​Empathy and our human need to be virtuous
 
It seems it has always been easy for we humans to divide the world into good and bad, evil and virtuous, the chosen and the non-chosen people.  We – no matter who the we – want to be in that group of people who are good, virtuous and the chosen.   Thus, we feel the need to explain or justify behavior which is very unkind or cruel.  We can, for example, tell ourselves that it is just to kill those who are labeled by us or themselves as our enemy. Very frequently we humans have convinced ourselves that the God of our understanding is the one true God who has ordained that WE carry out His (or Her) will to get rid of all those whose very presence offend that very God.
 
If we have decided that our way of proving our pre-eminent position in the world – our basic worth – is by gaining wealth we may enslave another group of people and pick out some distinctive characteristics which are evidenced by skin tone to justify, first to ourselves and then to others, why enslavement is a virtuous act.   In this case we will invent the artificial, social construct of racism.  We will then surround the construct with self-fulling prophecies.     I will briefly review the psychology of oppression as I recall Dr. James Cone, articulated:
 
·      Decide that one needs or deserves to be wealthy – can earn or prove one’s worth by being wealthy.
·      Articulate reasons why becoming wealthy comes from a virtue such as being brighter, harder working, ordained by God or whatever.
·      Enslave a group of people – physically, emotionally or spiritually.
·      Prevent them from attaining the education or skills to be self- sufficient or assuming a role in the established order.
·      Forbid them from gathering, comparing notes or thinking.
·      Justify their lack of skills or education by stating that they are incapable of learning and positing that kindness dictates that one not put them in situations where they will fail.
·      Reinforce the belief that they have now begun to internalize that they are dumb, powerless, or undeserving.
·      The enslavers must also internalize or begin to believe their own lies.
·      Accept their gratitude for taking care of such dumb, undeserving people.
·      Ignore obvious signs that the enslaved have not completely bought into the lies.
 
If one is truly a sociopath or psychopath – incapable of discerning the truth of the worth of all we humans – one will not have to construct such a carefully constructed process.  Most of we humans, however, do have a need to convince ourselves and others that our behavior is virtuous.    Whether one is talking about the slave owners, the creators of the Nazi death camps or  the other cruel behavior of the Third Reich, Stalin’s Russia, right wing Christians, radical Muslims or others, if we look carefully we will find a carefully constructed system justifying behavior which allows one to continue to be virtuous.   Jay Lifton’s The Nazi Doctors outlines the role of health care professionals in making it appear to many that the behavior of the Third Reich was legitimate and even virtuous.     A careful reading of “The Communist Manifesto” will reveal the point at which Marx and Engels redefined the developmental point at which one becomes human.
 
Reviewing “the reasons” for protecting females from straining or polluting their minds with the world of leadership outside the home and failing in school and neglecting what they were designed by God to do tells one a lot about how sexism was developed and justified. 
 
Researching the origin of the understanding of the need to prevent the wasting of the limited number of sperm until it becomes a religious demand or requirement of God and thus immune from rational discussion helps one to understand the prohibitions against homosexuality.
 
Studying the attempt to explain the evils of the world by constructing a system of behavior and thought which leads to Jihads helps one to understand the seemingly evil behavior of those who convince themselves that they are doing the work of Allah.
 
I have long been fascinated by the need of we humans to both do what we think we have to do to construct and live the life of a worthy/deserving person and to remain virtuous.   This tells me that most of we humans have a powerful urge to live a virtuous life.  If I look at the behavior which initially seems evil from this vantage point it is much easier to be empathic toward and with those whose behavior is grossly different from mine. This need to be virtuous tells me that it is very important to explore the fears underlying behavior.  If I am going to be an agent for positive  change, I am going to have to address that basic need of all we humans to be worthy of love.  It is very easy to fall into the trap of just damning those or advocating to punish and even kill those who are engaging in slavery, jihads, sexism, ageism, or other forms of oppression.  It is very easy to attribute a core attribute of evil to those who engage in behavior which seems to negate the basic rights of others to even breathe.  It is easy to suggest that others deserve to die, be sent to prison, be subjected to water boarding, be beheaded or generally treated as robotic servants.    Reaching down to the level of commonality – the need to be considered worthy – may be much harder and much more uncomfortable.
 
Written June 7, 2016

​Empathy, vulnerability and politicians
 
Early this morning I was listening  to a Ted Talk by Brené Brown recorded December 2010 entitled, The Power of Vulnerability.  I had previously listened to this talk several times.  I appreciate her acute insight, her willingness to identify with the issues she is discussing and her sense of humor.  In other words, she seems to me to have a level of integrity which I find it easy to trust.
 
I continue to explore the concept  and practice of empathy.  I know that empathy is directly related to the courage to be honest and, thus, vulnerable to oneself. This then allows one the potential or ability to be vulnerable and empathic with others.  It seems to make a priori sense that one cannot be with the vulnerability of others unless one is willing to make a connection. A connection cannot be made unless one is connecting vulnerability to vulnerability.   As I have previously posited, if I want to make a connection with you, I have to risk showing you the ways I am the same as you.  I recognize your ability to be wounded because I have been wounded. I am willing to show you that I believe that though we have  been previously wounded and  we can be wounded again, the only way we can connect is to be emotionally naked with each other – connecting wound to wound. As Ms. Brown states, it would seem that if we hide our wounds we also hide our joy, laughter, love, and all the other emotions of which we are capable.
 
The origin of the word vulnerable is “from the Latin noun vulnus (‘wound’).  ‘Vulnus’ led to the Latin verb vunerare, meaning ‘to wound’ or ‘having the power to wound’ (the latter is now obsolete), but since the late 1600s, it has also been used figuratively to suggest a defenselessness against non-physical attacks.  In other words, someone (or something) can be vulnerable to criticism or failure as well as to literal wounding.”  (Merriam-Websterdictionary.com)
 
 
On the one level, given the above, it would seem as if, from an vulnerable standpoint, it would be easy to empathize, and thus connect at a deep emotional level, with politicians.  After all, their humanness – their vulnerability/wounds- is plainly visible.   If we are willing to be vulnerable to our own humanness we are going to easily identify with the politicians. Some of the current political figures in this and other countries clearly demonstrate the courage it takes to expose oneself to the scrutiny of the public, representatives of the news media and one’s opponents. All of us can easily relate to this courage and the underlying wounds.  Sadly this is not what happens, not only with politicians but with many of our relationships.  What does happen is:
 
·      The politician exposes himself or herself, becomes frightened of how others will react and then either denies their humanness or attacks the person(s) who acknowledges the humanness their behavior has clearly demonstrated.
·      Many of the potential voters criticize politicians often causing them to feel worse which then leads to them becoming more defensive which leads to more denials and/or attacks which leads to …
 
There is no empathy on either side  - no identification  with the humanness of each other.  Each side feels less connected and, thus, less like they are members of the same community.  They are, if not careful, now enemies who mirror the nakedness of each other. It now seems as if their only option is to destroy each other.
 
It does not now matter what the base issues are.  The issue is now each other – each side. The original issues get put off to the side and, of course, get worse.
 
As with any system this process can be interrupted at any point in the circle.   As all of us know, in order for a particular system to work all pieces must be in sync. If one changes one piece or one action one changes the entire system and the outcome has to be different. The outcome may be better or worse but it will not be the same.
 
In the political process if either side decides to be more empathic and brings the focus back to the original or base issues, the outcome has to be different.   The possibilities are:
·      Side or person A recognizes that their behavior is not working and they try something else.
·      Side or person B tries even harder to destroy what they are labeling as their opponent or their enemy.
·      Side or person A gives up and again falls prey to a reactionary mode.
·      One person or side becomes silent by opting out of the process which, of course, means an end to that system.
 
All relationships basically work the same. When a person or group refuses to engage in a non-empathic system, the system has to change for better or worse.   I cannot force another to be empathic.  I can, however, always be empathic and stay open to receiving the empathic response of others. In the end,  I only have the power to lovingly own my own humanness and to see the mirror as it is reflected from others.
 
Obviously this is not easy for any of we humans.   Yet, if we can identify and own our part in a system we will be doing our part to create a more empathic and compassionate community.
 
Written June 6, 2016

​I see you – The empathy of vision
 
Cassius Clay who later took the name of Mohammad Ali died a few days ago at the age of 74.  He had lived with Parkinson’s disease for many years.
The story of his life journey and the grief which so many are experiencing has seemingly been the only story in many months which could supplant the 24/7 news coverage of the presidential primary campaign in the United States. That alone should tell us a lot.  Obviously, I do not need to repeat or summarize what everyone can read for themselves or hear for themselves on one of the many news or sports programs on the television, the internet or in local, national and international newspapers.  Suffice it to say that his courage, passion and capacity for empathy will be greatly missed by many.
 Since I have been writing on the many faces of empathy, one story which I had previously not heard captured my attention.  It is:
 “At the age of 12, a curious incident set young Cassius Clay on a new path. On an October afternoon he rode his new bike to the Columbia Auditorium. Later, when he went back to get it, it had been stolen. Someone told him there was a police officer in the basement, so Clay went down there. The basement turned out to be a boxing gym—the officer, Joe Martin, was a boxing enthusiast with his own gym. After listening to his volley of threats against whoever stole the bike, Martin invited him to come around to his gym and learn something about boxing.
Six weeks after he started training with Joe Martin, Clay fought and won his first bout. Over the next few years of his training, Martin became more and more impressed, not only with Clay's speed and strength, but even more by his mental quickness and his ability to take a punch without the twin dangers of getting mad or going into a panic. In high school, Clay became a very successful amateur boxer, winning six Kentucky Golden Gloves Championships and two nationals. By the time he graduated, he had 100 wins and only 8 losses. Throughout the 1950s, he also appeared on a local television program, Tomorrow's Champions. He was paid four dollars for each televised match. Then, shortly after graduation, he won a gold medal at the 1960 Rome Olympics in light-heavy-weight boxing match.   He decided to turn pro. (Muhammad Ali – A Stolen Bicycle   sportsjrank.org)
 
I never met Mr. Martin but I suspect that he was one of those community treasures who could look at the young Cassius and see himself as a young man.   This  willingness to see something other than the anger which Cassius was expressing about his stolen bike is the essence of empathy.  The rest, as they say, is history.  It is possible, of course, that if Mr. Martin had not SEEN Cassius, Cassius might have looked in the mirror one day and seen CASSIUS.  It is also possible that someone else might have seen CASSIUS and invited him to explore the possibility of his talent, courage and empathy for others.   It is also possible that someone might have offered him an opportunity to explore a diversionary activity or just an outlet for his anger without actually SEEING Cassius. 
 
I like to think that Mr. Martin SAW/FELT Cassius; that he reached deep into his own vulnerable soul  and connected that invisible (to the naked eye) cord which gave Cassius access to a talent and a heart which would  not only assure his place in history but the ability  to SEE millions of other youth and adults. 
 
It seems to me that pure empathy is:
 
·      The willingness to own and share one’s own human vulnerability.
·      The willingness to grab that chord from one’s often painful vulnerability and connect it to that of another person.
 
Thanks to all those who are willing to SEE – to experience and share empathy.
 
 
Written June 5, 2016

​Empathy as potential
 
Krista Tippett, host of On Being, says in the June 2, 2016 broadcast on “Capitalism and Moral Evolution:  a Civil Provocation” states:
 
“And then we get to the point where we are now in the early 21st century, and someone like you can say it this way, that empathy is in us from the beginning, as a potential, right? Not necessarily in everyone. “A kind of emotional-brain resonance enhanced by mirror neurons,” which is a whole other way of looking at ourselves. I’m fascinated by the evolution of our way of grappling with this.
 
Her guests for this discussion are Jonathan Haidt the Thomas Cooley Professor of Ethical Leadership at New York University’s Stern School of Business and Melvin Konner the Samuel Candler Dobbs Professor of Anthropology and of Neuroscience and Behavioral Biology at Emory University.
 
The ensuing discussion is a fascinating exploration of the role of particular economic systems, codes of conduct within and outside of the structure of organized religion and the evolution of the ability of we humans to become what I will label as other or community oriented.  The questions include:
 
·      Is an economic system such as capitalism a necessary prerequisite to a more expanded view of our interconnectedness?
·      Is fear a necessary and positive motivating factor for we humans to consider the needs of each other?
·      Is some religious code necessary for we humans to honor the sacredness of all of existence?
 
The wording of these questions, while stimulated by the discussion between Dr. Haidt, Dr. Konner and Ms. Tippett, is entirely my own.  I, as usual, encourage the reader of my blog to download the app for “On Being” and listen to the weekly podcast as well as making use of other blogs and writings on the On Being web site. 
 
In 1942, the famous psychologist, Abraham Maslow published an article in Psychological Review entitled “A theory of human motivation.”   In this article he offered a model for thinking about the hierarchy of needs for we humans.  His theory is summarized as:
 
This five stage model can be divided into basic (or deficiency) needs (e.g. physiological, safety, love, and esteem) and growth needs (self-actualization).
The deficiency or basic needs are said to motivate people when they are unmet. Also, the need to fulfil such needs will become stronger the longer the duration they are denied. For example, the longer a person goes without food the more hungry s/he will become. (Simplypsychology.org)
 
Another way of conceptualization his theory, as I understand it, is that until we humans satisfy our basic needs we do not have the luxury of becoming self-actualized. It is only at this stage of development that we can have the luxury of considering the needs of others.  Whether we are looking at a so-called primitive tribe in some remote region where there is a scarcity of resources and concern for others is limited to that tribe or at an individual living in the poorest ghetto in the world where there is a limited access to food and other basic needs, Maslow’s theory seems to be proven correct.
 
In some communities or countries several factors have coalesced to challenge us to further explore the factors which might result in creating a more just and cooperative world – a world in which we humans are more empathic with each other and with the rest of the universe(s).  These include:
 
·      Increasing awareness of the resources available to some people and withheld from others (television, smart phones, the Internet and greater access to even the printed word play a role).
·      A seemingly successful capitalist economic system which, in some case, allowed for a large share of the population to lead a good life.
·      The increasing awareness and questioning of the different religious and philosophical frameworks for exploring how we determine the rules for how we relate to each other, mother earth and the universe (s).
·      The increasing public disparity between the extent to which various humans can meet basic needs and move toward self-actualization.
·      Increasing awareness, to which Ms. Tippett alludes, of the biological factors such as mirror neurons which affect such abilities as that of being empathic.  This, of course, leads to questioning the extent to which we humans have choices about our behavior.
·      Population increase although except in parts of Africa the population increase may be moving in the direction of significantly slowing.
 
It is very tempting to assume that the awareness of these issues are the original epiphany of present day humans. They are, however, issues which have been explored for as long as any of we humans had the luxury of a free five minutes to ask them.  
 
Although some things such as smart phones, the Internet, television, and certain modes of transportation are indeed new to this generation of planet earth residents (leaving aside the question of civilizations on other plants and/or in other universes), the questions about how we relate to each other and divide the resources are not new.
 
I do think it is true as Dr. Haidt points out in the discussion on On Being that while a form of capitalism has been the overriding economic system which has allowed some members of the population to move towards the luxury of self-actualization, we may need to remind ourselves of several factors:
 
·      There are many forms of capitalism.  “These include laissez-faire or free market capitalism, welfare capitalism, and state capitalism. Different forms of capitalism feature varying degrees of free markets, public ownership,[8] obstacles to free competition, and state-sanctioned social policies. The degree of competition in markets, the role of intervention and regulation, and the scope of state ownership vary across different models of capitalism.”  (Wikipedia)  Obviously this is an overly simplistic overview of a concept which fills the pages of many academic books.
·      No matter what the economic system even those who may enjoy enormous economic success do not satisfy the basic needs of love and esteem.  As long as those needs are not realized no matter what their economic success they will not be able to enjoy the luxury of considering the needs of others. There are those who might argue the needs of love and esteem are even more basic or as basic as food, water, and safety.
·      Related to the need for esteem are factors such as racism, sexism and other forms of discrimination and oppression. It may be important to remind ourselves that concepts such as racism are artificial constructs, the purpose of which is to bolster one’s self esteem/sense of worth.
 
I agree with Ms. Tippett that within the limits of biological factors we humans have the potential becoming empathic.  Although obviously we need some basics such as food to physically stay alive, I am not sure that we need much financially to be empathic. I have known many individuals and families who had very little financially but who were enormously generous in their love.    Obviously we all also know or know about individuals who have accumulated much financial wealth and are living in a safe compound but who are unable to consider the needs of others. 
 
It may be that some form of capitalism will allow for the possibility of taking better care of each other. I am not sure that any one economic system in some illusionary pure form can create the conditions for we humans to become self-actualized. I am assuming, of course, that self-actualization necessarily leads to our awareness that we are all equally “sacred” and, thus, knowing and understanding myself leads to knowing and understanding “the other” which leads to knowing and understanding “self.”
 
Written June 5, 2016

​Friendship, empathy, and virtue
 
In the June 3rd edition of the Wall Street Journal (p A9) Carla T. Main reviews Princeton Philosophy Professor Alexander Nehamas’s recently published book, Friends Without Benefits.
 
Ms. Main talks about the relationship between the two convicted killers who escaped from a New York prison, Richard Matt and David Sweat, who she said “shared a goal and had complementary talents.”  The two had formed a friendship while in prison. But, Ms Main asks, did their relationship really meet the criteria for friendship. She maintains that “Aristotle would have said no, because of their wicked ways.”   She goes on to say that Professor Nehamas makes a “thought-provoking and thorough modern argument that friendship is a value apart from moral virtue.” Ms. Main maintains, on the other hand, that Aristotle posited that the “bond  (of friendship) is reserved for those of high character.”
 
Finally, Ms. Main  asks “if friendship can exist where no trace of moral virtue or instincts informed by rules of justice remain.”   
 
Both the book and Ms. Main’s review caught my attention because:
·    I studied both philosophy and theology.
·    I once was a member of a graduate seminar with the noted philosopher and poet, Walter Kaufman (also at Princeton at the time) the purpose of which was to determine if we could agree on a definition of justice.  As I recall there was no consensus.
·    The use of the terms “friend” and “defriend” by social media sites such as Facebook and MySpace.  (Some would say overuse of the terms.)
 
Just this morning I had a “friend” request  on Facebook from someone I had never heard of.    As far as I could determine this person had not been referred to my Facebook page by an existing friend.   Since  Facebook pages are also a place where many access my daily blog I am always hesitant to refuse a friend request.  Most of my readers do not read my blog on my web page although I continue to also publish the blog on that site.  
 
Because of the blog and the fact that one of my Facebook pages is a business page, I have hundreds of “friends,” many of whom do not fit any definition of friend which I would normally use.  While it is true that many of those might be potential friends and might behave as a friend should a situation occur which allowed for the opportunity for one or both of us to act in a way which satisfy the criteria for friendship.
 
One would certainly be justified in asking me to name what I consider the criteria for friendship.  Aristotle talks of virtue.   “According to Aristotle, the virtuous habit of action is always an intermediate state (mean) between the opposed vices of excess and deficiency.” (philosophypages.com)
 
Notice the use of the terms habit and mean which are essential to his understanding of virtue. Virtue is essential for friendship.
 
Ms. Main argues that when one of the convicts leaves the other to fend for himself “the friendship ceased.”
 
One has no way of determining if indeed one  or both of these men considered the friendship to have ceased at that point.  Only David Sweat is now alive to answer that question of whether both people have to agree for a friendship to cease. Certainly, many, if not all of us have had the experience of being “defriended” by someone we continue to love.  Sitting here I am thinking of a couple of individuals who I would happily welcome back into my life as friends should they allow that to happen.  From my standpoint, I can think of no behavior which would nullify a friendship.  Since I consider that two-legged friends are humans, I expect them to behave in a way which is consistent with the often fragile egos or limited ability to trust which seems to be a fixed characteristic of we humans.
 
I am suggesting that the behavior which defines friendship for me is:
·    Behavior of two or more people
·    Behavior which allows for human closeness and corresponding distancing.
·    My resolve or promise to treat someone with love and respect.
·    Is unconditional meaning, for me. There is nothing the other can do which would cause me to end the relationship.
·    Is accepting of the need of the other to cease contract/communication.
·    Non-judgmental (tickles the heart and the mind - loves while challenging one to grow emotionally and spiritually).
·    Does one’s human best to treat the other with respect – to treat them as sacred (refrains from intentionally hurting the other).
·    Is forgiving – accepting of one’s humanness.
·    Is  always striving to be empathetic – willing to do one’s best to see an event or situation  as the other sees or experiences it.
·    Accepts that trust is a process.
·    Makes the relationship a priority.  (I say this perfectly aware that I have several long-term friendships which demand and/are dependent on my initiating contact.
 
I am suggesting that I can hold the door open for friendship but the friendship can only be active if two or more people are willing to activate that relationship.   Yet, if one person is no longer mentally  or medically able to meet the criteria for a friendship one might posit that the friendship still exists.  There is a sense in which one might say that a person has taken up permanent residence in one’s heart and, thus is a permanent friend no matter what the other person does or does not do.
 
If by habit Aristotle meant one does one’s best to be consistent in one’s habits, then I could use that term as a criteria.  If on the other hand, he meant that one had to be consistent 90% of the time, I am not sure I can accept it as a criteria.  I could, I think, say the same about the applying the means test to a particular behavior. Sometimes my behavior is excessive or deficient.
 
For me, the quality or characteristic of empathy is a key component of any loving relationship.   By definition a friendship is loving.
 
Both book reviews such as the one by Ms. Main and books such as that by Professor Nehamas are essential if I am to continue to challenge myself or allow others to challenge me to keep returning to my commitment to live an intentional life rather than allowing life to just happen.
 
Written June 3, 2016

Empathy and arms sales
 
Dr. Samantha Nutt in a Ted talk posted June 2016 entitled The real harm of the global arms trade discussed her personal experience in working with people directly affected by the proliferation and use of weapons.  She is founder of the international humanitarian organization War Child.  She has worked in the field with such organizations as Doctors Without Borders for over twenty years.
 
I have previously questioned how the United States can both profess to be working for peace, offering humanitarian aid to many affected by war and continue to be the world leader in the sale of weapons which, as Dr. Nutt points out, frequently end up in the hands of children or those who use violence to impose their beliefs on others.  In this presidential election we, the people of the United States, which has allowed organizations such as the NRA to have such a powerful influence on the thinking and actions of our politicians, need to consider some of the facts about the business of manufacturing and selling weapons. I urge the reader to do their own research since the figures may vary a little from source to source although I have not found the differences in figures to be statistically significant.  I personally think that the figures speak for themselves.  I did not research all the principal stockholders in the various companies. Often the top stockholders are listed as the current CEO  and other senior executives. Such is the case with Lockheed Martin whose CEO is one of the most powerful business woman in the United States.   Consider:
 
“According to the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute, the top 100 weapons manufacturers in the world sold a combined $402 billions of arms in 2013, proving that war can be indeed profitable for companies in the industry.” 
 
The top 10 profit making arms companies of NATO countries are:
 
Lockheed Martin
Revenue (2014): $45.6 billion
Country of Origin: USA
 
Boeing
Revenue (2014): $30.7 billion
Country of Origin: USA
 
BAE Systems
Revenue (2014): $26.82 billion
Country of Origin: U.K.
 
Raytheon
Revenue (2014): $21.95 billion
Country of Origin: USA 
 
Northrop Grumman
Revenue (2014): $20.22 billion
Country of Origin: USA
 
General Dynamics
Revenue (2014): $18.66 billion
Country of Origin: USA
 
EADS/Airbus Group
Revenue (2014): $15.7 billion
Country of Origin: N/A
 
United Technologies Corporation
Revenue (2014): $11.9 billion
Country of Origin: USA
 
Finmeccanica
Revenue (2014): $10.56 billion
Country of Origin: Italy
 
Thales
Revenue (2014): $10.37 billion
Country of Origin: France
 
(Tharawat-magagine.com)
 
Large companies which manufacture and sell guns and other weapons can only survive if they can sell their weapons to the government, the private citizens of the United States and, with government approval, to various  governments and groups in other countries.    These companies also often sell public stock and, therefore, need stockholders.   Many stockholders may or may not be aware of the particular stocks which are in their portfolio.   I have  no idea if President Barack Obama knows that he has money in a pension fund that holds stock in gun and ammunition companies. Although Obama’s stake is minuscule, worth no more than $30, it reflects a much larger surge of investment. Since Obama was elected in 2009, mutual funds have raised their stakes to about $510 million for $30 million in the nation’s two largest gun manufactures with publicly traded shares…This means such stocks are now common in retirement and college savings plans…
 
The president is among millions of Americans buying into gun companies - often unwittingly - as mutual funds have increased such holdings to record levels, according to a Reuters analysis of institutional investment in firearms companies.  (Reuters.com, Special Report:  Why Obama and other gun control advocates own stock in firearms makers, by Tim McClaughlin and Peter Eisler, February 5, 2016)
 
Every voter might want to question the historic role of arms sales – who profits and where the guns and other military equipment ends up.  Perhaps every candidate for every elected office should be prepared to have a cogent, fact based, non-reactionary discussion about the profit aspect of weapons manufacturing and sales.   Perhaps every candidate and every current elected official could provide a list of all companies in which they own stock.
 
I suspect that it is easy for all of us to convince ourselves that we are powerless to change such major issues.  It may be easy to convince ourselves that we cannot afford to take a stance on the investment ethics of the company for which we work or with whom we have any association.  When I was at graduate school we students for whom the institution existed insisted that the board of trustees commit to insuring that their investment policies matched their stated ethics and mission.
 
We cannot logically claim to have empathy for those who profit directly and indirectly by violence and not  take a stand on the fact that military weapons are big business in this and all other NATO countries.
 
Empathy is an action word.  It is not passive.
 
Written  June 2, 2016



​

​The distance to empathy
 
Often when some branch of the federal government takes action in the United States a number of people may raise the question of whether the issues addressed by the federal government is a prerogative  of the individual states of the United States or the federal government of the United States.
 
It is interesting that this question has often arisen when the concern is related to:
 

• The rights of a few versus the rights of the majority.
• A history of a group of people being systematically mistreated.
• The power to determine the morality or ethics for the Nation. 

Historically States rights versus the rights of the Federal Government has been called into question over the treatment of some of those who have a minority of the political and financial power in the United States. Such was the case when questions regarding the rights of those citizens who were legally determined to be negro/black/colored/African American.  It is interesting to note that only in the United states was the  legal definition of a  a colored person determined by one drop rule.   The story is told of James Baldwin being questioned at a conference in Europe about his right to call himself black.
 
Overt and covert Jim Crow laws existed in the United States for many years.   Separate but equal was, by many considered to be consistent with both the Preamble and the constitution of the United States.  I recall very vividly attempting to eat at a restaurant in Northern Virginia which was and is a suburb of  Washington, DC and being told that they would not serve me and my black colleague.  This would have been in the early 1960ies and was still a long time  prior to the Martin Luther King “I have a dream” speech and subsequent federal mandates of one nation for all the citizens including the black citizens.  
 
Prohibition of “Interracial marriage”  was not lifted in the United States until 1967 by the decision of the United States Supreme Court in the Love versus Virginal case.
 
The don’t ask, don’t tell policy was lifted in 2010 by a federal appeals court judge but did not become effective until 2011.
 
We have yet in the United States to adopt an equal rights amendment to include women in the United States.
 
The ruling of the supreme court confirming that the right of same sex  couples in all the States of these United States was in June 2016.  That right was illegal  in many states of the United States until then.  The attorney general of the state of Florida in which I am now living had vigorously opposed same sex marriage.
 
One of the Presidential Candidates has gained international attention for his promise to, “for a time”, outlaw the  immigration of all Muslims into the United States.
 
Given the above and many other examples which one could list it should not come as any surprise that the May 13, 2016 decision by the federal Education Department of the United States informing the nation’s schools that they must immediately begin allowing students to use the bathrooms, locker rooms and showers of the student’s choosing or risk have title IX-linked funding withdrawn should result in such a strong, emotional reaction by the government of many states.  Eleven states have now banned together to sue the Obama Administration.  These states include my former home state of Oklahoma.  The attorney general of Oklahoma, Scott Pruitt, has an article in the Wednesday, June 1, 2016, page A15, Wall Street Journal defending the suit.  The article is entitled “Why We’re Suing over Obama’s Transgender Power Play.”  Mr. Pruitt very cogently argues that:

• “…the Obama administration failed to follow even the basic legal procedures for altering agency rules –procedures that are meant to inject into the Byzantine rule-making process some democratic participation.
• “..a transgender student’s discomfort must always be accommodated, but if another student feels similar discomfort, those concerns must always be ignored  because the administration has preemptively deemed all “others’ discomfort” unjustified.”

Obviously the courts will decide the first issue of whether legal procedures were followed.  The second objection is interesting.   The inference is that change can occur in such a way that all parties are comfortable. As we saw with elimination of Jim Crow laws  and other racially biased laws waiting for all parties to be comfortable meant no  change.   Change is not comfortable. Whether change includes addressing the fear taught racially biased laws and customs, the gender biased laws, or  acknowledging the fear based gender identify laws and customs it is going to be uncomfortable.
 
Many, if not most, of us grew up being taught that sex was determined by the number of X and Y chromosomes at birth, that same sex relationship was sinful, that women (not we males who were expected to sow our wild oats with females who had to remain virgins)were expected to be virgins when they got married, that the Pope had to be male or God would be offended,  that there was one true religion (ours), that males waged war, and blacks were okay on their side of the tracks.   We also grew up believing that some people  were destined to  make a lot of money and that a penis determined the head of the household.   Changing these beliefs or, worse yet, coming out with our truth “that these truths did not define us”, was enormously uncomfortable.
 
We are still coming to terms with thefact that we are sexual beings, that we, as a whole, may be fluid in our sexual desires, and that not all of us are born with the the sex that is consistent with who we identify with.   We are still coming to terms with the fact that we are not a Christian, Caucasian nation.  We are an ever increasing brown nation of browns, yellows, chocolates, yellows and everything in between.  Increasingly, we are going to elect people who are more representative of our diversity.  It is my considered opinion that diversity is a nice fit with both the preamble and the constitution of theses United States.
 
The Preamble reads:
 
We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.


The road to true empathic acceptance of our diversity is going to be a very uncomfortable one for many of us.   Comfort cannot be our primary guide for determining what is ethical, fair or just.   Empathy does demand that we extend support to each other while we learn to listen to each other truths, and challenge each other to grow.
 
One of the rules in my office has always been that we give each other a lot of respectful support, but do not give patronizing pats on the back.  In other words we recognize that change can be painful but acknowledge that we are strong enough to make the changes which will lead to healthier individuals, families and communities.
 
Written June 1, 2016
 
 

​Empathy and shame
 
As difficult as it is for many of we humans to love and not judge others, the person whom we most struggle to love is ourselves.
 
We humans have a propensity to doubt our worth.  It would be easy to blame this on the fact that there are so many ways in modern society which portray an idealized emotional and physical self.  Most of us, from the time that we are very young will see hundreds of photographs a day depicting the “perfect” human specimen within a particular culture.  There are television images, print images and digital images.  There are real live people artfully clothed and tanned with body parts augmented via surgery, padded clothing and the use of various creams, paint, wigs and other design materials to project an image which is closer to the community ideal.    This ability to alter our appearance is available to a wider segment of the population than was previously the case.  Yet, even relatively poor people found the means to enhance their appearance unless they were forced to focus on basic survival as are homeless people, refugees, those incarcerated, and those living with chronic, debilitating illness such as addiction or mental illness.
 
Daily enterprising entrepreneurs offer us the right clothes, shoes, makeup, cars, jewelry, houses, hair style or color, breast or penis enhancements, teeth whitening, body piercing, tattoo, skin tone enhancer, vitamins or some other product which will make us more acceptable or attractive.     There are shoes to make us appear taller or techniques to make seem less tall than those we might be dating. 
 
There are also professions such as mine as well as self-help tools to help reclaim what most of us knew when we were born.   At birth most of us knew that we were us. The daughter of friends of mine was born blind to very loving parents, grandparents and the support of the wonderful supportive services of the Blind Association in the city where she and her family reside.  She has never learned that there is anything wrong with her.  She is an amazingly gifted “old soul” who began to claim her place in the world at a very young age.   At a very young age she knew to lovingly “lecture” business managers or attendants on accessibility for blind users.  She “knows” that she is beautiful, smart, creative, talented and worthy of love.
 
A gay man I know who is in his thirties is convinced that if he had a larger penis, he would be heterosexual and not have committed the crimes which landed him in prison at an early age.   Another man I know used drugs to numb himself out for years so that he did not have to face the belief that the was not lovable or worthy of respect.   In fact, most addicts report that, from an early age, they felt as if they did not belong – that they were not good enough to claim a place in the society in which they were born.
 
In fairly recent history in some countries transgendered as well as gay, lesbian and bisexual people have begun to claim an honored and equal place in society; a place which so-called primitive tribes often knew was the birthright of all the members of the community.   Yet, in the United States discriminatory laws are being passed to protect the comfort of those who need for we humans to stay in the acceptable slots in which the larger culture has placed them.
 
It is interesting that our ability to love others is directly correlated with our ability to love and accept ourselves. When we are unable to accept that we are enough we generally:
·    Find some substance or activity to numb us so that we do not have to face the fear or belief that we are not enough.
·    Try to prove our worth by proving that we are more than.  We may use a point system such as:
o  Bigger house -  two points.
o  More expensive car – 1 point.
o  More and bigger toys -  2 points.
o  Bigger bank account – 2 points.
o  Bigger muscles -  1 point.
o  Bigger penis and/or breasts – 1 point.
o  Bigger bully – 1 point.
o  More formal education – 1 point
o  More perfect - 2 points.
Of course there is always someone with more points thus insuring that the battle is never won. We always need more, more, and more.
 
If we are very lucky we will come to the same conclusion that Father Kilian McDonnell, monk of St. John’s Abby, expresses in the beginning of his poem, Perfection, Perfection.  The first few lines of this poem are:
      I have had it with perfection.
      I have packed my bags,
      I am out of here,
      Gone.
 (For the complete poem go to:  writers almanac.publiradio.org)
 
The irony or paradox is, of course, the less we strive to be something we are not and cannot be, the closer we come to being all that we can be. 
 
Shame is the opposite of empathy.  Shame is necessarily self-centered because it focuses on our fear that there is something wrong with us or lacking in us.   The fact is, of course, that there is nothing wrong with us. Although we are well short of perfection we all have our particular gifts and special contributions to make.  The motivational speaker and spiritual guide, Louise Hay, is fond of saying that “We are perfect in our imperfections.”  Although some may have heard this saying the same way I originally heard it the first time I attended one of her workshops.  I heard it as an overly simplistic, feel good, trite saying.   Many years later, I am convinced that one could write volumes on the very complicated truth of this simple phrase. 
 
When we have the courage to embrace the person we are – too short, bright, slow; athletic, non-athletic; fully abled or differently abled; male, female, gay, straight, bisexual, fluid, transgender; white, brown, yellow, black; Muslim, Christian, Hindi, atheist, agnostic; republican, democrat or whatever labels we have chosen or we have allowed to be attached to us, we are indeed enough.
 
Empathy for ourselves – accepting our humanness is a process for all of us.
 
Written June 1, 2016
 

​Judgment versus empathy
 
I was reminded recently when reading Krista Tippett’s most recent book, Becoming Wise   An Inquiry into the Mystery and Art of Living, that the questions we ask  and our intention when we ask them determines whether or not an honest, open conversation can take place.   I think that she is accurate when she suggests that it is easy to ask questions just so we can tell the other person “the truth.”  In other words we really have no intentions of having an open, respectful exchange of ideas or information. Our intention is not to learn from the other person or attempt to appreciate, even if we cannot agree, the opinion or stance of the other person.
 
We(I) often ask questions and then instead of empathically listening to the answer we (I)  silently rehearse our (my) response detailing why their answer is wrong.   This is not a conversation, but rather an exchange of fixed truths which may or may not be disguised as opinions open to new information.
 
If the participants in an exchange are feeling as if they are present to be judged or told how wrong their truth is, they are not going to want to have or continue a conversation.  Sadly, much of our education system and even our parenting is one in which the wise elder/teacher is imparting wisdom to the student. This sort of exchange does not facilitate learning critical thinking.  
 
Early this morning I listened to a news report and later an exchange at Panera’s Restaurant about an incident which is the focus of a lot of news coverage.   The incident concerned a three-year-old-who, when mother’s head was turned for a second, found a way to get inside the area which was the zoo home of a large gorilla.  Zoo officials who needed to make a quick decision when the gorilla was dragging the little boy determined that immediate action was needed.  A tranquilizer administered by a gun might not take effect before the animal hurt the little boy. The only option seemed to be to shoot to kill the animal. The zoo officials did kill  the animal and saved the little boy from further injury or possible death.
Obviously this incident was frightening for all involved:  the zoo officials, the gorilla, the mother and other visitors to the zoo, and the little boy.  For many, including thousands of people signing a petition, fault needs to be determined.  The possibilities included:
    The mother who momentarily took her eyes off the child.

    The zoo staff for not insuring that it was impossible for a child to enter the area where the gorilla was living.

    The zoo staff for not having a non-lethal option available.

I suppose some might add the three year old child to the possible of possible persons at fault although we know a child that young is not capable of understanding the danger.

 
No one seems to be blaming the gorilla for acting like a gorilla or the little boy for acting like a three-year old child.
If one listens to conversations or pronouncements about the event someone needs to be at fault.   I suppose that the attraction of someone being at fault is that there is the illusion of an action which can be taken to prevent such tragedies in the future.  
 
What if the truth is that there is no way to prevent all accidents? Certainly the zoo can explore ways to prevent any possible entrance to such an area by a child in the future.  Actually, for many, many years no child had gotten into the area although I am sure that many parents have momentarily taken their eye off a child and the child had run to watch the gorilla.    It is possible that a law could be passed that required all parents to harness their child in such a way that the parent cannot let go of the leash to the harness?  Certainly that could be a possible solution until a leash broke or something else happened one time out of 99 million to result in the child getting loose.  
 
Let’s suppose that at great expense a new seemingly very secure wall or fence is installed which will never develop any weakness which might go unnoticed and will not allow entrance to a quick, curious child.   (Interestingly there is a similar argument about the improving the security of the fence surrounding the White House.)
 
Let’s suppose that someone invents or discovers a new tranquilizer which instantly immobilizes a 400-pound animal. That would be great but then let us suppose that the cost for the gun, training, and the chemical is such that the zoo has to decide whether to  spend money for that once in a 70 or 80 year occurrence or to install some other safety feature.
 
We could choose a variety of issues. One of the  features of the program On Being which I admire is the commitment to present discussions which may offer widely divergent views. For example, there was one show which featured Francis Kissling, president of Catholics for Choice from 1981 to 2007 and David Gushee, a distinguished professor of Christian Ethics whose books include The Sacredness of Life.  
 
I do not own a gun and I label myself a pacifist.   If my son were in immediate danger might I use a gun to save his life?   My pacifist position demands that I never take or threaten the life of another.  My values as a father demand that I protect my son if it is in my power to do so.  Can I say for sure that if my son’s life were in immediate danger and there was a gun available I would not use it?
 
I like to say that I would not sell my values for any amount of money.  Yet, no one has ever offered me an obscene amount to compromise my values. Can I say for sure that I would not take the money  with the subsequent justification that I could feed and house 1,000 refugees for three months?  
 
Often individuals such as Krista Tippett remind me that life is messy. There are few  and possibly no decisions which are clear cut and always true in all circumstances.  Yet,  if I allow for the possibility of listening to the opposing view or opinion I may get very uncomfortable.
 
Empathy may not always be easy or cheap.  It comes with a price of confusion, the possibility of lots of cracks in my “eternal truths,” and the realization that I must live with a certain amount of “dis ease.”
 
When Jesus challenges one to not judge the prostitute we may have to face the prostitute within us.  When the Buddha challenges us to “just notice” without judgments, we may be forced to examine own our thoughts and feelings which do not fit nicely into the  tapestry of our idealized self.
 
I understand the allure to pronounce judgment.   While I ideally appreciate empathy, I would prefer it be easy and uncomplicated.  
 
I am fond of saying that I often find myself being judgmental of those who I perceive to be judgmental.
 
Oh dear!

​Empathy without being a Pollyanna
 
I have been writing on empathy for several days.  I was thinking of the act of being empathetic this morning while watching a show which is on television on Sunday morning – at least in the Tampa area – entitled Lockup.  This morning they were featuring a maximum security prison in Kentucky which houses all those in Kentucky who have been sentenced to be executed as well as others who have a very violent history.  Some of those housed there  are contrite and regretful of their past violent actions and some are not able to be contrite.   Some could seemingly, without  any regrets,  murder a cell mate or one of the staff.
 
What might it mean to have empathy for these men (in this case it is all men)?   Clearly it is not safe to trust some of them.   Some insist that they have nothing to lose and would not hesitate to hurt one if one said or did something they did not like. In fact, some insist that they might get angry and strike out at whomever or whatever is close.
 
I also, as we near Memorial Day in the United States, think of so-called terrorists who would behead someone they labeled as a personal enemy or an enemy of the God of their understanding just as we will kill those who we label as terrorists.  I think of historical figures and countries who have declared war on groups of people because of their country of which they are a citizen or because of their race,  cultural heritage, sexual preference, the alleged deeds of them or their country.  I think of the radical Christians, the radical Muslims, the KKK, the  Nazis and so many others who are or were unable to honor what I see as the sacred connection with all other life. 
 
There are clearly many who are unable to be empathetic and in whose presence I do or would feel fear.  I do not think that I am fearful because I am fearful of dying.   I think that I am fearful of pain and perhaps of fearful of reacting in a violent manner and, thus, giving them the power to a make me act in a way which is not consistent with my values.
 
At some level I know that many factors individually and/or collectively affect the functioning of my brain and thus my ability to make a decision consistent with my core values.  As I age the most obvious example of this is the disease of Alzheimers which might be responsible for someone acting in a manner which has no regard for the rights of others.  Brain tumors and many other factors can also result in delusional or paranoid thinking  and put me in an instant fight or flight mode.
 
I am not convinced that I am in a position to ever judge another person. This, however,  does not mean that I have to pretend that it is safe to be around another person.  I truly believe that I could be one of the people in the maximum security prison in Kentucky or one in another state.  I could be that innocent or guilty person  convicted of murder and, perhaps, unable to care whether or not I killed another person.   I could be a person of whom others  need to be frightened or at least need to know that it is not safe to get close. 
 
I am sure that we have all encountered that bright, cheery, isn’t the world wonderful person who makes one want to choke or vomit.   I am sure  we all have encountered that wait person who beams with good cheer even  before one has had the first cup of coffee.   One might feel like slapping that person while one tells them in a very mean way to just “Shut up and get my coffee.”  One does not feel very empathetic.   I suppose one could respond in kind and out sweet them.  One could also be overly sweet to the violent person but that response is not likely to be received as sincere.
 
There are some evolved souls who, when someone threatens to attack them, can look at the person with such love that it pierces the hardest of hearts and the most damaged of  brains making it impossible for them  to follow through with being violent. I am not one of those people and can only think one person I know who is able to respectfully and lovingly do that.
 
It seems to me that empathy demands respect  and that respect has to honor what the other person is capable of or not capable of.    It also seems to me empathy demands that, “I see you and do not judge you but can respect your need for distance.
 
Although I label myself as a pacifist I have no idea of what it means to formulate a response to those who are violent.  I do know that:
 
·      Violence breeds violence breeds violence.
·      That no one makes a decision to have a brain which is not able to consider the needs or rights of others.  I do think some of us some of the time can allow our own fear to retreat to that unemotional, defensive place while others of us have something which prevents our brain from being empathetic.
·      That intentionally spending millions of dollars on new nuclear weapons or new superguns  that can fire a 25-round projectile through steel plates and leave a 5-inch hole is not the way to peace.  (For more information just google United States Navy supergun.)
·      That acting like a bully to stop the bully is almost never effective long term.
·      That life is very short and in the long run it does not matter whether I live to be 20, 30 or 100. What does matter is that I  do my best today to live a life which is consistent with my moral  and ethical values.
·      That I not assume that I know what demons, background, or neurological conditions others are living with.
·      That I not pretend that the world is all rosy, loving and wonderful – especially at 7:00 a.m.
·      That I not recommend any course of action which I am not able to follow myself.
·      That it is all too easy to throw out such words or concepts as empathy – to act as if one has conquered all negative feelings and behavior.
 
Written May 29, 2016