Shakespeare nailed it

Discussion of the nature of Ultimate Reality and the path to Enlightenment.
Pam Seeback
Posts: 2619
Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 10:40 pm

Re: Shakespeare nailed it

Post by Pam Seeback »

RZoo wrote:
movingalways wrote:
movingalways wrote:
You may have, as I once had, a misunderstanding of what it means to "dwell in the absolute." It does not mean you have all the answers or that you no longer need answers or that you have found the permanent right answer, rather, that you know the right answer will come, for now, if you rest your question in the answer realm.
The "answer realm" = ??? How do you know that the answer will come? Again, I call bullshit.
Using metaphors, will try again. I know the answer will come because there is no question that cannot be reasoned. Can you think of one?
I'd like to hear you reason "why does anything exist?" or "why does life exist?" or "why does my consciousness exist?"
Dictionary.com: Reasoning: the process of forming conclusions, judgments, or inferences from facts or premises.

Why does anything/life/consciousness exist? I reason that this question has no definitive answer. Why? Because my mind is an effect of an unseen cause.
RZoo
Posts: 97
Joined: Mon Jun 16, 2014 5:26 am

Re: Shakespeare nailed it

Post by RZoo »

Diebert van Rhijn wrote:
RZoo wrote:Do you think that desire or fear could exist without emotions?
A better question would be if emotions could ever form without desire and fear. But since I had already defined emotions situational, as social passions, the answer on your question would be yes because many instances of primal desires and fears are equivalent to knee jerks or reactions on stimuli which are not connected to culture, race, situation, some particular knowledge or age. Like the growling of a lion under your window will cause a change in your readiness to fight or flight (or more likely just freeze up.
I don't believe that it's innate to human beings to fear a lion growling. That's certainly connected to a culture, race, situation and bit of knowledge (that lions are dangerous and ought to be avoided). I don't see how emotions are any more situational than knee jerk reactions. They're both based on a foundation of knowledge, beliefs and values.

Additional, off-topic notes:
* Even if fear of lions was some innate, genetically programmed response in human beings, it's still learned in an evolutionary sense.
* You are drawing a distinction between knee-jerk reactions and ones that go through the consciousness, but let's not overstate such a distinction: we aren't in control of our emotions any more than of our knee-jerk reactions.
Diebert van Rhijn wrote:A better question would be if emotions could ever form without desire and fear.
And, returning from our semantic discussion: can a person have motivations without desire and fear? I know that all of my actions are governed by the two. I'm typing this right now out of a desire for clarity. :-)

And in a world without suffering (or joy), could their be fear or desire?
Last edited by RZoo on Fri Jun 27, 2014 5:59 am, edited 1 time in total.
RZoo
Posts: 97
Joined: Mon Jun 16, 2014 5:26 am

Re: Shakespeare nailed it

Post by RZoo »

movingalways wrote: Dictionary.com: Reasoning: the process of forming conclusions, judgments, or inferences from facts or premises.

Why does anything/life/consciousness exist? I reason that this question has no definitive answer. Why? Because my mind is an effect of an unseen cause.
An unseen cause? Is that kind of like an unseen magical unicorn? How do you know such a thing exists? Have you perhaps imagined it (perhaps as a logical necessity due to some of your beliefs)?

P.S. - Logic is like math, it's best to show your steps whenever possible, rather than skip directly to the answer. ;-)
Pam Seeback
Posts: 2619
Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 10:40 pm

Re: Shakespeare nailed it

Post by Pam Seeback »

RZoo wrote:
movingalways wrote: Dictionary.com: Reasoning: the process of forming conclusions, judgments, or inferences from facts or premises.

Why does anything/life/consciousness exist? I reason that this question has no definitive answer. Why? Because my mind is an effect of an unseen cause.
An unseen cause? Is that kind of like an unseen magical unicorn? How do you know such a thing exists? Have you perhaps imagined it (perhaps as a logical necessity due to some of your beliefs)?

P.S. - Logic is like math, it's best to show your steps whenever possible, rather than skip directly to the answer. ;-)
Why am I happy that you gave me the option to show my steps oh great teacher of logic-is-like-math? Because Frederick, my dark chocolate doubled-horned white breasted unicorn is pawing the ground impatiently; he lost his shoes this morning and we need to ride to the Enchanted Walmart Palace before it closes!
RZoo
Posts: 97
Joined: Mon Jun 16, 2014 5:26 am

Re: Shakespeare nailed it

Post by RZoo »

The unseen cause (thing-in-itself) made me do it!
User avatar
Diebert van Rhijn
Posts: 6469
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 4:43 pm

Re: Shakespeare nailed it

Post by Diebert van Rhijn »

RZoo wrote:I don't believe that it's innate to human beings to fear a lion growling.
Fair enough, it might be that way of course. But I was thinking about something I read somewhere about the effect of loud growls on close range. Somehow I doubt if there's a cultural response to that since most prey animals would respond with a startle at least. It's possible cultural programming could conquer the reaction to sudden sounds though. But then you are making the case for the mastery over the senses belonging to that supposed "total enlightenment" :-)
* Even if fear of lions was some innate, genetically programmed response in human beings, it's still learned in an evolutionary sense.
But that doesn't address the question of it being possible to overrule or to which extent or in what time-frame.
* You are drawing a distinction between knee-jerk reactions and ones that go through the consciousness, but let's not overstate such a distinction: we aren't in control of our emotions any more than of our knee-jerk reactions.
But that's not true! Your knee jerks without hesitation or control. But other behaviors like toilet habits cannot be evoked as simply. Perhaps a loud growling of that lion might do it.... and you do have some general impulse control I suppose!
And, returning from our semantic discussion: can a person have motivations without desire and fear? I know that all of my actions are governed by the two. I'm typing this right now out of a desire for clarity. :-)
Even your heart beat, muscles in general and also breathing works in pairs. Expand, contact, push, pull. But I think when it comes to motivation, we're talking about a way more complex animal. I see it as some kind of evaluation with many factors involved. Not all conscious or voluntary I suppose but also not necessarily emotional either.
And in a world without suffering (or joy), could there be fear or desire?
It might be enough to just understand their relationship. Or like Buddha did and call the whole dynamic suffering: the good, bad and ugly. This means that to have a "world", one has joy and suffering, fears and desires, consciously or unconsciously, all in tandem. And then you have the monk, or is it a magician, who has made that world disappear without actually leaving it either. But is it a semantic trick, a psychological self-delusion or a proper solution to the riddle?
Pam Seeback
Posts: 2619
Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 10:40 pm

Re: Shakespeare nailed it

Post by Pam Seeback »

Diebert: It might be enough to just understand their relationship. Or like Buddha did and call the whole dynamic suffering: the good, bad and ugly. This means that to have a "world", one has joy and suffering, fears and desires, consciously or unconsciously, all in tandem. And then you have the monk, or is it a magician, who has made that world disappear without actually leaving it either. But is it a semantic trick, a psychological self-delusion or a proper solution to the riddle?
Based on my experience, the struggle to leave the suffering that is distinction making behind is at the heart of the search for "enlightenment" whether it is consciously understood at the onset or not. It was when the desire to permanently transcend distinction making became the driving force of my seeking that I truly entered into the heart of suffering.

These tortured moments saved me, for I discovered that being conscious of something (duality, distinction making, tension and release) is the way of consciousness. Why am I fighting my very nature became the "aha" moment. Healing and acceptance has begun.
Pam Seeback
Posts: 2619
Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 10:40 pm

Re: Shakespeare nailed it

Post by Pam Seeback »

RZoo wrote:The unseen cause (thing-in-itself) made me do it!
You misunderstood my meaning of "unseen". "Unseen" in the context of my statement meant discovery of no-thing, no first cause. I looked for a thing to release me from my thing-ness, realized my folly, end of looking. Thanks though for your query of my intent, these things help me on my path to recovery from looking.
RZoo
Posts: 97
Joined: Mon Jun 16, 2014 5:26 am

Re: Shakespeare nailed it

Post by RZoo »

movingalways wrote:
RZoo wrote:The unseen cause (thing-in-itself) made me do it!
You misunderstood my meaning of "unseen". "Unseen" in the context of my statement meant discovery of no-thing, no first cause. I looked for a thing to release me from my thing-ness, realized my folly, end of looking. Thanks though for your query of my intent, these things help me on my path to recovery from looking.
I'm glad to hear you're on the path to recovery. :-)
RZoo
Posts: 97
Joined: Mon Jun 16, 2014 5:26 am

Re: Shakespeare nailed it

Post by RZoo »

Diebert van Rhijn wrote:
* You are drawing a distinction between knee-jerk reactions and ones that go through the consciousness, but let's not overstate such a distinction: we aren't in control of our emotions any more than of our knee-jerk reactions.
But that's not true! Your knee jerks without hesitation or control. But other behaviors like toilet habits cannot be evoked as simply. Perhaps a loud growling of that lion might do it.... and you do have some general impulse control I suppose!
I was speaking from a deterministic / "objective" point of view, where the only difference between a person's knee-jerk and controlled reaction is that the latter takes a more complex or advanced (evolutionarily speaking) path through his "consciousness". :-)
Diebert van Rhijn wrote:
And, returning from our semantic discussion: can a person have motivations without desire and fear? I know that all of my actions are governed by the two. I'm typing this right now out of a desire for clarity. :-)
Even your heart beat, muscles in general and also breathing works in pairs. Expand, contact, push, pull. But I think when it comes to motivation, we're talking about a way more complex animal. I see it as some kind of evaluation with many factors involved. Not all conscious or voluntary I suppose but also not necessarily emotional either.
And in a world without suffering (or joy), could there be fear or desire?
It might be enough to just understand their relationship. Or like Buddha did and call the whole dynamic suffering: the good, bad and ugly. This means that to have a "world", one has joy and suffering, fears and desires, consciously or unconsciously, all in tandem. And then you have the monk, or is it a magician, who has made that world disappear without actually leaving it either. But is it a semantic trick, a psychological self-delusion or a proper solution to the riddle?
People need reasons to act: they need interests, desires, cares, goals, values, beliefs, and causes to fight for. These, along with some biological factors, constitute motivation. Without them, people suffer from depression and can find little justification for staying alive. We tend to desire things that we think will bring us joy and evade suffering. In modern man, suffering can even be boredom of too sheltered a life, and joy can be the thrill of crime, chance or the unknown. In a world without pleasures, pains, thrills, joys and suffering, we would have no reason to do anything. It seems plausible that consciousness could not even exist in such a world.

Substituting the real world for some other world (or "nothing") is no "proper solution", it is a self-delusion committed on the basis of a semantic mistake.
User avatar
Diebert van Rhijn
Posts: 6469
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 4:43 pm

Re: Shakespeare nailed it

Post by Diebert van Rhijn »

RZoo wrote:we aren't in control of our emotions any more than of our knee-jerk reactions.
diebert wrote:Your knee jerks without hesitation or control. But other behaviors like toilet habits cannot be evoked as simply.
RZoo wrote:I was speaking from a deterministic / "objective" point of view, where the only difference between a person's knee-jerk and controlled reaction is that the latter takes a more complex or advanced (evolutionarily speaking) path through his "consciousness".
Then lets just call that complex or advanced path "control". It's just another possible label for it, instead of a tiny alien in a control chair inside our skull :-)
People need reasons to act: they need interests, desires, cares, goals, values, beliefs, and causes to fight for.
You are listing causes but leave out some of the more common ones: forcing by others, the imagined safety of repetition or habit, copying behavior from others or media, random behavior and also chemical disturbances. Only after that, and more often imagined than not, we come with our set of personal reasons and justifiers.
In a world without pleasures, pains, thrills, joys and suffering, we would have no reason to do anything. It seems plausible that consciousness could not even exist in such a world.
You're just describing a world with changes, conflicts and differing interests and values working themselves out. But this doesn't describe yet emotion or personal motivation.

Anyway, you're sidestepping my initial definition of emotion as "social passions". If you want to disagree, that is fine. But by first claiming emotion is something part and parcel of all our motivations and actions, it becomes rather easy to state, like you did, that without emotions, a person cannot have motivations. I guess that depends then, because without being affected by social passions, one can still be motivated to do something without "paying into" the social economy, which is a system based on the reality of human individualism and free will as a given. But the truth might just not be that self-serving. My view would be more like that the "social" and the passions which fuel it are fundamentally erroneous from a philosophical perspective. Although that doesn't mean it cannot have function or effect, just that it won't be a conduct for truth finding. Actually one can find out it's in direct opposition to it the moments it stops the usual not caring.
Substituting the real world for some other world (or "nothing") is no "proper solution", it is a self-delusion committed on the basis of a semantic mistake.
The problem is that people talk about "the real world" as if they have access to it. But what they often mean is something rather useless in any philosophical sense.
Pam Seeback
Posts: 2619
Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 10:40 pm

Re: Shakespeare nailed it

Post by Pam Seeback »

Diebert: But the truth might just not be that self-serving. My view would be more like that the "social" and the passions which fuel it are fundamentally erroneous from a philosophical perspective.
The philosophical perspective of emptiness and impermanence has a way of putting an end to social passions, but it can be the beginning of conscious compassion for those who still experience not only social passions, but passion for anything.
RZoo: In a world without pleasures, pains, thrills, joys and suffering, we would have no reason to do anything. It seems plausible that consciousness could not even exist in such a world.
Does it not seem plausible that post-enlightened consciousness (one that is detached from pleasure and pain) can exist very well in the world in the form of tenderness and sympathy (compassion) for all beings who yet remained attached?
RZoo
Posts: 97
Joined: Mon Jun 16, 2014 5:26 am

Re: Shakespeare nailed it

Post by RZoo »

movingalways wrote:
RZoo: In a world without pleasures, pains, thrills, joys and suffering, we would have no reason to do anything. It seems plausible that consciousness could not even exist in such a world.
Does it not seem plausible that post-enlightened consciousness (one that is detached from pleasure and pain) can exist very well in the world in the form of tenderness and sympathy (compassion) for all beings who yet remained attached?
No. Your enlightened consciousness is not detached from pleasure and pain if he still feels sympathy for others. And why should it feel tenderness, sympathy and compassion instead of, say, hatred and malice? What a bias! How arbitrary! You are trying to turn enlightenment into a religion that promotes your flavor of moral values and biases. If enlightenment is the result of truth and logic and free of value judgments, it should not be connected to any moral values and unable to feel sympathy.
RZoo
Posts: 97
Joined: Mon Jun 16, 2014 5:26 am

Re: Shakespeare nailed it

Post by RZoo »

Diebert van Rhijn wrote:My view would be more like that the "social" and the passions which fuel it are fundamentally erroneous from a philosophical perspective. Although that doesn't mean it cannot have function or effect, just that it won't be a conduct for truth finding. Actually one can find out it's in direct opposition to it the moments it stops the usual not caring.
In my view logic is basically a tool and passions are the inputs to it. Basically we agree, except that you seem to value truth more than passion, whereas I'd have the opposite value. :-) I think a world without passion would be a dead world, and the end game of "enlightenment" should be to understand the limitations of "truth" and logic and to reunite ourselves with the value of passions.
Pam Seeback
Posts: 2619
Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 10:40 pm

Re: Shakespeare nailed it

Post by Pam Seeback »

RZoo wrote:
movingalways wrote:
RZoo: In a world without pleasures, pains, thrills, joys and suffering, we would have no reason to do anything. It seems plausible that consciousness could not even exist in such a world.
Does it not seem plausible that post-enlightened consciousness (one that is detached from pleasure and pain) can exist very well in the world in the form of tenderness and sympathy (compassion) for all beings who yet remained attached?
No. Your enlightened consciousness is not detached from pleasure and pain if he still feels sympathy for others. And why should it feel tenderness, sympathy and compassion instead of, say, hatred and malice? What a bias! How arbitrary! You are trying to turn enlightenment into a religion that promotes your flavor of moral values and biases. If enlightenment is the result of truth and logic and free of value judgments, it should not be connected to any moral values and unable to feel sympathy.
This forum is about wisdom of the infinite of which you are an intrinsic part as I am an intrinsic part. Therefore, it is not belief in a religion or my desire to promote my flavor of moral values and biases that brings me to question you about the plausibility of the passion of compassion as a post enlightenment philosophy, but the logical truth of what enlightenment allows you to realize, the connectivity of all things.

I am not saying you are not free to hate or feel malice for the universe of which all things are ontologically bound including 'you', but how is this a logical passion given that you can't actually hurt or kill the eternal universe? Even if one doesn't consider the ontological illogic of the passion of hatred, the passion of hating is illogical from the practical psychological standpoint that it does not promote well being, either for oneself or the world. Is it not more logical, for the sake of well being, to experience or feel instead the expansive and inclusive passion of compassion/love/joy?

One can be detached from pleasure and pain and feel compassion for the universe when one understands what detachment is. Detachment does not mean not experiencing, detachment means not identifying, not clinging. Life brings pleasure I feel it, life brings pain, I feel it, but neither claim my I-philosophy. This is another logical truth of compassion, it doesn't deny the suffering of life, as a matter of fact, it is the 'bread and butter' of its world.
RZoo
Posts: 97
Joined: Mon Jun 16, 2014 5:26 am

Re: Shakespeare nailed it

Post by RZoo »

movingalways wrote:This forum is about wisdom of the infinite of which you are an intrinsic part as I am an intrinsic part.
Why not stupidity of the infinite? Or wisdom of the finite? Or an extrinsic part of nothing? All of these phrases have the same amount of meaning. What benefit do we gain by choosing the halves of a few dualities with the most pleasant connotations to describe ourselves?
movingalways wrote:Therefore, it is not belief in a religion or my desire to promote my flavor of moral values and biases that brings me to question you about the plausibility of the passion of compassion as a post enlightenment philosophy, but the logical truth of what enlightenment allows you to realize, the connectivity of all things.
(emphasis added)
I strongly disagree. Enlightenment allows you to realize the illusory nature of all dualities, including connectivity (another name for the thing-in-itself) vs. dis-connectivity of all things. All things are no more "connected" than they are "disconnected". Both are nonsensical, illogical metaphysical jibberish and hardly the basis for an intelligent morality.
movingalways wrote:I am not saying you are not free to hate or feel malice for the universe of which all things are ontologically bound including 'you', but how is this a logical passion given that you can't actually hurt or kill the eternal universe?
You're right that you can't hurt or kill the "eternal universe" (thing-in-itself), but nor can you love or help it. It's irrational to feel any emotions for it.

I'm not really interested in any universal emotions. I don't believe in pure love or pure hatred; I think of them just like hot and cold, that you can't experience one without the other.

Every morality of feeling universal emotions seems to be an idealism of some other world at the expense and slander of this world. I suppose there's no reason that a post-enlightened being couldn't assume that type of morality, but it doesn't seem very smart, practical, or realistic to me. This is the clash of our biases.
movingalways wrote:Even if one doesn't consider the ontological illogic of the passion of hatred, the passion of hating is illogical from the practical psychological standpoint that it does not promote well being, either for oneself or the world.
I strongly disagree. I suppose it depends how you define well-being. If you think well-being is things like strength, intelligence, passion, motivation, competition, war, and desire, as I do, then the opposite of what you said is true: hatred is required, suffering enhances, etc. If you think well-being is a world without suffering or pain where we'd all happily graze as a herd of cattle, or a giant playpen where we all scurry around as happy babies for our lives, then I suppose you idealize universal love, equality, elimination of suffering, and so on. You are idealizing some other world, whereas I am idealizing the existing world and only interested in making a subjective impact in it.
movingalways wrote:One can be detached from pleasure and pain and feel compassion for the universe when one understands what detachment is.
The "universe" (thing-in-itself) doesn't need your compassion. ;-)
Pam Seeback
Posts: 2619
Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 10:40 pm

Re: Shakespeare nailed it

Post by Pam Seeback »

movingalways wrote:
Even if one doesn't consider the ontological illogic of the passion of hatred, the passion of hating is illogical from the practical psychological standpoint that it does not promote well being, either for oneself or the world.
RZoo wrote: I strongly disagree. I suppose it depends how you define well-being. If you think well-being is things like strength, intelligence, passion, motivation, competition, war, and desire, as I do, then the opposite of what you said is true: hatred is required, suffering enhances, etc. If you think well-being is a world without suffering or pain where we'd all happily graze as a herd of cattle, or a giant playpen where we all scurry around as happy babies for our lives, then I suppose you idealize universal love, equality, elimination of suffering, and so on. You are idealizing some other world, whereas I am idealizing the existing world and only interested in making a subjective impact in it.

By well-being in the context of compassion, I am not painting a picture of grazing cattle or happy babies (cattle also endure inclement weather and starve if not fed and babies are more often unhappy than happy), I am putting forth compassion as a resting attitude of acceptance of all the aspects of what it means to live consciously on the earth, the hot of it, the cold of it, the hate of it, the love of it, the hunger of it, the satiation of it, etc. The operative word here is "resting", implying the time when the will of the earth is quiet or silenced.

On what concept/value do you rest your reasoning when you are not making your subjective impact of hating?
I'm not really interested in any universal emotions. I don't believe in pure love or pure hatred; I think of them just like hot and cold, that you can't experience one without the other.
I agree, the will to love is dependent on the will to hate and vice versa, but again, when the will to be or not to be is not active, how do you reason your existence in the world, if indeed, you reason your non-willing existence at all.
RZoo
Posts: 97
Joined: Mon Jun 16, 2014 5:26 am

Re: Shakespeare nailed it

Post by RZoo »

movingalways wrote:By well-being in the context of compassion, I am not painting a picture of grazing cattle or happy babies (cattle also endure inclement weather and starve if not fed and babies are more often unhappy than happy), I am putting forth compassion as a resting attitude of acceptance of all the aspects of what it means to live consciously on the earth, the hot of it, the cold of it, the hate of it, the love of it, the hunger of it, the satiation of it, etc. The operative word here is "resting", implying the time when the will of the earth is quiet or silenced.

On what concept/value do you rest your reasoning when you are not making your subjective impact of hating?
I'm not really interested in any universal emotions. I don't believe in pure love or pure hatred; I think of them just like hot and cold, that you can't experience one without the other.
I agree, the will to love is dependent on the will to hate and vice versa, but again, when the will to be or not to be is not active, how do you reason your existence in the world, if indeed, you reason your non-willing existence at all.
Hmmm... difficult question, not sure I fully understand, but I'll try to answer.

When my will to be or not to be is not active, I suppose it's "rested" upon whatever decision I made the last time it was active, and perhaps it will rest there until the next time it's challenged.

When you ask what concept/value I "rest" upon, are you asking what is the "ultimate" driving motivation/value/belief that underpins me? If so, I'm not sure that I can pin it down to one, but I can give some ideas: desire to create, achieve, or accomplish something, interest or entertainment, competition or challenge, enjoyment of experiencing, emotions, being alive, and power.

Beyond that, well, I'm not sure that I "rest" upon anything. That would be akin to asking "what do you think while you're asleep"; barring dreams, I don't think anything or I wouldn't be asleep!

Compassion is one word that doesn't enter my vocabulary much... I don't see much point to it, especially as an attitude toward life. Compassion is usually condescension. From most perspectives I dislike it. I prefer passion.
Pam Seeback
Posts: 2619
Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 10:40 pm

Re: Shakespeare nailed it

Post by Pam Seeback »

Thanks for your definition (or non definition) of "rest."

As for compassion, clearly we have different definitions. Perhaps its time to give it a rest. :-)
User avatar
ardy
Posts: 341
Joined: Tue Oct 29, 2013 6:44 am

Re: Shakespeare nailed it

Post by ardy »

Hamlets To be or not to be is a great speech - the part I enjoy is:

"Thus conscience does make cowards of us all,
And thus the native hue of resolution
Is sicklied o'er with the pale cast of thought,
And enterprises of great pith and moment
With this regard their currents turn awry,
And lose the name of action."


What a succinct statement about the constant evaluation of what we are thinking, 'I will do this, no I will do that, no I think this is best....' and who is free of this? I had a discussion with Kelly about this and other things, my view is that the control of what you think and what needs action and what we can ignore is almost impossible to understand without wisdom. Even then the outcomes are not under your full control.

Therefore you can understand people putting their faith in something higher than them - I think this is a cop-out to understanding yourself.
User avatar
ardy
Posts: 341
Joined: Tue Oct 29, 2013 6:44 am

Re: Shakespeare nailed it

Post by ardy »

RZoo wrote:
When my will to be or not to be is not active, I suppose it's "rested" upon whatever decision I made the last time it was active, and perhaps it will rest there until the next time it's challenged.

I'm not sure that I can pin it down to one, but I can give some ideas: desire to create, achieve, or accomplish something, interest or entertainment, competition or challenge, enjoyment of experiencing, emotions, being alive, and power.

Beyond that, well, I'm not sure that I "rest" upon anything.

Compassion is one word that doesn't enter my vocabulary much... I don't see much point to it, especially as an attitude toward life. Compassion is usually condescension. From most perspectives I dislike it. I prefer passion.
Interesting, I find that most people try to replicate what was successful before, or more often, avoiding what went wrong last time. This is done with no regard to the current situation, and provides a colourful life full of a thousand mistakes.

Compassion is one of those things that seems to grow with age. If you are young I would wholeheartedly agree that you should prefer passion. It is natural. What is unnatural is to dislike compassion.
RZoo
Posts: 97
Joined: Mon Jun 16, 2014 5:26 am

Re: Shakespeare nailed it

Post by RZoo »

ardy wrote:Compassion is one of those things that seems to grow with age. If you are young I would wholeheartedly agree that you should prefer passion. It is natural. What is unnatural is to dislike compassion.
I am on the young side so we'll see.

Compassion is certainly typical in today's society due to the prevailing morality, but it is really an ugly thing when you look at it more closely: "Oh you poor thing, I am so much better than you that I shall take pity on you and give you some of my compassion and help you to be better like me." It's condescension and a feeling of superiority (and moral superiority). I wouldn't want to receive it, so I wouldn't give it either. I suppose a different flavor of compassion could exist out of respect, but I feel like that's a rarer form and that most people today who describe themselves as compassionate do not do it out of respect.
User avatar
Cahoot
Posts: 1573
Joined: Wed Apr 22, 2009 12:02 am

Re: Shakespeare nailed it

Post by Cahoot »

With so many resources, surely your sincere enquiry has revealed this distinction.

Difference Between Pity and Compassion
http://www.differencebetween.net/scienc ... ompassion/
User avatar
Diebert van Rhijn
Posts: 6469
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 4:43 pm

Re: Shakespeare nailed it

Post by Diebert van Rhijn »

RZoo wrote:I think a world without passion would be a dead world, and the end game of "enlightenment" should be to understand the limitations of "truth" and logic and to reunite ourselves with the value of passions.
For some people the end of the social game would be the same as death perhaps. But again, I described "social passions" with examples like anger, jealousy, humiliation, pride, shame, status play, apathy and pithy, greed, lust, depravity and generally "decadence". It's up to you to describe the value of those then! Remember that I opposed the idea "desire" or "fear" being in that same list. They are in my view as fundamental as attraction and repulse but manifest in many ways, including somewhat twisted in the realm of all the social passion plays.

Exploring the function of passion, drive, motivation and foremost will, to power, to truth, to life or death seems to me quite a different topic. Just as the value of intuitive living, using facilities beyond the intellect as such. These are to me deeper lying issues, like sea monsters in the depth of the ocean being only barely related to all the surface activities (and don't start about Jaws!).
Leyla Shen
Posts: 3851
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 4:12 pm
Location: Flippen-well AUSTRALIA

Re: Shakespeare nailed it

Post by Leyla Shen »

Diebert van Rhijn wrote:
RZoo wrote:Without emotions, a person cannot have motivations.
That sounds like an extreme claim only loosely based on a mishmash of perhaps popular neuroscience or otherwise unclear or generic definitions.

Motivations obviously are complex things: instincts, reflexes, curiosity and love are already four motivators not, or not limited to, emotion. Based on my experience and some of the literature on the topic, I see many good reasons to describe emotions purely as "social passions", which would include anger, jealousy, humiliation, pride, shame, apathy and pithy. And to become a social passion it needs first a public stage, imagined, inwards or actual. Or at least it's happening always in regards to some other ("the hell, that's the other", as Sartre noted). Personally I'd call emotion the "social coinage".

Fear and desire are more tricky to call emotion as they are related often to instinct and other primal processes, for example trying to avoid death, hunger or disaster in general. While fears and desires are instrumental in the emotional world, they can be seen more general as "embrace" and "rejection" or push and pull, love and hate. For example, a man might desire a relationship with a woman but when he enters, a whole complex of social passions come into play and will dominate everything, creating the usual push and pull drama. Desire then as path leading to social passions but that doesn't make desire an emotion.
Not so tricky to include desire as "social passion", particularly when one evokes Sartre's "Hell is other people". Desire as lack, as a result of self-reflection precipitated by the other.

I would say need would be fear's instinctual/primal counterpart (as opposed to psychological/psychosocial counterpart), rather than desire.
Between Suicides
Locked