A new definition of happiness
 

The words come to me now, but the principle predates them.


I've come to realize that living a good life, and being happy isn't the goal I've come to desire. Because of this, I now put to words what I've resolved from a long period of introspection. Because this is a very informal draft, it's format might not be the best I can do, and at times it might come full circle or repeat itself. I apologize in advance for this. Same goes for any strange English I might resort to, for I am not as erudite in this language as what I'm going to attempt to describe might require. I also warn that this is probably going to be long, although I am not certain how long exactly at this point. I'm said to be boring-to-tears wordy. Also, what I'm going to say might sound completely obvious to you. I can't help it if I'm discovering what you've left behind long ago, so bear with me. If you're looking for an opportunity to scorn or make jokes, I cannot stop you from doing so, but I am not actively trying to present such opportunity. In other words, this is what little I consider actually important in life, and I present it to you in hope you'll treat it with a degree of respect, even in the context of I-mockery.

So,



I don't know where to begin.





For some time now, I've come to think the definition of 'happiness' to be lacking. The short glimpses of euphoria I've experienced at times in my life, I've always felt to not be deserving to be called a reason to exist. To strive for those brief emotional interludes seemed like too much trouble for too less of a profit. It became apparent that my continued existence needed a much more essential goal. I've tried to pursue something that could be described as 'love' and I've tried to find an end in serving Reason. Both, while presenting some interesting insights - I could not lie to myself - were not what my... inner sense of direction? I'm not certain... my driving ambition, anima, soul, whatever one calls it, yearned. This instinct, while not strictly orthological -in fact, I think many Hardcore materialists would laugh at me for resorting to souls- I cannot disregard. It may be another social construction or resort to 'faith', but I rest safe in the knowledge that it doesn't seem so, mainly because it doesn't seem to comply with what society wants me to be, so it's influence lies elsewhere. That's currently good enough for me.

Then I considered the joy of creation. Artistic creation has always been very important to me, and I've thought it to be a source of happiness. However, after inspection, I found that happiness to not be exactly that; Meaning that after a long, frustrating session of say, musical composition, I was many times left tired, spent, not at all accomplished. Not happy. But there was this feeling inside me, that substantiated my existence. That feeling, while not actually putting me in the well-known state of momentary drug-like euphoria of an unexpected kiss or a moment of emotional connection in a very awkward way, dignified my existence, like a stern tutor, berating and praising at the same time. It is a difficult thing to explain. I can only hope you've felt it. This feeling, which lacks a name to the best of my knowledge I've found to be my goal in life. But not as a junkie, creating things to get his fix of pleasant punishment, but rather so as to know that I am here, I exist and do.

There's a semiotic value into taking nothing and making into a recognizable something. There's an unmistakable dignity - I risk the ethical judgment - in that process that can not be liked to say, going out with your friends to party. Both feel good, but not in the same way. This, a more substantial happiness at this moment remains my goal, and I strive to serve it with all the talents my biological make-up and social upbringing have imbued in me. The awareness of one's own self in the something that he separates from himself is much more than just a reward to yearn. It is the reason to be. One can be bordering at the verge of depravity, or he could be inhumanly detached, but still serve this end. It is I can say, the a priori definition of being self-aware . When you create something, you are essentially creating another pair of eyes that stare right back inside you, and for the first time, you glimpse fragments of what could be your true self. Your technical skill and your maturity might help or hinder the eyesight of those eyes, but one immediately knows the truth in the process. We've been used to live in such mediocrity that when something so substantial occurs, the difference is of such startling proportions, one knows he's stumbled on to something that could be true.

Remember how some songs, or works of art, after a long time (or for others immediately), seem to merge with your person to such a degree it no longer matters who originally made them? You are making them your own. I believe this is because we instinctively(?) realize the truthfulness of the purpose of that piece of art, and it cuts to our soul through the haze of terrible uncertainty that is life. I think Inspiration is this effect. When you recognize something that stems from this.. this process of belief, and you gather the resolve to set out on the same path. Many people listen to music with their only criteria being the melodic value, the 'catchyness' of a melody, and it's not in me to judge them as simple, but there seems to be something deeper in the process than that. Something on a whole different level. Maybe there's some cognition between what the complexity of your true self, ambition, drive, is and the kind of art one relates to. It's a dangerous assumption to make for many reasons, but possibly true. In any case, I'm in the position to say and believe that Creation is much more that feelings expressed. Art is not means to and end, it is an end in itself Not the only end, but a very important one.

In the forms that I think I see now, world is a canvas so to speak. I've come to realize that many of my political and ethical beliefs do not seem to be able to coexist with this creation-based point of view. This is an issue I cannot resolve at this time, although I'm trying. It still seems important to me to be able to serve my end in creation, and still keep my morality. If that's my pavlovian programming, or something more substantial I cannot tell at this time time, but I hope for the latter. This doesn't say much, though.


That's it, more or less. I'm not exactly certain why I want to discuss this.

There's no way I'm reading all that. I HOPE THAT MAKES YOU HAPPY >:

It's somewhat sad to see that you didn't make it to the end of the first paragraph even.

You made me sad :(

Happiness is t.a.t.u. :)

I have read all of you have typed. Im still a bit lost though of what you are trying to say in the middle paragraph down onto the end(I know words cannot explain true feelings so I can't blame you for that) Anyways, if I have interpreted what you typed up correctly. I too, have gone through what you've said in the first paragraph:

Im not sure what type of 'love' you are talking about but I've always thought that happiness could be found, or completed, by finding your true soulmate (Laugh if you want >:), but what disturbed me to the fact that people could prove that biologically that homo sapiens were meant to be polygamous, rather than monogamous. I don't know how to think of 'love' anymore, I once that it was a 'magical feeling' but then it could later be proven that it could be a bunch of chemicals in my head having a reaction (I am talking about 'true love'- if it hopefully exists- not the "I'm not looking for a serious relationship right now, but could you be my boy/girl friend for 2 weeks?" love)
I don't know how I've got over this but I still, once in a while, seek many questions left unanswered. I know that I could lie to myself, but something inside of me tells that I shouldn't. I don't know how to explain it but it does make me depressed knowing that I don't know any of the answers... Sometimes most arguements would probably have to rely on the concept of a soul or inner-being. That is probably how I've gotten deeply (well, let's not consider that) in the field of philosophy. I'm still a bit of a n00b in this field (Ive only been into it for about a year and a half) but Im trying to do my best =/

ps. I hope I understood correctly what you are trying to say :|

HAPPINESS IS DRUGS :rolleyes

D'UH!!! OBVIOUSLY! :rolleyes

It is exactly because love is different from person to person (to this conclusion I've come a while back, like anyone bored enough to read my gigantic posts on this forum knows) that I felt persuing it was akin to mental masturbation. If you cannot feel it the same way the other person feels it, then the bliss of the supposed connection between you and the other person is just you trying to convince yourself that you're on the same emotional level. You're not. You're not even in the same plane, so to speak. Comparing emotions is an execrise in frustration.



but I've always thought that happiness could be found, or completed, by finding your true soulmate (Laugh if you want ),


I do not laugh. Happiness, I suppose could be found there(if happiness can be said to be the same thing for two people - debatable). But I deem the other kind of happiness, the one gained through the process of creation so much more important. Once you've experienced it, momentarily bliss seems like a cheap substitute. My father believes as you do in the subject, and we've discussed it a good long while before he admitted merit in my oppinion, even though he chose to not accept it.



but what disturbed me to the fact that people could prove that biologically that homo sapiens were meant to be polygamous, rather than monogamous.

It doesn't negate your demand, really. Who says happiness is achieved in servicing your primal needs? There's no stong argument supporting this oppinion.

I don't know how to think of 'love' anymore, I once that it was a 'magical feeling' but then it could later be proven that it could be a bunch of chemicals in my head having a reaction (I am talking about 'true love'- if it hopefully exists- not the "I'm not looking for a serious relationship right now, but could you be my boy/girl friend for 2 weeks?" love)


Probably just chemicals to the brain put there to make the mating procedure seem attractive to humans, but that two doesn't mean much.

I'm still a bit of a n00b in this field (Ive only been into it for about a year and a half) but Im trying to do my best =/


This field being what? There's no 'philosophy'. There's lots of philosophies. Ethical, Polital, Ontological, all sorts of stuff people have thought up.

ps. I hope I understood correctly what you are trying to say

I am trying.

The philosophy Im talking about is metaphysical or ontological. Theology, I guess.

Not absolutely, but somewhat nonconclusive, and of secondary importance.

A more perfect union.....
 

Duh
 

Wrong thread.....

edit : sarcasm edited out since it was a mistake

I bet
 

I would be willing to bet my Pez Dispenser collection that if you were more like John Stamos, you would be happier.

If you took my brain out of my head, I'd be constantly happy, if not a bit on the salivating side, but that doesn't say much.

helm, have you ever read kahlil gibran's the prophet? his remarks on the nature of joy and sorrow hit home with me.

Interesting that Sadie mentioned The Prophet, because I was thinking of the same when I read your initial message Helm. Thank you for sharing your insight with us. Yes, I've been there and I continue going there to reaffirm "who I am" at times. Finding a true soul mate is nice, but it's not the ultimate answer. Even if you're on the same plane, there's still lots of work involved to keep it strong.

I have a feeling you are going to create an important book some day. Let me know if you need a publisher.

Im sorry Helm. I like you very much but, thats too much text to read.

the only reason i read it is 'cause helm wrote it. i knew it'd be interesting. ;)

Sadie: I have not read that book. I'll look for it, but if it's pseudo neo-age "wish it enough and it will happen" silliness, I'm going to be dissapointed.

womanwithballs: Thanks, I guess. I'm more interested at sorting things out, than writing books that probably rehash ideas people have expressed years ago and with quite a bit more clarity. Check again in 30 years.

Lego: I guess I should have made the topic read "If you do not have something constructive to add, please don't post" after all. Putting that at the end of the first paragraph didn't seem to do the trick. Be a pirate.

it's not very long:

from the prophet, kahlil gibran.



Then a woman said, "Speak to us of Joy and Sorrow."

And he answered:

Your joy is your sorrow unmasked.

And the selfsame well from which your laughter rises was oftentimes filled with your tears.

And how else can it be?

The deeper that sorrow carves into your being, the more joy you can contain.

Is not the cup that hold your wine the very cup that was burned in the potter's oven?

And is not the lute that soothes your spirit, the very wood that was hollowed with knives?

When you are joyous, look deep into your heart and you shall find it is only that which has given you sorrow that is giving you joy.

When you are sorrowful look again in your heart, and you shall see that in truth you are weeping for that which has been your delight.

Some of you say, "Joy is greater than sorrow," and others say, "Nay, sorrow is the greater."

But I say unto you, they are inseparable.

Together they come, and when one sits alone with you at your board, remember that the other is asleep upon your bed.

Verily you are suspended like scales between your sorrow and your joy.

Only when you are empty are you at standstill and balanced.

When the treasure-keeper lifts you to weigh his gold and his silver, needs must your joy or your sorrow rise or fall.

Hm. I might have missed the point, but to me this sounds like more of the usual buddhist crap about extinguishing the flame of passion and whatnot. Duality, and all it's philosophical applications ( kamic, zen, tao) also means nothing to me.

I find it a bit strange as to how this was relative to my original post. I was speaking about a more substantial happiness derived from validating one's existance through creation, I wasn't crying over being sad, nor was I in need of yet more naive black and white perceptions of a world that's infinitely more complex than we'd like to believe.

i understood you to be questioning the nature of happiness, and happiness itself is transitory, regardless of which form it takes.

Hm. I might have missed the point, but to me this sounds like more of the usual buddhist crap about extinguishing the flame of passion and whatnot.

Agreed.

In regards to the original subject matter. . .Personally, I believe life is about purpose, and not pleasure, therefore happiness is a secondary (if not tertiary) consideration. While it comes in many form, most are fleeting. How long, after all, can one stay amused? The only form of enduring happiness I know is its most mildest form, pride. The length of time one might feel anything from that will be directly related to the achievement itself, the more difficult the challenge, the longer lasting the results, will directly correspond with the duration of the enjoyment.

Of course, I'm also a Robot. Just ask Proto.

:rebuttal :lol

please elaborate on how you two feel the gibran is about "extinguishing the flame of passion and whatnot."

Koans are neat.

Well, I can try.

Your joy is your sorrow unmasked.


Duality. Two ends of opposing spectrums. Two battling forces of conviction. Tao, Zen fuck my ass and I don't care buddhism. This covers the duality claim.
.

Verily you are suspended like scales between your sorrow and your joy.

This is essentially saying that the good way is found through equal amounts of the two extremes. The Enlighted Path, as any Buddhism newbie can point out, is also that, the tranquility found in balance of passions.

I have no interest in all of that for various reasons. I do not consider either dualism, or any other sort of middle-road philosophy/religion an option. See in it what you will, just know that for one to believe in all that crap, he should also be in the position to afford it. It is in that sense, the philosophy of the 'strong'. Go tell 'extinguish the light of passion, young one!' to a starving kid in africa. Richard Geere on the other hand, can surely afford it. It is as hypocrticial and confortable a solution one could ever hope to find... for a price.



Only when you are empty are you at standstill and balanced.


I do not seek to be empty. I do not seek balance. I will not give you my money nor will I carress your cock, thank you very much.

what you're reading as a mandate on how best to live, i've always read more as comment on the way things are, which of course is up for debate.

Verily you are suspended like scales between your sorrow and your joy.
i see what you're saying. maybe, though, he's not saying we should strive for the middle ground. i've always taken it to mean that, yes, sorrow and joy are parts of the whole (the duality thing, which rings true for me), and we are always at some point between the two.

i'm not sure what this means in practical terms.


Only when you are empty are you at standstill and balanced.
i never read this as his espousing emptiness as the favorable course. i'd rather live my life in pain and sorrow than to be empty. balance, however, is something i've grown to seek.
when i was younger, happiness was my highest goal. now, peace is. but does peace necessarily mean a lack of passion? i have a peace at my core, but a tornado still swirls around it.

:( i was hoping you would.

It's not observation. It's demand.

There are more than two directions in life, and there's no middle ground. Some stands we make negate others, and not all ends can be served.

Point in question, the philosophy you presented with that religious poem whatever it was, and my creation-based point of view do not have some middle ground. The premises of the first contrast with those of the other.

The text you presented, took too much for granted, and then came to conclusions, which in that shallow context seem inavoidable. It's simple to look at life in dualistic terms, but ultimately not constructive.

The peace you speak of, is just another way to say you are wanting happiness. Happiness found in peace or in any other way is still happiness. The peace you speak off, is that found in the absence of opposing forces? An uneventfull day, as peacefull as it is would be really boring, to speak in base terms. If you are tired of living, I suggest you shouldn't disguise it into some philosophy. I hope it's not the case.

Also, if it's your cock we're talking about, I'm willing to negotiate.




Sorry if this post seems very colourless. The board ate my last post, and it always tires me to rewite the same things, so I kept the essence of them. Even the joke came out bland.

on this, we'll have to agree to disagree, i suppose.

agreed.

i'm not sure what you mean here. creation-based, as in non-evolution? if so, how does that contrast with what's presented in the text?

what is it taking for granted? that sorrow and joy are inseparable? i don't believe we can understand one without having felt the other. having known deeper sorrow does allow for knowing deeper joy. this has been my experience. (and btw, that's only one chapter of the book.)

no. i'm not interested in uneventful, void days. even when i'm wracked with sorrow, i have a peace inside me that i can't explain. and it's not about the absence of opposing forces, either. i am constantly warring between juxtaposed emotions internally; it's my nature to analyze all sides of an argument, and it's not uncommon for me to feel two seemingly opposite ways at once.

i didn't notice, probably because you mentioned negotiate and cock. :P

Can't we just use Biology to explain what happiness is, since we have such diverse cultures and beliefs? You know, happiness is when the brain secretes whatever chemicals to stimulate whatever the hell regions of the brain and so on???

No, when I ment creation-based world view, I ment anything but Creationsit bullshit. It's my belief that one verifies his existance through artistic creation. All in my original post.

As to Tropical, happiness might be chemicals to the brain, just like anger or lust, but why do I get the latter when I think of Sadie and a pair of wirecutters, whereas you get it when you think of hairy smelly sailors with 'I love you mother' tattoo's on their chests? The fact that cultural diversion, the way one is brought up, dare I say even his own willpower, has a say in when and why a person feels something is enough for me to not fall for the determinism drivel.


Straying a lot from my original topic, but what the hell. Imagine a child that has never known pain, and lives with all the comfort in the world. That child might not appreciate it's life, but it is experiencing the happiness it provides for it. Now, if that child were to lose it all, suffer hardship and pain, and then reclaim it all, yes, the child would appreciate it's lifestyle more. But that doesn't mean it'll feel it any 'deeper' or any such poetic bullshit. I remember being perfectly content in a sandbox younger, not having lived to know any adverse circumstance. There's a fine point there.

I think that any proper definition of happiness must account for a person's past and present interaction with his or her environment. After all external phenomena do influence our mood. That being said (and this recalls earlier discussions we've had), it appears to me that the happier one's mood is, the more one associates things in the environment as happy things. Likewise when one is depressed, one tends to be more self-loathing and loathing of other people etc. Ergo what does it mean to say "this or that makes me happy", and should it rather be "I am happy, therefore I like this or that"? And are dramatic, life changing events such as meeting the significant other of your dreams, or having some dancer rub her boobs in your face, somehow the exceptions?

Now, if that child were to lose it all, suffer hardship and pain, and then reclaim it all, yes, the child would appreciate it's lifestyle more

I recently read an article saying that actually, one's emotional state doesn't change much, even after a life changing event such as a horrible accident. Of course this depends on the imaging techniques used as well as the definition of 'emotional state'.

This is something you've said in the past. At the end of the Free Will thread. That somehow, the mood occurs before the reason to, or that we manufacture a reason to justify the mood. I cannot inspect this issue in any way, as with the rest of the determinist theory, you either take or leave it, since it's innaproachable logically. In determinism, logic is an afterthought. I'll leave it. In any way, the topic thread is very misleading, and I should have thought of it better before using it. I'm not actually trying to redefine happiness. I am talking about how the feeling of euphoria is second to another, more sublime feeling that occurs when one has validated his existance through some media of creation. Now, whether I suddenly validate my existance, and then rationalize it's because I created something I cannot inspect, as I said above.

To make a long story short, you cannot use this theory in a discussion, since if it's true, the discussion is a meaningless rationalization of feelings that somehow occur.

Galapagos Kurt Vonnegut...not quoted but that just reminded me of the book.

Happiness is when your brain shifts into phase B (or is it A? neurology always escapes me) and starts pumping a morphine like chemical into your head.

It occurs in a variety of situations and because of a variety of stimuli, or lack thereof.

Your upbrigning and every event that has taken place during your existence is what modifies and creates the requirements for such stimuli to be activated.

But I'm an idiot.

I find it difficult to come up with a definition of happiness when everything blows. :(

Mammoth: Okay. Okay.

:love wirecutters :love

Do you also dress in black and fishnets and read some Lord Byron over a glass of Absynthe and some Cassandra's Complex? Pessimism is what people do when they give up in understanding. True, you might never be all cheery and euphoric, but you do stand a chance to understand, if you try. And awareness and understanding are like, so the new happiness :trust me

Happy
 

Helm -
I really like this thread. And I did read the original post. Long, but nice. A lot like my ramblings that I generally keep to myself.

I was going to take some time to give a slightly different viewpoint on the Joy/Sorrow piece. It is about duality and about balance, but there are far more ways to view it than the way you have. But since it is not for you, I won't badger you with it. That really serves no purpose.

When it comes to true happiness.......I don't really think I know what it is. Not that I am not happy. But I am also at times many other things. Does that mean that I am not truly happy? How do you even judge true happiness?

All right hombre, I've got a simple thought for you - if you want happiness but you want to preserve your ethics and your desire to achieve satisfaction through creation, talk to my man Ari-Fairy-Stotle. Happiness is the mean, friend. We as a society are too busy looking for instant gratification which many folks mistake for happiness. If you are looking for more than pleasure, and you want to achieve it via a moral standpoint, give "The Ethics" a read. Aristotle may be thousands of years old, but he knows how to combat instant gratification and do it using the tools we all have - courage, knowledge and love.

That's my Dr. Phil moment for the day.

Vibe: I'm glad that you took the time to read my original post. As to your question, I do not strictly know the answer, naturally, but as I said, happiness as it is thought, the process of euphoria is distinctively different and for me intrinsically of less importance than gratification (for want of a better word) found in the process of -artistic or otherwise- creation. That's all I can safely say, although I do not know if this applies to anyone else than myself. This would be the focus of this thread. Others telling me if what I propose works for them, and how.


Systemz: I'm familiar with Aristotle, along with Plato, the pre-socratics, the natural philosophers, the sophists, the cynics and generally with all the founders of classical philosophy. Thanks for the suggestion.

Happy Happy Joy Joy
 

I wish I were more artistic......
Perhaps once I settle into my new place I'll go back to drawing again.


What makes me the most happy? I used to think love, until I developed a better sense of self. Love is important, but it isn't crucial to my being happy. What makes me happy is searching and constantly learning. When something triggers an interest, I will study it until I either find the answer or the interest fades. I spent four months reading about Scientology simply because I found the horror stories of the cult in the 60's fascinating. I tried hallucinogens for the first time at 27 not out of pressure, but out of genuine curiosity about the visual, mental and emotional aspect that other people talked about. I just had to "see" it for myself. I learned about lucid dreaming because I always seemed to have them even when I didn't know what they were.
What makes me curious does tend to lean towards the spiritual, the how and the why of human nature, and what makes us....well us.


In many aspects I am like a child. I will ask "why" a million times.

You're a star - a great big philosophical star.

Represent the KFC Crew.

Youre absolutely right. After reading your reply, I've been trying to somehow connect this aspect of a personality into the creation-based viewpoint I now adhere to, since I am like that as well. I am easily interested in many an aspect of humanity, and I value knowledge and understanding much in the same way I value artistic creation, in that it gives me a sense of satisfaction that is unlike pedestrian euphoria, and somewhat unconnected with practical application. An end in itself. Besides knowledge and artistic expression, ethics, living by them, why and how, must be somehow added into this viewpoint, and the whole structure should then collapse into a coherent logical whole. Looking back as it is now, it's incomplete.

It is possible that man besides being as Aristotle said, a communal and political animal, is also inclined towards creation inherently, and also inherently ethical; I believe persuing proof in that direction is possible and essential in the understanding of self and society.

Thanks for bringing this into my attention
:squigly

Happy
 

:: giggle :: My work here is done :rave

Actually, this makes me happy. I do enjoy getting people to see another side or a different viewpoint they might have missed.
Almost as much as I enjoy hearing viewpoints different from my own. Makes it far easier to talk about a subject when you are informed on all sides of the matter. You don't have to agree with other views, you just have to accept that they exist.

The point of a discussion however (Socrates said, anyway) should be to arrive at some sort of unavoidable conclusion. Talking for talking's sake is not constructive.

The dialectic! Now we're talkin'.
Anyone ever notice that these boards are either about some enormously serious concept or boogers? Where's the middle ground?