|
On April 19 2009 08:42 JMave wrote:
I think we need to think more. Its because we don't think that much that's putting us into so much trouble.
People who think more are in general less satisfied with their lives, living a good life is not about making the correct decisions but instead believing that you and people around you made the correct decisions. The more you think the easier it is to see that people make suboptimal choices all the time and such things causes mental stress.
|
|
|
My apologies. I did mean it only as a joke, based off of my knowledge on travis' post history. I had no intention of stunting any discussion.
|
On April 19 2009 08:14 Klockan3 wrote:Show nested quote +On April 19 2009 07:42 travis wrote:
I say that everything has the same meaning with or without emotion.
How do you define meaning? A human without emotions is nothing but a computer, are you saying that a computer can find meaning in things?
Well with or without emotions you still experience some sort of happening in the present moment. I do not know if computers do this.
Everything people do, they do in order to chase a feeling.
No, when I seek the truth there is no chasing of a feeling. It's just an aspiration to understand. And even though intellectual stimulation can be a side effect it isn't the motivator. I imagine it is the same for many others.
Also, one can commit to an action based on compassion or empathy. One can make sacrifices for another because they understand that one's position. There is no chasing of a feeling here. Again, some may feel good about theirselves from doing it but for many that is not the motivator.
Show nested quote +On April 19 2009 07:42 travis wrote:
When you are highly focused on a task, and for the time being you have become what you are doing, and then suddenly time has flew by and it is over Excitement is also an emotion.
no excitement. just attention.
Show nested quote +On April 19 2009 07:26 travis wrote:
Another way to view what I am saying would be that a decision based upon an objective view(what is best according to reason/logic) is not one fueled by desire. Well, if you do not have any desire for any effects of the outcomes you can't utilize reason to figure out which outcome would be the best.
A desire for food so that you may continue to live is one based on reason and logic. This is not the type of desire I am talking about.
A desire for food for how it tastes, or because you are hungry, these are the types of desire I am talking about.
The distinction is difficult because It's hard to demonstrate that there is a fundamental difference in these types of desires. The first type only comes about through utilization of understanding. The 2nd type is very different, it comes about as a furthering of the ego and understanding destroys it, bit by bit.
The more you think the more you can relate to your future selves desires, what you are talking about is the act of just doing what seems best in a very small timeframe contra what is best in a very large timeframe.
But in the end it is the desire which made you do your choice.
you are still sticking to just 1 definition of desire while I am trying to use 2. If it makes it easier I will just stick to the word "craving" from now on 
|
On April 19 2009 08:54 Klockan3 wrote:Show nested quote +On April 19 2009 08:42 JMave wrote:
I think we need to think more. Its because we don't think that much that's putting us into so much trouble. People who think more are in general less satisfied with their lives, living a good life is not about making the correct decisions but instead believing that you and people around you made the correct decisions. The more you think the easier it is to see that people make suboptimal choices all the time and such things causes mental stress.
I hope you do not seriously believe this.
|
Travis, I find it's useful to classify the type of desire you're talking about as "easily satisfying" or instantly gratifying. Alternatively, you can reduce them to primal sexual desires.
|
On April 19 2009 09:16 travis wrote:you are still sticking to just 1 definition of desire while I am trying to use 2. If it makes it easier I will just stick to the word "craving" from now on
Using 2 meanings for a single word on internet discussions is bound for fail, don't do it.
And at least according to every source I could find having desire to do something is the same thing as wanting to do it.
On April 19 2009 09:16 travis wrote:
no excitement. just attention.
But that attention comes from excitement, try to think things through a little bit more. I figure that arguing with you doesn't really work, you haven't reached enough understanding yet.
Like, you still differentiate between short term desire and long term desire thinking that one of them is better than the other and how you don't notice the calmer emotions and you actually believes that you are guiding your thoughts through some magical means. Science have shown that you can predict which choice a human will take before he even knows himself by scanning patterns in his brain, it isn't his "consciousness" making the decisions even if it is very tempting to make that conclusion it is just an illusion. It is the same thing as how we believe that we are actually seeing the present while we are actually seeing it a bit behind.
Your view of the world could be likened with a computer game, there are players playing us as characters. Those players are our consciousness and have a scoreboard which they try to maximize. In addition to this the character in itself have "cravings" for stuff which gives easy score but is not the best way in the long run so it is best to avoid them.
I ask you then, from where do this scoreboard come then? God? Hardwired from birth? And what makes it different from emotions?
The fault you do is really common, it is like how infantile persons looks at maths, they look for complexity where there is none since they have this belief that it must be there somewhere. For all we know computers could very well have the same kind of consciousness as we humans do, the only reason we assume other humans do have it is because they look like ourselves.
But of course, if you are a believer (Don't remember how much of a believer you are) then you can't follow my logic since it basically kills everything that have anything to do with religions.
On April 19 2009 09:38 Oxygen wrote:Show nested quote +On April 19 2009 08:54 Klockan3 wrote:On April 19 2009 08:42 JMave wrote:
I think we need to think more. Its because we don't think that much that's putting us into so much trouble. People who think more are in general less satisfied with their lives, living a good life is not about making the correct decisions but instead believing that you and people around you made the correct decisions. The more you think the easier it is to see that people make suboptimal choices all the time and such things causes mental stress. I hope you do not seriously believe this.
So, what counterarguments do you got? There is a quite strong correlation between intelligence and general dissatisfaction. "What you don't know about doesn't hurt you" is a saying specifically targeted at mental traumas and it explains this directly.
|
On April 19 2009 09:39 Oxygen wrote:
Travis, I find it's useful to classify the type of desire you're talking about as "easily satisfying" or instantly gratifying. Alternatively, you can reduce them to primal sexual desires.
But there is more to the type of desire I am talking about.
"There are these three cravings. Which three? Craving for sensuality, craving for becoming, craving for non-becoming. These are the three cravings." -buddha
some more quotes from buddha on the topic:
"And what is the cause by which stress comes into play? Craving is the cause by which stress comes into play.
"And where does this craving, when arising, arise? And where, when dwelling, does it dwell? Whatever is endearing & alluring in terms of the world: that is where this craving, when arising, arises. That is where, when dwelling, it dwells.
"And what is endearing & alluring in terms of the world? The eye is endearing & alluring in terms of the world. That is where this craving, when arising, arises. That is where, when dwelling, it dwells.
"The ear... The nose... The tongue... The body... The intellect...
"Forms... Sounds... Smells... Tastes... Tactile sensations... Ideas...
"Eye-consciousness... Ear-consciousness... Nose-consciousness... Tongue-consciousness... Body-consciousness... Intellect-consciousness...
"Eye-contact... Ear-contact... Nose-contact... Tongue-contact... Body-contact... Intellect-contact...
"Feeling born of eye-contact... Feeling born of ear-contact... Feeling born of nose-contact... Feeling born of tongue-contact... Feeling born of body-contact... Feeling born of intellect-contact...
"Perception of forms... Perception of sounds... Perception of smells... Perception of tastes... Perception of tactile sensations... Perception of ideas...
"Intention for forms... Intention for sounds... Intention for smells... Intention for tastes... Intention for tactile sensations... Intention for ideas...
"Craving for forms... Craving for sounds... Craving for smells... Craving for tastes... Craving for tactile sensations... Craving for ideas...
"Thought directed at forms... Thought directed at sounds... Thought directed at smells... Thought directed at tastes... Thought directed at tactile sensations... Thought directed at ideas...
"Evaluation of forms... Evaluation of sounds... Evaluation of smells... Evaluation of tastes... Evaluation of tactile sensations... Evaluation of ideas is endearing & alluring in terms of the world. That is where this craving, when arising, arises. That is where, when dwelling, it dwells.
he can be hard to understand but the guy knew what he was talking about!
if I was a stronger person maybe I would be enlightened by now but I do not practice because I am too busy being distracted by life
|
On April 19 2009 05:48 Archaic wrote:
I had a feeling travis would come here and own the OP, haha. But I do have to agree with travis, you are very vague about most of these questions. For example, "Why do we repress our desires?" is a question that can be expanded on itself, but the "and how do we find and understand them" is very vague. Do you mean how are we consciously aware of our desires, or *can we* be consciously aware? There can be so many ways to interpret this question.
But going on the first half of the question, I feel that people repress their desires in the interest of a longer-term, more beneficial desire.
Note: This example may not work very well, just work with me.
For example, most people don't murder each other:
Why would it be a desire?
There can be a massive variety of reasons, but as a general rule, one feels that their life would be more enjoyable without that person in their life, or a desire of revenge.
Why don't people murder each other?
No matter how much of a desire one *perceives* murder to be, their more logical mind considers the implications and consequences. For example, murder may satisfy one desire, but one would notice that murder would bring about paranoia, high likelihood of being arrested, and most likely either an early death, or life in a jail. Those consequences greatly outweigh the original desires, so a normal person most likely wouldn't commit murder.
What is one point of why people do murder each other?
One simple conclusion right off the bat is they could be psychopaths, being that they do not feel that the ramifications are not bad in the slightest, or just enjoy the thrill of murder, and do not care for anything else. One other, that I believe can be a reason, is people could have committed murder based on a quick reaction, or an irrational decision, without taking the time to consider any other possibilities or results of their actions. Thus, their logic couldn't kick in, and they wouldn't restrain their decision.
One possible postulate would be that our desires often do not work well into our lives on a daily business, so we must suppress our desires in order to maintain the normal life, or a simpler life that most do desire over following one's every whim and desire.
Then again, these are just my thoughts.
Interestingly enough, however, most people have had the impulse to kill before. According to Murders at Home, a study produced the following results: 91% of males have seriously considered killing someone before (of course, the majority did not act); meanwhile, 83% of women had held that same impulse. That same book reaches the conclusion that, with the majority of murders being "personal" and not serial, and with the majority of murderers being sane (96% sane in Michigan, if I recall correctly), a person consciously commits a murder for a personal, and in his/her mind, a well-deserving reason. The book also goes through great lengths to explain that it's astonishingly bad to be dead.
|
On April 19 2009 09:54 Klockan3 wrote:Show nested quote +On April 19 2009 09:16 travis wrote:you are still sticking to just 1 definition of desire while I am trying to use 2. If it makes it easier I will just stick to the word "craving" from now on Using 2 meanings for a single word on internet discussions is bound for fail, don't do it. And at least according to every source I could find having desire to do something is the same thing as wanting to do it.
yes, I agree. What I am saying is that there are different types of "wanting to".
addictions are "wanting to". the types of desire I am talking about are basically addictions. but nobody realizes.
But that attention comes from excitement, try to think things through a little bit more. I figure that arguing with you doesn't really work, you haven't reached enough understanding yet.
well I realize I can seem obstinate, but I am like that for a good reason.
but regardless, of this you are wrong.
attention does not come from excitement. attention comes from interest. but that's besides the point anyways, as once one is truly empty there is no ego and interest requires an ego to be interested.
Like, you still differentiate between short term desire and long term desire thinking that one of them is better than the other and how you don't notice the calmer emotions and you actually believes that you are guiding your thoughts through some magical means.
just so you are aware, this comes off as horribly condescending without really making a point I can understand.
I do not think one is "better" than the other. I also do not classify them in this way, length of time has nothing to do with it.
Science have shown that you can predict which choice a human will take before he even knows himself by scanning patterns in his brain, it isn't his "consciousness" making the decisions even if it is very tempting to make that conclusion it is just an illusion. It is the same thing as how we believe that we are actually seeing the present while we are actually seeing it a bit behind.
If anything it seems like this supports my views of existence(I already knew this anyways). I am not sure what you think my position is exactly.
Your view of the world could be likened with a computer game, there are players playing us as characters. Those players are our consciousness and have a scoreboard which they try to maximize. In addition to this the character in itself have "cravings" for stuff which gives easy score but is not the best way in the long run so it is best to avoid them.
This confuses me. You should not explain my own views to me.
I ask you then, from where do this scoreboard come then? God? Hardwired from birth? And what makes it different from emotions?
I do not understand what the scoreboard is supposed to be a metaphor for.
The fault you do is really common, it is like how infantile persons looks at maths, they look for complexity where there is none since they have this belief that it must be there somewhere. For all we know computers could very well have the same kind of consciousness as we humans do, the only reason we assume other humans do have it is because they look like ourselves.
On April 19 2009 09:16 travis wrote:
Well with or without emotions you still experience some sort of happening in the present moment. I do not know if computers do this.
|
On April 19 2009 09:55 travis wrote:
if I was a stronger person I would be enlightened by now but I do not practice because I am too busy being distracted by life
You know, I took nearly 3 years of my life just thinking about stuff between HS and college, I really needed to think. And I am in a way happier now than before, since I was in a total mess.(Not that I did bad things or anything like that, it was just a mess in my head mostly)
I thought about why I did things the way I did. The result became an uber understanding of myself and my angst and such from before all but disappeared. the problem I think is that I haven't found anything to fill the hole that was left after that.
So for me the world became grey, still better than black though. And in a way this is the "ultimate" way of life since you basically can't go back afterwards, can't get more ultimate than that.
And as for your last post, just like the last thread I was in with you there is nothing to gain from discussing this, I am not out to convert anyone and nothing you say is news to me so I wont be converted either.
|
So you aren't even going to explain yourself?
Well whatever, your prerogative.
|
Thanks a lot for the insight, Travis. I have been wondering: how do you distinguish between the teachings of Buddha and Buddhism? From what I understand, there is significant difference.
Also, I am curious about what you are doing in life. What are your motivations? You are, from what I have read over the past year, clearly a strong individual. I don't follow all your posts on TL, so if if you have already answered, I apologize.
Lastly, how do you, personally, approach motivations without desire? What mindset do you have in life, in general?
Once again, thanks a lot for your time and insight.
Thanks also to everyone who is taking their time to think.
Peace to you all.
|
On April 19 2009 11:31 travis wrote:
So you aren't even going to explain yourself?
Well, as I noticed the time before each time I explain something you ask about the explanations and it becomes a never ending cycle and none of us gets anything from it. For some reason all debates with religious people ends up that way, so I told myself to even stop trying.
It could be that such people do not argue points they themselves have invented but instead just copies a formula. Doing it that way your understanding is never complete and thus arguing with such people is like arguing with a book.
You should do things a bit more like me, assume that everyone who posts have a point and have made the correct assessments until you can prove otherwise. That way you do not get nearly as many semi strawmans as you do when you assume that people are wrong until proven otherwise and it gets a lot easier to understand people in general.
Most have not made that many incorrect conclusions, you can learn something from everyone as long as you can see through their errors.
Like, if you find an error then learn to understand how such an error would develop through the thought cycles, when you can do that you have learned how to see through it and when you get to that point you can start arguing. Before that though everyone just gets stuck on minor details which are just causations of an earlier misunderstanding somewhere, such discussions do never ever get resolved unless it is just a very minor thing.
Or yet even more important is to learn to reverse engineer thoughts back to their roots, arguing with anything but the original error is pointless since the original error is always there and reinforces those errors, so you have to work backwards till you find the roots and then you realize that there weren't really much at all which needs changing for all the errors to stop.
People aren't stupid, it just seems to be that way if you don't look close enough.
|
On April 19 2009 14:19 Oxygen wrote:
Thanks a lot for the insight, Travis. I have been wondering: how do you distinguish between the teachings of Buddha and Buddhism? From what I understand, there is significant difference.
For me, there is no difference.
But as the "religion" becomes more institutionalized and organized it picks up traditions and superstition. Also it's message may evolve to better suit the audience it is trying to reach. Whenever buddhism comes to a new area it tends to adapt to the lifestyle of that area.
In a way, the difference is similar to the teachings of Jesus and sectarian Christianity.
However, there is a flaw in this comparison in that we still have actual direct teachings from Buddha. We have no such teachings from Jesus. Theravada Buddhism(what I am) follows Buddha's direct teachings. There is no added crap.
Also, I am curious about what you are doing in life. What are your motivations? You are, from what I have read over the past year, clearly a strong individual. I don't follow all your posts on TL, so if if you have already answered, I apologize.
Not much. I am trying to pay back debts so that I can become a monk. But I am in no hurry. I was in a hurry before and it just made life harder so I am slowing down. I eat well, and get lots of exercise. Other than that, there is not much that is constant in my life.
Lastly, how do you, personally, approach motivations without desire? What mindset do you have in life, in general?
I don't always practice what I preach. It is very difficult to slow down all the way when I am just left with restlessness and melancholy. I will be able to once my debts are paid I think.
I give into desires regularly. Smoking weed, masturbating, eating food for pleasure - these are my biggest problems. Each day I understand this more, but until I completely stop I just stay mindful of what I am doing and of the mistakes I make.
True happiness does not come from what you do. It comes from what you are. And so I attempt to change what I am, improving myself by slowing down and becoming more and more selfless. But really I need to train myself to do sitting meditation. I think that is when my progress will really skyrocket.
Anyways I am not sure if this answered your questions so I will try a more direct approach.
My motivation is to do what frees me from suffering. When I was a teen I had an epiphany that I could free myself from suffering through understanding myself. Later in life I discovered buddha taught this very method. And so now I follow his teachings. My motivation is ending suffering. One could say I have a desire to end suffering, but it is clearly a different type of desire than a desire for sex or a desire for a candy bar.
My mindset in life is that everything I do should be done with an awareness of what I am doing. I should be there, I should be present. I should be intelligent and use reason. I should cultivate wisdom by learning from my experiences. I have only one goal in life, total enlightenment. However, there is no reason I can't enjoy the pleasures contained in my mistakes along the way. I surely feel the pains of them.
|
Thank you very much for the accurate answer, Travis.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
