Is True Goodness A Reflection Of The Heart or Rather Of One's Mind?

The Brain From Top To Bottom "Online Brain Encyclopedia"

In a recent dialogue in which I was engaged I concluded by stating that in terms of the human condition I’ve long found it better when it comes to such matters to attempt to empathize rather than sympathize; that being as sympathy relates to the goodness of one’s heart while empathy stems from the goodness of one’s mind. This might sound as nothing more than a philosophically based preference and I would admit that for me it’s always been primarily that.

However, it should be noted that such a hypothesis has been put forth in recent years which over the last decade to be grounded in a scientific discovery as to the nature of the brains found in humans, some primates and even birds in the study of what’s referred to as Mirror Neurons. This research appears to indicate how it is that we are able to know the mind of others. I thus offer this linked paper which synopsises the investigation of this. All this then has me to wonder, how what could be called that little voice which suggests what might be right and wrong can be better heard, or perhaps just better listened to.

Occupancy of Thought

Revealed – the capitalist network that runs the world - physics-math - 19 October 2011 - New Scientist

New Scientist in this article announces that a group of researchers have identified the one percent so many talk about and although it is found indeed powerful and concentrated not a result of intent, yet rather one of natural complex ordering. The question of course is should we mess with the invisible hand or leave it be. The answer can only be found with science in studying models which propose changes and run simulations to indicate results; and yet first of all we need to decide what we would like our world to be; this is why the occupancy of thought is more important than one of place.

What Should We Seek To Have Occupied?

(Mladen Antonov/AFP/Getty Images)

In respect to these “Occupy” protests my greatest hope is they never become a movement as found to be formed out of some individual’s or factional group’s vision for the world, yet simply remain the unified final recognition that things are in need of change and to admit each is seeking what that is while not as yet knowing what that would end up to be. So if this is truly to be the counter to being an ideology such as the Tea Party or that of any other group which presents as the same, it must be first understood the need for a true and open dialogue is what’s required and not an ordinary discussion, as to have found created not what we simply feel and think as wanted and needed, yet rather what can work to have this to be.

Just as a final thought, as perhaps as to add to the dialogue, is simply to remind that a total solution never is found with considering only 99%, even if it be greater than 1%.

"[Thought] seems to have some inertia, a tendency to continue. It seems to have a necessity that we keep on doing it. However ... we often find that we cannot easily give up the tendency to hold rigidly to patterns of thought built up over a long time. We are then caught up in what may be called absolute necessity. This kind of thought leaves no room at all intellectually for any other possibility, while emotionally and physically, it means we take a stance in our feelings, in our bodies, and indeed, in our whole culture, of holding back or resisting. This stance implies that under no circumstances whatsoever can we allow ourselves to give up certain things or change them."

-David Bohm & Mark Edwards, "Changing Consciousness"_, p. 15

"A key difference between a dialogue and an ordinary discussion is that, within the latter people usually hold relatively fixed positions and argue in favor of their views as they try to convince others to change. At best this may produce agreement or compromise, but it does not give rise to anything creative."

-David Bohm & David Peat, "Science Order, and Creativity"_, p. 241