2016: A Year of Life, Death, and Empathy

This year has been a very inward journey for me, more than any other in the past 4 years. Right now there has been so much happening in the world, regarding our new President Elect and regarding many issues which could effect me personally. But before I even talk about that, I have to talk about what this year has been mostly about for me.

I really think it all started when I went vegan, which is such a controversial decision lately, both inside and outside that community. Going vegan is tough enough without a ton of people telling you that you're being ridiculous or absurd. Honestly, I originally began simply because I was concerned about climate change. I wasn't horribly concerned about animal cruelty or anything like that. But as I went on, trying to understand myself and the feelings that developed (as well as the feelings of others about it) from attempting to live this lifestyle--many times failing--it  eventually led me to other places that really helped me feel things I had never known before. And it helped me understand others in different ways.

Many would call this "intersectional" I guess. And yes, I guess it is. But I've come to call it being immorally ethical and unsympathetically empathetic.

I've reconsidered so many questions this year. Among them, and most recently: Where do ethics come from? Are they universal? If they are, how? What makes us ethical?

I used to think it was all relative. That your values are only as real as you, or your culture, make them. Although I guess that's still true, I've come to realize empathy is the real reason we have any morals at all. It's innately stronger than most people really seem to realize, and it really can be universal. And although all animals can have empathetic responses, the ability to extend ours to life itself, and the lives of other groups and species, is actually the greatest mark of humanity.

Trying to come to grips with my own inner conflicts, and find an understanding of my ethics, I've come to realize there is no sense in any other explanation than universal empathy. Even if you come to the idea that ethics are not universal or perhaps ethics aren't real, we all have different levels of empathy. I, honestly, see different maturities. But personally in my own life, empathy keeps me real, and happy too.

The reason this question is so important to me, especially lately, is for a lot of personal reasons, mixed with the climate of our world right now. Another good reason I have for writing this right now is because of the recent spotlight on Scientology, started by Leah Remini on A&E, and comparing that to my own upbringing, and how I was raised as one of Jehovah's Witnesses.

Me, I was raised to believe that I would live forever if I only just followed the set of rules God had decided on for us all. This sounds somewhat normal (although I think even that takes caring and empathy out of the picture, and I'll explain soon). But Jehovah's Witnesses' beliefs aren't the typical spiritual belief: Used to help people emotionally wrestle with and come to terms with death and loss... It wasn't that one life would end, and then I would go on to live another, heavenly life. Instead, I was taught to believe that that my life here on earth would be extended indefinitely, but only at the expense of those that ignored God's set of rules. And as further excuse for this extermination of rule-breakers, and to differentiate between us--the followers of Jesus--and them--the followers of Adam--apparently that Jesus, a perfect, sinless life, also had to be snuffed out--that's a lot of rationalized death based on some moral code of justice.

But seriously, without empathy, reason has no reason to exist.  Or, like one of my favorite songs admits: "Reasoning don't work when no one cares." This is one of the truest things I've learned in the past few years, but especially in 2016:

You can reason with someone as much as you like, but it will be your justification for doing so that will ultimately be what makes or breaks your reasoning.

For example, if my 8 year old drew a picture for me and said it was supposed to be a brown dog, and instead it was actually indistinguishable from a puddle of mud, how horrible would it be if I didn't show any love for it, and simply told him how much it didn't look like a brown dog? If I pointed out all the things he did wrong, piece by piece, would he really be listening to my criticism and trying to learn from it? No. He might hear a thing or two, but mostly he'd be hurt by me tearing apart something he made for me. And nearly everyone would agree he'd be right for feeling this way, poor little guy.

Why is this “right” though? Most other people wouldn't care about my reasoning there either, they'd think that was a pretty crappy thing for me to do.

And right now, you're thinking this sounds pretty basic. It seems like some ingrained universal moral code we should all have with our children. But in some ways, that's kinda the point: Really, this feeling we have is the mark of the love of life, and it can be matured and extended further. It can also apply to adults. Think about responding to others that share the idea that Black Lives Matter: "You’re scared of the world around you because lots of people like you are being killed by authority? Maybe even you have family members or friends that have died? Well, not just black lives matter, you know. Fuck that. All lives matter…"

Sure, there are lots of reasons why all lives matter, but there will be plenty of people who make a connection between your logic and a stone cold apathy towards death, and a group of people mourning and begging their deaths not be marginalized. Suddenly, the "all lives matter" argument, which is correct, doesn't matter, because of the reasons behind it,. Yes. You're logically right... All lives matter, but you know what? That response, at this moment in time, wasn't very reasonable of you. In fact, its hurting others, so fuck you: I'm with the ones hurting. And that uncaring bullshit you just pulled is now the very logical reason why we now need to say, at least for the moment... Black Lives Matter---And that’s the reasoning behind that whole vast argument.  It really is the same as the first idea--criticizing your children without empathy--but for some reason this is more controversial.

Taking it even further, to a world known for logical debates and arguments--the academic one--even then, if people sense any bias in you, that will immediately, much more deeply and subconsciously, create upset within them. You're betraying a sense of truth and authenticity. Academic-types that are trained well will, subsequently, use that upset as motivation to scrutinize not you, but your argument for all traces of that bias. If they can't find bias in your argument, the person will then perhaps feel deep astonishment. But that astonishment will quickly turn to respect for the argument, and you, for taking the matter seriously. However, if bias is found, the feelings behind the justification for your argument change, even for people that did previously agree with it. They may feel confused, or even like you've tried to trick them, and then your argument won't mean anything, and you may even lose personal respect. We want to pretend that the whole academic principle is entirely based on logic, when really, its an interplay of both. It’s using reasoning to guide our emotional sense of justice and truth, and using our empathetic ideas of sensing someone’s authenticity to harness our reason.

This extends to people that don't even bother so much with the details... for them, just sensing you may have a bias will be enough for them to not even look at your argument. You see this a lot lately. And labels like "liberal" and "right-wing" get thrown around. Refusing to look at an argument for these reasons, in some ways is sad, but in other ways may be a defense mechanism from emotional harm, built from a series of unfortunate events, and that possible defense should be contemplated and respected by those that are aware their sense of reason is not effected by such things. This is compassion, but it can also be empathetic, if you go one step further and ask them to tell you their story so you can understand their feelings, instead of just writing them off as simply unreasonable.

I feel that the most mature and extensive sense of empathy as can be mustered is just as important in reasoning as a honed ability for logic.

And ultimately this is what I've been discovering over the past year, not just within myself, but in others. I feel like society in general, up to the top minds in our world, have--for lack of a better word--an immature view about how far empathy can go. They underestimate how deep empathy runs in each of our thought processes, in the reasons instigating our most complicated ideas, and in the depth of the problems it can overcome in someone who has exercised for life; Instead of solving problems by trying to logically understand a moral code they believe in, or believe society dictates.

I've noticed something when it comes to this. Those that grew up under a very tangible moral code that tells them what to feel about other people, and what is good and bad--like I did--I've noticed they tend to have the hardest time understanding. I did for a while too.

Then again, when I deeply try to understand what my own feelings have been during different times of my life, I’ve also noticed a hormonal connection. This is where I will probably get most controversial. The feminists probably won't like it; But testosterone, when I had a had a lot of it, seemed to have a bolstering effect on the mind. It seems keeps you from questioning yourself (and your reasoning) in the face of a perceived attack, where estrogen seems to actually have an opposite effect. So I do feel men have a harder time empathizing from the get-go, while they have mental strengths in other areas. And of course societal norms do also seem to bolster this.

Not to say men are incapable, but it takes more effort on the part of someone saturated in testosterone--which, for simplicity, I will call a “man”--rather than coming pretty effortlessly like it does for those who are estrogen saturated (woman).

Although feminists probably would be up in arms about that description, here is something that might make them think: In a way, disrespecting empathy is disrespecting the strengths of women, and devaluing it.This is what I see as misogyny.

Women live in a world where our strengths in interacting with it are viewed as wrong because they don’t conform to men who have a harder time letting go of their thoughts and understanding what empathy can be… But in a world where we claim women are equal, many of us women downplay our strengths in order to try and make sense to a majorly left-brained-glorifying world and not be called “crazy”. When really, there is nothing crazy about empathy, apart from that we live in a society that chooses not to value it on the same level as logic.

While women do also demand that men “speak their language” in their own circles, really the world would benefit from each side embracing a two-fold view regarding logic and empathy.

Maybe another feminist faux pas, but I'll say it anyway: Women seem to be more susceptible to spirituality and belief systems in general. But this is because they tend to question themselves so often and look outside of themselves, and feel the need to hold onto something outside themselves for answers.Usually, this ends up being a religion or a relationship. I, personally, feel these feelings much more intensely when at the top of my hormonal cycle, and often long for something steady and grounded. But I’ve learned through a lot of experience and reasoning that I can be all the ground I need. At the lower end of my cycle, when my estrogen level is lowest, I tend to be a lot more interested in defining and defending myself and my positions, and I feel a great unrelenting need to be understood. As in, right now.

You can see this in atheism. When you look at atheists who are women, as opposed to the men, I am positive they have often had to work and reason so much more to get there, so they can feel like it is worth hanging on to. It's so much easier to take solace in and hold onto something which only requires faith. Where men, I think, come at atheism with emphasis on being understood (or misunderstood) and tied up with strong defense of self, so getting the logic right is often priority number one. For that matter, anything men believe usually seems to be tied up in self respect before anything else.

There are certain moral codes which seem to permeate our particular culture. My example of Jehovah's Witnesses has been an extreme case. But to me it seems all ideas of a moral code were created to deal with a lack of empathy. Outside of shouting "The historical patriarchy!" which the feminists would love, I think that's been a symptom of a much bigger problem; How we deal with death. Moral codes became necessary because so many of our largest religions handle death so poorly. They simply create excuses for death, instead of helping people to love and celebrate life, which will definitely, always, come to an end.

"There is no empathy in heaven." - Jeremy Rifkin

One neurological study of "empathy" actually showed that, in a sample of people, empathic feelings tend to die down for AIDS victims upon discovering they contracted HIV through unprotected sex. Some conclude this shows that empathy is not a source of morality, or valid source of ethics.

When you look at studies like this with an understanding that many people's empathy has not matured or may have been stunted by comfy, accommodating ideas about the impact of death, you can draw new conclusions. Personally, I see information that shows that natural human responses have been eroded by abstract moral values, whether they have been reasoned through one’s belief system, or reasoned through ideas that support narrow visions of cultural progress above all else. All those moral values came about through a load of REASONING, in a culture that places logic above all else, instead of learning balance, and placing equal importance on exercising empathy, so it can grow to something not so infantile.

Recently I had a conversation with a friend about all of this, and was asked what I thought about Jesus saying, "Love your enemy", which for my friend seemed to be a logically just and novel appeal. To think that there were a few Greek words we translate "love", but this Jesus guy used "agape" the most, which is defined as "transcending, universal love" says a lot. I honestly think his main point was the same. Except, maybe he didn't go far enough for our society to get the point. Back then Hebrew society was was all about following the letter of the law. Saying "Love your enemy", when the Torah mostly talks about God's laws and how he destroys his enemies, made a particular impact. But practically in the same breath, he says it means very little for you to love those loving you. To me this is the very core of empathy. Are we friends with people that encourage us to be authentic, open, and honest about what we feel? Or are we close to people that pander to us and expect us to do the same? Which is the real "enemy"? Is there ever an "enemy"? Maybe we should just try to value all life, and stand up against things that threaten or cheapen that. I'd like to think that if the good Samaritan had come across the Levite as he was passing the Jew by, he would have at least tried to stop him and given him a piece of his mind. I'd like to think that, thereafter, if the Jew saw the Samaritan getting beat by another Jew, he would attempt to defend him. To give Jesus a run for his money: If you love your enemy while he torments those who have loved you, "of what credit is it to you?" I'm not a Jesus person, but to me, it seems like he thought loving your enemy was not simply another law to never be broken. It was an anti-law. It was about humanity, and not unbreakable rules.

So despite all the pain that was 2016 for me, it was also a deeply meaningful year. Between all the anxiety and the loss, I learned to rethink so many things and understand what it really means to be authentic and to love life. Peace is wonderful on the outside, but it starts on the inside. When you feel the need for restraint, that is an inner war with your logic and empathy. And I don't think they have to be at war. One might just need to catch up with the other. I'd suggest trying a little more empathy.

Sometimes you have to kinda take a moment from your life and bask in being alive, and find your similarities with other sentient life on the planet, and learn how to celebrate that, instead of only celebrating reasoning itself. Because before the rise of modern Science, it was Christians and Muslims who were the main keepers of reasoning, at least in the western world. The Greeks, who we often try to emulate, valued both the heart and the mind. Their brightest minds understood this connection… Logic is not infallible, in society and in relationships. But when you're really in touch, as much a possible, with what it means to be alive, I know mature empathy can cut a cleaner universal path than any moral code or set of values.

I probably would still be having issues understanding that myself if I hadn't gone through some of the things I've gone through in the past few years. Parts of society have degraded our humanity and our connection to the Earth... and I really think people need to take the time to rediscover it, very often.