"Fred C. Dobbs" > wrote in message
...
> On 5/28/2010 10:37 PM, Lee Frank wrote:
>>
>> "Fred C. Dobbs" > wrote in message
>> m...
>>> On 5/28/2010 9:19 PM, Lee Frank wrote:
>>>>
>>>> "halfawake" > wrote in message
>>>> ...
>>>>> Fred C. Dobbs wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 5/28/2010 10:30 AM, Lee Frank wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> "Fred C. Dobbs" > wrote in message
>>>>>>> m...
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> It can't be. To talk about "better than" or "worse than" is
>>>>>>>> necessarily to be comparing two states of welfare, but there is
>>>>>>>> only
>>>>>>>> one state of welfare in this putative comparison. It is abject
>>>>>>>> nonsense to suggest a person might rationally think he is "better
>>>>>>>> off"
>>>>>>>> for existing rather than never existing, because the flip side is
>>>>>>>> that
>>>>>>>> the person would be "worse off" for never existing - but there
>>>>>>>> wouldn't be a person to experience the "worse off" condition if the
>>>>>>>> person never existed.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> This is not the same as a person who exists with a miserable
>>>>>>>> welfare
>>>>>>>> thinking he'd prefer to die. Even then, it makes no sense for the
>>>>>>>> person to think he'd be "better off" if he ended his existence,
>>>>>>>> because again, there would be no entity to experience the better
>>>>>>>> welfare. It still can make sense for the person with a miserable
>>>>>>>> welfare to want to die, if his existence is intolerable to him.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> "i kick the habit
>>>>>>> [kick the habit
>>>>>>> kick the habit]
>>>>>>> shed my skin.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> this is the new stuff
>>>>>>> [is the new stuff
>>>>>>> is the new stuff]
>>>>>>> i go dancing in."
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> peter gabriel
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Rock music is never profound. It's "music" by and for emotionally
>>>>>> underdeveloped people.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> thank you, idiot. that was really profound.
>>>>>
>>>>> Robert
>>>>
>>>> it's an exaggerated over generalization
>>>> since there is no way fred could have
>>>> heard all of the rock music in existence
>>>
>>> Not necessary.
>>>
>>>> in order to make such a judgement call and
>>>> if he actually has heard all of the rock music
>>>> in existence then he's either one of those
>>>> emotionally underdeveloped people that
>>>> he speaks of or he's lying about his disdain
>>>> for rock music.
>>>
>>> Neither. I've heard a large enough and sufficiently representative
>>> sample to know that rock music:
>>>
>>> a) is by and for young, emotionally undeveloped people
>>> b) is never profound.
>>>
>>> You're welcome.
>>
>> why the need then for such a large
>> sampling ?
>
> What do you mean by "such" a large sampling, sophist? In fact, the sample
> was exactly the right size, neither more nor less than the amount required
> to reach the conclusion. I guess you'll just have to take my word for
> that, won't you, sophist?

so what do you want from
the zen groups fred?

"Fred C. Dobbs" > wrote in message
m...
> On 5/28/2010 7:20 PM, Dutch wrote:
>> "Son of man" > wrote
>> On May 28, 2:08 pm, DT > wrote:
>>> Fred C. Dobbs wrote:
>>> > On 5/28/2010 10:45 AM, DT wrote:
>>> >> Fred C. Dobbs wrote:
>>> >>> It can't be. To talk about "better than" or "worse than" is
>>> >>> necessarily to be comparing two states of welfare, but there is only
>>> >>> one state of welfare in this putative comparison. It is abject
>>> >>> nonsense to suggest a person might rationally think he is "better
>>> off"
>>> >>> for existing rather than never existing, because the flip side is
>>> that
>>> >>> the person would be "worse off" for never existing - but there
>>> >>> wouldn't be a person to experience the "worse off" condition if the
>>> >>> person never existed.
>>>
>>> >>> This is not the same as a person who exists with a miserable welfare
>>> >>> thinking he'd prefer to die. Even then, it makes no sense for the
>>> >>> person to think he'd be "better off" if he ended his existence,
>>> >>> because again, there would be no entity to experience the better
>>> >>> welfare. It still can make sense for the person with a miserable
>>> >>> welfare to want to die, if his existence is intolerable to him.
>>>
>>> >> OK, how about this: everybody...and I mean *EVERYBODY*... admit,
>>> >> right
>>> >> here, right now, that Fred is right.
>>>
>>> > Well, you could, if you wish, attempt to show I'm wrong.
>>>
>>> I'd have to freakin' *care*. I don't. You've made it clear. There is
>>> no way to prove, logically, that existence is better than nonexistence.
>>> Conversely, there's no way to prove that nonexistence is better than
>>> existence.
>>
>> Well, consider this.
>>
>> Existence strives for security, existence *needs* security to have
>> peace of mind. This security still continues to remain elusive in the
>> world we know and live in presently, and hence existence as we know it
>> is indeed stressful and not peaceful.
>> ----->
>>
>> Existence is not stressful per se, *struggling* is stressful. Existence
>> itself, or "being", is blissful.
>
> I wouldn't say that. Existence /per se/ has no quality

I don't agree, pure existence, being, is blissful by it's very nature

> "Bliss" is actually a very positive term - it is a state of contentment.

Not exactly. Contentment, from something like acheiving some goal, winning a
game, attaining a degree, that is contentment derived from acheivement in
the outside world, bliss normally refers to a state reached through
sprititual practice, yoga, meditation, deeping breathing, acceptance,
freedom from attachments, etc. It is not a native Western concept.

The
> events and circumstances of existence will determine whether your
> existence is miserable, blah, blissful, or some other gradation.

Yeah, we're not talkin about the same thing, "bliss" is not goal oriented
happiness, it's more like inner peace.


>
>> Unfortunately we are programmed from an
>> early age to believe that just being is not enough, we have to be
>> "doing" something, "going" somewhere, "attaining" something, never
>> content with what we have, where we are, what we are.
>
> I think that's human nature - nothing to do with programming. "Just
> being" strikes me as horrible. I constantly try to teach my son that
> working to achieve something is the best thing in life. *Doing* is the
> essence of human existence, and working hard to do something well is the
> best possible way to spend time.

Yea, you're a Western type guy. Doing useful things is good, but I do not
believe that it is the essence of existence any more than hunting for prey
is the essence of being a lion, or drinking in the sun is the essence of
being a rose, it is the work a lion does to support itself, but the essence
of a lion is seen when he sits soaking up the sun too. It is "being" a lion.

>> We are are so
>> focused on the past and the future, and how we stack up against others
>> it's no wonder life is stressful.
>
> I don't think it has anything to do with stacking up against others. It's
> stacking up against yourself, striving to do better today than you did
> yesterday - that's what makes life worth living.

There's nothing wrong with striving for improvement, I do it too, but what
about when you don't improve at things, what if you get worse? It inevitably
gets down to basing your self-image on out-doing others, ego. That's a
no-win game. Real contentment, peace rather than "achievement" in life
occurs on a different level, within oneself by learning to be calm,
centered, to not give into to anger, jealousy and other negative emotions,
and not to be riddled with useless or negative thoughts. To be peaceful is
to tap into a wealth of energy and awareness that winning merit badges can't
compare to.

>> Non-existence has no *needs* and hence no stress associated.
>>
>> But what if security could be found? Then the joy and bliss of
>> existence would be experienced, but the non-existence could never
>> experience that joy or bliss.
>> ------>
>>
>> Peace can be found through acceptance.
>>
>>>
>>> Personally, I'm just tired of it.
>
> Why does that not surprise me?

On May 29, 3:13*am, "Fred C. Dobbs" >
wrote:
> It can't be. *To talk about "better than" or "worse than" is necessarily
> to be comparing two states of welfare, but there is only one state of
> welfare in this putative comparison. *It is abject nonsense to suggest a
> person might rationally think he is "better off" for existing rather
> than never existing, because the flip side is that the person would be
> "worse off" for never existing - but there wouldn't be a person to
> experience the "worse off" condition if the person never existed.
>
> This is not the same as a person who exists with a miserable welfare
> thinking he'd prefer to die. *Even then, it makes no sense for the
> person to think he'd be "better off" if he ended his existence, because
> again, there would be no entity to experience the better welfare. *It
> still can make sense for the person with a miserable welfare to want to
> die, if his existence is intolerable to him.

I fully agree with you on all these points, but the question arises
what exactly you achieve by posting this.

There will be some who already fully agree with you before you even
made the post, and there will be some who will never be convinced no
matter what you say.

Does that not cover everyone?

"Rupert" > wrote in message
...
On May 29, 3:13 am, "Fred C. Dobbs" >
wrote:
> It can't be. To talk about "better than" or "worse than" is necessarily
> to be comparing two states of welfare, but there is only one state of
> welfare in this putative comparison. It is abject nonsense to suggest a
> person might rationally think he is "better off" for existing rather
> than never existing, because the flip side is that the person would be
> "worse off" for never existing - but there wouldn't be a person to
> experience the "worse off" condition if the person never existed.
>
> This is not the same as a person who exists with a miserable welfare
> thinking he'd prefer to die. Even then, it makes no sense for the
> person to think he'd be "better off" if he ended his existence, because
> again, there would be no entity to experience the better welfare. It
> still can make sense for the person with a miserable welfare to want to
> die, if his existence is intolerable to him.

I fully agree with you on all these points, but the question arises
what exactly you achieve by posting this.

There will be some who already fully agree with you before you even
made the post, and there will be some who will never be convinced no
matter what you say.

Does that not cover everyone?
-->

No, there are people who don't agree at first but see that the logic in your
argument is sound, realize you're right, and change their minds. I realize
this kind of critical thinking is very rare, but it is worth seeking out.
Dare to dream.

On May 28, 11:13*am, "Fred C. Dobbs" >
wrote:
> It can't be. *To talk about "better than" or "worse than" is necessarily
> to be comparing two states of welfare, but there is only one state of
> welfare in this putative comparison. *

How do you *know* there is only one state? There may be two....or
three......or many.

On 5/28/2010 5:46 PM, halfawake wrote:
> DT wrote:
>
>> Fred C. Dobbs wrote:
>>
>>> It can't be. To talk about "better than" or "worse than" is
>>> necessarily to be comparing two states of welfare, but there is only
>>> one state of welfare in this putative comparison. It is abject
>>> nonsense to suggest a person might rationally think he is "better
>>> off" for existing rather than never existing, because the flip side
>>> is that the person would be "worse off" for never existing - but
>>> there wouldn't be a person to experience the "worse off" condition if
>>> the person never existed.
>>>
>>> This is not the same as a person who exists with a miserable welfare
>>> thinking he'd prefer to die. Even then, it makes no sense for the
>>> person to think he'd be "better off" if he ended his existence,
>>> because again, there would be no entity to experience the better
>>> welfare. It still can make sense for the person with a miserable
>>> welfare to want to die, if his existence is intolerable to him.
>>
>>
>> OK, how about this: everybody...and I mean *EVERYBODY*... admit, right
>> here, right now, that Fred is right.
>>
>> Then maybe he'll shut up...
>>
>> DT
>
>
> ha ha
>
>
> I wish I could stop...
>
> Robert

Just say no, man. Just say no.

DT

On 5/29/2010 5:03 AM, Mr.Smartypants wrote:
> On May 28, 11:13 am, "Fred C. >
> wrote:
>> It can't be. To talk about "better than" or "worse than" is necessarily
>> to be comparing two states of welfare, but there is only one state of
>> welfare in this putative comparison.
>
> How do you *know* there is only one state? There may be two....or
> three......or many.

"I fully agree with you on all these points."
Rupert McCallum

Get your pal Rupert to explain it to you.

On 5/29/2010 12:09 AM, Dutch wrote:
>
> "Fred C. Dobbs" > wrote in message
> m...
>> On 5/28/2010 7:20 PM, Dutch wrote:
>>> "Son of man" > wrote
>>> On May 28, 2:08 pm, DT > wrote:
>>>> Fred C. Dobbs wrote:
>>>> > On 5/28/2010 10:45 AM, DT wrote:
>>>> >> Fred C. Dobbs wrote:
>>>> >>> It can't be. To talk about "better than" or "worse than" is
>>>> >>> necessarily to be comparing two states of welfare, but there is
>>>> only
>>>> >>> one state of welfare in this putative comparison. It is abject
>>>> >>> nonsense to suggest a person might rationally think he is "better
>>>> off"
>>>> >>> for existing rather than never existing, because the flip side is
>>>> that
>>>> >>> the person would be "worse off" for never existing - but there
>>>> >>> wouldn't be a person to experience the "worse off" condition if the
>>>> >>> person never existed.
>>>>
>>>> >>> This is not the same as a person who exists with a miserable
>>>> welfare
>>>> >>> thinking he'd prefer to die. Even then, it makes no sense for the
>>>> >>> person to think he'd be "better off" if he ended his existence,
>>>> >>> because again, there would be no entity to experience the better
>>>> >>> welfare. It still can make sense for the person with a miserable
>>>> >>> welfare to want to die, if his existence is intolerable to him.
>>>>
>>>> >> OK, how about this: everybody...and I mean *EVERYBODY*... admit,
>>>> >> right
>>>> >> here, right now, that Fred is right.
>>>>
>>>> > Well, you could, if you wish, attempt to show I'm wrong.
>>>>
>>>> I'd have to freakin' *care*. I don't. You've made it clear. There is
>>>> no way to prove, logically, that existence is better than nonexistence.
>>>> Conversely, there's no way to prove that nonexistence is better than
>>>> existence.
>>>
>>> Well, consider this.
>>>
>>> Existence strives for security, existence *needs* security to have
>>> peace of mind. This security still continues to remain elusive in the
>>> world we know and live in presently, and hence existence as we know it
>>> is indeed stressful and not peaceful.
>>> ----->
>>>
>>> Existence is not stressful per se, *struggling* is stressful. Existence
>>> itself, or "being", is blissful.
>>
>> I wouldn't say that. Existence /per se/ has no quality
>
> I don't agree, pure existence, being, is blissful by it's very nature

You're just restating your assertion.

A boulder exists. Is it in a state of bliss?

>
>> "Bliss" is actually a very positive term - it is a state of contentment.
>
> Not exactly. Contentment, from something like acheiving some goal,
> winning a game, attaining a degree, that is contentment derived from
> acheivement in the outside world, bliss normally refers to a state
> reached through sprititual practice, yoga, meditation, deeping
> breathing, acceptance, freedom from attachments, etc. It is not a native
> Western concept.

Of *course* it's a native western concept! The word itself has ancient
Germanic roots that predate western contact with Eastern philosophies
that include any of the practices you describe.

Every dictionary definition available defines bliss as meaning /extreme/
joy or satisfaction. In economics, the bliss point is the point at
which you have exactly the right amount of something you desire - your
"utility" is at a maximum, and an epsilon less *or* more of the good
would reduce your happiness.

Synonyms of bliss are beatitude, blessedness, cheer, cheerfulness,
felicity, gladness, happiness, joy, joyfulness; antonyms are grief,
misery, sorrow, unhappiness, upset.

Existence is not bliss - not in any widely accepted meaning of the word
bliss. Existence is neutral, but it is a condition necessary to


>
>> The events and circumstances of existence will determine whether your
>> existence is miserable, blah, blissful, or some other gradation.
>
> Yeah, we're not talkin about the same thing, "bliss" is not goal
> oriented happiness, it's more like inner peace.

It isn't. Look in any dictionary you wish. You are giving the word a
meaning that 99% of English speakers who know the word do not recognize.


>>> Unfortunately we are programmed from an
>>> early age to believe that just being is not enough, we have to be
>>> "doing" something, "going" somewhere, "attaining" something, never
>>> content with what we have, where we are, what we are.
>>
>> I think that's human nature - nothing to do with programming. "Just
>> being" strikes me as horrible. I constantly try to teach my son that
>> working to achieve something is the best thing in life. *Doing* is the
>> essence of human existence, and working hard to do something well is
>> the best possible way to spend time.
>
> Yea, you're a Western type guy. Doing useful things is good, but I do
> not believe that it is the essence of existence any more than hunting
> for prey is the essence of being a lion, or drinking in the sun is the
> essence of being a rose, it is the work a lion does to support itself,
> but the essence of a lion is seen when he sits soaking up the sun too.
> It is "being" a lion.

Humans are purposeful beings. We naturally aspire to more than mere
existence. The first primitive to fashion a wheel could have told you that.

I don't know anyone who wants to feel overworked, but most people would
prefer to work fairly hard at something they enjoy doing for far longer
than they would want to sit around in a chair relaxing. Even most
people's play is purposeful, and something at which they wish to
improve, even if not necessarily excel.


>>> We are are so
>>> focused on the past and the future, and how we stack up against others
>>> it's no wonder life is stressful.
>>
>> I don't think it has anything to do with stacking up against others.
>> It's stacking up against yourself, striving to do better today than
>> you did yesterday - that's what makes life worth living.
>
> There's nothing wrong with striving for improvement, I do it too, but
> what about when you don't improve at things, what if you get worse? It
> inevitably gets down to basing your self-image on out-doing others, ego.

No it doesn't. I got to be a reasonably good recreational golfer in the
mid 1990s, usually shooting in the mid 80s with a couple of scores in
the low 80s; never broke 80. It all stopped when I got married and had
a child, and I couldn't justify the time spent on the course or at the
range any more. My game deteriorated a lot, but I still was better than
most of my friends. But I virtually stopped anyway, because the
deterioration of my play from its previous level was too frustrating.


> That's a no-win game. Real contentment, peace rather than "achievement"
> in life occurs on a different level, within oneself by learning to be
> calm, centered, to not give into to anger, jealousy and other negative
> emotions, and not to be riddled with useless or negative thoughts. To be
> peaceful is to tap into a wealth of energy and awareness that winning
> merit badges can't compare to.

Ha ha ha ha ha! People have to learn to /work/ to do that! It is,
itself, a life achievement. It is /not/ merely existing.


>
>>> Non-existence has no *needs* and hence no stress associated.
>>>
>>> But what if security could be found? Then the joy and bliss of
>>> existence would be experienced, but the non-existence could never
>>> experience that joy or bliss.
>>> ------>
>>>
>>> Peace can be found through acceptance.
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Personally, I'm just tired of it.
>>
>> Why does that not surprise me?
>

On May 29, 10:18*am, "Fred C. Dobbs" >
wrote:
> On 5/29/2010 5:03 AM, Mr.Smartypants wrote:
>
> > On May 28, 11:13 am, "Fred C. >
> > wrote:
> >> It can't be. *To talk about "better than" or "worse than" is necessarily
> >> to be comparing two states of welfare, but there is only one state of
> >> welfare in this putative comparison.
>
> > How do you *know* there is only one state? There may be two....or
> > three......or many.
>
> * * "I fully agree with you on all these points."
> * * Rupert McCallum
>
> Get your pal Rupert to explain it to you.



IOW, you can't explain what it is you're trying to blabber about....as
usual.

On 5/29/2010 11:07 AM, Mrs.Cumstain lost *another* of these exchanges:
> On May 29, 10:18 am, "Fred C. >
> wrote:
>> On 5/29/2010 5:03 AM, Mr.Smartypants wrote:
>>
>>> On May 28, 11:13 am, "Fred C. >
>>> wrote:
>>>> It can't be. To talk about "better than" or "worse than" is necessarily
>>>> to be comparing two states of welfare, but there is only one state of
>>>> welfare in this putative comparison.
>>
>>> How do you *know* there is only one state? There may be two....or
>>> three......or many.
>>
>> "I fully agree with you on all these points."
>> Rupert McCallum
>>
>> Get your pal Rupert to explain it to you.
>
>
>
> IOW, you can't explain what it is

I can, and I have done. But you won't listen.

Get your pal Rupert to explain it to you.

On May 29, 12:25*am, "Fred C. Dobbs" >
wrote:
> On 5/28/2010 7:20 PM, Dutch wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > "Son of man" > wrote
> > On May 28, 2:08 pm, DT > wrote:
> >> Fred C. Dobbs wrote:
> >> > On 5/28/2010 10:45 AM, DT wrote:
> >> >> Fred C. Dobbs wrote:
> >> >>> It can't be. To talk about "better than" or "worse than" is
> >> >>> necessarily to be comparing two states of welfare, but there is only
> >> >>> one state of welfare in this putative comparison. It is abject
> >> >>> nonsense to suggest a person might rationally think he is "better
> >> off"
> >> >>> for existing rather than never existing, because the flip side is
> >> that
> >> >>> the person would be "worse off" for never existing - but there
> >> >>> wouldn't be a person to experience the "worse off" condition if the
> >> >>> person never existed.
>
> >> >>> This is not the same as a person who exists with a miserable welfare
> >> >>> thinking he'd prefer to die. Even then, it makes no sense for the
> >> >>> person to think he'd be "better off" if he ended his existence,
> >> >>> because again, there would be no entity to experience the better
> >> >>> welfare. It still can make sense for the person with a miserable
> >> >>> welfare to want to die, if his existence is intolerable to him.
>
> >> >> OK, how about this: everybody...and I mean *EVERYBODY*... admit, right
> >> >> here, right now, that Fred is right.
>
> >> > Well, you could, if you wish, attempt to show I'm wrong.
>
> >> I'd have to freakin' *care*. I don't. You've made it clear. There is
> >> no way to prove, logically, that existence is better than nonexistence..
> >> Conversely, there's no way to prove that nonexistence is better than
> >> existence.
>
> > Well, consider this.
>
> > Existence strives for security, existence *needs* security to have
> > peace of mind. This security still continues to remain elusive in the
> > world we know and live in presently, and hence existence as we know it
> > is indeed stressful and not peaceful.
> > ----->
>
> > Existence is not stressful per se, *struggling* is stressful. Existence
> > itself, or "being", is blissful.
>
> I wouldn't say that. *Existence /per se/ has no quality. *"Bliss" is
> actually a very positive term - it is a state of contentment. *The
> events and circumstances of existence will determine whether your
> existence is miserable, blah, blissful, or some other gradation.
>
> > Unfortunately we are programmed from an
> > early age to believe that just being is not enough, we have to be
> > "doing" something, "going" somewhere, "attaining" something, never
> > content with what we have, where we are, what we are.
>
> I think that's human nature - nothing to do with programming. *"Just
> being" strikes me as horrible. *I constantly try to teach my son that
> working to achieve something is the best thing in life. **Doing* is the
> essence of human existence, and working hard to do something well is the
> best possible way to spend time.
>
> > We are are so
> > focused on the past and the future, and how we stack up against others
> > it's no wonder life is stressful.
>
> I don't think it has anything to do with stacking up against others.
> It's stacking up against yourself, striving to do better today than you
> did yesterday - that's what makes life worth living.
>
>
>
> > Non-existence has no *needs* and hence no stress associated.
>
> > But what if security could be found? Then the joy and bliss of
> > existence would be experienced, but the non-existence could never
> > experience that joy or bliss.
> > ------>
>
> > Peace can be found through acceptance.

Could you find peace accepting that your son or daughter is kidnapped
or missing? Could you find peace accepting that you are starving with
no food anywhere in sight?

You speak of acceptance as if voluntary. The body and mind has needs
that none of your "convincing yourself to accept things as they are"
can ever hope to overcome in certain situations, and those are
situations that many people face in the world today.

"Fred C. Dobbs" > wrote
> On 5/29/2010 12:09 AM, Dutch wrote:

[..]

>>>> Existence is not stressful per se, *struggling* is stressful. Existence
>>>> itself, or "being", is blissful.
>>>
>>> I wouldn't say that. Existence /per se/ has no quality
>>
>> I don't agree, pure existence, being, is blissful by it's very nature
>
> You're just restating your assertion.

It's a point of view, your opinion is that "being" is by default a neutral
state, mine is that it is blissful.

> A boulder exists. Is it in a state of bliss?

I don't know, my impression is that boulders have no experiential existence.
When a human exists he is a very different organic process than that of a
rock.

>>> "Bliss" is actually a very positive term - it is a state of contentment.
>>
>> Not exactly. Contentment, from something like acheiving some goal,
>> winning a game, attaining a degree, that is contentment derived from
>> acheivement in the outside world, bliss normally refers to a state
>> reached through sprititual practice, yoga, meditation, deeping
>> breathing, acceptance, freedom from attachments, etc. It is not a native
>> Western concept.
>
> Of *course* it's a native western concept! The word itself has ancient
> Germanic roots that predate western contact with Eastern philosophies that
> include any of the practices you describe.

Never heard of that, interesting, however there is a difference between the
peace one feels through the attainment of inner balance and the
gratification one feels through the attainment of outward goals. The two are
different but not incompatible. There's no scorecard or degree to tell the
world you are peaceful, but they are aware of it nonetheless.

>
> Every dictionary definition available defines bliss as meaning /extreme/
> joy or satisfaction. In economics, the bliss point is the point at which
> you have exactly the right amount of something you desire - your "utility"
> is at a maximum, and an epsilon less *or* more of the good would reduce
> your happiness.

Attainment of worldly desires leads to satisfaction/gratification, an ego
boost, but that is not the same as what one derives from those practices we
were talking about.

> Synonyms of bliss are beatitude, blessedness, cheer, cheerfulness,
> felicity, gladness, happiness, joy, joyfulness; antonyms are grief,
> misery, sorrow, unhappiness, upset.
>
> Existence is not bliss - not in any widely accepted meaning of the word
> bliss. Existence is neutral, but it is a condition necessary to

Maybe it would be more clear if I used the word "being" or "living" instead
of existence.
>
>
>>
>>> The events and circumstances of existence will determine whether your
>>> existence is miserable, blah, blissful, or some other gradation.
>>
>> Yeah, we're not talkin about the same thing, "bliss" is not goal
>> oriented happiness, it's more like inner peace.
>
> It isn't. Look in any dictionary you wish. You are giving the word a
> meaning that 99% of English speakers who know the word do not recognize.

Maybe "bliss" *can* be used in the other contexts, but I have heard it used
most often to refer to a spiritual connectedness as opposed to the feeling
one gets by hitting a long drive or winning a poker tournament.Wikipedia
says "Bliss is a constant state of mind undisturbed by gain or loss." which
suggests that it is not usually used to refer to the satisfaction or
happiness derived from attaining worldy acheivements.

>>>> Unfortunately we are programmed from an
>>>> early age to believe that just being is not enough, we have to be
>>>> "doing" something, "going" somewhere, "attaining" something, never
>>>> content with what we have, where we are, what we are.
>>>
>>> I think that's human nature - nothing to do with programming. "Just
>>> being" strikes me as horrible. I constantly try to teach my son that
>>> working to achieve something is the best thing in life. *Doing* is the
>>> essence of human existence, and working hard to do something well is
>>> the best possible way to spend time.
>>
>> Yea, you're a Western type guy. Doing useful things is good, but I do
>> not believe that it is the essence of existence any more than hunting
>> for prey is the essence of being a lion, or drinking in the sun is the
>> essence of being a rose, it is the work a lion does to support itself,
>> but the essence of a lion is seen when he sits soaking up the sun too.
>> It is "being" a lion.
>
> Humans are purposeful beings. We naturally aspire to more than mere
> existence. The first primitive to fashion a wheel could have told you
> that.

I never suggested that we are not goal oriented beings, but there is another
level to human existence/consciousness that is not directly related to the
attainment of goals.

> I don't know anyone who wants to feel overworked, but most people would
> prefer to work fairly hard at something they enjoy doing for far longer
> than they would want to sit around in a chair relaxing. Even most
> people's play is purposeful, and something at which they wish to improve,
> even if not necessarily excel.

What I am saying is not particularly related to being in motion vs sitting
in an easy chair, many spiritual practices are done while in motion, like
Tai Chi.
>
>
>>>> We are are so
>>>> focused on the past and the future, and how we stack up against others
>>>> it's no wonder life is stressful.
>>>
>>> I don't think it has anything to do with stacking up against others.
>>> It's stacking up against yourself, striving to do better today than
>>> you did yesterday - that's what makes life worth living.
>>
>> There's nothing wrong with striving for improvement, I do it too, but
>> what about when you don't improve at things, what if you get worse? It
>> inevitably gets down to basing your self-image on out-doing others, ego.
>
> No it doesn't. I got to be a reasonably good recreational golfer in the
> mid 1990s, usually shooting in the mid 80s with a couple of scores in the
> low 80s; never broke 80. It all stopped when I got married and had a
> child, and I couldn't justify the time spent on the course or at the range
> any more. My game deteriorated a lot, but I still was better than most of
> my friends. But I virtually stopped anyway, because the deterioration of
> my play from its previous level was too frustrating.

Golf is a great example of an activity with a strong "spiritual" (I don't
like to use that word because it has negative connotations) component. You
can practice all you want but if you are not in calm state with a clear mind
when you play you will not play your best. I *was* able to break 80 at my
prime, and at those times there was no great joy at good shots or good
scores, it was as if the rounds just happened and I was just along for the
ride. It was as if I was able on those days to park my ego and just become
part of the process, "being" the golfer, not Dutch trying to play golf.
That's what I mean by "just being" instead of "doing".


>> That's a no-win game. Real contentment, peace rather than "achievement"
>> in life occurs on a different level, within oneself by learning to be
>> calm, centered, to not give into to anger, jealousy and other negative
>> emotions, and not to be riddled with useless or negative thoughts. To be
>> peaceful is to tap into a wealth of energy and awareness that winning
>> merit badges can't compare to.
>
> Ha ha ha ha ha! People have to learn to /work/ to do that! It is,
> itself, a life achievement. It is /not/ merely existing.

I never said that a state of inner peace was not attained through work, of
course it is. But the reward is not some scorecard at the end of the day
with "inner peace" written on it. It is the ability to sit in a line of
traffic with a quiet mind, feeling blissful and content while everyone
around you is frustrated and impatient. It is the ability to let go of
results-oriented ego-based thinking during a game of golf and
instantaneously accept a bad shot, because doing so means that the next shot
will not be affected by the last.

Seeking the satisfaction derived from being a winner is part of our nature,
but spiritual masters and sports psychologists will both tell you that
living *being* in the moment free from the *need* to win is the real key to
happiness and success, because none of us can win or excel all the time, as
your golf experience showed you.

On Sat, 29 May 2010 12:14:50 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote:

>
>"Fred C. Dobbs" > wrote
>> On 5/29/2010 12:09 AM, Dutch wrote:
>
>[..]
>
>>>>> Existence is not stressful per se, *struggling* is stressful. Existence
>>>>> itself, or "being", is blissful.
>>>>
>>>> I wouldn't say that. Existence /per se/ has no quality
>>>
>>> I don't agree, pure existence, being, is blissful by it's very nature
>>
>> You're just restating your assertion.
>
>It's a point of view, your opinion is that "being" is by default a neutral
>state, mine is that it is blissful.
>
>> A boulder exists. Is it in a state of bliss?
>
>I don't know, my impression is that boulders have no experiential existence.
>When a human exists he is a very different organic process than that of a
>rock.
>
>>>> "Bliss" is actually a very positive term - it is a state of contentment.
>>>
>>> Not exactly. Contentment, from something like acheiving some goal,
>>> winning a game, attaining a degree, that is contentment derived from
>>> acheivement in the outside world, bliss normally refers to a state
>>> reached through sprititual practice, yoga, meditation, deeping
>>> breathing, acceptance, freedom from attachments, etc. It is not a native
>>> Western concept.
>>
>> Of *course* it's a native western concept! The word itself has ancient
>> Germanic roots that predate western contact with Eastern philosophies that
>> include any of the practices you describe.
>
>Never heard of that, interesting, however there is a difference between the
>peace one feels through the attainment of inner balance and the
>gratification one feels through the attainment of outward goals. The two are
>different but not incompatible. There's no scorecard or degree to tell the
>world you are peaceful, but they are aware of it nonetheless.
>
>>
>> Every dictionary definition available defines bliss as meaning /extreme/
>> joy or satisfaction. In economics, the bliss point is the point at which
>> you have exactly the right amount of something you desire - your "utility"
>> is at a maximum, and an epsilon less *or* more of the good would reduce
>> your happiness.
>
>Attainment of worldly desires leads to satisfaction/gratification, an ego
>boost, but that is not the same as what one derives from those practices we
>were talking about.
>
>> Synonyms of bliss are beatitude, blessedness, cheer, cheerfulness,
>> felicity, gladness, happiness, joy, joyfulness; antonyms are grief,
>> misery, sorrow, unhappiness, upset.
>>
>> Existence is not bliss - not in any widely accepted meaning of the word
>> bliss. Existence is neutral, but it is a condition necessary to
>
>Maybe it would be more clear if I used the word "being" or "living" instead
>of existence.
>>
>>
>>>
>>>> The events and circumstances of existence will determine whether your
>>>> existence is miserable, blah, blissful, or some other gradation.
>>>
>>> Yeah, we're not talkin about the same thing, "bliss" is not goal
>>> oriented happiness, it's more like inner peace.
>>
>> It isn't. Look in any dictionary you wish. You are giving the word a
>> meaning that 99% of English speakers who know the word do not recognize.
>
>Maybe "bliss" *can* be used in the other contexts, but I have heard it used
>most often to refer to a spiritual connectedness as opposed to the feeling
>one gets by hitting a long drive or winning a poker tournament.Wikipedia
>says "Bliss is a constant state of mind undisturbed by gain or loss." which
>suggests that it is not usually used to refer to the satisfaction or
>happiness derived from attaining worldy acheivements.
>
>>>>> Unfortunately we are programmed from an
>>>>> early age to believe that just being is not enough, we have to be
>>>>> "doing" something, "going" somewhere, "attaining" something, never
>>>>> content with what we have, where we are, what we are.
>>>>
>>>> I think that's human nature - nothing to do with programming. "Just
>>>> being" strikes me as horrible. I constantly try to teach my son that
>>>> working to achieve something is the best thing in life. *Doing* is the
>>>> essence of human existence, and working hard to do something well is
>>>> the best possible way to spend time.
>>>
>>> Yea, you're a Western type guy. Doing useful things is good, but I do
>>> not believe that it is the essence of existence any more than hunting
>>> for prey is the essence of being a lion, or drinking in the sun is the
>>> essence of being a rose, it is the work a lion does to support itself,
>>> but the essence of a lion is seen when he sits soaking up the sun too.
>>> It is "being" a lion.
>>
>> Humans are purposeful beings. We naturally aspire to more than mere
>> existence. The first primitive to fashion a wheel could have told you
>> that.
>
>I never suggested that we are not goal oriented beings, but there is another
>level to human existence/consciousness that is not directly related to the
>attainment of goals.
>
>> I don't know anyone who wants to feel overworked, but most people would
>> prefer to work fairly hard at something they enjoy doing for far longer
>> than they would want to sit around in a chair relaxing. Even most
>> people's play is purposeful, and something at which they wish to improve,
>> even if not necessarily excel.
>
>What I am saying is not particularly related to being in motion vs sitting
>in an easy chair, many spiritual practices are done while in motion, like
>Tai Chi.
>>
>>
>>>>> We are are so
>>>>> focused on the past and the future, and how we stack up against others
>>>>> it's no wonder life is stressful.
>>>>
>>>> I don't think it has anything to do with stacking up against others.
>>>> It's stacking up against yourself, striving to do better today than
>>>> you did yesterday - that's what makes life worth living.
>>>
>>> There's nothing wrong with striving for improvement, I do it too, but
>>> what about when you don't improve at things, what if you get worse? It
>>> inevitably gets down to basing your self-image on out-doing others, ego.
>>
>> No it doesn't. I got to be a reasonably good recreational golfer in the
>> mid 1990s, usually shooting in the mid 80s with a couple of scores in the
>> low 80s; never broke 80. It all stopped when I got married and had a
>> child, and I couldn't justify the time spent on the course or at the range
>> any more. My game deteriorated a lot, but I still was better than most of
>> my friends. But I virtually stopped anyway, because the deterioration of
>> my play from its previous level was too frustrating.
>
>Golf is a great example of an activity with a strong "spiritual" (I don't
>like to use that word because it has negative connotations) component. You
>can practice all you want but if you are not in calm state with a clear mind
>when you play you will not play your best. I *was* able to break 80 at my
>prime, and at those times there was no great joy at good shots or good
>scores, it was as if the rounds just happened and I was just along for the
>ride. It was as if I was able on those days to park my ego and just become
>part of the process, "being" the golfer, not Dutch trying to play golf.
>That's what I mean by "just being" instead of "doing".
>
>
>>> That's a no-win game. Real contentment, peace rather than "achievement"
>>> in life occurs on a different level, within oneself by learning to be
>>> calm, centered, to not give into to anger, jealousy and other negative
>>> emotions, and not to be riddled with useless or negative thoughts. To be
>>> peaceful is to tap into a wealth of energy and awareness that winning
>>> merit badges can't compare to.
>>
>> Ha ha ha ha ha! People have to learn to /work/ to do that! It is,
>> itself, a life achievement. It is /not/ merely existing.
>
>I never said that a state of inner peace was not attained through work, of
>course it is. But the reward is not some scorecard at the end of the day
>with "inner peace" written on it. It is the ability to sit in a line of
>traffic with a quiet mind, feeling blissful and content while everyone
>around you is frustrated and impatient. It is the ability to let go of
>results-oriented ego-based thinking during a game of golf and
>instantaneously accept a bad shot, because doing so means that the next shot
>will not be affected by the last.
>
>Seeking the satisfaction derived from being a winner is part of our nature,
>but spiritual masters and sports psychologists will both tell you that
>living *being* in the moment free from the *need* to win is the real key to
>happiness and success, because none of us can win or excel all the time, as
>your golf experience showed you.
>

What you says sounds very good, but is it really true? To me, the best
way to play golf is to forget everything including yourself so that
there is nothing but that tiny golf ball and the next place it's going
to land. There is no "being". There is no "moment". The world ceases
to exist until the game is finished. That is what I call a blissful
experience.

"Son of man" > wrote
On May 29, 12:25 am, "Fred C. Dobbs" >
wrote:
> On 5/28/2010 7:20 PM, Dutch wrote:
> > Peace can be found through acceptance.

Could you find peace accepting that your son or daughter is kidnapped
or missing? Could you find peace accepting that you are starving with
no food anywhere in sight?
---->

Yes, because those situations are reality in the context you describe. By
acceptance I don't mean failing to act, I mean accept what is because what
is can't be changed. The analogy of golf came up earlier. You may hit a very
bad shot into the rough, if you don't accept it you will hit another bad
shot, and another. If in your mind you refuse to accept that *you* are the
level of player who can hit such such shots, and *you* just did hit such a
shot, then you are denying reality which causes a mental
conflict/disturbance, and you add a bad mental state to an already bad
situation. If you accept the reality that there is no food in sight, that
gives you the most access to the inspiration to find food. If you refuse to
accept it you will simply become despondant.

You speak of acceptance as if voluntary. The body and mind has needs
that none of your "convincing yourself to accept things as they are"
can ever hope to overcome in certain situations, and those are
situations that many people face in the world today.
-------->

Not accepting reality helps no-one solve difficult situations. If in your
example you refuse to accept the possibility that a close friend and
neighbour may be a pedophile and a kidnapper you may miss an obvious clue to
her whereabouts.

On May 28, 8:43*pm, Dr Who Duh >
wrote:
> On Fri, 28 May 2010 17:39:33 -0700 (PDT), "Mr.Smartypants"
>
>
>
>
>
> > wrote:
> >On May 28, 5:11*pm, "Fred C. Dobbs" >
> >wrote:
> >> On 5/28/2010 3:46 PM, halfawake wrote:
>
> >> > DT wrote:
>
> >> >> Fred C. Dobbs wrote:
>
> >> >>> It can't be. To talk about "better than" or "worse than" is
> >> >>> necessarily to be comparing two states of welfare, but there is only
> >> >>> one state of welfare in this putative comparison. It is abject
> >> >>> nonsense to suggest a person might rationally think he is "better
> >> >>> off" for existing rather than never existing, because the flip side
> >> >>> is that the person would be "worse off" for never existing - but
> >> >>> there wouldn't be a person to experience the "worse off" condition if
> >> >>> the person never existed.
>
> >> >>> This is not the same as a person who exists with a miserable welfare
> >> >>> thinking he'd prefer to die. Even then, it makes no sense for the
> >> >>> person to think he'd be "better off" if he ended his existence,
> >> >>> because again, there would be no entity to experience the better
> >> >>> welfare. It still can make sense for the person with a miserable
> >> >>> welfare to want to die, if his existence is intolerable to him.
>
> >> >> OK, how about this: everybody...and I mean *EVERYBODY*... admit, right
> >> >> here, right now, that Fred is right.
>
> >> >> Then maybe he'll shut up...
>
> >> >> DT
>
> >> > ha ha
>
> >> > I wish I could stop...
>
> >> You seem to have very little self control.-
>
> >Said the Goober who goes into fits of rage over everything.
>
> you would diminish each others importance to ignore each other.


"i WAS going to set myself on fire.. but we agree."
-Dr Who Duh

^~

"niunian" > wrote

> What you says sounds very good, but is it really true? To me, the best
> way to play golf is to forget everything including yourself so that
> there is nothing but that tiny golf ball and the next place it's going
> to land. There is no "being". There is no "moment". The world ceases
> to exist until the game is finished. That is what I call a blissful
> experience.

I think that is quite well said, and totally consistent with my previous
description of the ideal golf/sports mind. One is simply part of a process,
no "doing", no you, no ball, no golf course as separate entities, no
duality, just a whole flowing process of which you are an integral part. It
also works for life in general. Without the duality of "me vs other idiot
drivers", "being" in traffic can be quite a fun, relaxing experience. A
think that great musicians enter this state as well.

"Mr.Smartypants" > wrote in message
...
On May 29, 10:18 am, "Fred C. Dobbs" >
wrote:
> On 5/29/2010 5:03 AM, Mr.Smartypants wrote:
>
> > On May 28, 11:13 am, "Fred C. >
> > wrote:
> >> It can't be. To talk about "better than" or "worse than" is necessarily
> >> to be comparing two states of welfare, but there is only one state of
> >> welfare in this putative comparison.
>
> > How do you *know* there is only one state? There may be two....or
> > three......or many.
>
> "I fully agree with you on all these points."
> Rupert McCallum
>
> Get your pal Rupert to explain it to you.



IOW, you can't explain what it is you're trying to blabber about....as
usual.
--->

The Gooberism is, "You can't explain what *you think* you're trying to
blabber about.. as usual."

Get it right or I'll report you to the head Goober.

On May 29, 12:09*pm, "Goober ****wit C. Dobbs"
> shoved an English cucumber up his ass
and squittered like a Howler monkey:

> On 5/29/2010 11:07 AM, Mrs.Cumstain lost *another* of these exchanges:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On May 29, 10:18 am, "Fred C. >
> > wrote:
> >> On 5/29/2010 5:03 AM, Mr.Smartypants wrote:
>
> >>> On May 28, 11:13 am, "Fred C. >
> >>> wrote:
> >>>> It can't be. *To talk about "better than" or "worse than" is necessarily
> >>>> to be comparing two states of welfare, but there is only one state of
> >>>> welfare in this putative comparison.
>
> >>> How do you *know* there is only one state? There may be two....or
> >>> three......or many.
>
> >> * * *"I fully agree with you on all these points."
> >> * * *Rupert McCallum
>
> >> Get your pal Rupert to explain it to you.
>
> > IOW, you can't explain what it is
>
> I can, and I have done. *But you won't listen.



You haven't. How do you *KNOW* there is no pre-existent state or even
more than one?


> Get your pal Rupert to explain it to you.-


He's supposed to explain your squittering!?

On Sat, 29 May 2010 13:27:57 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote:

>"niunian" > wrote
>
>> What you says sounds very good, but is it really true? To me, the best
>> way to play golf is to forget everything including yourself so that
>> there is nothing but that tiny golf ball and the next place it's going
>> to land. There is no "being". There is no "moment". The world ceases
>> to exist until the game is finished. That is what I call a blissful
>> experience.
>
>I think that is quite well said, and totally consistent with my previous
>description of the ideal golf/sports mind. One is simply part of a process,
>no "doing", no you, no ball, no golf course as separate entities, no
>duality, just a whole flowing process of which you are an integral part. It
>also works for life in general. Without the duality of "me vs other idiot
>drivers", "being" in traffic can be quite a fun, relaxing experience. A
>think that great musicians enter this state as well.

Actually, I think there is a little bit difference between us. Do you
realize what I recommended is something that would cost you a great
deal of mental and physical energy? It's not something I would
recommend as an example of everyday living. It's only meant for doing
something you love. If you drive a car with that kind of mental state,
you put yourself in grave danger.

On Sat, 29 May 2010 13:27:15 -0700 (PDT), zenworm >
wrote:

>On May 28, 8:43*pm, Dr Who Duh >
>wrote:
>> On Fri, 28 May 2010 17:39:33 -0700 (PDT), "Mr.Smartypants"
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> > wrote:
>> >On May 28, 5:11*pm, "Fred C. Dobbs" >
>> >wrote:
>> >> On 5/28/2010 3:46 PM, halfawake wrote:
>>
>> >> > DT wrote:
>>
>> >> >> Fred C. Dobbs wrote:
>>
>> >> >>> It can't be. To talk about "better than" or "worse than" is
>> >> >>> necessarily to be comparing two states of welfare, but there is only
>> >> >>> one state of welfare in this putative comparison. It is abject
>> >> >>> nonsense to suggest a person might rationally think he is "better
>> >> >>> off" for existing rather than never existing, because the flip side
>> >> >>> is that the person would be "worse off" for never existing - but
>> >> >>> there wouldn't be a person to experience the "worse off" condition if
>> >> >>> the person never existed.
>>
>> >> >>> This is not the same as a person who exists with a miserable welfare
>> >> >>> thinking he'd prefer to die. Even then, it makes no sense for the
>> >> >>> person to think he'd be "better off" if he ended his existence,
>> >> >>> because again, there would be no entity to experience the better
>> >> >>> welfare. It still can make sense for the person with a miserable
>> >> >>> welfare to want to die, if his existence is intolerable to him.
>>
>> >> >> OK, how about this: everybody...and I mean *EVERYBODY*... admit, right
>> >> >> here, right now, that Fred is right.
>>
>> >> >> Then maybe he'll shut up...
>>
>> >> >> DT
>>
>> >> > ha ha
>>
>> >> > I wish I could stop...
>>
>> >> You seem to have very little self control.-
>>
>> >Said the Goober who goes into fits of rage over everything.
>>
>> you would diminish each others importance to ignore each other.
>
>
>"i WAS going to set myself on fire.. but we agree."
>-Dr Who Duh
>
>^~

but i'd still be enlightened, in some sense.

"niunian" > wrote in message
...
> On Sat, 29 May 2010 13:27:57 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote:
>
>>"niunian" > wrote
>>
>>> What you says sounds very good, but is it really true? To me, the best
>>> way to play golf is to forget everything including yourself so that
>>> there is nothing but that tiny golf ball and the next place it's going
>>> to land. There is no "being". There is no "moment". The world ceases
>>> to exist until the game is finished. That is what I call a blissful
>>> experience.
>>
>>I think that is quite well said, and totally consistent with my previous
>>description of the ideal golf/sports mind. One is simply part of a
>>process,
>>no "doing", no you, no ball, no golf course as separate entities, no
>>duality, just a whole flowing process of which you are an integral part.
>>It
>>also works for life in general. Without the duality of "me vs other idiot
>>drivers", "being" in traffic can be quite a fun, relaxing experience. A
>>think that great musicians enter this state as well.
>
> Actually, I think there is a little bit difference between us. Do you
> realize what I recommended is something that would cost you a great
> deal of mental and physical energy? It's not something I would
> recommend as an example of everyday living. It's only meant for doing
> something you love. If you drive a car with that kind of mental state,
> you put yourself in grave danger.

You're right then, we are not talking about the same thing at all, I'm not
sure what you're talking about. The common term for what I'm talking about
is "the zone" and it is effortless, no energy is wasted "trying". Typically
after playing a game of golf or tennis while "in the zone" a person feels
totally invigorated. Contrary to the state you describe, being in the zone
is a form of meditation, it conserves, focuses and generates energy, it
doesn't expend it. Translating that to driving in traffic, a person is
acutely aware of what is important, completely in the process of driving,
they do not become distracted by thoughts about a place they would rather be
or emotions like anger at the driver who cut in front or frustrated thinking
about the appointment they're late for. So, they drive more safely. I can't
understand why you think being a part of calm focused energy is a dangerous
state in which to drive.

"Mr.Smartypants" > wrote

> How do you *KNOW* there is no pre-existent state or even more than one?

Why are you repeating the same stupid question that has been answered a
hundred times?

Do you get a charge of being told you're an idiot?

On 5/29/2010 1:40 PM, Mrs.Cumstain lost *another* of these exchanges:
> On May 29, 12:09 pm, Fred C. Dobbs beat Runny Hamilton senseless *again*:
>
>> On 5/29/2010 11:07 AM, Mrs.Cumstain lost *another* of these exchanges:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> On May 29, 10:18 am, "Fred C. >
>>> wrote:
>>>> On 5/29/2010 5:03 AM, Mrs.Cumstain lost *another* of these exchanges:
>>
>>>>> On May 28, 11:13 am, "Fred C. >
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>> It can't be. To talk about "better than" or "worse than" is necessarily
>>>>>> to be comparing two states of welfare, but there is only one state of
>>>>>> welfare in this putative comparison.
>>
>>>>> How do you *know* there is only one state? There may be two....or
>>>>> three......or many.
>>
>>>> "I fully agree with you on all these points."
>>>> Rupert McCallum
>>
>>>> Get your pal Rupert to explain it to you.
>>
>>> IOW, you can't explain what it is
>>
>> I can, and I have done. But you won't listen.
>
>
>
> You haven't.

I can, and I have done.


>> Get your pal Rupert to explain it to you.-
>
>
> He's supposed to explain

He says he gets it. Maybe he can explain it to you.

On 5/29/2010 3:25 PM, Dutch wrote:
>
> "Mr.Smartypants" > wrote
>
>> How do you *KNOW* there is no pre-existent state or even more than one?
>
> Why are you repeating the same stupid question that has been answered a
> hundred times?
>
> Do you get a charge of being told you're an idiot?

He's a vandal at heart. All he's doing is spraypainting bullshit over
Usenet.

On May 29, 5:09*pm, "Fred C. Dobbs" >
wrote:
> On 5/29/2010 3:25 PM, Dutch wrote:
>
>
>
> > "Mr.Smartypants" > wrote
>
> >> How do you *KNOW* there is no pre-existent state or even more than one?
>
> > Why are you repeating the same stupid question that has been answered a
> > hundred times?
>
> > Do you get a charge of being told you're an idiot?
>
> He's a vandal at heart. *All he's doing is spraypainting bullshit over
> Usenet.


Goobs the pet food genius doesn't *know* for a fact the pre-existent
state doesn't exist. He just prefers to believe that it doesn't and
insists that *EVERYONE* believe along with him.

He gets pouty when everyone doesn't believe what he believes.

(I removed the zen group because they don't like you there, Goo)

Fred C. Dobbs wrote:

> On 5/28/2010 9:11 PM, halfawake wrote:
>
>> Fred C. Dobbs wrote:
>>
>>> On 5/28/2010 3:46 PM, halfawake wrote:
>>>
>>>> DT wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Fred C. Dobbs wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> It can't be. To talk about "better than" or "worse than" is
>>>>>> necessarily to be comparing two states of welfare, but there is only
>>>>>> one state of welfare in this putative comparison. It is abject
>>>>>> nonsense to suggest a person might rationally think he is "better
>>>>>> off" for existing rather than never existing, because the flip side
>>>>>> is that the person would be "worse off" for never existing - but
>>>>>> there wouldn't be a person to experience the "worse off" condition if
>>>>>> the person never existed.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> This is not the same as a person who exists with a miserable welfare
>>>>>> thinking he'd prefer to die. Even then, it makes no sense for the
>>>>>> person to think he'd be "better off" if he ended his existence,
>>>>>> because again, there would be no entity to experience the better
>>>>>> welfare. It still can make sense for the person with a miserable
>>>>>> welfare to want to die, if his existence is intolerable to him.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> OK, how about this: everybody...and I mean *EVERYBODY*... admit, right
>>>>> here, right now, that Fred is right.
>>>>>
>>>>> Then maybe he'll shut up...
>>>>>
>>>>> DT
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> ha ha
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I wish I could stop...
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> You seem to have very little self control.
>>
>>
>> can you shut up?
>
>
> Yes, but I like pushing jamtarts like you around, so I choose not to
> shut up.

have fun pushing. it's a waste of time.

Robert

= = = = = = = =

Dutch wrote:

>
> "Rupert" > wrote in message
> ...
> On May 29, 3:13 am, "Fred C. Dobbs" >
> wrote:
>
>> It can't be. To talk about "better than" or "worse than" is necessarily
>> to be comparing two states of welfare, but there is only one state of
>> welfare in this putative comparison. It is abject nonsense to suggest a
>> person might rationally think he is "better off" for existing rather
>> than never existing, because the flip side is that the person would be
>> "worse off" for never existing - but there wouldn't be a person to
>> experience the "worse off" condition if the person never existed.
>>
>> This is not the same as a person who exists with a miserable welfare
>> thinking he'd prefer to die. Even then, it makes no sense for the
>> person to think he'd be "better off" if he ended his existence, because
>> again, there would be no entity to experience the better welfare. It
>> still can make sense for the person with a miserable welfare to want to
>> die, if his existence is intolerable to him.
>
>
> I fully agree with you on all these points, but the question arises
> what exactly you achieve by posting this.
>
> There will be some who already fully agree with you before you even
> made the post, and there will be some who will never be convinced no
> matter what you say.
>
> Does that not cover everyone?
> -->
>
> No, there are people who don't agree at first but see that the logic in
> your argument is sound, realize you're right, and change their minds. I
> realize this kind of critical thinking is very rare, but it is worth
> seeking out. Dare to dream.
>
>

So critical thinking consists of hearing what *you* have to say and
agreeing with you? HA HA HA HA HA HA HA. You're a ****ing moron.

Robert

= = = = = = = =

daletx wrote:

> On 5/28/2010 5:46 PM, halfawake wrote:
>
>> DT wrote:
>>
>>> Fred C. Dobbs wrote:
>>>
>>>> It can't be. To talk about "better than" or "worse than" is
>>>> necessarily to be comparing two states of welfare, but there is only
>>>> one state of welfare in this putative comparison. It is abject
>>>> nonsense to suggest a person might rationally think he is "better
>>>> off" for existing rather than never existing, because the flip side
>>>> is that the person would be "worse off" for never existing - but
>>>> there wouldn't be a person to experience the "worse off" condition if
>>>> the person never existed.
>>>>
>>>> This is not the same as a person who exists with a miserable welfare
>>>> thinking he'd prefer to die. Even then, it makes no sense for the
>>>> person to think he'd be "better off" if he ended his existence,
>>>> because again, there would be no entity to experience the better
>>>> welfare. It still can make sense for the person with a miserable
>>>> welfare to want to die, if his existence is intolerable to him.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> OK, how about this: everybody...and I mean *EVERYBODY*... admit, right
>>> here, right now, that Fred is right.
>>>
>>> Then maybe he'll shut up...
>>>
>>> DT
>>
>>
>>
>> ha ha
>>
>>
>> I wish I could stop...
>>
>> Robert
>
>
> Just say no, man. Just say no.
>
> DT
>

"halfawake" > wrote in message
...
> Dutch wrote:
>
>>
>> "Rupert" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> On May 29, 3:13 am, "Fred C. Dobbs" >
>> wrote:
>>
>>> It can't be. To talk about "better than" or "worse than" is necessarily
>>> to be comparing two states of welfare, but there is only one state of
>>> welfare in this putative comparison. It is abject nonsense to suggest a
>>> person might rationally think he is "better off" for existing rather
>>> than never existing, because the flip side is that the person would be
>>> "worse off" for never existing - but there wouldn't be a person to
>>> experience the "worse off" condition if the person never existed.
>>>
>>> This is not the same as a person who exists with a miserable welfare
>>> thinking he'd prefer to die. Even then, it makes no sense for the
>>> person to think he'd be "better off" if he ended his existence, because
>>> again, there would be no entity to experience the better welfare. It
>>> still can make sense for the person with a miserable welfare to want to
>>> die, if his existence is intolerable to him.
>>
>>
>> I fully agree with you on all these points, but the question arises
>> what exactly you achieve by posting this.
>>
>> There will be some who already fully agree with you before you even
>> made the post, and there will be some who will never be convinced no
>> matter what you say.
>>
>> Does that not cover everyone?
>> -->
>>
>> No, there are people who don't agree at first but see that the logic in
>> your argument is sound, realize you're right, and change their minds. I
>> realize this kind of critical thinking is very rare, but it is worth
>> seeking out. Dare to dream.
>>
>>
>
> So critical thinking consists of hearing what *you* have to say and
> agreeing with you? HA HA HA HA HA HA HA. You're a ****ing moron.

No, my comments apply to me too, but you haven't offered an argument to
support your point of view yet, there's not much chance of you convincing me
to change my mind until you do. So far you have asserted that you think
existence is better than non-existence and you think lots of other people
think it too. You have completely ignored sound arguments which show that it
is impossible to say that, rationally.

I could say that I am better off than I was when I lived in Siberia, but
since I never lived in Siberia my statement doesn't mean much. The same goes
for your statement.

On Sat, 29 May 2010 15:21:51 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote:

>
>"niunian" > wrote in message
.. .
>> On Sat, 29 May 2010 13:27:57 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote:
>>
>>>"niunian" > wrote
>>>
>>>> What you says sounds very good, but is it really true? To me, the best
>>>> way to play golf is to forget everything including yourself so that
>>>> there is nothing but that tiny golf ball and the next place it's going
>>>> to land. There is no "being". There is no "moment". The world ceases
>>>> to exist until the game is finished. That is what I call a blissful
>>>> experience.
>>>
>>>I think that is quite well said, and totally consistent with my previous
>>>description of the ideal golf/sports mind. One is simply part of a
>>>process,
>>>no "doing", no you, no ball, no golf course as separate entities, no
>>>duality, just a whole flowing process of which you are an integral part.
>>>It
>>>also works for life in general. Without the duality of "me vs other idiot
>>>drivers", "being" in traffic can be quite a fun, relaxing experience. A
>>>think that great musicians enter this state as well.
>>
>> Actually, I think there is a little bit difference between us. Do you
>> realize what I recommended is something that would cost you a great
>> deal of mental and physical energy? It's not something I would
>> recommend as an example of everyday living. It's only meant for doing
>> something you love. If you drive a car with that kind of mental state,
>> you put yourself in grave danger.
>
>You're right then, we are not talking about the same thing at all, I'm not
>sure what you're talking about. The common term for what I'm talking about
>is "the zone" and it is effortless, no energy is wasted "trying". Typically
>after playing a game of golf or tennis while "in the zone" a person feels
>totally invigorated. Contrary to the state you describe, being in the zone
>is a form of meditation, it conserves, focuses and generates energy, it
>doesn't expend it. Translating that to driving in traffic, a person is
>acutely aware of what is important, completely in the process of driving,
>they do not become distracted by thoughts about a place they would rather be
>or emotions like anger at the driver who cut in front or frustrated thinking
>about the appointment they're late for. So, they drive more safely. I can't
>understand why you think being a part of calm focused energy is a dangerous
>state in which to drive.
>

Perhaps that is the difference between you are me. You are describing
a supposed idealized mental state in which you imagine yourself living
like a saint who solves everything effortlessly. I don't believe in
such illusion. What I'm describing is just a practical winning state
of mind for something particular like a golf game or whatever. It will
guarantee you playing the best golf game you can ever play, but it
also requires you to invest your best effort and concentration in
order to win. I think what I'm describing is practical and realistic,
and what you are describing is just an imagination or fantasy.

"niunian" > wrote in message
...
> On Sat, 29 May 2010 15:21:51 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote:
>
>>
>>"niunian" > wrote in message
. ..
>>> On Sat, 29 May 2010 13:27:57 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote:
>>>
>>>>"niunian" > wrote
>>>>
>>>>> What you says sounds very good, but is it really true? To me, the best
>>>>> way to play golf is to forget everything including yourself so that
>>>>> there is nothing but that tiny golf ball and the next place it's going
>>>>> to land. There is no "being". There is no "moment". The world ceases
>>>>> to exist until the game is finished. That is what I call a blissful
>>>>> experience.
>>>>
>>>>I think that is quite well said, and totally consistent with my previous
>>>>description of the ideal golf/sports mind. One is simply part of a
>>>>process,
>>>>no "doing", no you, no ball, no golf course as separate entities, no
>>>>duality, just a whole flowing process of which you are an integral part.
>>>>It
>>>>also works for life in general. Without the duality of "me vs other
>>>>idiot
>>>>drivers", "being" in traffic can be quite a fun, relaxing experience. A
>>>>think that great musicians enter this state as well.
>>>
>>> Actually, I think there is a little bit difference between us. Do you
>>> realize what I recommended is something that would cost you a great
>>> deal of mental and physical energy? It's not something I would
>>> recommend as an example of everyday living. It's only meant for doing
>>> something you love. If you drive a car with that kind of mental state,
>>> you put yourself in grave danger.
>>
>>You're right then, we are not talking about the same thing at all, I'm not
>>sure what you're talking about. The common term for what I'm talking about
>>is "the zone" and it is effortless, no energy is wasted "trying".
>>Typically
>>after playing a game of golf or tennis while "in the zone" a person feels
>>totally invigorated. Contrary to the state you describe, being in the zone
>>is a form of meditation, it conserves, focuses and generates energy, it
>>doesn't expend it. Translating that to driving in traffic, a person is
>>acutely aware of what is important, completely in the process of driving,
>>they do not become distracted by thoughts about a place they would rather
>>be
>>or emotions like anger at the driver who cut in front or frustrated
>>thinking
>>about the appointment they're late for. So, they drive more safely. I
>>can't
>>understand why you think being a part of calm focused energy is a
>>dangerous
>>state in which to drive.
>>
>
> Perhaps that is the difference between you are me. You are describing
> a supposed idealized mental state in which you imagine yourself living
> like a saint who solves everything effortlessly. I don't believe in
> such illusion. What I'm describing is just a practical winning state
> of mind for something particular like a golf game or whatever. It will
> guarantee you playing the best golf game you can ever play, but it
> also requires you to invest your best effort and concentration in
> order to win. I think what I'm describing is practical and realistic,
> and what you are describing is just an imagination or fantasy.

What I am describing is practical and real. It is taught by sports
psychologists and is the basis for most spiritual practices such as Yoga,
meditation or Tai Chi. It centres around being aware/present in the moment,
the here and now, being IN the process, not in the thinking mind, distracted
worrying about the mechanics of the swing, the rough or miss-hitting or what
your score is going to be or what others are thinking about you, etc.. As
such it is a freeing experience, it the struggle of the ego/mind that drains
your energy. The same applies in the rest of life. When I have been lucky
enough to play golf or tennis or pool in this state I have always performed
at the top of my abilities and ended up feeling refreshed and clear headed.

Describe what you're talking about, so far you've been vague.

And by the way, I love "everyday living" as much as any part of life.

On Sun, 30 May 2010 00:46:21 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote:

>
>"niunian" > wrote in message
.. .
>> On Sat, 29 May 2010 15:21:51 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>"niunian" > wrote in message
...
>>>> On Sat, 29 May 2010 13:27:57 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>"niunian" > wrote
>>>>>
>>>>>> What you says sounds very good, but is it really true? To me, the best
>>>>>> way to play golf is to forget everything including yourself so that
>>>>>> there is nothing but that tiny golf ball and the next place it's going
>>>>>> to land. There is no "being". There is no "moment". The world ceases
>>>>>> to exist until the game is finished. That is what I call a blissful
>>>>>> experience.
>>>>>
>>>>>I think that is quite well said, and totally consistent with my previous
>>>>>description of the ideal golf/sports mind. One is simply part of a
>>>>>process,
>>>>>no "doing", no you, no ball, no golf course as separate entities, no
>>>>>duality, just a whole flowing process of which you are an integral part.
>>>>>It
>>>>>also works for life in general. Without the duality of "me vs other
>>>>>idiot
>>>>>drivers", "being" in traffic can be quite a fun, relaxing experience. A
>>>>>think that great musicians enter this state as well.
>>>>
>>>> Actually, I think there is a little bit difference between us. Do you
>>>> realize what I recommended is something that would cost you a great
>>>> deal of mental and physical energy? It's not something I would
>>>> recommend as an example of everyday living. It's only meant for doing
>>>> something you love. If you drive a car with that kind of mental state,
>>>> you put yourself in grave danger.
>>>
>>>You're right then, we are not talking about the same thing at all, I'm not
>>>sure what you're talking about. The common term for what I'm talking about
>>>is "the zone" and it is effortless, no energy is wasted "trying".
>>>Typically
>>>after playing a game of golf or tennis while "in the zone" a person feels
>>>totally invigorated. Contrary to the state you describe, being in the zone
>>>is a form of meditation, it conserves, focuses and generates energy, it
>>>doesn't expend it. Translating that to driving in traffic, a person is
>>>acutely aware of what is important, completely in the process of driving,
>>>they do not become distracted by thoughts about a place they would rather
>>>be
>>>or emotions like anger at the driver who cut in front or frustrated
>>>thinking
>>>about the appointment they're late for. So, they drive more safely. I
>>>can't
>>>understand why you think being a part of calm focused energy is a
>>>dangerous
>>>state in which to drive.
>>>
>>
>> Perhaps that is the difference between you are me. You are describing
>> a supposed idealized mental state in which you imagine yourself living
>> like a saint who solves everything effortlessly. I don't believe in
>> such illusion. What I'm describing is just a practical winning state
>> of mind for something particular like a golf game or whatever. It will
>> guarantee you playing the best golf game you can ever play, but it
>> also requires you to invest your best effort and concentration in
>> order to win. I think what I'm describing is practical and realistic,
>> and what you are describing is just an imagination or fantasy.
>
>What I am describing is practical and real. It is taught by sports
>psychologists and is the basis for most spiritual practices such as Yoga,
>meditation or Tai Chi. It centres around being aware/present in the moment,
>the here and now, being IN the process, not in the thinking mind, distracted
>worrying about the mechanics of the swing, the rough or miss-hitting or what
>your score is going to be or what others are thinking about you, etc.. As
>such it is a freeing experience, it the struggle of the ego/mind that drains
>your energy. The same applies in the rest of life. When I have been lucky
>enough to play golf or tennis or pool in this state I have always performed
>at the top of my abilities and ended up feeling refreshed and clear headed.
>
>Describe what you're talking about, so far you've been vague.
>
>And by the way, I love "everyday living" as much as any part of life.

I think the difference between you and me is, while you are talking
about how to "practice" Tai Chi, I'm talking about how to "fight" as a
Tai Chi master. In everyday practice, what you say sounds good enough,
but in actual combat, it's entirely another story. The problem I'm
trying to raise here is, you can't fight effortlessly in an actual
combat. In actual combat, there is no "flow", there is no "zone", and
there is no time to worry about "being". There is only the battle and
the best strategy of winning the battle. If you keep trying to get the
right "feeling" during a game, it's likely you are going to lose the
game anyway.

"niunian" > wrote

>>What I am describing is practical and real. It is taught by sports
>>psychologists and is the basis for most spiritual practices such as Yoga,
>>meditation or Tai Chi. It centres around being aware/present in the
>>moment,
>>the here and now, being IN the process, not in the thinking mind,
>>distracted
>>worrying about the mechanics of the swing, the rough or miss-hitting or
>>what
>>your score is going to be or what others are thinking about you, etc.. As
>>such it is a freeing experience, it the struggle of the ego/mind that
>>drains
>>your energy. The same applies in the rest of life. When I have been lucky
>>enough to play golf or tennis or pool in this state I have always
>>performed
>>at the top of my abilities and ended up feeling refreshed and clear
>>headed.
>>
>>Describe what you're talking about, so far you've been vague.
>>
>>And by the way, I love "everyday living" as much as any part of life.
>
> I think the difference between you and me is, while you are talking
> about how to "practice" Tai Chi, I'm talking about how to "fight" as a
> Tai Chi master.

Now you're resorting to semantics. "Practicing" as in an art or discipline
like Tai Chi, Karate, Yoga, meditation, golf, driving a car, or medicine,
means to perform that discipline.

> In everyday practice, what you say sounds good enough,
> but in actual combat, it's entirely another story. The problem I'm
> trying to raise here is, you can't fight effortlessly in an actual
> combat. In actual combat, there is no "flow", there is no "zone", and
> there is no time to worry about "being".

I am afraid you're missing the point badly. There is a flow to life's energy
and there is a zone where one is in tune with that flow and there are many
states where one is not. The zone is a well known phenomenon. And as I
already clearly stated, there is no "worry" in being, no time either.
Worrying is thinking and there is no thinking in the zone.


There is only the battle and
> the best strategy of winning the battle. If you keep trying to get the
> right "feeling" during a game, it's likely you are going to lose the
> game anyway.

There's no "trying" in the zone, there's no winning or losing, there is only
the process.

And you still have not explained what you're talking about, are you
suggesting I need to get angry to play my best golf?

This is an interesting subject but I really do not want it to degenerate
into another battle of egos, where "winning" the debate becomes more
important that the process of examining the ideas. That would be too ironic.

Dutch wrote:

>
> "Fred C. Dobbs" > wrote
>
>> On 5/29/2010 12:09 AM, Dutch wrote:
>
>
> [..]
>
>>>>> Existence is not stressful per se, *struggling* is stressful.
>>>>> Existence
>>>>> itself, or "being", is blissful.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I wouldn't say that. Existence /per se/ has no quality
>>>
>>>
>>> I don't agree, pure existence, being, is blissful by it's very nature
>>
>>
>> You're just restating your assertion.
>
>
> It's a point of view, your opinion is that "being" is by default a neutral
> state, mine is that it is blissful.
>
>> A boulder exists. Is it in a state of bliss?
>
>
> I don't know, my impression is that boulders have no experiential
> existence.
> When a human exists he is a very different organic process than that of a
> rock.
>
>>>> "Bliss" is actually a very positive term - it is a state of
>>>> contentment.
>>>
>>>
>>> Not exactly. Contentment, from something like acheiving some goal,
>>> winning a game, attaining a degree, that is contentment derived from
>>> acheivement in the outside world, bliss normally refers to a state
>>> reached through sprititual practice, yoga, meditation, deeping
>>> breathing, acceptance, freedom from attachments, etc. It is not a native
>>> Western concept.
>>
>>
>> Of *course* it's a native western concept! The word itself has ancient
>> Germanic roots that predate western contact with Eastern philosophies
>> that
>> include any of the practices you describe.
>
>
> Never heard of that, interesting, however there is a difference between the
> peace one feels through the attainment of inner balance and the
> gratification one feels through the attainment of outward goals. The two
> are
> different but not incompatible. There's no scorecard or degree to tell the
> world you are peaceful, but they are aware of it nonetheless.
>
>>
>> Every dictionary definition available defines bliss as meaning /extreme/
>> joy or satisfaction. In economics, the bliss point is the point at which
>> you have exactly the right amount of something you desire - your
>> "utility"
>> is at a maximum, and an epsilon less *or* more of the good would reduce
>> your happiness.
>
>
> Attainment of worldly desires leads to satisfaction/gratification, an ego
> boost, but that is not the same as what one derives from those practices we
> were talking about.

The way I've always heard and used bliss is as an extreme spiritual
state constituted by extreme, sometimes almost unbearable,
joy/pleasure/happiness. It is usually caused only by extreme events
such as falling in love, intense spiritual practice or psychotropic drugs.

Even in the spiritual version most teachers will say that bliss is an
energetic and turbulent state and that the seeker can often get into
trouble by clinging to it. It is not the final state on the spiritual
journey. After letting go of the high-energy bliss, one finds the true
spiritual state of deep, unperturbed peace or equanimity, which is not
blissful in the same sense, but is still a state of extreme happiness,
without the intensity. Bliss often still has an egoic self experiencing
the extreme pleasure, whereas deep peace is without a sense of separate
self.

Bliss can become a kind of spiritual masturbatory state if it is the
product of craving. One becomes totally involved in feeling good. On
the other hand, it doesn't have to be that way. One can feel good and
focus on others and transmit joy to them through the overflow and that
is a very different experience which is more likely to transmute into
the peaceful, selfless state naturally.

Robert

= = = = = = = = = =

>
>> Synonyms of bliss are beatitude, blessedness, cheer, cheerfulness,
>> felicity, gladness, happiness, joy, joyfulness; antonyms are grief,
>> misery, sorrow, unhappiness, upset.
>>
>> Existence is not bliss - not in any widely accepted meaning of the word
>> bliss. Existence is neutral, but it is a condition necessary to
>
>
> Maybe it would be more clear if I used the word "being" or "living" instead
> of existence.
>
>>
>>
>>>
>>>> The events and circumstances of existence will determine whether your
>>>> existence is miserable, blah, blissful, or some other gradation.
>>>
>>>
>>> Yeah, we're not talkin about the same thing, "bliss" is not goal
>>> oriented happiness, it's more like inner peace.
>>
>>
>> It isn't. Look in any dictionary you wish. You are giving the word a
>> meaning that 99% of English speakers who know the word do not recognize.
>
>
> Maybe "bliss" *can* be used in the other contexts, but I have heard it used
> most often to refer to a spiritual connectedness as opposed to the feeling
> one gets by hitting a long drive or winning a poker tournament.Wikipedia
> says "Bliss is a constant state of mind undisturbed by gain or loss." which
> suggests that it is not usually used to refer to the satisfaction or
> happiness derived from attaining worldy acheivements.
>
>>>>> Unfortunately we are programmed from an
>>>>> early age to believe that just being is not enough, we have to be
>>>>> "doing" something, "going" somewhere, "attaining" something, never
>>>>> content with what we have, where we are, what we are.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I think that's human nature - nothing to do with programming. "Just
>>>> being" strikes me as horrible. I constantly try to teach my son that
>>>> working to achieve something is the best thing in life. *Doing* is the
>>>> essence of human existence, and working hard to do something well is
>>>> the best possible way to spend time.
>>>
>>>
>>> Yea, you're a Western type guy. Doing useful things is good, but I do
>>> not believe that it is the essence of existence any more than hunting
>>> for prey is the essence of being a lion, or drinking in the sun is the
>>> essence of being a rose, it is the work a lion does to support itself,
>>> but the essence of a lion is seen when he sits soaking up the sun too.
>>> It is "being" a lion.
>>
>>
>> Humans are purposeful beings. We naturally aspire to more than mere
>> existence. The first primitive to fashion a wheel could have told you
>> that.
>
>
> I never suggested that we are not goal oriented beings, but there is
> another
> level to human existence/consciousness that is not directly related to the
> attainment of goals.
>
>> I don't know anyone who wants to feel overworked, but most people would
>> prefer to work fairly hard at something they enjoy doing for far longer
>> than they would want to sit around in a chair relaxing. Even most
>> people's play is purposeful, and something at which they wish to improve,
>> even if not necessarily excel.
>
>
> What I am saying is not particularly related to being in motion vs sitting
> in an easy chair, many spiritual practices are done while in motion, like
> Tai Chi.
>
>>
>>
>>>>> We are are so
>>>>> focused on the past and the future, and how we stack up against others
>>>>> it's no wonder life is stressful.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I don't think it has anything to do with stacking up against others.
>>>> It's stacking up against yourself, striving to do better today than
>>>> you did yesterday - that's what makes life worth living.
>>>
>>>
>>> There's nothing wrong with striving for improvement, I do it too, but
>>> what about when you don't improve at things, what if you get worse? It
>>> inevitably gets down to basing your self-image on out-doing others, ego.
>>
>>
>> No it doesn't. I got to be a reasonably good recreational golfer in the
>> mid 1990s, usually shooting in the mid 80s with a couple of scores in the
>> low 80s; never broke 80. It all stopped when I got married and had a
>> child, and I couldn't justify the time spent on the course or at the
>> range
>> any more. My game deteriorated a lot, but I still was better than
>> most of
>> my friends. But I virtually stopped anyway, because the deterioration of
>> my play from its previous level was too frustrating.
>
>
> Golf is a great example of an activity with a strong "spiritual" (I don't
> like to use that word because it has negative connotations) component. You
> can practice all you want but if you are not in calm state with a clear
> mind
> when you play you will not play your best. I *was* able to break 80 at my
> prime, and at those times there was no great joy at good shots or good
> scores, it was as if the rounds just happened and I was just along for the
> ride. It was as if I was able on those days to park my ego and just become
> part of the process, "being" the golfer, not Dutch trying to play golf.
> That's what I mean by "just being" instead of "doing".
>
>
>>> That's a no-win game. Real contentment, peace rather than "achievement"
>>> in life occurs on a different level, within oneself by learning to be
>>> calm, centered, to not give into to anger, jealousy and other negative
>>> emotions, and not to be riddled with useless or negative thoughts. To be
>>> peaceful is to tap into a wealth of energy and awareness that winning
>>> merit badges can't compare to.
>>
>>
>> Ha ha ha ha ha! People have to learn to /work/ to do that! It is,
>> itself, a life achievement. It is /not/ merely existing.
>
>
> I never said that a state of inner peace was not attained through work, of
> course it is. But the reward is not some scorecard at the end of the day
> with "inner peace" written on it. It is the ability to sit in a line of
> traffic with a quiet mind, feeling blissful and content while everyone
> around you is frustrated and impatient. It is the ability to let go of
> results-oriented ego-based thinking during a game of golf and
> instantaneously accept a bad shot, because doing so means that the next
> shot
> will not be affected by the last.
>
> Seeking the satisfaction derived from being a winner is part of our nature,
> but spiritual masters and sports psychologists will both tell you that
> living *being* in the moment free from the *need* to win is the real key to
> happiness and success, because none of us can win or excel all the time, as
> your golf experience showed you.
>
>

"halfawake" > wrote in message
...
> Dutch wrote:
>
>>
>> "Fred C. Dobbs" > wrote
>>
>>> On 5/29/2010 12:09 AM, Dutch wrote:
>>
>>
>> [..]
>>
>>>>>> Existence is not stressful per se, *struggling* is stressful.
>>>>>> Existence
>>>>>> itself, or "being", is blissful.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> I wouldn't say that. Existence /per se/ has no quality
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I don't agree, pure existence, being, is blissful by it's very nature
>>>
>>>
>>> You're just restating your assertion.
>>
>>
>> It's a point of view, your opinion is that "being" is by default a
>> neutral
>> state, mine is that it is blissful.
>>
>>> A boulder exists. Is it in a state of bliss?
>>
>>
>> I don't know, my impression is that boulders have no experiential
>> existence.
>> When a human exists he is a very different organic process than that of a
>> rock.
>>
>>>>> "Bliss" is actually a very positive term - it is a state of
>>>>> contentment.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Not exactly. Contentment, from something like acheiving some goal,
>>>> winning a game, attaining a degree, that is contentment derived from
>>>> acheivement in the outside world, bliss normally refers to a state
>>>> reached through sprititual practice, yoga, meditation, deeping
>>>> breathing, acceptance, freedom from attachments, etc. It is not a
>>>> native
>>>> Western concept.
>>>
>>>
>>> Of *course* it's a native western concept! The word itself has ancient
>>> Germanic roots that predate western contact with Eastern philosophies
>>> that
>>> include any of the practices you describe.
>>
>>
>> Never heard of that, interesting, however there is a difference between
>> the
>> peace one feels through the attainment of inner balance and the
>> gratification one feels through the attainment of outward goals. The two
>> are
>> different but not incompatible. There's no scorecard or degree to tell
>> the
>> world you are peaceful, but they are aware of it nonetheless.
>>
>>>
>>> Every dictionary definition available defines bliss as meaning /extreme/
>>> joy or satisfaction. In economics, the bliss point is the point at
>>> which
>>> you have exactly the right amount of something you desire - your
>>> "utility"
>>> is at a maximum, and an epsilon less *or* more of the good would reduce
>>> your happiness.
>>
>>
>> Attainment of worldly desires leads to satisfaction/gratification, an ego
>> boost, but that is not the same as what one derives from those practices
>> we
>> were talking about.
>
> The way I've always heard and used bliss is as an extreme spiritual state
> constituted by extreme, sometimes almost unbearable,
> joy/pleasure/happiness. It is usually caused only by extreme events such
> as falling in love, intense spiritual practice or psychotropic drugs.
>
> Even in the spiritual version most teachers will say that bliss is an
> energetic and turbulent state and that the seeker can often get into
> trouble by clinging to it. It is not the final state on the spiritual
> journey. After letting go of the high-energy bliss, one finds the true
> spiritual state of deep, unperturbed peace or equanimity, which is not
> blissful in the same sense, but is still a state of extreme happiness,
> without the intensity. Bliss often still has an egoic self experiencing
> the extreme pleasure, whereas deep peace is without a sense of separate
> self.
>
> Bliss can become a kind of spiritual masturbatory state if it is the
> product of craving. One becomes totally involved in feeling good. On the
> other hand, it doesn't have to be that way. One can feel good and focus
> on others and transmit joy to them through the overflow and that is a very
> different experience which is more likely to transmute into the peaceful,
> selfless state naturally.
>
> Robert
>
> = = = = = = = = = =

That's interesting Robert, I was not familiar with that definition of
"bliss", it's not a word I often use. The practical sprititual practice I
have been most involved with centers primarily around quieting of mind
chatter and living in the present moment. I don't know where that fits into
the "spiritual path" but it has more to do with internal peace than any kind
of excitement.

[..]

On Sun, 30 May 2010 12:09:47 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote:

>"niunian" > wrote
>
>>>What I am describing is practical and real. It is taught by sports
>>>psychologists and is the basis for most spiritual practices such as Yoga,
>>>meditation or Tai Chi. It centres around being aware/present in the
>>>moment,
>>>the here and now, being IN the process, not in the thinking mind,
>>>distracted
>>>worrying about the mechanics of the swing, the rough or miss-hitting or
>>>what
>>>your score is going to be or what others are thinking about you, etc.. As
>>>such it is a freeing experience, it the struggle of the ego/mind that
>>>drains
>>>your energy. The same applies in the rest of life. When I have been lucky
>>>enough to play golf or tennis or pool in this state I have always
>>>performed
>>>at the top of my abilities and ended up feeling refreshed and clear
>>>headed.
>>>
>>>Describe what you're talking about, so far you've been vague.
>>>
>>>And by the way, I love "everyday living" as much as any part of life.
>>
>> I think the difference between you and me is, while you are talking
>> about how to "practice" Tai Chi, I'm talking about how to "fight" as a
>> Tai Chi master.
>
>Now you're resorting to semantics. "Practicing" as in an art or discipline
>like Tai Chi, Karate, Yoga, meditation, golf, driving a car, or medicine,
>means to perform that discipline.

Perhaps you want to talk about art or discipline, but I'm only
interested in the practical mean to win a battle or game. I think you
over complicate the issue too much with those concepts. They are not
necessary in actual battle.

>
>> In everyday practice, what you say sounds good enough,
>> but in actual combat, it's entirely another story. The problem I'm
>> trying to raise here is, you can't fight effortlessly in an actual
>> combat. In actual combat, there is no "flow", there is no "zone", and
>> there is no time to worry about "being".
>
>I am afraid you're missing the point badly. There is a flow to life's energy
>and there is a zone where one is in tune with that flow and there are many
>states where one is not. The zone is a well known phenomenon. And as I
>already clearly stated, there is no "worry" in being, no time either.
>Worrying is thinking and there is no thinking in the zone.

These are all your beliefs. They only exist because you want them to
exist.

>
>
> There is only the battle and
>> the best strategy of winning the battle. If you keep trying to get the
>> right "feeling" during a game, it's likely you are going to lose the
>> game anyway.
>
>There's no "trying" in the zone, there's no winning or losing, there is only
>the process.
>
>And you still have not explained what you're talking about, are you
>suggesting I need to get angry to play my best golf?

I'm talking exactly what you are talking about which is how to reach
the best performance in a battle or game. The only difference is, I
don't need to tune in to the "zone", and I do need to invest great
effort and concentration in order to win. To me, without effort means
without the will power. Without will power, nothing is going to
happen.

>
>This is an interesting subject but I really do not want it to degenerate
>into another battle of egos, where "winning" the debate becomes more
>important that the process of examining the ideas. That would be too ironic.

That is never my concern. I only talk to you because I think I have my
two cents worth that you might be interested. I think if you can drop
those concepts to just concentrate, you might be able to perform even
better.

Dutch wrote:

>
> "halfawake" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>> Dutch wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> "Rupert" > wrote in message
>>> ...
>>> On May 29, 3:13 am, "Fred C. Dobbs" >
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> It can't be. To talk about "better than" or "worse than" is necessarily
>>>> to be comparing two states of welfare, but there is only one state of
>>>> welfare in this putative comparison. It is abject nonsense to suggest a
>>>> person might rationally think he is "better off" for existing rather
>>>> than never existing, because the flip side is that the person would be
>>>> "worse off" for never existing - but there wouldn't be a person to
>>>> experience the "worse off" condition if the person never existed.
>>>>
>>>> This is not the same as a person who exists with a miserable welfare
>>>> thinking he'd prefer to die. Even then, it makes no sense for the
>>>> person to think he'd be "better off" if he ended his existence, because
>>>> again, there would be no entity to experience the better welfare. It
>>>> still can make sense for the person with a miserable welfare to want to
>>>> die, if his existence is intolerable to him.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> I fully agree with you on all these points, but the question arises
>>> what exactly you achieve by posting this.
>>>
>>> There will be some who already fully agree with you before you even
>>> made the post, and there will be some who will never be convinced no
>>> matter what you say.
>>>
>>> Does that not cover everyone?
>>> -->
>>>
>>> No, there are people who don't agree at first but see that the logic
>>> in your argument is sound, realize you're right, and change their
>>> minds. I realize this kind of critical thinking is very rare, but it
>>> is worth seeking out. Dare to dream.
>>>
>>>
>>
>> So critical thinking consists of hearing what *you* have to say and
>> agreeing with you? HA HA HA HA HA HA HA. You're a ****ing moron.
>
>
> No, my comments apply to me too, but you haven't offered an argument to
> support your point of view yet, there's not much chance of you
> convincing me to change my mind until you do. So far you have asserted
> that you think existence is better than non-existence and you think lots
> of other people think it too. You have completely ignored sound
> arguments which show that it is impossible to say that, rationally.

This is sort of interesting. I never said that existence is better
than non-existence. You haven't been reading very carefully - maybe
that's why you don't understand my point of view.

> I could say that I am better off than I was when I lived in Siberia, but
> since I never lived in Siberia my statement doesn't mean much. The same
> goes for your statement.

People make judgments like that all the time, except they don't say
"when I lived" which would be a fiction, but "if I lived." And they
imagine what it might be like.

No one can "imagine" non-existence since it would be a nullity, but they
can understand that it would be the absence of all their current
experiences, and they might prefer a state of nothingness over their
existence. And one *can* desire that if they wish, despite your objection.

When people say "I wish I'd never been born," they express a desire to
have "never experienced" all that they have, including their own
experience of being a living being. One *can* wish this, even though
they cannot either perform or fully imagine it.

Robert

= = = = = = = = =

On 5/30/2010 1:27 PM, halfawake wrote:
> Dutch wrote:
>
>>
>> "halfawake" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>
>>> Dutch wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> "Rupert" > wrote in message
>>>> ...
>>>>
>>>> On May 29, 3:13 am, "Fred C. Dobbs" >
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> It can't be. To talk about "better than" or "worse than" is
>>>>> necessarily
>>>>> to be comparing two states of welfare, but there is only one state of
>>>>> welfare in this putative comparison. It is abject nonsense to
>>>>> suggest a
>>>>> person might rationally think he is "better off" for existing rather
>>>>> than never existing, because the flip side is that the person would be
>>>>> "worse off" for never existing - but there wouldn't be a person to
>>>>> experience the "worse off" condition if the person never existed.
>>>>>
>>>>> This is not the same as a person who exists with a miserable welfare
>>>>> thinking he'd prefer to die. Even then, it makes no sense for the
>>>>> person to think he'd be "better off" if he ended his existence,
>>>>> because
>>>>> again, there would be no entity to experience the better welfare. It
>>>>> still can make sense for the person with a miserable welfare to
>>>>> want to
>>>>> die, if his existence is intolerable to him.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I fully agree with you on all these points, but the question arises
>>>> what exactly you achieve by posting this.
>>>>
>>>> There will be some who already fully agree with you before you even
>>>> made the post, and there will be some who will never be convinced no
>>>> matter what you say.
>>>>
>>>> Does that not cover everyone?
>>>> -->
>>>>
>>>> No, there are people who don't agree at first but see that the logic
>>>> in your argument is sound, realize you're right, and change their
>>>> minds. I realize this kind of critical thinking is very rare, but it
>>>> is worth seeking out. Dare to dream.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> So critical thinking consists of hearing what *you* have to say and
>>> agreeing with you? HA HA HA HA HA HA HA. You're a ****ing moron.
>>
>>
>> No, my comments apply to me too, but you haven't offered an argument
>> to support your point of view yet, there's not much chance of you
>> convincing me to change my mind until you do. So far you have asserted
>> that you think existence is better than non-existence and you think
>> lots of other people think it too. You have completely ignored sound
>> arguments which show that it is impossible to say that, rationally.
>
> This is sort of interesting. I never said that existence is better than
> non-existence.

You have disputed the assertion that existence is *not* better than
never existing - not "non existence" - without ever offering a basis for
your disagreement. If you're disputing the assertion that existence is
not better than never existing, than you're pretty damned close to
asserting, implicitly, that it *is* better.


> You haven't been reading very carefully - maybe that's
> why you don't understand my point of view.

Your point of view is incoherent. You've never given a coherent reason
for your disagreement.


>
>> I could say that I am better off than I was when I lived in Siberia,
>> but since I never lived in Siberia my statement doesn't mean much. The
>> same goes for your statement.
>
> People make judgments like that all the time, except they don't say
> "when I lived" which would be a fiction, but "if I lived." And they
> imagine what it might be like.
>
> No one can "imagine" non-existence since it would be a nullity, but they
> can understand that it would be the absence of all their current
> experiences, and they might prefer a state of nothingness over their
> existence.

You must exist in order to hold that preference. Once you exist, "never
existing" is an absurdity. You can try to imagine what life would have
been like for others had you never existed, but you can't imagine
anything about "never existing" pertaining to yourself.


> And one *can* desire that if they wish, despite your objection.

One can desire no longer to exist; one cannot rationally wish never to
have existed.


> When people say "I wish I'd never been born," they express a desire to
> have "never experienced" all that they have, including their own
> experience of being a living being.

Bullshit. What they're expressing is a deep unhappiness with what is
going on in the moment, or in the very recent past.

"niunian" > wrote
> On Sun, 30 May 2010 12:09:47 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote:
>
>>"niunian" > wrote
>>
>>>>What I am describing is practical and real. It is taught by sports
>>>>psychologists and is the basis for most spiritual practices such as
>>>>Yoga,
>>>>meditation or Tai Chi. It centres around being aware/present in the
>>>>moment,
>>>>the here and now, being IN the process, not in the thinking mind,
>>>>distracted
>>>>worrying about the mechanics of the swing, the rough or miss-hitting or
>>>>what
>>>>your score is going to be or what others are thinking about you, etc..
>>>>As
>>>>such it is a freeing experience, it the struggle of the ego/mind that
>>>>drains
>>>>your energy. The same applies in the rest of life. When I have been
>>>>lucky
>>>>enough to play golf or tennis or pool in this state I have always
>>>>performed
>>>>at the top of my abilities and ended up feeling refreshed and clear
>>>>headed.
>>>>
>>>>Describe what you're talking about, so far you've been vague.
>>>>
>>>>And by the way, I love "everyday living" as much as any part of life.
>>>
>>> I think the difference between you and me is, while you are talking
>>> about how to "practice" Tai Chi, I'm talking about how to "fight" as a
>>> Tai Chi master.
>>
>>Now you're resorting to semantics. "Practicing" as in an art or discipline
>>like Tai Chi, Karate, Yoga, meditation, golf, driving a car, or medicine,
>>means to perform that discipline.
>
> Perhaps you want to talk about art or discipline, but I'm only
> interested in the practical mean to win a battle or game.

I am talking about peak performance, winning is a by-product, not part of
the process. You talk about "battle", that brings up the notion of
adrenaline, combat, aggression, how are there these compatible with golf?

I think you
> over complicate the issue too much with those concepts. They are not
> necessary in actual battle.

There are no complications, no concepts in the zone, no score, no winning or
losing, only the process. It is purely the individual totally immersed in
the process.

These words are not the zone, they are just an admittedly imperfect way of
describing it.


>>> In everyday practice, what you say sounds good enough,
>>> but in actual combat, it's entirely another story. The problem I'm
>>> trying to raise here is, you can't fight effortlessly in an actual
>>> combat. In actual combat, there is no "flow", there is no "zone", and
>>> there is no time to worry about "being".
>>
>>I am afraid you're missing the point badly. There is a flow to life's
>>energy
>>and there is a zone where one is in tune with that flow and there are many
>>states where one is not. The zone is a well known phenomenon. And as I
>>already clearly stated, there is no "worry" in being, no time either.
>>Worrying is thinking and there is no thinking in the zone.
>
> These are all your beliefs. They only exist because you want them to
> exist.

They are my beliefs for many reasons, including considerable reading and
years of personal experience. The beliefs I "want to exist" as you so glibly
put it, are those beliefs which fit my experience and that of those who know
about the subject. If you present anything substantial to add to or modify
those beliefs then I will incorporate them into those beliefs which I "want
to exist".


>
>>
>>
>> There is only the battle and
>>> the best strategy of winning the battle. If you keep trying to get the
>>> right "feeling" during a game, it's likely you are going to lose the
>>> game anyway.
>>
>>There's no "trying" in the zone, there's no winning or losing, there is
>>only
>>the process.
>>
>>And you still have not explained what you're talking about, are you
>>suggesting I need to get angry to play my best golf?
>
> I'm talking exactly what you are talking about which is how to reach
> the best performance in a battle or game. The only difference is, I
> don't need to tune in to the "zone", and I do need to invest great
> effort and concentration in order to win. To me, without effort means
> without the will power. Without will power, nothing is going to
> happen.

OK, what do you mean by that? Explain in terms of say, golf. In my golf
experience good golf is relaxed and effortless. Effort means tension means
bad golf.

>>This is an interesting subject but I really do not want it to degenerate
>>into another battle of egos, where "winning" the debate becomes more
>>important that the process of examining the ideas. That would be too
>>ironic.
>
> That is never my concern. I only talk to you because I think I have my
> two cents worth that you might be interested. I think if you can drop
> those concepts to just concentrate, you might be able to perform even
> better.

What do you mean by "concentrate"? How? On what? On the ball? Keeping your
head down? Keeping your right elbow in? Staying behind the ball?

That kind of concentration is for "practice" in the sense of getting
prepared for the game, not for the game. If you simply relax, trust, allow
yourself to become immersed quietly in the physical/mental process of the
game of golf then maximum "concentration" will ensue, without "effort" which
I read as "trying".

"halfawake" > wrote in message
...
> Dutch wrote:
>
>>
>> "halfawake" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>
>>> Dutch wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> "Rupert" > wrote in message
>>>> ...
>>>> On May 29, 3:13 am, "Fred C. Dobbs" >
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> It can't be. To talk about "better than" or "worse than" is
>>>>> necessarily
>>>>> to be comparing two states of welfare, but there is only one state of
>>>>> welfare in this putative comparison. It is abject nonsense to suggest
>>>>> a
>>>>> person might rationally think he is "better off" for existing rather
>>>>> than never existing, because the flip side is that the person would be
>>>>> "worse off" for never existing - but there wouldn't be a person to
>>>>> experience the "worse off" condition if the person never existed.
>>>>>
>>>>> This is not the same as a person who exists with a miserable welfare
>>>>> thinking he'd prefer to die. Even then, it makes no sense for the
>>>>> person to think he'd be "better off" if he ended his existence,
>>>>> because
>>>>> again, there would be no entity to experience the better welfare. It
>>>>> still can make sense for the person with a miserable welfare to want
>>>>> to
>>>>> die, if his existence is intolerable to him.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I fully agree with you on all these points, but the question arises
>>>> what exactly you achieve by posting this.
>>>>
>>>> There will be some who already fully agree with you before you even
>>>> made the post, and there will be some who will never be convinced no
>>>> matter what you say.
>>>>
>>>> Does that not cover everyone?
>>>> -->
>>>>
>>>> No, there are people who don't agree at first but see that the logic in
>>>> your argument is sound, realize you're right, and change their minds. I
>>>> realize this kind of critical thinking is very rare, but it is worth
>>>> seeking out. Dare to dream.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> So critical thinking consists of hearing what *you* have to say and
>>> agreeing with you? HA HA HA HA HA HA HA. You're a ****ing moron.
>>
>>
>> No, my comments apply to me too, but you haven't offered an argument to
>> support your point of view yet, there's not much chance of you convincing
>> me to change my mind until you do. So far you have asserted that you
>> think existence is better than non-existence and you think lots of other
>> people think it too. You have completely ignored sound arguments which
>> show that it is impossible to say that, rationally.
>
> This is sort of interesting. I never said that existence is better than
> non-existence. You haven't been reading very carefully - maybe that's why
> you don't understand my point of view.

I have said that one CANNOT say logically that existence as we know it is
better than never existing, and you have said that you disagree. I assumed
that means you disagree.

>
>> I could say that I am better off than I was when I lived in Siberia, but
>> since I never lived in Siberia my statement doesn't mean much. The same
>> goes for your statement.
>
> People make judgments like that all the time, except they don't say "when
> I lived" which would be a fiction, but "if I lived." And they imagine
> what it might be like.

That's completely different, you KNOW something about Siberia, it's a real
place, it's cold, so you have a basis to make that judgment.

> No one can "imagine" non-existence since it would be a nullity, but they
> can understand that it would be the absence of all their current
> experiences, and they might prefer a state of nothingness over their
> existence. And one *can* desire that if they wish, despite your
> objection.

That is also different, to wish you were dead, to not exist, is not stating
that non-existence is better, it is an expression of dissatisfaction with
this life, based on the circumstances of this life, just as to say that this
life is "better" than never existing is a rhetorical way of expressing that
one is happy.

> When people say "I wish I'd never been born," they express a desire to
> have "never experienced" all that they have, including their own
> experience of being a living being. One *can* wish this, even though they
> cannot either perform or fully imagine it.

Again, I would call, ""I wish I'd never been born," more a rhetorical cry of
sorrow about *this* life than anything, it says nothing about
"non-existence" per se. Maybe it's worse? You can use the term non-existence
of course, conceptually, as long as you don't make definitive qualitative
statements about it. Saying that life is better than non-existence is a
definitive qualitative statement.