Compassion vs Absorption: A Boundary You Can Actually Use

Compassion vs Absorption: A Boundary You Can Actually Use

Most people don’t struggle with compassion.

They struggle with absorption.

Compassion is:

“I care about what you feel.”

Absorption is:

“I feel what you feel, and now it’s mine to carry.”

At first, absorption can look like kindness.

It can look like love.

It can look like loyalty.

But over time it produces a predictable outcome:

  • exhaustion
  • resentment
  • confusion
  • loss of self
  • loss of clarity
  • loss of freedom

And often, the person who absorbs the most ends up being the least stable.

So the goal isn’t to become cold.

The goal is to become bounded.

This post is about how to do that in a way that actually works in real life.

The Core Difference (One Sentence)

Here is the cleanest definition I’ve found:

Compassion is presence without ownership.
Absorption is ownership without permission.

Compassion says:

“I’m here with you.”

Absorption says:

“I must fix this, hold this, or prevent this.”

Why Absorption Happens (It’s Usually Not a Choice)

Absorption isn’t usually a moral failure.

It’s a learned strategy.

Many people learned early in life that:

  • emotions were dangerous
  • conflict was punished
  • someone else’s mood controlled the house
  • safety required predicting others
  • being “good” meant being responsible for everyone

So the nervous system builds a habit:

“If I carry their emotional state, I stay safe.”

This is not compassion.

It’s threat management.

A Practical Test: “Can I Stay Me While You Feel That?”

This is the real boundary question.

When someone is upset, ask yourself:

Can I stay myself while they feel what they feel?

If the answer is yes, you’re in compassion.

If the answer is no — if you start collapsing, fawning, fixing, appeasing, explaining, or freezing — you’re in absorption.

Compassion preserves two people.

Absorption erases one.

The Three Levels of Engagement (A Simple Ladder)

Here is a simple ladder you can use in real time:

Level 1 — Witness (Low cost)

This is:

  • listening
  • acknowledging
  • reflecting back
  • not rushing to solutions

Example phrases:

  • “That sounds painful.”
  • “I can see why that hit you.”
  • “I’m here.”

This is often enough.

Level 2 — Support (Medium cost)

This is:

  • helping them think
  • offering a small practical step
  • asking what they need

Example phrases:

  • “Do you want comfort or solutions?”
  • “What would help most right now?”
  • “Do you want me to help you plan the next step?”

Support is still not ownership.

Level 3 — Rescue (High cost)

This is:

  • taking responsibility for their emotional stability
  • trying to fix their feelings
  • managing their relationships
  • over-functioning so they don’t have to

Rescue feels loving, but it often creates dependency.

And it quietly communicates:

“You can’t handle life without me.”

Rescue also destroys your nervous system over time.

So rescue should be rare, time-bound, and chosen.

Not automatic.

The “Internal Alarm” That Tricks You Into Absorption

Many people absorb because they feel an internal alarm:

  • guilt
  • urgency
  • fear
  • obligation
  • shame

It often sounds like:

  • “If I don’t fix this, I’m selfish.”
  • “If they’re upset, I’m in danger.”
  • “If they’re disappointed, I’m wrong.”
  • “If I don’t carry this, I’m failing.”

That alarm is not love.

It’s conditioning.

Compassion doesn’t require panic.

The Boundary Script (Short and Realistic)

A boundary doesn’t have to be aggressive.

It just has to be true.

Here are examples that work in real life:

When someone is venting endlessly

  • “I care about you. I can listen for 10 minutes, then I need to reset.”

When someone wants you to fix their situation

  • “I’m happy to support you, but I can’t take ownership of this.”

When someone is emotionally flooding you

  • “I want to stay connected, but I’m getting overwhelmed. Can we slow down?”

When someone is using guilt

  • “I understand you’re upset. I’m still saying no.”

When you’re tempted to over-explain

  • “I don’t need you to agree. I just need you to hear me.”

These are not cold statements.

They are stabilising statements.

A Hidden Trap: Caring About People’s Outcomes

Sometimes absorption isn’t about emotions.

It’s about outcomes.

You start carrying:

  • their life choices
  • their mistakes
  • their responsibilities
  • their lack of planning
  • their consequences

This often shows up as:

“If they fail, I feel responsible.”

But that isn’t compassion.

That’s overreach.

Compassion says:

“I care about you even if you choose badly.”

Absorption says:

“I must prevent you choosing badly.”

The “Two-Hand Rule” (A Simple Visual)

This is a useful mental picture:

  • One hand is your life
  • One hand is their life

Compassion means:

  • you can reach out with one hand
  • while keeping your other hand on your own centre

Absorption means:

  • both hands leave your own centre
  • and you start holding their life up
  • while yours collapses

A stable person helps without losing themselves.

A Faith-Based Lens (Simple and Clean)

A Christian framing that helps here is:

Love is not self-erasure.

You can love someone deeply without carrying what belongs to them.

There is a difference between:

  • sacrifice (freely chosen love)
  • self-erasure (fear-driven compliance)

Real love requires freedom.

And freedom requires boundaries.

The “After” Check (To Know If You Did It Right)

After a difficult interaction, ask:

  1. Do I feel more clear, or more foggy?
  2. Do I feel peaceful tiredness, or drained panic?
  3. Do I feel resentment building?
  4. Did I stay honest?
  5. Did I take ownership of what wasn’t mine?

Compassion usually produces a clean tiredness.

Absorption produces fog, agitation, resentment, and collapse.

Final Thought

Compassion is not “feeling everything”.

Compassion is the strength to stay present without being pulled under.

If you absorb other people, you will eventually become unstable.

But if you become bounded, you become reliable.

And reliability is one of the greatest forms of love.

Because it means:

“I can be here with you… without disappearing.”

​

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Validation vs. Valuation

Validation vs. Valuation I recently found myself reflecting on the difference between validation and valuation , and I realised that although the words are often used interchangeably, they point to very different things. Validation, at its simplest and most innocent, is a form of support in the moment. It says: you’re seen , you’re heard , you’re not alone right now . In practical terms, validation is important — we validate work to ensure it’s safe, correct, or fit for purpose. In relationships, it can be reassuring and kind. But validation has a shadow side. When validation becomes something I need in order to feel whole — when my sense of self depends on it — it quietly shifts from support into something corrosive. In its more sinister form, validation can become manipulation, or an inadvertent tapping into a core wound: without your approval, I don’t exist . At that point, validation no longer supports identity — it erodes it. Valuation is something else entirely. Valuation ...
Read more

AMS Guide Part 1 — Charter and Purpose

AMS Guide Part 1 — Charter and Purpose 1. What This Guide Is This document is a companion guide to the Aetheric Magnetic Substrate (AMS) Ontology . Its purpose is to: explain the ontology in plain but accurate language reduce cognitive load for readers encountering the ideas for the first time provide intuition, metaphors, and narrative scaffolding allow readers to grasp what the ontology is doing without needing to adopt its formal vocabulary immediately The guide is not the ontology itself. It does not replace formal definitions or axioms. It exists to make them understandable . 2. Intended Audience Primary Audience Readers with: a genuine interest in science and how the physical world works some familiarity with scientific ideas and language curiosity rather than professional obligation A good mental model is: A regular reader of a BBC science magazine, Scientific American–style articles, or long-form popular science writing. This reader: is not a practi...
Read more

Newton, Einstein, and Gravity Revisited Through the Aetheric Magnetic Substrate

Newton, Einstein, and Gravity Revisited Through the Aetheric Magnetic Substrate I recently watched a video titled “There Is Something Faster Than Light.” The specifics of the argument aren’t the point here. What caught my attention was the familiar framing that followed: Newton versus Einstein, non-local versus local gravity, classical intuition versus modern physics. This framing is common. It’s also misleading. What follows is not a critique of either Newton or Einstein, but an attempt to understand what they were actually observing , why their descriptions differed, and how those observations can be unified under a single, coherent ontology — the Aetheric Magnetic Substrate (AMS) . Newton: Gravity as Non-Local Action Newton’s law of gravitation is often caricatured as “action at a distance,” and historically, Newton himself was uneasy with that implication. From a modern perspective, Newtonian gravity is described as non-local : Two masses influence one another instantly N...
Read more