CIVILIZED EMPATHY

(by Dlanorrenrag*)

FLESHING MORALITY:
What can it mean, to preach a subjective notion of "enlightened empathy?" May such a notion guide us, concerning that which we should encourage, appreciate, sustain, empower, tolerate, or fight? After all, being only a mortal perspective, I cannot very well measure what holistic God would do.

If anything and everything may be rationalized under a notion of enlightened empathy, then what good is such notion? In more practical and specific terms, what should I love, defend, and confront?

SPIRITUAL ADVANCEMENT:
In my intuition, the spiritual, moral, and physical parameters that limit our exercises of free will are artifacts of how we, as Elohim, are spiritually synchronized. If so, should it not follow that even the subjective, moral value of each expression of free will is artifactually dependent upon a synchronizing, competitive context, in which our moral expressions find various promotions and demotions? I believe we express moral competitions within a synchronicity that is spiritually finite, yet unbounded.

EMPATHY FOR OTHERS:
If God is the only Intrinsic Identity, and all others are merely spiritually fluxing expressers of synchronizing logarithms (Elohim), then with Whom (or what) should I identify, empathize, and love?

Concerning other human beings, in what respect should I empathize with them? Should I love their physical bodies, their emotionally expressive meanings, or that which expresses their most essential selves? Should I love them only as chronological expressions of perspectives of God? Should I appreciate (“foist”) only such emotional connections and feelings about them as may be presented to me in each fleeting instant?

EMPATHY NECESSITATES ENFORCEMENT OF MORES:
“Liberals” often decry those who, in respect of spirituality, would foist moral empathies upon others. For that, liberals prefer legalism, as if mere law should enforce our values any more than moral codes (especially when no one is looking).

SHOULD CIVILIZATION BE SUSTAINED:
In respect of “liberals,” if neither mores nor laws should foist behavioral requirements upon others, then how should any civilization be sustained? Should a civil society only enforce (“foist”) its letter system (for word symbolizing) and its number system (for empirical measuring)?

No. To survive and flourish, civilization needs institutions and traditions for resolving conflicts, apart from mere legalism. Citizens of civilization need to communicate about God (or some Ideal substitute).

But, why assume we should sustain or advance any civilization? After all, animals live as expressions of God, without needing civilization or needing to discuss God.

Well, humans, having “the Word,” do discuss God. And, a main pillar of civilization is in our common need to communicate, in respect of “God” (or in respect of shared Ideals of goodness and purposefulness). That is, humans need, through art, dance, song, feast, sport — to express appreciation of “God.”

And, perhaps God needs humanizing civilization, in order to induce humane companionship.

Intuitively, human morality is deeply tied to a need to sustain civilization, which is deeply tied to our evolving capacities for building empathy and individual moral character.

HOW MAY CIVILIZATION BE SUSTAINED:
In respect of God, what parameter-limiting conventions should we discern and enforce, as necessary to sustain, enrich, and advance our civilization (as well as “God’s” appreciation of such civilization)?

Given the continuity of our history, should we be so vain as to believe we should unshackle ourselves from, for example, the Ten Commandments?

May we discern practical moral parameters? Within what parameters should we develop and condition our personalities, interests, loves, and perspectives of moral empathy?