|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Feb 10, 2018 10:49:40 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.
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Feb 10, 2018 10:52:26 GMT -5
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. Precisely, that's why I agreed.
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Feb 10, 2018 11:01:06 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. [/quote] Yes, exactly, the newborn baby is a person.
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Feb 10, 2018 11:02:48 GMT -5
Maybe we can agree that, in general, suffering is formed in the mind rather than in the senses. Then the issue becomes, what sort of mental processes and structures are required to form suffering. I think the only controversial thing I'm saying here is that it requires a structure of self identification and that the infant cannot form that structure. We can notice that our own suffering is always about 'me'. Even compassion and empathy are solidly grounded in the 'me'. If it is not happening to the 'me', it cannot be my subjective suffering that we're talking about. As for what it takes to be able to form that 'me' structure, the concept of separation must be viscerally groked, and the conclusion derived that the world is happening to a 'me', involving the projection of 'my' situation into the past, generally concluding that this should not have happened, and projecting it into the future imagining that it may not have an ending. This is suffering, and it's asking a lot of an infant that has just begun to make an association between feeling hungry, and that hunger being abated by events that follow. That process runs very smoothly for the adult because we've had so much practice. An animal can feel pain without suffering. This is a critical insight that can turn a seeker's focus away from trying to fix his world and toward trying to fix how he sees his world. There is no physiological benefit to pain if there is no suffering component. Even animals learn (or perhaps know) that pain is to be avoided? Why? If you hit a dog it will come to fear you. Why? I think what you mean is that animals can experience pain without resisting it, and maybe you equate resistance with suffering but resistance and suffering isn't QUITE the same thing. I think the key misconception is the very first thing you said. While it has been shown that it is possible for some humans to experience an absence of pain, when others do experience pain.....a component of noticing the pain sensation is suffering. One can go deeply into pain, or detach from pain, or do any number of things such that the pain sensation is gone...but the moment the pain is noticed, there is suffering. So an animal may lay very still because to move is to notice the pain sensation. In this sense, it is the noticing that is the key to the suffering......the noticing, the pain, the suffering all go hand in hand. ( I mean 'noticing' in the normal sense, I'm not assassinating it by equating it with 'realizing'.). The affect of resisting the pain, is noticing the pain, and then suffering! And hence resistance is linked to suffering, but isn't the same thing. No, resistance is not suffering, and in the same way, pain is not suffering.
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Feb 10, 2018 11:03:24 GMT -5
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. Precisely.
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Feb 10, 2018 11:14:53 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'. This is a good point, but it also shows the significance of memory. A newborn lives in the present moment, almost can't otherwise. But from birth the baby begins storing information of its experiences and its encounters with the exterior world. So very early baby begins to have a ~psychology~. Babies cry because the are wet, have poop, are cold, hot, hungry, or ate too much, etc. Baby cries, mother comes and fixes the problem. But baby then *learns* that when it cries, mother comes. So baby learns it can cry when there is no problem whatsoever, just because it wants mother. This is the beginning of its psychology, its psyche, its ego/persona/cultural self. Ego/persona/cultural self/psyche-psychological self, exists in time, past and future. Essence/true self exists in the present moment.
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Feb 10, 2018 11:20:54 GMT -5
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. He may be able to take steps to resolve it, though I suspect that in most cases, she would have to walk away first before he begins to take them. I may be wrong, I haven't studied this in any depth. I agree though that given the physical violence, the action that is closest to nature would be for her to walk away, though it seems that this isn't easy to do in many cases. Our human conditioned ideas about love and romance often create big problems for us.
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Feb 10, 2018 11:22:09 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 here? Does she try and change herself, or her husband? Or does she walk away? It's just not easy being human sometimes. But that's what conditioning is, the conditioning chooses. This is the meaning of not-being-free. I've heard it said that when an elephant is young a metal stake and chain will hold it. It becomes conditioned. It gets older and eventually an adult. As an adult it can easily pull the stake up and walk away. But the conditioning is what holds the elephant in place, not the reality of the situation. Conditioning = inability to choose. But eventually an overwhelming stimulus can overcome the conditioning. But we take the conditioning to be ourselves, thus, change is difficult.
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Feb 10, 2018 11:26:42 GMT -5
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? No, I'm saying that speaking of an imagined self suggests that there is some kind of imaginer, that is imagining a self. Which is fine if you aren't wanting to point away from the idea of an imaginer, but it seemed initially like you were wanting to do that.
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Feb 10, 2018 11:27:35 GMT -5
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. He may be able to take steps to resolve it, though I suspect that in most cases, she would have to walk away first before he begins to take them. I may be wrong, I haven't studied this in any depth. I agree though that given the physical violence, the action that is closest to nature would be for her to walk away, though it seems that this isn't easy to do in many cases. Our human conditioned ideas about love and romance often create big problems for us. He is conditioned to beat, she is conditioned to accept beating (co-dependence and enabling). He can't choose otherwise, she can't choose otherwise, until a new dramatic energy enters. See post above, we don't see our conditioning because we take ourselves to-be that conditioning, that, is what we are (we believe, to such an extent that it's invisible).
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Feb 10, 2018 11:30:50 GMT -5
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? What Andrew said is very clear, brilliantly simple.
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Feb 10, 2018 11:31:31 GMT -5
There is no physiological benefit to pain if there is no suffering component. Even animals learn (or perhaps know) that pain is to be avoided? Why? If you hit a dog it will come to fear you. Why? I think what you mean is that animals can experience pain without resisting it, and maybe you equate resistance with suffering but resistance and suffering isn't QUITE the same thing. I think the key misconception is the very first thing you said. While it has been shown that it is possible for some humans to experience an absence of pain, when others do experience pain.....a component of noticing the pain sensation is suffering. One can go deeply into pain, or detach from pain, or do any number of things such that the pain sensation is gone...but the moment the pain is noticed, there is suffering. So an animal may lay very still because to move is to notice the pain sensation. In this sense, it is the noticing that is the key to the suffering......the noticing, the pain, the suffering all go hand in hand. ( I mean 'noticing' in the normal sense, I'm not assassinating it by equating it with 'realizing'.). The affect of resisting the pain, is noticing the pain, and then suffering! And hence resistance is linked to suffering, but isn't the same thing. No, resistance is not suffering, and in the same way, pain is not suffering. I agree they are different. So if you don't see resisting as suffering, then what do humans do, or not do, that causes them to suffer?
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Feb 10, 2018 11:37:40 GMT -5
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. But that's what conditioning is, the conditioning chooses. This is the meaning of not-being-free. I've heard it said that when an elephant is young a metal stake and chain will hold it. It becomes conditioned. It gets older and eventually an adult. As an adult it can easily pull the stake up and walk away. But the conditioning is what holds the elephant in place, not the reality of the situation. Conditioning = inability to choose. But eventually an overwhelming stimulus can overcome the conditioning. But we take the conditioning to be ourselves, thus, change is difficult. Okay, the problem for me with this is the idea that conditioning can be overcome. I would just say that conditioning changes, as our definitions and values change. For example, the beaten woman may have a definition of 'love' that is more akin to 'need'. She may also have some beliefs about loyalty, and she may have a commitment to marital vows (dang, I despise most marital vow), and she may value the idea of 'marriage', even if it is rotten. But then something happens in which she question her definition and experience of love. Her values change. And finally she is able to leave. For me there is always conditioning i.e as humans we have beliefs, definitions and values, and together they inform the choices we make and the direction we move in. That's not to say we can't be present...we may come to value presence highly.
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Feb 10, 2018 11:40:56 GMT -5
Pain is the 'welfare' signal. Pain and suffering are not the same. That's the whole point of this discussion. 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'. Generally, I see baby crying as a spontaneous, present moment, uncensored response to (mostly) low levels of discomfort. Because there is no conceptual 'me' structure, there are no 'me' referenced thoughts about the implications of the pain, which is the source of psychological suffering.
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Feb 10, 2018 11:43:39 GMT -5
He may be able to take steps to resolve it, though I suspect that in most cases, she would have to walk away first before he begins to take them. I may be wrong, I haven't studied this in any depth. I agree though that given the physical violence, the action that is closest to nature would be for her to walk away, though it seems that this isn't easy to do in many cases. Our human conditioned ideas about love and romance often create big problems for us. He is conditioned to beat, she is conditioned to accept beating (co-dependence and enabling). He can't choose otherwise, she can't choose otherwise, until a new dramatic energy enters. See post above, we don't see our conditioning because we take ourselves to-be that conditioning, that, is what we are (we believe, to such an extent that it's invisible). yes, for example, maybe the woman identifies with being a 'good wife', and that means sticking to her husband 'for better or worse, till death do us part'. Personally, I'm not sure we actually 'break free' from identification altogether (though it can certainly seem as if we do, and this is important), but I would agree we can break free from these kind of archaic and ill conceived definitions and understandings of who/what we are.
|
|