{"id":2457,"date":"2019-06-09T19:03:03","date_gmt":"2019-06-09T19:03:03","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/aurelis.org\/blog\/?p=2457"},"modified":"2019-06-11T18:07:58","modified_gmt":"2019-06-11T18:07:58","slug":"beyond-sadness","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/aurelis.org\/blog\/empathy-compassion\/beyond-sadness","title":{"rendered":"Beyond Sadness"},"content":{"rendered":"

\u2018Sadness\u2019 is not fixed, impersonal and \u2018real\u2019 as is the computer on which I am typing this text. Instead, it is personal, social a<\/span>nd \u2018real\u2019 in a much more interesting way.<\/span><\/h3>\n

As any other emotion: surprise, fear, disgust\u2026<\/strong><\/p><\/blockquote>\n

We live with emotions. We talk about emotions. We see emotions in other people. We feel them inside. We remember those of yesterday and may look forward to those of tomorrow.<\/p>\n

Even so, emotions are no objects.<\/strong><\/p><\/blockquote>\n

They are not even like<\/em> objects.<\/p>\n

Take a $5 banknote. An emotion is like the value of that note, not like the note itself. In the end, what do you trade the note for? Eventually: for its emotional value, the value that you emotionally attach to it, be this through buying something you \u2018want\u2019 or through giving it away to someone you \u2018care for.\u2019 \u00a0[see: \u201cFrom deep meaning to post-capitalism<\/a>\u201d] Always, in the end, value is emotion, emotion is value.<\/p>\n

Emotion is not a thing. It is not even like<\/em> a thing.<\/p>\n

Moreover, an emotion \u2013 like sadness or any other \u2013 is quite different every time<\/em>. Meaning: you cannot feel the same sadness twice. Nor can someone else feel exactly the same sadness as you. So:<\/p>\n

how big is the difference between sadness and sadness?<\/strong><\/p><\/blockquote>\n

It turns out that it is very big. Diverse mental constellations can be called \u2018sadness\u2019 by different people, or even the same person in different circumstances.<\/p>\n

This way, \u2018sadness\u2019 is not what it used to be, nor what it will be, nor even what you (nor I myself) normally think it is.<\/p>\n

This is in the usual sense counter-cultural. It is also counter-intuitive. Rest assured: to me as well as to you. Yet modern science provides more than enough proof towards the view that emotions are by far not<\/em> clear-cut. Every single kind of emotion is very<\/em> diverse in every respect: how it is felt, how it shows, how it influences health, and also \u2013 intriguingly \u2013 to a huge degree<\/p>\n

brain-wise.<\/strong><\/p><\/blockquote>\n

Looking in the brain, emotions do not<\/em> have fingerprints.<\/p>\n

Towards any individual emotion, many brain parts work in sync. Sometimes one collection of brain parts is involved, sometimes another. There is no mandatory overlap between individuals. Not even, for instance, and for the connoisseur, regarding the amygdalae in case of fear. One can very clearly feel fear without<\/em> them. This is pure science.<\/p>\n

Diversity is the norm. The \u2018norm\u2019 that we habitually live by, is but a normalized assumption. Which is OK. This doesn\u2019t demean emotions at all. Please don\u2019t ever let it do so!<\/p>\n

This makes emotions much more interesting.<\/strong><\/p><\/blockquote>\n

People are not \u2018one kind of cake\u2019. Really getting to know someone is like discovering a brave new world. It takes courage to be open and discover it.<\/p>\n

The alternative is re-discovering your own projections. This may be comfortable but not very brave and, if you ask me, not interesting. I do not like to project much, not even upon myself. Too many projections close any door without knowing what\u2019s behind.<\/p>\n

So, in view of this diversity, can one feel another\u2019s sadness? Can one be empathic?<\/strong><\/p><\/blockquote>\n

Sure. However, it takes a lot more than simply recognizing some conceptualized idea of what sadness should be. There is a huge gulf between \u2018is\u2019 and \u2018should be.\u2019 Any sadness is more personal than objectifiable.<\/p>\n

To really be empathic, to really see another person\u2019s sadness, you need to accept that every time again, what you see is unpredictable. If you see the same \u2018sadness\u2019 for the nth<\/sup> time, you are looking at a chimera. Empathy needs openness.<\/p>\n

Meditation helps<\/strong><\/p><\/blockquote>\n

to open emotional doors. It\u2019s almost Huxley-like, isn\u2019t it\u2026 If you think so, I think you think pretty correctly, with disclaimer. The \u2018doors of perception\u2019 (see Internet<\/a>) lie in perceiving that, for instance, emotions are not so much fingerprinted in any straightforward way, as they are you and only truly you, deep inside yourself.<\/p>\n

In any meditation which is worthy of that name and therefore is mainly opening<\/em>, one encounters oneself, including one\u2019s emotions much more as they are. Thus, also, an immense area of freedom. This brings responsibility, no guilt.<\/p>\n

With a clear goal: being emotionally real.<\/p>\n

<\/span><\/a>
<\/a>

Please login to bookmark<\/h3>\n\t\t
\n\t\t\t\n\t\t\t

\n\t\t\t\t

\n\t\t\t\t

\n\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t<\/p>\n\t\t\t\n\t\t<\/form><\/div><\/div><\/div>","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

\u2018Sadness\u2019 is not fixed, impersonal and \u2018real\u2019 as is the computer on which I am typing this text. Instead, it is personal, social and \u2018real\u2019 in a much more interesting way. As any other emotion: surprise, fear, disgust\u2026 We live with emotions. We talk about emotions. We see emotions in other people. We feel them Read the full article…<\/a><\/p>\n

<\/span><\/a>
<\/a>

Please login to bookmark<\/h3>\n\t\t\n\t\t\t\n\t\t\t

\n\t\t\t\t

\n\t\t\t\t

\n\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t<\/p>\n\t\t\t\n\t\t<\/form><\/div><\/div><\/div>","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":2458,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"spay_email":"","jetpack_publicize_message":""},"categories":[12],"tags":[],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"https:\/\/i2.wp.com\/aurelis.org\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2019\/06\/359.jpg?fit=960%2C566&ssl=1","jetpack_publicize_connections":[],"jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_shortlink":"https:\/\/wp.me\/p9Fdiq-DD","jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/aurelis.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2457"}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/aurelis.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/aurelis.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/aurelis.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/aurelis.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=2457"}],"version-history":[{"count":3,"href":"https:\/\/aurelis.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2457\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":2477,"href":"https:\/\/aurelis.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2457\/revisions\/2477"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/aurelis.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/2458"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/aurelis.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=2457"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/aurelis.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=2457"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/aurelis.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=2457"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}