After nearly forty years of weighing humanity's deepest dilemmas - working in settings ranging from university and high school classrooms to corporate offices and hospitals - bestselling author, philosopher, and religious scholar Jacob Needleman presents the most urgent, deeply felt, and widely accessible work of his career.
In "Why Can't We Be Good?" Needleman identifies the core problem that therapists and social philosophers fail to see. He depicts the individual human as a being who knows what is good, yet who remains mysteriously helpless to innerly adopt the ethical, moral, and religious ideas that are bequeathed to him- Cody's Books
Jacob Needleman is a professor of philosophy at San Francisco State University and the author of many books, including The American Soul, The Wisdom of Love, Time and the Soul, The Heart of Philosophy, Lost Christianity, and Money and the Meaning of Life.
In addition to his teaching and writing, he serves as a consultant in the fields of psychology, education, medical ethics, philanthropy, and business, and has been featured on Bill Moyers's acclaimed PBS series "A World of Ideas."
In psychology, study of the development of the moral sensei.e., of the capacity for forming judgments about what is morally right or wrong, good or bad. The U.S. psychologist Lawrence Kohlberg hypothesized that people's development of moral standards passes through several levels. At the early level, that of preconventional moral reasoning, the child uses external and physical events (such as pleasure or pain) as the source for moral decisions; his standards are based strictly on what will avoid punishment or bring pleasure. At the intermediate level, that of conventional moral reasoning, the child or adolescent views moral standards as a way of maintaining the approval of authority figures, chiefly his parents, and acts in accordance with their precepts. At the third level, that of postconventional moral reasoning, the adult bases his moral standards on principles that he himself has evaluated and accepts as inherently valid, regardless of society's opinion. Beginning in the 1970s Kohlberg's work was criticized by psychologists and philosophers influenced by feminism. According to Carol Gilligan, Kohlberg's stages are inherently sexist, because they equate moral maturity with an orientation toward moral problems that is socially instilled in males but not in females. Whereas the male ethic of rights and justice treats morality in terms of abstract principles and conceives of moral agents as essentially autonomous, acting independently of their social situations according to general rules, the female ethic of care treats morality in terms of concrete bonds to particular individuals based on feelings of care and responsibility and conceives of moral agents as connected and interdependent through their feelings of care and responsibility for each other.
Then say how you think and surely you will find many who can resonate with you. But try to treat others, even if you don't agree with them (or maybe don't understand them entirely), with the same respect you would like to be treated.
The gentleman has a lot of good points and not everybody is anti-humanist, as you appear to want to show yourself. :P)
Now as friendly as possible: please respect yourself and the others and be good with the grammar. You appear very immature and capricious and girlish (as Arnold would say) so the chances of finding someone serious to talk to you are much diminished.
<< Si renunta la pseudonimul asta tziganesc ca mai e lume care pricepe si te eticheteaza defavorabil. >>
Looking forward to hear from you. Just in case you are interested, we could talk by email.
i'm sick and tired of this kind of humanistic aproach towards phylosophy. healthy body in healthy mind. do you know old man that humans have to believe in something so as to live? you're a null contribution to my era. 2000 years from greecs and these sick heads continue to wonder instead of giving a system which works. par example, with the technology that we have today we can seem as gods to other people in hystory. we can enslave them and make them believe in anything that we want.even platon, kant , aristotel, nietzche (a fact not a desire) and there you have a classical phylosopher with no answers towards the problems that we have today. idiots. ps. i wouldn't have been so agressive but it seems that all phylosophers these days think the same and i do really feel the need for someone to think the same as i do. i already can give you a good and easy to accept phylosophy of life which can change in time exactly how laws do. the main value is life itself.
ah, there's your problem. you don't think that there is a standard for what is right and what is wrong. so right and wrong is an enterpreted thing. lets see, the 10 commandments, the law, common sense. Empathy comes to mind, sympathy, compassion, are words that come to mind. Can we agree on murder, theft, cheating? Which thing are you up in the air about?
i believe that everyone determines what's right and wrong on based on there up bringing (nurture) and there is no universal truth for whats right because there is no universal truth that we know of ( even if there is one or not) for wrong and we cant appreciate one or the other without knowing the universal truth about each point.
that just what i think tear it apart it you please, have a good one
Jacob Needleman is a best selling author, philosopher and religious scholar. He is theProfessor of Philosophy at San Francisco State University and he was Director of theformer Center for the Study of New Religions at the Graduate Theological Union. Mr.Needleman's books, and he is a prolific writer, include The American Soul, LostChristianity, Money and the Meaning of Life and The Heart of Philosophy. And he tellsme in addition to the book he will be talking about tonight that he has already got a seedof a new book, the topic of which is the meaning of, what do we mean by god? So thatshould peak some interest. His newest book that is here tonight, Why Can't We BeGood has been described as a meditation on how we can bring our inner ideals and ourouter actions into balance so that we can live an ethical life. The book tackles a very bigquestion. And we may if we are good, no I am just kidding about that we may just gleana little bit of the answer tonight. So please join me in a warm welcome for Jacob Needleman.Good. Can you hear well, it's not too much of the echo or something that you can youhear me well make out the words I have to give my usual warning about philosophyphilosophers, we don't do answers. We do questions, but sometimes and often with thekind of questions that philosophy deals with to deepen the question, if you deepen thequestion and go into it very deeply with more and more of yourself, with your mind andyour heart and particularly when you ponder it with in the company of others who areequally concerned, the question begins to turn into an answer. Not so much in wordsnecessarily but in the experience of something in oneself and something that people sharetogether, some kind of quality or sensitivity or atmosphere, whatever you call it, whichgives hope gives hope that there is an answer and it can be found. But not necessarilythe way we usually seek answers with just the mind alone or the senses alone. And this isI think particularly true of the question tonight. And the question of this book what Ihave taken to be the mission, the philosophy of the of the philosopher is to look at thequestions that are really the great questions of the heart. The questions, some of which orall of which are every human being every man or woman sooner or later asks notjust intellectually but with the whole being and the questions which science cannotanswer, which cannot answered by simply observing or theorizing or taking a poll orlooking it up on Google.The questions - who am I, for example. What is a human being? Does god exist? Or isthat are we alone in the universe without any commanding, benevolent, intelligentpresences over everything. What can we know? What can we hope for? Why do wesuffer? Why is there evil? And what work we should do and how should we live?Questions like this, which some people in the modern world have considered to beunanswerable and therefore have given up hope of answering them and has come to thepoint of saying that we shouldn't even be asking them, just forget about them. Go on withour life, in dealing with what we know and not pursue some fantasy, that we could neverknow the answer to these questions. Well, it's these unanswerable questions that areperhaps most important part of human life, that is they touch the most important part, Ithink of ourselves of our human identity which is that we deserve what is good, to wish tounderstand what is true and perhaps above all that we should be able to love and that'sreally the subject of this book.And I see it's particularly true of this question that what I said about pondering andtogether and thinking deeply and asking with all of ourselves. Because this book deal inthis, this is what I am going to speak about as a part of the theme this talk tonight of thisbook. And the theme of this book is stated right on the first page and then a quote thatprobably most of you know very well. In those two, in fact there are two quotes thatdefine the parameters of this question. And I want to get them exactly right, one is fromthe Old Testament, from the Prophet Micah, "He has shown the old man what is goodand what does the lord require of thee but to do justly and to love mercy and to walkhumbly before thy God". And, the next quote on this page is from ST. Paul Roman 7:19,everyone may not probably know this quote, "For the good that I would, I do not. But theevil which I would not, that I do." And that is the question in this book. Why is that?What does it mean? How to face it? How to confirm that question?Now what I have tried to do in all of the books, I think a prolific author means an ageingauthor, if you live long enough you are all going to be prolific yes.Oh you have trouble hearing me.Okay.Okay, I thought having a mic I could well, I could whisper, but I guess not, okay. I thinkI will just go on, not start over, is that okay? The question that I have dealt with in booksthat I've written have are questions and problems of our culture, of our time, of oureveryday life. And trying to look at these problems and questions of our actual, concreteeveryday life from the perspective of great philosophical or spiritual philosophy, greatphilosophical questions and ideas and spiritual philosophy as I've come to understand itfrom point of view of great ideas and those those subjects have been it seems like thathave been part of are part of our everyday culture that we face, that we have to deal withlike, even things which seem to be unrelated like the question of money, what is the placeof money in a life that is searching for meaning, or education, or the problem of ourrelationship to time which in our modern world has become more and more anguish,more and more problematic for so many of us to after all these decades and centurieswhere our best, some of our best minds have had as their aim, the developments orinventions, technologies designed to save time and the result is that nobody has any timeleft. This is one of the most extraordinary paradoxes of our time that with all these savingof time most of us, I think, feel that really time is disappearing, at least meaningful time is disappearing.So questions like that and this question question in my last book was the meaning ofAmerica which is a burning and aching question for the whole world and certainly for us.And in that book I tried to define what I consider to be the real role and meaning ofAmerica in the world and it had to do with a having a a space, a nation, a governmentwhich allows freedom but not so much only freedom from tyranny and so forth butfreedom for. And have not only freedom for material things but freedom to search for thetruth, freedom to form communities that seek to come and touch with conscience. Andthat to me was the ultimate meaning of America in the world and that if it were to looseit's the structure of the government which protects that freedom it would have lost its meaning.But this book is with the question that is also and may be even more now-a-days ingeneral, the question of today, of our time, of our life and the question of the ethics,morality. Why can't we live according to what we believe and I would even say with ST.Paul in a way what we know to be good. And the point is very simply put. On the onehand there is this feeling of what is right, perhaps you can go into a discussionphilosophically, intellectually about different issues and relativities and all the rest of it,but lets say for a moment in a simple way, on one side we know what we should do, weknow what is right, it has to do with justice and love and care for others and the planetetcetera. And our children and the young people and starving people, you knowwhatever you would say we know what is good and it all comes to down ultimately towhy can't we care? But we know we ought to we know we ought to be able to love. Itson one side and we go into the life, we live, go into the street as it were, we go intomanifestation of ourselves, action, behavior and we are more very, very often we findourselves betraying or not able or not willing or in one way or another betraying what weknow to be good.So on the one hand you have I know, on the other hand have I must act. And sothere is this gap between what we understand, what we know, what we feel as our duty orgoodness, what it means and on the other hand there is our manifestations or actions andthere is no there seems to be no relation between them so often and in a profound sense.Now we may not feel that gap, we may feel we can but in fact if we look at our lives,mostly, we will see that how deep the deepest ideas are so often betrayed or forgottenwhen we are in front of a difficult situation.So this book I I know the problem, I know the question and we can discuss whether youthink it is as it is not a real question but I think it is the one of the real questions of ourera, of our time, best of all human eras, in all human times. So when I write a book, and Ihave a theme, that I ask a question has a reason from the world that needs to be directlyfaced. When I write a book as a writer, some of you writers probably will agree, I feel thebook is half written when I find the opening sentence and sometimes it takes me two orthree years to find the first sentence of a book. It took me two years to find the firstsentence of my book on money but once I found that I said aah! But of course it's a lotmore difficult than that. When this book, I was grappling around with first sentence ofthis book and instead of a sentence I found a story, a tiny little story. I was workingthrough, reading through the tomb, some selections from the Talmud, from the Jewishtradition which is my birthright, my native tradition, although I developed the severeallergy to it at an early age, but I took took in some anti allergy thoughts and of comingback to see what's more deeply true in it as this book shows.But this little book part of the Talmud which is the commentary on, the sacred writings ofthe Jewish tradition is huge, many volumes and there is this one section of the sayings ofof the fathers, which is very understandable and readable to anyone, which I canrecommend to all of you. And this tells the stories of the early rabbinic teachers althoughthey weren't called rabbis at the time, most of them the ones I was speaking about,lived. There was in particular rabbi who was a teacher, is known as Hillel the Elder, avery famous name and he had lived around the time of Jesus or little he was a little bitbefore, but though they were contemporary in terms of Jesus being young when Hillelwas at his full maturity. And for all we know, this is a fantasy I have I - I don't talks aboutit in the book, Jesus may have been- when he was a child, may have been one he mayhave been one of the teachers who he left his parents for few days to go sit at the stepsand listened to that's is a fantasy, I have no evidence whatever. But when you see themessage of Hillel you really deeply, you will see its very corresponding to with with wehave seen from Jesus. Well Hillel, this is the story about this brash young man whocomes up to Hillel and says he is got he is painted as a heathen which probably meantsome other cult or some being an atheist or whatever, says I will embrace the Torah, Iwill embrace Judaism, and the Torah is the fundamental five books of Moses in thebeginning of the Old Testament as you know, and so that the fundamental heart of theJewish teaching and this man, can you hear me, all right, you are hearing me?. Yeah andthis man says I will embrace Judaism if you can tell me the essence of the Torah while Iam standing on one foot. So this young man we are told had asked the brash question toanother teacher just before and that other teacher chased him out of the room with a stick.So but Hillel simply answers very quickly and I presume you can picture the young manstanding on one foot while Hillel is answering. "That which is hateful to you do not do itto another. Or do not do it to your neighbor". "That which is hateful to you do not do it toyour neighbor". Then Hillel says, you may put your foot down, I mean he doesn't say thatin the text but I am sure he says that is the whole Torah. All the rest is commentary.Now he says go and study.Okay, that is the beginning of this book that is the beginning of the question. What doesit mean? What does he have to study? How study? Hasn't he just heard what it is to begood? What does he have to do now? Just go out and practice it. But he can't practice. Hediscovers it's not so simple. It's not something you can you can hear it in one second.But it takes years to be able to do it. And for that you need help and you need work andyou need ideas and you need other people. So that was the beginning that's the questionof this book where do we go when we hear something which we immediately recognize?What is the bridge between what I know to be good? How can I actually act that? Somany people have told us and arguing lengthily, beautiful arguments, great philosophers,spiritual teachers have told us that yes, that's what it means, yes I must care I must care,I must love, I must be just, I must consider the others, as an end and not as a means, Imust do what brings the most happiness, I must sacrifice my only interest for the other, Imust care for my fellowmen which is the essence of the Judaic tradition and every othertradition in the that we know. But especially the Judaic that starts right from thebeginning. Where do you go to begin to you have anything practical that takes youthere? Because if you live long enough you will hear all these teachings and you findyou know it's like losing weight, you can hear what you are supposed to do. But put, youknow, the come and bear whatever it is in front of your thorn. You must just receive itmore so with morality, with ethics. I found the answer, the beginning of the answer, to thepractical question of how to go from what I know to what I do? In this place where Ireally didn't expect to find it, it was in my classroom as a teacher, in San Francisco Stateand in other places. I found what I could call the first plate of the bridge. And if I tell youwhat it is in one word you will be disappointed because it sounds like oh that, we knowabout that. But if the word is listening, the work of listening to another person is a deeplya deep beginning of morality. Well why did I say that? Nobody, I had never heardanybody put it that way, perhaps better people have. And I explored that by an experimentwhich I often tried without even realizing at the beginning the huge ethical significance ofthe experiment which many of you have heard of. And which many councilors use but notwith this particular aim which is to study just the work of listening to the other personand that experiment is that, when two people passionately disagree on some very seriousquestion - in this case I give in the book I give the example of the question of abortionwhich is one of the most intractable questions of our time because both sides have such,when they are quieted down, most sides have such strong arguments and so these twopeople come up front of the class they are given the direction. You first person call hernumber one, number one you state your view about abortion, state supports abortion,partial birth abortion and you stated succinctly and then number two you can respond tothat person if you are you but only after you have summed up her view in such a way thatshe is willing to say that is an accurate statement of my view and you mustn'tfudge it. In other words the second person has to be really really be accurateand the first person has to be merciless and say that you left out this or that isn'tso I as the moderator I take that role, I say, the first person says excellent,the second person says well he said this and she says okay that's close enoughand I say no that isn't close enough. Try again and try again and try again and that goes on back and forth,the second person then is free to state her view, in this case, it's two women and the firstone can only respond after she has summarized that question to this point that numbertwo says that's a fair statement, clear. That goes back and forth now.In order to do that people get, - say okay I can do that but people, they are very surprisedat how hard that is to - because they discover, they discover that they are not able to listento as much as they thought they are listening to their own thoughts. About two thirds ofthe time its their own mind that they are listening to or they are waiting for the person totake it, catch their breath so they can come in and put their point across or so they cancontend they are waiting to get, to win and to in order to listen like that, they discover thatyou have to step back from your own mind. You have to step back from your ownopinions, you have to create a space in yourself, in your mind, in your heart and open it tolet the other person in. It doesn't mean that you have to agree with the other person, not atall, you don't have to. It is a question simply of letting them in like you entertain theguest, you've let the guest into your house your, you give them tea, and cake andwhatever and you say goodbye. You don't take them upstairs you don't do anything, youjust let them in and listen, lets this person into your mind. Their views into your mind andthat's the beginning of morality. Its the beginning of what, a way in the distance would bethe capacity to love because in order to listen like that, you have to step back from yourego, you have to step back from your opinions which we always identify with so muchand to believing to kill the person that disagrees with us. And that goes back and forthand people who try this experiment, people would try this experiment, they'd end.I have seen many times, they still disagree.That's not the point but they go out practically arm in arm, because they've discoveredthe other person is a human being and what they disagree with is the is their idea, is theopinion of the other person not the other person's being. For as now, when we have somuch of disagreement it becomes almost murder. People who disagree they are denyingyour being, they want to kill you some times just at that moment there is such anger, thereis such egoistic attachment to our own thoughts and that's like the first note in an (octave)that leads to perhaps another kind of action. So these capacity for listening, I have triedmore and more in classrooms and with other people and I've never heard it said that thisis a step toward morality. This people think of it as some times it's that the variousreasons of mental health, of resolving disputes and that sort of thing. This is not what weare talking about, we are talking about the development, where the acquaintance inoneself are power of attention which lets you separate from the ego and there you arebeginning to really open to the other person.So this books starts with that discovery of these - early in the book that relates it toSocrates or how he worked and with people which has been, I think, wrongly interpretedin many ways as merely intellectual. It is an ethical act to the work of listening to eachother and then later on in the book I describe how this can be developed, this wholequestion of opening to another person. Later on in the book I describe the experiments Igave where I gave these people, these students an exercise of reading, studying thephilosopher Marcus Aurelius who is a great, the Emperor Marcus Aurelius who lived in2nd Century A.D. as Emperor of the Great Roman Empire and his book Meditation OfMarcus Aurelius which I recommend to all of you is one of these beautiful statement ofthe ancient meaning of philosophy which is to live great ideas. To live them not just tothink them, but to actually put them into practice. That was the role of the philosopher inthe ancient world, that's a way of life not just as way of thought.And a part of his great teaching what he is trying is to not - is to attend in himself to givehis attention which is the purest power of the human being. Give his attention to something or to search, to try, to give his attention to some thing in himself which he says isin every human being, which he calls the logos which is obviously a word that Christianshave heard many times which for Marcus Aurelius is equivalent to God, that is it'sequivalent to the great intelligence of the Universal World that is in every human being.Only we don't attend to it, we are disconnected from it and so our life is spent giving ourattention and reacting to everything outside, with anger, with fear, with cravings, whichdestroy our humanity ultimately. So he tried not to give his attention to his reactions, tohis passing egotistical thoughts, to his impatience, to his fear, to his power or whatever itis. For him power is not being the Emperor of the Greatest Empire on the earth. For himpower is the power of attending to some thing finer in ones own psyche, one own heartand mind. And that's what he is trying to do and he is failing in trying and but that's hisaim and he has many, many of these little thoughts in this book, are like exercises to practice in life.And one of the exercises which I said why don't I try giving this to my students because Ihave tried it many times. I interpreted a certain way, I took away certain parts of it but theessence of it was this, when he feels annoyed with somebody, when he feels angry withsomething when he feels discouraged by something he tries to separate from it just to bein touch with it just to see it and there to attend to the logos within. So I said to theclass, let's try an exercise and this is not for getting a grade, you are not going to begraded on this. Just try. It was on a Tuesday and then this class meeting was Thursday.Just try it you are going to be annoyed, you are not but maybe you are but I don't know,but you will be annoyed many times between now and Thursday. You'd be annoyed inthe next hour by some (indiscernible) and so will you, will probably, I probably orprobably am. But you will be annoyed many, many times all I am asking you to practiceis to observe that you are annoyed. Just say more or less like saying to yourself like here Iam, I am annoyed. Just step back from that for a moment. You see what I am saying, itsounds easy. Just I am annoyed.Somebody cuts you and takes my parking place I am annoyed. Somebody doesn't like mybook I am annoyed. You don't laugh at a joke, I am annoyed. So just to step back fromthat and look at it, don't try to get un-annoyed, don't try to improve yourself. Just lookthis is a very interesting thing - this is - some of you study Buddhism and other teachingsand that, you know, that this is the seed, this kind of an effort, is the seed of somethingvery great in a human behavior, very great but it's the beginning. So the class of about 50students, Thursday class convenes again. I try not to mention it because I wanted to see,but if anybody brings it up on their own but anyhow they are a little bit reluctant. So atsome point I say, oh by the way how many of you tried the exercise. One and a halfpeople raise their hands. One did this and the other did this and one was a doctor whocomes as a as a senior citizen in (indiscernible) the class, he was and the other one wasthis young woman sitting in the back who hardly ever speaks. Mary, her name was andshe was - so the doctor. I said well doctor what did you find that out and he said well, and- first of all I said that I must say to you the fact that almost all of them forgot is a hugelysignificant event, a hugely significant aspect of the human condition. I can't go into thatnow, I didn't go into that then, I just mentioned it. That's immense because at themoment they said that yes I will try and nobody remembered expect one and a half peopleand actually it turns out only half because the one guy got it wrong.He remembered - when he got up, he said my sister-in-law was coming over and I knowshe is one who annoyed the hell out of me. So I am going to try and then when she didannoy him, he got rid of his annoyance and so forth and so on and looking brave, and sohe succeeded in becoming, I don't know what, because he was so happy and proud withhimself of being able to get rid of his annoyance that he fell into a deeper circle of hellthan he would. But the young woman, that was interesting. She was very shy and so shesaid, you know, I was driving in the free way and I took the exit before my home anddrove into traffic and went into the dry cleaners where it was Wednesday and they havepromised me of my clothes my dry cleaning. On Wednesday I had it written down on thisreceipt and it was a oriental young woman there behind the counter and she looked at thereceipt and she said they are not ready and I - I said, "But it says here Wednesday" andshe said, Oh so sorry, tomorrow I will try. But it says Wednesday, what do you mean? Ohsorry, sorry and then she said suddenly I remember what Professor Needleman said. I saidhere I am, I am annoyed and suddenly an amazing thing happen. I suddenly I became twopeople. One I was a person who was angry and annoyed and another person who is justthere watching without any judgment, without any anger, just watching this happening inmyself deeply interested and very fine.And then she said this stunned thing that shook me, was so astonishing to me. She said, Ididn't know my mind could do that. Now what shook me about that was the possibilitythat are we raising a generation of human beings who do not know that this power of themind to simply step back from itself exists and that because that power is the seed, Ithink, of deep morality. To be able to disengage from your own personal self interest andthe emotions that support it, is the beginning, wouldn't you agree, is the beginning ofmorality. Otherwise morality very often is simply something that ego does, out ofconditioning or something the ordinary person does out of conditioning or out of out ofsome, and some instilled belief system which, thank God, we have that too becauseotherwise we would be in chaos. But real morality, deeper morality comes fromsomething much deeper inside of ourselves and that's the thesis of this book is that thatdeeper something is called conscience. And that is not this condition, socially conditionedsuper ego of the psychoanalyst, but an intrinsic capacity of the human being which, whenit speaks, it's very often, very painful. But we know what it is.So this young women said that, and that became to me, an example that why can't we begood? Can be? The question can be faced, can be explored, can be understood by seeingthat we cannot separate from this social self that we what they call the ego and theancient traditions or what we call, what they call something by the other name. And sothis simple experiment corresponding with the other one of listening leads to the deeperreflection of this whole matter, behavior later in the book I have discussed thisexperiment which has that has received a lot of attention recently.In 1961 Stanley Milgram experiment in which a man was told to press to give electricshocks, increasing electric shocks to a person. He thought was a real really goodantidote and because the authority of the lab of the scientist were there to tell him, keeppressing those things as part of the experiment. Keep delivering the shocks and sort of a -So this begins to connect. So what I I guess what I want to I want to open up forquestions now. About this this theme, this area we have disconnected ethics from thevision of human nature that the great traditions have asked, have provided. We havedisconnected to call it the problem of ethics from ideas about the world, about theuniverse, about the higher powers, about truth and beauty. Ideas which inspires certainfeeling and sense of awe and wonder which is very close to the feeling of love andmorality and we get disconnected ethics from and made it into something intellectual andthe intellectual part of the mind is only a part and that part of the mind is not built forvalues. It's built for seeing mechanisms. And in order to come to the inner being, the partwhich can really begin to feel once obligation to another person. One has to begin toseparate from oneself. And there you have touch a new feeling, a new power.I will give you one final example. Oh I am sorry, I am going to from a story that I tellwhich is to show you that ethics is a the capacity to care for another, to separate fromone's ego is an intrinsic part of human nature which is covered over by what we considerto be good in the cultural conditions we usually have around us and that has to do with ayoung man who was a student of mine and who is this was in Mexico and he was sittingaround the Christmas tree decorating it with his young son who was about five years old.And there was a knock on the door and it was a beggar, a boy, a young boy also aboutfive and that father and the son went to the door and the father saw that little boy and hesaid to his son give him one of your toys and they went back into the living room, leavingthe beggar at the door and that little boy picked up an old toy of his and the father saidand this is true story, the father said, no give him your favorite toy and the little boyresisted, of course, father was very firm but very gentle but firm. He said give him yourfavorite toy, the boy cried no. The father, give him your favorite so that little boy picks uphis favorite toy, new toy and he went to the door and the father waited for him in theliving room and a few minutes past, a few minutes past and that little boy came runningback into the living room with his eyes glowing, his face radiant saying daddy can I dothat again. So he discovered something that all that finger wagging can make youdiscover. He discovered that when you do separate from the egoistic element in your life,this other comes in and brings a joy that is far beyond which you receive when you justget things for yourself.