[MTA] Pleasure vs. Pain, attachments, and giving up all you fear to lose.

[James Carroll]

There is an interesting discussion going on over on my goodreads wall here: 

http://www.goodreads.com/review/show/2936935?utm_medium=email&utm_source=comment_instant#comment_43233210 

about pleasure, pain, attachments, Buddhism, and "giving up all you fear to lose", and whether attachments really are the source of all suffering, and if so, are they worth the cost. I am interested to hear what you philosopher types think about this. 

James

--
Web: http://james.jlcarroll.net

[Lincoln Cannon]

I love and respect my Buddhist friends, but I consider formulations of Buddhism that advocate detachment to be ultimately nihilistic.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Mormon Transhumanist Association" group.
To post to this group, send email to transf...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to transfiguris...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/transfigurism?hl=en.

[James Carroll]

On Wed, Jan 11, 2012 at 5:15 PM, Lincoln Cannon <lin...@metacannon.net> wrote:

I love and respect my Buddhist friends, but I consider formulations of Buddhism that advocate detachment to be ultimately nihilistic.

exactly!

By the way, feel free to ignore all the early comments. It is the last few comments where things got interesting... my debate with "Yasiru". 

James

--
Web: http://james.jlcarroll.net

[JDLAW Booker]

Of course my interests are in how this all fits with the "MMPs" (multiple mortal probations - of "worlds without end") and how our "created" (God simulated) world is ultimately a place where our spirits choose to locate themselves and obtain this Godhood enlightenment.  

I read the whole discussion over there and I do find it interesting -- although probably not interesting enough to go out and read Lowry.  

I think one of the big things that keeps me from delving too deeply into Buddhism is that I very much enjoy my "interests" that I create for myself.  I enjoy both the selfish interests and the altruistic. And I admit that a certain amount of control over these interests - especially the selfish one's - is a very important thing we need to learn to accomplish in this life.

And I agree with the idea that without these attachments (we create for ourselves) there would be no pain.  I would disagree (with the interpretation Yasiru gave) that James meant to say without pain there could be NO pleasure.  I would rather interpret that he meant the pleasure would be empty without pain.  Or, maybe he meant that that the pleasure of such perfect "oneness" with the universe would itself be empty -- and would not result in the "Sansāra" or bring an end to the endless recycling of birth and death. I will let James speak for himself.   

I think this "check out" philosophy might be a helpful one to some souls who have come to this mortal world with extremely struggling or troubled spirits, and those who have entered this world to obtain what their spirit might personally need on their particular path to enlightenment. (remember the movie "Groundhog day")

(By true enlightenment, I am talking about one's ascending to that higher plane, or to make the break from the sansāra or sangsara of having to live so many multiple mortal probations)

I choose to enjoy this life.  If I am living in a created world for my benefit, then the pain I feel is also for my benefit. i.e. when I prick my finger, it hurts.  Therefore, I try to avoid pricking my finger (we won't get into George Carlin's "fingering my prick" philosophy).  

One of the things we might obtain here for our "enlightenment" -- is the ability to recognize and remember those people and things we have learned to love - for this wold and for the worlds to come.

Can we love without knowing hate?  Can we have pleasure without knowing pain?  Can there be light without dark?

I think yes.  But, what would be the point?  This "fallen" world concept is consistent with the plan of salvation.  We could move on from the Sansāra without knowing or conquering pain -- but, what would be the point?  That is all I think James was saying -- and I think it was appropriate for him to point out in his book review that Siddhartha Gautama did not necessarily say that knowing pleasure or pain was always a bad thing either.  We can try to be like Bill Murray's Character ("Phil Conners - "Punxsutawney Phil") and just "sit this one out," but, in order to reach true "enlightenment" we have to face our fears and our pain to internalize our desires rather than be driven by them.

We can build maze solving robots with no central processing (only sensors and motors).  Alas, they never know the joys of their struggle to complete the maze.

[Noah Heninger]

I do not believe pleasure is possible without pain. You have to remember that the mechanism that creates pleasure in our beings is the same one that creates pain. Pleasure did not, and could not, evolve without pain. Opposition in all things, yo. The "telestial" phase is a necessary evil, without which evolution (and human agency) wouldn't have been possible. Our choices are motivated by pleasure and pain...without which there can be no consequences, and thus no agency.

Moving on...

I hold somewhat of a "big bang theory" of life, family, and religion. Supposedly, at one point, we were all one with God. Then we were cast off. We are at a point in our evolution that we must choose to come back to God. As a father, I cannot understand why I would take a part of myself, cast it off from myself, and then rear it in my own image. What is the rationale for that?

I believe it is to generate attachment for its own sake, and I believe God is doing the same thing on a much grander scale. Not only do I NOT believe in non-attachment, I believe that without attachment, you've defeated the meaning of life--creating an existential crisis so massive that even God couldn't bear it. You've "opted-out" of life in a sense.

However, I think non-attachment is open to another interpretation. I think Buddhist "non-attachment" can be paralleled with Christian "forsaking the world". The goal in life is not "non-attachment", but right-attachment (including measured attachment), or right-desire. It's an uphill battle, but if you've mastered it, you've morphed into a wise old sage...eligible for further glory.

Maybe I was perceiving with my Christian eyes, I do believe you can be a Buddhist and share this view.

[Lincoln Cannon]

Here's a pertinent TED Talk:

http://www.ted.com/talks/brene_brown_on_vulnerability.html

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Mormon Transhumanist Association" group.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msg/transfigurism/-/7oh2ivVA19oJ.

[JDLAW Booker]

Thanks for the link.  That was a good talk on vulnerability.  I repeat,

JDLaw said,

"We can build maze solving robots with no central processing (only sensors and motors).  Alas, they never know the joys of their struggle to complete the maze." 

Last night my youngest had an assignment to write about what it was like 100 years ago.  She asked me about it and all I could think about was that I knew that we are coming up on the 100 year anniversary of the sinking of the Titanic.  I went up stairs and found an old two-tape VHS copy of the James Cameron film (Leonardo DiCaprio and Kate Winslet) and put it in.  Well, my daughter is only 6 and I probably should not have shown her that movie.  She was riveted through the whole thing and at the end was totally traumatized.  She had never seen such a sad movie before in her whole life.  But, after the movie she spoke about the part at the end where Rose (the old Grandma Rose in present time) threw the necklace off the Titanic exploration boat.  She said "love is more important than anything, isn't it Dad."  She was just clinging onto her sister and wouldn't let go.