Em●path●etic␣Con●sci●ent●ious●ness
— pronounced: emPA-thet-tic-Kon-SHE-en-Shhuss-nis
Con●sci●ent●ious●ness
●scient● In the body of
a word, scient is defined as: "knowing, or having awareness of,
being morally knowledgeable—or practicing—such, with care and
diligence".
Con●
The prefix con indicates the word's definition
includes: "together or with".
●ious
The first-suffix ious indicates an adjectival-form and adds:
"possessing or full-of" to the word's definition.
●ness
The second-suffix ness alters the adjective into an abstract
noun while adding: "exemplifying a quality or state" to it's
definition.
Conscientiousness—similar to the word conscience—is defined:
one who diligently possesses a knowledgeable state of moral awareness
(possesses a conscience).
Tautologically
(in it's logic form) it is assumed or "taken as a given" that every human
is: Conscious of their own conscientious behaviors and realize the
lack-thereof in other humans by simply using self-comparison. This
pre-assumes (not to be confused with presumes) everyone is
already conscious of their own general, standard-operating-procedure,
thought processes, and have not left the machine operating as it was
programmed during its gestation period, with its
decision-making-autopilot stuck in the 'On' position.
Additionally, it is
assumed (by many-millions of people smarter than I am) that almost all
living organisms have no biological need, nor ability, to
grow a conscience because they further assume humans are the
only conscious organisms to have ever existed. As a consequence of
these collective widespread assumptions, scientists and philosophers alike, do
not expect (nor look for) conscientious behaviors, nor empathetic emotions, in
non-human organisms(¹).
I have
experienced a life-long struggle with the Where's-Waldo-esque challenge
of finding people who actually possess a fully-functioning conscience,
and who aren't just pretending when the cameras are rolling. Equally
important, in my Waldo-challenge, is determining who is ready, willing,
and able to empathize if-and-when an occasion arises to utilize that emotional
behavior. From my vantage point, the majority of modern-humans prefer to
(reluctant-hurriedly) put on a red-and-white striped hat only when-and-if they
think pretending to appear to possess empatheticonscientiousness might
"smooth out" some unexpected confrontation (which they've stumbled across on
their overly crowded, self-obsessed, path between birth and death).
I've spent almost five
decades surgically removing, ex-communicating, ghosting, divorcing, and
breaking-up-with people who possessed various-levels of expertise in how to
wear a Where's Waldo costume, and almost an equal number of
decades failing-at (while occasionally succeeding-in) cultivating strong
trust-worthy friendships, with a few who have real empatheticonscientious(²).
My latest Where's Waldo Costume "reveal":
A
close-acquaintance—who my wife and I shared casual conversations with for
over a dozen years—joined us on our destination vacation. After we
spent a good day-and-a-half catching up and sight-seeing together, we all
went to sleep much later than expected on our second night.
Three Hours Lay-ter:
Our close-acquaintance's phone emitted a 'text incoming tone' causing my
wife and I to wake up. After the tone happened again (and again) I
called-out to our close-acquaintance to wake up. They did not. I
elevated my voice. They still didn't. I went into the next room,
shook them awake, informed them that their phone kept waking us up, and
asked them to quiet it. They did not.
Realizing that I was now 'awake-awake' I
got a book and a place where my light wouldn't disturb the others.
Four More Hours
Lay-ter: Our close-acquaintance says 'good-morning' and I
inform them that I had been awake for the last four hours. They asked,
'why'? This was a strong indicator that they forgot to bring their
Where's Waldo costume (which was something I pretended not to notice
when they "forgot their wallet" the previous day). Hoping their next
answer was a baffled 'no', I asked if they recalled that I woke them
at 0430 because of their phone. 'Yes' was their reply.
My acquaintance then attempted to justify
their decision to not quiet their phone, with a variety of excuses.
They opened with the 'blame gambit' (classic gaslighting): "But, you
started to hand me the phone but, instead, set it down on the table!"
One of their next moves proved their unflagging-lack of
conscientiousness: "If you were someone who owned a smart phone, you
wouldn't've been bothered by notification-bubble sounds! (This clumsy
shame-blaming attempt, caused me to smirk in the same manner they were
smirking.)
Metaphorically requesting they put on a
red-and-white striped hat, I politely-but-sternly said, "Now isn't the time
for excuses or for blaming light-sleepers. Now is the time for
apologies. Your phone woke us up. I brought it to your
attention. You chose NOT to quiet it."
Fumbling with the Waldo-hat, they
stammer-replied, "I'm apologizing. This is me apologizing. Right
now." All of their body-language—smirk in mouth's corners; anger in
brow-scowl; impatient swing of arms, pointing finger, and pacing
gait—combined with their obvious avoidance of sorry, brought into a
spotlight: I'd (yet again) been duped by someone with no empathy and
without a conscience. So, I responded with, "You need to tell your
face!"
Staring down at me, book still in my lap,
frustration coalesced into stern decisiveness on my acquaintance's
face. (Apparently,
so unfamiliar with the traits instilled by a conscience, they couldn't fake it.)
They then asked, in a very officious tone-of-voice, if I would allow them to
deliver closing-arguments without interruption. I sternly replied, (in
my decades-long-unused interrogator addressing a suspect tone-of-voice) "Be
careful what words you choose to say next."
After listening to a dry
summation of previously-stated excuses, I told the person I was once
acquainted with that they needed to leave. They then—and only
then—allowed a brief-slip in their decisive-mask to expose their
confused inner-workings; they muttered, "n'...wai-wha?...at's
not...", which I put-down with one of my rare stares(³).
This Chart's Explanation Will Definitely Go On The Quiz:
For the benefit of providing the
most-complete instruction to listeners/readers of all ages, who are time-travelling forward—one-day-into-their-future, every 24-hours—somewhere between
their own birth 👶 and their own
death 💀; who currently-realize
their current-day's mental capacity can be gauged to exist
somewhere along the - Infantile - Juvenile - Callow - Mature - Wise -
range of mental abilities; who also should be able to estimate their
current emotional capacity somewhere on the -
Naïve - Irrational - Obtuse - Savvy - Waldo - emotional spectrum . . . accordingly . . . this is
how I think someone with empathy and a conscience would have behaved in
the above scenario:
"Fuck Man! I remember that you
woke me, but I must've fallen right back to sleep! I am
sooo sorry I forgot to shut my goddamned phone completely off!
Even on fucking vacation, I can't go to sleep without my
dopamine-drip notification tone. Completely my bad! What can I do
to make up for my mistake? Why don't I take us all out for breakfast and then you can
come back and nap while I and my phone go-off-quietly somewhere out of
earshot?"
For mentally-emotionally impaired readers/listeners, who might be trying to
learn how to wear a Where's-Waldo costume (so they might become better at
pretending to have empathy/a conscience) this is how someone
who wished to appear to possess empathetic traits or
pretend to have a conscience
might have behaved:
Afternoon-text to my wife's smart
phone: | checked into local motel | apology lobster? | my treat |
Lobster Pound | 7pm tonight | still friends? |
Of Course, The Term Empatheticonscientiousness is a
human-construct:
"Human construct" is a
term used (more often, in a derisively pedantic-tone-of-voice) when discussing/explaining
human reproductive organs ("born with"); growth-and-reproductive hormones ("matured into"); and our
various different/differing sexual desires—to others, as well as ourselves
("environmentally-conditioned and/or self-programmed"). Consequently, the
phrase gender is a human construct is as over-used as it is
under-understood (I twisted this paragraph like a pretzel so I could use that
last hyphenated word and I feel so proud of myself, that I've taken this
parenthetical sentence to pat myself on the back *pat-pat*.)
For as long as they have considered
themselves civilized (the most constructed term of
all), humans have encouraged others to
become "more civilized" in their deceptive world of barbarians, charlatans, con-artists,
and marketing specialists. To that end, of course, the
humans who refer to themselves as "the most civilized" are those who behave in the most polite manner to those-others who alter their behavior to "become more civilized". Explained in another way: Members of a civilized society behave in as conscientious a manner as possible,
as well as employ empathetic behavior, if-and-whenever it's called-for, because
treating others as they desire to be treated is the
golden-rule-ultimate-proof bedrock of polite-civilization! True
empathy and actual conscientiousness are possessed by only
the most-polite, most-civilized, most-highly evolved organisms. And those labels could have their own equivalent-labels for behaviors in every animal who ever existed.
Also, of course, these terms
are just human-constructed labels for specific brain/body chemicals which
cause us to either feel certain emotion-on-demand "feelings" - or - they are
labels for behaviors we learned to emulate or learned to not emulate (avoid),
so as to not become demoted from 'close-friend' to 'former-acquaintance'.
Em●path●etic
●path● In
the body of a word, path is defined as: "suffering from an
ailment of—or practicing—such a treatment".
Em● A common
variation of the prefix en, the prefix em indicates a
definition includes: "to cause someone to be within a state of...".
●etic The
suffix etic indicates the adjectival-form adds: "pertaining to..." to
the definition.
Empathetic—empathic, empathize, empathizing, empath—all bear similar
definitions: Causing oneself to practice suffering.
I chose to use the older
variant: Empathetic (rather than the more-modern Empathic) because the 'et'
permits the core-word pathetic to be realized. In English,
referring to someone as "behaving pathetically" can be, and usually is,
derisive. However, pathetic is a "loaded word" which requires context to
fully interpret.
"They pathetically rolled on the ground, screamed until out of
breath, and beat at the earth"—needs more words to completely understand.
Add, "because they refused to take a nap."—and pathetically now has
enough context to be interpreted with some accuracy. Most readers
choose to interpret this description as that of a ham-handed performance by
someone (usually a child) attempting to elicit pity from an
audience.
However, if nap-refusal is replaced with: "after being informed that their
entire family had just been murdered."—and, in this context,
pathetically is interpreted very differently. Most readers
choose to interpret this description as that of legitimate mental-suffering
by someone (usually an adult) unexpectedly caught in uncontrollable "throes
of agony."
While both child and adult are behaving in a pathetic manner, the over-actor shamefully begs for sympathy or empathy and the
sole-survivor is rudderlessly inundated in an emotional tsunami they were
never prepared for. You—the audience—must pick who you will
console. One? Both? Neither? [Do it now.]
An overt decision is required when most people decide to express
empathy. While almost anyone's attention can be snagged by the
specific tone and pitch of a scream, mature-savvy adults interpret (within
seconds or even microseconds) the source/scene/context and decide to either
"switch-empathy-off" or "switch-empathy-on".
Exceptions:
Psychopaths—born emotionally-lacking the ability to empathize—don't consider
their absence of empathy a lacking but, instead, a special skill or a
superpower. Incapable of being emotionally savvy, intelligent
psychopaths become adept mimics. In an attempt to blend-in with
mature-savvy adults, psychopaths may pretend to
switch-empathy-on. {And the Golden Globe goes to...}
Sociopaths—scorn everyone who outwardly expresses any empathy—consider any
mature-savvy adult who acts empathetic to be "gullible fools." Conditioned
to never differentiate between reluctant-nappers and sole-survivors,
sociopaths believe all outward displays of emotion (which includes
their own) are "fake antics of con-artists and crisis-actors." {And the award
for best Alex Jones Info Wars tirade goes to...}
Narcissists—self-programmed (and raised) to fear any
appearance of weakness—begin, in childhood, with simple
displays of false-bravado. Eventually deceptive attention-seeking
becomes bald-faced lies becomes pathological manipulations, which can cause harm to
anyone within a narcissist's sphere of influence. By denying
and concealing all of their own hypocritical behaviors from themselves, even
the most intelligent narcissist's self-deluded fantasies solidify into
unconscionably callous behaviors. {And the trophy for the most 45th
presidential behavior goes to...}(⁴).
Empaths—self-programmed to fear any appearance of
callousness (the opposite of appearing weak)—begin, in childhood, with
simple displays of earnest selflessness and animal/pet husbandry. When
empath's confuse their desire to never appear unkind with the impulse
to act more benevolently, the result can be an overload of behaviorally-driven
emotions (repressed as well as expressed).(⁵)
{Insert a touching-yet-informative story about Yetta B. Savvy who only
adopts senior and terminally-ill rescue-animals because Yetta feels an
incessant urge, which is best described as a "need-to-be-needed". When Yetta
doesn't have a constant, daily, target-source on which to focus their
empathy, they feel constant anxiety, discomfort, insomnia, and
depression.}
Differences between Sympathy and Empathy:
Empathetic is derived
from the English word Empathy, in the same manner as Sympathetic is derived
from the word Sympathy.
Sympathy indicates "compassionate
words expressing an understood emotional state." When one
behaves sympathetically towards another, they (the person expressing
the words) have previous experience with the causes of those emotions and
wish the person they are communicating with,
did not have to also-feel those emotions. See also:
commiserating; shared-feelings; "Sorry for your loss" or "I'm sorry you're
feeling this way".
People
express words of sympathy because they previously learned how to
be conscientious (from watching others, or, from exchanging words-of-sorrow)
and, then, came-to-realize they also felt better afterwards!
Appreciation is a mutual-purpose. It "works both ways" in that when one
feels appreciated they "instinctively" thank the person showing them appreciation.
Empathy involves
"simultaneously experiencing the emotions of another." When someone
imagines themselves in the situation of another, and then
subconsciously or intentionally alters their body language,
posture, tone of voice, hand gestures, and breathing patterns, they (the
person who is placing themselves in a receptive mental state) is attempting to
"intuitively feel" the emotions of another. Whether accomplished reflexively,
or attempted by choice, this is behaving empathetically. See
also: shared tears-of-joy (weddings); shared tears-of-sorrow (funerals);
parasympathetic emulation; mirroring; and reflexive Vagus nerve spasms (while
watching horror films or seeing accidental injuries).
Empathetic emotions are expressed in the presence of someone
currently in-need of consoling. Sympathetic words are communicated to
someone who either: was never in need of consoling, is no longer in need of
consoling, or is not present (and is being communicated using the written
word).
The common aphorism 'Misery Loves Company' may sound trite, but that simple
sentence has survived because it's fundamentally true when it comes to empathy. When experiencing agonizing physical pain, people are rarely capable of self-healing. If
that pain is excruciating mental anguish, people are less able to self-realize
their depressed-beyond-helplessly-lost state. One person with empathy
can ameliorate another's suffering by just being present.
Bringing this lecture to its most-must-needed-conclusion, I want to re-emphasize (to those in the lecture hall who need to hear something more than twice before devoting their full-attention) that emotional and mental strengths are absolutely not caused by the amount of time spent alive, they are also not strengthened by the same exercises. While reading books may result in an increase of one's vocabulary, emotional growth and mental maturity is gained or strengthened by intentional contemplation, and re-enforced by communication with oneself (keeping a journal) or communicating with others (writing letters, articles, or essays). So . . . the topic of your first essay should be derived from this lecture. I will grade them as they arrive in my inbox.
(¹) This is current scientific theory
as it relates to biology. It is also a snapshot of every branch of
philosophy, which always attempts to address consciousness with the same
bizarre starting point: Humans are more evolved than all other
animals. Not to be outdone, this is a tenet of more than a few religions
that proclaim: Humans were created to have dominion over the lesser
animals.
All of these
highly-over-educated and stupendously-under-educated people are
guessing when they claim humans are the only biological entities
capable of being conscious of their own consciousness. Every
person claiming to possess knowledge about consciousness is guilty of basing
their spurious assumptions on one comically-inexcusable foundation:
Hubris.
Using whatever
logical-reasoning you have available, ask yourself: What is more
probable? That we—H. Sapiens Sapiens—are the only species which evolved
to possess consciousness, or that every living organism is conscious of
their own consciousness? Now erase the word living, because it's
equally probable that:
Every building-block-of-energy, comprising all matter, are part of the
same one consciousness.
We—the most-advanced
tool builders on this planet—could be the most stunted animal on earth
(when measuring interpersonal-behaviors, driven by mental maturity), we could
also be the most blithely unaware animal on earth (when measuring
conscious-abilities, driven by emotional acuity).
(²) During brief
casual conversations, I'm as blind to "character flaws" as anyone.
However, give me a few lengthy, deep, conversations (or a decade of casual
conversations) and I can usually suss-out the scarred red flags of mental and
emotional damage. This is something I encourage myself to do, because
I'm an over-sharer (Asperger's trait). If I trust you, I blather-on too
much. Saying that I "tend to over-explain" is giving myself waaay too
much credit. I catch myself mid-tirade (less often than I would prefer)
not knowing it has been shut-the-fuck-up-time for more than a minute! (this
much-too-long lecture—in need of an elbow on my delete key—is a
perfect example).
As a consequence of my
lack of filter and broken emergency-shut-off button, I discovered—in my
failures of youth—that it was crucially important to confide my rants
only to those few people who I was confident I could trust.
Trial-and-error taught me how to identify empathy and conscientiousness, which
(when both happen to be possessed by one person) signifies that I can
completely open myself up and bare my deepest-darkest without fearing
recrimination.
(³) Intentional lack of
eye contact, as
previously explained, is my most-obvious Asperger's trait (from an outside-looking-in vantage
point). It's how I "turn-down the volume" of people's facial-body
language which is always shouting for my attention, and interrupting my
focus. Also—because of a sensitivity to strong light (a trait people
with Asperger's share with many who aren't autistic)—I'm a
serious squinter. Most people become so accustomed to my constant
looking-away and squinting behaviors, they form the mental impression that I
possess a shy, nonthreatening, demeanor.
They aren't
wrong. But, ask yourself: Have I chosen to adopt this
demeanor? Is it more likely that direct sunlight forces me to squint to
reduce eye-pain? Is it more-probable that I've evaluated the impulses,
which drive my behaviors, and came to the realization that I need to "turn the
volume down on other people's facial-body language" in order to not lose my
train-of-thought? Or, that I'm
outright
lying right-here-right-now? [Which would make
all of this what? . . . some elaborate ruse to justify my lack of
eye-contact
to myself and at-the-same-time the infinitesimally small
number of readers who've made it to these jewel-encrusted depths (in both my
reasoning-flex
and this navel-gazing documentation of said
reasoning-flex)?]
Rare Stare: Not until my middle-age-years did I, accidentally,
discover my rare-stare. Although I've always reflexively
stared at neutral surfaces—when in need of a visually-uninterrupted focus to formulate my important next thought—if I
know I'm done talking (and, consequently, no longer need to think
about what comes next) the urge to look at a neutral surface just disappears. Consequently, I
can directly experience the entire gestalt, face, eyes, and irises of
whomever I'm facing at full-volume. Because of this unforeseeable, outside-of-my-control, rarity, my relaxed
but focused, pale, ice-grey gaze has a surprising intensity of intent. I've been
told, "it comes as a bit of a shock". Decades ago, that trait was an
advantage I may have used, to its desired effect, during interrogations.
(⁴) Codified during a
subjectively crucial time in every budding
narcissist's emotionally stunted-development, between the infant's
"everyone is my servant" phase and the "I'm me as you're he as you are me and
we are all together" mature-savvy state (which narcissists never reach).
The more
a narcissist reinforces their fear of looking weak, the stronger and
more-frequent their callous traits become. These traits (both
overtly-visible and covertly-camouflaged) directly correlate with the quantity
of objectively visible 'affects,' interpreted by mature-savvy audiences
as infantile behaviors. Accordingly, the more-narcissistic one
is, the less-often one chooses to "switch on" empathy (juveniles grow into empathy-hormones; infants have no empathy).
(⁵) Instilled
during a subjectively crucial time in every budding
empath's emotionally warped-development, long after the toddler's "all
my servants are bad" phase; between the adolescent's "my jailer's no longer
pretend to be servants" phase and the "I'll never become a bad servant"
mature-but-not-yet-savvy steady-state (which empathic altruist's rarely grow
out of).
The more an empath has
reinforced this fear in themselves the stronger their traits-of-empathy, which
directly correlate with the amount of objectively visible 'affects'
interpreted by mature-savvy audiences as
doting-grandmother behaviors. Accordingly, the more-empathic one
is, the less-often one chooses to "switch off" empathy.
if this was not enough reading:
