The nature of existence is unsatisfactoriness, and I want to be unsatisfied, but is that the end of the story? I find myself confronting some difficult questions, very old questions with antecedents not just in Buddhism but in Stoicism. Truth be told, I am confused and out of my depth.
Beginning of this essay was reminiscent of pre-Newtonian mechanics... If an arrow continues flying through the air, there must be something continually pushing it. A more dynamic view is that an object in motion will stay in motion. A living creature is born with a set of behavioral responses and will live out those responses. I ate 3 meals yesterday. That I eat another 3 today doesn't really imply desire, definitely not desire for change. It is stasis played out through time.
I liked your post, it gets me thinking. To your question of how to hold the world without hurting your hands by gripping: I think there is something to be learned in mindfulness and perhaps cognitive behavioral therapy. By paying attention to your grip you can notice the thoughts that are causing your suffering. By rewiring the thoughts your perspective can change. To use your analogy, you are not letting go, but simply adjusting the grip. I think it is something that can take a lifetime to master, but you dont need to master it to benefit.
To the question of desire, I'm not sure I understood exactly what you meant. From my (limted) understanding of Buddhism, it is not so much about getting rid of your desires as much as it is about detaching yourself from them. If you *want* to get rid of desire, you immediately fall into a contradiction. If you detach yourself from them, you are still acknowledging the desire but do not place so much importance on it.
I would view life like Nietzsche, and say "yea to life.' One way to say yes to life is to be creative. Creating something beautiful in this world helps to benefit and improve humanity.
The real struggle of humanity is to maintain a tomorrow as similar to today---of course if today is unsatisfactory the striving for having more will never bring the satisfaction one is seeking if that seeking is what is causing the dissatisfaction. The goal, as far as I can see is simply attempt to maintain a balance between man and nature and man and man. Dissatisfaction arises from this balance becoming skewed. My grandfather never had a day of schooling, but he once told me, "God created the world is image and ever since man has been trying to create the world in his own image, including making god in the image of man instead of the image of the creation."
I, unlike Clarence Thomas, am my grandfather's son.
The stoics/Buddhists would say that the goal is to feel pain but without suffering. One might protest: shouldn't you just accept suffering? But, a rational Buddhist could respond that if you're at a place where you can accept suffering, it'll probably evaporate because suffering is a rejection of pain.
I also think that the stoics function in society as stretch goals. Sure, the monk's life is the logical conclusion of their philosophies, but it shouldn't be the "good life" for most people.
If there is a balance there, though, it seems embodied in the concept of the "happy warrior." Striving, but not to the point of misery.
Paul Graham suggests the recursive question "What do you (want to)* want?" What do you want? What do you want to want? What do you want to want to want? And so on. It gets hard to think about pretty quickly, and provides insight every step; fun: https://paulgraham.com/want.html
Firstly, beautiful writing, the question in tow reminds me of: Realist Magic - Timothy Morton, Philosophy and Psychedelics - a straddling of tangibles and intangibles (Morton - like “jet lag”). Also - I am not a brain - Markus Gabriel.
Todd May's: A Fragile Life really helped me know this question. We might want a local stoicism to help us be strong so we can tackle the big things that can really floor us
Beginning of this essay was reminiscent of pre-Newtonian mechanics... If an arrow continues flying through the air, there must be something continually pushing it. A more dynamic view is that an object in motion will stay in motion. A living creature is born with a set of behavioral responses and will live out those responses. I ate 3 meals yesterday. That I eat another 3 today doesn't really imply desire, definitely not desire for change. It is stasis played out through time.
I liked your post, it gets me thinking. To your question of how to hold the world without hurting your hands by gripping: I think there is something to be learned in mindfulness and perhaps cognitive behavioral therapy. By paying attention to your grip you can notice the thoughts that are causing your suffering. By rewiring the thoughts your perspective can change. To use your analogy, you are not letting go, but simply adjusting the grip. I think it is something that can take a lifetime to master, but you dont need to master it to benefit.
To the question of desire, I'm not sure I understood exactly what you meant. From my (limted) understanding of Buddhism, it is not so much about getting rid of your desires as much as it is about detaching yourself from them. If you *want* to get rid of desire, you immediately fall into a contradiction. If you detach yourself from them, you are still acknowledging the desire but do not place so much importance on it.
I would view life like Nietzsche, and say "yea to life.' One way to say yes to life is to be creative. Creating something beautiful in this world helps to benefit and improve humanity.
The real struggle of humanity is to maintain a tomorrow as similar to today---of course if today is unsatisfactory the striving for having more will never bring the satisfaction one is seeking if that seeking is what is causing the dissatisfaction. The goal, as far as I can see is simply attempt to maintain a balance between man and nature and man and man. Dissatisfaction arises from this balance becoming skewed. My grandfather never had a day of schooling, but he once told me, "God created the world is image and ever since man has been trying to create the world in his own image, including making god in the image of man instead of the image of the creation."
I, unlike Clarence Thomas, am my grandfather's son.
The stoics/Buddhists would say that the goal is to feel pain but without suffering. One might protest: shouldn't you just accept suffering? But, a rational Buddhist could respond that if you're at a place where you can accept suffering, it'll probably evaporate because suffering is a rejection of pain.
I also think that the stoics function in society as stretch goals. Sure, the monk's life is the logical conclusion of their philosophies, but it shouldn't be the "good life" for most people.
If there is a balance there, though, it seems embodied in the concept of the "happy warrior." Striving, but not to the point of misery.
Paul Graham suggests the recursive question "What do you (want to)* want?" What do you want? What do you want to want? What do you want to want to want? And so on. It gets hard to think about pretty quickly, and provides insight every step; fun: https://paulgraham.com/want.html
Firstly, beautiful writing, the question in tow reminds me of: Realist Magic - Timothy Morton, Philosophy and Psychedelics - a straddling of tangibles and intangibles (Morton - like “jet lag”). Also - I am not a brain - Markus Gabriel.
Todd May's: A Fragile Life really helped me know this question. We might want a local stoicism to help us be strong so we can tackle the big things that can really floor us
Have you looked into Paul Bloom’s discussion of the sweet spot? (optimal mixture of happiness and certain kinds of suffering that bring meaning)
https://www.apa.org/news/podcasts/speaking-of-psychology/pain-suffering