You mean procreation for the species to survive? It isn’t necessarily necessary for our own personal survival.
We can like sex for the sheer fun and pleaure of it.
There are situations where an untruth, a downright lie would be more essential for our survival.
We actually don’t like truth that much - delusions and fantasies allow us to be happy and comforted.
We run from the truth every chance we get.
Well then our engineering has failed hopelessly.
Maybe in some parallel universe but not on this planet, in this universe. We are definitely not hard-wired to take NO pleasure in delusion… we do it all the time ~ god, love, conspiracy theories, paranoia, illusions of grandeur, hubris, the Big Lie, shutting our eyes to the truth, et cetera.
Ofen our delusions have gotten us killed. Take the example of all of those passengers on that plane who were killed by the pilot who oh no there was nothing depressed about him - he was just fine - but he hid it well - so well that no one at all noticed his depression and downright insanity. All of those people who are hard-wired to take no pleasure in delusion didn’t give another thought about how appearances can be deceiving. You can definitely say that it was delusion - ours ~ which was responsbile for the lives of all of those human beings being destroyed, along with their familes.
Real consciousness can help us along though…
I think that you need to re-read the above and reflect on it. I can’t wrap my brain around it at all - it makes no sense to me - just nonsense. Perhaps there are others in here that are capable of “seeing” something which I am not and they might explain it to me…but I doubt it and certainly not in a way which I would/could ever affrm or confirm anyway. There seems to be no rhyme or clear reasoning here.
The difference between genuine pleasure and hedonistic pleasure is that genuine pleasure is given whereas hedonistic pleasure is selected. Genuine pleasure is a consequence (a product of indifference) whereas hedonistic pleasure is a goal (a product of neediness.)
It should be noted that hedonistic pleasure is not simply pleasure that is aimed for in the literal sense of the word. For example, if it is a consequence of a goal that has been selected (and that has not be given, by the interaction of one’s past with the present) then it’s still hedonistic.
The two types of hedonists, the type which directly aims for pleasure (the direct hedonist) and the type which indirectly aims for pleasure (the indirect hedonist) are different but only in superficial matters. In all essential matters they are ONE AND THE SAME TYPE.
Beware of the indirect hedonists who want to convince you they are not hedonists simply because they are different from direct hedonists . . .
But flow is indifference, not pleasure. Flow is not bound to any emotion, flow can be any emotion. Flow in happiness, flow in sadness, flow in anger, flow in calm, flow in love, flow in hatred . . .
Habitual is not the same as natural. Natural means in tune with one’s past, artificial means out of tune with one’s past (contradicting it.) Natural means genetic, artificial means memetic. Natural means total repetition of one’s past no matter how hurtful and dangerous it is, artificial means selective repetition of one’s past. The modern has the habit of equalizing habit with nature, but as I will show, that is a mistake.
Selective repetition of one’s past can become so habitual that the individual no longer realizes that he is repeating his past selectively and not totally. As far as he is concerned, the part of his past that is selectively repeated through his habits is all the past that he has, ignoring the huge chunks of his past that his habits are actively suppressing. This is how hedonists delude themselves into thinking they are loving themselves and being themselves.
In order to repeat one’s past in its entirety one has to do only one thing: nothing. To let past break into the present all one has to do is relax. But this relaxing must not be selective! One has to relax in the midst of the painful past. If one uses tension to disconnect from one’s past so that one can find place where one can relax with ease, then that would be excessive tension pretending to be release, and so, merely another kind of selectivity. Hedonists delude themselves because, lacking self-consciousness, they miss the fact their excessive release (their hedonistic pleasure) is a consequence of excessive tension. This is a movement away from simultaneity (tension and release not simultaneous) and towards temporal separation (tension and release separated, work/fun dichotomy) that I have mentioned earlier as one of the defining characteristics of nihilism.
So to answer Arc’s question: are Buddhists letting go? Are they controlling themselves or are they merely pretending to be controlling themselves? They are letting go, that’s true, and they do appear to be in control of themselves, but if you look closely you will see that in order for them to let go they must first disconnect from their past, they must find place where they can let go in peace, which is why they are spending most of their time doing nothing, the opposite of the way their ancestors spent their time. Letting go must be rhythmic, which is to say, it must happen during the painful/strenuous past/activity. If you have to disconnect from your past in order to let go, then the only kind of tension you will be releasing is the one which was created by the effort to disconnect.
.
That would depend on whether the habit flows naturally or is forced. Habitual MAY BE natural.
If a man or woman works in his/her garden every day, that is habitual - at the same time, it may also be natural or free-flowing.
Different words can harmonize.
Why would use those two words in describing the mood/emotion or frame of mind of one’s past? Why not keep them in the present?
But I suppose I know what you mean. To a certain degree, I intuit that many if not most of us have some kind of disharmony with our pasts.
Are you speaking here of repeating the same patterns and not learning that there is a better way, thereby dissolving those patterns which become embedded in the brain through force of habit?
.
As for the first part of that, you can’t really know that. After all, there is memory ~ we are aware of our past, I mean, we remember unless we do choose to suppress parts of it…by not remembering.
Alright, you are speaking here of the hedonist, right, and how his seeking after inordinate pleasure is as a result of emotions and memories suppressed - is that what you’re saying? But there are degrees of that and one doesn’t have to be a hedonist, per se, in order to BE in such a way.
Okay, you just confirmed that for me. lol
Do you think that that thought is actually going on in their brains - that they are loving themselves and being themselves?
Perhaps it is simply for the love of inordinate pleasure - to make their selves happy. I can see them blocking out the pain with the pleasure but is their conscious awareness that of loving themselve? Could you label an addict or alcoholic as a hedonist? Do you think that they think in terms of loving their selves?
.
I’m not sure what you mean by the above ~~ in order to do the above, wouldn’t you say that there has to be a lot of struggle and inner conflict? I think that it also takes hard work to live unconsciously.
.
Not to assume, by this do you mean to let the past dissolve and live in the present?
.
Yes, one has to be able to relax. I’m not sure what you mean by it “must not be selective”. One might “select” as it were, to reflect on one’s past, to see how this or that behavior is continued. But I agree with you. Things cannot be forced. Simply observing, non-judgmentally is a good way to come to consciousness in a non-tense way ~~ also forgiving ourselves for our past, for our own stupidity or forgiving others for the part they play. Not to speak so personally here, but I’ve had to do that a great deal in coming to terms with my past. And I do agree with you - things can’t be forced. It’s like Siddharta sitting under the tree by the river lol - just observing that river and how it flows, that river of life. Okay… I know this is about the hedonist. Hope I haven’t derailed this thread.
Yes, it could be that TOO. I remember saying somewhere too that perhaps the hedonist is not capable of experiencing pleasure within the same threashold and degree as those who are not hedonists, if that made sense.
I was going to delete this because I can’t understand it but instead I’ll go in search of where you speak about it.
I was basically speaking of buddhist monks there but even with or without speaking of monks or lay buddhists, I don’t know where you get the impression that they sit around doing nothing. Buddhist monks - just as christian monks [whoever] do not live sedentary lives ~~ they have things/chores, interests, responsibilities ~ whatever ~ which they must do. Do you really believe that they sit around all day just meditating? Even meditation is not such an easy thing to do…releasing yourself into the present moment. Anyway, when you thing about it, isn’t that where we must always live? That’s all there is.
It isn’t so much disconnecting from their past, per se, but in “living” in mindfulness with the present moment albeit that does sound like disconnecting from their past but not in the sense of running from it or suppressing it.
You might want to give me an example of this. Unless what you’re saying here is to be the nihilist - in that moment of pain, simply dissolve and detach because you see no true meaning in it - it IS the past, if that made sense.
He is a poor writer but what he said was not at all shrouded in mystery, only shrouded in much text. I consider him foolish in some ways, for example he says that “we can treat suffering people like shit” and that “sadism is good because pleasure is good” but his core argument can be condensed into one paragraph.
“Pleasure is the only real value. Pleasure is an absolute, a concept. One could say they do not desire “pleasure” but they only say this because their notion of such pleasure is a pain to them. One could say that pleasure turns into pain, and that pain turns into pleasure, but such a thing would just be humanized labels. For in the abstraction, which is actually the concrete, the absolute pleasure would be both the things labeled “pleasure” and “pain”, if such a man gained joy from things labeled “pain”. If a man hated “joy” itself, then joy would not be absolute pleasure. If a man were to say that a utopia is not pleasure but pain, it is because their notion of utopia is not utopia for them, but someone else’s utopia which is not their true utopia. Thus, pleasure as an abstraction (which is the concrete) is the thing that all lifeforms should strive for.”
.
So what are you seeing here? That anything done which does not lead to pleasure or done knowing it will not lead to pleasure, has no value? Your quote seems quite hedonistic.
.
It’s more than that. It’s also a reality, part of the human experience.
I have no problem myself with admitting that i desire pleasure. Without it, we might all be killing ourselves. Pleasure is necessary for the species to survive, to want to survive. It’s not a terrible thing, a negative, to seek pleasure unless it’s inordinate and an obsession in one’s life. There are degrees to everything, Trixie.
.
Masochistic emotional pain may turn into a pleasurable experience, in a certain way.
I have experienced the pleasure which can turn to pain. Perhaps it simply comes down to a sense of being overwhelmed. The mind and body need their catharsis.
.
They both come from the same source, the brain.
Hmmmm, if I lost my children, I would not cosider that absolute pleasure. I think one needs to dive into the nature of things…deeper.
Think of something which causes you or would cause you great pain - would you actually consider that to be pleasurable or to be the absolute pleasure? Not me.
.
If a man hated joy, he would be a pessimist or highly depressed.
Maybe that man would be seeking after more balance. Too much pleasure can eventually cause pain by reason of after having lost that pleasure, he becomes empty and then must go seek after it again. It becomes a vicious circle for him or her. Everything needs balance.
You are meaning-making and putting things in were not put by me. HIs philosophy is basic that is why I paraphrased it for you. Do not direct such feelings to me, I am well aware that it logically follows that pleasure is not the only value, lorem ipsum and shit is 2000 years old.
As for your family dying, that is more meaning making from the peanut gallery. If such a thing is pain to you then it would not be absolute pleasure now would it. You seem to be half-aware of this yet feel the need to fuss about questions you already half understand.
You already half understand it. What you do not understand is how the concept of paraphrasing someone’s elses views and submitting them as a condensed paragraph labeled in their name, means that such views are not necessarily the full picture and rarely the full picture of the paraphraser’s views.
[b][32] But I must explain to you how all this mistaken idea of denouncing of a pleasure and praising pain was born and I will give you a complete account of the system, and expound the actual teachings of the great explorer of the truth, the master-builder of human happiness. No one rejects, dislikes, or avoids pleasure itself, because it is pleasure, but because those who do not know how to pursue pleasure rationally encounter consequences that are extremely painful. Nor again is there anyone who [b]loves or pursues or desires to obtain pain of itself, because it is pain, but occasionally circumstances occur in which toil and pain can procure him some great pleasure. To take a trivial example, which of us ever undertakes laborious physical exercise, except to obtain some advantage from it? But who has any right to find fault with a man who chooses to enjoy a pleasure that has no annoying consequences, or one who avoids a pain that produces no resultant pleasure?
[33] On the other hand, we denounce with righteous indignation and dislike men who are so beguiled and demoralized by the charms of pleasure of the moment, so blinded by desire, that they cannot foresee the pain and trouble that are bound to ensue; and equal blame belongs to those who fail in their duty through weakness of will, which is the same as saying through shrinking from toil and pain. These cases are perfectly simple and easy to distinguish. In a free hour, when our power of choice is untrammeled and when nothing prevents our being able to do what we like best, every pleasure is to be welcomed and every pain avoided. But in certain circumstances and owing to the claims of duty or the obligations of business it will frequently occur that pleasures have to be repudiated and annoyances accepted. The wise man therefore always holds in these matters to this principle of selection: he rejects pleasures to secure other greater pleasures, or else he endures pains to avoid worse pains.[/b]
Depends on what sect. Some buddhists are do-nothings, other’s are do-gooders. Some buddhists say fuck-all to the world others wish to enlighten people.
In general they are trying to drop the ego completely, not just have an ego in good times and disconnect in bad times. The goal is to be a bit schizophrenic or like Patrick Star where you just say and do things. It seemed that it worked for Mr. Chris Weber but maybe he is a lucky Joe. Egoless schizophrenics don’t seem to be too blissful, and old mr. Buddha’s last words don’t offer a lot of clarity as to what happened to him after he died. Laughing Buddha indeed. His statement suggests he ended his cycle of rebirth, yet many Buddhist’s claim that there are several reincarnation. Buddhism seems less of a religion, and more of a spiritual mysticsm, where you have to find your own path (or rather, the path finds itself.)
Well then our engineering has failed hopelessly.
Even meditation is not such an easy thing to do…releasing yourself into the present moment. Anyway, when you thing about it, isn’t that where we must always live? That’s all there is.