* that all of their perceptions are true. When it is pointed out to them that many of them are factually not true, they just tune out and descend into insults and You'll understand when you're as high as I am spiritual oneupsmanship language. It's as if they CAN'T conceive of their perceptions as being anything BUT equivalent with truth. So what I'm suggesting is that when looking at the issue of narcissism or Narcissistic Personality Disorder in a spiritual context, this tenth criterion is a Big One. If the spiritual group being studied tends to *create* this tendency to believe that one's own way of seeing things is the *only* way of seeing things, or the only right way of seeing things, or the truth, then I think it's safe to assume that what's going on in that group is Narcissism Training. Interesting point. I think of the key to NPD is the lack of empathy. Similar to what you are saying, not only do I think I am right, I am right. Other points of view simply are not relevant. I am struggling personally with the whole idea of enlightenment. This is one of the reasons I have been hanging around here for the time being as I sort out my thoughts. I can't help but think that the quest is essentially narcissistic if not coupled with important concepts like duty. I admire the selfless, like Mother Teresa, even if I do not agree with many things she had to say. But her giving nature can not be disputed. Duty to others is of utmost importance to me. When I look at what leaders have to offer, I try to see what they think about duty, kindness, generosity, and justice. On one end you have sociopaths that not only don't have empathy, they have evil, and on the other end you have the saints. There are many who say some variant of good works are not the way to heaven. I think that they are wrong, or at least wrong in implying that good works are not a necessary part of the path.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Narcissistic Personality Disorder in a spiritual context
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, ruthsimplicity [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, ruthsimplicity ruthsimplicity@ wrote: snip There are many who say some variant of good works are not the way to heaven. I think that they are wrong, or at least wrong in implying that good works are not a necessary part of the path. Martin Luther said (paraphrased): Good works do not make a good person, but a good person will do good works. Which is pretty much Maharishi's perspective. (Good person = enlightened person; good works = spontaneous right action. By [his] definition, you can't do *spontaneous* right action if you aren't enlightened.) Yes, I have heard this before. I think that both can be true. A good person will do good works. But a person can learn goodness by doing good works. Why do we teach our children to share? To give? To say please and thank you? We are teaching them to do good and to be good. For people with intact empathy, doing good is rewarding and encourages you to do more good. In the end, you are a good person. But for people without any empathy, doing good probably is just a means to an end. I don't know that it's quite so simple. I remember in junior high school we had to write an essay on altruism. I said I didn't think there was such a thing; you always got your money's worth, as it were, from doing good, in the form of feeling better (or less bad) about yourself--there was always some reward, as you suggest, some element of selfishness involved, no matter how profound one's capacity for empathy. Obviously that doesn't mean doing good based on empathy is a *bad* thing, but it's not the same as spontaneous right action as long as there's some expectation of a quid pro quo, even if it's just getting to feel magnanimous. Of course, when I wrote the essay I didn't know anything about the nature of enlightenment, but I think my reasoning holds up with regard to those in ignorance. Luther, in any case, was thinking in terms of salvation, not just everyday goodness. To him, a good person was one who had achieved righteousness through faith, and good works were an effect, not a cause. He even thought striving for righteousness through works was detrimental to salvation.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Narcissistic Personality Disorder in a spiritual context
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, ruthsimplicity ruthsimplicity@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, ruthsimplicity ruthsimplicity@ wrote: snip There are many who say some variant of good works are not the way to heaven. I think that they are wrong, or at least wrong in implying that good works are not a necessary part of the path. Martin Luther said (paraphrased): Good works do not make a good person, but a good person will do good works. Which is pretty much Maharishi's perspective. (Good person = enlightened person; good works = spontaneous right action. By [his] definition, you can't do *spontaneous* right action if you aren't enlightened.) Yes, I have heard this before. I think that both can be true. A good person will do good works. But a person can learn goodness by doing good works. Why do we teach our children to share? To give? To say please and thank you? We are teaching them to do good and to be good. For people with intact empathy, doing good is rewarding and encourages you to do more good. In the end, you are a good person. But for people without any empathy, doing good probably is just a means to an end. I don't know that it's quite so simple. I remember in junior high school we had to write an essay on altruism. I said I didn't think there was such a thing; you always got your money's worth, as it were, from doing good, in the form of feeling better (or less bad) about yourself--there was always some reward, as you suggest, some element of selfishness involved, no matter how profound one's capacity for empathy. Obviously that doesn't mean doing good based on empathy is a *bad* thing, but it's not the same as spontaneous right action as long as there's some expectation of a quid pro quo, even if it's just getting to feel magnanimous. Of course, when I wrote the essay I didn't know anything about the nature of enlightenment, but I think my reasoning holds up with regard to those in ignorance. Luther, in any case, was thinking in terms of salvation, not just everyday goodness. To him, a good person was one who had achieved righteousness through faith, and good works were an effect, not a cause. He even thought striving for righteousness through works was detrimental to salvation. Maybe our difference is that I do not know that I believe in spontaneous right action as a permanent state that someone achieves. The problem with spontaneous right action is one another poster pointed out. You don't know it was right until you die. I sometimes shudder when I hear the words because I have heard people who firmly believe that what they are doing is right and good because they had a vision,or just came back from a course, or whatever. Certitude can be dangerous. Vaj, I think, said he trusts his experience. I take the opposite view. I have seen in the course of my life many people whose experiences have led them astray. Serendipity happens and suddenly it is a sign and all subsequent experiences are interpreted in that context. Feedback is vital. I think maybe children do good things in large part because they are rewarded for it, maybe first directly from positive feedback and then through feeling good about it. I think one sign of being an adult is that you do good whether or not there is a perceptible reward. Even if there is a touch of selfishness in altruism, I don't think it is the primary driver of altruism in adults. After all, some die for others. You could argue even that is selfish as it may preserve your genes (in the case of family) or preserve the social order. But, at least today, I am not inclined to take evolutionary biology that far. So, after doing good, and becoming good, and being born with the capacity for good, at times you will spontaneously do good. So in that sense, I believe in spontaneous right action. But not as a permanent state of being. So in that sense, I distrust whether enlightenment exists or at least I distrust whether it is found through meditation with nothing else required. I strongly disagree with Martin Luther that striving for righteousness through works is detrimental to salvation. A hypothetical: If Hitler instead of committing suicide began meditating, could he have reached enlightenment in this life? I say no. I say that he was incapable of spontaneous right action and incapable of good.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Narcissistic Personality Disorder in a spiritual context
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, claudiouk [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Judy you said you always got your money's worth, as it were, from doing good, in the form of feeling better (or less bad) about yourself--there was always some reward, as you suggest, some element of selfishness involved, no matter how profound one's capacity for empathy. Surely with altruism there is a polarity from the conscious, calculated, devious intentionality on the one hand (I better do X so as to benefit from Y) to the more spontaneous flow of good intentions (X just is the appropriate thing to do, even if this means discomfort or some personal sacrifice). The fact that the latter makes one feel good does not invalidate altruism, surely. It depends on how one defines altruism. If it refers to absolute selflessness, as in enlightenment, then any self-interest at all invalidates it. With a looser definition, obviously it wouldn't. In my school essay, I wasn't attempting to invalidate altruism so much as point out that good works always have some type of reward. What the observer sees as self-sacrificing may not be. As I look back on it, it almost seems as if I had been intuiting enlightenment, about which I knew nuttin' at the time, by its absence. It was one of a bunch of puzzling holes in my understanding that got filled when I encountered MMY's teaching years later. The key point is not that some good feeling reward contaminates the process but that the good intention/action came NATURALLY, as an impulse (selfishness is firstly an impulse which is then indulged in, in spite of our better judgement). Sure, as a function of empathy. It's a good point, it just wasn't *my* key point. ;-) And as you go on to point out-- What one feels naturally, spontaneously that is good may well be affected by all sorts of unconscious processes and defence mechanisms which ultimitely might seem selfish, --it's hard to be sure about everything that goes into the impulse to do good. but then it becomes tautological - a denial of the possibility of goodness, just a world view based on one permissable principle, of badness! Yes, but it would be a denial only of *absolute* goodness, as in enlightenment (per MMY's concept of it). And I don't think badness really has anything to do with it, except in the sense that goodness can be relative. There's always at least *some* good in doing good, even if it's for selfish reasons. It doesn't have to be like that necessarily, in my view.. but the spontaneity and naturalness of the emerging feeling is the key. Again, it isn't *my* key, but it's a good observation, a criterion for locating an action on a scale between the poles of pure selfishness and pure altruism. Thanks for the comments!
[FairfieldLife] Re: Narcissistic Personality Disorder in a spiritual context
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, claudiouk claudiouk@ wrote: Judy you said you always got your money's worth, as it were, from doing good, in the form of feeling better (or less bad) about yourself--there was always some reward, as you suggest, some element of selfishness involved, no matter how profound one's capacity for empathy. Surely with altruism there is a polarity from the conscious, calculated, devious intentionality on the one hand (I better do X so as to benefit from Y) to the more spontaneous flow of good intentions (X just is the appropriate thing to do, even if this means discomfort or some personal sacrifice). The fact that the latter makes one feel good does not invalidate altruism, surely. It depends on how one defines altruism. If it refers to absolute selflessness, as in enlightenment, then any self-interest at all invalidates it. With a looser definition, obviously it wouldn't. In my school essay, I wasn't attempting to invalidate altruism so much as point out that good works always have some type of reward. We would hope so. Sometimes it's clear. But, as I point out to myself, there is no definitive proof. Absent that, we don't know for certain that we will benefit from arduous works for others. Thinking out loud, (one could) posit a universe where altruism brings bad effects upon oneself, and selfish acts good effects. That universe would be more of a testing ground for altruistic saints. Or posit a universe where altruism brings bad effects to others, and selfish acts good effects to others. Opps, Adam Smith already did 200+ years ago. Or posit a universe where everything is me. All action becomes purely selfish. And yet surprisingly, some good may come of it.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Narcissistic Personality Disorder in a spiritual context
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, ruthsimplicity [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote: snip Luther, in any case, was thinking in terms of salvation, not just everyday goodness. To him, a good person was one who had achieved righteousness through faith, and good works were an effect, not a cause. He even thought striving for righteousness through works was detrimental to salvation. Maybe our difference is that I do not know that I believe in spontaneous right action as a permanent state that someone achieves. The problem with spontaneous right action is one another poster pointed out. You don't know it was right until you die. If then! I sometimes shudder when I hear the words because I have heard people who firmly believe that what they are doing is right and good because they had a vision,or just came back from a course, or whatever. Certitude can be dangerous. Complete agreement. But for me, the iffiness of the practical reality doesn't lead me to actively disbelieve in the theoretical principle. In any case, though, if the person is enlightened in the Eastern sense, there's no belief in the goodness of one's actions involved, since one's experience is that one is not their author anyway; it's the interplay of the three gunas (I do not act at all). Vaj, I think, said he trusts his experience. I take the opposite view. I have seen in the course of my life many people whose experiences have led them astray. Serendipity happens and suddenly it is a sign and all subsequent experiences are interpreted in that context. Feedback is vital. (Note that above I'm referring to experience *of consciousness*, of Self, not of the relative world.) I think maybe children do good things in large part because they are rewarded for it, maybe first directly from positive feedback and then through feeling good about it. I think one sign of being an adult is that you do good whether or not there is a perceptible reward. Even if there is a touch of selfishness in altruism, I don't think it is the primary driver of altruism in adults. No, I didn't mean to suggest it was, just that there's always some element of it, which distinguishes it from the pure altruism, absolute selflessness, of enlightenment. After all, some die for others. You could argue even that is selfish as it may preserve your genes (in the case of family) or preserve the social order. But, at least today, I am not inclined to take evolutionary biology that far. Sure, that's a whole 'nother thing. However, even dying for others, if it's deliberate, can involve self-interest--in one's legacy, for example (historical, not biological). On the other hand, perhaps in some cases those who have given their lives for others were enlightened (Greater love hath no man than this, that he should lay down his life for his friends--or maybe even his enemies). So, after doing good, and becoming good, and being born with the capacity for good, at times you will spontaneously do good. So in that sense, I believe in spontaneous right action. But not as a permanent state of being. So in that sense, I distrust whether enlightenment exists or at least I distrust whether it is found through meditation with nothing else required. It makes sense to me intellectually, although not (yet?) experientially. I strongly disagree with Martin Luther that striving for righteousness through works is detrimental to salvation. Yes, as I recall there was a rather vigorous argument about that in the 16th and 17th centuries! A hypothetical: If Hitler instead of committing suicide began meditating, could he have reached enlightenment in this life? I say no. I say that he was incapable of spontaneous right action and incapable of good. I'm partial to the idea that nobody is irredeemable, no matter how evil. I'm much less confident as to what it might take in any given case. For Hitler, I suspect it would require many incarnations.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Narcissistic Personality Disorder in a spiritual context
In my experience you see altruism, the real deal, during terrible times or unusual crises. When things are peachy keen all around, nobody rises to the occasion because there is no occasion, and there are are bland deeds that go by the name of altruism, but are as selfish really as Judy says they are. But when times get tough, you do see not only amazing altruism, you also see heroism. People do give their lives for each other, and such an act probably isn't motivated by feeling better about oneself. - Original Message From: new.morning [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Friday, February 8, 2008 9:26:18 PM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Narcissistic Personality Disorder in a spiritual context --- In FairfieldLife@ yahoogroups. com, authfriend [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@ yahoogroups. com, claudiouk claudiouk@ wrote: Judy you said you always got your money's worth, as it were, from doing good, in the form of feeling better (or less bad) about yourself--there was always some reward, as you suggest, some element of selfishness involved, no matter how profound one's capacity for empathy. Surely with altruism there is a polarity from the conscious, calculated, devious intentionality on the one hand (I better do X so as to benefit from Y) to the more spontaneous flow of good intentions (X just is the appropriate thing to do, even if this means discomfort or some personal sacrifice). The fact that the latter makes one feel good does not invalidate altruism, surely. It depends on how one defines altruism. If it refers to absolute selflessness, as in enlightenment, then any self-interest at all invalidates it. With a looser definition, obviously it wouldn't. In my school essay, I wasn't attempting to invalidate altruism so much as point out that good works always have some type of reward. We would hope so. Sometimes it's clear. But, as I point out to myself, there is no definitive proof. Absent that, we don't know for certain that we will benefit from arduous works for others. Thinking out loud, (one could) posit a universe where altruism brings bad effects upon oneself, and selfish acts good effects. That universe would be more of a testing ground for altruistic saints. Or posit a universe where altruism brings bad effects to others, and selfish acts good effects to others. Opps, Adam Smith already did 200+ years ago. Or posit a universe where everything is me. All action becomes purely selfish. And yet surprisingly, some good may come of it. Send instant messages to your online friends http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com
