Happiness in daily living

In My Humble Opinion - choice shows up when all of our habits and patterns and well-worn processes TRY to convince us to keep doing what we were doing before, but we end up doing something else.

For example - the chronic abuser of alcohol and cocaine finally hits bottom, has a moment of clarity, and realizes that if they keep on doing what they’ve been doing, and fooling themselves they will end up dead. They then go on to make a long, difficult effort to get sober, find a new group of people to hang out with, change their lifestyle, even though it is probably the hardest thing they’ve ever done.

The frustrated accountant who picked the job because it was the easiest thing to do, but now finds their work unsatisfying, who quits their job, goes to a culinary institute, busts their ass working in restaurant for 5 years, and nearly bankrupts themselves to open their own place, and finally finds satisfaction in becoming a chef.

The theoretical physicist who has this nagging feeling that the existing scientific frameworks do not explain some aspect of the universe correctly, who goes against the establishment and develops their own theoretical framework, which is first ridiculed, then re-examined, and then - perhaps only decades later - begins to be seen the right direction to look into, and becomes the jumping off point for other frameworks.

So yes, nothing is ever 100% choice or 100% determined - it’s a constant interplay within the two. But we humans continue to generate novelty - to combine things that were never before combined in nature and create new phenomena.

I personally think that this is becomeing overly complex.

Who is making the descision?
what is a descision? and what is the meaning of life?

These are the sorts of questions that are being asked, and then debating to a point of infinity. and indeed debating to the point of infinity, does not actually prove or disprove anything, much in the same way the one cannot prove or dissprove the existence of god.

But… logically speaking… the burden of evidence falls on the person making the claim. the claim in this case is that we are not in control of our actions, and that some form of destiny exists. (Yes im over simplifying) But the facts are that no one, no matter what youtube video or other such article that is posted up here, there is litterally nothing that currently exists to prove that destiny/ gods exist.

And because of that… one cannot reasonably assert that free will does not exist. And if someone cannot reasonabley make that assertation and back it up, means that it is perfectly fine to think that both destiny and choice exists. Rendering the argument at this point… utterly moot.

3 Likes

Oooh, playing the dreaded Objective Reality card! :wink:

1 Like

Someone had to right? :face_with_monocle:

1 Like

But subjective reality is so “in” right now :stuck_out_tongue:

1 Like

I laughed way more than i should have at that.

2 Likes

Someone had to right? :wink:

1 Like

7y2hPq4

2 Likes

2 Likes

I was about to push back against this:

But then I noticed you defined suffering as:

This reminds me of something the Paul the apostle wrote while imprisoned:

Philippians 4:11b-13.

Thus, when you say about Roger Castillo that:

There’s an element of that that aligns with Christian thought. It’s an interesting observation on his part.

2 Likes

I would argue that Christianity aims at solidifying the foundations of beliefs by way of encouraging critical thinking, which to me is the opposite of dissolving.

I suppose you could argue that dissolving was used in the context of metal being refined and purified… but that’s not how I read it; rather, to me, it reads as critical thinking washing away all beliefs rather than just false ones.

1 Like

Cannabis.
//drops mic walks away

1 Like

Oh, I agree. But I think “belief” in this context meant

Christianity is all about relinquishing of self and even sacrificing oneself, and this action produces abundant life and true happiness, among other things. With this caveat I don’t think there’s a conflict.

But, apart from the most extreme Calvinist theology, that’s a far cry from destiny having full and total control and that any idea of free-will is simply an illusion.

Self sacrifice can only be a sacrifice if it was chosen, otherwise it’s just self loss.
Relinquishing of self can only occur if we once first possess a “self” that we could relinquish.

3 Likes

I agree there, too. That’s why I said “There’s an element” that aligns with Christian thought. I didn’t make any claims about the rest of the post.

1 Like

Yeah that’s fair, I think the thing I object to most is where he says

“all” being a rather strong word, and clearly (at least to me) blatant hyperbole.

1 Like

I could not have put it said it nearly as eloquently as you.

2 Likes

Quite some stuff here to think about. First I’d like to thank everybody for engaging this topic and sharing their thoughts :slight_smile:

“Destiny” in the context of this conceptual framework simply means that Life only ever goes one way. There are no splitting-off points where anything could have taken a different path. One circumstance gives birth to the next. The story of this universe is an intricate web of cause and effect (and interhuman relationships are a story of genetic make-up & conditioning through Life). Everything influences everything else that happens, no matter how far away or how faintly. Nothing about it could be any different.

This does not necessarily imply a traditional Creator god. It’s simply an observation of how the universe apparently functions - cause and effect, only ever one way (in this particular manifestation).

Regarding beliefs: Roger states that all that is needed for “liberation” (finding unbroken peace of mind regardless of circumstance) is to dissolve the false belief in personal doership and attachment to outcomes. However, those are some of the most deeply ingrained beliefs/attitudes a human can have. When suffering occurs, it is incredibly convincing. It tells us a false story about Life as soon as we acquire language: “This isn’t right, things should be different, I’m doing wrong things all the time and so is everyone else”, etc.

Dissolving that belief is often synonymous with dissolving all beliefs: One sees that all thoughts are relative and nothing about our Life experience can absolutely known to be true other than that our experience arises in consciousness. We have a sense of existence and we are aware: We’re conscious.

Nope, not claiming Destiny (quantum theory gets in the way of any predetermined calculable outcome), and certainly not claiming gods.

Just that, much like a neural net, we take the data we are given and respond to that according to whatever processes go on inside our bodies. Our consciousness (which I am considering as the basis of the “self” for this argument, and we can debate identity theory about whether the constantly changing flesh-and-bone body that is commonly called “you” is actually you) has no control over whether or not we think the things we do, and inevitably has no control over what chances you balance in your head, or which one you favor more, or even which one wins.

Now, I will admit this is an argument in theory with no praxis, as I have concluded before that the body has a vested interest (so long as it believes in staying alive and performing normal social functions) in acting like it is responsible for how it responds to data, as that is what makes things like laws and other such abstractions society uses to function possible.

But equally an AI with any interest in self-preservation (which appears as a common instrumental goal to most terminal goals – more on those here) would equally have an interest in doing so.

But to claim that this practical idea of “the body makes a choice so therefore it was their choice” would also extend just as well to artificial intelligence. Same with the idea that acting like you have free will means you have free will. And so far I haven’t seen that from most proponents of free will (who usually pop in with the idea of a “soul” at this point).

Now I’m not going to claim that humans are wired anywhere near as simply or predictably as the silicon chips of AI, or that DNA is the basis of all that we do. Just that there is no outside force affecting our body that would render us as able to act as if our choices were not a result of causality like any other physical process.

As for all the liberation stuff, idk. I’ve stated above that I find the dynamicity of the illusion of free will far more appealing than the dullness of ridding myself of it.

1 Like

I appreciate you being gracious and all - but let’s call it what it is - a lot of folks in this thread are engaging because, at the crux of the matter, we are not “buying” what you are “selling”.

In other words, you have a belief framework where “life only goes one way” and everything is pre-determined with “no accidents”. I myself - and if I’m reading correctly many of the people in this thread - are content with various belief system where accidents happen all the time, and human-made choices are possible, even if they are limited to certain degrees by various factors.

In our various ways, we are enjoying the process of asking you questions trying to see if we can get you to see your own point of view in a different light, or question some of the assumptions you bring to the table. And while you SAY that there is “some stuff here to think about” - it seems like you’re just reiterating the same stance you started with - that everything is determined and we should just sit back, relax, and float downstream.

Given that you’ve already ditched objective reality for a belief that cannot ever be proven or dis-proven, it seems like that particular rhetorical device (appeal to reason) isn’t going to move much around in this debate.

So, I guess I’ll try another rhetorical device - taking your own assumptions to their logical extreme.

As such, if there are no accidents - if everything is pre-determined by the universe, why do anything at all? Why get out of bed? Maybe the universe wanted you to lie in bed all day doing nothing? When people ask you why you’re not getting up today, can’t you just tell them that it’s Destiny, and you had no choice in the matter?

Why not spend all your money drinking and doing piles of drugs? Quit your job! Leave all your responsibilities and move to another city! Whatever you’re doing at that moment - doesn’t that mean it was your Destiny all along? Otherwise, how do you know if it was your destiny or not?

If that approach strikes you as being in bad taste - let’s try something else - this philosophical framework you have right now - have you always had it? Since you were very young and first learned to read? Or did you develop it over a long period of time, after adopting and then discarding many other philosophical frameworks?

Assuming that you haven’t always believed the same thing all your life, is it Destiny that led you to believe what you believe now - rather than believing classical Norse mythology, or becoming a Shinto Buddhist, or a member of Falun Gong, or something else?

Will this be the belief system you carry with you until your death? Or will it continue evolving? If at some future point you become a complete Nihilist or a follower of Deepak Chopra’s whole quantum consciousness thing, will that be Destiny too?

Is it possible that the belief system you have right now is something that you chose because it appealed to these very specific things you WANT to believe, because the structures of that belief system are aesthetically and philosophically pleasing to you?

Just - you know - food for thought…

1 Like