Full Version: Abolitionism
of what?
that existence without suffering would be intrinsically bad
| 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.
| 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?
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.
| 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.
| 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.
| 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.
| 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.
| QUOTE (Unknown @ Nov 28, 06:30 PM) | ||
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.
| QUOTE (Unknown @ Nov 28, 07:55 PM) | ||
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. |
The same reason you seek medical treatment.
| QUOTE (Unknown @ Nov 28, 09:02 PM) |
| 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. |
I'm having a hard time taking you seriously on that one.
You say that we should seek states where we are more cognitively capable, creative, and driven - how is this different from what we are advocating?
Why would you seek such states?
Are you really saying that suffering should not be avoided?
If only life was just "a little pain and suffering."
Are you playing devil's advocate?
| QUOTE (Abolitionist @ Nov 28, 06:54 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. |
Perhaps the best way to reduce suffering, as Dan obliquely suggests, is to attack the causes of suffering, and not worry about the internal perception of it. The major causes of suffering include:
1. Cold and hunger.
2. Loss of life and limb from violence and war.
3. Aging, infirmity, and death.
Saints, peacemakers, and medical researchers are called for, it would seem.
| QUOTE (Rick @ Nov 29, 10:39 AM) | ||
Perhaps the best way to reduce suffering, as Dan obliquely suggests, is to attack the causes of suffering, and not worry about the internal perception of it. The major causes of suffering include: 1. Cold and hunger. 2. Loss of life and limb from violence and war. 3. Aging, infirmity, and death. Saints, peacemakers, and medical researchers are called for, it would seem. |
Yes, we should definately do these things, in the near future abolishing these forms of suffering would do more to increase large-scale human happiness than anything that we abolitionists are writing about.
We are specialists in a sense and are choosing to focus on the very root of all suffering and the development of a project to eliminate suffering once and for all.
In my person opinion, making us better humans via genetic means or otherwise would make us more realistically able to meet the very basic needs of humans worldwide. At present we are just made too selfishly.
If we (the human race) really wanted to, we could easily abolish starvation and global epidemics like aids. So our ideological focus will eventually lead (hopefully) to the re-design of the human race, which will in turn abolish suffering caused by such factors as war, starvation, epidemics, etc..
As a newbie to your group, I have read with interest some of the more recent posts. I am responding to this post about "suffering".
I would suggest a differentiation between suffering and pain.
Whenever I ponder the differences - I am left with the perception that pain is a physiological reaction to unpleasant individual stimuli, whereas suffering is an emotional reaction to unpleasant relationship events.
You describe three categories of pain very well. I could suggest that three categories of suffering are:
1. Abandonment by someone we trusted to love us
2. Abuse by someone we had no reason to distrust
3. Betrayal by someone who violated a promise
Within the larger field of consciousness studies, I perceive that we - Westerners that is - are going through an egotistic phase of I-ness, whereas evidence indicates that for at least thousands of years, human beings were focussed on a communal we-ness.
Within an egotistic system, suffering seems to be isolated (and often medicated) for the benefit of the individual, whereas in a communal system, suffering is shared and thus minimized for the benefit of the community.
These phases are well described by Dr Clare Graves. (A memetic systemology including a hierarchy of human development that is based on Dr Graves' work is called "spiral-dynamics".)
I would appreciate reading your thoughts and ideas on these topics.
Martyn Carruthers
www.soulwork.net
I would suggest a differentiation between suffering and pain.
Whenever I ponder the differences - I am left with the perception that pain is a physiological reaction to unpleasant individual stimuli, whereas suffering is an emotional reaction to unpleasant relationship events.
You describe three categories of pain very well. I could suggest that three categories of suffering are:
1. Abandonment by someone we trusted to love us
2. Abuse by someone we had no reason to distrust
3. Betrayal by someone who violated a promise
Within the larger field of consciousness studies, I perceive that we - Westerners that is - are going through an egotistic phase of I-ness, whereas evidence indicates that for at least thousands of years, human beings were focussed on a communal we-ness.
Within an egotistic system, suffering seems to be isolated (and often medicated) for the benefit of the individual, whereas in a communal system, suffering is shared and thus minimized for the benefit of the community.
These phases are well described by Dr Clare Graves. (A memetic systemology including a hierarchy of human development that is based on Dr Graves' work is called "spiral-dynamics".)
I would appreciate reading your thoughts and ideas on these topics.
Martyn Carruthers
www.soulwork.net
| QUOTE (Rick @ Nov 29, 10:39 AM) |
| Perhaps the best way to reduce suffering, as Dan obliquely suggests, is to attack the causes of suffering, and not worry about the internal perception of it. |
Buddha would not concur with you there, Rick. Where is the wisdom in attacking the so-called objective "causes" of suffering when the real issue here is how we choose to perceive suffering and what we mentally make of it?
| QUOTE (Kahekili @ Nov 30, 05:06 AM) |
| Whenever I ponder the differences - I am left with the perception that pain is a physiological reaction to unpleasant individual stimuli, whereas suffering is an emotional reaction to unpleasant relationship events. |
in the scientific literature, pain (i.e., nociception) is divided into two parts: sensation and affect. Sensation involves discriminative aspects of pain and localization on the body, whereas affect involves our emotional reaction to it (similar to what you define as suffering). Some people have just the sensation component of pain without the affective component, which means they are aware of pain but do not experience emotional or aversive reactions to it. Maybe this is what "Abolitionist" is suggesting we try to achieve, in which case the best proven way is cingulotomy (lobotomy of cingulate cortex), which I don't think most people would be game for.
| QUOTE |
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. |
Thank you unknown and Abolitionist. I've sought an eGroup that is motivated to seriously discuss such things.
"Alleviation of suffering" is, I feel, an essential step towards "long-term happiness" as an ideal state of human wellbeing.
And "suffering" seems to be the first, unavoidable step - motivating a search for causes, effects and solutions. "Suffering" can provide intense motivation to examine past actions, present situation and future plans to create a better life ... to create long-term happiness.
Perhaps "happiness" may come in seven flavors. Physical comfort, competent actions, increasing capabilities, supportive beliefs, supportive priorities, a set of relationships within which we define ourselves and an overall "sense of life" or "sense of being in the right place" or "sense of meaning in life".
Any others?
If I consider an alternative of endless medication or a life of a soon-to-come "wirehead", I wonder if people would suicide as soon as they "come down" from such stimulating experiences into friendless and unstimulating lives. Or would they habituate - requiring ever-increasing doses as the brain tries to rid itself of such anti-life influences?
Martyn Carruthers
www.soulwork.net
| QUOTE (Abolitionist @ Nov 30, 03:11 AM) |
| ... In my person[al] opinion, making us better humans via genetic means or otherwise would make us more realistically able to meet the very basic needs of humans worldwide. At present we are just made too selfishly. If we (the human race) really wanted to, we could easily abolish starvation and global epidemics like aids. So our ideological focus will eventually lead (hopefully) to the re-design of the human race, which will in turn abolish suffering caused by such factors as war, starvation, epidemics, etc.. |
I think you have put your finger on it: selfishness. We should endeavor to become more saint-like and less pig-like. However, I don't think a genetic "redesign" is called for. First, it may not be easy or possible. Second, it may not be ethical to impose genetic control over individuals.
What is needed is better reasoning by individuals so that they better understand the human condition, leading to better action and a better life for all. Improved rationality by training and self discipline will allow us to over-ride our genetic and memetic replicators' goals, and decide to do what is best for us, the vehicles of our genes and memes.
| QUOTE (Kahekili @ Nov 30, 05:06 AM) |
| As a newbie to your group, I have read with interest some of the more recent posts. I am responding to this post about "suffering". I would suggest a differentiation between suffering and pain. Whenever I ponder the differences - I am left with the perception that pain is a physiological reaction to unpleasant individual stimuli, whereas suffering is an emotional reaction to unpleasant relationship events. You describe three categories of pain very well. I could suggest that three categories of suffering are: 1. Abandonment by someone we trusted to love us 2. Abuse by someone we had no reason to distrust 3. Betrayal by someone who violated a promise Within the larger field of consciousness studies, I perceive that we - Westerners that is - are going through an egotistic phase of I-ness, whereas evidence indicates that for at least thousands of years, human beings were focussed on a communal we-ness. Within an egotistic system, suffering seems to be isolated (and often medicated) for the benefit of the individual, whereas in a communal system, suffering is shared and thus minimized for the benefit of the community. These phases are well described by Dr Clare Graves. (A memetic systemology including a hierarchy of human development that is based on Dr Graves' work is called "spiral-dynamics".) I would appreciate reading your thoughts and ideas on these topics. Martyn Carruthers www.soulwork.net |
Yes, it may become useful to define suffering as a perceptual process as separate from the information called pain.
There is the possibility that one can be informationally sensitive to one's environment without suffering no matter what information is recieved. Can we do this already with our "legacy" wetware?
To some extent yes. As you probably know
- humans have the ability to suppress, sublimate, refocus, and probably other undefined methods of processing information that reduce suffering. Some people are able to withstand a great degree of pain with mental discipline of various sorts. But all these abilities have their limits and are dependant on very fragile prerequisite states and environmental conditions.The phases described by Dr. Graves may well provide a useful theoretical context with which to conduct experiments.
Thanks 8)
Sean
| QUOTE (Unknown @ Nov 30, 07:48 AM) | ||
Buddha would not concur with you there, Rick. Where is the wisdom in attacking the so-called objective "causes" of suffering when the real issue here is how we choose to perceive suffering and what we mentally make of it? |
The Abolitionist view with regards to Buddhism is that it's practice may provide a palpable relief from suffering in some ways, but it's methods are proven by history to be unrealistic if one's goal is the elimination of sentient suffering.
Buddhism promotes apathy justified by a belief in reincarnation and the false notion that Buddhist practice will end a practitioner's suffering. Granted Buddhists do not seek the elimination of suffering but rather an "awakening" whereby a practitioner is no longer ignorant of "their true self." I've never met a Buddhist master that didn't suffer like the rest of us.
| QUOTE (Rick @ Nov 30, 09:31 AM) | ||
I think you have put your finger on it: selfishness. We should endeavor to become more saint-like and less pig-like. However, I don't think a genetic "redesign" is called for. First, it may not be easy or possible. Second, it may not be ethical to impose genetic control over individuals. What is needed is better reasoning by individuals so that they better understand the human condition, leading to better action and a better life for all. Improved rationality by training and self discipline will allow us to over-ride our genetic and memetic replicators' goals, and decide to do what is best for us, the vehicles of our genes and memes. |
I must admit that I'm not as optimistic about our ability to develope and use rationality to eliminate sentient suffering. IMHO, improved rationality does have the promise of vastly improving our lives individually and collectively.
Just to clarify the Abolitionist position : Abolitionism proclaims that human rationality will not be sufficient in order to eliminate sentient suffering. Though it should be emphasized to the full extent of it's potential.
| QUOTE (Kahekili @ Nov 30, 08:23 AM) |
| If I consider an alternative of endless medication or a life of a soon-to-come "wirehead", I wonder if people would suicide as soon as they "come down" from such stimulating experiences into friendless and unstimulating lives. Or would they habituate - requiring ever-increasing doses as the brain tries to rid itself of such anti-life influences? Martyn Carruthers www.soulwork.net |
These are very real possibilities if the project is not undertaken sensibly and compassionately with both the long and short-term effects in mind.
We'll need to have a permanent solution if sentient suffering is ever to be considered eliminated.
The phenomenon of habituation is one reason why we declare the use of illegal drugs to be a delusive shortcut. Scientists are only recently beginning to understand the mechanisms by which neurotransmitter receptors down-regulate so that a given substance will not continue to produce the same level of effect.
Recently, some progress has been made concerning our ability to control the down and up regulation of opioid receptors. This is an important discovery for the millions of people in the world who live with severe chronic pain.
Controlling neurotransmitter sensitivity will be a key to freeing mankind from the hedonistic treadmill.
Sean
www.abolitionist-society.com
| QUOTE |
| Recently, some progress has been made concerning our ability to control the down and up regulation of opioid receptors. This is an important discovery for the millions of people in the world who live with severe chronic pain. |
We teach ways to provide drug-free relief for chronic pain ... it's not so difficult for about 60% of the chronic pain sufferers that we have worked with. Our methodology is based on a systemic model of consciousness. In this model there is no central "I" - human identity is more of a cognitive position in relationships - external and internal.
Philosophical implications aside, our systemic model of consciousness provides strong hints on how to communicate with the "components" and "sub-systems" of a self-aware system. Within this communication are incredible possibilities for improving health.
Strangely, we get opposition from medical professionals who, as they cannot duplicate our methodology without training, dispute our right to provide it. (We require each client to consult a medical doctor before we commence a pain relief program.)
Martyn Carruthers
www.soulwork.net/sw_articles_eng/pain
| QUOTE (Kahekili @ Dec 01, 06:27 AM) | ||
We teach ways to provide drug-free relief for chronic pain ... it's not so difficult for about 60% of the chronic pain sufferers that we have worked with. Our methodology is based on a systemic model of consciousness. In this model there is no central "I" - human identity is more of a cognitive position in relationships - external and internal. Philosophical implications aside, our systemic model of consciousness provides strong hints on how to communicate with the "components" and "sub-systems" of a self-aware system. Within this communication are incredible possibilities for improving health. Strangely, we get opposition from medical professionals who, as they cannot duplicate our methodology without training, dispute our right to provide it. (We require each client to consult a medical doctor before we commence a pain relief program.) Martyn Carruthers www.soulwork.net/sw_articles_eng/pain |
Sounds like the kind of stuff we like to put on our "resources" page;
http://www.abolitionist-society.com/resources.htm
If it helps - that's wonderful!!
Sean
| QUOTE (Abolitionist @ Dec 01, 06:34 AM) |
| ... Controlling neurotransmitter sensitivity will be a key to freeing mankind from the hedonistic treadmill. ... |
Definition of hedonistic from Dictionary.com:
2. Philosophy. The ethical doctrine holding that only what is pleasant or has pleasant consequences is intrinsically good.
I'm not a professional philosopher, but it seems to me that a hedonistic philosophy as both explanation and guide to life is difficult to beat. If the hedonistic "treadmill" explains a successful species (we are, so far), and indicates a viable plan for human cultural advancement and a good individual life, why should we want to get off of it?
| QUOTE (Kahekili @ Dec 01, 06:27 AM) |
| Strangely, we get opposition from medical professionals who, as they cannot duplicate our methodology without training, dispute our right to provide it. (We require each client to consult a medical doctor before we commence a pain relief program.) |
I'm guessing it might have something to do with your teaching as true various speculative doctrines such as communications with the dead or literal psychic entanglement with other people.
| QUOTE (Rick @ Dec 01, 08:30 AM) | ||
Definition of hedonistic from Dictionary.com: 2. Philosophy. The ethical doctrine holding that only what is pleasant or has pleasant consequences is intrinsically good. I'm not a professional philosopher, but it seems to me that a hedonistic philosophy as both explanation and guide to life is difficult to beat. If the hedonistic "treadmill" explains a successful species (we are, so far), and indicates a viable plan for human cultural advancement and a good individual life, why should we want to get off of it? |
seems a little vague when it comes to practical application there, Rick. i kno already from my own short life that the pursuit of "what is pleasant or has pleasant consequences" didnt put an end to my suffering, and often led to unforseen sufferation
and on another note, im not convinced that technology will ever save us from the ultimate cause of suffering, its my perception that technology contributes as much as it alleviates
| QUOTE (Rick @ Dec 01, 08:30 AM) | ||
Definition of hedonistic from Dictionary.com: 2. Philosophy. The ethical doctrine holding that only what is pleasant or has pleasant consequences is intrinsically good. I'm not a professional philosopher, but it seems to me that a hedonistic philosophy as both explanation and guide to life is difficult to beat. If the hedonistic "treadmill" explains a successful species (we are, so far), and indicates a viable plan for human cultural advancement and a good individual life, why should we want to get off of it? |
Because we suffer needlessly.
| QUOTE (v3d4 @ Dec 01, 03:42 PM) |
| its my perception that technology contributes as much as it alleviates |
I agree with you. That's why we want to inject the core value of the elimination of suffering. Right now we seem to evaluate the value of a technological implementation (and just about everything else) with other criteria in mind.
| QUOTE (Abolitionist @ Dec 01, 11:54 PM) |
| I agree with you. That's why we want to inject the core value of the elimination of suffering. Right now we seem to evaluate the value of a technological implementation (and just about everything else) with other criteria in mind. |
There's a nice scene in the movie "Contact", based on the book by Carl Sagan, in which technology is questioned. It is something like, "Does all this technology add to man's happiness - or distract from it?"
I may have misquoted the line, but the question is clear enough.
Happiness can include suffering. Consider parents who worry about the consequences of their children's decisions. Who would want to short-circuit their synapses, by medication or other means, to prevent their feeling concerned about the lives of people who are important to them?
I would say that suffering has a function - to motivate us to find solutions for our complaints.
| QUOTE (v3d4 @ Dec 01, 04:42 PM) |
| seems a little vague when it comes to practical application there, Rick. i kno already from my own short life that the pursuit of "what is pleasant or has pleasant consequences" didnt put an end to my suffering, and often led to unforseen sufferation |
We learn by experiencing the unforseen so that our long range planning improves so that we reduce our suffering (and increase our pleasure) in the future. This seems to be a very effective algorithm (treadmill) and it has worked quite well for millions of years. Jumping out of it will probably lead to unforseen consequences.
| QUOTE (Kahekili @ Dec 02, 06:57 AM) |
| ... "Does all this technology add to man's happiness - or distract from it?" ... |
As much as I like to go camping occasionally, I just can't see myself enjoying a life of chipping flint knives and skinning flea-infested deer in the snow. I think technology is essential to a good life. We infuse technology with value and we choose how to direct it for our benefit (or disaster, depending on how collectively smart we are).
| QUOTE (Kahekili @ Dec 02, 05:57 AM) |
| Happiness can include suffering. Consider parents who worry about the consequences of their children's decisions. Who would want to short-circuit their synapses, by medication or other means, to prevent their feeling concerned about the lives of people who are important to them? |
in a strict sense, 'happiness' does not include suffering because the two are antithesis of each other. I would suggest that you are pointing to the complex nature of the human state and that what might provide an increase in happiness (decrease in suffering) in the short term could actually cause a more substantial increase in suffering (decrease in happiness) in the long term. Therefore, to ensure the more substantial long-term state tends in the direction of happiness, we might have to endure a short-term bit of increased suffering. As the saying goes, 'no pain, no gain'
| QUOTE (Kahekili @ Dec 02, 05:57 AM) | ||
There's a nice scene in the movie "Contact", based on the book by Carl Sagan, in which technology is questioned. It is something like, "Does all this technology add to man's happiness - or distract from it?" I may have misquoted the line, but the question is clear enough. Happiness can include suffering. Consider parents who worry about the consequences of their children's decisions. Who would want to short-circuit their synapses, by medication or other means, to prevent their feeling concerned about the lives of people who are important to them? I would say that suffering has a function - to motivate us to find solutions for our complaints. |
It's undeniable - that suffering or aversive experience plays a central role in our information processing with our current design.
This design is what we would like to change.
Having compassion or empathy can be independent of suffering. Suffering impedes the ability to think clearly (not uncaringly) and make rational decisions. It may seem counterintuitive that one could have compassion or empathy and that they imply that one suffers for another.
We would not want to erase a parent's concern for their child or the (functional) reward that comes from loving and caring for others - in the future will these forms of social structure still be relavant? Perhaps not, but until then it would be counterproductive to abolish them (not to mention horrific.)
| QUOTE (Rick @ Dec 02, 08:36 AM) | ||
We learn by experiencing the unforseen so that our long range planning improves so that we reduce our suffering (and increase our pleasure) in the future. This seems to be a very effective algorithm (treadmill) and it has worked quite well for millions of years. Jumping out of it will probably lead to unforseen consequences. |
Would not suffering neccessarily mean that we are oblivious to the unforeseen and new experiences/information in general?
We don't think this need be the case.
There are many stereotypes that likely come to mind when one imagines what it would be like to be free of suffering.
Being informationally sensitive to ones environment, maintaining and enhancing intelligence/empathy, enhancing rationality, having the motivation to learn about one's world and protect the future of the human race - these things must all be incorporated into a successful plan to eliminate all sentient suffering.
| QUOTE (Dan @ Dec 02, 11:11 AM) | ||
in a strict sense, 'happiness' does not include suffering because the two are antithesis of each other. I would suggest that you are pointing to the complex nature of the human state and that what might provide an increase in happiness (decrease in suffering) in the short term could actually cause a more substantial increase in suffering (decrease in happiness) in the long term. Therefore, to ensure the more substantial long-term state tends in the direction of happiness, we might have to endure a short-term bit of increased suffering. As the saying goes, 'no pain, no gain' |
I agree, if we only cared about our happiness right now, we'd already be wireheading and oblivious to the world until our bodies gave out;
www.wireheading.com
There's alot of hard work ahead
- at least it will be meaningful. It's likely IMO that we'll have drugs/therapies in our lifetimes that will give us a major step up on the hedonic ladder. If we really get cooking and the project becomes global and fervently supported - the sky is the limit.
| QUOTE |
| 4.19 "When much of the world is still mired in poverty, hunger and disease, it is at best a flippant irrelevance to dream up hedonistic utopias. Their practice, if not aim, will be the cocooning of an already over-privileged planetary elite. We should instead concentrate on putting all our efforts into ensuring that everyone in the Third World has enough to eat, clean water supplies, a decent education and medical care and a civilised standard of living." By most objective indices of well-being (the rates of marital breakdown, crime, suicide, clinical depression and other forms of psychiatric illness etc), the urban-industrial Western elite scores poorly compared to the materially underprivileged masses of the Third World. So the relative good fortune of the inhabitants of liberal capitalist democracies is easily overstated. An "us and them" approach to life has its limitations. Within the next few hundred years, the invidious distinctions of class, nationality and race which poison the contemporary world will become redundant. On all but the most optimistic projections, the great majority of the world's population aren't going to achieve First World lifestyles for the foreseeable future; but we most assuredly do have the resources to enable the whole planetary population to be magnificently happy. If, for a start, a minute fraction of the resources currently poured into zero-sum status-goods and consumer fripperies were diverted to researching the development of safe, cheap, effective mood brighteners, delayed-action designer euphoriants, and genetically pre-programmed mental super-health, then we would all be far better off. This is no less true of the jaded plutocrat than the impoverished Third World peasant. |
im very unsatisfied by this answer, mang
| QUOTE (v3d4 @ Dec 03, 02:32 PM) | ||
im very unsatisfied by this answer, mang |
Please elaborate. If I know where you are coming from I may be able to give a more satisfactory answer.
thanks,
Sean
| QUOTE (v3d4 @ Dec 03, 02:32 PM) |
| If, for a start, a minute fraction of the resources currently poured into zero-sum status-goods and consumer fripperies were diverted to researching the development of safe, cheap, effective mood brighteners, delayed-action designer euphoriants, and genetically pre-programmed mental super-health, then we would all be far better off. |
People searching for "simple solutions for complex problems" rarely find more than short-term distractions.
Cigarettes, alcohol and caffeine can be called "medication without prescription" - and many people regularly self-medicate, mostly in attempts to control - or avoid feeling - unpleasant emotions.
The consequences include millions of increasingly dissociated people, who are moving through habituation into addiction.
For more on how to generate and sustain brightened moods, euphoria and a sense of wellbeing that is integral with increased mental health - without drugs - see "Psychobiology of Soul" at www.soulwork.net\sw_articles_eng\psychobiology.htm
If you prefer to search for an enlightened drug-dealer, check out Addicts & Addictions at www.soulwork.net\sw_articles_eng\addictions.htm
| QUOTE (Kahekili @ Dec 03, 11:54 PM) | ||
People searching for "simple solutions for complex problems" rarely find more than short-term distractions. Cigarettes, alcohol and caffeine can be called "medication without prescription" - and many people regularly self-medicate, mostly in attempts to control - or avoid feeling - unpleasant emotions. The consequences include millions of increasingly dissociated people, who are moving through habituation into addiction. For more on how to generate and sustain brightened moods, euphoria and a sense of wellbeing that is integral with increased mental health - without drugs - see "Psychobiology of Soul" at www.soulwork.net\sw_articles_eng\psychobiology.htm If you prefer to search for an enlightened drug-dealer, check out Addicts & Addictions at www.soulwork.net\sw_articles_eng\addictions.htm |
That's a comparison of apple and oranges. Were not interested in simply creating more drugs of abuse.
Is the use and development of drugs to give people overall increase in wellbeing and functionality "too good to be true?"
Nope, we already have examples of such drugs.
Buddhists and psychologists frequently (in my experience) have an aversion to the use of biotechnology to achieve the elimination of suffering - while it isn't neccessary to assume they don't have the best of intentions - clearly there is a vested interest that factors into their thinking.
David, Pablo, and I are all free of ties that would predispose us towards the desire to promote the use of biotechnology. Personally, I've been involved with Buddhism and psychology for many years - they both have their benefits, drawbacks, limits, and biases as does biotechnology. I would propose that it is best to make use of whatever is available and effective. In fact, we do promote to some degree the use of meditation, cognitive therapy, and other psychological principles;
http://www.abolitionist-society.com/resources.htm
In the long run, however, we see only biotechnology as being able to completely eliminate all sentient suffering.
Sean
| QUOTE (Abolitionist @ Dec 04, 12:09 AM) |
| Is the use and development of drugs to give people overall increase in wellbeing and functionality "too good to be true?" Nope, we already have examples of such drugs ... In the long run, however, we see only biotechnology as being able to completely eliminate all sentient suffering. Sean |
What examples of benefical drugs do you offer? I took a look around your website but couldn't find this.
And in the long run, we'll all be dead. Before that time, we have some serious choices in how we use whatever time remains to us. Drugs are a common option.
The key word for me is "integrity" - how to gain an undeniable experience of integrity and how to maintain that experience in the world we live in.
For me the word integrity implies "a lasting simultaneous experience of inner integration and outer connectedness".
Other ecstatic states - including descriptions of samadhi, satori and enlightenment - seem to fall short of this. So you gain an experience - congratulations - and now what? If you want to withdraw to some remote place - maybe fine. If you want to participate in the worlds of human relationships, then any our lack of relationship skills will become apparent. Poor relationship skills often result in unpleasant emotions - suffering. Suffering is feedback and motivation to get our act together.
This note is rather rapidly written. A few years ago, I gave a keynote speech about this topic to a UK university forum on "Human Consciousness & Decision Making". If this topic is interesting, you can read it at: www.soulwork.net\sw_articles_eng\human_consciousness.htm
thanks Martyn. Interesting site btw.
So you're arguing against the utility of 'transcendent states' if they don't enhance interpersonal relationships? So you put a high level of importance on interpersonal relationships, yes? Why is that? I'm not trying to denounce interpersonal relationships, but if there's only one Self, then the fact of life is that the Self will always have only Itself and hence will be alone regardless of interpersonal relationships. Since the Self is always alone regardless of interpersonal relationships, then perhaps a higher premium should be placed on self-discovery. I mean, really, this seems to come down to introversion versus extraversion. Placing a high importance on interpersonal relationships probably means you're an extravert and thus very different from an introvert who places high importance on their inner world development and on self-knowledge. So I guess what I'm asking is, don't your remarks boil down to an extravert touting extraversion; i.e., interpersonal relationships, at the expense of inner development and introversion? That being the case, why should any introverts be persuaded by your arguments, any more so than an extrovert would be swayed by an introvert's arguments that the inner-self is much more important than things in the outer world and interpersonal relationships?
So you're arguing against the utility of 'transcendent states' if they don't enhance interpersonal relationships? So you put a high level of importance on interpersonal relationships, yes? Why is that? I'm not trying to denounce interpersonal relationships, but if there's only one Self, then the fact of life is that the Self will always have only Itself and hence will be alone regardless of interpersonal relationships. Since the Self is always alone regardless of interpersonal relationships, then perhaps a higher premium should be placed on self-discovery. I mean, really, this seems to come down to introversion versus extraversion. Placing a high importance on interpersonal relationships probably means you're an extravert and thus very different from an introvert who places high importance on their inner world development and on self-knowledge. So I guess what I'm asking is, don't your remarks boil down to an extravert touting extraversion; i.e., interpersonal relationships, at the expense of inner development and introversion? That being the case, why should any introverts be persuaded by your arguments, any more so than an extrovert would be swayed by an introvert's arguments that the inner-self is much more important than things in the outer world and interpersonal relationships?
or maybe I'm misrepresenting you. It seems, in your statements about "inner integration and outer connectedness", that you're trying to strike a balance and take the middle path.
| QUOTE (Kahekili @ Dec 04, 01:06 PM) | ||
What examples of benefical drugs do you offer? |
maybe it's trivial, but I think caffeine is an example.
I have other more powerful drugs in mind but the usefulness of such drugs, and any drugs in general, is dependent on the particulars of the individual, including their mindset, and within an individual, varies with time. Thus, for any one person, there will be times in their life when taking a certain drug or drug combo would be beneficial, but as we all know, too much of a good thing is bad, and besides that, it's very easy to take drugs at the 'wrong time' and thus do harm to ourselves rather than good.
When we speak of 'beneficial drugs' we should be aware that probably any drug can be considered 'beneficial' to certain individuals at certain times and within certain mindsets and contexts, and thus the labeling of drugs as 'beneficial' is misrepresentative of what they really are: They are "conditionally-beneficial drugs". There beneficial properties are conditional on person, time, context, mindset and myriad other factors. There is no universally beneficial drug. Even the caffeine example I gave above will have exceptions: some people may be allergic to caffeine, some people may take too much caffeine, etc...
| QUOTE (Abolitionist @ Nov 28, 11:45 PM) |
| We define the project as using biotechnology to eliminate all sentient suffering while making us better humans. |
This is a big assumption. It's validity is not at all obvious to me. In fact, the assumption seems wrong to me because of the role of suffering in learning adaptive behaviors. Since your abolitionist project as you defined is based crucially on this assumption, what's your evidence that it's even possible to become better humans if all suffering is abolished?
| QUOTE (Unknown @ Dec 04, 03:16 PM) | ||
This is a big assumption. It's validity is not at all obvious to me. In fact, the assumption seems wrong to me because of the role of suffering in learning adaptive behaviors. Since your abolitionist project as you defined is based crucially on this assumption, what's your evidence that it's even possible to become better humans if all suffering is abolished? |
furthermore, what if it turns out that panpsychism is true and that the entire Universe is sentient. Does that mean you'd advocate the elimination of suffering throughout every inch of the Universe? Isn't that implausible?
after all, maybe stars are sentient and suffer greatly from radiating all their heat and light. Does that mean you'd advocate extinguishing every star in the Universe because you wish to end suffering in all sentient things?
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.