Karpal,
If the satisfaction is temporary, stemming from a want or desire, then why attach to desires? Is that still logical to want something you may never have or to attach self to something of which is temporary? When ones life is already temporary? No, it isn’t logical, it’s the creation of unnecessary pain and resistance. So when a desire is not fulfilled, is that typically painful to bare? Yes. So then why attach to it from the beginning? If you do not attach yourself to desire, you are free of its pain, you are not controlled by it. It depends on if you attach to the desire or not for it to be a motivator, just because I /want/ a guitar doesn’t mean I am motivated to go get one, that’s the killing of attachment to desires satisfaction, which the satisfaction is illusory due to leading back to pain/fear anyways.
Which is the point I am trying to make.
There is a reason for what we need often being more painful than what we desire. Because a lesson and pain, isn’t based off of illusory satisfaction that disappears as soon as you get it. Attachment to desires do such. One can desire without attachment, this is free will executed. A chosen desire with acceptance of what it is.
I advocate balance by choice, however.
I say we may learn via a priori now, I didn’t state why. The reason why is due to the subconscious and unconscious string of experiencing of an infinite amount, a string of change that we are attached to (but did not directly experience outside of our own individual life)of all that was and all there is to come, yes a dog would avoid it because of instincts, a priori isn’t based off of avoiding something due to an instinct resulting from direct experience, it’s based off of conscious logical deducing, so that’s the first issue with your argument about dogs.
Dogs aren’t as evolved as humans. The dogs and subconscious animals are also attached to this string we are attached to of which leads up to this point now, they are just much farther behind. Tide pods weren’t around when I was a child and I certainly never had anyone tell me not to eat laundry detergent and never would need to, I can logically deduce on my own, not to eat it, it isn’t for eating. Nothing instinctual about it, don’t need observation or experience to understand not to. If I did, I wouldn’t be able to make fun of those who /do/ eat tide pods.
A lot of what I type here, I learned from a priori, of which branches back into a posteriori that I do not have to directly experience, the past experience, which is embedded into our being and genetics, it is merely memory. What do you think instincts are? A warning of a past a posteriori experience, the separation between us and them is that we may logically deduce, which isn’t instinct or based off of such, without being controlled by instincts fully. So to access this past a posteriori memory, through a priori now, are you implying we have to do so through an instinct? Like dogs? Then what’s the point of logic?
I didn’t observe experiments or experience the beginning of the universe personally or directly, to which I may logically/reasonably conclude a change occurred of which started a string of instinctive reactions that grew more complex and still continues, leading up to now. Yet at the same time, I am attached to the string of which was the development and experience of such, which I can consciously think of using a priori and am attached to. We are embedded with an infinity and so now we may understand it through logic. That’s what consciousness is, that is the freedom of will. Dogs are on their way but significantly behind us for now.
We also can learn from a posteriori to a higher extent than dogs, like you stated as well