|
Post by andrew on Feb 13, 2018 18:40:05 GMT -5
Well I disagree. For example, giving birth can likely come with suffering and joy (I can't personally testify though lol). There are lots of examples, but that does seem quite an obvious one. Suffering isn't the bugaboo or bogey man that it is often painted to be. It CAN be (and I can testify that for myself), particularly when it is experienced as being choiceless and without any value. At its worst, suffering is pure hell. At its most mild, it isn't much more than empathizing with someone else's suffering. I mean, our friend gopal says he suffers when he watches Game Of Thrones lol, but he also enjoys it I assume. I agree giving birth is a poor example (for either of us to use) but I would assume there is suffering during the birthing process, followed by joy at greeting her child into the world. If Gopal is enjoying the show, he's not suffering. If L is plotting the maximum ski time possible, he's not suffering. I think your mistaken that suffering has to exist alone. At its most intense, it can seem as if it does, and I can speak from personal experience on that. Most of the time though there is a level of suffering and other stuff going on. Hence, why that poet spoke of folks leading lives of quiet desperation, he's onto something. Many folks are suffering pretty much all the time, but it is a low grade suffering, and mixed with other qualities. Why do you believe that suffering has to exist alone?
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Feb 13, 2018 18:40:38 GMT -5
Yes, that's definitely part of my issue with wholly redefining the concept of suffering. Then don't do it. lol I'm not.
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Feb 13, 2018 18:41:21 GMT -5
No, intuition CAN be wrong of course, but when intuition repeatedly and insistently says the same thing, it is silly to ignore it. Even if it WAS wrong, to ignore a persistent intuitive signal would not be of benefit. Just as you know that other humans and animals are perceiving, you know when a baby is suffering. I am often accused of over complicating, but this is one of the simplest things in the world, and anything else is intellectualizing and over-spiritualizing. My experience with intuition is that it never insists. Mind insists. My experience of intuition is that it will insist until I heed it.
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Feb 13, 2018 18:42:49 GMT -5
By the same token,you can't use the 'nothing is ultimately true' card to support a solipsist assumption. When did I do that? Well, you said that you don't know if others are experiencing, and then said that nothing is ultimately true, so I interpreted that to mean that 'nothing is ultimately true' is why you don't know if others are perceiving. And that's what I addressed. Maybe my interpretation was wrong.
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Feb 13, 2018 18:44:44 GMT -5
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. Dissatisfaction is not suffering. Do you suffer when you write a post that you're not really satisfied with, or when you get hungry? Would you expect that to end with SR? That's Andy's conclusion as well; that any kind of pain or dissatisfaction is suffering.
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Feb 13, 2018 18:49:27 GMT -5
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. Super duper film evidence that will change my mind about being able to use film evidence?
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Feb 13, 2018 18:51:27 GMT -5
At any given moment, one can either be suffering or experiencing joy. Not both. What about the masochist? If the masochist is enjoying the sensation, he's not suffering, right?
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Feb 13, 2018 18:56:29 GMT -5
I don't see how you can come to the conclusion that dissatisfaction (or 'suffering') will continue after SR. Dissatisfaction is not suffering. Do you suffer when you write a post that you're not really satisfied with, or when you get hungry? Would you expect that to end with SR? That's Andy's conclusion as well; that any kind of pain or dissatisfaction is suffering. Yes, but I don't believe that suffering exists alone, there can be other things going on. I ran a half marathon when I was young and fit and there was some suffering, but there were other things going on as well. There was enjoyment of the experience, there was a sense of satisfaction because it was fulfilling my sense of purpose, and the adrenaline probably added some level of pleasure too. We're quite complex. Sometimes the suffering and pleasure buttons can be pressed at the same time. It's okay to suffer sometimes. Sometimes it's worth a bit of suffering to have something else. Other times....no.
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Feb 13, 2018 19:09:57 GMT -5
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. I'm just saying I don't see a sharp division between animals that suffer and animals that don't.
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Feb 13, 2018 19:11:45 GMT -5
I'm saying I don't make any of those assumptions. You do, though you may not know you make them. Is that what your intuition tells you?
|
|
|
Post by lolly on Feb 13, 2018 19:30:47 GMT -5
Sometimes I forget it's the twitter generation and post more that 100 wds Call me simple minded. I'm okay with that. Oh it's just a bit of off hand humour.
|
|
|
Post by lolly on Feb 13, 2018 19:51:33 GMT -5
The dynamic is more to do with the response to the real lived experience, so the question is basically, does the infant resist the painful sensation. If so it brings up the dynamic of aversion to the sensation which is the desire to not have, which is also the desire for a more pleasant alternative. I argue that the infant has very little aversion/desire in response to the sensation, and that response is what constitutes 'resistance'. What you call a 'desire for well being' is more to do with what I consider as 'metta', which is a very basic wish for the well-being of all beings. It's probably not recognisable because it's isn't a sentimental thing, but it arises through the body/mind in an absence of the polarity of love/hate or aversion/desire or other dual paradigms. Surely yes, or it wouldn't be bawling it's eyes out? All baby animals cry in pain, for food - to alert the parent, basically, but if we take the view that pain in itself is not suffering, and one need not be in pain to suffer, then we have to consider suffering as sensational, but with the addition of reactivity - meaning even very pleasurable sensations could be suffering in the form of clinging. But when we go into the deeper meditation we might realise that we aren't actually clinging to the sensation consciousness, but rather, the sensational realm which is 'known'. At this point there is no 'progress' it is the all of nothing, and there is just one step to release all that is known. We usually fear because we don't know if we'll 'come back' to what we know, and that's how we cling to the known. In life we recognise the fractions of clinging, but we seldom realise the 'be all and end all' of the completely unknown. The infant simply hasn't acquired any knowledge, has no referential framework, and such things as clinging/resisting appear to be there because of the physical survival reflex, but actually can't occur in retrospect (in the aftermath we call reactivity) because there are no references formed in the memory that constitute 'knowledge'.
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Feb 13, 2018 20:15:37 GMT -5
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. There's a reason we use two words instead of one.
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Feb 13, 2018 20:16:52 GMT -5
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. Nope.
|
|
|
Post by tenka on Feb 14, 2018 4:00:44 GMT -5
You identify with yourself with the body and mind, feel it's limitations, and suffer.
Ramana ..
This reflects what I spoke of earlier .
Babies and bunnies have a self reference so therefore suffer .
Pain in reflection of suffering is irrelevant .
Suffering is the foundation for the experience of pain as an identified self .
There is no point arguing the differences between pain and suffering when the foundation is suffering .
Beyond suffering is beyond any self associations .
|
|