The appreciation of security is narcissistic? You really need to look up the meaning of the word "narcissistic".David Quinn wrote:All sorts of narcissistic thoughts are at play here. For example:
- The sight of a peaceful, non-threatening environment making your ego feel a bit more secure.
Of course not. What an odd question to ask. The joy was at their peaceful existence, not at their suffering in destruction.David Quinn wrote:You would have to ask yourself, would you experience the same joy if these ducks were being killed by a man shooting at them?
Peace and tranquility are "the same" as death and destruction?David Quinn wrote:The "uniqueness" of the situation would be the same, the fact of the ducks and the man existing at all would be the same, indeed everything is the same
I thought that cause and effect was your thing, David. Different cause => different effect. Cause: peaceful and tranquil co-existence => effect: feelings of joy. Cause: death and destruction => effect: feelings of horror/anger/courage to intervene.David Quinn wrote:except that your reaction is likely to be very different.
The agape is present in both situations, it's just that proactive emotions take over in the case of the shootings: those emotions are motivated by agape, at least in the ideal.David Quinn wrote:This alone would show that the joy you experience is not related to agape at all, but is entirely narcissistic in nature.
Why would you think that back-pats are a necessary component of this experience?David Quinn wrote:- The ego patting itself on the back for being so amazing and special to be able to experience this joy in the first place. The initial joy of feeling more secure is thus multiplied by the feeling of being special.
You go from "appreciative of the miraculous" to "narcissistic" very rapidly - it's quite an unfounded leap. Again I suggest that you check a dictionary.David Quinn wrote:- The "appreciation" you feel over the fact that these creatures exist at all, etc, is generated by the unfounded idea that "nothingness" is somehow the natural state of reality and that existing forms are therefore a miracle to behold. In other words, the joy is a product of ignorance of the nature of duality, which in turn is a product of systemic narcissistic thinking. Egotism (and emotion) thrives in unchallenged dualities.
You're confusing "personal" with "selfish and narcissistic".David Quinn wrote:And so on. There are probably other narcissistic factors involved which are unique to your personality and set of attachments. If you're honest enough, you should be able to seek these out for yourself.
But according to you, nothing has any "foundation" (except, ultimately, in/as the Totality). Your modes are as foundationless as the joy you claim them to be superior to. Subjective purpose is all, right? If joy serves a subjective purpose, then feel joy, just as if eating serves a subjective purpose, then eat.guest_of_logic: Too pure for joy and contentment? Untroubled waters and all that - tell me, what about these modes makes them preferable to ("infinitely more amazing" than) joy and contentment?
David: This is something you can only really understand by going into these modes yourself and then looking at things like joy and contentment from that perspective. From that perspective, they are seen to be prisons which have no foundation at all. "Castles in the air", as the Buddha called them. "Black holes of insanity", one could equally call them.
The big question, though, is to what extent do you exist in these modes from day to day, and to what extent do you still experience joy in your day to day life?
That's somewhat paternalistic of you, David, but I suppose you're only carrying out your self-assigned role as teacher and guide, and it's pretty innocuous stuff, so I don't really mind. What I "see" is you stretching definitions and meanings beyond what's reasonable, to support your agenda, which often seems to be made up on the spot and then subsequently defended to the hilt, come what may, as if to admit defeat were unthinkable... perhaps testament to your own psychological need to have "won" and "conquered", particularly in relation to other people? I don't know, and I think that the game of amateur psycho-analysis over a forum is pretty dicey, so that's all that I'll suggest on that matter.David Quinn wrote:You don't really want to see anything, Laird. That's the problem.
This whole "conquering" and "winning" theme that you've got going probably stems back to that thread several years ago in which you introduced the idea of humour being the result of the overcoming of oppression, which, despite its obvious inadequacy as a full account of humour, you continued to defend no matter what others threw at you.
Conquering? Why need the ego feel that it's "conquered" anything? It's simply happened into a fortunate and happy circumstance, which it appreciates for what it is. "Winning" and "conquering" need not have anything to do with it.David Quinn wrote:In any case, to the degree that appreciation involves feelings of joy, it is being driven by a form of egotistical winning. Feeling joy at seeing some ducks paddling around the sunlight is the ego reveling in the momentary conquering of its ever-present fears in life.