quote
follow
|
30-05-2012 Okay then, let's talk about physical pain. All right? |
|
30-05-2012 Reposted to to formatting problemIt is you who have not answered. I suspect the reason is that you are confused about the meaning of words and the point of precision. Look François try to comprehend that I am not quibbling over the words per se, but rather I am attempting to be clear on the MEANING of the particular words as I use them. Otherswise there is an inherent ambiguity which would render the words useless. Can you see this? Without clarity then you will be using 'pain' OR 'suffering', in the sense of PHYSICAL pain. The type one might suffer if one stubbed one's toe. However I wish to make a distinction between the above meaning of pain and the self inflicted faux pain caused by sorrow. One is a consequence of physics and the other is a consequence of ignorance |
|
30-05-2012 >>Okay then, let's talk about physical pain. All right?What do you want to say about it? |
|
30-05-2012 Do you acknowledge that all lives are subject to it to some degree and with some regularity? Stubbed-toe level, low level, medium level, high level, give-me-morphine-right-now level... temporarily, episodically, chronically? |
|
30-05-2012 I acknowledge that all animals will be subject to some sort of physical pain. And human beings being animals are not exempt from this.Your point is? |
|
30-05-2012 So you acknowledge that by starting new human lives we deliberately and consciously create more physical pain? |
|
30-05-2012 By 'starting new hum lives' I presume you mean reproducing?Yes, again I will acknowledge that physical objects are subject to the laws of physics. Again I ask, what is your point, where are you going with these pointlessly obvious questions? Out with it already, what is your contention, what is your point, what do you wish to get across. Just say it. |
|
30-05-2012 Didn't you read this entry you're commenting on? It's about the fact that we need to stop doing THAT, creating suffering/physical pain/whatever. That's the whole topic. Going on semantic tangents doesn't resolve the issue... But if you can give us a good reason why we should continue doing THAT, then we've got something more relevant to talk about. |
|
30-05-2012 So Francois you are saying that we need to stop reproducing because animals are subject to the laws of physics.You do realise do you not that the ability to feel physical pain has evolved in all animals as a way of protecting the organism from harm. If an organism did not have the ability to feel physical pain then how would it be possible to be alive? You'd put your hand accidentally on a hotplate and just leave it there. WHAT IS THE POINT YOU ARE TRYING TO MAKE? |
|
30-05-2012 ... you just made my point for me. "you are saying that we need to stop reproducing because animals are subject to the laws of physics." That's my point.I would only change this: that it takes more than the laws of physics, it also takes animals with a nervous system that transmits the subjective experience of pain. As such, there is no need to worry about plants, insects, and anthropods (to the best of my knowledge). Again, if you can refute the proposition that it is wrong to do THAT (and from now on, when I say THAT, I am referring to the creation of suffering, or as you call it, the creation of physical pain, or whatever else anyone wants to call it), then please present an argument or objection... otherwise you are not in disagreement with this entry you are commenting on. |
|
30-05-2012 This may come as a shock for you Francois but the transmission of signals is nothing more than physics. An electric impulse which travels along a pathway is nothing more than a moving electron obeying newtonian and quantum physics, then the electric charge is converted into a chemical signal at the synapse, but of course chemistry particularly at this molecular level is nothing more than physics.You ask me to refute the laws of physics as being somehow (morally) wrong? I assume you meant morally wrong because obviously the laws of physics cannot be physically wrong. But then where do the morals reside? In the physical law or in your awareness? Francois, you are merely caught up in the common existential anxiety of the meaning of life. Your position is absurd. This is because you insisted on defining suffering in a physical sense. Now you see the point of being precise with words because there are two types of 'suffering' or 'pain' there is physical pain and emotional pain. The writer was NOT as you suggest referring to physical pain when she speaks of 'suffering' because that would be absurd, as you have proven. What people like you who are unclear about what they are trying to say usually do is use 'suffering' sometimes to mean physical pain and sometimes to mean emotional pain without knowing when they are switching. This lack of clarity with the words then translates into a concomitant lack of clarity with their thought process. So you got yourself all knotted up because obviously we are not talking about physical pain but emotional pain and emotional pain is a product only of the human animal. Emotional pain is a consequence of ignorance it is not a consequence of physical laws. Buddha was wrong when he implied that life is suffering, unless he mean physical suffering not emotional suffering, and if that was his contention then Buddha was as banal as you. If emotional pain is born of ignorance then it can be solved with knowledge. In fact emotional pain can be eliminated completely if one has the equanimity of mind to appreciate a fact as a fact. Emotional pain is often born of a longing for facts to be other than what they are. This is the human problem. But it is not an insoluble problem. |
|
30-05-2012 Further, Francois, I might add that if you cannot be precise with your words then you cannot be precise with your thoughts and without clear thoughts you cannot appreciate what is merely a subjective view of the world.Without the clarity that comes from the difference between objective and subjective thinking one then becomes insane. Which is the common position. Although most would disagree because it is easier for them to all declare themselves sane by mutual consent. Many people seem happy to carry on like this because it seems to be too much trouble to introduce the necessary precision of thinking to have a happy life. Ironically their struggles with life are mostly trying to come to terms with the very problems that are caused by their refusal to think clearly because it's too much work. However in reality it's much more difficult to be willingly stupid because one then has to suffer the entirely avoidable human problem of sorrow. For people who refuse to think it would have been better for them to have been born a non human animal. Only the human animal is subject to sorrow due to his/her ability for awareness of ones awareness, but in this very developed sense of Self, are the tools to deal with it. Then one can fully appreciate the joys of being a human being, which in a sense is just the Universes ways of appreciating itself. But one step at a time and I would suggest as a first step you begin by introducing a little clarity into your thinking. Words may not be the best way of communicating but it's all we have so use them wisely. Or not, it's your life after all, live it as you like. Peace |
Comments to Subjective / objective suffering