"In the current stage of consciousness and cooperation, the private inflation of the individual puts a strain on other individual efforts when the population grows and we struggle to manage resources, which makes a more scarce and suffocating climate for all of the individuals"

What's interesting is that one of the many things we humans fancy as something that "sets us apart from animals" is the ability to role-play. As children, we first directly emulate what our parents or those close to us do, and then we develope this idea a little more and turn it into a game. We play house, where you are the mommy and I am the daddy and Fiona is the doggy. Later in life, this sort of role-play enables us percieve the desires and viewpoints of others, because we are able to imagine what it might be like to be in their positions. And yet this ability has not yet been developed enough, or so it would seem, so that we might be able to take into consideration our purpose in a group, a society, our world. We can easily place ourselves as individuals, but can we find a place that will benefit something greater than our daily, expected interactions with other individuals? Where is the foresight that enables us to not only see why Tim is frustrated with me, but why my world slowly dying? What does it take for us to just as effortlessly ask what the greater group needs from our individual self in order to repair a relationship with humanity?

This is something I think about a lot, and I will definitely think about it more some time when I'm not caught in the middle - literally one clock in this bedroom reads 2:22 Am and the other reads 12:24 Am. I can deal with the two minute discrepancy but I have a feeling that it's actually 1 twenty-something - onebody in this house maybe changed daylight savings the wrong way. I love that upon posting, this note will post the more accurate time.
One thing i'll marinade in with some sleep, with respect to a relationship with humanity, we ARE humanity, the oh-nes is foremost on each. One drop of water in the bucket at a time, it poureth overeth lavish and the soil is healthy for new relationship. how amazing isn't it when your own heart is clear - attachments at bay - everything seems to have its reason and maybe the ghost were intending something different for you and Tim all along. Maybe the timing just isn't right.
Many times I've tried to refill the bucket and rinse all the muck away (ask my EX); but I like inspecting the funny barnacles that fester in the idle water, and sometimes, with some people, it's just an opportunity to turn inwards so that the mystery healing can breathe and we might lead or learn by example.
ANyway, you're asking what might we DO, and how might it be effortless. Action meets effortlessness. Did you ever notice how us hostile and tribal human barbarians manage to oh so seemlessly walk on the sidewalk giving way to others, offering a note that the tea might still be hot, thank you, please, excuse me: we are so truly considerate and with love, automatically, when the conditions are tolerable to us. Only each of us can work on our tolerance. Tolerance and understanding are certainly challenges for this tribe and species of mind.
Sometimes I think that it's all really so simple, and that Please and Excuse me sum it all up; the rest are just inflated symptoms of failed communication, poor understanding, remote global relationships crossed with sundenly nearby dynamic networks. Please and Excuse may have to learn a place in the impersonal enormity of our social and techno organism, which despite the impersonal, service very universal personal needs.
I wonder at what point do you think people become intolerant or the remoteness starts to act as a license for indifference or Othering? What is an Other?
There is a simpler way at all this question: when does it become natural within or own minds that we can't just - naturally - help each other, wholly.
What is that called?
Thanks for getting me thinking and for your nice reflections Melissa,
Now I gonna get me sleeping : )

HAHA, that's not the right time that it posted - 5:54Am
But it could just as well be as far you/we know...

First of all, thank you very much for the reminder...we ARE humanity. I think it's become habitual to distance ourselves, and so even when we consider how might bring some small bit of unity to humanity/us, we reinforce the problem by not including ourselves. The distance with which we regard our brothers and sisters of the world is probably one of the roots of miscommunications you were talking about. So thanks for putting that in perspective. As to your questions, my first reaction is to say that of course the "point" at which we find the ability to be anywhere from impolite to violent varies from person to person and from situation to situation. Of course. But if we are going to speak generally, I suppose at the most basic level, at that moment, we find ourselves justified in an action against that "other". The possibilities for justifications are infinite, but I think that's what happens. Our compassion, desire for understanding of another, and curiousity to their situation is overruled by a feeling of absolute correctness in our own minds. You mentioned something about being able to help each other "wholly". I'm not sure if this is what you intend, but it reminds me of the question of do we ever commit a completely selfless act? Now I don't personally have an answer I'm comepletely comfortable with, at least one that includes a yes or a no, but it's interesting to think about. If you help, do you do it without expectation, agenda, or the personal benefit of a bolstered conscience? And even if we suppose that this is true, that it is impossible to commit a completely selfless act, is that bad? Does it really matter? If humans are helping other humans, even selfishly, what do we think about that? And to that end, even if it is a habit of mine to tell you that the tea may still be hot, just a habit, well, your tongue is still not burned, is it?

Self: There is giving, there is receiving. But it has never been your giving or your receiving. The bolstering is an after thought. There is giving, there is receiving. There is no self. Enjoy the flow. Perhaps a little more attention on this in diversions part two, next week.

Yes, humility does not come easy in our culture.

Here's a story,

A gang of hoolahoopgans break into an old man's home; the gang thrashes and mangles, stealing what they wish before getting to the old man. "Old man," they say, "now it is your turn" assuring that this will be his last moment, but just before they strike him down, the man asks for one last pleasure, "may I have one last pleasure?" "Alright" "what the heck" say the hoolahoopgans. The man stands up from the chair which he cautiously confined himself to for safety, carefully he walks to the cupboard, attentively he opens the cupboard and takes out a glass, carefully he closes the cupboard sets down the glass and opens another door, takes a bottle of wine, uncorks it, pours the wine carefully into the glass, re-corks the bottle, returns the bottle to the cupboard. Wine in hand he turns around towards the table, but the crooks are gone. There must be agreement between two sides to have an argument. We both must be defensive or offensive about the same thing in order for the clash to stay alive. The thieves were lost from their own province of violence. I am interested in these nuances at larger political scales, but they must be sincere and developed at smaller personal levels in order for anything. The same man had said, "a war is a million smaller wars blown out of proportion."

If you like this playing melissa, here's a question, What is it when the bolstering is not an after thought, but rather a pre-thought, ie, one's motivation?

Andy

So you're asking, I think, what do we call it when we say to ourselves something to the effect of, "I would like to make myself feel better, and so I think I will mow Ann's lawn and surprise her." So rather than the emphasis being on Ann, and the fact that she's had a really rough divorce and little time to keep up the yard she's usually to attentive to, the focus is almost completely inward? Tell me if I'm misunderstanding you. But in any case, in situations such as this, I suppose I would call that selfishness, but without the negative connotation. Does that make sense? Because ultimately, both Ann and I experience joy from this little favor, right? And I think that it's very natural for us to experience that joy when we nurture a connection to our fellow beings...so does it really matter if we premeditate upon this joy or not? What if, someday, selfishness had a positive connotation? Because all it would mean would be achieving personal gain constructively. What if we manipulated selfishness into something that would cause us to say, once and for all, "Hey, maybe war is a STUPID and POINTLESS and COMPLETELY FUTILE SERIES OF ACTIONS." Haha...but I digress. Maybe we'll get there someday.

I was thinking more on the lines of stealing Ann’s mower to out-primp her lawn or arranging it so that you’re the reason her husband left her, but only cause it’s easier to work backwards from the extremes. Even then, it is still a person in need – you this time – humanity remember, however warped, and ultimately self-denying. Each of us is one of the people who “wholly” needs to be helped. It’s selfish not too see that you are part of the world’s suffering, that your self needs work: selfish that healing is beyond you.
Yeah when the going gets tough, it’s hard to be clear-hearted – the anger, the jealousy – hard to see what choices won’t deny this self (from itself.) In this way, indulging every impulse in order to help yourself is a doomed recipe. “Desires” my ex used to say, “are inexhaustible.” Actually, it was, “Andrew, you’re too horny.” If you really pay attention to your daily interaction, you see it’s so subtle whether you’re taking or giving. And the more you make awareness and gratitude part of your way, the less visible the direction of that which is exchanged. Please, what is exchanged? What do we “get,” what do we “give,” what is “bolstered?” Which part of the body gets, gives? Tell me of the ephemeral. What IS love? These are meditations. But if you’re really “making love, Andrew” there is just giving and receiving, and it belongs to no one.

On Constructive selfishness? Don’t read Ayn Rand. Her tools are limited. Not too much utilitarianism either. But maybe a bit.

Now I have spoken too morally. I think I will go eat veal and straighten myself out.

So many questions in this one...and all I can think of are the words of Mr. Jack Johnson. I hestitated for quite a while, fearing the label of cliche by posting song lyrics, but if something rings in my head long enough it becomes irrestistible, so here they are: "Love is the answer, at least, to most of the questions in my heart - Why are we here and where do we go and how come it's so hard? It's not always easy, cause sometimes life can be deceiving. I'll tell you one thing, it's always better when we're together." And it goes on. That's so funny. Here we are discussing the mystery and wonder of giving and receiving, and I find myself timid about giving you something so simple...and out of the fear that you will receive it in a way which was not intended by me. Naturally, I would like you to be touched, moved, enlightened...ha, I have thought of some more lyrics for you. "I'm starting to fashion an idea in my head, where I would impress you with every single word I said." Thanks, Dashboard. But to the point - why do I fear something so simple? The act of giving is something so practiced...because I agree with you...life could very easily be condensed into the two categories of giving and receiving. Why does the idea of your simple act of receiving give me a feeling of being off balance, until you affirm me in my intent? It seems silly. And yet if I will not follow through with this desire to share, I am denying myself the chance to be made more whole, possibly by you, or possibly by the simple satisfaction of knowing I have laid myself open to a number of consequences, and I have not held back. You ask what do we "get" or "give", and to me, these questions are daunting. Do you mean initially? Because if you think about the infinite number of changes that we go through on a daily basis, how can we possibly assign a specific meaning to what is received and what is given? And to that end, even when we think we're giving to another individual, there has to be something we receive from ourselves as well, I think. So now we have not only the complicated question of how what we have received might change over time and space, but how it might shift within ourselves through what we perceive to be the act of giving. AH! All of this seems orderly in my head, but I feel very unclear. Does this make sense? I enjoy your notion of having no claim on what occurs when people make love. When I think of what is given and received in this act, to categorize almost seems messy. Even in my inexperience, what I do know of sexuality tells me that love-making is probably one of the clearest, easiest things to understand, and while I know I will be tempted in my lifetime to think analytically, discuss, wander in wonder, articulate, justify, label, compartmentalize, and to find poetry in this true act...well...really what is left? It just seems so simple. It's an easy, steady shoreline. And that seems like a metaphor, but really that's the only explanation I have, and I can go no further than that. So beautifully simple and wonderfully clear. Or so it seems to me. :)

That's about the most beautiful thing I ever read.