Beeing "Good"

[ScioAgapeOmnis]

From:
hXXp://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/05/27/AR2007052701056_pf.html

(My emphasis in the article)

If It Feels Good to Be Good, It Might Be Only Natural
The results were showing that when the volunteers placed the interests of others before their own, the generosity activated a primitive part of the brain that usually lights up in response to food or sex. Altruism, the experiment suggested, was not a superior moral faculty that suppresses basic selfish urges but rather was basic to the brain, hard-wired and pleasurable. Their 2006 finding that unselfishness can feel good lends scientific support to the admonitions of spiritual leaders such as Saint Francis of Assisi, who said, "For it is in giving that we receive." But it is also a dramatic example of the way neuroscience has begun to elbow its way into discussions about morality and has opened up a new window on what it means to be good.
[...]
Psychopaths often feel no empathy or remorse. Without that awareness, people relying exclusively on reasoning seem to find it harder to sort their way through moral thickets. Does that mean they should be held to different standards of accountability?

Interesting article. That quote by Saint Francis reminds me of "service to self through others", which is how the C's described STO. But this is not to be confused with this:

Q: We are what we are. Nature is nature. Progression is progression. And if people would just relax and be who and what they are in honesty, and do what is according to their nature without violating the Free Will of others, that this is a more pure form of being than doing things out of any feeling of expectation, or desire; to just BE, not want... just BE?
A: Yes, but STS does not do that.
Q: (A) From which I draw conclusions: if there STS around us, we cannot just...
A: You are all STS. If you were not, you would not be where you are.
Q: (A) There are those who are happy in the STS mode; and there are those who are trying to get out of the STS
mode...
A: STO candidate.
Q: (A) These STO candidates cannot just simply BE, even theoretically, because then, STS would eat them.
A: No.
Q: Why not?
A: STS does not eat according to protocol.
Q: What does that mean?
A: What do you suppose?
Q: I have no idea!
A: STS "eats" whatever it wants to, if it is able.
Q: That's what we said. If you are STO in an STS world, you are basically defenseless and they eat you.
A: No.
Q: Why? What makes STO unavailable or 'inedible?'
A: Frequency resonance not in sync.
Q: (A) But then, that would mean that all these people who are saying that we need just to love everything and
everybody, are right. They just be, and love, don't do anything, just give everything to the Lizzies... they are right!
A: No, because motivation is STS.
Q: How is the motivation to love everything and everybody, and to just give, STS?
A: Feels good.
Q: So, they want to do it because it feels good?
A: Want is an STS concept.
Q: So, you seem to be suggesting that the real trick is to just become non-attached to anything and anybody, do nothing, and just dissolve into nothing? No thought, no want, no do, no be, no anything!
A: If you are STS, that does not fit, but, if you did exactly that, you would reincarnate in an STO realm, where such energy does fit.

I'm not entirely clear on this. I had the impression that STO actively do things, to help all who ask. The C's themselves said this. And becoming a "dream in the past" or just staring at paint dry your entire existence does not seem to make sense for STO - where does the "service" part come into play if one does nothing? Isn't that only serving yourself? Maybe I misunderstand the passage.

But at the same time they say service to self through others is what STO is. You serve others, and by this you are serving yourself as well. But apparently this does not involve serving others because it feels good. So that's where my confusion is. Isn't empathy essentially what makes us serve others, and why psychopaths are unable to do this? And doesn't empathy make you "feel bad" when others hurt, and "feel good" when others experience joy? And so if we use our empathy as a guide, do we not then serve others because empathy makes this action "feel good"? Or maybe that passage wasn't talking about empathy on behalf of the love and lighters, but some other motivation like because it makes you proud of yourself, perceiving yourself as "good" and "giving", and so then it's not about feeling good strictly on behalf of serving those who ASK, but simply doing what you subjectively judge as good and patting yourself on the head for it - is that what they're talking about?

Cuz in relation to this article, are these scientists looking at genetic empathy here? Or something else?

 

[Meg]

I understood that passage be about the motivation for serving others. What, who and why you are serving. I found that passage to be confusing too along with the C's saying "STS vehicle does not learn to be an STO candidate by determining the needs of another." Being of service without determining what that person needs and just serving to serve? It makes sense, but the end result is that we do feel good doing it...Sounds selfish to me, but we are STS, so maybe that's one of the lessons we learn here on the 3D BBM. Finding that balance. Mother Teresa found it, IMO.

It seems that the scientists are showing that the benefit of altruism is innate, but their comment about psychopaths seems go out into left field. Blame the brain! It's not the psychopath's fault. It's the hardware.

"Psychopaths often feel no empathy or remorse. Without that awareness, people relying exclusively on reasoning seem to find it harder to sort their way through moral thickets. Does that mean they should be held to different standards of accountability?

It would be interesting to see the same study done with psychopaths:)

 

[ScioAgapeOmnis]

STS vehicle does not learn to be an STO candidate by determining the needs of another.

I think this just means that to be STO you you must respect the free will of everyone to determine what they need and want, and to only give something if you are asked, not because you personally think the person "needs" this or that, and violating their free will to make that decision for themselves.

And I think that the hardware, whether it is the brain or the genetic makeup itself is precisely the culprit. It's not like the psychopath has good working hardware and chooses to not use it. They literally lack the hardware, the higher centers, the capacity for empathy - at the genetic level. So I don't think that they are to blame in the sense of making an error, or choosing to be consciously "bad". They are to blame in the sense of being the 3rd density cause of the current terror if the situation, but I don't think they should be "punished" or "rehabilitated" because they cannot be due to lacking any capacity for this. They just need to be disempowered, disarmed - which happens when everyone is aware of their nature and existance. But being machines incapable of anything other than what they are does not make them any less dangerous, does not make their influence and effect on our world any more benign.

 

[NormaRegula]

Perhaps the C's were referring to individuals (and organizations since they can take on 'personality traits') who serve others because they have been programmed to help those in need, are stoked by others because of their 'goodness,' and momentarily get an egotistical and/or chemical high by doing so. Also, the type of individual who goes through the motions...or actually believes he/she is doing the 'right' thing for control reasons...may be hoping for a reward at the end (ie; heaven, more accolades, etc.) This is not to say that everyone who helps or serves others in this world is not truly sincere in wanting to alleviate pain and suffering.

I once knew a person who admitted she felt unsympathetic, yet volunteered at a woman's shelter to perfect her faith in God. She claimed her faith grew as well as her desire to help others. Maybe she was truly trying to grow her soul...with the information and belief system given to her at the time...or maybe she was feeling a temporary high. In the past, I, too, have helped others out of guilt, more than a sincere desire to do what may or may not have been the right thing to do. In one case, I was manipulated by an individual who sensed my guilt, and I wound up doing things I was not emotionally or physically prepared for. All is lessons. Hopefully, I'm learning.

I think this just means that to be STO you you must respect the free will of everyone to determine what they need and want, and to only give something if you are asked, not because you personally think the person "needs" this or that, and violating their free will to make that decision for themselves.

This reminds me of an old silent film (circa 1915) entitled Regeneration that had a group of high society, busy body ladies trying to force their morailty and their views on how the poor should be 'helped,' and making a mess of things. It was way ahead of its time in terms of social commentary and issues of free will.

 

[Nienna]

From what I have understood, if you do something, even helping someone, and expect payback, say making yourself feel good, it is STS. It's not wrong to empathize with someone. Nor to help someone who is asking for help. But to do it in anticipation of a return for doing it is STS

Take this as an example:

I once knew a person who admitted she felt unsympathetic, yet volunteered at a woman's shelter to perfect her faith in God. She claimed her faith grew as well as her desire to help others.

Here you have a person that is really doing this hoping for a payback. She wanted to perfect her faith in God. Why? Was she doing it to assure herself a place in heaven? I could be wrong, but it looks that way.

From what I remember of what Laura has said on the subject, to be an STO candidate, you do it with no anticipation of receiving anything in return. You just do it because it is being asked for. Not because it makes you feel all warm and fuzzy. Not because Gawd will love you for it. Not because it makes you look good to other people. Not to assure yourself a place as a STO candidate. You just do it because it because you are being asked to do it or it needs to be done.

I hope that I am being clear on this.

At least that's the way I understand it at this point. ;)

 

[flashgordonv]

no anticipation of receiving anything in return.

This is one part I find really difficult, even with silly little things like letting somebody into the line of traffic. How to do this helping thing without anticipating a return. I do it, I let somebody in to the traffic in front of me, and then find myself feeling so damn pleased with myself that I did it. And it was such a small thing I did.

Then I find myself wondering why they did not wave to acknowledge, and find I'm thinking they are just rude. Finally I am left thinking about how many programs this shows I have running at the same time.

 

[Tigersoap]

This is one part I find really difficult, even with silly little things like letting somebody into the line of traffic. How to do this helping thing without anticipating a return. I do it, I let somebody in to the traffic in front of me, and then find myself feeling so damn pleased with myself that I did it. And it was such a small thing I did.

Then I find myself wondering why they did not wave to acknowledge, and find I'm thinking they are just rude. Finally I am left thinking about how many programs this shows I have running at the same time.

I don't think there is anything "wrong" with feeling good when helping people, it's just that if you get hooked on this warm and fuzzy feeling, then it's going to be difficult to see it for what it is; feeding your ego.

It's already something to notice this behavior in yourself but I understand that it's quite a task to root it out entirely and just DO things without expecting anything in return.

 

[Beau]

no anticipation of receiving anything in return.

This is one part I find really difficult, even with silly little things like letting somebody into the line of traffic. How to do this helping thing without anticipating a return. I do it, I let somebody in to the traffic in front of me, and then find myself feeling so damn pleased with myself that I did it. And it was such a small thing I did.

Then I find myself wondering why they did not wave to acknowledge, and find I'm thinking they are just rude. Finally I am left thinking about how many programs this shows I have running at the same time.

This is also an example of your self-importance. The reason you are doing nice things should be examined. If you are doing it expecting something in return, then that is one program. Another program is when you don't get what you expect, your self-importance gets ramped up which essentially just drains you of energy.

A good reason to help others is to think that if you were that person you would want someone to let you in in front of them. When you feel like you deserve something your purpose for helping becomes self-serving, and it isn't really help at all.

 

[Cyre2067]

someother things i wanted to high-light.

Psychopaths often feel no empathy or remorse. Without that awareness, people relying exclusively on reasoning seem to find it harder to sort their way through moral thickets. Does that mean they should be held to different standards of accountability?

..often? Often implies they have the capacity to feel empathy/remorse, which we know they do not.

While one implication of such findings is that people with certain kinds of brain damage may do bad things they cannot be held responsible for, the new research could also expand the boundaries of moral responsibility. Neuroscience research, Greene said, is finally explaining a problem that has long troubled philosophers and moral teachers: Why is it that people who are willing to help someone in front of them will ignore abstract pleas for help from those who are distant, such as a request for a charitable contribution that could save the life of a child overseas?

What we know about OPs suggest that they cannot fathom an abstract plea for help. It's not 'real' to them. Whereas those of us with souls can 'feel' for individuals even if they aren't right in front of us suffering.

Marc Hauser, another Harvard researcher, has used cleverly designed psychological experiments to study morality. He said his research has found that people all over the world process moral questions in the same way, suggesting that moral thinking is intrinsic to the human brain, rather than a product of culture. It may be useful to think about morality much like language, in that its basic features are hard-wired, Hauser said. Different cultures and religions build on that framework in much the way children in different cultures learn different languages using the same neural machinery.

This actually coroborates what Lobaczewski was saying. He rips morality apart and explains that it differes depending on the geographic region. I do like his insinuation of 'natural' evil and how what we percieve as 'moral' evil is very cleverly disguised or transmitted 'natural' evil: the result of ponerological factors.

 

[PopHistorian]

I think Scio got the gist regarding service when sincerely asked.

flashgordonv, as for letting people cut into traffic, what about the drivers behind you, each of whom is forced to pay for your gesture?