Abolitionism - BrainMeta.com Forum

Abolitionism, looking for feedback

Unknown	Nov 28, 2004, 05:15 PM Post #31
Unregistered	In other words, I do not believe the "Pleasure Principle" as sole governing force is applicable to beings with sufficiently developed cognitive capabilities and consciousness. Thus, I do not advocate the abolishing of suffering since such a goal really is motivated by the "pleasure principle" and thus, is a goal formulated and sought for by a "lower level" of consciousness. I am not saying people who advocate such goals are brutes, but should give more thought to what is meaningful in life. The abolishing of suffering is not very meaningful.

Abolitionist

Nov 28, 2004, 05:33 PM

Post #32

Aspiring

Group: Basic Member
Posts: 88
Joined: Nov 17, 2004
Member No.: 4034

QUOTE (Unknown @ Nov 28, 02:06 PM)

QUOTE (Abolitionist @ Nov 28, 08:55 AM)

Inescapable pain results in learned helplessness;

but we're not really talking about "inescapable" pain because the usefulness of pain in learning implies we're talking about "escapable" pain; i.e., that pain is a signal for us to change things. If we can't learn how to change things and end up stuck with "inescapable" pain, then certainly something should be done about that, but I would question the validity of the notion of "inescapable pain". All pain is escapable in theory; it's just a question of learning how to escape it in practice.

That still leaves us with the observation that, without pain, we have little motivation for learning how to change our circumstances for the better. Thus, the homeless drunk will have no motivation for bettering his circumstances because he's not experiencing any pain; the sick individual will not seek help because they feel no pain and thus will continue with their sickness.

It also means that other races could easily enslave this hypothetical "dumbed-down" happy race of humans because the humans wouldn't experience any pain from the enslavement and thus would not be motivated to change the situation and overthrow their enslavors.

Given our current design, yes, pain is very important in determining one's behavior.

We would like to change this fact, making pain optional.

Designing informational sensitivity to one's environment as well the ability to acquire new information and attribute value need not depend on one's position on the pain/pleasure axis.

The pain of living is very much inescapable at this time, not to mention chronic types of pain that there are no cures for.

Abolitionist

Nov 28, 2004, 05:39 PM

Post #33

Aspiring

Group: Basic Member
Posts: 88
Joined: Nov 17, 2004
Member No.: 4034

QUOTE (Dan @ Nov 28, 03:34 PM)

the question isn't only 'can I be in absence of suffering now', but is also 'how long can my absence of suffering be sustained?' If we stick wires or chemicals into our brains today to lay down as a quivering mass of bliss, we can be sure that it will end eventually and we will likely find ourselves in a more difficult position than when we started. Until such a state of abandonment to a non-suffering state is sustainable, we would be foolish to enter it.

I would further posit that the 'effort' to find such a utopia of 'no suffering' is hardly novel, but rather underlies the action of life itself. The entire universe has been on the case of 'abolitionism' since it's inception, and any person who believes they have 'discovered' such a purpose recently and, because of such a 'discovery', has the inside track to the (relatively) quick solution is simply naive.

I agree with all of this (for what it's worth.)

Also, the new technologies looming on the horizon due hold the promise of speading up the process (relatively.)

What's important for us to focus on are the ideological barriers to the successful advent of these technologies. Not to ignore ethical issues but to challenge the ideas of mankind that maintain that suffering should always exist.

Abolitionist

Nov 28, 2004, 05:44 PM

Post #34

Aspiring

Group: Basic Member
Posts: 88
Joined: Nov 17, 2004
Member No.: 4034

QUOTE (Unknown @ Nov 28, 03:42 PM)

I agree with Dan and would add that for me, the abolishment of aversive reactions to living is unwise, even if it were possible some day. Seriously, who wants to live their life free of all pain and suffering? Without them we lose out on life since we are losing out on experiences. Why should we seek to limit our experiences? We should rather be seeking to broaden them. Instead of seeking to do away with suffering in life while retaining some sort of "bliss", we should be seeking to enhance the contrasts in life and make our extreme experiences even more extreme; to push the limits of our experiences, as it were. This whole idea of limiting our experiences to bliss is as foolish as saying we ought to limit our vision to grayscale instead of seeing in color; or it's like saying we should eliminate our experience of the color red because we don't like red, or some similar nonsense like that. To reiterate the point, we should be seeking to broaden our range of experiences, and their intensities, and not to limit ourselves in what we experience; Such is the nature of consciousness, to broaden itself and grow, and not to limit itself. By seeking to abolish the experience of suffering, you are seeking to limit the range of what we experience, and this is not wise, nor should it be sought for.

I for one, would love to life without suffering. Not to mention the millions of Buddhists worldwide.

We do not suggest that one's experience be limited to bliss, just that suffering be eliminated. It is one possible approach to alter our pain/pleasure axis so that humans are motivated by gradients of bliss rather than the raw pain and temporary relief that we currently have - but this would only be an interim solution as suffering would still exist.

Abolitionist

Nov 28, 2004, 05:54 PM

Post #35

Aspiring

Group: Basic Member
Posts: 88
Joined: Nov 17, 2004
Member No.: 4034

QUOTE (Unknown @ Nov 28, 05:15 PM)

In other words, I do not believe the "Pleasure Principle" as sole governing force is applicable to beings with sufficiently developed cognitive capabilities and consciousness. Thus, I do not advocate the abolishing of suffering since such a goal really is motivated by the "pleasure principle" and thus, is a goal formulated and sought for by a "lower level" of consciousness. I am not saying people who advocate such goals are brutes, but should give more thought to what is meaningful in life. The abolishing of suffering is not very meaningful.

Just seeking pleasure would be a big waste in my thinking as well.

However, that is what we currently do. We're really just complex pleasure seeking animals.

What is it that makes a person seek meaningful experiences/understanding?

We believe that humankind would be benefited by freeing themselves from the pain/pleasure axis as well as our darwinian constitution. Then we would be better equipped to understand the universe and build a world based on our highest ideals.

Unknown

Nov 28, 2004, 05:56 PM

Post #36

Unregistered

QUOTE (Abolitionist @ Nov 28, 05:44 PM)

We do not suggest that one's experience be limited to bliss, just that suffering be eliminated.

but this is like saying that, because most people don't like the color red, that our experience of the color red should be eliminated. But eliminating aspects and qualities of conscious experience, you reduce the spectrum of consciousness. Thus, you are literally suggesting we seek to become more narrow-minded or consciously-limited.

Dan

Nov 28, 2004, 05:56 PM

Post #37

God

Group: Basic Member
Posts: 1908
Joined: May 01, 2003
From: Sri Danananda
Member No.: 96

QUOTE (Unknown @ Nov 28, 05:10 PM)

The desire for understanding ... seems a fundamental drive to those species (i.e., human) who have sufficiently developed cognitive capabilities and consciousness.

I wonder what consciousness would need to understand, if not the causes of suffering or escapes from suffering

Unknown

Nov 28, 2004, 05:59 PM

Post #38

Unregistered

QUOTE (Abolitionist @ Nov 28, 05:44 PM)

I for one, would love to life without suffering. Not to mention the millions of Buddhists worldwide.

It doesn't matter if all the people in China wanted to end suffering, it still doesn't justify it. What's a Buddhist after all? Do all Buddhists want to end suffering in the manner you're suggesting? I doubt it. What Buddha essentially said was that our world is what we make of it. What we experience as suffering can mean many things depending on how we interpret the experience and depending on what we make of the experience.

Unknown

Nov 28, 2004, 06:01 PM

Post #39

Unregistered

QUOTE (Dan @ Nov 28, 05:56 PM)

QUOTE (Unknown @ Nov 28, 05:10 PM)

The desire for understanding ... seems a fundamental drive to those species (i.e., human) who have sufficiently developed cognitive capabilities and consciousness.

I wonder what consciousness would need to understand, if not the causes of suffering or escapes from suffering

to "Know thy Self". To understand the meaning of things, why they are as they are and so forth.

Unknown

Nov 28, 2004, 06:06 PM

Post #40

Unregistered

QUOTE (Abolitionist @ Nov 28, 05:54 PM)

What is it that makes a person seek meaningful experiences/understanding?

I would hypothesize that any being with sufficiently developed cognitive abilities and consciousness would be primarily driven to seek meaning and understanding. I know it's more complicated than this. Maybe the drive to meaning and understanding is derived from development of just certain cognitive abilities and domains of consciousness, which leaves open the question of the relevance of drives derived from the development of other cognitive abilities and domains of consciousness (manifesting, for example, in a will to power, or in a modified pleasure principle).

Abolitionist

Nov 28, 2004, 06:06 PM

Post #41

Aspiring

Group: Basic Member
Posts: 88
Joined: Nov 17, 2004
Member No.: 4034

QUOTE (Unknown @ Nov 28, 05:56 PM)

QUOTE (Abolitionist @ Nov 28, 05:44 PM)

We do not suggest that one's experience be limited to bliss, just that suffering be eliminated.

but this is like saying that, because most people don't like the color red, that our experience of the color red should be eliminated. But eliminating aspects and qualities of conscious experience, you reduce the spectrum of consciousness. Thus, you are literally suggesting we seek to become more narrow-minded or consciously-limited.

I think you have a valid concern, we should be careful not to limit ourselves too much.

I look at it this way: rather than eliminating the experience of the color red, we could observe it the way it is without our subjective qualification of whether we "like it" or not.

In my thinking, our pain/pleasure axis is severely consciousness-limiting, not to mention how much it influences our cognitive capacities.

This is something we Abolitionists would do well to keep in mind - that seeking pure bliss and limiting our perception and consciousness could limit our development.

We will need to develop an approach that doesn't make us vulnerable to domination, or remove the ability to expand our consciousness. No doubt there are many more serious concerns to be addressed.

Dan

Nov 28, 2004, 06:08 PM

Post #42

God

Group: Basic Member
Posts: 1908
Joined: May 01, 2003
From: Sri Danananda
Member No.: 96

QUOTE (Unknown @ Nov 28, 06:01 PM)

QUOTE (Dan @ Nov 28, 05:56 PM)

I wonder what consciousness would need to understand, if not the causes of suffering or escapes from suffering

to "Know thy Self". To understand the meaning of things, why they are as they are and so forth.

such a state would certainly be beneficial in the 'war on suffering'

Unknown

Nov 28, 2004, 06:10 PM

Post #43

Unregistered

QUOTE (Abolitionist @ Nov 28, 05:54 PM)

We believe that humankind would be benefited by freeing themselves from the pain/pleasure axis as well as our darwinian constitution. Then we would be better equipped to understand the universe and build a world based on our highest ideals.

agreed, in a way.

By freeing from our pleasure/pain axis, you mean being able to control our pleasure/pain axis, which is all fine and dandy, but is also very dangerous because people would easily succumb and become addicted to over-amping their pleasure levels and would lose self-control.

Unknown	Nov 28, 2004, 06:14 PM Post #44
Unregistered	Even making it a personal choice (whether to have suffering abolished) is problematic because if such a technology (to abolish suffering) is addictive, then individuals will not have enough self-control to make rational decisions whether to continue using the technology or not. Hence the rationale behind prohibition of various drugs such as heroin. I guess heroin would make you feel great and abolish suffering but would lead to addiction. Just ask the Chinese and the effect it had on their society and economy during the Heroin Wars.

Unknown	Nov 28, 2004, 06:16 PM Post #45
Unregistered	Maybe you could abolish the experience of suffering through cingulotomy, though such a procedure also abolished motivation, whence we conclude that abolishing suffering will carry with it the abolishing of motivation. Is this really what we want?

Dan	Nov 28, 2004, 06:23 PM Post #46
God Group: Basic Member Posts: 1908 Joined: May 01, 2003 From: Sri Danananda Member No.: 96	we can't be satisfied with anything that isn't complete, universal and permanent

Unknown

Nov 28, 2004, 06:27 PM

Post #47

Unregistered

QUOTE (Dan @ Nov 28, 06:23 PM)

we can't be satisfied with anything that isn't complete, universal and permanent

that being said, should we seek to satisfy our will or to make it more insatiable? I'm inclined towards making it more insatiable. Screw satiety; It's boring. It's death. Life consists in striving, consists in suffering, and you should not regard satiety as in end in itself but merely the means onto more striving.

Unknown

Nov 28, 2004, 06:30 PM

Post #48

Unregistered

QUOTE (Unknown @ Nov 28, 06:27 PM)

Life consists in striving, consists in suffering,

the above quote is a generalization. I know all life is not suffering (that would be sad indeed) but suffering is a core component of life, at least for me. In life you deal with the both the "good" and the "bad", and then some.

Unknown	Nov 28, 2004, 06:38 PM Post #49
Unregistered	Just reflect on the fact that all the suffering you've experienced is like nothing compared to what can be experienced or has been experienced by others. The suffering you've experienced is like an infinitesimal little drop, and the whole wide ocean is there wondering why you would want to banish it from being experienced. The mind is a wonderful thing. The human mind has much potential for experiences such extremes as have not been experienced before. Your taste of suffering is but a glimpse into the experience. On the basis of this glimpse, are you confident enough to say that we should abolish it forever instead of developing our minds to better handle more extreme and myriad experiences? Do you think the one who suffered and died on the cross would want to banish suffering? Do you think those who endured suffering and grew precisely because of the suffering would want to have it banished. Like so many things in life, suffering is a two-edged sword. It can be a very useful tool to those who learn how to harness it, or it can be just a painful experience that people would rather not have and who have not learned to use it as a tool.

Dan	Nov 28, 2004, 06:40 PM Post #50
God Group: Basic Member Posts: 1908 Joined: May 01, 2003 From: Sri Danananda Member No.: 96	I remain unconvinced

Unknown	Nov 28, 2004, 06:41 PM Post #51
Unregistered	of what?

Dan	Nov 28, 2004, 06:52 PM Post #52
God Group: Basic Member Posts: 1908 Joined: May 01, 2003 From: Sri Danananda Member No.: 96	that existence without suffering would be intrinsically bad

Unknown

Nov 28, 2004, 07:55 PM

Post #53

Unregistered

QUOTE (Dan @ Nov 28, 06:52 PM)

that existence without suffering would be intrinsically bad

there's no need to go metaphysical here. 'Good' and 'bad' are value judgments, not intrinsic features of anything since they always involve the relation of something to another, and depending on the relation you get, pronounced 'good' or 'bad'. But since this is treading towards moral relativism, which I'd rather not get into since it always ends with everyone believing their own "truth", I just want to say that yes, I understand why many view look at suffering as something "bad". However, instead of eliminating this thing we pronounce as "bad", we should learn to use it as a tool, thereby turning it into a "good". In the end, we're in the realm of consciousness, and why one feature of consciousness should be elevated over another, or one desired to be abolished, is not clear when you consider that it's just a facet of consciousness. As an analogy, it's like the holy man who considers 'everything' to contain God, both the vast skies and the dirty ground; in a similar manner, seeing consciousness in all of these experiences, and understanding that all of these different experiences are just different forms of consciousness, I see no reason why you would be inclined to abolish one just because you don't like it.

Dan

Nov 28, 2004, 08:47 PM

Post #54

God

Group: Basic Member
Posts: 1908
Joined: May 01, 2003
From: Sri Danananda
Member No.: 96

QUOTE (Unknown @ Nov 28, 07:55 PM)

...why one feature of consciousness should be elevated over another, or one desired to be abolished, is not clear when you consider that it's just a facet of consciousness.

'just another facet of consciousness' is hardly a complete description from which to compare states of consciousness, and cannot be used to conclusively decide that all states are equal.

QUOTE

...instead of eliminating this thing we pronounce as "bad", we should learn to use it as a tool, thereby turning it into a "good"...

why? why not just let it remain 'bad' if all states of consciousness are equal?

Unknown	Nov 28, 2004, 09:02 PM Post #55
Unregistered	I didn't mean to imply that all states of consciousness were the same, only that they are all forms and modifications of consciousness. All states are not all the same. I would say that we are more aware and more conscious and more cognitively capable and creative and driven in some states versus others and that it is these states that we should be seeking. However, I do not regard suffering as something to be avoided. It is simply an aspect of consciousness, and when your awareness and level of consciousness increases you accept it all, the good and bad, and you realize that suffering is rarely a pure experience but involves mixtures and is a more complicated phenomena than perhaps we'd like to admit. Suffering is present in many different experiences; in some it's prominent and in others it's in the background. Nonetheless, it is a part of consciousness, and without it I think we would lose much in the way of motivation, and for this reason, I do not think it is useful to seek to abolish suffering; because when we unintentionally abolish or attenuate motivation (by abolishing suffering and pain), then we abolish or attenuate our will to overcome ourselves and to become greater than what we were yesterday, and thus our spiritual and intellectual growth will be seriously hampered if we abolish suffering and pain. And like I said before, I think a lot of people wanting to abolish suffering are just being big cry-babies about pain and suffering because they don't happen to like experiencing it; whatever you have suffered is nothing. You take it, and you go beyond. And when you go beyond yourself, you can look back and laugh at yourself for being so silly about a little pain and suffering.

Abolitionist

Nov 28, 2004, 11:38 PM

Post #56

Aspiring

Group: Basic Member
Posts: 88
Joined: Nov 17, 2004
Member No.: 4034

QUOTE (Unknown @ Nov 28, 06:10 PM)

agreed, in a way.

By freeing from our pleasure/pain axis, you mean being able to control our pleasure/pain axis, which is all fine and dandy, but is also very dangerous because people would easily succumb and become addicted to over-amping their pleasure levels and would lose self-control.

I don't mean controlling the pain/pleasure axis, I mean being freed from it's influence.

Simply having control would not neccessarily abolish suffering. Abolishing suffering means that there would be no suffering to control.

Abolitionist

Nov 28, 2004, 11:41 PM

Post #57

Aspiring

Group: Basic Member
Posts: 88
Joined: Nov 17, 2004
Member No.: 4034

QUOTE (Unknown @ Nov 28, 06:14 PM)

Even making it a personal choice (whether to have suffering abolished) is problematic because if such a technology (to abolish suffering) is addictive, then individuals will not have enough self-control to make rational decisions whether to continue using the technology or not. Hence the rationale behind prohibition of various drugs such as heroin. I guess heroin would make you feel great and abolish suffering but would lead to addiction. Just ask the Chinese and the effect it had on their society and economy during the Heroin Wars.

If it was an addictive treatment or substance then it would be just another "delusive shortcut."

It would be a permanent solution, where there was no possibility of suffering in the future, unless one wanted to put it "back in" for some reason.

Abolitionist

Nov 28, 2004, 11:45 PM

Post #58

Aspiring

Group: Basic Member
Posts: 88
Joined: Nov 17, 2004
Member No.: 4034

QUOTE (Unknown @ Nov 28, 06:16 PM)

Maybe you could abolish the experience of suffering through cingulotomy, though such a procedure also abolished motivation, whence we conclude that abolishing suffering will carry with it the abolishing of motivation. Is this really what we want?

We define the project as using biotechnology to eliminate all sentient suffering while making us better humans.

We'll need to have motivation and direction in life, but we see these as potentially separate from experiencing suffering.

Killing is the easiest way to simply abolish a sentient being's suffering - this is not what we are trying to promote.

Abolitionist

Nov 28, 2004, 11:51 PM

Post #59

Aspiring

Group: Basic Member
Posts: 88
Joined: Nov 17, 2004
Member No.: 4034

QUOTE (Unknown @ Nov 28, 06:27 PM)

that being said, should we seek to satisfy our will or to make it more insatiable? I'm inclined towards making it more insatiable. Screw satiety; It's boring. It's death. Life consists in striving, consists in suffering, and you should not regard satiety as in end in itself but merely the means onto more striving.

If there is no suffering, then there is also no boredom. It's counter-intuitive to think this way however.

This is what our darwinian genes (not that I consider them conscious) would like us to think and believe - that striving (or more appropriately in this context - suffering) is the goal of life. After all, to our genes, we are merely throw-away vessels.

Abolitionist

Nov 28, 2004, 11:55 PM

Post #60

Aspiring

Group: Basic Member
Posts: 88
Joined: Nov 17, 2004
Member No.: 4034

QUOTE (Unknown @ Nov 28, 06:30 PM)

QUOTE (Unknown @ Nov 28, 06:27 PM)

Life consists in striving, consists in suffering,

the above quote is a generalization. I know all life is not suffering (that would be sad indeed) but suffering is a core component of life, at least for me. In life you deal with the both the "good" and the "bad", and then some.

We are experiencing a continuum of pleasure and pain currently, and granted sometimes we may feel quite good, for a while. Basically it can be described as a 'hedonistic treadmill' we never really get to that place where we are satisfied.

« Next Oldest · Ethics · Next Newest »

1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)

0 Members: