kitsune

it seems to me like people don't know how much they need pain, how much they need turmoil and things they concider "bad". people spend so long fighting against things like sadness, and lonliness, that it makes it seem like it's this fight that we can win - it makes it seem like bad things are something unnatural, and then it just devistates us when it all comes crashing down around us. and it's because the things we concider bad are just things, it's only our definition that makes them bad to begin with, and human definition is really contradictory and unstable... in human evolution, as with the evolution of any animal, that animal exists today because all thier ancestors survived because they had an insatiable will to live, a resillience to perservere. so we were always striving to acheive something, banning together and putting all our efforts into acheiving something great, like new invensions and revolutions and societies, and the ones who showed the most strength were the ones who reproduced; and therefore, it is in human nature to persue things. we have emotions because that is what instincts are; emotions simply ensure that we do what nature wants us to do. and because of this, because our ancestors always strived towards some goal, our emotions tell us to follow things, to try to acheive things; in other words, we are inspired by the thought of finding something new, or acheiving something monumental. but until recently in our vast, vast timeline, we havent had the luxuries we do today; we no longer need to hunt, and we scarsely need to suffer. our society works so well that we all can talk to other people whenever we want to ( cell phones ) and get to wherever we want to so fast ( cars ) and we have such furnished conditioned places to sleep... we live such comfortable lives, and all of the primal physical traits that kept us doing what we did in the past are gone: SO, to compensate, we've translated most of them to a SOCIAL level. such as...: lust is now called love. but love has social details, whereas lust is just sex. we still attack the weak ones in our tribes, and our tribes still fight with eachother, and we still do a million primal things, but we just don't realize it because they have names now, and they have social attachments and entail certain things. and therefore, in being able to comprehend things in such a literal sense, in a society where we're taught that certain things entail certain things, our sight becomes really warped. it's as though the world is a big painting, and living is like observing it: most people spend so long looking at one small detail trying to figure out what it means, that they lose sight of everything else, and start to think that the one thing they're fixated on represents the entire picture. but in reality, the artist never intended anything by that part; the artist was just filling up space, and didn't pay much attention to that particular detail. the harder you stare and the more intentively you try to decipher it, the more the imperfections bother you; BUT. if you unfocus your eyes, and don't dwell so much on one part, those imperfections no longer become imperfect. if you look at the big picture, you still know that the bad parts are bad, but you don't care. and you can even start to learn to love them, too. you cannot have shadow without light, and without bad there is no such thing as good; everything is relative to something, and the only way to tell what is good and what is bad is by human opinion... but human opinion changes from person to person, so there is no real way to know what is what? the basis of what i'm trying to say is... pain does not come from sorrow, pain comes from ones own inability to enjoy the said sorrow. people like movies because in a movie, the producer makes the beauty of the emotions and the meaning blatantly obvious to the observer; but in real life, it's not so obvious, because nobody is trying to show it to you. so people just asume it isnt there; but life can be so much like a brilliant film if you look hard enough, and you're the star, and everyone else around you is just there to contrast your character. is it a romance? action? comedy? drama? or all of them? in a story, the main character never knows he or she has an audience. in a story, the main character is always oblivious, and immersed in the story and in the feelings; but it's really nice to be able to take a step off the stage, and watch from the audience every once in a while.

Gilda

First, please do not take this as a criticism of your ideas, and understand that this is meant constructively, but I found that difficult to read. Having that much content, that many ideas all jammed together in on large paragraph made it difficult to track from one line to the next and to follow the flow of ideas. In addition, not having capitals at the beginning of each sentence in such a long paragraph makes physically scanning it difficult for me.

It also made it more difficult to track the ideas than it would have been had you separated them into smaller paragraphs. As I go back to reread so that I can respond, I find it very difficult to find the particular idea I wanted to review before posting my ideas on it. Others may not have the difficulty I did, but I suspect many will. Paragraphs would greatly enhance the readability of this post.

Now for the ideas found in your post. I agree that, in a general sense, pain and pleasure are relative things. The person who has been lonely may both deal with being alone and appreciate true friendship better than the gregarious person. The person from a poor family will appreciate a job paying $50,000 a year better than the child of a millionaire. I know I can appreciate the love I have for and get from my SO better because of the failed relationships I had before I met her. Yes, a great deal of human life is relative, and having expereinced pain does enhance one's experience of pleasure as it relates to that particular kind of pain.

However, I do think that there are absolutes, times and situations in which pains serves no useful purpose. There is nothing in my life that is better as a result of having lost my sister, and I think many who have posted in the saddest day thread would have something similar to say about a part of their lives. My life is forever diminished by her loss, in such a profound way that the best I can ever hope for is that someday I'll gain more pleasure from the pleasent memories than I have pain from the loss.

I also disagree that love is the emotional component of lust. These are separate things. It's wonderful when they occur together; sex with a person you love is one of the great pleasures in life, and satisfying in a way that casual sex isn't. Yet love can exist in the absesne of lust, and lust in the absense of love. To conflate the two is a mistake. They are wonderful together, but each can be worthwhile on it's own.

There was more I wanted to respond to, but I can't seem to find it right now. I'll review and post more later.

kitsune

i realize it was hard to read but i was really feverish with writing it and i figured anyone who cared enough would continue to read it. i apologize. but the pain you experience from losing your sister was indeed usefull; it tells a story of how much affection you had for her, and in that pain, through detailing it, you can erect a monument to who she was in song or words or prayer. and you're right that lust and love are not just two variations of the same thing - however, one without the other is really controvercial, and therefore it is in a way a social translation, in the sense that emotions stem from sex even if there are "no strings attached", and even if the emotions are as simple as a mild enjoyment of the person you're so close to... my point was that physical interactions inspire emotion which is an override to our intellects because our thoughts can drive us to do things that, in nature, are not allowed.

kitsune

and no i did not take it as criticism, and i appriciated your reply, but felt a bit sad that it seems i was misunderstood - but even if i was it was most likely my own fault for composing my thoughts so poorly

pig

kitsune

as a follow up on gilda, might i suggest that if you want to get some conversation rolling on that outburst up there, you might try distilling it down into some smaller tractable ideas? from my reading, some of it looks like it boils down essentially to relativist philosophical point of view, and I would have to say that I will ardently disagree with those types of notions. Everything is not the same, although everything is a part of the same experience of life we call reality, etc. I picked out a few points I found interesting below.


I would agree that there is an instinctual basis in emotions, and that emotions have instinctual components. I'm not sure that you can actually prove a reductionist argument that emotions are nothing but instincts, without a separate identity of their own.


I disagree with this. Details have changed, situations are more or less the same. We have undergone specialization - just like we became traders which encouraged the bartering system. We have specialized which encouraged capitalism. Or did it go the other way - did economics drive lifestyle choices? Did they happen simultaneously?


I don't think you can prove a directly identical relationship between modern love and olden lust. To say that love did not exist prior to this unspecific semantic shift you are talking about will be difficult to prove.


pain may come from sorrow, but it is not the only place pain comes from. If I understand this statement, then I would suggest a mild rephrase. I don't want to enjoy pain or sorrow. That's why they are pain and sorrow - I have other names for experiences that I enjoy, and I'd prefer to keep it that way. Yes, they may arbitrary, but they are useful for conveying your ideas / situation to other people. This switch you are attempting essentially boils down to relativist view points / nihilism, if I understand you properly, and I personally find such a view point to be a waste of time. No offense, I just don't see how living one's life under the constant premise that everything is exactly the same leads to a basis on which to make judgements, which lead to a basis to make decisions, which leads to life. I would suggest that overwhelming pain comes from a failure to accept reality, in the case where sorrow is your current reality. If one accepts, one can transcend.

Have you ever looked into Zen philosophy?

edit: kitsune I hope you take my comments the way I intended. I hope I did not sound rude in my replies - some of your post I agree with, if I allow myself some levity in interpretation. Recognition that everything is part of a larger context of reality is a very powerful recognition; however I feel that using that vantage point to try to reduce all the details to be the same is not correct. We have developed separate words for specific reasons - primarily because these distinctions are useful. I also think that because you can reduce system X to its components, it does not mean that system X does not exist. This process can be carried out in any spectrum of thought.

__________________
You don't love me, you just love my piggy style

Cynthetiq

I had a VERY hard time reading your thoughts...

but I'll just start off with the first few lines....

some people think I'm nuts because I like some things in life.

I like sadness. I like pain. I like being wrong. I like challenges.

I like all these things because they are what show me the greatest and best in myself and in human beings, because without the worst, how would one know what the best is?

__________________
I don't care if you are black, white, purple, green, Chinese, Japanese, Korean, hippie, cop, bum, admin, user, English, Irish, French, Catholic, Protestant, Jewish, Buddhist, Muslim, indian, cowboy, tall, short, fat, skinny, emo, punk, mod, rocker, straight, gay, lesbian, jock, nerd, geek, Democrat, Republican, Libertarian, Independent, driver, pedestrian, or bicyclist, either you're an asshole or you're not.