Thread: A philosophy of suffering?

I was just reading Heidegger's essay "What are Poets For?" in a collection called "Poetry, Language, thought" and stumbled into something interesting.

His argument as I understand it is:
That human beings have unique access to inner space, which is a realm of the dimensions of consciousness beyond the time and space we know, almost something like a "dreamspace"(my term). Humans have unique access to this inner space because they are conduits through which the universe understands and becomes cognizant of itself and its own existence. Human beings can risk in a way that no other being can and can also use their access to inner space to create worlds which may or may not bear any relation to the outer world.

Humanity's task is to translate its experience of the outer world into this inner world, thus bringing the material plane into conscious understanding.

From the book:
"...Our task is to impress this preliminary, transient earth upon ourselves with so much suffering and so passionately that it's nature rises up 'invisibly' within us. We are the bees of the invisible."

I think suffering in H's system has little to do with feeling bad or moping around. It is definitely not a suffering that others would notice. H definitely would not care for anyone who reveled in their sufferings or complained about them. It is more about remaining existentially open even when it is uncomfortable.

But the radical idea here is that suffering, in its most general sense, is given a philosophical meaning and foundation. Consciousness needs to learn from the experimental, material plane. Humanity was the great risk that consciousness put forth to absorb the material plane. And consciousness would almost seem ruthless from a human perspective in its quest for understanding. So while pain and suffering seem like incredibly unnecessary things at an individual level, they are sometimes the only means our higher consciousness has of experiencing and learning from nature.

H believes that suffering is a positive because it creates a certain kind of energy, a heightened awareness of what is going on around me and within me. For H morality consists of what makes me more aware. Suffering can create a superior emotional state. (Perhaps this is why some of the most wise people have suffered the most?)

Also H notes that trying to stiffle suffering through technology has led to much of the evils of modern society. (The road to hell is paved with good intentions, so to speak.) This relates to Buddhism in some ways, although the Buddha taught the there was a way to escape suffering, he did not believe it came through outward technical progress, so I would think Buddha and H are on the same page.

H does not say that technology is bad, but only that the idea that technology can solve our inner problems is bad:
"What threatens man in his very nature is the willed view that man, by the peaceful release, transformation, storage, and channeling of the energies of the physical nature, could render the human condition, man's being, tolerable for everybody and happy in all respects."

The idea that we can solve everybody's problems is to H a threat to humanity's very existence. One of the consequences for H is that if humanity shelters itself too much from real, tactile experience of the outer world, it's inner being begins to drive it towards actions that could even be called stupid or self-destructive, because the inner being wants these existential impressions at any cost. (Perhaps an explanation for war?)

So anyhow, what do you think? Was H full of it or was he on to something? Does suffering serve a purpose in the grand cosmic scheme of things? My thoughts are mostly in parenthesis so most of the rest is H's philosophy not mine.

Sorry I won't be here for the next week to read responses. I am leaving for Spring break as I am a teacher, but I will check in eventually.