Paul Levy on Wetiko psychosis

[fairdinkum]

Empathy for all??

An issue that has dominated this thread (http://www.cassiopaea.org/forum/index.php?topic=21370.0) has got me thinking about the role of compassion and cultivating empathy for everyone. My understanding is that is what Service To Others is based on. Service To Self seems to be its polar opposite and is mindset that is exemplified by the psychopath, but also infects other personalities in varying degrees.

So what about cultivating empathy (compassion) for the perpetrators among us? The psychopaths and the ponerized.

Now, it is clear that strong and sometimes forceful means are sometimes necessary to deal with such pathological personalities. Yet it seems that there is a trap waiting for us here. If we mistakenly believe that in order to effectively contain and combat psychopathy we must exclude them from our circle of empathy then it seems we too are falling prey to STS thinking, are acting from our own predatory instincts, and being influences by the same contagious pathological process we are fighting. Surely it is possible, I have seen it myself, for us to create a new target of hatred in those carrying the various forms of psychopathology, wish for their destruction, and basically engage in vengeful thinking. I suggest this is a barrier to the transformation of ourselves toward STO beings, and is an obstacle to effectively dealing with ponerization as well.

Paul Levy touches on this topic here:

An intrinsic challenge to our investigation of the wetiko virus [ponerogenic influences] is that it is incarnating in the very psyche which itself is the means of our investigation. Aware of this conundrum, Forbes explains that he is attempting to examine the disease, “from a perspective as free as possible from assumptions created by the very disease being studied. If we are not aware of the frame of reference through which we are examining the wetiko virus, our investigation will be tainted by the disease, obscuring the clear vision needed to start the healing process. Studying how wetiko disease manifests in others, as well as in the ‘other’ part of ourselves, will help us to see ‘it’ more objectively.

Andrew Lobaczewski also points to the pitfall of succumbing to pathological influences as we attempt to study it (Political Ponerolgy, p. 105):

We close the door to a causative comprehension of phenomena and open it to vengeful emotions and psychological error whenever we impose a moralistic interpretation upon faults and errors in human behavior, which are in fact largely derived from the various influences of pathological factors, whether mentioned above or not, which are often obscured from minds untrained in this area. We thereby also permit these factors to continue their ponerogenic activities, both within ourselves and others. Nothing poisons the human soul and deprives us of our capacity to understand reality more objectively than this very obedience to that common human tendency to take a moralistic view of human behavior.

Practically speaking, to say the least, each instance of behavior that seriously hurts some other person contains within its psychological genesis the influence of some pathological factors, among other things, of course. Therefore, any interpretation of the causes of evil which would limit itself to moral categories is and inappropriate perception of reality. This can lead, generally speaking, to erroneous behavior, limiting our capacity for counteraction of the causative factors of evil and opening the door for lust for revenge. This frequently starts a new fire in the ponerogenic process. We shall therefore consider a unilaterally moral interpretation of the origins of evil to be wrong and immoral at all times. The idea of overcoming this common human inclination and its results can be considered a moral motive intertwined throughout ponerology.

So how does one counteract this “common human inclination” to fall into the moralizing interpretation of psychopathy that leads to a lust for revenge? As suggested many places here, it is ridding ourselves of misinformation and gaining an objective view of the process. However, this requires ridding oneself of the obscuring emotions of hatred and other emotional reactivity. The absence of hatred, and its antidote, is compassion.

Thus, we are left with the extremely daunting task of defending ourselves and our neighbors from this pathology without succumbing to it. We must succeed in the hardest of tasks, to love our enemies, to have empathy for all beings, and to be of service to Others. Not some others, or only the others that we like or have not hurt us. Others.

That said, it is also plainly true that psychopaths and their ilk will attempt to manipulate and co-opt such aspirations through invoking pity, and coax the naïve into believing they are harmless and that they share these values. This, however, is not sufficient reason to harden ourselves, restrict our empathy, or succumb to STS thinking. Rather, we must be ever more vigilant and aware so that we may guard our own minds from the poison of the ponerogenic process.

How do others view this?

 

[anart]

Re: Empathy for all??

Hi, I'm wondering, fairdinkum, if you personally know upsidedown?

An issue that has dominated this thread (http://www.cassiopaea.org/forum/index.php?topic=21370.0) has got me thinking about the role of compassion and cultivating empathy for everyone. My understanding is that is what Service To Others is based on. Service To Self seems to be its polar opposite and is mindset that is exemplified by the psychopath, but also infects other personalities in varying degrees.

So what about cultivating empathy (compassion) for the perpetrators among us? The psychopaths and the ponerized.

The base fact of the situation is that a person cannot experience true empathy for someone/something they do not understand. If you do not see an entity for exactly what it is, then you cannot know them - thus you cannot truly empathize with them, since you will be merely empathizing with an illusion or projection on your part.

Much of your post seems to be projection. You are assuming that others desire revenge, or fighting, or destruction - when none of that is the case. In-depth understanding precludes all of those things because when one truly understands the psychopath, (in this instance) then one knows what is and what is not possible and how to proceed.

So, again, I'd like to suggest some reading to get up to speed on the objective reality of this phenomenon. One does not 'succumb to a pathological influence' by merely fully understanding it. One cannot feel true empathy for something one does not 'know' - or understand - though one can project all sorts of qualities/feelings/motivations until the cows come home. This mixing of ideas on your part and the emotional projection is really clouding up waters that need not be so clouded. Psychopaths are what they are - non-pathological human beings really have nothing to do with it, nor any effect on it, other than to be prey. I hope this clarifies, if only just a bit.

 

[StrangeCaptain]

I was curious, so I looked up empathy in the dictionary:

the intellectual identification with or vicarious experiencing of the feelings, thoughts, or attitudes of another

Our quick, get-to-the-point definition of a psychopath is one who has no conscience. Why would I want to vicariously experience what someone with no conscience is experiencing or intellectually identify with such?

Then compassion:

a feeling of deep sympathy and sorrow for another who is stricken by misfortune, accompanied by a strong desire to alleviate the suffering.

To assume that a psychopath is suffering due to his/her condition is a rather large assumption, but others are suffering due to it. They are the survivors of a psychopaths machinations for power and dominance. How do we alleviate their suffering? Properly studying the problem is a start. Pretty much all of the literature about psychopathy I have read states that the biggest weakness of those in proximity to this pathology is the assumption that the psychopath is experiencing the same type of inner life and motivations as themselves.

I think this was all rather thoroughly covered in the thread you linked, so why are you making a new thread for this? (okay... the threads are merged now)

I have to second anart in that your concern about some kind of witch hunt going on seems like a projection because I don't see that happeing here.

 

[truth seeker]

For anyone reading the "Empathy For All??" thread, it has been merged with this one since the same topic is being discussed.

 

[upsidedown]

That said, it is also plainly true that psychopaths and their ilk will attempt to manipulate and co-opt such aspirations through invoking pity, and coax the naïve into believing they are harmless and that they share these values. This, however, is not sufficient reason to harden ourselves, restrict our empathy, or succumb to STS thinking. Rather, we must be ever more vigilant and aware so that we may guard our own minds from the poison of the ponerogenic process. --Fairdinkum

I think one good reason not to restrict our empathy for a psychopath is because even with as much as is known about them, and the horrendous things they are capable of, we really don’t know them. We make judgments about them based on what is seen from the outside, even if it involves sophisticated scientific investigation. We become dogmatists when we solidify our so called facts to such a degree that they can never be disputed. What really is inside that machine we are calling the psychopath? I suppose only the “experts” know, and that is enough for them to write off those creepy things.

I think there is a middle way, however. It might be the hardest thing I ever get to master, but in the end, I think that I would be better served for it. I don’t like the dualities I often myself entangled in, because when it really comes down to it, no, I’m not all that fond of suffering.

 

[anart]

I think one good reason not to restrict our empathy for a psychopath is because even with as much as is known about them, and the horrendous things they are capable of, we really don’t know them. We make judgments about them based on what is seen from the outside, even if it involves sophisticated scientific investigation. We become dogmatists when we solidify our so called facts to such a degree that they can never be disputed.

You seem to be confusing the definition of 'fact'. There is no reason to dispute a fact - a fact is a fact, it is objective.

 

[fairdinkum]

@ Anart:
Hi, I'm wondering, fairdinkum, if you personally know upsidedown?

Not sure what you are implying by that. I do not know upsidedown and better that you do. Are you projecting something, perhaps some sort of conspiracy on our part? For the record, I don't "personally" know anyone on this forum.

The base fact of the situation is that a person cannot experience true empathy for someone/something they do not understand. If you do not see an entity for exactly what it is, then you cannot know them - thus you cannot truly empathize with them, since you will be merely empathizing with an illusion or projection on your part.

I must admit I am puzzled by this notion of empathy. Is empathy ever possible by this conception? We accuse psychopaths of lacking the ability for empathy, but can anyone have it if it takes truly understanding them? I feel empathy for the people around me, my family, my friends. I do not fully understand what is inside them. I feel empathy for those that have and continue to suffer under the oppression and dehumanization of the modern world. I feel empathy for families literally ripped to pieces by drone attacks in Pakistan. Imagine what it would be like to have that happen to you. That is empathy. I do not see why it requires understanding. Perhaps you have a different word for the feeling of shared suffering and the desire to alleviate it.

Much of your post seems to be projection. You are assuming that others desire revenge, or fighting, or destruction - when none of that is the case. In-depth understanding precludes all of those things because when one truly understands the psychopath, (in this instance) then one knows what is and what is not possible and how to proceed.

Are you suggesting thats no others, anywhere, feel the desire for revenge? I find this hard to believe. I am not accusing you or anyone in particular of this, just stating that it is a common inclination. And Lobaczewski seems to agree. Vengefulness is his description of this "common human inclination." He found it important because it is an obstacle to objectively seeing the phenomenon as it is, and to finding a solution. Why so defensive?

So, again, I'd like to suggest some reading to get up to speed on the objective reality of this phenomenon. One does not 'succumb to a pathological influence' by merely fully understanding it. One cannot feel true empathy for something one does not 'know' - or understand - though one can project all sorts of qualities/feelings/motivations until the cows come home. This mixing of ideas on your part and the emotional projection is really clouding up waters that need not be so clouded. Psychopaths are what they are - non-pathological human beings really have nothing to do with it, nor any effect on it, other than to be prey. I hope this clarifies, if only just a bit.

Well, you have not suggested reading to me in the past, but I am open to what you have in mind. It seems the most cited work here is Lobaczewski's, which I have read many times and have in front of me. In particular, I would like to hear about a source for this notion that empathy is impossible for someone you do not 'know.'

As for 'succumbing to pathological influences,' I hope it is clear by what I have written, and the words of Lobaczewski, that the danger is not in understanding the the phenomenon, it is in out emotional reactivity to that understanding. Not sure why that was not clear.

It really sounds like you are saying there can no empathy for a psychopath, period. And yet you have not addressed my earlier points regarding Lobaczewski's suggestion that psychopathy be treated as a disease, that it is analagous to other pathologies like Daltonism. Or how it may differ from feeling empathy for others in emotionally numb states. If we are to have empathy (or some other feeling that denotes shared suffering and the wish to alleviate it for people I do not fully understand) for people with other brain pathologies, then why not psychopaths. Is it because they hurt people? Implying there should be conditions put on empathy? I am willing to entertain such a notion, but let's state what it is.

This topic seems to have garnered some strong reactions. I am wondering why the notion of having empathy for all beings is so alarming. I guess I am particularly confused when it comes from a community that is urgently practicing to become STO with the little time we have left.

 

[fairdinkum]

I was curious, so I looked up empathy in the dictionary:

the intellectual identification with or vicarious experiencing of the feelings, thoughts, or attitudes of another

Our quick, get-to-the-point definition of a psychopath is one who has no conscience. Why would I want to vicariously experience what someone with no conscience is experiencing or intellectually identify with such?

Well why would I want to vicariously experience any unpleasant state of another? Why would I want to vicariously experience the suffering of Palestinians starving in their homes only miles from abundant food and wealth, or to vicariously experience the suffering of people who are tortured in American secret prisons, or the homeless, or the crying child? Because it is what makes me human. And what separates us from psychopaths.

Then compassion:

a feeling of deep sympathy and sorrow for another who is stricken by misfortune, accompanied by a strong desire to alleviate the suffering.

To assume that a psychopath is suffering due to his/her condition is a rather large assumption, but others are suffering due to it. They are the survivors of a psychopaths machinations for power and dominance. How do we alleviate their suffering? Properly studying the problem is a start. Pretty much all of the literature about psychopathy I have read states that the biggest weakness of those in proximity to this pathology is the assumption that the psychopath is experiencing the same type of inner life and motivations as themselves.

Well, would you choose to be a psychopath yourself? Why not? If it is not something you would prefer, then it seems to be a misfortune (either by inheritance or by trauma), and something I would wish to alleviate. For their own sake, as well as that of their victims.

I agree that the assumption the psychopath has the same inner experiences as the rest of us is mistaken and makes one dangerously vulnerable. But I never suggested such. Only that it is an affliction, one that I would not choose, and that it is a misfortune that I would not want to suffer. Life without the experience of connection, love, and empathy qualifies as suffering in my view. I would not choose it, even if it meant not feeling any pain.

I think this was all rather thoroughly covered in the thread you linked, so why are you making a new thread for this? (okay... the threads are merged now)

1.) It seems to be an important topic in itself that pertains to the Work. 2.) It has strayed considerably from the original topic of this thread (i.e., Levy's articles have hardly been mentioned). If it should be merged, that is fine.

I have to second anart in that your concern about some kind of witch hunt going on seems like a projection because I don't see that happeing here.

Sorry if it feels that way. Again, it is Lobaczewski who identified vengefulness as a "common human inclination" that one expects to arise in studying this phenomenon in particular. The defensive tone of many of these post does seem to indicate a feeling of being part of a witch hunt. I apologize if it seems that way, it is not my intention.

What I do see happening here is a strong reaction to the notion that STO, compassion, empathy could possibly relate even to beings who are malignant and very dangerous, human or otherwise. Investigating our limits in these areas seems to be integral to the Work.

 

[anart]

@ Anart:
Hi, I'm wondering, fairdinkum, if you personally know upsidedown?

Not sure what you are implying by that. I do not know upsidedown and better that you do. Are you projecting something, perhaps some sort of conspiracy on our part? For the record, I don't "personally" know anyone on this forum.

I was just curious since you are both taking the same tack.

I must admit I am puzzled by this notion of empathy. Is empathy ever possible by this conception?

Sure it is, and it's not really that complicated. It all comes down to seeing things as they ARE - not how you want them to be.

We accuse psychopaths of lacking the ability for empathy, but can anyone have it if it takes truly understanding them? I feel empathy for the people around me, my family, my friends. I do not fully understand what is inside them. I feel empathy for those that have and continue to suffer under the oppression and dehumanization of the modern world. I feel empathy for families literally ripped to pieces by drone attacks in Pakistan. Imagine what it would be like to have that happen to you.

And there you have projection - imagining what it is like to have it happen to you. Unless you are an essential psychopath, you cannot imagine what it is like for them and you seem to be missing the enormous point that they do not suffer, though they do 'need'. You keep saying that you empathize with their suffering - there is NO suffering by normal human standards, there is only 'need' and frustration and anger when those needs aren't met.

That is empathy. I do not see why it requires understanding. Perhaps you have a different word for the feeling of shared suffering and the desire to alleviate it.

I think the definitions that Patience posted might help.

Are you suggesting thats no others, anywhere, feel the desire for revenge? I find this hard to believe.

I'm referring quite singularly to this forum, actually, since this is where the discussion is being held and you and upsidedown are questioning why in the world we are stating that 'empathy' for psychopaths is at best misguided and at worst rather ignorant.

I am not accusing you or anyone in particular of this, just stating that it is a common inclination. And Lobaczewski seems to agree. Vengefulness is his description of this "common human inclination." He found it important because it is an obstacle to objectively seeing the phenomenon as it is, and to finding a solution. Why so defensive?

I'm not at all defensive - you'll note that he pointed out the error of this thinking, in order to see the phenomenon from the point of view of a naturalist, as he puts it. Yet, this is the flip side of what you are doing - rather than 'vengefulness', you have swung over into 'empathy', which is an emotional projection (and here I am again referring to this as it concerns essential psychopaths) - you are projecting all sorts of qualities that deserve 'empathy' onto beings who cannot even conceive of empathy.

Well, you have not suggested reading to me in the past, but I am open to what you have in mind.

I suggest reading a LOT. ;)

It seems the most cited work here is Lobaczewski's, which I have read many times and have in front of me. In particular, I would like to hear about a source for this notion that empathy is impossible for someone you do not 'know.'

It goes back to the very, very basic premise that unless one sees things as they ARE, they can't do anything - and everything they do and feel is an illusion. This is the truth of our reality and applies equally to this topic as it does to all topics. It's illusion versus reality.

As for 'succumbing to pathological influences,' I hope it is clear by what I have written, and the words of Lobaczewski, that the danger is not in understanding the the phenomenon, it is in out emotional reactivity to that understanding. Not sure why that was not clear.

Yet you are not seeing your emotional reactivity to your current understanding.

It really sounds like you are saying there can no empathy for a psychopath, period.

Exactly - for an essential psychopath. Do you feel empathy for a crocodile? Again, the definitions Patience posted might be helpful.

And yet you have not addressed my earlier points regarding Lobaczewski's suggestion that psychopathy be treated as a disease, that it is analagous to other pathologies like Daltonism.

That is actually a twist on your part. There is also no cure for Daltonism. Understanding that it is a pathology does not mean that it can be cured.

Or how it may differ from feeling empathy for others in emotionally numb states.

I would not define essential psychopaths as being emotionally numb. They simply lack the emotions that make normal human beings human. Psychopaths do feel anger, lust, need based satisfaction, to a shallow extent.

If we are to have empathy (or some other feeling that denotes shared suffering and the wish to alleviate it for people I do not fully understand) for people with other brain pathologies, then why not psychopaths. Is it because they hurt people? Implying there should be conditions put on empathy? I am willing to entertain such a notion, but let's state what it is.

I really think that you have confused this issue so thoroughly that it is very difficult to discuss it with you.

This topic seems to have garnered some strong reactions. I am wondering why the notion of having empathy for all beings is so alarming. I guess I am particularly confused when it comes from a community that is urgently practicing to become STO with the little time we have left.

This is again, a twist. It is not the notion of 'having empathy for all beings' that is alarming. What is going on here is an attempt to clarify a woefully deficient understanding of what an essential psychopath IS. Clarifying misconceptions in order to approach an understanding of objective truth is what this forum does. As long as people post things that are twists or misconceptions, they will garner discussion - it can be no other way.

 

[fairdinkum]

Sorry the quotes are entirely messed up in that last post. I would edit it if I could.

 

[Renaissance]

Our quick, get-to-the-point definition of a psychopath is one who has no conscience. Why would I want to vicariously experience what someone with no conscience is experiencing or intellectually identify with such?

Well why would I want to vicariously experience any unpleasant state of another? Why would I want to vicariously experience the suffering of Palestinians starving in their homes only miles from abundant food and wealth, or to vicariously experience the suffering of people who are tortured in American secret prisons, or the homeless, or the crying child? Because it is what makes me human. And what separates us from psychopaths.

This misses the point and is a contradiction. How can you experience empathy while also vicariously experiencing an absence of conscience? A psychopaths world is dependent on the suffering of others. If they don't create such pain for others, that is when they suffer. Can a normal person really have empathy for a psychopath's suffering? Having conscience and applying it to a psychopath is different than having empathy towards them, as far as I can see.

 

[Mountain Crown]

Hi fairdinkum,

It would be more accurate to say transforming to become STO candidates.

It’s my understanding that STS & STO are both legitimate expressions of the Universe, i.e., neither is more “right” nor more “wrong” than the other. STO accepts STS as it is and doesn’t determine the need of another. Compassion, as stated earlier, involves the recognition of suffering along with the wish for its relief. So far I haven’t come across anything suggesting that STO wishes that STS be relieved of its choice to be STS.

Hatred and compassion as opposites doesn’t seem applicable to how STO & STS relate to one another. Strictly, the opposite of hatred is non-hatred, and the respecting of free will is precisely that.

[quote author=fairdinkum]I feel empathy for families literally ripped to pieces by drone attacks in Pakistan. [/quote]

This is not the same thing as what Anart referred to.

To be fair to Anart, she conditioned knowing an entity by first seeing it “for exactly what it is.” After all, we often think we know someone but don’t, we are interacting with projections of our self.

Just curious:
Are we being asked to assume an attitude in order to “fix “society, even though the forum holds it to be impractical?

 

[StrangeCaptain]

Only that it is an affliction, one that I would not choose, and that it is a misfortune that I would not want to suffer. Life without the experience of connection, love, and empathy qualifies as suffering in my view. I would not choose it, even if it meant not feeling any pain.

OK... I confess. I suspected what the definition of empathy would be before I saw it. As I understand it, it is experiencing vicariously the perceptions of someone else. I imagine their could be emotional, intellectual, and physical experiences of empathy, but this definition as I understand it implies experiencing whatever slice of someone else's life as it ACTUALLY is not how I think it is.

How can I ever really know what it actually is like to walk in another's shoes? It is a pretty tall order, is it not? Empathy is a pretty sublime trait. Given that I can not just zap myself into someone else's life, I must cultivate understanding in order to approach empathy, and to cultivate understanding at the most profound level, I probably need to take into account all kinds of intellectual, emotional, and physical information. Then if I am really serious, I probably need to have an idea of where error is creeping into my information. And guess what? I am the source of that error.

Above you have said that the psychopath's deficit qualifies as suffering IN YOUR VIEW. Do you not see how in the definition of empathy above, you are not practicing it? Either we have different ideas about what empathy is, or you are not noticing that you are calling what you imagine to be the psychopath's reaction to the lack of conscience empathy.

I am not upset or feeling defensive. I am simply trying to point out to you that your empathy for psychopath's is based on what you think your own reaction would be in their situation. In the process of doing this, you make exactly the mistake that so many researcher's have warned about and that is assuming that their inner experience is like yours.

L. covers thoroughly the idea of how normal citizens normalize the behavior of pathological leaders by more or less asking themselves the question, "Now under what circumstances could I have made that decision?" In reality, these normal citizens probably would NEVER have made those decisions. I think he called it conversive thinking or something. I don't remember.

It may seem a bit pedantic to go to the definition over concepts like empathy, but I am taking the page out of the book of an uncle who used to challenge me when I would say, "Do you know what I mean?" He would answer, "Do you even know what you mean?" and then chuck a dictionary in my lap. It was a bit unnerving finding out how often I tossed around words without knowing what I meant by them. If I don't understand why I use words, then someone else can insert the meaning they want for them.

The question I have for you then is, "What does empathy mean?"

In my understanding of it, the first step to empathy is observation as I currently lack the ability to jump into other people's bodies. This is where the experts come in (whom we do not choose randomly out of a bag) because I am not going to go try to find a psychopath and get to know them. It is too dangerous.

 

[go2]

The question I have for you then is, "What does empathy mean?"

Empathy is feeling the pain of another. We are exquisitely tuned to perceive the emotional behavior of others as expressed by tone of voice, posture, gait, facial expression, etc. The 'mirror neuron' system reacts to the perception of the emotional expression of pain by feeling 'as if' we are also in pain. The 'as if' feeling can be elicited by narrative or memory of suffering. As I understand it, this 'mirror neuron' system is automatic. The psychopath utilizes mimicry of emotional pain to solicit our automatic empathic response. Now, above it is mentioned that true empathy is based on understanding. This is interesting as understanding implies instinctive-motor, feeling, and thinking functions are active in the true empathic response. True empathy would be a conscious response, rather than an automatic reaction. I wonder if psychopaths could deceive a conscious being fully experiencing an event with all three centers?

 

[upsidedown]

You seem to be confusing the definition of 'fact'. There is no reason to dispute a fact - a fact is a fact, it is objective. --Anart

I suppose if you wish to believe that a fact cannot be disputed, that is your prerogative. You need to remember though that humans are not infallible, and we are the ones who decide what is "fact" and what is not. That is why even in science nothing is ever said to be proven with absolute certainty. The way I see it, everything is in a constant state of flux, going from one form to another. Along with that, our perceptions change as we get older and our experiences multiply.

I am sure that in your own life you might have considered something to be a fact for you that later had to be revised because you became more enlightened about the situation. It is a fact that you now weigh a certain number of pounds, and that your hair is a certain length, and that your face may be free of wrinkles, but with every moment that passes, those so called facts are continually getting revised.

Impermanence is a fact of life, strange as that may sound. Even with that though, I cannot be so sure. But it's all I have to go on, mainly because my experience tells me so.