It is alleged that people with AS suffer from a lack of empathy.

 
I contend that there is no such thing as empathy, and that the propagation of this useless term is misleading and harmful.

 
Let us begin with a simple heuristic: be wary of any word invented or reinterpreted anytime during or after the 19th Century. This is a simple guide; I am yet to pinpoint exactly where things went wrong. But there is no doubt that they have gone wrong, and that empathy is a prime example of this wrongness.

empathy
1903, translation of Ger. Einfühlung (from ein “in” + Fühlung “feeling”), coined 1858 by Ger. philosopher Rudolf Lotze (1817-81) from Gk. empatheia “passion,” from en- “in” + pathos “feeling” (see pathos). A term from a theory of art appreciation. Empathize (v.) was coined 1924; empathic (adj.) is from 1909.

 
With gratitude to the wonderful Online Etymology Dictionary, I shall explain the nature of the problem.

 
1903! 1858! 1924! These dates should fill with shame the heart of any man who dares rely on the concept of empathy. Was it only after the Great War that English speaking people’s learned to ‘empathise’? Did something incredible happen in Germany in 1858 that allowed the exertion of this previously unknown faculty?

 
Let us abandon this false word, and say clearly what we mean it to indicate. For it cannot mean ‘fellow-feeling’, it cannot mean ‘entering into another’s feelings’. The first of these is ’sympathy’, and the second is humanly impossible.

sympathy
1579, “affinity between certain things,” from M.Fr. sympathie, from L.L. sympathia “community of feeling, sympathy,” from Gk. sympatheia, from sympathes “having a fellow feeling, affected by like feelings,” from syn- “together” + pathos “feeling” (see pathos). In Eng., almost a magical notion at first; e.g. in ref. to medicines that heal wounds when applied to a cloth stained with blood from the wound. Meaning “conformity of feelings” is from 1596; sense of “fellow feeling” is first attested 1662. Sympathize “to have fellow-feeling” is recorded from 1605. Sympathetic “sharing the feelings of another” is from 1718.

 
What’s wrong with sympathy? It is a better theoretical match to the problem of AS than some vague notion of emotional telepathy. The problem is that sympathy has gradually been reinterpreted to mean pity. People do not truly like to be pitied, and hence sympathy has lost its potential. In its place, we have erected ‘empathy’, a theoretically useless and invalid concept.

 
Empathy gives the false notion that it is normal for us humans to tap in to each other’s feelings - like stealing the neighbour’s wireless internet connection. But it is not normal, because it is not possible. What is possible is the experience of a similar emotional response by people who are close to one another. To have sympathy for a stranger is unusual, unless you are moved by your common humanity or such.

 
Sympathy is the real empathy. Sympathy is a similar response by similar people to similar circumstances; ‘empathy’ denotes instead some kind of abstract mental power. In the context of AS it is important to see the difference here. To say that people with AS lack empathy suggests that we lack a special skill, or a sixth sense for emotions. But to say that we lack sympathy, or are unsympathetic, reflects the simple truth that we are not similar to most other people!

 
We do not have similar responses to similar circumstances, because we are not similar people! There is a difference between you and I; as a result, I will not exhibit or even feel emotions at the same time, or in the same way as you!

 
And this coveted notion of sixth sense, paranormal, sensory empathy? Bah! I’m sick of it. And I’m sick of the notion that those great ‘empathic’ people are somehow in possession of a magical skill or talent. If they do have a talent, it’s the talent of knowing how to exploit people emotionally. Otherwise, it’s just plain old sympathy, combined perhaps with sensitivity to the circumstances of others, and imagination about what that entails.

 
Enough of empathy! Give us a useful concept that explains in real terms what is going on.

Though I was apprehensive about receiving an answer, I nevertheless thought it opportune to consult the Yi Jing on the current situation in Iran.

 
The first result was ‘Waiting’ which suggested that abiding in strength and waiting for the right time would have been the appropriate response.

Strength in the face of danger does not plunge ahead but bides its time, whereas weakness in the face of danger grows agitated and has not the patience to wait.

 
It is true that the people of Iran have been waiting for change, but the reaction to the election results does not seem to have followed this principle. Thus we have two changing lines:

Waiting in blood.
Get out of the pit.

The situation is extremely dangerous. IT is of utmost gravity now–a matter of life and death. Bloodshed seems imminent. There is no going forward or backward; we are cut off as if in a pit. Now we must simply stand fast and let fate take its course. This composure, which keeps us from aggravating the trouble by anything we might do, is the only way of getting out of the dangerous pit.

 
This warning seems to come prior to the violence we have seen. I have read that from bottom to top, the changing lines should generally be interpreted as stages in development. ‘Blood in the pit’ is already upon them. So we must move on to the second changing line:

One falls into the pit.
Three uninvited guests arrive.
Honor them, and in the end there will be good fortune.

The waiting is over; the danger can no longer be averted. One falls into the pit and must yield to the inevitable. Everything seems to have been in vain. But precisely in this extremity things take an unforeseen turn. Without a move on one’s own part, there is outside intervention. At first one cannot be sure of its meaning: is it rescue or is it destruction? A person in this situation must keep his mind alert and not withdraw into himself with a sulky gesture of refusal, but must greet the new turn with respect. Thus he ultimately escapes the danger, and all goes well. Even happy turns of fortune often come in a form that at first seems strange to us.

 
I am not well-versed in the internal politics of Iran, so I am not sure who the three uninvited guests are. One possibility is that they represent the Ayatollah’s call for an investigation into allegations of election fraud. This depends on the internal dynamic of the situation, whether the religious leaders are in fact the explicit opponents of the current movement, or if they could instead be considered ‘uninvited guests’ to the clash between the two separate political groups.

 
Alternatively, this could be a yet unfulfilled prediction - the intervention of entirely separate entities, perhaps foreign powers or dignitaries. It remains to be seen.

 
Regardless, the result of these changing lines is the hexagram for ‘the creative’ which is undoubtedly a good omen for Iran.

I was just rereading something I wrote back in January, about the nature of money.

“If you try to gain power over money, the reality is that money has power over you.”

 
I reeled. This isn’t my belief, is it? Not that it isn’t true; I just don’t know that it’s true, yet there I was offering it up like a widely accepted principle of money.

 
That was negligent of me.

 
Though I should instead be working on an assignment of mine, I will indulge my urge to straighten out this crooked little concept.

 
Power Over Money

 
The problem here is ambiguous and abstract language. ‘Power’ can mean any number of things, but in this context it can’t possibly mean the same thing. Not twice.

“If you try to gain power over money, the reality is that money has power over you.”

 
What this should really mean is that if you are obsessed with getting hold of lots of money, you may find that…you are obsessed with getting hold of lots of money.

 
See, that’s not too bad - it’s a tautology though, because I’ve put the concept of ‘obsession’ right there from the outset. Why don’t we just say “Beware the obsession with money”?

 
We probably don’t say it, because it’s too obvious. We might as well say beware obsession in general, which is still too obvious. “Avoid evil” is a self-evident moral truth after all.

 
“The desire for money is potentially dangerous” is a good start, but it doesn’t tell us the nature of the danger. “Money may gain power over you” is a nice, if vague explanation, and it gets at the heart of the matter - that something lowly and vulgar (money) can through one’s own desire, reverse the natural order of things. You desire money for the power it gives you (again speaking in vague terms), but desire for money is such that you may one day find that you desire it despite the harm it does you.

 
This is still too clumsy. Let us try again from a different angle. Money allows us to buy things. The more money, the more we can buy, and it is this that we loosely term the purchasing power of money. But if we never purchase anything with our money, then its power remains potential only. Now, it is precisely the purchasing power of money that excites us all. In addition to the purchasing power, there is the cultural and social power of money. The fact that money excites other people also adds to its allure.

 
But there is a danger in this potential and social power of money. The danger is that we can become so transfixed by the potential power alone, that our relationship with money becomes disordered. The money is almost symbolically powerful, yet in reality the true object of our desire ought to be the goods that money can buy.

 
This is a particular trap, similar, yet unlike the situation of people who become attached to a luxury car, or ‘the finer things in life’. Similar, yet unlike the sense of power that goes along with a gun or a sword. Because a luxury car may be admired for its luxurious qualities, its physical comfort, and the skill of its manufacture. Likewise, a gun or a sword may be respected for the damage it was designed to inflict (and indeed for the skill behind its creation in many cases).

 
But the value of money is never realised unless it is lost. Nor does the value of money truly belong to its possessor. A gun is a real object with a real purpose that will function regardless of the socio-cultural framework in which it is found. A sword will cut regardless of what one thinks about it. But money has no power, no ability, no properties, apart from the social agreement of exchange. It reminds me of the old movies where the characters talk about ‘Bank Notes’, which unlike today’s paper money, were a form of contract promising to exchange the note for a specified amount of other property or currency.

 
Money is a socio-cultural contract. Its value lies in social agreement, not in the thing itself. This is why money above all else is a danger to the character of human beings. It distorts reality, giving an illusory yet overwhelming sense of power, like a drug that distorts emotion or perception. Inordinate desire for money is a form of delusion. The danger it poses is a continued, delusional interaction with reality, corrupting the individual’s true nature.

 
All this and more is captured in the concept of money gaining power over man. This simple idea reflects the exalting of something trivial and mundane over those who seek to master it. The unreality of powerful pieces of paper is a trap for the untempered character.

I just read Steyn’s latest and most extensive reflection on the demographic change taking place in Europe.

http://www.commentarymagazine.com/viewarticle.cfm/israel-today–the-west-tomorrow-15134?search=1

And naturally, wanting to sort out my own thoughts on the matter, I decided to consult Yi Jing once again.

 
The background to this story is that Steyn has for some time been writing about the significant demographic change taking place in Europe, due primarily to the higher birthrates of Muslim migrants relative to European natives. Examining also the average age of these groups, he contends (putting it roughly) that Europe will be predominantly Muslim within a generation.

 
The key themes to draw from this observation (again, read the article for yourselves, I’m loosely paraphrasing) are that the domestic and foreign policy decisions of the European states will change to accommodate their changing population, and that certain characteristics such as anti-semitism are resurgent due to a combination of Muslim hostility, traditional European antipathy, and popular leftist ideology against the state of Israel.

 
My interest is in knowing how these factors will play out. Steyn paints a very bleak scenario, in which the early stages of Nazi-era anti-semitism can already be seen under a shallow disguise. One example he cites, of Muslim and Leftist activists removing Israeli-made goods from a supermarket and destroying them, can be seen as a pseudo-political variant on early twentieth century vandalism against Jewish businesses.

 
Some would argue that there is a significant difference between anti-semitism as racism and anti-zionism as a political position; but examples like that cited above must force us to ask whether the distinction is meaningful. For example, if we saw in future an attempt by mob violence to force Jewish citizens out of European cities, would it not be naive to maintain the distinction between politics and racism?

 
Getting back to the point of this post: an Yi Jing reading about the dangers brought to light through Steyn’s demographic observations.

 
The key themes to come out of this Yi Jing reading are: Inner Truth, and The Gently Penetrating.

 
Inner Truth emphasised a key and consistent distinction between the Jewish position in contrast with the demographically fueled anti-semitism. Essentially, they have different sources of power. Anti-semitism has no basis in truth or virtue, and this must not be overlooked. The power of anti-semitism is drawn from ‘reliance on the support of others’, or mob violence and group think. In the face of such threats, the Jewish state and its leaders have for the most part remained faithful to the truth:

The force of inner truth depends chiefly on inner stability and preparedness.
From this state of mind springs the correct attitude toward the outer world.

 
Having the correct attitude toward the outer world is profound. As we have seen in the confrontations between Israel and Hamas, the Hamas position is overwhelmingly pointless and self-destructive. The moral and even pragmatic difference between the goals and methods of Hamas and the goals and methods of Israel cannot be overstated.

He finds a comrade.
Now he beats the drum, now he stops.
Now he sobs, now he sings.

Here the source of a man’s strength lies not in himself but in his relation to other people. No matter how close to them he may be, if his center of gravity depends on them, he is inevitably tossed to and fro between joy and sorrow. Rejoicing to high heaven, then sad unto death-this is the fate of those who depend upon an inner accord with other persons whom they love. Here we have only the statement of the law that this is so. Whether this condition is felt to be an affliction of the supreme happiness of love, is left to the subjective verdict of the person concerned.

 
Again, the position of the anti-semites can be interpreted as one of mutual dependence. It is a mob mentality, and the mob needs the interdependence of its members. Yet such interdependence can be either a strength or a weakness depending on the context. The question is this, in a confrontation would you rather have Inner Truth, or the power of the mob?

 
The second result gives us the concept of the wind, a force that is gentle, yet because of its ceaselessness has the power to penetrate. This concept can apply to both sides in this conflict. For the forces of anti-semitism, it supports Steyn’s fear that demographic change will radically alter the global balance of power. Demographic change is after all a ‘gentle’ and ‘ceaseless’ process, which nevertheless penetrates to the core.

 
Yet this principle can also apply to the Jewish position, not in terms of numbers but in terms of influence. Demographic change may be gentle, but Inner Truth is more gentle still. The real question therefore is one of time. Can the truth and virtue of the Jewish position in this conflict withstand long enough to penetrate the darkness of those who naively or intently press for its destruction?

 
This is perhaps the best hope for everyone. Human beings are not homogeneous, and although the conflation of various anti-semitic forces may seem like a single expanding mass, the power of the truth and of virtue should not be underestimated.

The character of fu (”truth”) is actually the picture of a bird’s foot over a fledgling. It suggests the idea of brooding. An egg is hollow. The light-giving power must work to quicken it from outside, but there must be a germ of life within, if life is to be awakened. Far-reaching speculations can be linked with these ideas.

When I started this site, I thought that something good might come of it - as though by trying to present my thoughts I could delve further into their source.

 
I also thought that by presenting my ideas in a ‘positive’ form - that is, as though I had something worth saying to others - I might discover a purpose, meaning or talent of my own.

 
Well I’m sorry to say that it hasn’t really worked out, and to be honest I can’t imagine how it could have worked. I guess it’s just one of those things that one tries, and then at least has the assurance of having tried it. “Oh yes, a website, I had one of those once”.

 
I think a lot of what I wanted to say remains in me. It really won’t emerge until the circumstances demand it; and trying to manufacture those circumstances has not succeeded.

 
I’ve also learned how superficial my own personal ‘culture’ is. The things I value, that evoke grand feeling in me, can only be captured in a few words. There are only so many times one can quote Confucius.

 
So the great wealth of ideas and wisdom I’d hoped to unleash upon the world through this site has amounted to less than a trickle. I think I can safely say that my urge to do so has been only a side effect of other internal forces. In other words, it was more important to me to feel I had something to say, than to actually say it.