GENIUS FORUMS

maximize pleasure and minimize pain

people try to maximize movement and minimize obstacles.
When you think of not getting something you create an obstacle. You can either stop creating the obstacle and therefore stop thinking, you can continue the thought and experience the obstacle/pain/pressure and then subsequently relax or you can keep on creating pain to keep on thinking. Then when you finally managed to hold the train of thought you try to decrease the pain. That is where the struggle with pleasure and pain begins since you cannot remove the pain without actually stopping that which creates the pain.

I guess you incorporate learned responses also into your principle. For instance if I started opressing my happiness. I might have learned that expressing it could give me pain whitch I then try to avoid.

But what about people that don't go through all of this and don't make a living out of it? Do they follow your pain/pleasure principle when they get hungry and start looking for food for the sake of eating? I know it might not seem like it.

spelnxpert wrote:

Shahrazad wrote:

What about a charitable woman who hates the man who once raped her but when she finds him one day in need and desperate she helps him even though it pains her to assist she hates him so?

She's a good-natured person, and good people invariably enjoy helping / giving to others.

No, in this example it was given it pains her to assist, with no mention of God because she's an atheist.

If it pains her, she is not helping anyone.

maestro,

I would define the ego as a mind created image of the self. The pain/pleasure principle interacts with the ego, but remains so even if the ego as defined above disappears.

No one would disagree that biology is programmed and that programming is about pain and pleasure. The question becomes, are you your biology?

This principle is empirical. Why not you yourself test it for some days and see how your decisions are made? Record any action of yours which contradicts this principle and let me know.

I also wouldn't argue that I always choose what I want. The problem is, you are conflating what I want with what is pleasant. I don't always want what is pleasant, but I always want what I want.

Your problem with this principle is that it puts the sinner and the saint the high and the low on the same platform, but that is its main strength, here is nonduality for you.

No, I think the problem is you want to equate biology with everything that happens. That is being simplistic. We all want an easy answer but sometimes we just have to look a little deeper.

This principle is enough to shatter the self righteous self image that many seekers seem to have.

Reducing everyone to their biology is going backwards, not forwards.

We condemn the deluded masses, but must remember that in doing so we are seeking our self righteous pleasure, and they are seeking their pleasure, so at the core there is hardly any difference. Our truths and philosophy are for pleasure, and their baser pursuits provide their pleasures. Our knowledge and vision limit our pleasures just as their knowledge and vision theirs.

Yes, everyone is doing what they want. So what?

In view of this principle the search for absolute truth is again a desire for timeless power and pleasure, where is the difference then from the common man. Let us be honest in our motives and not cover it up with high sounding words.

Yes, let's be honest, we are all doing what we want. It doesn't mean we all want the same thing.

samadhi wrote:No one would disagree that biology is programmed and that programming is about pain and pleasure. The question becomes, are you your biology?

Biology and such are just labels. What I am is not known, the answer is not knowable by the mind which just recycles thoughts and labels from here and there.

I also wouldn't argue that I always choose what I want. The problem is, you are conflating what I want with what is pleasant. I don't always want what is pleasant, but I always want what I want.

Give me an example where between two choices you chose the unpleasant of the two, and tell me why did you chose that. Remember that unpleasant is not only about the body, there is a whole psychological dimension to it.

maestro,

samadhi: No one would disagree that biology is programmed and that programming is about pain and pleasure. The question becomes, are you your biology?

maestro: Biology and such are just labels. What I am is not known, the answer is not knowable by the mind which just recycles thoughts and labels from here and there.

Okay, that's a good start, so you are not your biology. If you are not your biology, how can you be programmed?

samadhi: I also wouldn't argue that I always choose what I want. The problem is, you are conflating what I want with what is pleasant. I don't always want what is pleasant, but I always want what I want.

maestro: Give me an example where between two choices you chose the unpleasant of the two, and tell me why did you chose that. Remember that unpleasant is not only about the body, there is a whole psychological dimension to it.

I gave you an example above with my father. I want to know the truth regardless of whether that truth makes me feel better or not. Wanting the truth is not itself feeling better. When you equate the two, you lose a very important distinction, that is the difference between things as they are and things as we might wish them to be.

Samadhi to Maestro: I gave you an example above with my father. I want to know the truth regardless of whether that truth makes me feel better or not.

Never mind how you might feel later or which “truth” it is, but WHY would you want to know the truth to begin with?

Sapius wrote:

samadhi to maestro: I gave you an example above with my father. I want to know the truth regardless of whether that truth makes me feel better or not.

Never mind how you might feel later or which "truth" it is, but WHY would you want to know the truth to begin with?

Why does anyone want to know the truth? You can answer that question as well as I can. For me, that's our nature, to love the truth, no matter how it makes you feel.

Why does anyone want to know the truth? You can answer that question as well as I can. For me, that's our nature, to love the truth, no matter how it makes you feel.

Bull shit, Sam. You want to know the truth because it relieves you from the discomfort of not knowing it. It bothers me to not know how the universe came into existence. If I were to pursue that answer, it would be to avoid that discomfort. Same with the case of knowing whether your father was dead or alive.

You never answered maestro's scenario. It was important for you to answer so that we know exactly how far you are willing to go in this alleged love of truth regardless of pain level.

-

samadhi: Why does anyone want to know the truth? You can answer that question as well as I can. For me, that's our nature, to love the truth, no matter how it makes you feel.

sher: Bull shit, Sam. You want to know the truth because it relieves you from the discomfort of not knowing it. It bothers me to not know how the universe came into existence. If I were to pursue that answer, it would be to avoid that discomfort. Same with the case of knowing whether your father was dead or alive.

Sher, why do you insist on telling me my experience? Besides, your scenario just begs the question. Why do you not want to feel discomfort? At some point, you just have to say, "I don't know." I don't know why I love the truth, I just do. It's my nature to do that. You can't know why your nature is what it is, you can only be it.

You never answered maestro's scenario. It was important for you to answer so that we know exactly how far you are willing to go in this alleged love of truth regardless of pain level.

I did answer his scenario. Take a look above. Do you need me to repost it?

samadhi wrote:I did answer his scenario. Take a look above. Do you need me to repost it?

You never did you just rambled on about unrelated stuff.

Sam,

I did answer his scenario. Take a look above. Do you need me to repost it?

Please do.

Sher,

Please refer to my post on page 2 (Sun Feb 03, 2008 4:47 am) under Here are your questions [answered]:

maestro,

You never did you just rambled on about unrelated stuff.

Well, if you investigate my reference above, you will see your questions answered. If you have a problem with them, you have to tell me. I can only respond to what you post, not what you are thinking.

Sam,

Here's how you answered the question:

Maestro: Now do you think some people will seek the truth, who will be those people and why would they do this?

Sam: Some people did seek the truth, doctors and those who had compassion for lepers. I imagine they did it because they wanted the truth of the disease and the people who contracted it.

Maestro's question was about a specific scenario. Your answer talked about compassion for lepers. The scenario had nothing to do with lepers. Only in your mind can this be deemed as an answer to maestro's question.

You do know how to change the subject.

-

Shahrazad wrote:Sam,

Here's how you answered the question:

Maestro: Now do you think some people will seek the truth, who will be those people and why would they do this?

Sam: Some people did seek the truth, doctors and those who had compassion for lepers. I imagine they did it because they wanted the truth of the disease and the people who contracted it.

Maestro's question was about a specific scenario. Your answer talked about compassion for lepers. The scenario had nothing to do with lepers. Only in your mind can this be deemed as an answer to maestro's question.

You do know how to change the subject.-

All I was doing was applying his scenario to a real-world situation. When I did that, I could see the answer to his question was yes and 'because they love the truth'. Is it so hard to follow?

samadhi wrote:

Sapius wrote:

samadhi to maestro: I gave you an example above with my father. I want to know the truth regardless of whether that truth makes me feel better or not.

Never mind how you might feel later or which "truth" it is, but WHY would you want to know the truth to begin with?

Why does anyone want to know the truth? You can answer that question as well as I can. For me, that's our nature, to love the truth, no matter how it makes you feel.

:)

Smadhim, I think you can now be certified enlightened since you have learned the trick of the trade. Bravo!

It’s in our nature = it's caused.

Hence, always remember, whatever may come you always have the answer to it all... my friend... in your egotistically ego-less favor.

Why do we love to go against the Ten Commandments? It’s in our nature.
Why the blooming hell do we love to know or do anything at all? It’s in our nature.

Well... I’m impressed! :D

Sapius,

samadhi: Why does anyone want to know the truth? You can answer that question as well as I can. For me, that's our nature, to love the truth, no matter how it makes you feel.

Sapius: I think you can now be certified enlightened since you have learned the trick of the trade. Bravo!

It’s in our nature = it's caused.

Who said it's caused? Nature isn't caused, it is the source of cause.

Hence, always remember, whatever may come you always have the answer to it all... my friend... in your egotistically ego-less favor.

Well, I don't know about an answer to it all, but loving the truth is a good place to start.

Why do we love to go against the Ten Commandments? It’s in our nature.

Hey, don't jump to conclusions!

Why the blooming hell do we love to know or do anything at all? It’s in our nature.

Be careful. You sound like you want to make it into a dogma, it's not that.

Well... I’m impressed! :D

With your own nature? Everyone's got one.

Well, I don't know about an answer to it all, but loving the truth is a good place to start.

But we all do that, that’s our nature; isn’t it? No worries really.

Let's not split hairs. I believe from what you write, that you are a good natured person… so it’s cool, Samadhim :)

Sapius,

samadhi:Well, I don't know about an answer to it all, but loving the truth is a good place to start.

Sapius: But we all do that, that’s our nature; isn’t it? No worries really.

Some do, some don't. maestro's whole point is that it's all about feeling better. I don't think you can say it's ALL about anything. I was just trying to provide a counterpoint.

By the way, do you know me from another board? I don't go by samadhim here.

Samadhi,

Some do, some don't. maestro's whole point is that it's all about feeling better. I don't think you can say it's ALL about anything. I was just trying to provide a counterpoint.

I know what you mean, and in that sense, ‘”I” know absolutely nothing’, but we are simply discussing it in a philosophical sense. The question is, why some do and some don't, so the point is that the ego/self operates or the motivation of any action or reaction is essentially a self-satisfactory one, be it even a seemingly self-sacrificial one, because the motivation is necessarily ones value based, and that calls for mental self-satisfaction.

For example, I love truth because I value it, (others may not, right?) so I may even be willing to die for it, but the courage to do that I find in me fulfilling MY values, and if that didn’t satisfy me mentally, or if “I” didn’t feel right or good about it, I wouldn’t do it.

Someone who commits suicide; unless and until he doesn’t mentally think that it is the only option of getting rid of the “pain”, which would definitely be a better state than he already is in, he wouldn’t do it.

The most self-less act or feeling, generally speaking, can be only that of a mother towards its child, whom a mother considers to actually be a literal part of her own flesh and blood even if she does not really think in those terms, which a father can never ever feel because he doesn’t have a womb and never goes through the process of carrying a child and giving birth. That moment of holding the child just after birth makes a mother feel almost like a God, a creator. But even then, all her sacrifices towards her child satisfies her mentally, be it even in giving her life for the child.

So, essentially, it is but a matter of degree of how least un-self-centered one could be, but it cannot be in an absolute sense, because the self remains, and consciousness itself is a self-centered operating system to begin with; one cannot remove the “I” and live to tell or think the tale. If someone claims that he has… well… good luck to him.

By the way, do you know me from another board? I don't go by samadhim here.

This is the one and only board I am at and I don’t even really know others, however, quite sometime back I did read the board that Robert Larkin and Victor are at, so may be from there? There was this Great debate and hence I checked out their site.

But I don’t know why, I think there was a Samadhim here too; I vaguely remember having a chat with. Well, it does not really matter, does it?

BTW, I visited the Samadhi of Gandhi in New Delhi, and I know it has a different meaning too, as in meditation.

Sapius,

samadhi: Some do, some don't. maestro's whole point is that it's all about feeling better. I don't think you can say it's ALL about anything. I was just trying to provide a counterpoint.

Sapius: I know what you mean, and in that sense, '"I" know absolutely nothing', but we are simply discussing it in a philosophical sense. The question is, why some do and some don't, so the point is that the ego/self operates or the motivation of any action or reaction is essentially a self-satisfactory one, be it even a seemingly self-sacrificial one, because the motivation is necessarily ones value based, and that calls for mental self-satisfaction.

Like I said to maestro and sher, looking at it that way is just defining the conclusion. "We always choose to feel better because feeling better is what we choose.” Right now I'm in a situation where I have a choice to lend someone some money. It DOESN'T feel better to lend the money but I may do that anyway for other reasons. Yes, I am choosing to do what I want. It doesn't mean what I want makes me feel better. It doesn't.

For example, I love truth because I value it, (others may not, right?) so I may even be willing to die for it, but the courage to do that I find in me fulfilling MY values, and if that didn’t satisfy me mentally, or if “I” didn’t feel right or good about it, I wouldn’t do it.

Again, valuing it by doing what you want, isn't always about feeling better. You are doing it because it is what you want, not because what you want makes you feel better.

Someone who commits suicide; unless and until he doesn't mentally think that it is the only option of getting rid of the "pain", which would definitely be a better state than he already is in, he wouldn't do it.

Dying for what you want, especially suicide, doesn't feel good. It feels horrible and to say that one does it to feel better is being completely disingenuous. Yes, one wants to die. We are always choosing what we want. But what we want isn't always about feeling better.

The most self-less act or feeling, generally speaking, can be only that of a mother towards its child, whom a mother considers to actually be a literal part of her own flesh and blood even if she does not really think in those terms, which a father can never ever feel because he doesn’t have a womb and never goes through the process of carrying a child and giving birth. That moment of holding the child just after birth makes a mother feel almost like a God, a creator. But even then, all her sacrifices towards her child satisfies her mentally, be it even in giving her life for the child.

You are assuming your conclusion. A mother acts with regard to her child based on what she wants, not how it feels. Sometimes it hurts to do the right thing. If it always felt better to do the right thing, by your reasoning, everyone would be doing it all the time. But it isn't like that, is it?

So, essentially, it is but a matter of degree of how least un-self-centered one could be, but it cannot be in an absolute sense, because the self remains, and consciousness itself is a self-centered operating system to begin with; one cannot remove the "I" and live to tell or think the tale. If someone claims that he has ... well ... good luck to him.

This is a whole other argument. Removing the "I" is simply removing the idea of doership. Do you know the Tao? "The master does nothing but leaves nothing undone." When there is no doer, what needs to be done invariable happens. And certainly s/he wouldn't claim to have done anything. Claiming doership is no way to mark its absence.

samadhi: By the way, do you know me from another board? I don't go by samadhim here.

Sapius: This is the one and only board I am at and I don't even really know others, however, quite sometime back I did read the board that Robert Larkin and Victor are at, so may be from there? There was this Great debate and hence I checked out their site.

That would be TPG ( http://pub138.ezboard.com/bponderersguild ) where I was around for a while and used the name samadhim7. It's interesting that one glance at the board years ago and you would remember me! I was just wondering why someone I don't know would address me using my old name.

BTW, I visited the Samadhi of Gandhi in New Delhi, and I know it has a different meaning too, as in meditation.

Yeah, I use samadhi ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samadhi ) for a reason.

Samadhi,

It's interesting that one glance at the board years ago and you would remember me! I was just wondering why someone I don't know would address me using my old name.

I must have read something substantial you must have written, and the very close new name must have triggered it, otherwise my day-to-day memory is quite weak at times.

Yeah, I use samadhi ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samadhi ) for a reason.

Wow! Highest level and all! And here I am… years ago I chose “Sapius” from a baby naming site, and the root word meant ‘dirt or dust’, in Latin or Greek (I think), which as “Sapius” meant ‘down to earth’, ‘humble’ etc.

However, I don’t see the point in going on with this discussion really, since I tend to look a bit beyond the ‘want’ part and see what does the ‘wanting’ or ‘choosing’ really achieve as far as the Self is concerned? Be it Pol Pot or Gandhi, Hitler or the Buddha. My not wanting something also achieves the satisfaction of that desire.

Yes, I choose something over another because I like it and I want it, but what motivates it or what it achieves, is the question for me. End of the day, I choose OR want because it satisfies the fulfillment of my values, and that fulfillment makes my Self feel better. If ‘want’ is the final point of your conclusion, then I cannot say much.

Right now I'm in a situation where I have a choice to lend someone some money. It DOESN'T feel better to lend the money but I may do that anyway for other reasons. Yes, I am choosing to do what I want. It doesn't mean what I want makes me feel better. It doesn't.

May be, and I do understand what you are saying, but if you give away the money anyways, what would be the reason I wonder?

I've followed this thread semi-interestedly (I don't claim to have a solid memory of everything that has been said) but I have a general reaction to it that I want to share.

As far as I'm concerned your disagreement boils down to the definition of pleasure. The "pleasure" in "knowing truth" or in "doing the right thing" is a different type of pleasure to that of drinking alcohol or hearing kind words from a neighbour or winning a competition or being promoted or whatever. I think that Sam has a valid point in trying to discriminate between those types of "pleasure"s. On the other hand I think that you guys (Sher, maestro and Sapius) have valid points in saying that it all comes from a self-focussed perspective too - it's just debatable whether "satisfying one's self-focussed perspective" constitutes "pleasure". Personally I'm not so sure that "pleasure" is the right word for the feeling that one gets from searching out truth even when it's going to be difficult, or from doing the right thing even when you know that there will be negative consequences. Like I say though, it's debatable. Perhaps this does constitute pleasure after all, but please guys, recognise that Sam has a valid point in trying to discriminate between different types of pleasure.

There, Sam, don't say that I never support you! :-P

Laird,

Me, and others I take it, have nothing against Samadhi per say :-p

…it's just debatable whether "satisfying one's self-focussed perspective" constitutes "pleasure". Personally I'm not so sure that "pleasure" is the right word for the feeling that one gets from searching out truth even when it's going to be difficult, or from doing the right thing even when you know that there will be negative consequences.

Of course, and we are simply debating it... aern't we.. :-p

I do understand Smadhi’s point and I do know the difference, but I’m not talking about doing something just for “pleasure” per say, but ‘that, which satisfies a self’. I might at times do something quite contrary to my general beliefs, but for reasons that I alone will reason and thereby stick to, which gives ME the sense of doing something right as per situation and my reasoning thereof, and the fulfillment according to that reasoning gives ME the SATISFACTION of complying with the values ("rihgt" or "wrong" values is another issue) MY reasoning was based on.

I really don’t know how else to say it though, and I don’t like to go in circles for long either. So, it does not really matter who believes what, since they are all beliefs based on personal reasoning however, including mine, so ultimately, each to his own.

Laird wrote:
As far as I'm concerned your disagreement boils down to the definition of pleasure.

Not really, me, Sher and Sapius have put down all different pleasures in one basket (Sapius calls it satisfaction which is also a nice term). So for me it does not matter about the varieties of pleasure. Also I made it clear that a choice could be made for minimum pain rather than maximum pleasure (which is in the end the same thing).
Samadhi on the other hand is saying that there is something else which is the drive for truth. And he thinks that is more fundamental than this pleasure pain principle in making choices. For this he gives the example of his Father's death, but I and Sher think that example illustrates his choosing the minimum pain path. That is choosing to know about his Father's death is less painful for him than being kept in perpetual suspense.

The problem with Samadhi is that he does not answer your questions but rather changes your questions to his own liking, and then answers his own questions. I wonder how that worked out for him in an exam or interview type situation.

Sapius,

Wow! Highest level and all! And here I am… years ago I chose "Sapius" from a baby naming site, and the root word meant 'dirt or dust', in Latin or Greek (I think), which as "Sapius" meant 'down to earth', 'humble' etc.

"Samadhi" is not an indication of status but a type of consciousness.

Yes, I choose something over another because I like it and I want it, but what motivates it or what it achieves, is the question for me. End of the day, I choose OR want because it satisfies the fulfillment of my values, and that fulfillment makes my Self feel better. If 'want' is the final point of your conclusion, then I cannot say much.

Everybody wants something. It's vacuous to argue that wanting something, whether it be about values or a simple pleasure, is some kind of profound insight into how things are.

May be, and I do understand what you are saying, but if you give away the money anyways, what would be the reason I wonder?

To make someone else happy.

Laird,

Perhaps this does constitute pleasure after all, but please guys, recognise that Sam has a valid point in trying to discriminate between different types of pleasure.

To say that seeking truth is really seeking pleasure is a distortion. Yes, we all seek something but to say that all seeking is pleasure-seeking, as you have noted, is to deliberately obfuscate an important distinction.

There, Sam, don't say that I never support you!

You always struck me as a smart guy, except when it comes to enlightenment! ;)

maestro,

Samadhi on the other hand is saying that there is something else which is the drive for truth. And he thinks that is more fundamental than this pleasure pain principle in making choices. For this he gives the example of his Father's death, but I and Sher think that example illustrates his choosing the minimum pain path. That is choosing to know about his Father's death is less painful for him than being kept in perpetual suspense.

That was a kind of generic example. Wanting to know the truth of something can be much more profound than simply wanting to know the status of a fact.

The problem with Samadhi is that he does not answer your questions but rather changes your questions to his own liking, and then answers his own questions. I wonder how that worked out for him in an exam or interview type situation.

I don't know what you're referring to here. I certainly have answered your questions, whether it was to your satisfaction or not is another issue which you allude to but seem reluctant to discuss.