Outlook
Posted 03-28-09 at 07:52 AM by mega_option101
I have decided to comment more on my previous statement about how we are constantly suffering and will continue to do so until we die.
I will focus this blog mainly on Joe's response:
How does one claim that suffering and pain are "inevitable" without posing the question that perhaps suffering and pain are continuously there?
In the moments of no suffering and pain are we just experiencing, "absence" of both suffering and pain? Hence, why we refer to it as the "good" or perhaps even go as far as to call it "pleasure". If it is in fact called the, "good" or "pleasure" then why is it so short-lived?
I do not mean to merely suggest that we are creatures of pain and suffering and that our existence revolves around this fact when I say that we are brought into this world to suffer and will continue to do so until we die. Do not get me wrong here... I think that as humans we are able to focus our attention on the positives of life rather then looking at the negatives.
I think that I will end this blog here and allow it to turn into a discussion
I will focus this blog mainly on Joe's response:
Quote:
Phew. That's a cynical outlook if I ever saw one.
In all seriousness, though, I don't agree that we exist to suffer. Suffering and pain (the negatives) are inevitable in life, yes, but are they the cause of our existence? If this indeed is the case, then the human species is definitely the most masochistic that has ever existed.
Suffering and pain, as well as their opposites on the scale, and all points in between, are part of what define what life and experience are. No matter how cynical I actually am (and, in truth, I do have a cynical side which colors my outlook towards life), I suppose I will always refuse to admit that the negative side of life is our raison d'être.
Life is miserable enough as it is.
In all seriousness, though, I don't agree that we exist to suffer. Suffering and pain (the negatives) are inevitable in life, yes, but are they the cause of our existence? If this indeed is the case, then the human species is definitely the most masochistic that has ever existed.
Suffering and pain, as well as their opposites on the scale, and all points in between, are part of what define what life and experience are. No matter how cynical I actually am (and, in truth, I do have a cynical side which colors my outlook towards life), I suppose I will always refuse to admit that the negative side of life is our raison d'être.
Life is miserable enough as it is.
In the moments of no suffering and pain are we just experiencing, "absence" of both suffering and pain? Hence, why we refer to it as the "good" or perhaps even go as far as to call it "pleasure". If it is in fact called the, "good" or "pleasure" then why is it so short-lived?
I do not mean to merely suggest that we are creatures of pain and suffering and that our existence revolves around this fact when I say that we are brought into this world to suffer and will continue to do so until we die. Do not get me wrong here... I think that as humans we are able to focus our attention on the positives of life rather then looking at the negatives.
I think that I will end this blog here and allow it to turn into a discussion
Total Comments 10
Comments
-
Interesting thoughts, and after reading your opinion with a little more detail, it makes sense to me. Certainly we were not put on the face of the earth to suffer and nothing else. But is pain and suffering constantly there? Well, seemingly most of the time anyway.
I think it would be correct to say the good times are the absence of pain and suffering. A thought I had about it is maybe pain and suffering is a road, and the absence is wandering from the road. Surely at some point we have to return, but we can definitely savor and enjoy the time away while it lasts.
In a nutshell, what I'm trying to say is that perhaps the absence of pain and suffering is evading it. Similarly, I believe it's possible that the "absence" could also be merely ignoring the pain and suffering. Not neccisarily going numb (but using "numb" makes me wonder quite a bit more..), but just not letting it bother you.
Thanks for sharing.Posted 03-28-09 at 04:24 PM by timxirish
-
Well, perhaps it really is a question of outlook.
I like to think that I'm basically a person with a neutral, middle-of-the-road sensibility. Life throws its slings and arrows, and sometimes it throws treats and candy at us as well. But most of the time, perhaps at least through these particular lenses that I wear right now, life is just life.
The ups and downs come, but until those moments actually do, we (or maybe it's just me?) have no particular response. Not an enforced indifference (for that would require an active decision from us), but simply an absence of any specific reaction one way or the other.
I guess the older I get, the more I see my own life not as definite extremes of black and white (or pain and pleasure, if you will), but as varying degrees and shades of gray. Certain things make me react more strongly or not at all; some things I can very easily ignore; a very few things inspire fiery passions. There are still things that inspire feelings that are difficult to control. But overall, until such specific moments trigger a response, I can't say they register on my own scale as far as whether it is good or bad, painful or pleasurable.
In other words, each moment just "is."Posted 03-28-09 at 11:12 PM by txtmstrjoe
-
I think that it is safe to assume that if it is "seemingly most of the time", there then we can say that it is constantly there. Whether it is surpressed enough to not notice or that it is right there in front of us the state of consistency is there regardless.
For instance, time will continue to move forward without us having to constantly look at it. When we are not looking at the time moving does time still move? Of course! I think that the same analogy can be used to explain this constant state of suffering.
I like to use the analogy of a river and streams to explain what you mentioned above (road and paths). The river would represent this constant suffering as a river is never at peace, it is always moving and also in a state of struggle, which we can relate with suffering in our case. Connected to the rivers we have clamer streams, where one can lose themselves in a state of peacefulness. Nevertheless, a stream has to go somewhere and it usually goes back to a river (perhaps a different one). This means that it is in those times of peacefulness that we can really choose the direction that we want to go with our lives (switching from one river to another). But this does not mean that it will rid us of the suffering for in every river we meet the same fate (constant suffering).
While I still hold that suffering and pain are inevitable, I still believe that we have ways in which we can ignore/evade their constant presence. For instance, think about how stressed you can be after a long day at school knowing that you have a lot of work ahead of you and things just never seem to get any easier. I find that when I listen to music I enter into this soothing state of mind, which I like to refer too as being in "a state of trance". Nothing seems to matter anymore and all that does is relative and froozen in time. Savor the moment!
I also think that the term "numb" that you are referring too is something that has to do with the overwhelming state of feelings/emotions, which could either be of suffering and pain or of love.
Thanks for sharing!Posted 03-28-09 at 11:25 PM by mega_option101
-
M, interesting response.
One question: If a state of suffering is constant, can we suppose that its reverse (a state of non-suffering) is also simultaneously true as well?Posted 03-28-09 at 11:37 PM by txtmstrjoe
-
Under the conditions written above, I would have to say yesQuote:If a state of suffering is constant, can we suppose that its reverse (a state of non-suffering) is also simultaneously true as well?
I think that the two coexist. When suffering is non-suffering is not, and when suffering is not non-suffering is.
If we go back to my river/stream analogy then you can see that the water is constant throughout a river/stream. The only difference between the two is that a stream is much smaller (short-lived) and clamer than a river which is much bigger and rougher (long-lived).
So we could say that yes, the reverse is also constant but it is only present in the stream portions which are always short-lived. This does not take away from the fact that suffering is constant either though.
Posted 03-29-09 at 12:10 AM by mega_option101
-
I like the river analogy. I suppose you could blame When The Higurashi Cry for my use of roads/paths.. Just finished the second season today.
Back on topic, I'd have to agree with the numb feeling being an overload, so it seems we've understood each other well on the subject. But joe's newest comment makes me wonder if there's another river aside from just the one of pain and suffering. By that I mean one close to the opposite, where only the streams are pain and suffering.
Maybe there is, maybe there isn't, but since we're both still young, perhaps we have yet to see more just yet. Even if there isn't though, I'll certainly still have ways to keep content-- that's for sure.Posted 03-29-09 at 12:32 AM by timxirish
-
But what if we focus on physical pain? I'll use this example since I have experience in it: let's say someone has nerve damage; the chronic pain is initially hardly bearable, with moments where the pain is overwhelming. Let that person 'suffer' their pain (ie. no painkillers for us stubborn folk) for a while, and all of a sudden the pain is 'adapted'. In other words, it just doesn't feel that bad anymore.
And if you state that nerve regeneration causes the pain, and then as it regenerates it hurts less, you miss the point. The same applies for spinal compression if you want an example that you can't try to counter like that
Where am I going with this? Well, pain and suffering are an intrinsic property of humanity one could say; I mean no offense to those with that genetic disorder that inhibits the experience of pain. You're still human, you're just an exception to the rule.
Now, if we use Mega's thought process here (which I agree in the context of his explanation, just matter-of-factly) then sure, that pain is meant to happen, but give it time and you won't focus on it as much, and life can still be great.
Think about when you get injured - pain can be immense, but you get over it.
However, this is where I was ultimately leading to.
In regards to physical pain, you can not recollect the pain in the future. You can recollect the notion of pain, but the pain you felt at the moment is 'forgotten'.
Now, if we state that the negatives are equally or more than in the weighting for pain vs nonpain, then we should remember this pain forever.
However, since we cannot 'remember' the pain, but only the notion, pain is not equally weighted.
I'll let you draw your own conclusions from that 
Thanks for sharing, and for readingPosted 03-31-09 at 11:09 AM by Bloodfire
-
This discussion has taken some very interesting turns, I must say.
There used to be a time in my life when I may have unreservedly agreed with the idea that suffering and pain were constants in life; to quote See-Threepio, "We seem to have been made to suffer; it's our lot in life." But such a time, and such a feeling, was long ago and was inspired (or acquired, to be more precise) by an experience that a more emotionally-mature person might have handled better. As time has progressed, I'd like to think that I've acquired a better ability to handle similar situations with less self-destructive reactions.
I think I understand Bloodfire's contention that you cannot count "future" pain, and that past sufferings are "forgotten." As the saying goes, "Time heals all wounds." I cannot deny that any level of pain does exist at the moment it does, but once that moment is past, does it still continue to exist?
Moreover, once that moment is past, is this pain replaced by other, infinitely-variable definitions and moments of pain as well?
I remember something that Qui-Gon Jinn once told Anakin Skywalker: "Your focus determines your reality." I think Qui-Gon is correct in saying this, to be honest. We have choice and agency in defining for ourselves not only what is painful and what is not, but also to what degree it is painful as well. And it's also within the scope of possibility that in allowing ourselves to be open to experiencing pain, we eventually become numb to the stimulus that might cause that suffering to begin with. As a guitar player eventually ceases to notice the undeniable pain in his fingertips when he's first learning to play the instrument, once the callouses builds up similar experiences are simply not able to make you suffer anymore.Posted 03-31-09 at 12:09 PM by txtmstrjoe
-
I like your guitar-player analogy. I play(ed) guitar. (Have only fiddled with it in the fast couple months, and haven't really 'played' for the better part of a year becaues of school
).
Also, experience is totally subjective. Two people can experience EXACTLY the same situation and react ENTIRELY different.
I think that what Qui-Gon might have implied is not only what you suggest; perhaps our ability to cope with scenarios is something that we can handle differently should we so choose. This would require a certain amount of focus. As such, if you would, for example, use your 'focus' to face your fears, you would become a 'better person'.
I'm really walking a fine line between harsh and acceptable now xD My thoughts are anyway...Posted 03-31-09 at 03:18 PM by Bloodfire
-
Posted 05-26-09 at 01:43 PM by t4ct1c47 
