SasQuatch9585 wrote:As far as happiness in relation to truth, I can't speak to that. I haven't read anything on this relation. I know that happiness exists as a state of mind, and that I enjoy it. Attempting to take someone's happiness, however one defines it, is what I meant by 'suppression of the spirit'.
Let me start by saying I don't believe in any spirit world or the existence of a soul as the word is traditionally defined.Diebert van Rhijn wrote:This relation between happiness and spirit is something that needs to be explored or defined further by you, in my view.
I do experience everything to that people normally use as evidence of a soul, which is to say emotions. My explaination for emotions is purely scientific; that they are an array of chemicals reflexively released into the blood stream by the hypothalimus.
The sense of smell is the mental image of the chemicals in the air you breathe. That's what those chemicals feel like in your nose. Likewise, emotion is the mental image of the chemicals in your brain and blood.
The perception of having an aura or spirit that extends beyond the limits of one's body is, I believe, simply another layer of the illusion presented to us by the brain. There are nerve endings in the brain, and they could easily be detecting the same chemicals as the nerve endings in your heart. Being in the brain, however, they are incorporated into the image somehow.
This last paragraph is purely my own speculation, except for the fact that there are nerve endings in the brain which detect something.
So by 'supression of the spirit' I mean supression of the emotional state into sadness, grief, depression, etc.
SasQuatch wrote:My objective is to exist outside the pecking order because I'm not concerned with the survival of any group, or that of the human race as a whole. It seems to be doing fine without me.
My priorities are centered around myself, which is not to say I'm selfish. I don't believe I am, anyway. I try to make decisions based on what will be best for my happiness in the long run, but that often involves things that are good for others as well.Diebert wrote:It would be interesting to know what your concerns or priorities then are, deep down. Even individual concerns often serve the species as a whole, since it's a form of experimenting with deviant 'strategies' that may provide useful in terms of evolution. One doesn't have to survive or procreate to be still part of Nature's or Culture's game, you know.
For example, if I'm in a relationship my happiness depends on her happiness (an arangement I'm not entirely fond of and therefore will not return to until I find an emotionally mature and stable woman with whom to enter it). Another, and perhaps the best example I can give, is respecting others. Respect is at the core of my interpersonal philosophy because when you treat others with respect you're actually creating an environment for yourself wherein people are cooler to you. To truly respect myself, I must respect you.
From this idea I've created three guiding rules for my life.
1) Assume nothing.
There is too much unknown about other people's motives, about reality, about situations and opprotunities I've yet to explore, for me believe any longer that my own intuition is substitutable for fact. Basically this means I reserve judgement about the nouns in life (people, places, things, ideas).
2) Don't crap where you eat. (censored mildly)
This has obvious implications, but also refers to the body, mind and soul, which as I said, I believe to be a manifestation of the mind and body. You create your own emotions, so create carefully and base it not on assumption.
3) Cover your ass.
A pretty straight forward concept.
Another idea that I haven't quite decided should be a rule is, let your heart set your goals, let your mind find your path. Meaning, seek the things in life that will bring happiness, but don't make decisions based on emotion.
You're right, however, that these ideas benifit more than just myself, and may benifit humanity on a larger scale if more people would adopt them (though I wouldn't directly make such a claim) but this is secondary to the objective of personal fulfillment.
SasQuatch wrote:Existing outside that order relieves me of having to be concerned with my place within it. Also, I don't believe being part of a pack is neccesary for my own personal survival or fulfillment.
You're absolutely right. I live in a nation of laws, which imediately places me under someone else's control to some extent. The fact that I choose to walk the line doesn't mean the line's not there.Diebert wrote:Study the means of your daily survival and from where your physical security is coming from and you'll find out there's still a hidden pecking order, rules and laws attached. In modern society it's possible to keep many mechanisms out of sight, but how detached is one from them, really?
Just because one doesn't feel the need to challenge or confront a certain order doesn't mean one is 'outside' it. It means only one has made peace with it, at some level.
The 'order' that I'm speaking against here is the social pecking order, which I find to be utterly pointless and the source of many of our negative experiences and low self esteme.
SasQuatch wrote:I was once very full of anger and hatred. It was coming to understand the root of those emotions that allowed me to escape them, though I will never allow myself to believe that my emotional state is perfect, lest I stop looking for flaws.
In one way I agree. Some people still have the capacity to anoy or upset me. More accurately...I still allow myself to become annoyed or upset in response to some people. But I've gotten very good at letting go of those emotions almost instantly. I just stop dumping that chemical into my own system and therefore feel no urge to express the emotion because I'm no longer experiencing it.Diebert wrote:Good, so you know the 'dark side', but you know perhaps it's impossible to 'escape them'. Sublimating or transforming is the only way, unless you castrate yourself in some way.
This has not, and is not, an easy thing to do, though it's become much easier (and less neccesary) over the past three years.
Part of the problem people face when coping with emotions is that we become chemically addicted to them. I mean, if you can be addicted to sex or shopping or gambling, why not anger, sadness, rejection, intimacy, fear. Truly any emotion in the whole spectrum is a potential monkey. It's the life we've seen and the experiences we've had that set up these addictions for us (your past makes you who you are, they say) which why life never changes significantly for most people.
I've read posts by others here that speak against attachments to people or things. I believe emotional addiction is the nature of such attatchments. We come to associate the emotions we enjoy with the things, people or activites that inspire them, the same way we associate nutrients with the food we get them from. That's why you might be in the 'mood' for Italian over Mexican. We're constantly creating situations to satisfy our chemcial desires.
That's why one shouldn't make decisions based on emotion. All to often when something feels like the right thing to do it's because we know deep down that it will satisfy our addiction for sadness or some other self-destructive emotion.
Diebert wrote:This is better known as ressentiment. The moment you feel you cannot enlarge your own power, a defensive position is taken to devalue the power of those as perceived 'above' you. Even the whole concept of up and down in questioned as to even the odds.
SasQuatch wrote:Yes, I agree. My point is that you don't need this kind of power to survive anymore, so I've found it more rewarding to let go of the struggle for it.
You're right. It's circumstantial. Inmates of our hospitable prison system in the U.S. do need such power to survive. My assertion is that the current condition of human technology allows this to be the case, and therefore is certainly temporary. I'll keep watch for the collision. Thanks for the heads up.Diebert wrote:The lack of need for it that you describe might be wholly circumstantial and temporary. Though it seems a growing desire in our modern society to become anti-hierarchy, anti-power, anti-rules while as well living anti-risk and prosperous. In my opinion this is a collision course and won't work.
SasQuatch wrote:I don't feel anxious about my appearance before a body modification, or better about it afterward. Whether I like it means satisfying my own artistic and aesthetic taste.
I'll have to put some long thought into that. There is always some emotional aspect to art and creativity. It seems you may be right.Diebert wrote:Fair enough. It's an area I might just not understand. But to me art and the aesthetic is deeply connected to deeper subconscious currents, symbols and myths. I never find it to be a random pure personal act upon deeper examination.