A new definition of happiness

[Helm]

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.

[sadie]

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.

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 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.

Go tell 'extinguish the light of passion, young one!' to a starving kid in africa.

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


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

I do not seek to be empty. I do not seek balance.

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 will not give you my money nor will I carress your cock, thank you very much.

i was hoping you would.

[Helm]

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.

[sadie]

It's not observation. It's demand.

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

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.

agreed.

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.

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?

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.

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.)

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.

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.

Even the joke came out bland.

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

[Tropical]

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???

[Helm]

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.

i don't believe we can understand one without having felt the other.

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.

[theapportioner]

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'.

[Helm]

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.

[CaptainBubba]

Originally Posted by Helm

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.

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.

[punkgrrrlie10]

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

[Helm]

Mammoth: Okay. Okay.

[sadie]

wirecutters

[Helm]

when everything blows.

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

[Vibecrewangel]

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?

[Systemz]

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.

[Helm]

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.

[Vibecrewangel]

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.

[Systemz]

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

Represent the KFC Crew.

[Helm]

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

[Vibecrewangel]

:: giggle :: My work here is done

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.

[Helm]

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.

[Systemz]

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?