So far, most of the rebuttals of my Compassion posts consist of either (a) "you aren't using the words the same way I do" or (b) "you're wrong because you are a stupidhead". Well, I can't do much to show that I'm not a stupidhead, and you are probably right, anyway. However, perhaps I can do something about the first argument.

Compassion

There is such a thing as a desire to understand and relieve the pain of others (ie. it is a desire that happens in reality). The desire itself I call passive compassion. When that desire is acted upon, I call it active compassion. Both the desire and the act are motivated by nothing but Love, which springs from the True Will, and has no end goal other than it's own manifestion, being understanding and the relief of suffering. Yes, there are other techincal definitions of compassion, but I am drawing the distinction here for the sake of articulating distinct principles. Within this post, I request the reader to use this definition when I refer to compassion.

Crowley said it very well when he wrote: "When you can do this sort of thing [ie. helping another in need] as it should be done, without embarrassment, false shame, with your whole heart in your words—do it simply, to sum up—you will find yourself way up on the road to that royal republic which is the ideal of human society."

Pity

I maintain that any other action approximating either passive or active compassion that is motivated by anything else is not true compassion, and is most likely something called pity. The root of pity is a psychological mechanism that has been "hardwired" into us via natural selection. Approximately 97% of the population has this mechanism (the remaining 3% - 4% are referred to as sociopaths, and are completely unaffected by the suffering of others). The evolutionary purpose of it is simple and is summed up in a theory called inclusive fitness, which can be defined as a characterization of how well genetic material is represented in the next generation because of the survival of the group of those relatives who share it. Our ancestors who had a strong response to those in pain tended to have more surviving kin than those who had a weaker response, until those without that response were "selected" out.

As with many of our primitive emotions, they are easily manipulated by our higher level cognitions, and can thereby serve functions other than what they were originally intended to accomplish. Pity is certainly no exception. Crowley pointed out many of the pitfalls that lead to a manipulated pity and a few of the negative consequences that result. Some of the main forms of manipulated pity are:

* The desire to experience the suffering of others out of guilt or self-loathing
* A desire to remove suffering in all cases because suffering induces some form of fear
* A desire to "do good" in order to earn social points
* The Buddhist sense of merging the individual self with the whole via a belief that all existence is sorrow
* The imperialistic form of wanting to relieve people of an "inferior" culture, worldview, or set of behaviors

All forms of manipulated pity fall into four main categories:

1) Attempts to relieve one's own discomfort (guilt, fear, self-loathing, etc)
2) A sense of superiority (knowing what is best for others)
3) A communal worldview (as typified by most Eastern cultures)
4) Greed (doing something solely for the purpose of personal gain, e.g. social status, or resourse maintenance)

It is important to note that none of these things result in compassion (to use the distinction I am drawing), but only a twisted form of pity that has little or nothing to do with Love (expect in the case of the Buddhist, wherein the central issue is one of worldview. I will not be touching on that topic here. I would welcome a Buddhist critique of typical Thelemic views on compassion).

To sum up, the central differences between compassion and pity as I am drawing them are:
* Compassion is motivated by Love, seeks nothing but its own end, and springs from the Will
* Pity is a twisted form of altrusim motivated by things other than Love, seeks either to reduce one's own suffering or to acquire something, and springs from the Mind

Sharing of suffering: A false notion

One of the critiques against compassion is the idea of "sharing" suffering. Let us put this erroneous notion to rest. Unless one believes in the Vulcan mindmeld, no one can "share" in the suffering of another. If someone is starving, and I am not, then no matter how much I want to identify with them, I will not feel what they are feeling until I stop eating. This idea—that empathizing with others—"takes on" another's suffering while pushing out one's own true self—has no basis in fact. It is a pure abstraction used to justify avoidance of helping others. If a friend wins the lottery or gives birth to a healthy baby, is it "unthelemic" to "share" in their happiness? If a daughter comes home beaming with pride because she got an 'A' on the math test, is it a crime against the self to be affected by her pleasure? In either of these cases, is the self betrayed by feeling happy for another?

Of course not (or at least no one says so)! So why do some Thelemites make the distinction between joy and suffering, the first being allowable and the second not? There are multiple answers, but in the case of Crowley, the answer is mostly Social Darwinism.

Social Darwinsim: a discredited philosophy

I have already gone into this, but just to make it clear, Social Darwinsim is a discredited social theory falsly based on the theory of evolution that suggests that those who are weak (depending on how one defines that, but mostly meaning the impoverished, the ill, and the disabled, or otherwise referring to another ethnicity) are holding back the human race and are best left to die off so that the rest of us can evolve. It was very popular in Crowley's day, and much of his writing on the matter closely mimics the main proponents, especially Herbert Spencer. Suffice it to say, this theory was conveniently held almost exclusively by white, rich, educated, and healthy people.

The result of this theory resulted in Crowley's conclusion that those who are (let's face it) not white, rich, educated, and healthy are simply fulfilling their True Wills. In such a model, it is their True Will to be impoverished, disabled, ignorant, and oppressed, and that they are best honored by allowing them to reap the rewards of those states. Of course, it is almost dizzying how many false premises this concept rests upon. If there are those who still believe that this is how society actually works, let me know and I will point you to a few significant works that will disabuse you of this racist, elistist, imperialist notion.

Active Compassion Does Not Injure

So, what does all this mean? Simply that true compassion doesn't actually hurt anyone, either the self or the recipient. The idea that helping someone actually injures them is more than just selfish. It goes against reality at every level. By this logic, there should be no doctors, no psychologists, no police, no firefighters, nobody trained to help people in need. A mother and her daughter sleeping on the side of the road, women who work 12 hours a day in a sweatshop, teens who are molested by their relatives not only should be left alone, but should all be applauded for fulfilling their Wills! What nonsense!

A common argument that has real merit states that providing help makes the less fortunate dependent. This is an honest concern. However, it does not negate compassion; rather, it negates techniques that lead to dependency. True compassion, at the base of it, is about helping remove restrictions and promoting liberty. This can happen on the micro, mezzo, and marco level. Not all solutions work, and some solutions that do work require a temporary increase in suffering. And real solutions are rarely easy.

Active Compassion: The Way of the Strong

This is why compassion is a Path for the Strong...it is much easier to ignore suffering than it is to do something about it. It's easier to give a painkiller than to reset the bone. It's more comfortable to silence the Heart than to let it reach out to others. It's simpler to dismantle social safety nets than to manifest effective ones. It's safer to retreat into Reason than to become open to human experience. Oh yes, compassion is hard. And it is deeply, magnificently Thelemic.