<\/p>\n
Yesterday I went to a book group gathering <\/p>\n I had read Rifkin’s book So yesterday I wanted to delve Rifkin argues for a core tension Rifkin reinforces this Rivkin’s dismissive attitude towards Rifkin sees significant human empathy Rifkin’s blindness on this issue Multidimensional Empathy with Empathy is multidimensional 1.<\/b> First is empathy as depth of 2. <\/b>Second is identification with “Germans are just like us.” <\/p>\n “Blacks are just like us.” <\/span><\/p>\n “Chinese are just like us.” <\/p>\n “Gays are just like us.” <\/span><\/p>\n “Muslims are just like us.”<\/p>\n And so on.<\/p>\n This kind of empathy is 3.<\/b> Then there is empathy with
\nto discuss Jeremy Rifkin’s monumental new book, The Empathetic Civilization<\/a><\/i>. What follows are insights I developed in preparation for that gathering that I think will interest many
\nPagans concerned with the deeper relationship of Pagan spirituality to the
\nmodern world.<\/span><\/p>\n
\n<\/p>\n
\npreviously in preparation for his winter visit to Sonoma. Then <\/span>I had asked him a question regarding
\nhis dismissive comments about the mental development of hunting and gathering
\npeoples, giving a number of reasons why I thought he was wrong. <\/span>He gave the nuanced reply: “We just
\ndisagree.”<\/p>\n
\nmore deeply into just what I regarded as faulty in a book with many good
\nqualities, and do so with caring and smart people who had also read it. <\/span>To do this I had to organize my
\nthoughts, which leads to this blog.
\n<\/span><\/p>\n
\nwithin civilization: as we master new forms of energy and communication, our links
\nwith others grows and our capacity for empathy increases. <\/span>But at the same time we increase what
\nhe calls “entropy” (which really means environmental degradation) to the point
\nthat the culture either fails, sliding back to a less connected and less empathic
\ntime, or breaks through into a new level of development and consciousness.<\/p>\n
\nprovocative thesis with hundreds of pages of argument and interesting
\nexamples. <\/span>Even so, I was not
\nconvinced the first time I read the book, and was even less convinced with a second examination though if you have the time it is still worth reading for its
\nwealth of insights, especially in the first part). But explaining why he went astray was a challenge. <\/span><\/p>\n
\nhunter gatherers tipped me off to what I think is a pretty fundamental
\nproblem. <\/span>Yesterday’s discussion, focusing on his
\nfoundational arguments, gave me a chance to explore this flaw.<\/p>\n
\nas a relatively new development in human awareness, the word not having even
\nexisted a few hundred years ago.
\n<\/span>He cited David Hume and Adam Smith’s use of “sympathy” as a first, halting
\nstep towards understanding the term.
\n<\/span>Significantly Rifkin was wrong here. <\/span>Before the word had been developed, “sympathy” often played
\nthe role empathy does today, and Hume and Smith had defined it as such. <\/span>More importantly, they also argued it
\nwas foundational to human awareness and moral development, beating an important
\npart of Rifkin’s argument by over 200 years.<\/p>\n
\nsignaled a deeper problem. Every society has empathetc qualities and if modern
\nsociety has developed a different perspective towards empathy – and I agree
\nwith Rifkin that it has – something other than a simple linear unfolding from
\nprimitive to advanced is happening.<\/p>\n
\nMultidimensional Selves<\/b><\/p>\n
\nbecause selves are multidimensional.
\n<\/span>There are at least four levels to empathetic identification,
\ncorresponding to the breadth and depth of our connection with that with which
\nwe identify. <\/span><\/p>\n
\nconnection with another. <\/span>Love,
\nclose friendship, and intimacy are all examples of this kind of empathy. <\/span>They could not exist without it. <\/span>It exists in every society.<\/p>\n
\nothers as striving, caring beings.
\n<\/span>This seems to develop over time, extending from the first most accessible
\nexample outwards to others who become increasingly different from us. <\/span>For example, for a white European
\nAmerican such as myself, it might go <\/p>\n
\nrelatively impersonal, does not require in depth knowledge of others, and
\nenables us to care about and respect others, but not to really know them<\/i>. <\/span>It is
\nwhy I could give money gladly to aid Haitian earthquake victims. <\/span>It also enables us to care about future
\ngenerations. <\/span>If I read Rifkin
\ncorrectly, this is the kind of empathy he sees as growing so hopefully in the
\nmodern world of global connection.
\n<\/span>To the degree we have this kind of empathy we open ourselves to the
\ndeeper kind as well, but it is impossible to have a deep connection with
\nenormous numbers of people.<\/span><\/p>\n
\nother species. We are able to empathize in the second way with many beings and
\noften we can empathize in the first way with some. Here it seems to me there is
\na continuum from those beings most like us to those least like us. The
\nsimilarities with which we identify are farther removed from our concrete sense
\nof our selves as individuals. Perhaps even more interestingly, some animals can
\ndo the same with us, as many people who have been close to a pet know.<\/p>\n