highmystica said:
I wouldn't think it is fair to ascribe this kind of twisting to OP's in general, but rather to psychopathic OP's, and non-OP's that are aligned with the 4D-STS, for they are the ones that make use of this kind of manipulation. I would offer that the part in the evolution of language as played by the average OP would be that of simplifying. And the part that is played by non-OP's who are not aligned with the PTB would be that of enriching a language.
OP's represent a vast spectrum of humanity. What does distinguish them is that they feel dissonance with anything having to do with individuation. It is this tendency, IMO, that makes it easy for psychopaths and non-physical influences to manipulate them against individuating humans.
There are OP's with high morals and OP's with low morals. However, both ends of the spectrum do not deal well with anything that resonates with individuation. Those of low morals may be more prone to act as portals of attack in an evidently destructive fashion, while those of high morals may end up engaging in processes such as selective oversimplification of ideas that can be directly inspiring to those prone to individuation.
It is, furthermore, evident IMO that OP's when engaging in such counter-individuating dynamics tend to look innocent, and they themselves may have no conscious awareness of the effects of their actions. However, I do not believe they are simply sitting duck puppets. They accept this puppeting at some level, and participate in it because it always promises to reduce the dissonance of confronting probabilities that bring them into relationship with energies of individuation.
OP's on the whole are not agreeable with individuation in any shape or form. They do not consider it normal, and do not consider it right. A psychopath will go our of his/her way to attack, but an OP will allow him/herself to be led in directions that tend to minimize individuation in the world, if it gets too close to them.
If the OP has high morals they may be resistant to doing violence. If they are prone to obey the moral letter, as many OP's are, they may just avoid looking at what is going on and allow it to evolve as an accident. If they have low morals, they may actively participate in the puppeting and support it.
OP's by and large, are defensive regarding anything that threatens or seems to threaten the stability of their existential status quo (and the latter term can include a wide spectrum of versions).
What I am trying to say is that OP's can feel discomfort when a word such as sympathy becomes an anchor of understanding for people prone to individuation. We know that the Christian religion focused on empathy/sympathy, agape and compassion. It may be, therefore, that because of this focus dissonance was created in those of greater mental orientation, the scholars or academics who are more focused on words.
I don't know when the word empathy was adopted into the English language, but it must have been after the onset of the Christian era, possibly later. These are of course speculations. What is evident, however, is that somewhere along the line the meaning of the word empathy was inverted and overlapped and confused with the word sympathy. It is not the inversion that makes a difference, IMO, but the overlapping of one word, which has evolved to describe a state of compassion with a word that tends to often describe a sentimental condition.
Words are not to be underestimated, IMO. They play the role of psychological stimulants. Notice here we do not use the word compassion often. I think it's because it has been given religious/ethical connotations. Empathy seems a potentially more objective word than compassion, because we do not usually use it in a sentimental context. Agape has been confused with the word "love", which also takes on many meanings.
In Greek there are several meanings for the word love, which maintains a high definition. However, the Greeks over-analyzed these meanings in their philosphies and within the context of Christianity. Agape, for example is particularly monopolized by Christian Orthodoxy, and any deeper transformative context was lost. Empathy as we tend to understand it in English would have that high focus if it's meanings could be distinct from sympathy, which has been too diluted, IMO to have great impact.
For example, if we say we have to develop sympathy for others, that sounds a bit like sentimentality. It may seem like I am overanalyzing this, and perhaps I am, but the point is that when the words are placed side by side, one is really not sure what is what, especially if one examinese the corresponding etymologies.
The individuating power of empathy is the power to contain the world within you: to be a reflection of the world, and hence experience the lessons of the world within you in a soul context. And when you conversly experience the world as a reflection of you, it is not a an attitude of selfishness.
This is because empathy has already taken precedence, and your internal world is already in receptivity to the objective. You are, therefore, not trying to force it to conform to predetermined subjectivity. This allows lessons to more clearly manifest. This empathy is, furthermore, developed first in interpersonal relationships with others.
IMO, OP's can feel sympathy, but empathy in the deeper sense can make them feel uncomfortable. Even thinking about it. Compassion is the accurate English word, and the literal translation of "compassion" is sympathia or sympathy. Yet, I do not feel this word to express the property of "as in you so in me" the the word empathy can convey, even if etymologically confused.
And I am not advocating returning to the original meaning, just observing an interesting twist, which I do not think is coincidental. Empathy is STILL a powerful word when we allow it to contain the deeper meaning of "as in you so in me". And words do have power. Even esoteric traditions recognize that.
So when a word is used in the wrong context consistently, it developes erroneous associations and its power as a psychological stimulant is diluted. In this case, I think that it is not farfetched that certain someones (maybe scholars, maybe general populations as a matter of course, most probably OP's), consistently diluted the relationship between empathy and sympathy.
This would not have been possible prior to the inversion of the meaning of empathy. Even in Greece, most people understand empathy in the English context (at least I did, and read a few discussions on the matter), and I had to look at some dictionaries to veryify that that context is not the correct one for Greek.
Anyway, the point is that OP's can twist things. They can translate foreign texts and alter meanings, and they can believe they are justified in doing so for one reason or another. I don't think the Bible was written, and translated by psychopaths, for example.
To an OP dissonance is the enemy, and not something that can provide a lesson. And they do anything to counter that dissonance, including the dissonance they feel when confronted with anything related to individuation, which to them is at best chaos and lunacy.
They are not predatorial against individuation (although some can be maneuvered to be so), but they will try to undermine it at every turn simply because they believe it is the right thing to do, no matter what exuses they make to themselves and/or others, and even if they deny what they are doing as they do it.
