Day 42
Sex is terribly overrated. I remember the first time I had sex at age 16, being told for years how amazing it is and how it should really be the focal point of my existence. Granted, at the time I had it I really did think it was that awesome, but times have since changed.
I find interesting the notion that pleasure is a zero-sum game; as in, there is no way to really get ahead. Desire, as the idea goes, is a kind of deficiency, or suffering. Satisfaction of that desire will only ever bring you to a 'neutral' state in which the desire no longer exists, but you will have gained nothing, only brought yourself back to the same state you were in prior to the desire arising. This explains why we're never really satisfied no matter what desires we have satisfied. The rich and/or famous are just as miserable as the rest of us (probably more so), despite having what so many of us wish for.
I think the Buddhists are on to something like this.
Oh a totally different topic, I'd like to propose that we incorporate into internet language the word "lolfr" - an acronym for "laughing out loud for real." People are using lol far too liberally, so when they are actually laughing, they're stuck with 'rofl' and such.
You know what this is like? It's like fricking starbucks, whose smallest size coffee is "tall." It's just dishonest word usage!
lolfr. It's the next big thing.
I find interesting the notion that pleasure is a zero-sum game; as in, there is no way to really get ahead. Desire, as the idea goes, is a kind of deficiency, or suffering. Satisfaction of that desire will only ever bring you to a 'neutral' state in which the desire no longer exists, but you will have gained nothing, only brought yourself back to the same state you were in prior to the desire arising. This explains why we're never really satisfied no matter what desires we have satisfied. The rich and/or famous are just as miserable as the rest of us (probably more so), despite having what so many of us wish for.
I think the Buddhists are on to something like this.
Oh a totally different topic, I'd like to propose that we incorporate into internet language the word "lolfr" - an acronym for "laughing out loud for real." People are using lol far too liberally, so when they are actually laughing, they're stuck with 'rofl' and such.
You know what this is like? It's like fricking starbucks, whose smallest size coffee is "tall." It's just dishonest word usage!
lolfr. It's the next big thing.
Comments
"It's not all about penis-and-vagina" - Me.
But there are a lot of other alternative reasons why people have sex, a lot of more unhealthy ones (validation, ego, to earn face in social group, etc), and some healthier ones too. (: I suppose if all it is is a means through which one feels less horny, it will be overrated and not all it's cracked up to be, for sure.
There are too many variations of lol for me to keep track of these days. LOLZ, lol, LOLZ, lolthm, rofl, lolrf, haha, etc.
I guess it'd be better to express laughter than to merely say: "That's funny" though. There's nothing satisfying about having someone respond to a joke with "That's funny."
I don't find this intuitive. I'm more of the mind that it is a mistake of language to break life's endeavours down into "means" and "ends" in the first place, then trying to ascribe different values to each. The juxtaposition just doesn't hook up with the continuum of experience.
What I do find interesting, is the overwhelming assumption on the part of, well, pretty much everybody, that happiness (whatever that means) must emerge from some sort of ego-centric life. I don't mean the term in its negative connotation; I mean just to say it's always about the self. Self help, self discovery, self actualization, self-confidence, and so on.
Vicky. Desire is what it is. Separating the end from the means, again, may accomplish nothing. If your desire is validation, and your method is sex, my thought still applies, for you are seeking to acheive the fulfillment of your desire for validation. When you have 'it,' know that you'll be nowhere but where you were the moment before the desire in you arose. Your pain will be gone, and again you'll be left with no thing. A zero sum game.
The world is all about the self. Everything gravitates inward. We get exactly what we've been asking for. How could such a full and filled life be so heartbreakingly incomplete?
The right sex with the right person is second to none and for every unhealthy sexual act there's a better one. It's not always about fulfilling your desires but knowing your partner well enough to fulfill theirs.
-Lisa
Everyone has their opinion on sex! Whenever I write on the topic, however indirectly, the peanut gallery just has to make its voice heard!
Not all of us take Philosophy for four years.
Rather, our perception of what we see as our specific future goals most often has us sum-up specific tasks we need to accomplish to achieve sucesses. This is of course regardless of how our human perception deals with the passage of time and experience as it happens.
My initial comment was was regarding the human condition, which, in retrospect of our experiences, we often regard the entirety of specific endeavors as either successful or unsuccessful basely solely on their outcomes. ie: If Timmy is asked if he had 'fun' at his soccer game, how he feels and relates to his past experience, as to whether it was enjoyable or worthwhile, will most likely solely be based on the game's outcome (whether his team won or lost), rather than his general enjoyment of playing the game.
As for what we seek, your example of sex in this case, humans often seek such things hoping success in achieving said goal will bring some illusive level of satisfaction, having conquered the task of achieving the goal. Sex, like other activities, can be valued based on its actual experience, rather than having sought to reach the goal and had success simply by reaching it.
I have to disagree that it is the "overwhelming assumption... of pretty much everybody" that happiness is essentially the by-product of the ego-centric life. I can only say that you must have read all the wrong books and talked to all the wrong people :-P. I admit that there is a glut of ‘self-self’ books lining the shelves which give a bad impression of the cultural zeitgeist. One of the best ways of truly ‘discovering’ or ‘actualizing’ oneself is in the maturation of one’s relationship to other people, including understanding and participation in the common causes to which others are equally devoted. Revelations are practically forced upon us when we move beyond our limited self-involvement.
In any case, the 'religious' philosophy, or point of view (whether it be that of Buddhism, Christianity, or almost any of the enormous variety of the world's spiritual traditions)-- if I may be so bold as to make such a blatant and hasty generalization-- is that 'happiness' is possible, even obtainable (though hardly constant or guaranteed) through willful, disciplined devotion to the fulfillment of a cause that exists for the sake of something beyond that of immediate self satisfaction (even if that cause is the admittedly brief and transient sexual pleasure of one's romantic partner!). Happiness, from this p.o.v., is also possible through the depth of one's awareness, and sense of gratitude and joy in the very act of living, as well as an openness to others and to the future (which entails the hard understanding that any of our personal plans may indeed fail)-- which I think is what Colin was getting at. You know, like John Lennon said, "Life is what happens while you're making other plans." Of course, part of the inherent value of life is the chance to make plans and see them through; when broken down 'success' should be defined practically, in terms of something specific, the very 'pursuit' of which must be considered worthwhile in itself, by whomever is doing the pursuing. (So, like you said, no 'easy dichotomy'—nor did Colin intend one.)
I would also venture to claim that most religious philosophies (and secular ones too for that matter) hold that, for better or for worse, there is nothing really "zero-sum" about the world in which we live. The chief problem is that you conflated the idea of ‘pleasure’ with that of ‘desire-satisfaction’. We will always need to satisfy certain elemental desires of course, at least for the sake of our own health: eating, pooping, mating, fending off nature's bad hair days. However, I think real pleasure, in the fullest, personal, phenomenological sense of the word, consists of something a great deal more than mere desire-satisfaction, even though some form of pleasure is often enough a by-product of any given instance of desire satisfaction. Think of the expression of being “pleasantly surprised” and what that means to you. Unexpectedly seeing a wild animal or beautiful sunset, or having a piece of cake or even glass of water taste a whole lot better than you thought it would. Sex, (I think I’m permitted to say this now ;-) can sometimes also be like that. It can be the mere mundane reinforcing of physical appetites, or it can be something more—the surprise of unexpected intimacy and enjoyment that makes life temporarily more bearable.
Let me extend the notions of ‘pleasure’, ‘non-zero sum’, and ‘greater cause’ one more time. You are well aware with Richard Dawkins book, "The Selfish Gene". Of course our genes aren't literally 'selfish', but neither are human beings when they choose to act otherwise in the relevant respect. It might be quite helpful for the biologist to understand biological change exclusively in terms of the 'survivability' of individual genes, just as it might be helpful for the economist to analyze shifting market trends by characterizing individuals and businesses as abstract 'incentive seekers' or 'profit maximizers'. But the truth is that these are not metaphysical constrains on the way the world works-- when patterns of genes come together, consistently, and in novel ways, they result in organisms that never existed before (and don't simply reduce to component genes). These organisms in turn carve out a new space in the environment and gradually redefine it etc. (a la DST, of course ;-) ) So can we, as humans, actively redefine our reality, by degrees, associating or coming together in novel ways: carefully and hopefully appropriating new ideas and practices and thereby providing the proof of their fruitfulness.
In the words of Barack Obama, "I'm all fired up."