- Posts: 509
- Joined: Tue Jun 30, 2015 12:14 am
that which you have mentioned about delusion possibly being an illusion and what part the ego plays in the want for clarity and perhaps opting to accept and live with the/an unknown is a common dilemma, and in the customary discussions some of this implied apathy has often been misattributed to the buddhist teachings and so it got my attention.
but this view is not tenable. it is enough to make thought experiments by taking both sides to their extremes: one cannot posibly live in a complete acceptance that all is unknown... not even for a second. we have to make efforts at knowing, by hook or by crook--thru inference, guesswork, or hearsay--, to survive and prosper. but if one knew everything and was certain of everything, i see no problem in that: it is perfect existence.
you can't let it go too, b/c it's like gravity, or air... it doesn't matter if you believe that it's a (metaphysical) illusion, you still have to live by its conditions as long as you're not sufficiently awakened to their natures.
as to living with it or not wanting to let it go... i ask: what is it? what is its nature? do you have any idea? is it matter? like a cup or a rock, or is it a phenomenon? if so which one is it? does it cause happiness or dread? how do we choose to live with it if we don't know what it actually is? how do we know we like it if we don't even know what we like about it? LF, would you say that you don't actually know what it is, or rather that it's impossible to know ( b/c as it's very name signifies, it is an unknown) and it is the sheer surprises it brings which you like? encountering the unexpected??
in any case, the options are either to let it win completely, which means literal immediate death IMO, or to try to balance which is how the whole world population lives and is a very volatile state, or to sally against it... and that is what many distinct individuals have done throughout human history: those that strived for knowledge, mastery of technique, victory, wisdom, enlightenment etc... i subscribe to a school that says that, if one had the energy for it, the most preferred and beneficial option is the last one; but not just that: it says that even amongst the best, the choice path is to aspire for knowledge, mastery, victory, wisdom, enlightenment directed at the self.
this is the core difference between the western and eastern systems of thought. the western is aggressively extrovertive: it seeks to build from the outside in, it begins from the community, state in towards the person... and it has done wonders too in the past: the Grecian civilization being a beauty of a demonstration... but what if, as is now happening, the community and state is rotting? then it becomes impossible for the individual to work/wait for that greater transformation... and the eastern philosphies top the western by being useful in this unfortunate situation. in the east, "know thyself!" is not a mere sentence engraved on one temple in one time in the ancient past; it is the sole creed around which every teaching and method revolves.
the obvious logical option is to strive relentlessly to knowing/clarifying. i think where your confusion lies is/should not be in whether it is better to know or not to know, but rather in what to know.... and the answer i put to you is that it is better to know the self, and develop the self. moreover, if you develop the self, then you could never run out of steam. why? b/c you are not wasting your precious energy, you are continuosly recycling it. it is said that one is wasting energy when that person, with no pay or benefit to be gained, directs his inquiries at pointless objects: like if the earth is flat or round, if there is life on mars etc.. utterly useless.
this is also the correct buddhist stance; they are not for total apathy, they are for an apathetic attitude towards a great multitude of things in the world but this is exactly this technique of focusing of one's energy. and yet at the same time there is an unmatched--posibly even by ony other similar schools-- tremendous striving for a certain, specific type of absolute clarity/knowledge.
how the ego participates in this search for clarity is not to be always demonized. it sometimes seeks certainity in useless areas--mundane issues, issues not absolutely necessary for upkeep/growth such as seeking clarity for the sake of pride, desire or simply as an idle venture like those who seek to ascertain what the exact value of pi is etc... -- but it can be trained and directed to search for beneficial certainities too. the ego is not the enemy, it is, as long as we are immersed in the world of illusions, a great and useful weapon... the problem is where it is let loose....
you had inquired: why the need for clarity?
well, to attain (one's) ends. how? b/c though you attain your ends by working for them etc... first and foremost you have to know what your ends=needs are: what you want. if you don't then you'd be a slave: working but never working for yourself.
like a chicken without a head, or a man in the dark, or as the hand without the brain. the point being that there will always be running around, fumbling, working; they will not stop b/c that is the definition of life. and they're always dictated by some or other thing even if we're not thoroughly aware of them or like to admit their influence. society(how we copy other people), religions, habits, customs are the taskmasters...
- Posts: 509
- Joined: Tue Jun 30, 2015 12:14 am
what is the lesson? or is there one even to begin with?
i'd say, there is no lesson and at the same time any and all things can be a lesson. that's the twist, and what makes this change is one's self. when you want to learn sth, you notice that things that apparently are unrelated give you a spark. but when you feel that there is naught to learn, or that you don't want to learn, then the complete opposite becomes the norm.
the outlook expressed in these explanations i have presented are based on two essentially correlated philosophies: one) a highly individualistic perspective, vis. i make sense of, shape and define my world.. and without me everything is impredicable, it is neither ordered nor disordered. and: two) the despotism of objective: vis. that it is me who defines the world around me, and i do it thru setting objectives--implicit/explicit, big/small, conscious/unconscious etc...--
the discovery of the behaviour of the subatomic particles, that they change their natures depending on whether they're being observed or not was a fun endorcement to my views: i.e. the whole world depends on the person!
- Posts: 2002
- Joined: Mon Feb 24, 2014 11:42 pm
Perhaps like the bullets from the gun, we can be convinced the LE is not real: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZRKz6QS5UYI
But I admit some skepticism about this being all in the mind, even if another answer remains lacking. "Perfect Storm", vague as it is, still describes what happened best.......for *me*, as I agree much of our experience of the world depends on us.
- Posts: 509
- Joined: Tue Jun 30, 2015 12:14 am
It's been a year since any major activity here and having promised self to report back here, I'll do so... even though there's nothing flashy.
I've been trying to get a grasp at what the root causes of my predicament are and I'll list the three essentials:
1:"why let go?"
this is a part of a greater trend w/in my psyche. the idea of letting go and the like having been a main component of my world attitude for a considerable time in the past, i was then introduced to/shaken up by perspectives which were equally valid (in a way) but obviously contrary to the previous view... and this pull in dt directions: grasp<>let go, has been one of the most pressing questions of my mental world. and till that question is resolved, it naturally pollutes the dt topics of decision, including this, with hesitancy.
what is the marking line between the two? is it decided by personal principles? is it imposed (as feasibility)? or is it to be arbitrary? or is it an odd mix of all?
i know and feel that the issue of union or not(w ex-LO) is *perhaps* become sort of moot by now but this makes not an iota of difference IMO. it is to me like those purely theoretical philosophical riddles in schools given to test and verify principles. to me the why(either way) is just as important as the if.
2 a: specifically
these are, in a way, the ones that could accurately be defined as limerantic IMO.
they are initiated by select triggers such as have a deep connection to her specifically.. like her pics or articles that could have sth to do w her. but these things are rather seldom in frequency bc there is not any mentionable contact w her in any sense, so there is little likelihood of contact w such things.
and i have to remind that the associated thoughts and emotions are not always sunny but there are also guilt, depression and such. i feel very depressed when i see her or in fact any other beautiful woman by how transient such a smooth skin and youthful energy is... and then i drift off into darker or belligerent thoughts.
2 b: tangentially
this is hardly about ex-LO, but it is deserving of mention to give context: the immutable fact that i also find other women than her as beautiful, smart, funny and w immense potentials... and also some as possessing all qualities at once; like her. so the only special quality she has in my eyes is our having a personal, contacted(?) history.
i am triggered by medias of all sorts and in all sorts of directions too and i do my very best to study and learn from all.. but apart from some moments of silly self abandonements and fantasizings i know and feel that i don't really want to 'be' with them--including ex-LO-- in any of the ways.. this tells me that my original conviction is still truly intact. idealism had robbed my mind and spirit and i see this flirting and love and sex as either impure or full of care and so as demanding much work that i don't wish for it. and she doesn't in any way escape that criticism. and this criticism that has been shown and embedded into me is not just mental but also heartfelt so there is no sort of clash here.
now i must mention two which may come close: one is the almost instinctive, part cultural slant towards these feelings but that's basic.
the other is a necessary doubt, not at all a distrust but rather a skepticism which is healthy... and which creates the mental space necessary for investigating other possibilities. what i am speaking of is the transgression of the precept of celibacy. it may be valid or it could be futile but i have no way of being completely sure till i apply my attention to it.
it is an idea i had once encountered before in the form of the Vajrayana thoughts and again recently in Julius Evola's book which i had recommended on this board a while ago. it is at most a curious Path/Way to the transcendent and at least one that will provide a deeper and more satisfying answer to this universal and powerful question. either way, such a topic is deserving of thought. and this fact becomes one of the contributing reasons for:-
3: Ex-LO as food for thoughts
when a person makes sense of their world they inevitably use thought objects which could be people or things... and these thought objects are all previously encountered objects that have made various levels of impression.
seeing that i am thinking about dt matters that involve romance, sex, friendship etc..(especially since the time when i decided to understand the Fe/Male issue) it is only natural that i often insert her into dt lines and scenarios. more directly such as: why on earth am i not attracted to her sexually??! or indirectly: what should i think of the idea of progeny? of heredity...eg. when i noticed the other day in what ways i am Dad 2.0, and thinking what would Anji 2.0(Dad 3.0) would be like? and seeing the modification/improvement(lol) that was the result of the mix w mum's traits, then what would be the result of mixing my traits w a select female's.... say ex:LO.
:more to come...
- Posts: 509
- Joined: Tue Jun 30, 2015 12:14 am
a) Work 1:
for ease of classification i divided my mental application regarding this whole topic into two; and this one is that which focuses more directly on the "me, her, us" thing.
i said earlier that *perhaps* this subject may be becoming moot but this by no means implies that it is dead in the water. possibilities means probabilities and this alone is capable of keeping the suspense alive for years to come barring the occurrence of situations that may update/alter the reality... maybe her getting married or going abroad will do, i reckon.
i still from time to time check out her social media posts. and i see no sufficient reason not to now. i feel a little funny sounding so thick, but this is my opinion. i feel that nothing has changed, except the passage of time, and it has helped nothing; if anything, it is aggravating the situation one day at a time.
i thought i had kicked the ball into her court and then started awaiting for her response in contentment but then i started to doubt whether i had kicked it hard and well enough... maybe i was hesitant even when i seemed to be doing the boldest and most decisive... or i had badly miscalculated as to what her thinking would be... maybe she has been entangled in a web of confusions regarding my personality and what i represent, which i see in retrospect as being very likely.
and if my self doubt is true, then it would be that all i had accomplished to do was to scratch a healing wound and then awkwardly slink back which would turn this into a bloody fiasco.
but i somehow suddenly become too paralysed to move ahead and i see her in a same state too.
now this is the situation summarized in its pure form. but in the context of wider reality: having analysed its priority with in my life, i had concluded that it's an important but relatively less urgent work. bc i really have much stuff to do, work that requires deliberation and planning! i am now in a new phase of life, and i need to think about many things so this issue has to be put in proper form.
this is the broad sweeping exploration, analysis and integration of dt ideas that are to do w this whole issue and more. my mind has been and is now in great ferment as a consequence of my resolution a year ago here to undertake a *conscious* analysis of a whole host of matters which i had hitherto approached only in a tangential manner.
but this sort of work is a serious one based on my experience. my type of thinking process regarding these sorts of things being, i have observed, very slow and deliberate as i ruminate, cross reference and cross examine with my pre-existing views etc.. i see that i sacrifice speed for stability of the final construct, and this means that this work will take years to bring to some form of maturity and certainty such as i assume myself to have regarding some other topics.
but here also i see my mental power being protracted over dt subjects which are just as important, and as a result, here too, i see a stretching of my mental resources.
so wrt these two purely mental spheres i notice a serious strain to do many things at once. but nothing a good organization can't solve ... so i can't complain much here. mental work is always fun for me.
its frequency has much decreased since last year, I'll say. its story line is much the same. i could do with the depression to be honest, but the guilt, when it comes, really hurts me. the rationale behind it is not really solid, it is ever contested; the debate is one of the main threads and themes of my mini-debacle here. the query of how much responsibility i have for others' happiness is one that spans wider circles than around ex-LO.
this is the only sweet fun part of this whole matter. i would have taken shameless pleasure in bathing in the thoughts and feelings it evokes bc i still see her as a beautiful specimen in form and expression. but unlike some handful of periods in the past where i indulged in unpolluted admiration-absorption this sweet part too has been corrupted by other feelings and so romance soon gives way to depression via guilt or some other villainous feeling.
and even if no such negative emotion had managed to ruin the mood, my now instinctive anamnesis of the First Noble Truth contrives to do the job after minutes/seconds bc the idea of romantic love itself as a blameless and reliably joyous feeling is assaulted by it. no hope of surrendering into her; or so it seems.
here too i can't find romantic craving its pure form, other desires being mixed in. there is absolutely no sexual element AT ALL, i'm sure of that. i had tried to initiate and explore it before but boy was it stupid.. it was just impossible.
as to frequency, any one here would understand how difficult it is to determine, but if i took dreaming as the most expressive criterion bc of its total involuntariness, I'll say that i have dreamed of her twice in this last year... which to me is considerable.
but only the one was strictly romantic; in the second i dreamt of some resolution after a dialogue face to face after which she just walked away and i didn't feel sad or happy but just relieved.
if i was to just apply common sense, I'd say that i haven't felt so much craving.. some 10-20% towards her generally. some 10-20% towards other females triggered in various ways, and approximately same percentage for inanimate things, and ideas etc..so I'll say im good.
plus, out of the 10-20% craving i have for her, a considerable part is for a platonic friendship so that's a small portion of romance... not that either is better than the other. it's just that craving for a platonic friendship is much chilled than romantic craving... so much so that even if it were much more frequent, it(by itself) wouldn't cause as much pain and melancholy.
the last thought i want to add in this section is how deceiving it is to classify the symptoms in this manner. all these combine in ones and twos and threes w dt others so that the permutations are dizzying.
and this odd combination puts me in such states where i can't in good sense apply the label of limerence to them. the more accurate though broad way of saying it is that i am having some sort of crisis one of whose components is limerence...
- Posts: 509
- Joined: Tue Jun 30, 2015 12:14 am
in the first place it seems useful to me to discriminate between resolution and recovery. resolution being as concerning the real world situation(what one would call closure would neatly fit in this category,) and recovery as being wrt the inner world of un/wellness.
now, what i have, here, to learn from is i think the pattern with my previous LEs. first off, i do believe myself to have been fully recovered from the LEs towards each four. i also see that the question of resolution was as present then as the issue of recovery; and that it was as important. i also see that i was recovered from each four cases bc a resolution was made each time that was sufficient to satisfy the need of the time. that resolution was in each case: separation, and a forced on at that which was imposed upon me. #1 left school, and *I* left school for the remaining three. that was sufficient, each w varying degrees of effectiveness, to have me move on.
but those resolutions were not made by me, they were imposed on me. and whatever i did of my own volition was sort of half conscious.
so this explains my predicament now, bc i am now trying to take over full control of my life in the decisions i make; and this even when/if those decisions are even theoretical and not of real world repercussions. i am now at a stage/state of mind where i am exploring the concept of decision making in a fully conscious ability. i am questioning what my limits are, what the principles should be etc.. i did this a while ago in a solely Buddhist mind state, but i have now been compelled to heavily revise it bc the concept has been complicated by the introduction of an idea which i'd call "justified grasping"; explained: having discovered that i have to "grasp"(re: the literal Buddhist definition) at things to realize the goal of non-grasping itself(=Nirvana), where does the grasping stop? is it warranted only in cases which are conducive to the end? or else?
this is why separation(in the form of her graduating before me) failed to do the usual trick. yes, being a grown up, i had more say over my movements and this allowed me to still entertain ideas of re-unions across borders which in the past were definitively final. but i see this renewed query as being more influential. i simply didn't see this conclusion as being satisfactory; especially in view of the excuse/argument for union.
now the vision i have wrt full recovery from this (ex-) LO is that i'd have the emotion and thoughts towards her as i do for my past LOs: i remember each one, and i remember the good and the bad. but 1) the emotion(both negative and positive) towards them is not in the present, it is in the past. it has its own place there and it never bothers me now--it is in a little glass globe, fully animate, but miniature. and 2) mentally i have no pressing sense of duty towards them. the issue is simply dead; more especially there is no "Work 1" of above^ to be done. nothing to dissect and consider or interprete or stay attuned to.. my mind is *totally* freed from them.
i have neither here.
the second way of recovery is under the scenario of platonic friendship. i would see recovery in this scenario as engaging the idea of her as one would engage the idea of a work mate. there is great communication, cooperation, and some emotions but it is contained in its own sphere out of which we have our own freedom. however this is a rough sketch and ignores some sub-scenarios which may be curious.
all in all, the message is that i see the need to resolve this matter in a manner which i see as sufficient/satisfactory to my current mental state which is to do it in as conscious a setting as is possible. and that i reckon that this will be a means for completing my recovery process.
at this junction, i think it would be appropriate to mention that i shall take back what i said about ignoring, then satisfying(as per my LE mantra) as being sufficient enough for recovering from an(my) LE. i admit that i probably will not totally and utterly be cured from my LE as long as i have not completed the third rung. but I'll still say that the two initial steps were instrumental in bringing me to this state which is highly stable, where i am not at all debilitated by LE. now enough of semantics.
as a finisher i will elaborate on what i, in passing, called paralysis.
i am paralysed bc the need to decide/reach conclusions fully consciously cuts both ways: it not only moves for union but also for dis-union.
the fact is that i have never done more than flirt and have fun with a girl. i am not at all shy and i exchange ideas freely with men but i've never really deleved into a deeper, long running(months/years) discussion/examination of ideas with any one except one. and i have never with any one taken it up a notch to an even more serious partnership of not just philosophical discussions but also trainings etc.. in dt disciplines-- neither w a man or a woman.
and i am having trouble justifying this w reason. there simply is no solid reason(or i should say 'need/necessity'-- which i often take as being synonymous with 'reason' ) for doing so.
so my natural element being lonerism and obedience to the principle of means and ends= objectives, i see no excuse for this design.
it is a separate concern/question/topic which is challenging my well built world view that has *Objective* as an axis and one would perceive how i would be paralysed/ambivalent bc i am caught between an old, well hammered stance and a new one which is unexplainable. one would see how i would be anxious bc while i fidget in dimness i also notice my potential/probable effect upon her by tying her also in limbo, with precious time passing. and i can't decide/conclude with a coin toss bc i am now all about conscious processes!
i hope i will come to more clarity in the coming time, as i do my self work and also contribute and discuss with ya'll here.
- Posts: 509
- Joined: Tue Jun 30, 2015 12:14 am
- Posts: 509
- Joined: Tue Jun 30, 2015 12:14 am
promises, appointments... even if made implicitly. expectations and hopes even if expressed subtly.
shall i be bound by (implicit) promises? (perceived) duty?
"the longing...;" "5 long years...;" but "the disappointment" when finally finding...
when Nick thinks out loud about the dichotomy bn "being inside vs being outside"... a sequence of thoughts flare up one after another... perhaps i want to be neither of the lovers, perhaps i want to be Nick... i have a deep instinct for lonerism of an extreme, fiery nature.. even *before* i had embraced it consciously.. and it clashes most violently against this summons...
but it is a manifest fact! i doubt that there has ever, ever, been a man who felt it was worth it when he finally ended up w the object of his desires-- be it a woman or else... it-is-an-evident-fact.
--i know it. i have done it yearly, monthly, daily, hourly... again and again and again, blinded by desire, mindless. but it's still absurd to consciously, in a lucid state, not unaware of the evident-facts-- the big lie we're all in-- and yet by which we are all deceived, *utterly voluntarily* exchange the "....freely romping mind of God" for a perishable flesh, a non-lasting gratitude, a look, a smile...
so there could only be at most a compromise, and atleast a squashing, an annihilation of the summons to love. i could keep being Nick, or i could be one of the lovers but maintaining my identity... nothing less.
but the summons to love is ontologically, unlike the Uranic summons to personal power --to total freedom-- which ultimately disregards ALL, very much like the summons to duty based on promises, to compassion based on empathy. to pity? each of which presupposes its righteous self-essence.
broadly put; the one is masculine, upward surging, detached, the other is feminine, grounded, attached; air<>earth.
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/feminism-ethics/ the law of Hierarchy Of Values Unto Objective, which is active, ordered, ascending clashes w a passive, disorganized, objectiveless.... "thing..."
so, is the one supposed to smash the other bc the one is right and other is wrong? is the one supposed to incorporate and manipulate the other like in Vajrayana? the two can't co-exist equally, that much is evident. or was it that the other was right and the one is wrong.... that we are supposed to be genuinely emotional, strictly partial, goal-less..., that hierarchy of values is wrong. i admit i am prejudiced against the other, partial to one. but perhaps I'll be persuaded as i encounter a more apt description..
but if love is to be abandoned for a higher value-- as per the present Uranic Weltanshauung, then so should compassion, a feelings of duty and responsibility, .... which is the CORE driving force behind all of my issues...
side note: i have recently been doing some reading of that audacious Nietzche and his polemic against that which he termed Pity...its being, and let this be a secret bn us, a subtle war of the weak on the strong...guilt is mentioned more than once... interesting fellow, he.
digression over, associated w this contortion of thoughts, a whole host of emotions succeed one after another.. it seems thought and feeling are instinctively inseparable. we can't think of love w out eliciting that feeling, or atleast it seems we can't understand/grasp it w out trying it on. the same goes for guilt, and for other socially popular yet inconsequential feelings.. such as those in the film.
for, during the entire movie, i never even for an instant felt love for ex-LO (partly bc the scenes were uninspiringly chaotic), not a feeling of guilt, never a desire to redress, and yet the feelings of love and compassion and guilt appear, albeit intransitively. and although intransitive, they, inorder to be made sense of, *need* to be associated w an object... and through vague similarities of circumstances with a *fictional world* and powered by a will and a habit of thought, ex-LO-- perhaps just bc she is the only-last-memorable, out of the nebulous recesses of memory, ascends and unites w a mental-emotional construct... just for the sake of technicality.
.... they are like mirages that appear and disappear, yet they exhibit the exact same properties as the original feelings, and most times the exact same depth and intensity...
perhaps they remind us of the real feelings which they are copies of.. perhaps they are one w them....
if this is so, if we can't think of things w out feeling 'about' them, then i fear there is no 'complete, total recovery' from this or in fact any other issue... atleast in normal circumstances......
but maybe we can greatly reduce their power-- their summoning power, by resolving the issues behind them.. so that we won't have scruples regarding them.. bc scruples are doubts and doubts mean emotionally charged thoughts.
and then.... an hour later you find that all this has finally vanished when the movie had ended... and an other followed... where are they now?
..... am i recovered? do i include this into the percentage of the frequency of symptoms or to a disaffected narrative of the daily occurrences, " oh, i was just thinking of this issue of promises, miscommunications, hope... responsibility and guilt.... yeah, oh and btw the feelings were there too... as is apropos...."
- Posts: 509
- Joined: Tue Jun 30, 2015 12:14 am
there must be decisions taken.
decisions, always, unconditionally, presuppose a belief, a notion. w/out these, there is no such thing as a decision.
but these notions need a certain form, a direction, a reference of operation. otw, they will totally dissipate, and so will the impact of the decisions. this is the case in ordinary people.
therefore, it would be a mark of wisdom to bring these notions and beliefs to consciousness, consciously examine and craft them, fashion a central anchor, and have then finally guide our decisions.
these decisions based on a wise policy of conscious notions can contradict another set of conscious beliefs, or present an internal paradox such as the notion of compassion.
we have limited resources. we choose to apply those resources on one object from among many. this modus operandi is ubiquitous and ever-ruling(as long s human). the intent is respectful bc it is energetic, visionary, constructive, the design is useful bc ideas can be abstracted away from it.
this same dilemma appears for compassionate designs. they are 'virtuous', they are useful. but they simply are impractical(strictly speaking, bc absolute ideal compassion means helping ALL, NOW), and even counterproductive inasmuch as they harm their cause: the strength/focus of the agent by fracturing it then and there.
[note the constant conflict bn the Idea of objectives - its strive for despotism - and all other ideas/dogmas.]
it is dictated to feel compassion, and the feeling is even semi-logical upto a certain level of realization.
but we may feel compassion w/out acting in any way. and in accordance w the above deduction, we MUST.
in this way we have resolved the paradox by slicing the subject into many planes: the mind and the (acting) body, and now allowing it to act curiously contradictorily::: does this mean that one is allowed to exploit or butcher another person while feeling deep compassion?!
this, therefore, is a tragic compassion.(Nietzche?!)
sexual acts are prohibited for the disciple.
but they lose their meaning for an arhat.... same for killing.
so, the idea isn't that sex or murder is absolutely wrong or right but to culture the mind in restraint and gentleness.
this allows one to reconcile the two and move away from utter immorality, bc a higher purpose is recognized behind the temporary rules which however are evidently of a double standard.
w this parallelism, it would be that the positive compassion also isn't essentially right; but only a means to culture the mind. if so, it would be necessary to feel it, and yet not act on it.... bc acting on it defeats the very purpose.
also in the same fashion, cruel acts, although also meaningless, would be erroneous bc they would corrupt the feeble mind.
there is no proof that parents shd be essentially unique.
a father is not essentially loving, there are murderous fathers, fathers that rape. these can't be the anomaly and the good fathers the norm. no, bc there is a continuum and there are very good, careless or absent or avowedly hateful fathers.... if this is so, then any attachment and duty felt for them must be conditioned and not essentially established.
mothers are more close to their offspring but the same reasoning applied to fathers could be levelled at them; they are only unique bc of the increased dedication they (feel that they must-) feel owing to cultural views and also the greater physiological connectn esp pre-natal.
if these are true, then no special treatment(eg. Compassion) is deserved by them simply as a result of their bringing one to the world. there is no Essential law.
same for siblings and all kin.