Skip Navigation

InitialsDiceBearhttps://github.com/dicebear/dicebearhttps://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/„Initials” (https://github.com/dicebear/dicebear) by „DiceBear”, licensed under „CC0 1.0” (https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/)Y
Posts
5
Comments
94
Joined
1 yr. ago

Just a guy. Totally lost and confused, and not socially adjusted enough not to say it out loud.

Street Philosopher, Massage Therapist, Secular Exorcist, Wizard of the Second Order, Notorious Menace, Public Enemy, and a Great Friend to some.

Hobbies: Poetry, Music, Respecting Women, Cyberbullying Children, Digging Holes in the Ground, Gaming.

  • Yes, exactly, that is what I'm trying to find out here. Is it really just that? It can't be just that, because it is possible to be happy and fulfilled in a meaningless, futile pursuit. Let's remember that “one must imagine Sisyphus happy”.

  • So, do you not understand your emotions? Are they just "things that happen" to you?

    I'm not trying to be mean. And I'm sorry if I came off that way. I just want to understand.

  • Intresting. I should investigate further.

    Thank you for the contribution.

  • That is a very bleak perspective. By this logic, we can say that everything ever is meaningless.

    Life of itself is not meaningless. It exists to test, create, and replicate patterns at a faster time scale than the regular processes of the universe. Meaning is usually assigned after the fact. Or at least that's my experience.

  • I guess that makes sense. But not even the corrupt elites should suffer. We should find a more humane way for seeing them off. But that's beside the point. Thank you for the explanation.

  • Physical pain is not caused by attachment. It could be caused, for example, by electricity, or perhaps a sharp object. No attachment needed.

    And no, the physical body is not a form of attachment. It is a part of you just like the mind is. You literally cannot exist without some form of a body.

    And what about suffering due to desease? Like having a very bad fever dream. Where's the attachment there?

    Do you get my perspective?

  • That is a very vague description. I'm not asking for a definition. What does it mean to you personally? Is it simply a "state of mind". If so, is it equal to other states of mind, and if yes, in what ways?

  • The descriptor is not the essence. Do you look at an image and say that it is the thing it represents?

  • No offense, but you are like the third person to bring masochism into the discussion. What's up with that? Just because someone "can find pain enjoyable" doesn't mean that "suffering" means something else to them.

    Or am I mistaken on that?

  • You mean as a concept or as in file? I assume a concept, since there are no file attachments or links here.

    Attachment is definitely a cause of suffering, but it is not the essence of it. There can be suffering without attachment, and attachment without suffering.

  • I did not mean to look for scenarios of true suffering. That is pointless. I'm more interested in the concept itself. It's not just pain and futility. Suffering is something else, something distinct. I'm not trying to find the "true definition". I just want to know different perspectives to understand the concept better.

    I do agree that the concept is subjective to a large degree, and what I am looking for are the parts that are not subjective, the "core" of the concept. Thank you for providing your perspective.

  • So is it subjective in your view?

    And could you explain what you mean by "Some suffering I like, some suffering I don’t."? I don't exactly understand that one?

  • That seems more like futility than suffering. Futility is definitely a part of "suffering", but I do not think it is the essence. There's also the perception. If someone keeps making the same mistake and doesn't notice, they do not suffer like the person who does notice.

    But thank you for contributing your perspective.

  • Thank you for the comment. The examples I gave were purely for the purpose of roughly approximating my personal definition/understanding of "suffering". I tried to be vague, to avoid making people think of "worst ways to suffer". Seems it didn't work very well.

    You say that to you suffering is a result. But I don't fully agree with that view. Suffering is not an emotion, it's more of a state. Emotions are reactions, states are different, more complex. And self-loathing is not the essence of suffering either. Not to me personally. But it is definitely a part of it.

    Personally, I don't connect the concepts of suffering and catharsis. These actually seem like opposites. I tried to separate the concepts of suffering and pain (including mental pain), but they are too connected to do that. Although, what I can definitely say: Just physical pain or just mental pain is not "true suffering". At no point am I trying to deminish or "put down" people who say that these things make them suffer. It is just that I am looking for the central "concept" around suffering, and what it means to people.

    Thank you for your contribution to the dicussion.

  • I'm not asking the Buddha about the nature of suffering. I'm asking you, the people. What is it to you?

  • No problem. I'm a bit sensitive on getting insulted, since insults is how a certain person communicates with me. I was raised on being insulted, so finding an aggressive subtext in a normal statement isn't a problem to me :)

    And I'm like 90% sure the artifact has been identified: https://people.cs.pitt.edu/~zhangyt/research/micpro2017.pdf and https://arxiv.org/abs/2306.15577. Or if this isn't the thing, it's extremely close to the thing I remember.

    But if you're a fan of schizophrenic theories such as the famed Time Cube, I know just the place.

  • Is that an insult or just a misguided attempt to help? How is a schizophrenic theory a piece of computer hardware?

  • It was not a 3D render, it was a photo of a piece of hardware in the shape of a cube. Not cube-like, a cube with some parts sticking out. I'm like 90% sure it was mostly circuit board in deep blue. I don't think it was a PC per se, but definitely physical hardware. And the official name might not be "The Tesseract" but that's what all the articles called it.

  • That is a PC case of an enjoyable aesthetic.