Hello Gang:

These are ideals that some feel are worthwhile to pursue. I believe that in many persons, there is a burning desire to include one underlying theme, or ideal, in their life. It is assumed here that there can be only one independent and primary ideal since all the rest would be corollaries from the determination of this one ideal. This underlying theme may be transient or it may be prospectively permanent. The above ideals, of course, have not been achieved in the physical world with which we are familiar. However, it is also assumed that in this point in history and in a sphere of free-thinking, underlying goals such as these are not so far-fetched that people should not have them or talk about them. At this point in your life, do any one of these function as primary guidance?

And if you’d like please comment on your choices, providing a detailed explanation.

Thanks in advance for any participation you can share.

I voted 'other' because I didn't see
sustainable universal happiness

although 'perpetually painless mind state' and 'hate-free world/universe' certainly fit into my ideal

Hi, Dan. Thank you for your response. I think I should clarify just a little. What is being asked is, “What is your underlying goal?�

Many people develop plans based on where they want to be in ten years, five years, next month, etc. Some may resolve that they don’t want or need to look beyond 10 years. For example, one may resolve that in 10 years he or she wants to be married, own a family business, become stabilized and financially secure, and have some children toward the end of this increment. However, even underlying this broad goal, there is sometimes a primary goal that even makes this broad goal a sub-goal—it “drives� the sub-goal, if you will.

What I am trying to figure out, what is most person’s underpinning goal? Perhaps it may make more sense if I clarify the “Who cares…� option. This option suggests that we can only be pragmatically concerned with now with the possibility of looking no more than five to ten years down the road for practical purposes.

In other cases (all notions that some people develop from Brave New World considered), and as an example that doesn’t necessarily reflect personal viewpoints, someone may choose “Perpetually Painless Mind-State� because this gives impetus to working in pharmacology with the assumption that nanotechnology could be bridged with it while, in the meantime, this choice is fundamentally based on the premise that when the first group of people who could get access to this technology would use it, becoming more selfless and philanthropic and eventually fostering an institution that allows for everyone to have access, other things equal and the goal naturally incorporating healthy debate and activist participation and deliberation to ensure a safe transition, in due time the achievement would be irrefutable—no one would feel contentious enough to refute it—and is viewed by the chooser of this option as “the ultimate good� and reasonable to pursue as a goal in this lifetime.

Everyone, I believe, has a basic philosophy, or something like a motto, where all decisions directly or indirectly consider this base. And, furthermore, a broad goal such as a 10-year goal would be developed on the primary goal’s terms, but all sub-goals beneath the 10-year broad goal needn’t necessarily consider the primary goal—rendering them “indirect.�

Hope this makes more sense. Sorry for the long-winded post…

(Accidently didn't sign in for above post. Any way to change that? Thanks.)

Dan, I think I may have misunderstood you. Is "sustainable universal happiness," in fact, something you are working toward?

how about desire to self-actualize and to realize the potential of "man"?

Hi Velleity

what is at the core of my motivation is the release from suffering. My understanding of the universe is that there is no escape (being is eternal), and we are all in it together (being is fundamentally unified)....thus, true release from suffering (which I define as 'happiness') must be both sustainable (otherwise suffering returns) and universal (because 'I' am the universe in a fundamental sense). I do allow that such a goal of 'sustainable universal happiness' may be unrealizable, but I also feel that rejecting such a goal will likely only lead to greater suffering.

is ideal happiness the cessation of all desires for you, Dan?

I'm defining happiness as the opposite of (formerly wrote 'the lack of', but wanted to be more exact about what I intend) suffering. I'm defining a single unremovable irreducable dimension of experience that is non-orthogonal to all definable states, and am dividing it into suffering (negative) and happiness (positive). the middle is excluded, it is taken as infinitesimal and thus simply as a transition between the two possibilities

hi everyone,

Velleity, I apologize for changing the name of this thread, but something strange happened earlier today, and three threads got deleted (two of them were yours and the other was Steve Lance's), though I was able to replace them, though I wasn't sure about the titles of two of your threads (the other one I called Intellectualism and Class). Please let me know if you want me to change the name of your threads or the board that they're on. I realize, too, that your two threads were polls, which unfortunately, I wasn't able to recover. If you want, please start new polls and I will do my best to ensure that this doesn't happen again.

take care,
Shawn

Shawn, no problem. Thanks for letting me know.

Dan, sorry for the delay in my reply. I had some problems getting to the post editor.

Hi again, Velleity

Hello Dan,

I would concur with you, that the removal of all suffering, to be replaced by happiness seems an obvious objective.

However, as soon as I have that thought, I am reminded that we appreciate happiness because we also witness suffering.
Would we quickly lose appreciation of happiness if suffering were wiped out?
Without 'opposites' we are not really aware of any 'condition' which is static.

We take the water in our tap for granted till there is a drought or burst or strike!
In a sense, therefore we don't appreciate it.
Make no mistake, water from the tap is great, but enjoyment of it does not make life euphoric.
I think the main benefit would be the release of human effort onto the next Main Objective.
Regards, Bill.

if it is true that suffering is required to feel happiness, should we eventually establish a 'ministry of suffering' or should we rely on chaos to provide us with suffering? The 'ministry of suffering' notion seems absurd, as a fundamental quality of happiness is in the sense of freedom. Any such system would be seen as a form of tyranny by a 'ministry' caste on the 'common' caste, and if it were to go underground it would be a sort of 'illuminati' that, unless perfect, would undoubtedly corrupt. And if we were to rely on chaos to provide us with the necessary suffering, how could we prevent it from getting away from us to the end of negating happiness altogether?

I think I see where you are coming from Dan.

It was not my intention to imply that the introduction of suffering should be encouraged [by rote or by chaos] so that happiness would be more appreciated!

We can all feel happiness. We only appreciate happiness when it is a change from the norm.

There is a middle point, I suspect, where contentment is reached. As events occur, they make us happier or more sad.

I presumed that the objective would be to elevate that 'norm of contentment' to a higher level per person on average as time goes by. Overall, suffering thereby reduces, and happiness increases!

All around interesting conversation.

Dan, you said "I'm defining happiness as the lack of suffering", but why should any reasonable person accept that definition when experience shows us the two are sometimes intertwined? The fact that happiness can coexist with suffering invalidates your definition, no? What's more is that happiness and suffering do not exhaust the spectrum of human experience. How about this? I define 'happiness' as the lack of your definition of happiness and the lack of suffering. But why call it 'happiness' at all? Why not call it Blappiness or Xappiness or something else? Maybe ideal happiness is an experience that you haven't got the faintest clue what it's about, and if you have no experience of it, then why call it 'happiness' at all? And if you have no experience of it, then you can't really even talk meaningfully about at all. On looking over your posts, I don't think you even have a firm handle on what constitutes happiness. Just saying that it's the lack of suffering doesn't say much and it leaves wide open a bunch of possibilities as to what happiness is. So, what is happiness according to you? Just a straight answer please. If you don't know, then just say so.

I simply disagree with you, mixmaster