|
Post by andrew on Feb 12, 2018 7:27:07 GMT -5
I'm not quite sure exactly what you are telling me. Are you telling me that the intuitive and instinctive sense that a baby or animal is suffering is wrong? To me, that is actually spirituality gone wrong, because you are having to argue or 'distance' yourself from something that is inescapably evident. Hey, I have no issues with talking about a particular kind of human struggle, but wholly disagree with the hijacking of the definition of 'suffering' so that babies and animals in pain is now no problem. Not only does it ignore the physiological benefit of 'suffering' which says 'take action', but the moral implications are horrendous. You see, the consequence of recognizing suffering in another, is that YOU will suffer too, at least a bit...and of course, who wants to suffer? I'm sure you don't. But in my opinion, spirituality is about accepting all of life, and at the moment, that includes the suffering of babies and animals. That acceptance isn't going to eliminate the suffering, but there is a directness to the acceptance, and it creates the opportunity for intelligent responses. And that's the agenda, but in order to understand suffering, we have to set the agendas to the side and see what's really going on. I agree. I'm challenging your agenda to hijack and assassinate the definition of 'suffering' to suit your own interest in avoiding experiencing suffering which you intuitively recognize in sentient beings of all kinds. No one wants to suffer, but the spiritual way is to embrace all that we are, and that includes our capacity and potential to suffer. Nothing is eliminated in the spiritual journey, though our interests, values and focus may change in such way that even when there is suffering, there may be peace, or love or even joy.
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Feb 12, 2018 7:31:08 GMT -5
No, suffering is the result of pain. It is the suffering that prompts action. Eating too much, pain in belly, slight suffering, stop eating. If pain always results in suffering, the word 'pain' can also be used to refer to suffering, and the suffering word becomes obsolete. That's how assassinations work. No, pain is the sensation, suffering is the feeling. We don't respond to sensations, we respond to the feelings that come with it. For example, if you run a scalding hot tap, and sense that with your hand, you respond to it because of the felt suffering that comes with the sensation. If you eat a fiery chilli, you sense it with your taste buds, but then you respond by spitting it out because of the felt sensation. Though humans are an odd bunch because sometimes we find value and purpose in pain and suffering, so we have things like 'hot chilli eating competitions' which can be highly amusing. It's the human folly again!
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Feb 12, 2018 7:32:51 GMT -5
[/b]unconscious sense of itself, and therefore although pain is experienced differently by babies (to older humans), there is still an apparent sufferer. [/quote]A sense of self is not a 'me' structure in the mind. A sense of self does not lead to suffering. Your premise was that ''pain is just sensation until it is attached to a 'me' structure and it becomes suffering''. I'm saying that GIVEN that premise, the baby must be suffering because there IS a 'me' structure, just not an abstract conceptual structure.
We are moved to comfort simply because we believe it is suffering because it is acting like we do when we suffer. I'm suggesting we're missing something about how suffering happens. [/quote] Well it would be interesting to see if one would be moved to provide comfort to an AI robot when they demonstrated that they were responding to pain. [/quote] ------------------------------------------ Andy:Your premise was that ''pain is just sensation until it is attached to a 'me' structure and it becomes suffering''. I'm saying that GIVEN that premise, the baby must be suffering because there IS a 'me' structure, just not an abstract conceptual structure. And I'm saying there isn't a 'me' structure in the infant. Andy:Well it would be interesting to see if one would be moved to provide comfort to an AI robot when they demonstrated that they were responding to pain. Not if you knew it was a robot and that robots can't feel pain. What did I miss? [/quote] Well, you are missing the point that there is a 'me' structure in a baby, and this 'me' structure is the difference between AI robot and intelligent being. Apparently the AI robot can artificially 'experience' sensation, such as pain. They can be given artificial sensors apparently. [/quote] How do you figure I missed that point? I addressed it directly? [/quote] I'm going to have to agree with andrew, from what I recall you never give an indication there is a 'self' (a me structure) until about the age of 2. [/quote] Right, no 'me' structure until it can be conceptualized. This is the reason for the 'terrible twos', when everything becomes 'ME!' and 'MINE!' [/quote] That stage is when the preconceptual sense of self becomes more conceptual and abstract. At this point the persona is developing more strongly, and the sense of being apparently separate is more pronounced. It is a development process, it's not that something magically appears at two. [/quote] There's a point at which the concept of 'me' becomes understandable. Once that happens, there's the potential for every experience to be filtered through that idea, which quickly becomes very significant. It is kind of magical, in a way. The child has tasted the apple for the first time. [/quote] I pretty much agree with the bolded.
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Feb 12, 2018 7:36:43 GMT -5
Pretty much. I'm still not going to stub my toe deliberately, and I would prefer if we, as a creative species, were less 'dramatic' in our creations. So what are you saying? That for you those things are suffering? If I stub my toe I instantly suffer, sure. If I see babies laying dead on the floor as a result of bombs being dropped, I will instantly suffer, sure. I tend to be quite careful about what I watch, because I don't believe my suffering serves the situation. Also, I don't get gratuitous pleasure from it, so there really isn't a good reason for me to watch a whole lot of nasty stuff. Nevertheless, for me, there is a balance. I am glad I have the understandings about the world that I have, I wouldn't want to go back to a kind of blissful ignorance.
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Feb 12, 2018 7:37:16 GMT -5
Okay, but you demonstrated that you were fine with the third layer too. You spoke of an imagined self, an individual with propensities, and presumably a source from which the individual is expressed. None of which is a self. What's a self then?
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Feb 12, 2018 7:39:47 GMT -5
What are you saying here? You aren't stating your points clearly in relation to the subject. Unless you are a psychopath (and I very much doubt you are), there are photos and videos that could be posted that would undoubtedly instantly trigger an internal reaction in you. That internal reaction is a response to the suffering you see in the photos/videos. I suspect that seeing an adult human suffering is probably easier than seeing a baby or animal suffering, because we know that babies/animals have no developed persona, thus there is a sense of 'innocence' to them. It makes sense to me why one would want to NOT see suffering in babies/animals, but your gut will tell you the painful truth. It's in response to what I imagine is happening internally in the characters I see, not in response to the suffering I see. I can't see suffering in another, I can only imagine it. Then I can call it intuition of gut or obvious truth or whatever floats my little row boat. Okay, so it sounds here like you distance yourself from your intuition by saying it is 'imaginary'. This is a subtle way of thinking your way out of feeling. What other animals would do that?
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Feb 12, 2018 7:41:46 GMT -5
well definition is everything here, and we are free to define 'suffering' however we like, but there is a level at which we can't help BUT recognize when another sentient being is suffering. This is an intuitive, innate, pre-conceptual, empathic, paternal and maternal recognition. So when we re-define it, it is really for intellectual purposes, and this may well have value at times. But it is an artificial change of definition, it really only has relevance in a very small context, and even then we can't escape what we know to be true. I'm sure the dog you saw was suffering, and I'm sure the baby in the video is suffering. And then on the flip side, the problem with re-defining 'suffering' for intellectual/spiritual purposes, is that causing pain to others becomes morally justifiable. It's just another sensation after all. If you hurt someone, or an animal, physically.... and they suffer, well that's their mental issues, nothing to do with what you did. If you see a starving baby...it's fine...they're not suffering. Yeah, there's the risk of escapism and self-deception. How we see others has very much to do with how we see ourselves. People who are quick to rationalize away suffering in others may do the very same thing as they relate to themselves. It's the happy-face-stickering issue again. yep
|
|
|
Post by ouroboros on Feb 12, 2018 9:38:58 GMT -5
okay, but if there is pain being felt, then there is a psychological movement (and suffering). Doesn't have to be an adult abstract 'conceptual' psychological movement though. Pilgrim is right, and the sensing of pain is not a psychological movement. It can be just a sensation. I'm still not convinced that such a stark division can be made. Certainly not in the normal conscious state, but it's interesting that I would say that under the right circumstances you could become so present to pain that contact isn't made. Whatever that means, hehe
|
|
|
Post by ouroboros on Feb 12, 2018 9:47:42 GMT -5
Actually it occurs to me this may well be the root of the issue. I'm not convinced such a stark line can be drawn, because ultimately mind and senses don't really function independently, and whether we talk about physical anguish, or mental anguish, ultimately either necessitate both mind and senses. So I'm wondering if perhaps part of the issue is that the situation is always somewhat more holistic than that particular division. I'm suggesting there's no such thing as physical anguish, and if anguish is experienced, it's already mental anguish. I'm suggesting such a stark line cannot be drawn between physical and mental, because ultimately they are entirely interdependent. On top of that, the conception of mind I work with tends to be a bit different from your 'mere movement of thought'. For example, I wouldn't class ATA-T as being prior to mind, for me non-conceptual sensory perception (perceptual awareness), merely entails subtler levels of mind. I'm guessing this might have a bearing on how we're approaching this. I agree, and have said the same thing. Yeah, I've seen you take both positions, but my point was that they seem to be incompatible unless we're classing perceptual awareness as thought. What I have said is I think thought can be classed to be happening at a considerably more basic level than conceptualisation, but I'm not sure if you class these 'sets of self-referential thoughts' you say are requisite for suffering as conceptualisation as such anyway. I also feel there's a distinction to be made here between self-identification - which I would class as happening on a relatively surface level, and as being more convoluted, (i.e requiring the capacity of complex self-referential sets of thoughts etc), and self-awareness - which I consider to be considerably more primal, and effectively an intrinsic quality of sentience itself. Sure.
It seems that you consider self-identification to be requisite to suffering, whereas I tend to work on the basis that self-awareness is enough, and that means that for me, all creatures have the potential to suffer, to varying degrees, and I've previously talked about the degree as being relative to a combination of physical apparatus, and mental capacity (faculties). Which admittedly does mean at the very least the baby does not have the capacity to suffer to the same extent as the adult (as both its apparatus and faculties are underdeveloped), and obviously in no small way these things dictate 'quality of experience'. But, yes, the controversial part is the idea that suffering is exclusive to human children (of a certain age), and adults, which as far as I can tell is peculiar to nonduality. In fact I'll again take the opportunity to point out it's certainly not what the Buddha taught, just in case folks are inclined to claim these teachings all point to the same thing. On the contrary, the Buddha actually taught that generally suffering in animals is even more prominent, due to their constant struggle for survival, incapacity for speech, and crucially, not having the requisite conditions (apparatus/faculties) for liberation to come about. I wasn't aware that it is a nonduality teaching. Would you have a quote handy?I meant it's a position that nonduality advocates in general here on the forum seem to take, but I also had you in mind specifically. Am I wrong about that? Yes, this is both true, and an important point to make. It's the flip side of the argument, and really the only reason there's a dilemma at all. I've noticed it's previously been suggested here on the forum that there's little to no discernible difference between the experience of a baby, and that of a Buddha (awakened one), and for some reason I feel like this might be a good place to introduce my as.sertion that that simply isn't the case. In fact the idea that it is the case is also part of the problem here, and this actually goes on to tie in with some of L's position. That doesn't make sense to me. Why would awakening be pointed to as a good thing if it didn't change anything in the experience? Well, I don't know, it's certainly not a position I advocate. There's more to be said here, because true awakening is the beginning of the end of what we commonly call experience, where experience is synonymous with samsara. But I'm gonna leave that for now.
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Feb 12, 2018 9:52:13 GMT -5
If I go with the true self/essence idea, then it needs protection from the unconscious, insane and violent world in which we live. Physiologically a 'shell' is created to protect us, otherwise it would likely be too much for our nervous system. The emotional pain of it all would be too much. This 'shell' is what you mean by imagined or false self. The way I see it, this protection idea is the tail wagging the dog. But good point about physiology. The body has its limits, not only on the negative end of the equation but also on the positive end. U.G. frequently made that point. There's a limit to what the body can take in terms of pain as there is a limit to what the body can take in terms of joy. Ramakrishna used to say: "If an elephant enters a small hut, the hut shakes and falls down. So also the experience of spiritual ecstasy shakes and sometimes shatters the body of the devotee." I remember Abe making that same point once, saying that if Esther would literally fully allow Abraham to flow thru her it would be too much on the physical vehicle, it wouldn't survive it.
|
|
|
Post by ouroboros on Feb 12, 2018 9:52:20 GMT -5
Hehe. The only thing I could sanction there without comment, is that suffering that doesn't appear to be existential in nature should be included. Ok, that's good. After I posted that example I paused to consider whether what I said might be considered to be a case of engaging in reductio ad absurdum (appeal to extremes). But decided that wasn't really the case, as it was a fairly direct implication of the position that suffering is entirely exclusive to human children and adults.
Sure. I've always said biological self awareness is a prerequisite to suffering, and it applies to all animals. I'm a bit confused at this stage as to whether or not you think animals have the capacity to suffer? I think maybe you're saying certain 'higher' animals may do, but only if they have the capacity for an additional component over and above biological self-awareness and pain, which you deem necessary for suffering to occur, i.e. some sort of psychological capacity akin to sets of self-referencing (me) thoughts. But mostly, I'm just confused now.
|
|
|
Post by ouroboros on Feb 12, 2018 9:53:57 GMT -5
Again this may be just a definition thing, but the Buddha literally listed all those things as examples of dukkha. I think the theory is that at some level, not getting what you want inevitably results in dissatisfaction (struggle), as a result of the desire not being met. And even if it is, it's loss is inevitable. Attachment may occur at imperceptible levels, but the principles hold, and the implications of the situation are somewhat more far-reaching than is generally understood. ; But surely Buddha would not have said of himself that if he doesn't get what he wants he will inevitably struggle and suffer, so it's not always inevitable. The premise is, he didn't want anything. Certainly not in the usual sense of 'desire'.
|
|
|
Post by ouroboros on Feb 12, 2018 9:59:41 GMT -5
Well yeah, but that could be said about the determining of anything, as talked about here. The only real issue is the accuracy of the determining, the insight behind it, and how conciously one is operating.Zackly. I'm just saying we can't refer to experience to prove the truth of the matter. As in, watch this video and you'll see that the baby subjectively suffers. Yes, and no. Firstly I'm not one who subscribes to this notion experience is no use in determining the truth of a matter. For me It's overstatement, because although insight could be described as the key 'component', experience as a process is inescapably part and parcel of that occurrence (which isn't to say insight itself is a process). There's also something to be said for Andrews position about when the visceral intuitive directly known witnessing of suffering in another, doesn't match, or fit in with how we've boxed the nature of suffering. And while we can all agree what I said in the underlined is the only real issue, it seems we're unlikely to all agree about when and where that is actually happening, hehe. Having said that I didn't bother to watch the video.
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Feb 12, 2018 10:03:46 GMT -5
If a baby has no me structure of any kind, then it is the same as an AI bot. The 'me' structure becomes conceptual as we develop, but in essence it is just a primal and preconceptual sense of self. This is what differs to the AI bot, it has no 'me' structure. You have yet to explain to me what you see as the difference between a baby and an AI bot. I thought we've already worked out that difference in the A.I thread? The robot is missing the non-physical connection. But the baby, with our without ego, does have that connection.
|
|
|
Post by ouroboros on Feb 12, 2018 10:04:41 GMT -5
Basically, yes. It does come down to the definition to a certain degree, because considering dukkha as a range of unssatisfactoriness to extreme discomfort and angst, it could be said that the worm on the concrete baking to death in the sunshine is subject to dukkha, because it can be gleaned from the wiggling that it's not entirely satisfied with the situation, however it clearly doesn't experience extreme physical pain and psychological angst to the extent that the man being burnt alive in the cage by religious extremists does, because we can infer it doesn't have the apparatus of faculties necessary to experience that.Agreed. Yet, I say the worm is suffering, but to a relatively mild degree, i.e, it's suffering from being baked alive. No-one wants that, it has an aversion to it. Regardless of any 'me' thoughts.
|
|