Apathy
"That which is injurious loses its capacity to harm when it is brought into the light."
- David Hawkins
While I do not agree with all of the ideas espoused by the late philosopher David Hawkins, there is some merit to his conception of apathy.
Hawkins believed that apathy was simply a belief that "I can't" (1). The apathetic person justified their inaction by saying "It's no use," or "Who cares," or "It's boring." Apathy is usually accompanied by discouragement, helplessness, loneliness, and a sense of disconnection.
Hawkins did not believe that apathy was inherent to any person, but that it was programmed from birth. It originated in the early childhood years as a result of exposure to the negative conceptions introduced by certain family members, teachers, and playmates, as well as negative information from newspapers, television, and movies, not to mention fear-inducing proclamations from authoritative political and religious figures. In all cases, a child was exposed to the idea that the world was inherently unsafe, violent, and cruel, at a time when they had no ability to sift out the facts for themselves.
|
David Hawkins. |
The result was a state of apathy, a sort of defense mechanism against all the perceived unsafe, violent, and cruel aspects of the world. Maybe the apathy helped the person as a child. But it came with a terrible price later in life. The adult continued to believe that the world was inherently dangerous, where travelling to certain countries equated to getting robbed, or being taken hostage, or being exposed to a catastrophic world-ending virus. So why bother going to some places at all? Why bother analyzing the facts themselves? The apathy kept that person small, allowed them to remain a victim in an inherently "dangerous" world. It prevented them from exploring parts of themselves that were courageous and great.
Most of all, it kept the person thinking of themselves in a negative context...which is a shame, for the world can only see us as we see ourselves.
"Can't" Versus "Won't"
In most cases, apathy itself is a mere cover-up for a negative feeling, particularly fear. For example, if one has a fear of being submerged underwater, it is far easier to ignore the fear by convincing one's self that "It's no use learning to scuba-dive," or "Who cares about diving," or "It's boring." The apathetic state covers up the fear. Yet apathy is even worse than fear. The latter at least supplies the person with energy, which might be useful if applied correctly. By contrast, apathy stifles one's will and smothers the ability to act.
For it is not that the person is incapable of going underwater, it is that they are afraid to even try and so they have convinced themselves that they don't care. Thus, apathy is a choice in which a person is convinced that they "can't" do a thing, when the reality is they simply "won't" do that thing. This can prevent one from discovering a new world, or a true joy in life (as I can attest to, for the example above is a personal one). It can also prevent a person from doing what one knows to be the right thing, and through inaction one can be manipulated by others.
In truth, most "I can'ts" in life are really "I won'ts." When a person says to themselves or others "I can't" do a thing, they have bought into a state of apathy that prevents them from facing down a negative feeling about that thing. If the truth of this statement seems difficult to accept, pose the following question to yourself the next time you think you can't do something: "Is it true that I can't, or is it more that I won't?" Even better, every time you say to yourself "I can't," replace it with "I won't." See how things look now.
|
The price of apathy. |
The difference is this: "I won't" means that one has made a choice, and with that comes the realization that one is not doing something out of a lack of capacity, but out of a lack of willingness. A lack of willingness that masks an unaddressed negative feeling, usually some sort of fear.
Getting into the habit of saying "I won't" rather than "I can't" in life unearths these negative feelings, which can then be analyzed and addressed properly.
Letting Go
It can be argued that all feelings are merely survival programs that the mind believes are necessary for one reason or another. Negative feelings are accumulated from birth. Some of them may have been useful at one time or another. Yet they become maladaptive later; if not brought into the light, they control the actions of the adult.
Negative feelings such as fear (and grief, anger, and desire) are like a constant pressure, a weight that constantly bears a person down. They can be overwhelming, and make it seem as though one is not in control. But it’s not true, for you are not your feelings. They are separate things. The feelings are not the real you, the real you is merely a witness to them. With practice, one can learn to become the witness, observing one's feelings rather than than identifying with them on an emotional level.
Recognizing this crucial distinction can allow a person to let go of negative feelings. Hawkins describes a simple technique for this called Letting Go, which consists of (1) letting a feeling come up, (2) staying with it, without trying to change it or do anything about it, and (3) letting it run its course until it disappears. The technique allows the feeling to be there while the negative energy behind it is released, however long that takes. Any associated negative thoughts are ignored, as they are just rationalizations of the mind to explain the feeling. If the negative feeling is released, the thoughts disappear too. Letting Go means dropping judgement of negative feelings, seeing that they are just feelings, nothing more. They are not you.
|
Letting Go: The Pathway of Surrender. |