Thread: Define happy for me.

Define happy for you.

Boring.

hey oleander, your mood will always effect others, just like any thing can effect anything, an example of this is the "butterfly effect". you breathing can change everything and effect others in the slightest way but even the samest thing change the course of the future, so being in a mood would lead you to certain things that would change somebody else, if could be happy and you made somebody laugh or in a shit mood and punch somebody in the face.

happyness fundamentaly revolves around how you relate to your enviroment, the enviroment can also change how you view things. instead of defineing happyness a more important question would be,
"can happyness slow down my veiwing/experience of reality and time?",
"is it important being happy?",
"In a happy mood are we wasteing time and not being productive?, or is it a blanket pulled over our eyes in a drugged state?"
questions like these.

Originally Posted by really

Define happy for you.

After six pages of trying to explain happy and define happy, maybe is all just a distraction from being happy?

Happy to me would be if I woke up one day and didn't care what being happy was.

Originally Posted by Howie

After six pages of trying to explain happy and define happy, maybe is all just a distraction from being happy?

Happy to me would be if I woke up one day and didn't care what being happy was.

Clever man.

Originally Posted by ClouD

Why not, venerable sir?

Why do you deliberately try to start arguments? To spew forth an abundance of anecdotes?

"The mirror can be quite frightening"

etc. etc.

~

Be Happy, O'nus.

~

Originally Posted by really

Be Happy, O'nus.

~

I don't know why, but I liked this post, lol. Whether it was being smart-alikey or not, it's the perfect response. Well done.

~

Originally Posted by O'nus

Why do you deliberately try to start arguments? To spew forth an abundance of anecdotes?

"The mirror can be quite frightening"

etc. etc.

~

The only person I can fight is myself, O'nus.

What mirror and what context?
If I see a monster, it can be frightening.
I do not think I use metaphors as much as I think I did once. I am not sure.

Not the same thing, are they?

Call O'nus, we need a semantics eggspurt.

Playfully.

Why not, venerable sir?

Sincerely.

I am unsure of what an anecdote is. I think it means a sort of witty statement.

I don't know. I am sorry that you seemed offended, I don't remember if I had intentions and if so, what they were.

i would say "TRUE" happiness is "EVER" "LASTING" happiness, this is a tough guestion cause everyone can look upon this word differently, i feel when learning words we first have the feeling then attatch the word to that feeling, therefore for every person the word happiness may have been attatched to a different feeling, major or minor in difference, i guess true happiness would be without a trace of worry or doubt, were worry our doubt can not be known, therefore where self can not be known, therefore i suppose past all delusion to the point of perfect completion, whatever that is, because whatever worry or doubt is left, happiness is temporary, so everlasting is without, i guess it would be neither happy nor not happy in truth, where there is no longing or searching, the moment one searches for happiness, one does not have it. i think this would be the enlightenment we are all seeking, or at least anyone who is with worry and still seeks. jolly jolly, molly polly, frolly on the carpet king, is a swig or two away from the narpial catalack sweet makers oglog!

Originally Posted by ClouD

The only person I can fight is myself, O'nus.

What mirror and what context?
If I see a monster, it can be frightening.
I do not think I use metaphors as much as I think I did once. I am not sure.

Honestly, if you read each individual sentence here independently, they hold absolutely no value to anyone except for yourself.

I am unsure of what an anecdote is. I think it means a sort of witty statement.

It is also synonymous to proverbial arguments.

For example:
- The grass is greener on the other side of the tracks.

This is anecdotal and proverbial. It has no actualy reasoning or truth to it, it's just catchy and, for some reason, that makes it all the more truthful to people.

Consider the relevant proverb, if the grass is always greener on the other side, then what about the people on the other side? Your grass is then greener. If it is reaching to the idea that we are always thinking positively about what others have, then the saying is actually saying nothing at all.

The point is that there is obviously meaning and intent in the anecdotes, but, for some reason (perhaps laziness..?), the person does not share or talk about the other thoughts or there are none.

I don't know. I am sorry that you seemed offended, I don't remember if I had intentions and if so, what they were.

The point I am trying to make to you is that your anecdotal arguing and subjective arguments, although may be true in the profound meaning, only hold reletive sentemental value to yourself. Furthermore, they will most likely only make sense to yourself. I think you will agree with this and I will continue on to saying, then why do you speak of these personal things like biblical truth if you know you are the only one that can understand it? It's like talking gibberish or about an imaginary friend.

Even if your concepts are true and the "level of consciousness" is real, the point is that only each subjective individual can find it at their own pace and in their own way so stop trying to pontificate the nonsense and let people grow on their own.

It's the equivalent to saying, "I'M TRANSCENDED AND YOU'RE NOT!" or "You're so immature". It doesn't really saying anything, it's actually more so of an ad hominem than anything.

What do you think...?
~

Define happy for me.

Happy is mild to intense pleasure in the brain.

Otherwise, I can't.

Happiness is being dead.

Spoiler for Sentitive material:

ALMOST HAPPY

are you happy? or trying to find it? just do what you love everyone is differant for me I've im not bored im happy

Originally Posted by O'nus

Honestly, if you read each individual sentence here independently, they hold absolutely no value to anyone except for yourself.

What do you think...?
~

"If I read each individual sentence here independently, at the moment they seem to hold no value to me."


You could also ask for "in other words" or read the sentances differently, if you wish to interpret them differently.

Originally Posted by really

"If I read each individual sentence here independently, at the moment they seem to hold no value to me."


You could also ask for "in other words" or read the sentances differently, if you wish to interpret them differently.

What the hell..? Of course I can! That's the point! They are so vague and nonspecific that there are so many ways to interpret them. So, if the author is trying to convey some point, then why use such language?

Furthermore, I am inclined to believe that the group of you hold that "labels" and "categories" cannot encapsulate subjective points, so there is no way to discuss the matter in the first place.

Yet again forcing me to ask - then why do you keep bringing it up? Which is my point from the beginning about the practicality of this philosophy when discussing with others.

Let others transcend and self-develop on their own pace because pontificating your transcendence will only come off pretentious if not arrogant. For example, "You wouldn't understand what I am talking about... but you would if you took a look in the mirror at the shadows beneath the surface." etc. etc.

~

Originally Posted by O'nus

What the hell..? Of course I can! That's the point! They are so vague and nonspecific that there are so many ways to interpret them. So, if the author is trying to convey some point, then why use such language?

Different intentions, purposes, paradigms etc. My point is that you can have multiple perspectives not because things seem vague, but because they're open to interpretation, as anything. There may seem to be lack of ground when someone is referring to subjective matters that have no tangible substance, but that is where research and awareness of the given context, comes in.

Originally Posted by O'nus

Let others transcend and self-develop on their own pace because pontificating your transcendence will only come off pretentious if not arrogant. For example, "You wouldn't understand what I am talking about... but you would if you took a look in the mirror at the shadows beneath the surface."

I don't think that's a real example, and you should be aware that you are not the only person who interprets things in the world. I don't let such matters bother me, since I cannot judge who and what is useful and when.

Happiness to me is living, yes life has its ups and downs but if your a giving caring person you recieve it back off others in your time of troubles!

DONT WORRY BE HAPPY !!! X X

Originally Posted by really

Different intentions, purposes, paradigms etc. My point is that you can have multiple perspectives not because things seem vague, but because they're open to interpretation, as anything. There may seem to be lack of ground when someone is referring to subjective matters that have no tangible substance, but that is where research and awareness of the given context, comes in.

If I say "You're a human" you can interpret many things from that. This is true of all statements that I can feel about it anyway I like.

This isn't the point though. The point is that you are trying to convey an argument and doing so via vague terinology.

This is like trying to talk about Hume's idea of the self and saying things like, "Cognizant streams are embedded into the concrete at instances that are later reflected upon by pedestrians that have distant relations to the concrete workers". Or let's say I am trying to argue with you about my view on the philosophy of time and all I say is, "Time is but a thought". It is vague, nonspecific, and does not really say anything about my own reasonin. It's just anecdotal and incomplete. It offers nothing to the other person.

And this is where you say you cannot offer anything to the other person because it is subjective.

Thus, there is no reason for you speak with in the beginning then because you are vaguely arguing about a "universal truth" that cannot be known.

I don't think that's a real example, and you should be aware that you are not the only person who interprets things in the world. I don't let such matters bother me, since I cannot judge who and what is useful and when.

And this is your problem. If you are trying to have discussions with other people and you don't care to judge what is useful in conveying your ideals and subjective thoughts to others, then don't even try to begin with to have a discussion. This is because the point of communicating is to convey your subjective thoughts to the other person in hopes of mutual development. Instead, you're just spewing forth your own reletive conjecture that only you can understand and apparently don't care if the other person understands or comprehends at all what you are talking about.

Even if there is no value in anything in the world, there is still practicality in language and the little value that we have can propel some self-development. Value that instead of dwelling in a Cartesian circle for the rest of your life because you'll just find yourself lonely yet considering yourself "transcended" and in touch with the "universal truth".

~

When I posed the question - Define Happy for me, It was not with the intention of getting one direct answer. I can’t see there being one. No right or wrong answers as it is so subjective, as you demonstrated O’nus. I suppose Define was a bad choice of a word to use.
I should have been clearer from the onset with what I had hoped to gain. Although I think if anyone takes the time to look over much of the content of this thread I think it would be evident. Maybe not.

Viewing all these subjective ideas of happiness has proven to be very insightful in context to how the inner self is driven, inspired, maybe even eluded?

Originally Posted by O'nus

If I say "You're a human" you can interpret many things from that. This is true of all statements that I can feel about it anyway I like.

This isn't the point though. The point is that you are trying to convey an argument and doing so via vague terinology.

This is like trying to talk about Hume's idea of the self and saying things like, "Cognizant streams are embedded into the concrete at instances that are later reflected upon by pedestrians that have distant relations to the concrete workers". Or let's say I am trying to argue with you about my view on the philosophy of time and all I say is, "Time is but a thought". It is vague, nonspecific, and does not really say anything about my own reasonin. It's just anecdotal and incomplete. It offers nothing to the other person.

And this is where you say you cannot offer anything to the other person because it is subjective.

I understand what you mean, but it really depends on what you are trying to express. We all express differently, and sometimes words are not enough. See how this is explored in "Live to Die, Die to Live":

http://www.dreamviews.com/community/...ad.php?t=57744

Originally Posted by O'nus

Thus, there is no reason for you speak with in the beginning then because you are vaguely arguing about a "universal truth" that cannot be known.

The point is that it can be known, but it seems irrational to most that this true knowledge cannot be aquired or accurately written as typically. Perhaps then, it is nothing like the knowledge we think we know.

Originally Posted by O'nus

And this is your problem. If you are trying to have discussions with other people and you don't care to judge what is useful in conveying your ideals and subjective thoughts to others, then don't even try to begin with to have a discussion. This is because the point of communicating is to convey your subjective thoughts to the other person in hopes of mutual development. Instead, you're just spewing forth your own reletive conjecture that only you can understand and apparently don't care if the other person understands or comprehends at all what you are talking about.

I don't think you understand what I meant. My point is that I cannot please everybody. When I post, I try to be as clear as possible, but I have no concern as what people do with my information. Whether they ignore it, think it's bullshit or contemplate it, I may never know. You keep generalizing by saying only we understand what we are saying, but that is like anything. It is also an exxageration, especially when you state that basically nobody else can understand, when that is just an assumption.

Originally Posted by really

The point is that it can be known, but it seems irrational to most that this true knowledge cannot be aquired or accurately written as typically. Perhaps then, it is nothing like the knowledge we think we know.

Now I know you are not reading anything I am saying because I do not think langauge nor any symbol can properly represent what it is referring to as per the logic postulated by Wittgenstein in his Tractatus and the reasoning we have been using thus far on symbolic mis-representation.

So please do not make the pretentious insinuation that I don't know what knowledge is.

I don't think you understand what I meant. My point is that I cannot please everybody. When I post, I try to be as clear as possible, but I have no concern as what people do with my information. Whether they ignore it, think it's bullshit or contemplate it, I may never know. You keep generalizing by saying only we understand what we are saying, but that is like anything. It is also an exxageration, especially when you state that basically nobody else can understand, when that is just an assumption.

I am not the one saying that we can only understand what we are saying, I am saying that we are speaking of subjective terms and self-development and how you cannot preach it nor teach it especially by just simply saying that you have had it happen to you. Just stating that you have had transcendence does not help anyone else. Furthermore, making anecdotal arguements has no value to anyone besides yourself (although you have at least been avoiding these now..).

~

Originally Posted by O'nus

Now I know you are not reading anything I am saying because I do not think langauge nor any symbol can properly represent what it is referring to as per the logic postulated by Wittgenstein in his Tractatus and the reasoning we have been using thus far on symbolic mis-representation.

So please do not make the pretentious insinuation that I don't know what knowledge is.

This kind of knowledge? "Now I know you are not reading anything I am saying"

I don't know what you know, and how should I know this...

Everything you say and do is a beautiful work of art, don't get me wrong.

Originally Posted by O'nus

I am not the one saying that we can only understand what we are saying, I am saying that we are speaking of subjective terms and self-development and how you cannot preach it nor teach it especially by just simply saying that you have had it happen to you. Just stating that you have had transcendence does not help anyone else. Furthermore, making anecdotal arguements has no value to anyone besides yourself (although you have at least been avoiding these now..).

I'm pretty sure I've mentioned a lot more than simply my personal experiences, even if they are controversial and seem out-of-place. I cannot please everybody.