(This text has a quite Buddhistic inspiration. The aim is to be applicable for all, always, everywhere.)<\/p>\n
In one sweep, the title of this text replaces the quest for morality to the question: What is \u2018suffering\u2019? I already gave one answer. It\u2019s debatable but I do go further on this.<\/p>\n
One may generally discern three sources of suffering:<\/strong><\/p><\/blockquote>\n
According to Buddhistic tradition: grabbing, pushing away, and lack of basic insight into the nature of human being.<\/p>\n
Not bad. However, these three are quite natural. There is nothing wrong with them as such. Completely getting rid of them may leave one barren. It is rather in their extremes that they are negative:<\/p>\n
\n
- Grabbing -> addiction. It\u2019s never enough. There is little and fleeting satisfaction in getting the object of addiction.<\/li>\n
- Pushing away -> stress, anxiety. The feeling is overwhelming, out of control.<\/li>\n
- Lack of insight -> being stuck in a view on human being that takes the nonconscious not at all into account.<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n
Three into one<\/strong><\/p><\/blockquote>\n
These three have in common a loss of contact with one\u2019s center or \u2018inner self\u2019. This is what C.G. Jung called dissociation<\/em>. The opposite, he called individuation<\/em>. Interesting: in-dividuation<\/em> = becoming \u2018un-divided\u2019, \u2018whole\u2019.<\/p>\n
The final goal of this morality is thus the \u2018whole person\u2019.<\/strong><\/p><\/blockquote>\n
In the process towards this, one encounters very generally a \u2018relief of suffering\u2019.<\/p>\n
For instance, one may be addicted<\/em> to cigarette smoking (or to overeating, to money, to status, to anything\u2026). By diminishing this addiction, one diminishes the suffering.<\/p>\n
For instance, one may have a chronic pain. Trying to push this away may lead to a lot of stress. By \u2013 deeply \u2013 accepting the pain, one diminishes the suffering.<\/p>\n
For instance, one may be enraged towards another person. Deep insight shows the other person as a human being with human flaws, also beyond conscious awareness. Bringing such insight, one diminishes the suffering.<\/p>\n
Two ways of \u2018relief\u2019 of suffering<\/strong><\/p>\n
Since the suffering is brought about through the disconnect, one can logically bring about \u2018relief\u2019 in two ways, two \u2018solutions\u2019:<\/p>\n
\n
- diminishing the disconnect, thus: in-dividuation<\/li>\n
- directly diminishing the suffering itself, this is: \u2018killing\u2019 it regardless of the disconnect.<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n
In Western medicine, the latter is accomplished for instance by pain-killers and by all kinds of medication with names starting as \u2018anti\u2019: anti-depressants, anti-anxiety medication etc. Actually, there are a lot of \u2018anti medications\u2019. One can see in this that Western medicine is generally quite oriented upon the second solution.<\/p>\n
Healing, whole, holiness, holistic\u2026<\/strong><\/p>\n
These terms have the same etymological roots. No coincidence. The main orientation here is always on the first solution.<\/p>\n
Religion -> \u2018re-ligare\u2019 also points to the same. \u2018Re-ligare\u2019 means literally: to connect again and thoroughly. I see in this a connection with one\u2019s self deep inside and from there to outside.<\/p>\n
Eastern enlightenment is also about becoming \u2018whole\u2019, becoming \u2018one with the universe\u2019, becoming the \u2018Buddha that you already are\u2019.<\/p>\n
In the West, this has engendered a lot of \u2018alternative medicines\u2019 that like to call themselves \u2018holistic\u2019\u2026 The reflex is OK, but sorry, I don\u2019t see it realized.<\/p>\n
The morality in this<\/strong><\/p><\/blockquote>\n
The \u2018better person\u2019 lies within the range of the complete person: integrated, authentic, open. This is what many also experience as \u2018morality\u2019 in general. The means towards it (\u2018moral code\u2019) are diverse and may not always be obvious or even correct. Interestingly, this also divides the political landscape:<\/p>\n
\n
- more leftist: direct relief of all suffering<\/li>\n
- more rightist: with moral codes also in authority, loyalty, sanctity\u2026 anything in which people find \u2018soul\u2019\u2026<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n
Insight in <morality as the relief of suffering><\/em> may bring such diverse politics more together. At the re-ligare level, it may also bring religions together. Eventually, as moral beings we all seek the same:<\/p>\n
The relief of suffering of others, as well as of oneself<\/strong><\/p><\/blockquote>\n
The latter is not a streak of egoism. As may be obvious by now, it\u2019s not meant here that one should avoid the own suffering directly<\/em>. But the relief of one\u2019s own suffering is<\/em> also part of the endeavor. Being addicted \/ anxious \/ lacking insight, prevents REAL empathy (= not sympathy), which encompasses seeing others as who they are and not on the canvas of one\u2019s own suffering. Thus, dissociation also prevents helping others.<\/p>\n
Moreover, it is from the own suffering that people are driven to commit \u2018crimes\u2019, bringing suffering to others. Eventually the own suffering (dissociation) is by far the most important cause of the suffering of others as well as more suffering of oneself.<\/p>\n
This puts both goal and cause of morality in the same endeavor.<\/strong><\/p><\/blockquote>\n
According to me, this is the only way. It\u2019s not the end of the way. It\u2019s present in the whole way.<\/p>\n