In Part 1 we learned of the many factors that impact human behaviour, none of which we choose nor have any control over.
In light of this “there-but-for-the-grace-of-God-go-I” reality, the logic of universal compassion just naturally follows.
And yes, this means even toward the most disagreeable of individuals, because failing to do so is akin to getting angry at someone for, say, having blue eyes.
In short, while we see the logic in not judging someone for physical attributes – like blue eyes – we utterly fail to make the connection that behaviour too is driven 100% by physical factors.
After all, how could it not be? Ultimately everything we think, say, or do must be rooted in the chemistry and physics of our body – a chemistry and physics molded by factors totally unique to each of us.
Our Behavioural Filters
Here is a depiction of what I’m getting at:
While we each take in the same neutral sensory information (i.e. sights, sounds, scents, etc.) each of us nonetheless live in our own unique ‘reality’.
Why? Because sensory inputs pass through our unique set of filters – biological factors, life experiences, culture, current mood, etc., etc. As a result, despite each of us experiencing the same inputs, we nonetheless perceive ‘reality’ differently.
To you, your personal reality only appears to be the “correct” one because you couldn’t have any other ‘reality’ given your unique combination of filters.
Try out this thought experiment. If you and I were to swap all the atoms in our respective bodies, atom for atom, eventually you would become me and I would become you – your reality would become mine and mine yours.
Suddenly, you and I would view the world very differently from the way we previously had. What used to seem so obviously right and proper may now seem rather questionable; perhaps even downright wrong.
This is how conflict so innocently arises; we each mistakenly believe our own reality to be “correct” because it’s the only one we know, the only one we can know given our unique set of filters.
Why Compassion Always?
But filters are neither correct nor incorrect, they’re just different.
What this means is that your take on reality is just as valid as mine, and vice versa. Therefore, it necessarily follows that everyone’s take on reality is equally valid.
In light of this, four conclusions naturally follow:
- Differences of opinion are inevitable, something to be expected, and therefore nothing to get upset about.
- Needing to be right makes zero sense. Why? Because we each come to the table with different views of what’s right. But individual filters aren’t right or wrong, just different, so all views are equally ‘right’ – to each of us individually and uniquely.
- Taking offence makes zero sense. Why? Because the other person’s words and actions aren’t about you. They simply reflect their perception of how the world ought to work in light of their personal filters. It’s not about you – it’s about them.
- Compassion, always, is the only logical way forward.
In practice what this means is thinking “Filters” and “Unique Realities” each and every time you encounter a challenging individual. You may think them odd and they may think the same about you, but compassion must nonetheless reign because neither you nor they had any say over the factors and filters that make us each uniquely different.
“We can see that our beliefs are merely a function of past conditioning and experiences. Had our past been different, our ideas about life would be different.”
Richard Carlson, “You Can Be Happy No Matter What“
Most fortuitously, ‘compassion, always’ also fosters a kinder, gentler, more caring world for us all.
Warmest wishes,
Rob @ Living a Mindful Life
Addendum – Compassion Q&A
Q: What about someone like, say, Hitler? Surely such evil individuals don’t merit compassion.
A: Yes, they most certainly do. First off, describing someone as “evil” is problematic because it implies choice; that someone chooses to be evil. But do they really? After all, we don’t get to choose the factors and filters impacting our behaviour. Hitler’s world view made complete sense to him given all the factors that led to him being him. But he had no say in those factors, so he deserves our compassion. Everyone does.
Q: So then, we just sit back and let such people wreak havoc in society?
A: Of course not. Compassion doesn’t mean we don’t take steps to prevent someone like a Hitler from causing harm. But we root such steps in compassion and respect, not in blame, anger, hatred, and vengeance.
Q: Okay, what about people who, say, lead a life of crime but then turn their lives around and become model citizens. If they can choose to be better people, surely anyone can if they try hard enough.
A: There’s that problematic belief in choice again. It is illusory. If such an individual manages to turn a troubled life around, it’s because they were fortunate enough to be dealt behavioural factors that provide them with the impetus, insight, and ability to do so. In the absence of such factors it wouldn’t even occur to them why they may wish to change, nor would they possess the ability to effect such change.
For example, studies have found that, on average, the IQs of convicts are lower than that of law-abiding citizens. This leads to two pertinent observations. First, we don’t get to choose our IQ. Second, we must ask ourselves if possessing a lower IQ increases or decreases the odds of both deciding to change one’s life and, having so decided, to also possess the ability to do so. I believe the answer is obvious; those cursed with low IQ struggle to make wise choices, through no fault of their own . And this is why ‘compassion always‘ just makes sense, because we don’t get to choose the factors and filters that make us who we are.
Q: So, we’re stuck being who we are then? We can’t become better people?
A: Again, if an individual is fortunate enough to have been dealt the factors pertinent to self-reflection, motivation, and the intellectual capacity to effect personal change then yes, they can most definitely take steps to better themselves. In fact, a daily mindfulness and meditation practice is one of the best means to do so, in effect augmenting our set of behavioural filters.
However, there are also individuals who, through no fault of their own, lack such factors/filters and so are, in effect, largely stuck being who they are. Of course, there is always hope for each of us because behavioural factors are not static; they change over time impacted by new life experiences and changes to our internal chemistry and physics. So even an individual initially lacking the means to mold themselves into a better citizen of the world can experience an “ah ha!” moment that permits them to turn their life around. It’s just much less likely that they ever will.
Q: How does forgiveness differ from compassion?
A: Whereas compassion is a coming together of equals, forgiveness implies a subtle superiority of the forgiver over the supposed transgressor; a magnanimous favor bestowed. Further, forgiveness implies choice – that the transgressor could have behaved differently, but chose not to. But as discussed above, the concept of choice is illusory. Yes, after the fact an individual may regret their actions and, in light of this new life experience, alter their behaviour next time but, at the moment they transgressed, they simply could not have chosen differently (because they had not yet experienced the regret necessary to alter their behaviour this time). As a result, the word ‘forgiveness’ has been permanently deleted from my vocabulary, replaced by ‘compassion, always‘.