Yes, I would feel the same compassion as I said, for me, compassion is compassion. The FEELING is the same, but how that compassion manifests will be different based on the situation. I feel this is a subtle but important point and one I feel you are trying to make. I am making a distinction here between the experience of compassion and the actions that derive from compassion.
So, to me, 'more' compassion is no more practically useful than 'less' compassion, because the function of compassion is effected the same regardless of degree. It sounds to me when you say 'more compassion', I think you mean 'more pain experienced through empathy', correct me if I'm wrong? It seems that you tie compassion and empathy together so that more empathy means more compassion, perhaps?
In the eyes of the Law of One, there is no difference, but I believe this aspect of 'usefulness' is the next major key to this argument after the concept of free will. This one is, however, much stickier because usefulness means addressing desires. There is no 'universal usefulness', it has to have context. So the question is, useful for what exactly?
How is FEELING compassion more acutely one way or the other more practically useful? It is only more useful one way or the other if you have an active bias towards service in one way or the other but to someone without those same biases it probably wouldn't be viewed as usefully.
Maybe you cannot hear but humans are also crying for help, just as animals are. The problem with your example is that it is highly idyllic. You've taken an extreme example of cruelty and put it against an extreme example of ignorance and while hyperbole is useful for making contrast I think the actual situation is considerably less clear than that.
That is what it seems to me, I guess, that this compassionate 'discernment' is based on a conceptualized image in the mind rather than, in my eyes, taking place in any practical way. I admit, I do not understand the practical benefit of your approach. Is it supposed to be that more compassion is supposed to be more inspiring towards helpful service and that's the practicality?
The usefulness of any feeling in 3D is a matter of how one chooses to use it as catalyst so either way the situation appears the same to me on a metaphysical level. It does not make sense to me to make the comparison because ultimately my actions don't lead from feelings, so whether or not I feel more or less compassion is actually somewhat irrelevant to whether or not I wish to be of service. This is perhaps different for others, I do not expect the same.
My whole point here being that 'feeling compassion' is not the same as engaging in service although one might lead from the other. I may feel the same compassion for all, but I do not blindly follow compassion, it is always accompanied with wisdom and it is wisdom which does the discernment. I guess that might sound strange likely, but I do not see it that wisdom 'limits' compassion so much as uses it as a 'launchpad' of sorts.
So, to me, 'more' compassion is no more practically useful than 'less' compassion, because the function of compassion is effected the same regardless of degree. It sounds to me when you say 'more compassion', I think you mean 'more pain experienced through empathy', correct me if I'm wrong? It seems that you tie compassion and empathy together so that more empathy means more compassion, perhaps?
In the eyes of the Law of One, there is no difference, but I believe this aspect of 'usefulness' is the next major key to this argument after the concept of free will. This one is, however, much stickier because usefulness means addressing desires. There is no 'universal usefulness', it has to have context. So the question is, useful for what exactly?
How is FEELING compassion more acutely one way or the other more practically useful? It is only more useful one way or the other if you have an active bias towards service in one way or the other but to someone without those same biases it probably wouldn't be viewed as usefully.
Maybe you cannot hear but humans are also crying for help, just as animals are. The problem with your example is that it is highly idyllic. You've taken an extreme example of cruelty and put it against an extreme example of ignorance and while hyperbole is useful for making contrast I think the actual situation is considerably less clear than that.
That is what it seems to me, I guess, that this compassionate 'discernment' is based on a conceptualized image in the mind rather than, in my eyes, taking place in any practical way. I admit, I do not understand the practical benefit of your approach. Is it supposed to be that more compassion is supposed to be more inspiring towards helpful service and that's the practicality?
The usefulness of any feeling in 3D is a matter of how one chooses to use it as catalyst so either way the situation appears the same to me on a metaphysical level. It does not make sense to me to make the comparison because ultimately my actions don't lead from feelings, so whether or not I feel more or less compassion is actually somewhat irrelevant to whether or not I wish to be of service. This is perhaps different for others, I do not expect the same.
My whole point here being that 'feeling compassion' is not the same as engaging in service although one might lead from the other. I may feel the same compassion for all, but I do not blindly follow compassion, it is always accompanied with wisdom and it is wisdom which does the discernment. I guess that might sound strange likely, but I do not see it that wisdom 'limits' compassion so much as uses it as a 'launchpad' of sorts.
![[+]](https://www.bring4th.org/forums/images/collapse_collapsed.png)