Acceptability and “Achieved Happiness”

Human communication can not be defined without terms of a continuous management of  expressions in accordance with normative conceptions of acceptability. Therefore, external accountability is an omnirelative factor in the shaping of human relations. This is esspecially true in western culture where external validation is often seen as a right of passage of the respectable. It is so bad in the west that we define others not based on themselves or what they do, but according to these very normative distinctions applied from without. That is, we cannot get passed the habit of not only assigning value to differentiation but tagging on identities, and attributing happiness to success of conformity to these identites.

Generally, the human condition is preoccupied simultaneously with life and happiness. All of our actions can be attritible in some way to the propogation of happiness, whether mislead or righteous. Even horrible, apparently evil acts, such as murder can be derived for a longing of the former two aspirations; the murderer may be seeking happiness (contentment) in revenge or the fulfillment of his anger, or perhaps he is seeking personal life in the death of another (self-defense, etc.). In either case, it is reflective of not just the human condition but the condition of life from an evolutionary perspective; the propogation of life. Happiness and self-improvement seem to be two advantageous conditions for evolution’s ‘end’ of the survival of life.

If the human condition can be defined in terms of happiness and life, as well as in terms of relations; then it is often thought there is a close relationship. The western perception of happiness usually has found refuge in human relationships. That is, traditionally western measures of happiness usually start with; does he have a wife? Does he have a nice home? Does he, to a limited degree, live a ‘normal’ life? In short, does he conform to accepted normative conceptions and behavior?

One of the biggest mistakes is to assume you’re happy, or at least on the path to happiness, when you’re really just on the path to disapointment. Concurrently, it is one of the biggest mistakes to assume that happiness will be found in human relations alone. Relationships and material possessions aren’t the affirmation of freedom, contentment, and happiness; but rather they are the affirmation of enslavement, discontentment, and the ultimate dissapointment. Such is the evil of pleasures: just when you think you’re starting to enjoy it, it becomes stale.

Investing in human relations alone is the affirmation of enslavement because of attachment. I believe the best defintion of freedom possible is the ability not to necessarily to do whatever you want but to live independently of attachment. The more you are attached to, the more you are restricted, and similarly the more you have to lose. Therefore, when you invest in human relations you are investing in a limitation of your freedom. I dont’ mean to sound antisocial or antilove. On the contrary, true love is the antithesis to this attachment in human relations. That is, one that expresses true love expresses genuine compassion (a genuine wish for the betterment of others). In this sense, love is an expression of this very freedom; genuine love is the ability to feel compassion independent of the desire to live up to external expectations. I truely love someone when I commit myself to love being produced in that other person, not necessarily so that love or pleasure may be produced in myself.

Human relations is the affirmation of attachment, also in that, you are attaching yourself to conformity, and you are denying your self. As a reitaration of some of my points above, human relations cannot be defined without the constant managing of one’s outward expressions in order to meet external expectations. When ever we appear before other people, when ever we communicate, we are constantly checking our behaviours and attitudes in order not to communicate something that might go against the grain of normative concepts. One of the most relative (indeed, omnirelative) examples of this is our expressions of gender. Males are forbidden to speak and act like females. Not only do we actively partake in this, but we are assigned identities based upon it (i.e., a ‘policeman or woman’, or ‘homosexual’). It is not at all damaging to the freedom of a person to engage in this control (for the sake of not offending someone). However, when it becomes to an extent to which you deny the self, and become attached to these identities you are denying freedom. In this sense, the very ideas that material possessions connote success are reinforced and systematized through these normative regulations, and can become problematic to one’s happiness.

It should then be obvious why human relations is an investment in discontentment. The traditional western conception of happiness is ‘achieved happiness’. An investment in limited material acquisition always begs the question; can I do better? In this sense, the path to happiness is an endless process. Because ‘happiness’ in material (pleasure) is impermenent, ‘achieved happiness’ doesn’t find attempt to find happiness in ‘achievement’ itself but rather in the endless acquisition of resources. It is like someone has instilled into a cat that it will achieve true happiness once it catches it’s tail, thus the cat will spin in circles. What no one told the cat, is that the tail is apart of him all along.

So, then how do we realize that the tail (metaphorically speaking) has been apart of us all along? If not in material success, where do we find happiness? It would help to have an agreed upon definition of happiness. Happiness we find is closely associated with contentment and freedom. The former is achieved through “aesthetic happiness” (or finding contentment in what you have at all times), and the latter is found in the breaking off of attachments (and similarly through the expressions of such freedoms; art, creativity, love, etc.). Material and pleasure is impermenant (and may have a negative consequence [such as sweets, or hording of money for example]). So what is permenant? I found contentment in the permenance of beauty, nature, and the depth and excitement of a life of intellect (learning) and critical self-consciousness (philosophy). I find contentment of the breaking of need for external validation; or the expression of freedom in the severing of attachments.

 

Thought for Food

Your own thoughts please:

1. Is it possible to have real knowledge?

2. Does reason provide us with knowledge of the world independently of experience?

3. Does our knowledge represent reality as it really is?

On the God Concept, Religion

When talking on the God-concept I usually quickly find myself in isolation. This is probably because of my rather unorthodox views on the subject, at least in contrast with the majority of Americans. Somewhere around 90% of Americans believe in God in some form or another after all. But I think that the topic of God helps pave the way for many of the explanations for various further reflections on our existence and ramifications for society therein. I felt that it was imperative, therefore, that the subject of God, religion, and ultimately our purpose was dealt with first. I think that understanding the contradictions of the God-concept and its further ramifications of materialism (in the sense of objects existing inherently, which will be explained later) help to better understand the world you live in and its implications for a better outlook.

There is no better place to begin with this topic than to posit the obvious contradictions inherent in the God-concept and god-concept (small “g”). The difference being, “god” as the philosophical posit of a transcendent perfect being as the ‘ultimate cause’, while “God” as the religious (mostly Abrahamic) conception of a personified existence of the former. I will first speak of the former (god-concept) as a general introduction into the more specific objectification of this concept in the religious context.

The god-concept posits that essentially the universe has an ultimate cause. Being that, because existence is, that “something cannot come from nothing” and that our very reality is an effect of this cause. There are a number of different things that cause this theory to fall in on itself, but first I will point out the obvious. The nature of this theory presupposes that this god created existence as a totality of all things existing. Then by a very obvious logical deduction, god would have to be objectified from the totality of all existing things, thereby putting him in non-existence (outside existence). Therefore by the theory’s very nature, god’s existence is impossible. If an entity supposedly existed outside of existence (in order to create it), that would assume this entity’s non-existence (because ‘it’ is outside existence). It is an obvious logical fallacy. One cannot exist and at the same time remain in non-existence.

Thus the only way around this fallacy is to presuppose god’s alleged existence as his own inherent totality (objectified from ‘our’ existence, in order to create it). However, this merely extends the very problem that the god-concept was supposed to have solved; that is, ’something from nothing’. Because, god as a separate entity existing in his own totality would assume (according to the very logic of theism), that as “something”, god would have to have come from “something”. Therefore a creator of god would be necessary. As well as a creator of that creator, and a creator of that creator, and so on ad infinitum. Thus producing an infinite regression rendering the theory of theism obsolete. Likewise, the idea that god is somehow ‘objectified’ from our existence does not seem to have any intention of remaining logical. That is, how can two ‘existences’ be separated from each other by “nothingness”? Nothingness isn’t some void or empty space, but rather it is the absence of space-time. Therefore, two existences as their own totalities (existing inherently) cannot be separated because there is (literally) nothing to separate them. So by the very nature of the god-concept, it presupposes the validity of inherent existence (that is, two existences separated from each other and sustaining completely on their own as god would have to be objectified from his creation [ie. existence]).

In light of this paradox, it might bug you that these presuppositions are inherent in your religious conception of God. That is, God (with a capital “G”), as a personification of the god-concept of ultimate cause. In fact, when shining some light onto the nature of the God-concept, it becomes obvious that the religious context of this conception is even more inherently flawed than the philosophical inquiry into ultimate cause. Without even mentioning the very numerous literary contradictions inherent in the scriptures of the Abrahamic religions (the Bible, Torah, Qur’an, etc.), the very idea of God as objectified in the image of man seems highly presumptuous and egotistical. To paraphrase the popular saying: man was not created in God’s image, but God was created in man’s. It is rooted in the highly arrogant view that somehow humanity (and Earth) are at the center of the universe; that this highly subtle and irrelevant speck of dust in the great cosmos is somehow center stage in an seemingly infinite field of great cosmic happenings.

When one properly investigates the Christian religion along side all past religions (most notably the ancient Egyptians), once begins to notice its obvious literary parallelism. One begins to notice that Christian faith and doctrine are actually rooted in old ancient pagan myth and astrology. It’s made so obvious that many of Jesus’ famous canonized stories is almost straight plagiarism from past deities. The sun-god Horus, for example, also known as “the Lamb of God”, was born of a miracle birth from a virgin, performed miracles, was crucified and died only to be resurrected three days later. This general story permeates a multitude of other different cultures, religions and their ’saviors’ who all had the basic structure. Attis of ancient Greece, was born of a virgin, born on December 25th, crucified, died, and resurrected three days later. Krishna of India and Dionysus of Greece have the exact same attributes. Mithra of Persia, born of a virgin on December 25th, miracles, had 12 disciples, and the sacred day of worship of Mithra is Sunday. Dozens of more cultures have the exact same story, and most of them tell of three ‘kings’ (or ‘wisemen’) that follow the star in the east to the birth of the savior. The reasons behind this parallelism is purely astrological.

Watch the following video (excerpt from the film Zeitgeist) for a more adequate explanation about the myth of Abrahamic religions:

But I digress. As stated earlier, one of the primary presuppositions of the god-concept is the validity and compatibility of inherent existence. When one reflects upon the contradictions of inherent existence (separation of existences by nothingness, etc.) one not only begins to realize the downfalls of theism but also a more appropriate and encompassing world view than your former theistic tendencies. If one were to digress from the presuppositions of theism and state as a condition that inherent existence is impossible, then one would ultimately have to face the consequence that everything is dependent-arising. That is, if nothing exists inherently, supported on its own, separate from existence, then everything is dependent upon and a part of existence. Thus the true elegance of negating the god concept and inherent existence; everything is essentially one. When one begins to look at the rest of existence as a part of him or herself, then petty differences and divisions among them are seen as trivial and a compassionate outlook is more possible. When one gets the concept of inherent existence out of one’s mind, negated also are the old conceptions of competition among man (that other human beings aren’t seen as a source of unity and cooperation, but a source to be expended and exploited for one’s own gain). By the nature of realizing the dependent-arising nature of all phenomena, selfishness by nature is negated.

There is one religion and perhaps the only religion that is not only compatible with negating inherent existence but preaches it, and that religion is Buddhism. The main tenet behind Buddhism is essentially generating compassion and thereby gaining enlightenment (or Buddhahood) through a conscious realization of compassion and the reality of all phenomena dependent-arising (or as they call it “Sunyata“, or “Emptiness”). While many schools of Buddhism remain antiquated and for the most part contain just as illogical paradoxes as the Abrahamic religions; many of its basic conceptions are compatible with science and logic in negating inherent existence and permanence. Like Christianity, Buddhism was a missionary religion that was exported beyond borders. Unlike Christianity, however, Buddhist doctrine wasn’t forced upon different cultures but the different cultures took Buddhism as their own and adapted it to their culture. With the arrival of Buddhism in the west, we see this happening once again. The more contemporary western conception of Buddhism essentially rejects many of the older vestiges left over from the transition from Hinduism (that is, many rejections of almost deity-like figures, the transferal of consciousness form life to life [or reincarnation], and even sometimes karma as a universal cosmic force). It would essentially be the equivalent of a new Christian movement rejecting the old vestiges of Judaism (Old Testament, etc); whereas Christianity sprouted as an divergence in ideology from Judaism, Buddhism sprouted from Hinduism. No one quite represented this new movement like Albert Einstein, who was quoted claiming Buddhism remains the last religion that can cope with modern scientific needs and that it would probably become the cosmic religion of the future. This quote from Albert Einstein reflects the sentiments of Buddhism:

A human being is part of the whole, called by us ‘Universe’; a part limited in time and space. He experiences himself, his thoughts and feelings as something separated from the rest–a kind of optical delusion of his consciousness. This delusion is a kind of prison for us, restricting us to our personal desires and affection for a few persons nearest us. Our task must be to free ourselves from this prison by widening our circle of compasion to embrace all living creatures and the whole nature in its beauty. Nobody is able to achieve this completely but striving for such achievement is, in itself, a part of the liberation and a foundation for inner security.”

–Albert Einstein

That being said, you begin to realize how the notion that atheism connotes selfishness and immorality is very false and ill-conceived. In fact it is my contention that without a god in the picture, morality being based on these premises and the basis of humanity and nature as opposed to scripture written by a people of ignorance two thousand years ago is much more real and empowering. The idea of impermanence (in contrast to the Abrahamic conception of eternal life) only makes the now an infinitude more important and relevant. That your time on earth is the only time you have, makes that time seem precious and delicate. In contrast if you had eternal life, however, our finite existence on earth in comparison to an infinite existence would seem infinitely small and insignificant. In this perspective things start to come into focus and an appreciation of life more powerful than before. Likewise in a more practical view, the realization of an atheist existence frees up a considerable amount of time to spend enjoying life as opposed to wasting it by praying to an invisible figure that is supposed to be objectified from your existence anyway. These views on our reality I believe gives people a freedom beyond comparison, however they also have their consequences (positive) on how one views other considerations such as social and economic philosophy.

Understanding the falsehood of the illusion of inherent existence paves the path for a better understanding of other areas of thought. You can now see why I felt it imperative to illustrate these conceptions before I moved onto a more specific category for investigation; whether that be social, economic, political, or ethics philosophy. This is why metaphysics is generally considered the “first philosophy”, because with it everything else follows. All roads lead to Rome, so to speak. There is a lot more on this topic and I suggest reading some literature. I would considerably suggest the writings of Richard Dawkins, the Dalai Lama, or even Jean-Paul Sarte and maybe Spinoza. I clearly did not cover all ground here and I may wish to cover some where I find I missed before moving on to the next topic. But I do wish this clears up some misconceptions about the world you live in before I begin to illustrate their consequences in other areas of thought.

Thank you for reading,
-Daniel

Once More Unto the Breach…

Welcome to my corner of the internet (also known as the series of tubes).

For those of you who know me I will use this blog to help you better understand some of my opinions and philosophical understandings of the world around me, which I most certainly believe is held in a great number of different misconceptions. Likewise, I wish to break some misconceptions about the world you live in. But keep in mind that I do not hold the assumption that I am in a position where I can dictate to you why or how your grasp of reality is allegedly inferior to mine. Unlike many other bloggers and philosophers, I am not necessarily on such a high horse as to hold other’s opinions in contempt or a status of inferiority. I do ask, however, that you do not hold false presuppositions about my philosophy, and I do ask that before you reject my opinions or the opinions of others, that you investigate these ideas yourself and that upon your own observations and experiences base your opinion. Thus the namesake of the board. If it is anything that I ask you to do by visiting this board, it is to subject your assumptions about the world and even your most cherished beliefs to an unscrupulous barrage of logic, reason, and self-contemplation. Do not simply take things for granted merely because another or some position of authority has said so.

For those who do not know me; you can perhaps use this blog as an opportunity to open your mind to other ideas as well as to express your own. More than anything I wish to get started a healthy clash of ideas within a discussion forum. The Socratic method is nothing without discussion and healthy dialectics. The blog is still under construction and the forum should be open sometime in the near future.

Thank you.
-Daniel.