Life is an onus. Sanction eudaimonia.

[O'nus]

Lend me your attention, I think you will enjoy this post. I have been on the board for some time now and have debated with great minds. Yet, I have not shared my beliefs. These beliefs are not dogmatic or require leaps of faith, they can be applied to anyone. Consider my line of reasoning and I hope to enlighten you on any certain level. Chaos: - A system that embraces exponential growth in relation to non-linear systems that can be measure by sensitivity. For example; weather can be profoundly changed by a simple shift in wind pattern. This is where the "butterfly effect" comes into manifestation. The application of chaos is to concentrate it on the individual and how they can affect the world. ie. you open the door for someone, they feel better, they say something nice to someone, etc. etc. Eudaimonia: - A state of happiness, integrity, and virtue. The importance of this will be elaborated. Onus: - Burden of responsibility. Importance: You were thrown into this world without a choice. You have a choice how to feel about leaving this world. You can choose to leave this world or live in it's chaotic system. The worlds chaotic system offers you the choice of being: eudaimonic, not-eudaimonic. A philosopher professor of mine once said, "This is a major ultimatum in life; you can choose to either be sad and pissed off with your life or choose to laugh at it and be happy." Thus, if you choose to continue living in the chaotic system, I suggest to sanction eudaimonia. Applications: Loved one dies: - It has now happened. Nothing you can do will bring them back. Grieve their loss but do not let it dominate your life. They would not want you to live your life in constant grievance over them. In this sense, it is actually selfish and takes away meaning of your life. - As Jet Li says: "If you're sad, then cry. But remember that, after you cry, you must still live life." Finding a loved one: - If you find that your lifes purpose is to try and find a companion, then you are really avoiding the fact that you have not found a reason to live. You are trying to find something to fill in that gap of emptiness where you are unsure as to how to live your life. Realize that your life is ultimately in your control. Sanction eudaimonia in the sense that you can choose to be happy at any given moment. Being crucified: - Even in the most difficult and enduring times you have a choice of how to feel and think. Think back to the "Life of Brian" where Brian was crucified and began singing "Look on the brightside of life *whistle*". If you are being crucified, or already are, there is nothing you can do to stop it. Thus, sing and dance while you still have a chance! The real onus in life: + Existentialism shows that there are three choices you can make in life, as shown by Sartre: - To live in-itself; this is where you attribute your lifes meaning to other things. ie. job, companion, social group, friends, community, furniture, etc. You have no self-identity and are incapable of living as an individual guided by individual providence. - To live for-others; this is where you live with the constant policing of your thoughts by how others perceive you. You are constantly worried what others think and how others feel about you. You are not living as an individual but as an essential "dream character" to other peoples lives. There is complete loss of individuality as you sacrifice it for others. - To live for-yourself (what I call "individual providence"); you are guided by no other principle but what you deem. Your emotions, feelings, thoughts, etc. are all guided by yourself. Do not mistake this for egocentricism; you still absorb all things around you, learn from your external, watch others, laugh with others, but maintain a sense of individuality. The onus in life is to decide one of two things: - To die miserable; you worked hard, you kept healthy, or you hated life, you died "for a cause" (that was not of your own providence), etc. - To die of eudaimonia; you did all the following, but because you chose to do so, you reasoned it from your own individuality that all things you do are simply a contingent of your individuality. In the words of Jet Li: "One cannot choose how ones life begins or to begin. One can choose to find the courage to take the final step to death." I hope this has been enlightening. What do you think...? ~

[Carôusoul]

This has made me very happy O'nus. Til late you have been reminding me of Socrates. Questioning.. but never offering. Check back soon; I will post a detailed deconstruction

[3mphyze]

i very much agree with your way of thinking. it really makes sense and i've been attempting to live my life as happily and 'eudaimoniously' as possible. being miserable about the things around you will only make you more miserable. in order to live a happy life, you have to realize that you must first be happy yourself. havent seen you for a while btw, exams i guess? hope theyre going well. and also, i love your jet li quotes in your opinion, should one live their life eudaimonically at all times, or is it also important to keep a balance?

[ClouD]

Something that has been on this mind a while. I understand, to a 'socially acceptable' level that everyone (generally [i'll try not make this so spiritual]) thinks in duality. Eg. This is good. That is bad. I experienced something very recently that confused me. I was angry, furious even. For no reason, i suddenly searched for the one who was angry. I found nothing there, yet the anger didn't abate. I abrubtly thought; Is this bad..? I speak of dualism... yet how is it not dualism to think that this is so terrible? I stopped avoiding the anger, and i witnessed. I expressed it. I supressed it. I let it flow, and i took it back. The onlookers, were obviously confused at my behaviour. Yet the point is, why is it bad to "feel bad"? Why is sorrow and pain made uncomfortable by our minds? How do we decide between pleasure, and pain? Instinct..? It may seem so... yet aren't we evolved to such a level to see this for what it may be? Simple choice? Is a common purpose of life to only enjoy, or perhaps to experience it all? For example. If we were to have knowledge, that we never died. That it is not possible for us to ever stop existing. Would we want to experience everything... or just enjoy what we deem good?

[O'nus]

in your opinion, should one live their life eudaimonically at all times, or is it also important to keep a balance? Of course, a balance is great. I realize that my thread may be misleading in this path. The best way to respond is to what I call Chaos Eudaimonia. Chaotic eudaimonia is the sense of living in which you delegate and choose to experience various aspects of life as dictate by your individual providence. So, this does not necessitate hedonism or egocentricism, but to choose to feel sad, cry, anger, argue, etc. becuase you want to. My prime motivation that I have utilized is to experience and personal edification. Chaos is the empowering element in that knowing if I hold the door open for someone, it will make a difference to them and to myself. It will make myself feel better as long as them. Why care about how others feel? Eudaimonic choice. I suggest to live in the path of eudaimonia as it is simply a choice of living happily or to aim towards eudaimonia (which also includes virtue and integrity). Yet the point is, why is it bad to "feel bad"? Why is sorrow and pain made uncomfortable by our minds? How do we decide between pleasure, and pain? Instinct..? It may seem so... yet aren't we evolved to such a level to see this for what it may be? Simple choice? Is a common purpose of life to only enjoy, or perhaps to experience it all? For example. If we were to have knowledge, that we never died. That it is not possible for us to ever stop existing. Would we want to experience everything... or just enjoy what we deem good? I think I replied to this as well in the above. Please correct me if otherwise. ~

[ClouD]

I felt refreshingly aware when I finished reading your post. The reply was not what I expected, and I'm intrigued.

[cuddleyperson]

Why care about how others feel? Eudaimonic choice. I suggest to live in the path of eudaimonia as it is simply a choice of living happily or to aim towards eudaimonia (which also includes virtue and integrity). but surely living a life without care for others would ruin their attempts t live happily. Ok here's a practical example: You work in a office with many people. You find a image of the prophet Muhammed being hanged and bleeding funny so you have a poster at your work space of it. Now your fellow employee, maybe even friend, is a Muslim. He is very upset by your poster and so even if he tries to led a happy life style, every time he sees your poster, he becomes upset, ruined his happiness for the day. Ok that's a religious differences but my point is, although living solely for yourself is something very appealing, how can it work in a social species? Surely your suggesting that we lose our sense of empathy for selfishness? So do we not give our friends gifts because the money could be spent on a product that would make us happy? Obviously for some making others happy, in turn makes them happy. But then doesn't that class them as always looking to others for approval, something your philosophy dis-approves of? Then there are those who do not want to be nice to others, if they had it their way they would kill a man for his wallet, they don't care about his life, his family. But obviously they cannot always do what makes them happy, we have to think about others happiness to. Your philosophy is the obvious route to happiness, but should the main rule be not to prevent others happiness? I'm not experienced with all this so sorry if my reply makes no sense..

[O'nus]

but surely living a life without care for others would ruin their attempts t live happily. Ok here's a practical example: You work in a office with many people. You find a image of the prophet Muhammed being hanged and bleeding funny so you have a poster at your work space of it. Now your fellow employee, maybe even friend, is a Muslim. He is very upset by your poster and so even if he tries to led a happy life style, every time he sees your poster, he becomes upset, ruined his happiness for the day. Ok that's a religious differences but my point is, although living solely for yourself is something very appealing, how can it work in a social species? Surely your suggesting that we lose our sense of empathy for selfishness? So do we not give our friends gifts because the money could be spent on a product that would make us happy? Obviously for some making others happy, in turn makes them happy. But then doesn't that class them as always looking to others for approval, something your philosophy dis-approves of? Then there are those who do not want to be nice to others, if they had it their way they would kill a man for his wallet, they don't care about his life, his family. But obviously they cannot always do what makes them happy, we have to think about others happiness to. Your philosophy is the obvious route to happiness, but should the main rule be not to prevent others happiness? I'm not experienced with all this so sorry if my reply makes no sense.. Erm, I think you misread my post. I am not saying to prevent others happiness but to propogate it! "Why care about how others feel? Eduaimonic choice." this means that, although we may argue about why we should care about other people, the ultimate decision is whether or not you want to care or not. Eudaimonic choice is to say; yes, you should care, just because it is simply easier to be happier and overall a better lifestyle. Does that help...? ~

[cuddleyperson]

oh right.. sorry i guess i missed that bit, then yay i like making people happy and don't care if peole don't I bought my friend a PS3 game and asked for nothing back ( i feel i owe him a more expensive gift as he doesn't have birthday parties so he has missed out on related presents)

[NonDualistic]

A philosopher professor of mine once said, "This is a major ultimatum in life; you can choose to either be sad and pissed off with your life or choose to laugh at it and be happy." Interesting, in that this is something I have been considering as of late. Dr Wayne Dyer made a quote in his recent PBS program "living the Tao" that goes like this: " There is no way to happiness, happiness is the way" Pondering this, I also see that such applies for Sorrow and Anger as well. In my view it would seem that there are really only the three basic emotional avenues, Happiness, Sorrow, and Anger. All else that is labeled emotions merely a derivitave of one of the three. One actually chooses to bring the emotion of choice, or derivitave thereof, with them into the daily circumstances of their lives. Now, this choice is not a direct choice, it is an indirect one as far as being related to emotion. Understand that emotions are not reactions to external circumstances, though it very well appears that way. Emotions are rather "indicators" much like the warning lights on the dash of your car. Lights that light up when there is an internal problem. It would seem that Sorrow, and its derivatives, is an indicator of Attachment. It would also seem that Anger, and its derivatives, is an indicator of Desire. Desire also translates to control. It would seem Happiness, and its derivatives, is an indicator of contentment with what is. I'm still considering these points, but it seems that there is more to emotions than the commonly percieved face value, that they are more of a facade alluring to something much more substantial. What do you think?

[O'nus]

I think that emotions are certainly the result of a largely profound convoluted development. However, they are also each the result of many circumstances being both internal and external. One can choose to feel happy in isolation, or sorrow. Does it matter? Of course, because it is a manifestation of how they feel internally. I think I see where you are going with this. Expressions may simply be a reflection of the interal emotions as a method to communicate and facilitate with the external. Thus, are they meaningful with no external? I feel I can choose to be happy, and would choose to be happy, if I were alone for the rest of eternity. This is making me interested to read Camus' "Myth of Sisyphus" all over again.. Have you read it..? ~

[Kromoh]

I can hardly start t odescribe my opinion over this. Well... maybe taught enlightenment. That is what this is. People have to realise that emotion is just an obsolete thing that changes our behaviour. The one you choose though, is up to you: you can have full control over it. -- This is intrinsically connected to ego loss. I've reached a point where I have to categorise my thoughts, as egoistic or egoless. That is because I'm used to having periods of ego loss during my days. I mean, the realisation that happiness is just a plain, meaningless thing that you can control, is made out of your ego. But the choice to live a happy life is egoistic (not in the bad connotation). Emotions are what they are: emotions. When you lose your ego, you can plainly see that. But when you come back to your ego, knowing that emotions are so simple, you are able to control them. -- Maybe I can develop on this, if desired.

[really]

Wow, what an enlightening topic, it's posts are great. This is intrinsically connected to ego loss. I've reached a point where I have to categorise my thoughts, as egoistic or egoless. That is because I'm used to having periods of ego loss during my days. I mean, the realisation that happiness is just a plain, meaningless thing that you can control, is made out of your ego. But the choice to live a happy life is egoistic (not in the bad connotation). Can somebody explain to me exactly what ego is? Ego-istic; -less; -tistic and -centered I don't understand completely. Is it like a hypothetical staircase, where one moves up and down it and so feels better or worse?

[NonDualistic]

I think that emotions are certainly the result of a largely profound convoluted development. However, they are also each the result of many circumstances being both internal and external. One can choose to feel happy in isolation, or sorrow. Does it matter? Of course, because it is a manifestation of how they feel internally. I think I see where you are going with this. Expressions may simply be a reflection of the interal emotions as a method to communicate and facilitate with the external. That is a better way of using words to describe, but yet there is more to what I am percieving Thus, are they meaningful with no external? I feel I can choose to be happy, and would choose to be happy, if I were alone for the rest of eternity. Yes, I believe so. But, I think one has to get way beyond the use of words and labels in thought of such to comprehend what it is I am alluring to. All the labels as applied just do not do justice to what I am percieving. So difficult to explain. I wish I could just transfer my perception directly without the use of words or language. I need to spend more time with this. This is making me interested to read Camus' "Myth of Sisyphus" all over again.. Have you read it..? ~ Have never heard of it. Tell me more....

[Kromoh]

@ really: Ego is like you. Your desires, your will, your experiences. All that is capable of changing your behaviour. All that motivates you to do things. E.g. you don't open your fridge just because you are at the kitchen - you open your fridge, find something, and eat it, because you are hungry (or addicted ). If you had no hunger, you wouldn't have opened the fridge. When you reach the state of ego loss, all things make no menaing anymore. You could walk out and buy a candy, but there simply is no reason to. You just stay there, doing nothing, because you don't find reason to do anything (you don't have desires). If you are feeling pain, you don't feel like trying to make it stop. Pain is just a feeling afterall. There is no reason to try and stop pain, or to try and be happy, nor anything. You just stay there. Back to your egoistic self, you will still remember that (e.g.) pain is just a feeling, just something with little importance (like everything else). So you are able to control your pain. But you control it because you want it to stop - this is your desire, your ego. So, the thought that pain can be controlled is made out of ego, but the choice to use that knowledge to control pain is egoistic (again, not in the bad connotation) - Guess I could make it clear.

[O'nus]

Have never heard of it. Tell me more.... The myth of sisyphus discusses the titan whom was destined to constantly push the boulder up the hill and have it constantly roll down. It was to represent the futility of the life of man. Camus said that the challenge in mans life, as an allegory to Sisyhphus' punishment, is to be able to smile and enjoy the folly of it. What do you think...? ~

[NonDualistic]

The myth of sisyphus discusses the titan whom was destined to constantly push the boulder up the hill and have it constantly roll down. It was to represent the futility of the life of man. Camus said that the challenge in mans life, as an allegory to Sisyhphus' punishment, is to be able to smile and enjoy the folly of it. I found a summary of the story online and read through it. What do you think...? ~ I think it only represents a limited view of Self. When you watch your life and its pursuits, yes this seems like a collection of repetative folly. However, when you realize that this "you" that is watching "your" life must be something other than "that life" that is being watched.... then ..Ahhhhhh....what then?

[really]

@ really: Ego is like you. Your desires, your will, your experiences. All that is capable of changing your behaviour. All that motivates you to do things. E.g. you don't open your fridge just because you are at the kitchen - you open your fridge, find something, and eat it, because you are hungry (or addicted ). If you had no hunger, you wouldn't have opened the fridge. When you reach the state of ego loss, all things make no menaing anymore. You could walk out and buy a candy, but there simply is no reason to. You just stay there, doing nothing, because you don't find reason to do anything (you don't have desires). If you are feeling pain, you don't feel like trying to make it stop. Pain is just a feeling afterall. There is no reason to try and stop pain, or to try and be happy, nor anything. You just stay there. Back to your egoistic self, you will still remember that (e.g.) pain is just a feeling, just something with little importance (like everything else). So you are able to control your pain. But you control it because you want it to stop - this is your desire, your ego. So, the thought that pain can be controlled is made out of ego, but the choice to use that knowledge to control pain is egoistic (again, not in the bad connotation) - Guess I could make it clear. Thanks a lot. But I'm not sure about this: Ego is "Your desires, your will, your experiences." - so wouldn't you simply die in ego-loss?

[Kromoh]

Well, ego-loss is not a one-way doorway you cross and never coem back. It's more liek a mindset, and it involves lots, if not tons of focus. Sometiems you just snap out of it because you are mentally tired, or sometimes something goes out of your control and you lose your concentration. But under a well-prepared setting - a place and time only for meditation - you can really spend hours in this state. And your allusion to death: yes, ego-loss is like a partial death - because your ego is you, your personality. Some things, e.g. mental capacity will not change while being under an egoless state, but those are just physiological - you, as an individual, do not exist anymore, even if temporarily. And as a final statement, I can say that there is no complete ego loss - because that would mean nothign would break your concentration and you'd die of... lack of will (perhaps hunger, but maybe even because of not breathing). There's no reason to breathe anymore, so why do it? So, yes, complete ego-loss can also mean death. But a death you do not fear - there is no reason to fear it.

[really]

I see. So is anyone trying to achieve complete ego-loss, and to death? That's hard for me to understand as of yet. Why?

[NonDualistic]

I see. So is anyone trying to achieve complete ego-loss, and to death? That's hard for me to understand as of yet. Why? There is really nothing to achieve. The process is beyond the concept of effort. True ego-lessness, and true egocentrism are just opposite ends of a total construct. "pursuing" Egolessness can be "achieved" but yet still such a pursuit indicates an ignorance of the total picture.

[really]

There is really nothing to achieve. The process is beyond the concept of effort. True ego-lessness, and true egocentrism are just opposite ends of a total construct. "pursuing" Egolessness can be "achieved" but yet still such a pursuit indicates an ignorance of the total picture. Okay, let me ask again: So is anyone trying to "be" complete ego-loss, and to death? That's hard for me to understand as of yet. Why?

[Kromoh]

Well, it is indeed hard to explain (and understand)... but once you experience it the first time, it just seems the right thing. Yo ureally understand there is no reason to do anything and nothing.

[O'nus]

Okay, let me ask again: So is anyone trying to "be" complete ego-loss, and to death? That's hard for me to understand as of yet. Why? You can have an ego and still aim at having an existance to exist for-itself. You can have an ego and still be altruistic, even. Make sense? ~

[Kromoh]

Yeah it makes a lot of. Actually, ego-loss means caring about nothing. altruism means caring about others