Political Discussion

[jaycee]

Mostly just talking to myself here:

It strange to me to accept suffering as the native human condition. It's more understandable (to me) that suffering is imposed on individual and communities by societies and their power structures. Suffering is a perspective and a belief. While that doesn't make it any less true to those who perceive it's not universal.

I also struggle with the idea of a common or regular person. While I use those terms myself to describe people or concepts the term refers to a division, which is again perceived.

I guess where my confusion lies is the accepting of perceptions or beliefs as natural when they have nothing (or very little) to do with nature and everything to do with human manifestations.

 

[Twentytwo]

 

[mdmost]

When you gaslight so much, you may end up even gaslighting yourself.

 

[nolalady]

Mostly just talking to myself here:

It strange to me to accept suffering as the native human condition. It's more understandable (to me) that suffering is imposed on individual and communities by societies and their power structures. Suffering is a perspective and a belief. While that doesn't make it any less true to those who perceive it's not universal.

I also struggle with the idea of a common or regular person. While I use those terms myself to describe people or concepts the term refers to a division, which is again perceived.

I guess where my confusion lies is the accepting of perceptions or beliefs as natural when they have nothing (or very little) to do with nature and everything to do with human manifestations.

But people often suffer due to things that happen in the natural world. If I implied that nature makes man suffer, this was not my intention. Humans suffer loss when the natural world is applied, for as much as it gives, it also can be cruel and take things and people away. Suffering like all concepts is nothing more than a human construct--as is society and their power structures.

But that being said, have you ever known of anyone that was completely free of suffering? Have you ever met that human? I have not. Regardless of how it's defined, you can ask anyone on the earth what's going wrong, and they will tell you. To say that suffering is all in our heads, still doesn't stop people from misery and malady.

 

[Dtknuckles]

Mostly just talking to myself here:

It strange to me to accept suffering as the native human condition. It's more understandable (to me) that suffering is imposed on individual and communities by societies and their power structures. Suffering is a perspective and a belief. While that doesn't make it any less true to those who perceive it's not universal.

I also struggle with the idea of a common or regular person. While I use those terms myself to describe people or concepts the term refers to a division, which is again perceived.

I guess where my confusion lies is the accepting of perceptions or beliefs as natural when they have nothing (or very little) to do with nature and everything to do with human manifestations.

Human beings have a need for stimulus (like most living organisms) and we are self aware. That paring crests suffering.

 

[jaycee]

But people often suffer due to things that happen in the natural world. If I implied that nature makes man suffer, this was not my intention. Humans suffer loss when the natural world is applied, for as much as it gives, it also can be cruel and take things and people away. Suffering like all concepts is nothing more than a human construct--as is society and their power structures.

But that being said, have you ever known of anyone that was completely free of suffering? Have you ever met that human? I have not. Regardless of how it's defined, you can ask anyone on the earth what's going wrong, and they will tell you. To say that suffering is all in our heads, still doesn't stop people from misery and malady.

Sure, but loss and cruelty are also perceptions and I'm not arguing that other animals don't feel those things. There are plenty of examples of what we call mourning in the animal kingdom.

I'm not saying suffering isn't real. I think what I find challenging is calling it natural. Nature doesn't impose suffering. Suffering is something humans (and maybe other creatures) perceive and maybe base choices on. It's no more or less of a perception than happiness.

I also think it's accurate to point out that governments or societies impose suffering, but again describing suffering as the natural course excuses (to me) that people chose to impose suffering on other humans and the natural world if you believe it suffers as well.

Isn't enlightenment, again a state of being based on belief and perception, about perceiving suffering in another way?

Human beings have a need for stimulus (like most living organisms) and we are self aware. That paring crests suffering.

Maybe on both accounts. Humans may be conditioned to need stimulus and perhaps much of the suffering we experience is because we are not fully self aware.

 

[nolalady]

Sure, but loss and cruelty are also perceptions and I'm not arguing that other animals don't feel those things. There are plenty of examples of what we call mourning in the animal kingdom.

I'm not saying suffering isn't real. I think what I find challenging is calling it natural. Nature doesn't impose suffering. Suffering is something humans (and maybe other creatures) perceive and maybe base choices on. It's no more or less of a perception than happiness.

I also think it's accurate to point out that governments or societies impose suffering, but again describing suffering as the natural course excuses (to me) that people chose to impose suffering on other humans and the natural world if you believe it suffers as well.

Isn't enlightenment, again a state of being based on belief and perception, about perceiving suffering in another way?



Maybe on both accounts. Humans may be conditioned to need stimulus and perhaps much of the suffering we experience is because we are not fully self aware.

Okay, point taken but you must agree that regardless of where the feeling comes from (be it from interactions with others or feeling the full force of the natural world), humans seem to react negatively to loss. And no human is free from loss. That if there is one thing that is universal about humans, we all tend to feel bad sometimes. To negate someone's suffering as a perception that needs changing is a hard concept for me lately, even as a student of the Buddha.

 

[jaycee]

Okay, point taken but you must agree that regardless of where the feeling comes from (be it from interactions with others or feeling the full force of the natural world), humans seem to react negatively to loss. And no human is free from loss. That if there is one thing that is universal about humans, we all tend to feel bad sometimes. To negate someone's suffering as a perception that needs changing is a hard concept for me lately, even as a student of the Buddha.

I'm not trying to negate anyone's suffering. I'm just trying to work out if it makes sense to me to use suffering as reasoning for why societal structures behave in the ways that have been observed for millenia. I'm not so sure it does.

 

[nolalady]

I'm not trying to negate anyone's suffering. I'm just trying to work out if it makes sense to me to use suffering as reasoning for why societal structures behave in the ways that have been observed for millenia. I'm not so sure it does.

Why did we form tribes? Safety and cooperation. My guess is that the tribal structure was some sort of hold over from our primate days. I think that every time we solved one problem--like how to get enough for everyone to eat--we create another problem--like someone got injured helping bring down a Mammoth and now we need to fix them. I don't see that society happened because of suffering, but instead because we were attempting to solve problems and created all new problems for ourselves. When we decided to plant plants to make food because we wanted to feed everyone, we made a fundamental shift away from a place that our brains understood and had evolved to live in, to a world where we could feed vast numbers of people via land manipulation and farming. We wanted to keep our crops and people safe, so we created towns and eventually cities. Safety and food are huge motivators, and I would argue it's a combo of both that helps define why societal structures behave the way they do.

My point is that we, as humans, often suffer because we are trying to put a square peg into a round hole. We often don't understand our biology, which leads us to think that we are defective, when it's our environment that's defective for us.

 

[RenegadeMonster]

On twitter this morning I saw a tweet of a McDonalds arch with a now hiring message on their sign below it. It listed $15 an hour.

They guy who took the picture was absolutely dumbfounded that people get paid $15 an hour today to flip burgers. He said back when he flipped burgers he was paid $3.25 an hour.

They pay so good to flip burgers in fact he picked up a job application for his 20 something year old college graduate of a son who is unemployed / lost his job due to covid and is tempted to fill it out for him.


It's sad when we have people who think $15 an hour is such great pay. Because that means it will be even harder to get living wages is older generations just compare to what they made back in the day and think it's great pay. I'm sure much is the same for many of our policy makers. Some even think $15 an hour is paying them too much.

 

[jaycee]

when it's our environment that's defective for us.

I think this is part of my thinking. Our environment is only defective for us because we make it so.

Resource scarcity is also a perception that drives competition, cooperation, and suffering. Resource sustainability is something that's understood. In the past, it wasn't. So why are we continuing to promote and perceive resource limitation when we have the knowledge to live in ways that maintain resources for the present and the future? Why are we continuing to impose the suffering associated with that? Is it because we naturally suffer or is it because of something else?

 

[Indymisanthrope]

Say more about this?

I feel like this is one of those statements that potentially reveals the basis for opposing worldviews.

(BTW this wasn't bait or anything, I don't even have a response, I just wanted to hear more)

 

[Chucktshoes]

(BTW this wasn't bait or anything, I don't even have a response, I just wanted to hear more)

I didn’t take it as bait.

 

[jaycee]

I'm in a public meeting where I just heard someone on a policy making board member refer to Europe as a country.
This is depressing.
At least he didn't say Africa I guess

 

[Dtknuckles]

On twitter this morning I saw a tweet of a McDonalds arch with a now hiring message on their sign below it. It listed $15 an hour.

They guy who took the picture was absolutely dumbfounded that people get paid $15 an hour today to flip burgers. He said back when he flipped burgers he was paid $3.25 an hour.

They pay so good to flip burgers in fact he picked up a job application for his 20 something year old college graduate of a son who is unemployed / lost his job due to covid and is tempted to fill it out for him.


It's sad when we have people who think $15 an hour is such great pay. Because that means it will be even harder to get living wages is older generations just compare to what they made back in the day and think it's great pay. I'm sure much is the same for many of our policy makers. Some even think $15 an hour is paying them too much.

I made 70$ a night working from 4PM-2am busing tables at a jazz club all through HS. It was the best job I could have had. I wonder what the wage would have been if it kept up with inflation.

 

[Joe Mac]

I'm in a public meeting where I just heard someone on a policy making board member refer to Europe as a country.
This is depressing.
At least he didn't say Africa I guess

To be fair if a good chunk of the EU gets it way it will be, which is a very depressing thought.

 

[Chucktshoes]

To be fair if a good chunk of the EU gets it way it will be, which is a very depressing thought.

I’m kind of surprised to hear you say that. It sounds dangerously close to a pro Brexit line of thinking.

 

[Joe Mac]

I’m kind of surprised to hear you say that. It sounds dangerously close to a pro Brexit line of thinking.

I am hugely sceptical of elements that want to create a federal Europe, of the democratic deficit and elements of the administration of the euro zone but I am fully on board with the idea of the European project, trading relations and the fact that we haven’t had a world war in Europe of late!

 

[nolalady]

I think this is part of my thinking. Our environment is only defective for us because we make it so.

Resource scarcity is also a perception that drives competition, cooperation, and suffering. Resource sustainability is something that's understood. In the past, it wasn't. So why are we continuing to promote and perceive resource limitation when we have the knowledge to live in ways that maintain resources for the present and the future? Why are we continuing to impose the suffering associated with that? Is it because we naturally suffer or is it because of something else?

Of course, it is because of something else. Our natural state is not one of suffering. It's self imposed, but we often have a hard time seeing that. As to why we continue on a course that only causes more suffering? I think it has a lot to do with us not wanting to be uncomfortable; again this is more akin to duhkha, which is why I pointed out the difference in the beginning--we humans aren't great with things being uncomfortable--and I think it drives us just as much as running away from "suffering" (which I think is all just on a spectrum of misery which we humans, again, create for ourselves). So I would say that the western definition of suffering is much too extreme if we want to talk about how it compels action. Instead, it's more this uncomfortableness, this annoyance, this boredom that we would have to stop doing something, or start doing something, that keeps us in the same ruts we are in.

I made 70$ a night working from 4PM-2am busing tables at a jazz club all through HS. It was the best job I could have had. I wonder what the wage would have been if it kept up with inflation.

Think of what you could have been paid had the wage had kept up with inflation through the 80's and into the 90's?

 

[Chucktshoes]

I am hugely sceptical of elements that want to create a federal Europe, of the democratic deficit and elements of the administration of the euro zone but I am fully on board with the idea of the European project, trading relations and the fact that we haven’t had a world war in Europe of late!

I’m just busting your balls. The opening was just too reason, I couldn’t resist.

That said, I’m glad you are skeptical and cautious of letting Germany win World War II 80 years on.