Where suffering and desires remain attached to our statements, compassion can sort these out in what amounts to a "common understanding" of the situation. Outside of a commonly held "mutual understanding" of context, statements which contain elements of desire and suffering are likely to be confusing at best or contentious at worst.
Again it should be understood that retaining "elements of suffering and desire" isn't a problem in statements, so long as these elements are mutually understood by the people making and hearing the statements, as these elements "iron out" in mutual understanding and compassion, revealing to one or both parties the underlying meaning or truth in the statements. Perhaps ironically, the fewer elements of suffering and desire intrinsically remaining in the statements, the less "human" they can appear. This abstract logic can be understood by a simple scenario...
Let's say our horse has gotten out of the barn, and we desire to return it to the stable, or else our suffering is likely to get worse. Let's just suppose our lives literally depend on us using said horse to retrieve provisions for survival to explain our desires, anxiety, and implied suffering over the situation.
Let's suppose I see the horse is behind the barn, but I can't approach it or move, else it may see me and get spooked. Let's suppose you're across the way, on the other side of the barn, but can't see the horse. If you move too much or walk around the back of the barn, you may spook the horse. Finally, let's presume that if we can get on both sides of the horse behind the barn (and between a fence) before it runs off we can then get the horse back to the stable.
Perhaps the most "human" thing to do, the element of expression which overtly contains the most desire and suffering would be to shout "the horse is behind the barn!" or else chase after the horse in a futile attempt to outrun it. These will only spook the horse and cause great suffering for all, as even the horse will suffer without food, water and shelter. However, if I use a hand signal like holding my palm up to indicate "stop", and then perhaps put my fingers to my lips to indicate "shhhh!", and then point in the direction behind the barn, and if we both apply mutual compassion to these simple messages, we'll then both understand where the horse is and how to proceed.
The horse can't hear the hand signals even though they are absolutely true. The hand signals contain less overt "suffering and desire" than shouting "the horse is behind the barn!!". If you see the hand signals and don't apply compassion, and then yell "what??!!!", it spooks the horse and suffering proceeds. The mutual compassion regarding the context is absolutely crucial in using these hand signals, or else the horse bolts. Removing the overt elements of suffering and desire from the communication, while retaining a mutual compassion regarding the meaning and context of the communication, allows us to identify the scope and context of the real scenario without "spooking the horse". We can then apply proper procedure which can remedy the situation and help abate undue suffering.
Science is the way we can resolve a coherent and universal description of reality, provided we can maintain a mutually compassionate realization that the inherent lack of "human" suffering and desire exhibited in the scientific theory and its explication do not indicate the absence of these qualities, but rather their resolution; and abstractness of the theory being the remaining distillation into those truths which are meaningful and useful towards resolving undue suffering, but which can not be shouted in terms which "spook the horse".
Submitted July 09, 2017 at 02:13AM by xxYYZxx http://ift.tt/2u4u4Cg
No comments:
Post a Comment