|
BlueCoyote
Beyond


Registered: 05/07/04
Posts: 6,697
Loc: Between
Last seen: 3 years, 1 month
|
Re: How much "pursuing happiness" should we actually be doing? [Re: mofo]
#10498170 - 06/13/09 03:35 AM (14 years, 8 months ago) |
|
|
Yes, happiness definitely lies in the 'now', but sadly we are hardwired to look into the future and compare it to our past. That's how our brains work  So maybe true happiness comes when all three are in a 'flow'...
|
rebus_minus
Registered: 05/15/09
Posts: 667
|
Re: How much "pursuing happiness" should we actually be doing? [Re: BlueCoyote]
#10498237 - 06/13/09 03:58 AM (14 years, 8 months ago) |
|
|
Thank God for Neural Plasticity.
|
island
Stranger
Registered: 03/28/09
Posts: 12
Last seen: 14 years, 7 months
|
Re: How much "pursuing happiness" should we actually be doing? [Re: rebus_minus]
#10498993 - 06/13/09 10:00 AM (14 years, 8 months ago) |
|
|
Happiness is highly important, but maybe how you get to happiness is even more important?
|
deCypher



Registered: 02/10/08
Posts: 56,232
|
Re: How much "pursuing happiness" should we actually be doing? [Re: island]
#10499531 - 06/13/09 12:29 PM (14 years, 8 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
daytripper23 said: And returning to the question of what substantiates this state, would you say that maximizing this is the best approach?
How do you use your favorite substances, to the max, or in moderation?
Maximizing substance intake is usually not conducive to maximizing happiness; I would argue that using substances in moderation enables attainment of a higher state of happiness than either complete abstinence or complete binging.
-------------------- We are all in the gutter, but some of us are looking at the stars.
 
|
deranger


Registered: 01/21/08
Posts: 6,840
Loc: off the wall
|
Re: How much "pursuing happiness" should we actually be doing? [Re: deCypher]
#10503147 - 06/14/09 03:18 AM (14 years, 8 months ago) |
|
|
plus 1
|
daytripper23
?


Registered: 06/22/05
Posts: 3,595
Loc:
|
Re: How much "pursuing happiness" should we actually be doing? [Re: deCypher]
#10504934 - 06/14/09 02:42 PM (14 years, 8 months ago) |
|
|
Again, the question is more of what. To what is quantifiable, we must follow the idea to its material root:
That is following a qualified signifier back to its signified conditionality, where it exists substantially and may be quantified.
What is really occurring in an aesthetic of "maximizing happiness", is that there is a recognized change in conditionality, which you recognize as more something, such as more THC in the brain. Now if we were talking about a high, "more high" would seem to be an appropriate way to describe this change, but only knowing that more applies to that materialistic basis.
Yet as you have just agreed, there is a difference between being high, and a more lofty state of consciousness, such as the spiritualism of "happiness" which is the burden of your argument.
To be "more" happy, there needs to exist a similar relationship. More of what? It seems that you would have "happiness" stand both for a material condition, while also relying on the spiritual benefits of that significance.
But there is really no such thing as "more significance". While it is assumed that happiness is based on a certain conditionality, a conditionality that vary as many or more, there is only a basic arbitrary connection to the original significance. (between happy, and subsequently more happy)
For instance, the significance of a cow would be in establishing a connection between the living, biological animal, with the word "cow". Or many cows may called "a herd". Then you may subsequently have "a herd of cows"
So to a pluralism of cows, there is of course no bearing on the original significance. Many cows is not "more cowy" (more significant). Cow is "cow".
The same would apply to a quality such as "happy". "More high" is meaningful, because it is rooted in the material conditionality that is the more thc. In that case, I would recognize that you are talking about a material pluralism when you say more high, or higher. That's not to say that this is all being high is, and that ultimately it may effect the mind in a unique singular manner, but it is granted that "more" only applies to what can be measured.
To that, in your application of this to happiness, "more happy", I would assume that you are altering that original essence, because the significance of your argument is in how it applies to a persons singular, significant state of mind.
If this is not yet clear, an example of this is in the strongest trump that FDA has in moderating our drug use.
Notice how they ascribe the values of these substances as a dynamic?
While I might recognize a superficial gradation between these substances, such as between chamomile tea, klip dagga, kratom, marijuana, and finally mushrooms, I know the basic significance of each substance is merely derivative of the substance. So while i may moderate my personal use on that previously scale, it doesn't communicate outward as significant. The truth of the matter, is that they are all unique substance. - that is why scheduling, as an inspired dynamic of the mind, when taken seriously is recognized as blunt and ridiculous as it applies to our freedom to mind states.
Whatever makes us fitter, happier, and more productive right?
-------------------- Beware the Jabberwock, my son! The jaws that bite, the claws that catch! Beware the Jubjub bird, and shun The frumious Bandersnatch!
|
johnm214



Registered: 05/31/07
Posts: 17,582
Loc: Americas
|
Re: How much "pursuing happiness" should we actually be doing? [Re: daytripper23]
#10505338 - 06/14/09 04:00 PM (14 years, 8 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
mofo said: yeah, but happiness is fleeting, and once its gone, what do you have? Thats right, nothing. Isn't it better then to make a legacy for yourself, leave your mark on this world? Or something tangible at least?
huh?
How are any of these negatives compatible with happiness?
You say happiness if fleeting meaning you won't have happiness at a later time, and then ask should we seek happiness or not. I don't know how you've turned happiness into "not having happiness" but that seems to be what you've done.
You've set up a contradiction with your own language that makes the question meaningless.
I don't see hwo there can be any greater goal than to seek happiness unless you define that word in a perverse way- which you've done in defining happiness as something that leaves you with nothing (how is that being happy?).
---
In any case, I agree with decypher- yes, we should seek happiness as by definition it is good. I think the way the word is defined reveals taht it is always a good thing. The only way I've seen people get around this is by changing the word to something like "momentary satisfaction leaving you with nothing at a later time" (original poster) or "hurting other people to gain wealth" or shit like that.
I personally do not think killing people to take their money makes me happy, but that's the kind of stuff I hear people equate to happiness that seems ridiculous. It goes to semantics in a way, but I don't see how people who argue for altruism are neglecting happiness at all- you do stuff cuz you want to do it. People who give their money away to the poor do it cuz it makes them happy. Rather than being selfless they are simply seeking to satisfy their own needs (needing to feel helpful, needing to lessen others' suffering, being good) just as the millionaire who fires folks before they qualify for a raise at his company is.
Happiness has nothing, per se, to do with external, to the person, notions of pragmatism and morality, and I think its silly that people try to presume there's some tension between the two- as if seeking to make yourself happy neccesarily is immoral when the nun who gives to the poor is only seeking her own happiness just as the burglar who kills the clerk who could identify him is.
|
deCypher



Registered: 02/10/08
Posts: 56,232
|
Re: How much "pursuing happiness" should we actually be doing? [Re: daytripper23]
#10506357 - 06/14/09 07:13 PM (14 years, 8 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
daytripper23 said: But there is really no such thing as "more significance".
Significance to me is not a black or white thing; instead it is a smooth gradation of personal priority. For instance, I find reading more significant than playing tiddlywinks; in other words, I derive more meaning from the former activity than I do from the latter, and I tend to do the former more often than the latter.
Similarly, I find obtaining higher levels of happiness to be more significant than obtaining lower levels of happiness... also I find obtaining happiness for a longer duration to be more significant than obtaining happiness for a shorter duration. As an inherent good, I am more likely to pursue a longer and increased state of euphoria than a shorter or decreased state, and thus I can deduce that maximizing happiness is therefore most significant. Of course, moderation in drug use might certainly help produce this state of being.
Hope this somewhat addressed your post... I can tell you have a lot of good points but I still found myself somewhat mystified when reading through it.
-------------------- We are all in the gutter, but some of us are looking at the stars.
 
|
daytripper23
?


Registered: 06/22/05
Posts: 3,595
Loc:
|
Re: How much "pursuing happiness" should we actually be doing? [Re: johnm214]
#10507307 - 06/14/09 09:57 PM (14 years, 8 months ago) |
|
|
Is that supposing that a person could somehow consciously act for his own deprivation?
I'd say on the other hand, that its sort of ridiculous to think people aren't seeking happiness by default in whatever they choose to do.
After all, why this impression of freedom is even worth considering, is only in the strict contrast of this choice. The emphasis of such "freedom" is only meaningful because it has been subjected to moderation from an outside source (rather than a moderation personally manifested). This is a posited freedom, freedom as rebellion.
What we have here, is a kickback from having to posit these freedoms in the past, in a situation when that sort of subjugation no longer has relevance.
To have all this political and ethical nonsense, clever balancing of rhetorical freedom, when the basic truth of the situation is clear...Among free and secular discourse, happiness is a bare and arbitrary signification, and freedom is nothingness. To be precise in that sense, each is based on their lack, not what fills it:
First, take the free market, the so called "enlightened self interest" where "maximizing" is clearly applicable to a material condition of wealth. This is what I was addressing to you, Decypher. So how did "enlightened" slip into the economic, material conditions of existence? The same way that "maximizing" slips out into your argument, as though it has some bearing on significance. So instead of nothingness, freedom is mistakenly represented as filling, or maximizing that lack.
Or take a free democracy that is so often posited as an even more sublime rhetorical device; again filling that same lack, it represents the freedom of positive political action, consciously spreading (but of course never imposing) itself on the rest of the world...
And here I am arguing such a point with the two champions of our current moderation in this forum, (not to mention the moderator himself.) As I recall, wasn't it my pursuit of annihilating communal moderation that was too radical?
To clarify what might seem to be a disjuncture in my current position, I have always favored a personal moderation (in our previous instance, it was the ignore feature), over a community inspired one, because a moderated humanism will always manifest as a morality.
It seems clear enough that personal moderation is a step back from the kind that is imposed on one person from another. So how do you guys reconcile this? Are you really saying that personal moderation is not a good idea, when a clear step forward, the moderation of others, is what you both already represent? And again, how does a person consciously act in a way that is not conducive to his goal?
-------------------- Beware the Jabberwock, my son! The jaws that bite, the claws that catch! Beware the Jubjub bird, and shun The frumious Bandersnatch!
Edited by daytripper23 (06/14/09 10:49 PM)
|
daytripper23
?


Registered: 06/22/05
Posts: 3,595
Loc:
|
Re: How much "pursuing happiness" should we actually be doing? [Re: daytripper23]
#10507353 - 06/14/09 10:02 PM (14 years, 8 months ago) |
|
|
While I have gone out of my way to address this outward struggle in these instances, I want to impress that this is not my point anymore. My point here, is why impress freedom as you do, when it is so clearly unnecessary? Isn't a person automatically going to do this by some aesthetic or aecetic method of which it makes no difference?
In other words, in a discussion of personal enlightenment, why indulge the throwbacks of redundant politics, when there is no outside force that threatens this freedom? This impression does not (and cannot) represent the nothingness that it masquerades as; as nothingness posited, it becomes the utility and evidence of a so called enlightenment, and starts to look a whole lot like God. Not only does this "enlightenment" reinforce petty materialism in the individual, when you posit freedom in this unnecessary manner, it is then ironically, that you begin to have political problems!
As posited, its justification becomes a positive matrix of political absurdism, the enlightened tyranny of the world. This is the very same God of the long and thoroughly ridiculous past, the same tragic nationalism of yesteryear's struggle, that is today, our enlightened "Freedom".
-------------------- Beware the Jabberwock, my son! The jaws that bite, the claws that catch! Beware the Jubjub bird, and shun The frumious Bandersnatch!
|
RationalEgo
Principium Individuationis

Registered: 06/15/09
Posts: 2,094
Loc: Boston
|
Re: How much "pursuing happiness" should we actually be doing? [Re: mofo]
#10510581 - 06/15/09 12:46 PM (14 years, 8 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
mofo said: It seems like an unspoken assumption in todays society that we should all be seeking satisfaction in our lives, but should we really? Not to say we should punish ourselves, but how about goals with significance beyond our own satisfaction? People still kind of do it, but not like they used to.
People should pursue rational values to the achievement of happiness 100%. Goals are not rational, significant or to be pursued if they are self-sacrificial and contrary to your own happiness.
|
C.M. Mann
subconscious explorer



Registered: 05/01/08
Posts: 899
Loc: Florida
Last seen: 12 years, 10 months
|
Re: How much "pursuing happiness" should we actually be doing? [Re: daytripper23]
#10510781 - 06/15/09 01:25 PM (14 years, 8 months ago) |
|
|
------------------------- It's funny how enlightened society thinks it is. When I look at it, all that I see is an out of control ego driven mess. "Enlightenment", has turned into an ego controlled business! We are so lost, that the idea that we are going the wrong way doesn't even exist.
|
RationalEgo
Principium Individuationis

Registered: 06/15/09
Posts: 2,094
Loc: Boston
|
Re: How much "pursuing happiness" should we actually be doing? [Re: C.M. Mann]
#10511569 - 06/15/09 03:31 PM (14 years, 8 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
C.M. Mann said: ------------------------- It's funny how enlightened society thinks it is. When I look at it, all that I see is an out of control ego driven mess. "Enlightenment", has turned into an ego controlled business! We are so lost, that the idea that we are going the wrong way doesn't even exist.
Quote:
C.M. Mann said: ------------------------- It's funny how enlightened society thinks it is. When I look at it, all that I see is an out of control ego driven mess. "Enlightenment", has turned into an ego controlled business! We are so lost, that the idea that we are going the wrong way doesn't even exist.
Where did this idea that ego was bad come from? A less civilized, more savage society perhaps?
|
C.M. Mann
subconscious explorer



Registered: 05/01/08
Posts: 899
Loc: Florida
Last seen: 12 years, 10 months
|
Re: How much "pursuing happiness" should we actually be doing? [Re: RationalEgo]
#10511969 - 06/15/09 04:44 PM (14 years, 8 months ago) |
|
|
Most people love to stroke their ego, and they can't stop. They make themselves believe that the ego should be in full control. I don't understand your perception that this has a positive influence on society. How is the idea that having the ego in control being bad, from a less civilized and savage society?
|
RationalEgo
Principium Individuationis

Registered: 06/15/09
Posts: 2,094
Loc: Boston
|
Re: How much "pursuing happiness" should we actually be doing? [Re: C.M. Mann]
#10512001 - 06/15/09 04:50 PM (14 years, 8 months ago) |
|
|
Firstly define what you mean by 'Ego'.
Secondly define what you mean by 'people liking to 'stroke' their ego's.
Thirdly define what you mean by 'control'.
Until you tie down these floating abstractions, there can be no rational discourse.
You are also free to ask me for my definitions.
|
C.M. Mann
subconscious explorer



Registered: 05/01/08
Posts: 899
Loc: Florida
Last seen: 12 years, 10 months
|
Re: How much "pursuing happiness" should we actually be doing? [Re: RationalEgo]
#10513445 - 06/15/09 08:57 PM (14 years, 8 months ago) |
|
|
These words have common meanings, nothing ambiguous about that. Maybe if you would have let me know your interpretation of these words, I would know where you are coming from.
|
|