|
Post by enigma on Feb 13, 2018 10:57:51 GMT -5
I'm saying animals that are biologically self aware have the capacity to suffer. Both are a consequence of a relatively sophisticated mind. where, or how, do you draw the line when it comes to animals between biologically self aware, and biologically self unaware (or whatever the opposite is)? Do you think some have the 'me' concept like human two year olds? The distinction is arbitrary. Probly all iterations between exist somewhere.
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Feb 13, 2018 11:21:20 GMT -5
I don't understand why any of those assumptions have to be made just to say pain is not suffering. no no, THOSE assumptions are behind the idea that babies and animals don't suffer. I agree that pain and suffering are not the same thing. Suffering is the felt component of pain. I don't think you read what I say, but then I say a lot sometimes, so maybe you skim. I'm saying I don't make any of those assumptions.
|
|
|
Post by Beingist on Feb 13, 2018 11:21:31 GMT -5
Indeed, I understand exactly what you're saying, A, which is I never (or, well, almost never) argue the point. When I believed that the dog was suffering, I wished I had a gun, so that I could put it out of it's misery (it's hindquarters were completely smashed ) I also agree that definition is everything, as it is imperative to communication. I honestly never liked the term, 'suffering' to convey what is really more ... dissatisfaction with what is. Hence, I cannot argue against the assertion that the baby in the video is suffering. Then SR means nothing, as dissatisfaction will continue after SR. I don't see how you can come to the conclusion that dissatisfaction (or 'suffering') will continue after SR.
|
|
|
Post by Beingist on Feb 13, 2018 11:24:57 GMT -5
Indeed, I understand exactly what you're saying, A, which is I never (or, well, almost never) argue the point. When I believed that the dog was suffering, I wished I had a gun, so that I could put it out of it's misery (it's hindquarters were completely smashed ) I also agree that definition is everything, as it is imperative to communication. I honestly never liked the term, 'suffering' to convey what is really more ... dissatisfaction with what is. Hence, I cannot argue against the assertion that the baby in the video is suffering. I've been waiting for you to come back, so I could post this picture of my first bear encounter in the wild. Welcome back, and I hope your birthday goes well. You ain't no spring chicken anymore, you're a bear. Bengst the Bear, oh yes. OOOO .. that's a great shot! Thanks for welcome back and the Bday wish I'll likely be here and there, until I find gainful and fulfilling employment.
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Feb 13, 2018 11:27:04 GMT -5
So the body has no physical senses? Of course it does, but they involve movement of mind too. The body and mind are one system. This is why I said that in order to say that babies and animals don't suffer, you have to assume that body and mind are basically disconnected. I know body and mind are connected, but the body doesn't create existential angst and the mind doesn't create the sensation of touch. The whole discussion is contextually limited but that shouldn't keep us from seeing the obvious distinction.
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Feb 13, 2018 11:30:43 GMT -5
That suffering cannot occur without a 'me' structure is the realization that started all this. That realization doesn't particularly please me and is problematic in some ways, but that's irrelevant in terms of the validity of the realization. (I don't have an agenda regarding it) Are you saying that a result of the realization is that you ignore your intuition? Nope. I'm using realization and intuition interchangeably here.
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Feb 13, 2018 11:34:59 GMT -5
My point was, we can't discuss it. I'm not seeing why the fact that babies and animals suffer, means that we couldn't discuss a particular form of adult human suffering. We can't discuss suffering because we define the term differently. Tenka had the same problem understanding that with regard to attachment.
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Feb 13, 2018 11:37:56 GMT -5
I think Tolle's 3 options can get us along a little further in this discussion about suffering. Given that most people are afraid of dying, that leaves them with only 2 options - changing the situation or accepting it. And given that most also don't know how they create their own experiences, that leaves them with practically just 1 option - accepting it. And so, as Thoreau said, most people lead lives of quiet desperation. Now, the animal is not afraid of dying and the same seems to apply to babies. And as A-H and Seth assure us, from the non-physical, there are no regrets if someone should cut out early. That's why I would say even though animals have the capacity to suffer, they rarely do because they have no resistance to the walk away option. They relax into the inevitable and let nature take its course. Choosing is always easy when you are in touch with your inner guidance. But it can border on self-torture when you only have your intellect to rely on. So I would say it's easy to be a human, but not easy to be a person. I basically agree but I would say that even though animals don't have the existential fear, the suffering can be intense and pure in its form because they don't aggravate or add layers of existential fear to the suffering. It's just...suffering. It's not suffering AND mental desperation suffering. And in my words, I would say it is easy to be a human if there is no misidentification and false belief. What difference does misidentification and false belief make if suffering happens in the absence of those things?
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Feb 13, 2018 12:00:59 GMT -5
If anybody questions whether animals suffer or not, watch the film Buck. (Buck has tremendous empathy with horses because he was physically and emotionally abused by his father when young, great film). And again you want to present film evidence of suffering. You can't watch an animal and know what's going on subjectively, and for the same reason you can't even know if they are experiencing at all. I guess you have never seen Buck.
|
|
|
Post by Beingist on Feb 13, 2018 12:23:33 GMT -5
Sure. For example, many people with illness and pain as they approach the end of their life are suffering to an extent, and yet they are still able to love and appreciate. At any given moment, one can either be suffering or experiencing joy. Not both. What about the masochist?
|
|
|
Post by Beingist on Feb 13, 2018 12:27:25 GMT -5
I don't understand why any of those assumptions have to be made just to say pain is not suffering. no no, THOSE assumptions are behind the idea that babies and animals don't suffer. I agree that pain and suffering are not the same thing. Suffering is the felt component of pain. I don't think you read what I say, but then I say a lot sometimes, so maybe you skim. While I still think that pain is the felt component of pain, and suffering is more a long-term thing, I would still more likely buy into the above definition, anymore, than the definition of "suffering" as dissatisfaction with what is.
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Feb 13, 2018 12:27:30 GMT -5
where, or how, do you draw the line when it comes to animals between biologically self aware, and biologically self unaware (or whatever the opposite is)? Do you think some have the 'me' concept like human two year olds? The distinction is arbitrary. Probly all iterations between exist somewhere. I had to google 'iteration'....it means 'repetitive'....? But it sounds like you mean that biological self-awareness is more of a gradation than a 'either has it or not'. If I'm understanding you right, and biological self awareness is associated with what you call 'suffering' and all animals have some degree of bio self awareness, then that would mean they have the capacity to suffer.
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Feb 13, 2018 12:28:03 GMT -5
no no, THOSE assumptions are behind the idea that babies and animals don't suffer. I agree that pain and suffering are not the same thing. Suffering is the felt component of pain. I don't think you read what I say, but then I say a lot sometimes, so maybe you skim. I'm saying I don't make any of those assumptions. You do, though you may not know you make them.
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Feb 13, 2018 12:33:46 GMT -5
Of course it does, but they involve movement of mind too. The body and mind are one system. This is why I said that in order to say that babies and animals don't suffer, you have to assume that body and mind are basically disconnected. I know body and mind are connected, but the body doesn't create existential angst and the mind doesn't create the sensation of touch. The whole discussion is contextually limited but that shouldn't keep us from seeing the obvious distinction. The mind is involved in the sensation of touch, and the body is involved in the experience of existential angst (there could be chemical imbalances and all sorts of things going on). On the other hand, if for the purpose of a discussion you want to talk about existential angst as a problem of mind, that's really fine with me.
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Feb 13, 2018 12:34:39 GMT -5
Are you saying that a result of the realization is that you ignore your intuition? Nope. I'm using realization and intuition interchangeably here. I'm confused because it sounds like what you are suggesting is realized is at odds with intuition.
|
|