::::::::
Recently executed for crimes against Humanity, Saddam Hussein is described as having had malignant narcissism, as is Hitler. This meets with the Empathy Model (http://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/Empathy_Model) in that narcissists are unaware of what others think of them and have purely internal views of themselves. Because emotional information is locked out, they are dangerous because they are able to be affected by the feelings of others. They are not burdened by the emotional states of the people they hurt because they cannot feel the pain they cause. And cocaine does this.
The Empathic approach to solving problems such as malignant narcissm is to connect neurally, and then disconnect if the connection is damaging. Disconnecting is not unempathic; it is simply for survival. The next step in survival is self-defense, a process developed by the East Asian Buddhists, and well documented by Munenori in The Life-Giving Sword. Generally the best strategy is to allow the empathically malignant to "fall on their own sword," perhaps with a little encouragement. In the Hussein example the UN arms inspections were that path, and according to the inspectors, the inspections were getting to Hussein. There was indication on the web a few years back that he was looking for a way out: some kind of amnesty. While this would not have satisfied our seemingly natural desire to avenge his crimes, allowing Hussein to leave Iraq would have prevented the present endless bloodshed, and this permanent disruption of Iraqi life.
It also would have defined another important point of the Empathic Model: forgiveness. From what I have read on asperger's support lists online, the unempathic feel threatened by the empathic. I embraced this idea early on and realized that their fears are justified. The empathic can only see life in terms of empathy, that everyone is good (meaning everyone has the necessary components for life and love), which is false. Everyone does not, and those who do not will be reacted to wrongly by normal people; in effect, they will be loved to death. And when the unempathic fail to respond to love, anger will follow, and after anger, conflict. This of course is bad for the unempathic, and they justifiably feel threatened. Then they retaliate by forming form gangs, then they arm and form nation states, and then corporations, putting the entire human race in the jeopardy that it is at this very moment.
It is natural to marginalize anti-empathy, and to limit the ability of the anti-empathic to reproduce in large numbers, and that is how nature has preserved love, the goal of evoltion is beauty and love. But in the reality that is now humanity, that formula will not work; and prehaps other formulas have been adapted, such as revenge tactics. Movie producers know that a largely normal film audience will feel elation and joy when a particularly malicious bad guy gets his, well demonstrated Scorcese's Death Proof, and I believe that the joys of revenge may be a natural adpaption to an unnatural defect.
But as I suggest, revenge does not work in the long run; it only strengthens anti-empathy. What works is forgiveness, which I see as the most component of Christianity (and Christianity is the world's dominant religion). While Buddhism is a very specifically empathic religion, (and also very popular) it lacks a strict forgiveness component. Christianity demands that we pray for our enemies, where prayer is important to Christians, especially in the group setting, as it provides for the health of the group through compassion. (Of course Christianity has gone wrong in countless ways, as have other religions, but not because Christians prayed for or forgave their enemies in excess.)
The most common damage felt by the normally empathic is felt through what is called mapping (Goleman). A bad cop maps your mind into fear, depression, etc, when he hassles you "for no good reason." Moving up a notch through the societal layers of emapthy, the cop is allowed to hassle you "for no good reason" because the basis of the law is to enhance and protect capital exploitation. There are protection laws, but most laws are specifically for the protection of the capital structure. They system we have is purely derived from ancient Rome (Mumford). A capital offence, for instance, is punishment for an attack on capital: one of its "citizens," whereas killing a slave, or non-citizen is barely punishable at all. We saw this in the slavery South, and I have seen this in the ghettos of New York City during my youth.
In tribal law, such as Cherokee law (which is well documented becuase the Cherokees embraced writing and publishing just prior to the "Trail of Tears"), there is no crime w/o a victim. The American principles developed in the post-revolutionary period were largely codified native law passed along by farmers who had bonded with Natives. This is espeically true of the Bill of Rights, which is the template for all rights documents in the world. In the American law, this hypothetical malicous cop is allowed to become the complaintant, or victim, to circumnavigate the fact that in may criminal cases, such as misdemeanors, there very likely is no victim, let alone a crime. (This has happened to me personally, though I prevailed in court).
I attempt to show two important layers of the Empathic Model, where defective neurology directly causes anti-empathic behavior even in its most generic occurance through simple mapping, and that it can also socially and societally significant. I also try to show how highly empathic thinking can help relive desperate situations.
Unfortunately anti-empathic processes have been set in structural "stone" such as in the capital process. Because capital is exploitative, it is unnatural, and hence anti-evolutionary. Empathy is purely collaborative; resources are created in a group format, and not taken from others. As we move upward through society's layers, we get into zones we can think of as the actual exploitative process itself. As we get higher, we meet Michael Moore's example in "Roger and Me," where the the CEO has no emotional connection with the rank and file that keeps him in his mansion. His example is key, as important as Goleman's examples. He shows how the capital structure prevents the rise of menatally healthy people: people with normally functioning empathic neurons. But as we rise through the societal structure, we also rise through empathic layers: the social and neural connection is just as important in these strata devoid of empathy as it is on more personal and pedestrian levels.
Micheal's documentary is the car industry; the car industry requires healthy neurons to allow workers and technologists to collaborate to create good cars. Few if any cars are considered good by local judges: mechanics. They say all cars suck, except classics. So the classic car is where it is at, and during the American car Renaissance from the 30s to the 60s, there was high collaboration, and lots of morality within the social structure. Of course there was racism at the time that was inherited from the slavery days, but that ended in 1964 when Blacks and others were given "full citizenship."
To me, then, the solution to the present auto crisis is simple: turn the clock back. During the auto Renaissance, most people traveled by train; cars then would become useful for sport, or perhaps be kept around because they are beautiful. Public transportation allows people to connect, and even form temporary convivial communities. A present-day component of the Renaissance is the popular car culture, and its youthful members have adopted sporty sub-compacts. Work in this culture is done by individuals in their garages, and generally far exceeds industry standards for integrity and aesthetics. With all the car parts available in recycling yards, I am personally uncertain the average person needs the car industry, and can certainly do without the car sales force. Actually, localized factories here are ideal, especially restored ones from the equivalent American industrial Renaissance.
Moving further up in the societal stratus we reach the international spectrum. Simply, with these examples we need to ask leaders if they are willing to dissect problems horizontally, rather than vertically. Using the Israeli / Palestinian conflict as an example, can we look look at the issue singly under a uniform empathic light, as a single phenomena, or even as struggling but equal components within God's democratic creation? Can we slice the problem horizontally, separating (capital) control at the top from the innocent and distressed population beneath it--be it Jewish or Muslim (if those are good terms to use). Or will our leaders continue to slice between Muslim and Jew, as the New York Times does (which is ultimately pro-banking, and hence capitalist: from the upper and less empathic layers of society).
I personally hope I can play empathy politically. I recently read Duiker's Ho Chi Minh and learned that Ho preferred negotiation to battle, and continually sought a relationship with the US. He closely followed Sun Tzu's Art of War, seeking to avoid battle, but I personally seek to do away with battle entirely as a pacifist. None the less I still support the empathic part of the military, soldiers with normal empathic neurons, who act with empathy even during battle.
Throughout his 60s, Ho was still on the run from the French. He hiked 20 miles each day with a pack, each night building a new revolutionary HQ, which always included a volley ball court. During four months in Chinese prison during WWII, he lost all his teeth because of malnutrition; the French colonialists killed his friends and his lover. He suffered deep depression as a result, but soldiered on with a positive attitude. And today Vietnam stands as an important US ally in the East. (As I mentioned, I like his style with the exception of the killing components--he killed Vietnam's Trotskyites, according to Duiker.)
To me, the big question d'jour asks whether the democratic political process can subvert the capital self-perpetuation that we see in Moore's "Roger and Me." President-elect Obama is apparently still taking calls for suggestions about his presidency; is he sincere? I am betting that he is. And reaching Obama with information specific to the empathy issues we face at this moment is what I am attempting through my Information Society efforts.
