GENIUS FORUMS

The problem with having "satisfaction" or "reward" as the end goal is that unprincipled people can conjure up all kinds of things that are satisfying/rewarding that don't benefit humanity. While a fitness advocate finds working out satisfying, the glutton finds overeating satisfying. While a married couple experience blissful love-making (during the honeymoon at least), the perverted rapist enjoys abusing children.

Orenholt wrote:If you think "I shouldn't steal" it's either because you think something like A.) I'll get caught or B.) it would make me feel bad to go against my principles.

I'd like to add C.)to remain consistent with one's principles as the end goal. I will also state that one might still feel a sense of satisfaction as a result, but this is only after the fact, a side effect so to speak. Furthermore, the only viable principle left to abide by (since 'emotional satisfaction' is an impractical end goal) is the reliance on reason in one's thinking.

Russell wrote:The problem with having "satisfaction" or "reward" as the end goal is that unprincipled people can conjure up all kinds of things that are satisfying/rewarding that don't benefit humanity.

That is entirely true and I could not deny that if I tried.
But this is why I say that the ego can be either good OR evil, not just inherently bad and useless for the self and the world though.
If you make someone else feel good then you usually feel good too.
A good deed is it's own reward they say. There's no shame in taking joy in doing an act of kindness.

I'd like to add C.)to remain consistent with one's principles as the end goal.

How does that differ from B?

I will also state that one might still feel a sense of satisfaction as a result, but this is only after the fact, a side effect so to speak.

I'm not sure how that would work. If you do it to remain consistent with your principles that means you have a desire to remain consistent with your principles.

Furthermore, the only viable principle left to abide by (since 'emotional satisfaction' is an impractical end goal) is the reliance on reason in one's thinking.

Emotional satisfaction may actually be the goal but reliance on reason and thinking are the best ways to obtain the maximum amount of it.
Being philanthropic, noble and dedicated to one's principles generally produces greater happiness than being cruel and hateful by the nature of how this world works. I hate to use the word "karma" because it brings up ideas of the "just world fallacy" but I think you can understand what karma really means and how it could apply.
Also, long term thinking I think is the key to truly successful satisfaction.

Orenholt,

Emotional satisfaction may actually be the goal but reliance on reason and thinking are the best ways to obtain the maximum amount of it.

This is pretty good... at first. Indeed, we can emotionally satisfy ourselves very well using reason. We can use reason to skillfully manipulate the world around us, so as to plan out a life of pleasure, ease, and emotional satisfaction for the indefinite future.

... However, what happens when we reason something that conflicts with our decadence and excessive ease, hmm? In other words, what happens when we reason something to be true which interrupts our mindless life? Do we give up our emotional comfort and adapt to the truth? Or do we go into denial to maintain the emotional status quo, so to speak?

In short, do you value reason or emotion more? Is reason highest? Or is reason just the highest servant of the highest, emotion? Do your emotions, or lack there of, fall into context with your reason? Or is your reason merely a way to maximize your emotional well-being?

Getoriks wrote: ... However, what happens when we reason something that conflicts with our decadence and excessive ease, hmm? In other words, what happens when we reason something to be true which interrupts our mindless life? Do we give up our emotional comfort and adapt to the truth? Or do we go into denial to maintain the emotional status quo, so to speak?

A life of decadence and excessive ease is does not give the maximum satisfaction. One would grow bored with such an empty lifestyle.
I cannot speak for everyone but I would not be comfortable consciously lying to myself.
My ego dislikes the unknown and hates being lied to.

In short, do you value reason or emotion more? Is reason highest? Or is reason just the highest servant of the highest, emotion? Do your emotions, or lack there of, fall into context with your reason? Or is your reason merely a way to maximize your emotional well-being?

They are equal to me. How could I value anything without attaching an emotion to it?
All values are subjective and BASED on emotion.

Fair enough.

... But what about the lie that you need emotional satisfaction?

Getoriks wrote:Fair enough.

... But what about the lie that you need emotional satisfaction?

I don't NEED it. I only WANT it.

You want to live out a lie!?

Getoriks wrote:You want to live out a lie!?

How am I living out a lie by admitting that I want emotional satisfaction?

Well, it's definitely a good first step. You are being truthful in that you are honestly acknowledging that you really do want to live out a lie.

Getoriks wrote:Well, it's definitely a good first step. You are being truthful in that you are honestly acknowledging that you really do want to live out a lie.

Explain how emotional satisfaction is a lie.

Orenholt wrote:

Getoriks wrote:Well, it's definitely a good first step. You are being truthful in that you are honestly acknowledging that you really do want to live out a lie.

Explain how emotional satisfaction is a lie.

The only people who need emotional satisfaction are those who live a false life, in particular, those who have deluded thoughts about the nature of existence (which happens to be most people, of course). I don't mean to be too brief with you on this point, so I will explain it in long detail later on, but for now, keep studying David Quinn's Wisdom of the Infinite, as he go into this point quite a bit.

Please note that we are just talking about the perfect person -- the enlightened person. This is a forum on how to become that kind of person, after all. Keep in mind that most people, including David Quinn, Dan Rowden, Sue Hindmarsh, Jesus, etc., are not perfect. I am no where near perfect either, and I too can honestly acknowledge that at least 50%, maybe even 99% of my life is foolish and false.

So remember, this is not a forum for people to compare their opinions, to advertise to each other, to speak past one another, and to merely say "this is how I like to live my life" and "me too" or "oh, well, not me, I like to live my life this way". Instead, the goal of this forum is that we engage in cooperative investigations to uncover what is ULTIMATELY true in life, and to then try our damned best to live up to that.

I too had a very hard time intellectually giving up the idea of emotional satisfaction (and don't know if I will ever personally give it up, at least fully). I thought a life without emotion was not a life worth living. It took me much philosophizing and meditating to realize that our emotions are a kind of barrier of finite-ness that we put up between ourselves and Infinity. Living without the need for emotional satisfaction does not have to be some lifeless robotic existence or some psychotic numbness. Rather, it is all about letting go, opening ourselves up, and uniting with the marvelous Universe to which we owe our entire existence.

Getoriks,
So you're referring to egotistical pride for example that I am not responsible for because it was causality and not "me"?
Sure I can acknowledge that it was due to all the circumstances that lead up to it that caused me to win the baseball game but am I not entitled to the good feelings that the illusion of choice and responsibility give me if I know that they are illusions? Is that really "living a lie"? Wouldn't it be MORE dishonest to deny my subjective experience of the universe altogether and have no emotional reactions whatsoever?

Also, do you not believe in a greater good for the world "because everything is already perfect"? Isn't it possible to alleviate the suffering of the many through the suffering of one's own ego for a self sacrificing cause? What good does a "wise" hermit up in the mountains do for starving children in the village? If one does not find discontentment in the way things are and believes that "all is perfect as is" then he will have no reason to do anything.

Does going along with nature's roller coaster of emotions in order to bring "greater good" sound less noble than simply emotionally realizing the truth about causality?

Diebert van Rhijn wrote:

Leyla Shen wrote:Hello, Diebert! :)

Wow did I conjure you out of thin air? Like some Aladdin!

:))) Apparently so. Perhaps next time you could try an energising rub to Europe rather than Genius? (Haven't been there for a while, either!)

Well, you seem to already comprehend, via causality, that we are not really the doers of our actions, the livers of our lives. You seem to understand that emotional satisfaction (it self a finite thing) by the dice dealings of fate, by the circumstances of life (themselves finite things), is never really there.

It is not there in two senses. First, in a pragmatic sense, it is rarely ever really there, and even when it really is, it is always temporary. It is a very fleeting thing, this emotional satisfaction. Second, in a logical sense, it is never there, being that it is false, that it is just there because of your insecurities which in turn are only there because of your false thoughts about Reality.

So definitely do not suppress or repress your emotions. You can do this for practical purposes if and when you need, but when it comes to becoming enlightened, do not. Rather, your emotions will just fall away on their own, and you won't even miss them. They will slowly fade away as you more and more realize, both consciously and subconsciously, that they are not at all reliable, again, as explained above, both in a pragmatic and logical sense. You will see that they do not really ever make you satisfied for that long, and you will see that even in the rare times they do, they feel hollow. You will, by keeping eternal truths, such as causality, in your mind, eventually automatically phase out all that is false, emotions and otherwise.

Initially it is good to have emotions and passion as one journeys onward though the rough maze of the spiritual path. It takes a lot of courage and drive to delve deep into your mind, to abandon society (perhaps not physically, but definitely mentally), and to push for the ultimate and the perfect. And also when one finally reaches great realizations along the path, one is very, very emotionally satisfied. However, eventually, one no longer feels emotional satisfaction from the Truth. At that point, it is just a matter of how committed you are to it, how much you are willing to work for it without the reward of satisfaction anymore. And finally, one drops completely their emotional attachment to Truth itself, and "rests in what is left".

As far as doing worldly good goes, do not underestimate the philosophical/spiritual path! It is literally what holds the human race together, for one, and also, without it, it is unlikely that we would have the stability and logic required which allows worldly thinkers and leaders to prevent overpopulation, famine, war, genocide, contamination, etc. in the first place. It may seem like this is an unimportant forum in some obscure corner of the internet. But if you really give it some thought, you might be able to see how it could very well and probably does have a very real positive effect on the world, even if not immediately tangible or recognizable. For example, when you have a certain level of enlightenment, you realize that other people are your self, and that to further enlighten yourself, you will have to work on enlightening them. In becoming a teacher, you will become a better student.

Getoriks,

I am totally confused about how you can want things and not want things at the same time when you're enlightened.

I will give this further consideration though.

Purpose is a natural and necessary aspect of the consciousness we possess (and values and things like morality follow from this). The problem arises when ego becomes involved. I suspect different definitions/perspectives of what "ego" is may be getting in the way.

When you use the word "ego", what do you mean? I don't want a dictionary definition, I want to know what you, personally, mean (unless it happens to square with some dictionary meaning, of course).

Dan, I would say that the ego is the emotional self from which all desire originates from it's constant dissatisfaction and search to alleviate such condition. I can see why "enlightenment" would be appealing. There would be no more emotional dissatisfaction in theory if it were even possible. I suppose if I compared ego to another entity it would have to be the stomach. Sure you can be full of food and physically satisfied but you will become hungry again sooner or later inevitably just as a living being that requires calories in order to continue functioning. My solution to this "problem" of hunger isn't to eliminate the stomach, it's instead to eat things that cause other people to feel the suffering of hunger, such as foxes that steal their chickens.

Orenholt, what do you mean by realising the truth about causality "emotionally"?

Leyla Shen wrote:Orenholt, what do you mean by realising the truth about causality "emotionally"?

I mean that you let the truth of causality affect your emotional reactions.

That is, are you saying that, for example, a lion realises the truth about causality simply by being a lion, or are you saying something else?

You see this as something in the control of an autonomous "I"; one which makes choices about what will or will not affect its emotions?

What do you mean by realizing the truth about causality "emotionally"?

I mean that you let the truth of causality affect your emotional reactions.

In other words, it's not enough to merely intellectually understand causality and its implications for your emotional life, but to then keep that realization at the distance of your intellect, and to not let it get too close and personal, to keep it for "thinking time", but to then go live the rest of your day in an unthinking, unrealized manner, still wallowing about ignorantly in your emotions. Knowledge is not enough, one must also apply!

Getoriks' response pretty much sums it up.
If you realize the truth about causality emotionally you wouldn't blame someone for their actions for example and you wouldn't have the emotional reaction of disliking them for it.

Yippee!

Leyla Shen wrote:Yippee!

Why are you happy about that?

It also means that if someone does something good that there's no reason to like or love them either.