Discussion in 'General Philosophy' started by Saint, Apr 14, 2015.
It means "balance"?
Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.
If you like, but everyone has to find their one balance
The ups and downs of life are analogous to contrast found in color. The darkest times of life, allows even the most subtle of light to be seen. As an analogy, at night, a single match can be seen a 100 meters away. During the light of day, that same match light is not recognizable, unless we get close enough to see the actual match. Often in the darkness of despair, people find the subtle light and can count their blessings. But if the light is always bright with joy, these things are not seen and can be taken for granted. The suffering of the artists allows them to see the subtle around them.
Our emotions also work this way, with most of our emotions not connected to the contrast of light and dark. In color matching, red is the opposite of green. A green background allows a contrast, that makes even very subtle red hues stand out. If this subtle red hue are placed near pure red, it can't be seen. Our range of human neutral emotions, ebbing and flowing, play off each other allowing subtle contrast to appear.
The meaning of meaning and life are subjectively different to different people.
That question can be taken different ways to apply to groups of people or an individual.
So id assume a collective universal meaning apart from subjective indifference of people is fallacious if it cannot be self apparent.
Just a idea that came to mind,the word "ape" means to imitate, mimic in Latin.
Look at Sensory deprivation of children or babies.
If a child was raised in box without any input all it knows is the box.
If a child is raised by wolves all it knows is the life of a wolves.
If it is raised by a atheists it's likely to lean to atheism unless it's friends are theists or was conditioned or traumatized on some level to accept theism or had an obsessive fear of the unknown and theistic mental imagery that lead to automated conformity to theism.
If raised by theists then both outcomes are possible, it could become an agnostic or atheist as well or just remain a theist.
Meaning seems to me to be based on imitations and how they evolved for people to react to.
All this becomes defined by emotions, personal beliefs that bias the output based on the input along with some chaos.
Hubris probably can help it to, along with a heavy dose of delusion in some cases.
Unknowns can be known as truly random or like a box, think outside the box find yourself in another box
Life has unknowns and unknowns lead to being wrong
Life also allows knowns which allow one to be right
Both right and wrong viewed subjectively
meaning of lifes meaning being a subjective synchronicity of being right and wrong at the same time?
I wonder if agitation of a box existence becomes creative rebelion attempting to always imbalance the synchronicity of unknowns and knowns through never being satisfied spurring on more and more creativity...
The dead in nature is the only suffering, life as an absolute is perfect.
Nietzsche on Hardship
I usually don't quote myself, but I was being lazy.
If we assume the purpose of life is suffering, than the purpose of the suffering is to set a contrast of darkness, so subtle lights can be seen. Subtle light would not be easy to see, without a lot of contrast. Many spiritual journeys involve hardships, so the darkness allows us to see the tiny match, from far away; the guiding light is subtle and few find it.
If you were hungry, because you were lost, and did not eat for days, even a simple food would be savored. The contrast of your extreme need and hunger, allows the simplest things to appear to be savored as a blessing.
The strategy of suffering, by allowing the subtle things to appear, allows one to find peace in all things. The hungry man enjoys all food and is never far away from a good meal, no matter where he may wander. This who hunger will be full and this who thirst will be satisfied.
Purpose is an emergent property of existing. It's a malleable and subjective adaptation to perceived circumstance. I think usually the words used to state it are a bullshit structure designed to provide support for the subjects world-view.
The general case is best stated in terms of the opposite of existence.
Instinct generally compels one to fuck and not die.
Poetic drama is poetic drama. Your statement is only true if you think it is. It's a ridiculously simple prison that perhaps your brain chemistry creates for you. I'm not entirely certain, but I think your thinking can change your brain chemistry in these matters.
Wow, you like a grudge eh? I think there is a breaking point for pain that can impact the psyche forever, but generally pain is only "forever" when emo-types clutch it like a life-raft while drowning. I find that silly, and in that there is happiness. I think most stuff is kinda silly, observing all us apes pretending we're divine.
Kind, earnest amusement is just as viable a life-raft. Just sayin.
Not living doesn't really leave much room for analysis, so why not hang out and see what happens? Purposefully passive purpose? Why not!
and IMO ironically arrived at the answer but didn't realize it.
The meaning of life can only be found in the living of it thus the reconstruction of a planet ( Earth) to discover the meaning ironically and inadvertently ( to the authors I guess) demonstrated the answer.
Example if one takes an over view of recorded Human existence and ask the question "What is the meaning of human life?" the answer is the "entire human experience". ( which by some bizarre intergalactic coincidence sums to the total of 42 Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!)
You know... 1.9878656 + -10.000098 *12.000034 / 3.149 + ....and so on always = 42 ! Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Life is suffering:
Humans are sado-masochistic we love pain. Ask any one who indulges in mountain climbing, exercise, sport, intellectual challenge, sex etc...
so really a "balanced" life is "Pluffering" (pleasurable suffering)
Long time no read...and good to see ya!
Idea to consider:
The human will is primarily sadistic.
The human body is primarily masochistic.
What an excellently compatible symbiosis?
The "will" (ego) takes pleasure in inflicting suffering on a body that is essentially masochistic.... ( chuckle) -couldn't be a better relationship IMO
Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Climbing, and some other sports, are far from the things you ascribe to them simplistically.
Suffering is buffered by exaltation. Conquer! Appreciate the endeavor. How many bones have you broken?
Fuck vicarious pleasure. Go get bloody and bruised doing something, and gain some real experience. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
So.. without suffering, pleasure would be easy to miss?
Is life, the the universe, and everything else suffering?
What about fish that have said 'so long' or whales that have been transformed into petunias in a small pot while dropping from a great height?
Life is improbable also. About 42%. Think of it as one possible way to deal with those pesky infinities. Are we suffering enough yet?
Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
I don't understand how it's surmised that "we humans" (in will or body) are masochists and sadists. I'm neither. Witnessing the purposeful concoction of pain sickens me whether to me or to others, unless they're begging for it I guess. Then it's confusing but hey, it's their dime.
Okay maybe you only hypothesized QQ, but still. GROSS! I certainly hope it's a bad hypothesis. Also: Hi!
Is not pleasure merely the sensation we feel when suffering is relieved?
Or the feelings of joy when the suffering of an unrequited love is fulfilled?
Is not love itself a state of often times pleasurable sufferance?
In a "dualist" system we are constantly attempting to escape, requite or other wise resolve our suffering.. it is what creates our need to move, to act, ( to write posts to an online forum) and to survive etc IMO
The current ICE epidemic sweeping the western world is just escaping one form of suffering for another is it not...
Can you not hear the suffering of unrequited love in the following classic composed by Beethoven?
or the contemporary Enrique Iglesias... HERO...
loaded with suffering, grief and joy
I also suffer due to observing those that have an unbalanced or extreme form of what I mentioned. However fundamentally there is ample evidence to suggest that we humans are sado masochistic in just about everything we do. Some do it in a relatively sustainable fashion some don't.
The human body loves to "work" in fact once it is immobile it dies, the human ego loves to make the body work...'tis not hard to see the relationship as sado masochistic. IMO
Wake up! Get out of bed! Take a shower! Eat breakfast! Go to work! and then do it all again the next day.... and so on
Yes, that rings true. I think Walt Disney taught that in most of his best films. But does a knowledge of this help alleve our suffering? Does it make any sense to always seek situations that cause us or others to suffer? Pretty certain I don't do that, but I could be wrong. Ignorance is bliss probably fits in that theme somewhere. Sorry if I have interrupted anyone's bliss and replaced it with suffering.
That's a very Schopenhauer view of pleasure, and requires your view to be that the norm of life is suffering. If so then yes, pleasure can be seen as that which alleviates the suffering.
But not many people view the nature of our very existence as being that of suffering, and for these others your question would be answered with a simple "No".
Are you sure you mean sado-masochistic, or just masochistic? All your examples are things we do to ourselves, so there would be no sadism involved.
Be that as it may, there is a vast difference between doing things that cause us suffering (if indeed any of those things you mention actually do - I actually enjoy eating breakfast!) as a means to an end, and doing them out of an enjoyment for those things per se. And it is explicitly the deriving of pleasure from an act that makes us suffer that is required for it to be masochistic.
So I don't see any of what we do as masochistic, unless you actually happen to get pleasure from the act of suffering itself rather than from the ends that the act leads to. E.g. work might make us suffer but it gives us money, and it is the money that enables us to indulge in luxuries that we enjoy.
I don't deny there are some things that might very well be masochistic - exercise is possibly one, where some get an enjoyment from the actual pain it causes, rather than from the benefits it grants.
Separate names with a comma.