|
Post by enigma on Feb 9, 2018 23:06:17 GMT -5
Pain is the 'welfare' signal. Pain and suffering are not the same. That's the whole point of this discussion. A screaming baby is eliciting a signal of 'there is a problem that is disrupting my welfare'. I would say that pain disrupts welfare to the extent that pain comes with a suffering component. If pain had no suffering component to it at all, well pain wouldn't be a problem would it, and we would have no reason to avoid stepping on an upturned plug. Would you say the only reason babies scream is out of pain? If they are hungry or thirsty, is that pain? If they have poop in their pants, is that pain? If they are tired, is that pain? If they want their toy, is that pain? Always? Any kind of pain is suffering? This is why I talk about the point of suffering; because pain is not suffering. Fear is not suffering. Not getting what you want is not suffering. None of that needs to be struggled with. When it is, it turns to suffering.
|
|
|
Post by lolly on Feb 10, 2018 2:26:29 GMT -5
Yes, the term 'suffering' has a cultural meaning which isn't quite the same as 'dukkha', for example, as dukkha does pertain to pain as well as psychological 'craving'. 'Craving' covers the desire to have and the desire not to have. Perhaps a baby just cries because of discomfort but has no idea about how to alleviate it, so hasn't imagined 'something else' to crave. Later on we remember pleasurable feelings, so when pain arises we run from it in pursuit of 'something else' - which is the movement of the imagined self we call 'ego'. I would say when a baby is crying it is probably always a sign of discomfort, but is this discomfort, pain or suffering, or both? Random example from youtube. Not easy to watch, Pain, suffering or both? I can only assume the infant doesn't remember 'pleasure' in any way, so the desire for 'something else' would be negligible, so the dynamic between aversion and desire would be very slight. Thus there would be little resistance to the sensation, including the high intensity neural firing in the head. The kid screams like an animal, as the survival function. We see the child is distressed, but distress is highly physical, such as when I train hard with heavy weights, my nervous system becomes highly stressed, so it feels all through the body and in the brain as well, but I'm not adverse to that distress nor desire some other feeling. I don't experience suffering just because I'm distressed physically. If the imaginary story clicks in, then I don't like it and I want something else and me, mine, my, and I is all in memory mode recalling much nicer feelings, hating this feeling, craving another feeling, and that's what I call suffering. I don;t thing this infant has all that psychological noise, but the brain is still firing on full tilt, anatomically.
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Feb 10, 2018 5:14:55 GMT -5
In the 4th Way teaching, essence (true self as I'm using the words) is defined as that which one is born with(as). [And I've said this many times here]. You can explore that, or not. Seems like one is born with various propensities, making it a unique expression. An imaginary self is built on that, and eventually needs to be seen for the illusion it is. Simple, simple. I'm pretty confident that the 'one that is born with various propensities, making it a unique expression'...is the true self that sdp is speaking of.
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Feb 10, 2018 5:18:01 GMT -5
Just my perspective. I would say essence is there at birth (the definition of essence in the 4th Way, what we are born with[as]). Living completely through essence would therefore mean "the fullness that you are". This self that begins when one is about 2/3 is defined in the 4th Way, as personality, it's just a word so defined (and I've used many terms here on ST's, ego/cultural self/conditioned self/false (sense of) self/mask/persona). Ego/personality/cultural self almost inevitably forms, and covers-over our essence. This, is as you say, misidentification, being out of alignment (because one can't be both simultaneously the true sense of self and the false sense of self). So what you say fits perfectly the 4th Way teaching. I could draw a few more arrows...but I've done so previously...[ The purpose of the formation of "self", is to protect essence/true self. Part of this is Reich's body armor. But what happens is that when the "self" is mostly formed, instead of protecting essence, there is an unconscious shift of identity, the child takes-its-self-to-be that which was supposed to be its protection, it "~ becomes~" the formed false sense of "self", essence is covered over, lost, still there, but ~forgotten~]. And so when ZD says that there is no separate self, it's illusory, that's an absolute fact, this false sense of self IS a fiction. I'm unclear as to why this essence requires protection. In what way? From what? 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.
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Feb 10, 2018 5:18:37 GMT -5
I'm unclear as to why this essence requires protection. In what way? From what? First, sometimes physical pain is inflicted on babies and young children. Then they are also exposed to verbal abuse, I wish you were never born, Shut up, quit crying, etc. A persona is formed to deflect injury. yep
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Feb 10, 2018 5:21:32 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] 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.
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Feb 10, 2018 5:30:16 GMT -5
A screaming baby is eliciting a signal of 'there is a problem that is disrupting my welfare'. I would say that pain disrupts welfare to the extent that pain comes with a suffering component. If pain had no suffering component to it at all, well pain wouldn't be a problem would it, and we would have no reason to avoid stepping on an upturned plug. Would you say the only reason babies scream is out of pain? If they are hungry or thirsty, is that pain? If they have poop in their pants, is that pain? If they are tired, is that pain? If they want their toy, is that pain? Always? Any kind of pain is suffering? This is why I talk about the point of suffering; because pain is not suffering. Fear is not suffering. Not getting what you want is not suffering. None of that needs to be struggled with. When it is, it turns to suffering. The moment pain is noticed, there is suffering (I explained this in a different message). It is a physiological necessity, so that we can act ON the pain. If pain contained no component of suffering, then it would have no consequence, it would be irrelevant. Toothache? No problem, no point in going to a dentist. Tummy ache from too much food? No problem, just keep eating, Glass on the floor? No problem, just step on it. It is important that there is suffering, for as long as we manifest and create pain. It is the suffering that we act on, not the pain. In fact, when I have observed this very closely, what I have noticed is that one of the key pains of being in pain is the enforced contraction of focus and attention. We act to resolve pain (and suffering) so that we can relax our focus/attention. As I also said, I think you are talking about a particular kind of struggle, and that's fine, but then it is useful to specify this struggle, rather than assassinating the word 'suffering', which already has a very appropriate and inescapable meaning.
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Feb 10, 2018 5:35:38 GMT -5
I would say when a baby is crying it is probably always a sign of discomfort, but is this discomfort, pain or suffering, or both? Random example from youtube. Not easy to watch, Pain, suffering or both? I can only assume the infant doesn't remember 'pleasure' in any way, so the desire for 'something else' would be negligible, so the dynamic between aversion and desire would be very slight. Thus there would be little resistance to the sensation, including the high intensity neural firing in the head. The kid screams like an animal, as the survival function. We see the child is distressed, but distress is highly physical, such as when I train hard with heavy weights, my nervous system becomes highly stressed, so it feels all through the body and in the brain as well, but I'm not adverse to that distress nor desire some other feeling. I don't experience suffering just because I'm distressed physically. If the imaginary story clicks in, then I don't like it and I want something else and me, mine, my, and I is all in memory mode recalling much nicer feelings, hating this feeling, craving another feeling, and that's what I call suffering. I don;t thing this infant has all that psychological noise, but the brain is still firing on full tilt, anatomically. I agree with chunks of that, but I will pick out a couple of points that I would question. The first is that even though the kid screams 'like an animal', I would not assume that a screaming animal isn't suffering. Also, there is a difference between the physical distress of doing the weights and the baby's colic, in that you find conscious value and purpose in doing the weights. In fulfilling your values, there is a level of satisfaction which is the driving force behind the activity and which outweighs the physical distress. So I would say that even though there is a level of suffering involved with the activity (if there wasn't, everyone would do it!), the suffering is mitigated by the enjoyment and satisfaction of your values/purpose. For the baby it is a MUCH worse situation, because there is no conscious values and purpose to the colic. There's just pure pain and suffering now, now, now, now, now, now.
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Feb 10, 2018 7:54:17 GMT -5
This is interesting, three different positions on the nature of suffering. Two contrasting definitions from E & R, and a declaration from L that it's pretty much impossible to satisfactorily define, if I'm not mistaken. I also tend to go with that last approach, giving only examples that qualify as suffering, and fwiw I'm fairly sure the Buddha worked the same way. I admire you guys for offering definitions though. I've mentioned before that I don't use the phrase as narrowly as most folks here, (which seems to be suffering as; merely extreme psychological angst arising only upon an overlay of a complex set of self-referential thoughts). For me both acute psychological angst, and acute physical pain are different forms of suffering, so I use it as a umbrella term. I tend not to divorce the psychology, and physicality too much, as obviously mind and body are interdependent. I'm also not entirely adverse to employing the phrase to talk about milder prevailing dissatisfaction, (which seems to be in keeping with E's definition). But accept that can be problematic, insofar as it could potentially be classed as over-statement. It's also seems fairly clear that it all depends on what level we deem the necessary component of 'self awareness' to ultimately be happening. For example, I tend to envisage that as happening on a much subtler, more primal level than conceptualisation, or sets of self-referencing thoughts. I'll say this much. If we find ourselves in the position where, say, an elephant shuffling along with it's foot hanging off coz it got caught in a wire snare isn't/can't be suffering, then I think something's gone awry. I say their entire countenance and demeanor suggests otherwise, and have it on good authority that anyone who has worked closely in such situations would corroborate that. We are not really at odds. I'm not saying Enigma's definition of suffering is wrong. We just look at it from slightly different perspectives. Enigma likes to talk about such things more in a therapeutic way. I don't. Yeah. Sure. Tellin' peeps that it's all their own fault. Some bedside manner. Wow. Evil frog.
|
|
|
Post by lolly on Feb 10, 2018 8:50:01 GMT -5
I can only assume the infant doesn't remember 'pleasure' in any way, so the desire for 'something else' would be negligible, so the dynamic between aversion and desire would be very slight. Thus there would be little resistance to the sensation, including the high intensity neural firing in the head. The kid screams like an animal, as the survival function. We see the child is distressed, but distress is highly physical, such as when I train hard with heavy weights, my nervous system becomes highly stressed, so it feels all through the body and in the brain as well, but I'm not adverse to that distress nor desire some other feeling. I don't experience suffering just because I'm distressed physically. If the imaginary story clicks in, then I don't like it and I want something else and me, mine, my, and I is all in memory mode recalling much nicer feelings, hating this feeling, craving another feeling, and that's what I call suffering. I don;t thing this infant has all that psychological noise, but the brain is still firing on full tilt, anatomically. I agree with chunks of that, but I will pick out a couple of points that I would question. The first is that even though the kid screams 'like an animal', I would not assume that a screaming animal isn't suffering. Also, there is a difference between the physical distress of doing the weights and the baby's colic, in that you find conscious value and purpose in doing the weights. In fulfilling your values, there is a level of satisfaction which is the driving force behind the activity and which outweighs the physical distress. So I would say that even though there is a level of suffering involved with the activity (if there wasn't, everyone would do it!), the suffering is mitigated by the enjoyment and satisfaction of your values/purpose. For the baby it is a MUCH worse situation, because there is no conscious values and purpose to the colic. There's just pure pain and suffering now, now, now, now, now, now. The main thing is an animal in pain isn't imagining any alternative (that it desires), so the very dynamic between aversion and craving isn't there. I think the same applies to infants because they haven't developed the 'knowledge of' alternative sensations, so they don't have anything the crave after, and they don't try to avoid the pain they feel. In the Buddhist philosophy, 'illness is suffering' (that's a direct quote), so they conceptualise suffering in more or less the way you do, which is actually a very sensible way to conceptualise it, but there is still the aspect of 'volition', which for any practical purpose is no different to 'craving' (as Buddhists use that word), and is the cause of suffering. Then if one can feel sensation sans the volition that is the aversion/craving dynamic I described, then what we consider pain is completely transformed as a subjective experience - in that is is not hated. If we go to a deeper level, at which everything is momentary, there is no sensation which has any endurance at all, and this is where there is no pain or volition aversion/craving/suffering - as nothing endures at all. The lived reality of our lives, however, is such that at some extreme of experience the reactivity starts to overwhelm that equanimity of the mind, most probably ultimately as a necessity of the organism's survival, but most of us don't actually take it that far, and rather, overreact to very mild discomforts out of egocentricity. So this makes what we call suffering a little bit complex, because it has elements of sensation and elements of 'volition'.
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Feb 10, 2018 9:46:35 GMT -5
I agree with chunks of that, but I will pick out a couple of points that I would question. The first is that even though the kid screams 'like an animal', I would not assume that a screaming animal isn't suffering. Also, there is a difference between the physical distress of doing the weights and the baby's colic, in that you find conscious value and purpose in doing the weights. In fulfilling your values, there is a level of satisfaction which is the driving force behind the activity and which outweighs the physical distress. So I would say that even though there is a level of suffering involved with the activity (if there wasn't, everyone would do it!), the suffering is mitigated by the enjoyment and satisfaction of your values/purpose. For the baby it is a MUCH worse situation, because there is no conscious values and purpose to the colic. There's just pure pain and suffering now, now, now, now, now, now. The main thing is an animal in pain isn't imagining any alternative (that it desires), so the very dynamic between aversion and craving isn't there. I think the same applies to infants because they haven't developed the 'knowledge of' alternative sensations, so they don't have anything the crave after, and they don't try to avoid the pain they feel. In the Buddhist philosophy, 'illness is suffering' (that's a direct quote), so they conceptualise suffering in more or less the way you do, which is actually a very sensible way to conceptualise it, but there is still the aspect of 'volition', which for any practical purpose is no different to 'craving' (as Buddhists use that word), and is the cause of suffering. Then if one can feel sensation sans the volition that is the aversion/craving dynamic I described, then what we consider pain is completely transformed as a subjective experience - in that is is not hated. If we go to a deeper level, at which everything is momentary, there is no sensation which has any endurance at all, and this is where there is no pain or volition aversion/craving/suffering - as nothing endures at all. The lived reality of our lives, however, is such that at some extreme of experience the reactivity starts to overwhelm that equanimity of the mind, most probably ultimately as a necessity of the organism's survival, but most of us don't actually take it that far, and rather, overreact to very mild discomforts out of egocentricity. So this makes what we call suffering a little bit complex, because it has elements of sensation and elements of 'volition'. yeah that's all cool, and certainly I agree with investigating the nature of certain kinds of stresses and strains that humans experience (and which you described), and which animals/infants seem to experience much less, if at all. Linked to this, it seems to me that the human experience comes with a blessing and a curse in a particular regard. On one hand we are blessed with knowing that there is the (illusion of) choice. So if I have a pain, I can consider taking some medicine, or seeing a doctor, or any number of things that might resolve the pain....and this is a blessing that we can consciously and rationally consider our options. On the other hand, there are occasions when nothing one does will make pain go away, and yet we are cursed with the stress of continuing to seek a viable solution, rather than naturally and peacefully surrendering in the way an animal does to pain. The experience of being an apparent chooser is both great and awful. Tolle once said that people have only three options when they are presented with a situation that is intolerable: they can change the situation, walk away from it, or accept it. I believe that most humans are capable of all three of these option but the real stress in knowing which one to choose lol. Does a woman accept that her husband beats here? Does she try and change herself, or her husband? Or does she walk away? It's just not easy being human sometimes.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 10, 2018 10:03:59 GMT -5
The main thing is an animal in pain isn't imagining any alternative (that it desires), so the very dynamic between aversion and craving isn't there. I think the same applies to infants because they haven't developed the 'knowledge of' alternative sensations, so they don't have anything the crave after, and they don't try to avoid the pain they feel. In the Buddhist philosophy, 'illness is suffering' (that's a direct quote), so they conceptualise suffering in more or less the way you do, which is actually a very sensible way to conceptualise it, but there is still the aspect of 'volition', which for any practical purpose is no different to 'craving' (as Buddhists use that word), and is the cause of suffering. Then if one can feel sensation sans the volition that is the aversion/craving dynamic I described, then what we consider pain is completely transformed as a subjective experience - in that is is not hated. If we go to a deeper level, at which everything is momentary, there is no sensation which has any endurance at all, and this is where there is no pain or volition aversion/craving/suffering - as nothing endures at all. The lived reality of our lives, however, is such that at some extreme of experience the reactivity starts to overwhelm that equanimity of the mind, most probably ultimately as a necessity of the organism's survival, but most of us don't actually take it that far, and rather, overreact to very mild discomforts out of egocentricity. So this makes what we call suffering a little bit complex, because it has elements of sensation and elements of 'volition'. yeah that's all cool, and certainly I agree with investigating the nature of certain kinds of stresses and strains that humans experience (and which you described), and which animals/infants seem to experience much less, if at all. Linked to this, it seems to me that the human experience comes with a blessing and a curse in a particular regard. On one hand we are blessed with knowing that there is the (illusion of) choice. So if I have a pain, I can consider taking some medicine, or seeing a doctor, or any number of things that might resolve the pain....and this is a blessing that we can consciously and rationally consider our options. On the other hand, there are occasions when nothing one does will make pain go away, and yet we are cursed with the stress of continuing to seek a viable solution, rather than naturally and peacefully surrendering in the way an animal does to pain. The experience of being an apparent chooser is both great and awful. Tolle once said that people have only three options when they are presented with a situation that is intolerable: they can change the situation, walk away from it, or accept it. I believe that most humans are capable of all three of these option but the real stress in knowing which one to choose lol. Does a woman accept that her husband beats her? Does she try and change herself, or her husband? Or does she walk away? It's just not easy being human sometimes. That is the only real solution. She can't actually stop her husband from beating her, not permanently. And certainly not with any space to become the grown woman that she can be. His need to control women with violence, will always resurface.
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Feb 10, 2018 10:33:21 GMT -5
An imagined self is a self that's being imagined. It's a Tenkatology, and Tenkatologys can't be argued. I'm suggesting the idea of an 'imagined self' is a bit misconceived because the imaginer and the self are the same. Do you mean in a 'formlessness is form' way?
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Feb 10, 2018 10:47:34 GMT -5
I'm getting that sense again. No, I will agree where I can, and disagree where I can't (although in a sense it's not disagreement, just not going far enough, stopping too soon).
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Feb 10, 2018 10:48:44 GMT -5
Perhaps it would help to clarify what we refer to as self. Poke on it, distinguish finer detail, throw out older pre-conceptions and find a new page. Here's a definition (compliments of The Goog) to provide context.... selfa person's essential being that distinguishes them from others, especially considered as the object of introspection or reflexive action. "our alienation from our true selves" synonyms: ego, I, oneself, persona, person, identity, character, personality, psyche, soul, spirit, mind, (inner) being "listen to your inner self" I'm suggesting the self is the apparent 'one'. Also referred to as the doer, the person, the imaginer, the actor. We could also say this 'one' is a thought, hence why we might suggest that 'no self' or 'not self' is the case. And hence why, in deep sleep, or a state of samadhi, the self, person, doer, imaginer, actor, is absent. Here we go again.
|
|