We Are All The Same

[Borachio]

.

After having spent several months meditating and contemplating how our minds work it all makes a lot more sense to me. .

It sounds like you have a good handle on this. No doubt you know as well as anyone what you're doing.

I think the meditation and contemplation practice should vastly predominate. But I am naturally very cautious in my old age.

 

[Traitorfish]

I think you're wrong in differentiating these "subjects" from one another in the first place, because they're fundamentally the exact same thing.

For instance when we say pain is bad, why is it bad? Well because it produces suffering in our minds. Why is that? Well because our minds have decided that it is bad? Well why did they decide that? Well because...oh wait.

So we can say that suffering should objectively be avoided, because it is the very definition of that which should be avoided. But we have to realize that suffering comes ultimately only from ourselves.

I strongly disagree with the bolded. "Suffering" is an abstraction which we construct through reflection upon specific incidences of suffering, it is not prior to that experience.

A mouse does not appear to be capable of entertaining as complex an abstraction as "suffering", yet a mouse is quite demonstrably capable of suffering; how is this possible, if we must imagine that we suffer before we suffer?

You're right, I was wrong in saying that there is no objective meaning to anything. Suffering is something which we, the one, can obviously experience, and it is obviously something which we shouldn't experience.

Why is it obvious? To say that we "should not" experience suffering is to make a claim as to the meaning of suffering, when you have already rejected the possibility of meaning. It seems to me that the only general claim you can make without losing coherence is that suffering occurs.

I don't think it's very useful to talk in terms of "responsibility", but yeah sure.

That still doesn't make it ok or logical to attempt to create suffering in others.

There you go objectivising again. What does it matter if something is regarded as "okay" or "logical", any more than whether it's "good" or "enjoyable"? It's all just illusions that we've thrown up.

And, for that matter, if suffering is all in our heads, how can we cause it in others? All we can do is produced yet more incoherent sense-data, and if they chose to interpret that as "suffering", well, that's their choice, isn't it?

 

[civver_764]

I strongly disagree with the bolded. "Suffering" is an abstraction which we construct through reflection upon specific incidences of suffering, it is not prior to that experience.

A mouse does not appear to be capable of entertaining as complex an abstraction as "suffering", yet a mouse is quite demonstrably capable of suffering; how is this possible, if we must imagine that we suffer before we suffer?

Why would a mouse not be capable of that? I don't see any reason to assume they aren't, mice clearly feel pain and their minds are clearly conditioned to identify that pain as bad. And so they suffer. Just because they can't necessarily become aware of what their mind is doing there doesn't mean it isn't happening.

Why is it obvious? To say that we "should not" experience suffering is to make a claim as to the meaning of suffering, when you have already rejected the possibility of meaning. It seems to me that the only general claim you can make without losing coherence is that suffering occurs.

You're right, when I rejected the possibility of meaning I was getting ahead of myself. Whatever we are, it seems that we can exist in states which we don't desire. So there is a meaning to suffering and it seems to be the very act of not wanting something. It is obvious that we should not experience suffering simply because that's the definition of it.

There you go objectivising again. What does it matter if something is regarded as "okay" or "logical", any more than whether it's "good" or "enjoyable"? It's all just illusions that we've thrown up.

I don't reject that peace of mind is better than suffering. That would presuppose that there exists another level of abstraction beyond this consciousness that we are experiencing.

And, for that matter, if suffering is all in our heads, how can we cause it in others? All we can do is produced yet more incoherent sense-data, and if they chose to interpret that as "suffering", well, that's their choice, isn't it?

We can't cause suffering in others, but we can make it more likely that they will suffer and we can definitely have the intention of making them suffer.

I'm curious anyways though, besides your objections to what I'm saying, how do you personally explain the existence of consciousness and suffering?\

I think the meditation and contemplation practice should vastly predominate. But I am naturally very cautious in my old age.

Yes of course. I try(unsuccessfully sadly) to remain in a state of meditation at all times.

 

[Borachio]

Don't pain and pleasure have an important role in influencing behaviour, in the absence of full self-consciousness.

The Buddhists claim suffering is caused by ignorance. Has this view got any mileage?

 

[civver_764]

Don't pain and pleasure have an important role in influencing behaviour, in the absence of full self-consciousness.

Within a biological context. What we should remember is that there is nothing inherently good about the fact that life developed.

The Buddhists claim suffering is caused by ignorance. Has this view got any mileage?

I'd say so. I agree with most of what Buddhism says.

 

[Borachio]

What we should remember is that there is nothing inherently good about the fact that life developed.

.

This is a novel idea, to me.

 

[hobbsyoyo]

Within a biological context. What we should remember is that there is nothing inherently good about the fact that life developed.

Says the guy who exists and presumably likes this fact.

 

[Terxpahseyton]

This is a novel idea, to me.

Well it is a bit like cheating because it comes from a perspective where nothing is inherently valuable. It basically is an elaborate way to say "You just human."

 

[civver_764]

This is a novel idea, to me.

Well what is life, really? It's a bunch of matter that gained the ability to replicate itself and developed the ability to suffer when certain conditions favorable to that replication are not met.

 

[_random_]

Jenseits von Gut und Böse, Also Sprach Zarathustra, Die Geburt der Tragödie, Götzen-Dämmerung, and Ecce Homo. The first and second are probably the most useful for understanding Nietzsche core concepts like the eternal recurrence and the Overman. The third is a formulation of his Apollonian/Dionysian dichotomy. The fourth and fifth are introductions to and reformulations of his previous work. Ecce Homo also contains Nietzsche-style humor, which is kind of fun.

Most importantly, though, read commentaries on Nietzsche. Attempting to parse what he has to say without reference to scholarly opinion is folly. Start with Kaufmann, but note that several other authors and philosophers have further developed Nietzsche interpretation.

[Intercourse] all.

Thanks, I'll try to get around to that soon (I probably won't). I am a bit curious how your interest and knowledge of Nietzsche developed.

 

[GoodGame]

Yes I did pass biology in school. I am a human animal. So?

Not all animals are so lucky to possess self-awareness and contemplation.

 

[civver_764]

Not all animals are so lucky to possess self-awareness and contemplation.

I really don't think it's something they lose sleep over.

 

[Dachs]

Thanks, I'll try to get around to that soon (I probably won't). I am a bit curious how your interest and knowledge of Nietzsche developed.

A long time ago, I had occasion to acquire Jenseits von Gut und Böse for free. Read it cover-to-cover. Absolutely loved it. Still one of my favorite books. Aphorism 153 is still one of my favorite quotes. And so on, and so forth. For several months after that, I did whatever I could to further my up-to-date academic understanding of Nietzschean philosophy. Still got most of the flotsam of that effort, too.

 

[Ayatollah So]

It's illogical to thing[k] that a certain arrangement of non-conscious particles could create consciousness.

Calling the particles "non-conscious" seems like a straw man. If the arrangement matters, the particles sometimes participate in/constitute consciousness, sometimes not - depending on the arrangement. The idea isn't that the particles are inherently unconscious.

 

[King Kalmah]

You do know that Nietzsche went insane in the end right? I wouldn't put all my eggs in that basketcase.

But seriously, he did have some good ideas. It'd be nice if more philosophers looked at things a bit more rationally and less emotionally.

Well those that understand the human mind might become overwelmed by it...the more I learn about myself and my "inner being" the more I'm feeling aware of all these "different" people running around in me....

As far as religion is concerned I have always felt it just tells you to submit and not question yourself since God in the end will "fix" all your faults...right?

Seriously...there is a voice of reason(logic) and a child(happiness) within us all(religion or not)...

The Buddhists claim suffering is caused by ignorance. Has this view got any mileage?

Well it depends...I remember being told by a coworker the happiest people he ever saw was a wife and husband walking to the market in Bulgaria back in the early 80's.Now we as intellectuals will assume they are simple farmers dumb as sheep,but they were "happy".

How ever true suffering is relative...to the Intellectual out there going without books or intelligent conversation is true suffering...

The lover who spends his/her life alone is true suffering for that person...

The poor farmer's crops dying and his family having to go without food...that is true suffering...

Ignorance is relative to the situation...I am ignorant of how to solve the Economy crisis so we all suffer....

 

[_random_]

we as intellectuals

Oh god can we please open this up again please?

 

[Birdjaguar]

Consciousness exists in all things. It's illogical to thing that a certain arrangement of non-conscious particles could create consciousness.

If as you say, consciousness is all that is Real, then one could assume that "particles" and anything they make, would also be, in fact, of that same consciousness and that consciousness an inherent part of their more finite existence. there is no creation of consciousness. It is, was and will be, all.

Calling the particles "non-conscious" seems like a straw man. If the arrangement matters, the particles sometimes participate in/constitute consciousness, sometimes not - depending on the arrangement. The idea isn't that the particles are inherently unconscious.

Yes.

 

[Joecoolyo]

So at what point exactly was it decided that a mind can be true?

That is not how I read you. That is what I found in what I read.

If you're just going to belittle me, I'm not going to respond.

What makes you say this? Do you have any personal experience or medical expertise on the subject?

Actually what happens is that these substances remove barriers that our mind has placed up. It forces us to confront what has really been true the whole time. I'm not saying that it will always result in ego death for everyone, but it always shares this underlying. Other times my thoughts simply stopped working in the context of what I thought to be true, and all that was there were little fragments of thoughts, the basic ideas that I formed my thoughts with everyday. Sometimes these realizations can even be very scary for people.

You're making the assumption that our minds operate in a normal or optimal way on a day-to-day basis and that anything which deviates from that is just "screwing with it." That's seeing things from a very limited point of view.

Yeah, they do. They operate the way they're designed too. What you're doing with drugs is you're introducing foreign substances and chemicals that alter the way the brain is normally meant to function. This in turn confuses the brain, who attempts to make sense of all these new chemicals and ends up really strange results, because, well, the brain isn't designed to deal with them.

Name a drug and a quick Google search will let me tell you exactly how you're messing with the brain by inducing those chemicals.

 

[GoodGame]

I really don't think it's something they lose sleep over.

I concur.

 

[_random_]

Yeah, they do. They operate the way they're designed too. What you're doing with drugs is you're introducing foreign substances and chemicals that alter the way the brain is normally meant to function. This in turn confuses the brain, who attempts to make sense of all these new chemicals and ends up really strange results, because, well, the brain isn't designed to deal with them.

Name a drug and a quick Google search will let me tell you exactly how you're messing with the brain by inducing those chemicals.

Hey man you should visit this website called erowid and you'll learn about how you can see the world better that way and maybe read Doors of Perception because a friend loaned it to me and it seems legit.

Spoiler :

Fake stoner persona aside, I'm not sure this argument is entirely valid. I'd say I perceive things more truly wearing my glasses, even if I'm not "designed" that way. Of course, you still have in that the idea that average human perception is the best perception