~ Where Do You Find Meaning in Your Suffering? ~

[Lacewing]

Your suffering is your inability to understand other posters here.

You must be talking about yourself.

Your related meaning to this is your verbal wish to understand me and others here even more deeply.

Maybe this made sense in your head... but it looks like nonsense in print.

So, thank you for attempting to understand & thank you for providing a GREAT example, that we all can use, in relation to this very interesting topic.

You clearly have ignored or not understood what I've posted here in regard to suffering as I see it. And you must have missed where I and others have pointed out that you project your own experience onto others. You're doing it again. Can't seem to help yourself. You're not seeing anything clearly as long as you do that.

[ken]

.





Think I can help you in two counts immensely.


Number one - YES active members don't answer you because your questions are framed in a way that may be suitable for you but are NOT honest, inquisitive questioning.

What do you mean framed in a way that may be suitable for Me?

And, how are they NOT honest, inquisitive questioning? I do not follow you here.

How could I frame them better?

In short, you come with an obvious pre-conceived answer to you open question. That's no fun.

I can promise you I come with NO pre-conceived answer. I may think I might know an answer BUT THE VERY REASON I ask questions is so that I CAN KNOW what the truth is. I do NOT like to assume anything. If you believe I do come with pre-conceived answers, then you can point some of them out for Me.

By the way I think you will find, if you look back, that actually when others ask questions they actually on most occasions answer them, themselves, and then place that pre-conceived answer into what the other will say and answer. NOW that is what I call coming with an obvious pre-conceived answer.

If you do not provide any of what you say are "obvious pre-conceived answers" by Me, which you presume I have, then I guess what you are saying here is just rubbish.

Number two - What I meant by attempted to answer my question...you again frame your answer with too many words. Too many restrictions of your thought. Makes you appear weak or too talkative.

Can you, yourself, see what are doing here? You start off like you are about to attempt to answer My question but then dribble on with some other stuff.

If you ask a person where do they find meaning in their suffering, of which I replied with: "Anyway here are my experiences; only on reflection 'i suffered', but in the moment, as a child, i never thought i was suffering. To me that was just how life was. Although, at that time, i still wished i was never born. The reason I wished this was because I never experienced being wanted. I could not nor would not have looked for meaning in anything. So, it was only on reflecting back that I could find meaning. Never feeling love was the best thing in life that could have happened to me. I now understand and know far more then I could have ever imagined without those past types of "suffering" experiences." THEN could you explain how that is "again" framing MY answer with too many words? How much shorter and simpler do you want it?

Also then you instantly say, 'Too many restrictions on My thought', what is it going to be? I use too many words or I am too restrictive on My thought?

Maybe I appear too talkative, I do not disagree with that perception at all, but what do you mean by I appear "weak"?

The reason I may be too talkative is because I ask lots of questions trying to understand the other better. For example I spent time asking you eight questions in order to better understand you, BUT I only used eight sentences to explain where I found meaning in My "suffering". So really not sure what you are trying to allude to here.

What are you implying here by "weak"? Weak in what exactly? I asked you to clarify this before in relation to you in construction work, which obviously you never did reply to. For some reason that only you know why. But if you do not explain what you mean by "weak" in reference to Me and others, then what would you like Me to assume?

* Study almost everyone else here. We make short, simple statements. Then we stand behind those statements if they are questioned.

Only on the very rarest of occasions have people here stood behind their statements WHEN I have questioned them. If I ask questions and they are NOT answered, just like you have NEVER answered besides partly answering this one, then that is certainly NOT standing behind what a person says.

You try to supersede any questioning.

My point was I very rarely get questioned.

And, just as rarely get answers to My questions. So what do you mean by "supersede"? Supersede what exactly?

You're constantly attempting to cover your ass.

Of course I cover My "ass". The whole point in saying something is being able to back it up. There is no use (half) saying something if you can not 'cover your ass', back it up.

Hope that helps... [/size]

Yes is does, in a way, but certainly NOT immensely.

By the way you still NEVER attempted to answer any other of My questions. Can you tell Me WHY NOT?

[Greta]

Wait--I was asking about your personal experience. You're saying that you've had all of those issues?

No. I thought about suicide regularly for a long time but never quite mustered a proper "attempt". No natural disasters either. The other problems apply. Live long enough and stuff will happen to you, yes?

Well, I'm in my 50s and I haven't experienced quite a few of those things.

It seems you have had an easier ride than most who have ever lived. Cause to be grateful and to enjoy it while you have it.

Do you see suffering as something that involves psychological pain or significant psychological distress?

Good question and I don't know.

The reason I ask is that you list stuff like "itching." I could see extreme, basically pathological cases of itching as causing suffering, but I sure wouldn't characterize a normal, everyday itch as suffering.[/quote]
Suffering comes in all kinds of shapes, styles and scales.

Do you really not remember ever feeling gut-wrenching suffering?

[ken]

ken, you had said, "If others are suffering, then how could you be (truly) happy?"

So I countered with, "If others are happy, then how could you be (truly) suffering?"

In other words, what I'm commenting on there is the logic of the idea that you're apparently forwarding. If the idea is that just in case others feel x, how can you not also feel x, because you possess empathy, and that disallows having (only or "truly") the "opposite" state, then that should go for any way that others feel, not just one subset of how they feel. If you'd say that it wouldn't go for any arbitrary way that others feel, why not?

Of course, there's a larger problem with that logic in that different people feel all sorts of different ways, and if some people feeling that way is sufficient via empathy for you to also feel that way a bit, then each person is going to feel a whole crapload of often incompatible ways. So it can't really be a simple matter of just in case some people feel x, then as an empathetic person, you too will also feel x to some extent, and not be "truly" the opposite of x (ignoring problems that the idea of opposition might have, by the way).

Well, so then you came back with a comment where on the happiness side, what mattered was only if EVERYONE was happy (a la "ALL"), but where on the suffering side, you made zero mention of whether EVERYONE/ALL were suffering. Just SOME people suffering was enough.

So I asked you the justification for that lack of parallelism. Which you still have not addressed.

You did say, "Obviously, if ALL others are suffering, then you would not be (truly) happy." Well, sure, one's self is part of ALL, so if ALL are suffering, then so is one's self.

Likewise, if ALL are "truly" happy, then that includes one's self. One's self is part of ALL.

But that doesn't explain why (a) "If others are suffering, then how could you be (truly) happy (even though you're not personally suffering)" follows logically, but (b) "If others are happy, then how could you be (truly) suffering (even though you're not personally happy)" does not. Why does (a) only need some, but not ALL, sufferers, but (b) needs ALL, and not just some, happy people?

I was asking questions, which were for a response.

But anyway;
(a) 'suffering' in a truer context of people dying of starvation or health related issues, which could easily be remedied by the rest of us fortunate ones, then I was questioning any person who would care to answer, How could they be truly happy if even just one child or adult was allowed to die because all they needed was some food or medication? I can not see how I could be happy if any person is truly suffering around Me, so I asked if any person could do that, and if they could, then how could they. I either become more learned or will dispute their reasoning.

(b) if ALL others were 'truly happy' in a truer context of living in a world where every person is truly happy and content being in peace and harmony with each other, then, How could one person then really start "suffering" from any thing at all. Besides the fact that there would not be much, if anything, to be "suffering" about, if everyone is living together happily then that also would imply a type of existence where a person would not feel alone enough to not share their supposed "suffering". It would, i think, also be a world where no person would allow another to "suffer".

Like you I also do not have a firm grasp on how people are using the term "suffering". This grasp, i think, needs to be looked at further and an agreement of suffering's' meaning/definition needs to be done first before I am fully able to explain what I mean, but hopefully you have a better understanding now.

[ken]

.





You sort-of delivered the fresh example I was looking for.

Your suffering is your inability to understand other posters here.

Your related meaning to this is your verbal wish to understand me and others here even more deeply.




So, thank you for attempting to understand & thank you for providing a GREAT example, that we all can use, in relation to this very interesting topic.







.

Bill I used to wonder why people spoke to you, and about you, the way they do. I now understand why.

You do not reply to a person directly so I will assume for now this was directed at lacewing, but please correct Me if I am wrong.

As far as I have seen lacewing understands others a lot more than you appear to be doing or even could do.

How is it that you can see so deeply into lacewing, from just a relatively few words that you are also somehow able to also see that lacewing is supposedly "suffering" from this "inability to understand" that I certainly do not see?

Could it a be a self-reflection?

[Bill Wiltrack]

.








We suffer moment by moment for a wide variety of reasons.


I was just pointing out to a fellow poster in a real-time framework, in a very real way, how we suffer...and how we give meaning to our suffering.












.

[ken]

.








We suffer moment by moment for a wide variety of reasons.


I was just pointing out to a fellow poster in a real-time framework, in a very real way, how we suffer...and how we give meaning to our suffering.












.

I have said it before, I hope you are NOT including Me when you say "we".

I am NOT sure of your definition of 'suffering' but I certainly do NOT suffer moment by moment and I certainly do NOT suffer in a very real way.

You can speak for yourself, and really you can speak for yourself ONLY. You certain do NOT speak for Me. So, please refrain from using the 'we' word from now on. You can speak for what you yourself think and do, but do not transfer how you think and what you do onto others here. We are all personally NOT the same.

By the way I have NOT seen anywhere where you were pointing out how "we" give meaning to our suffering.
Firstly, you have not pointed that out anywhere that I can recall. I am sure you will now point Me to where you allege that you did, if you did.
Secondly, 'you' certainly do NOT come anywhere close to being able to do point out how "we" give meaning to our suffering.

'Meaning' and 'suffering' are two extremely personal and subjective things to each person, so you yourself could not provide any thing informative here in relation to "we" or us. In fact you are not even able to give meaning to your own suffering sufficiently, let alone being close to giving it for any other person.

[Hobbes' Choice]

I am NOT sure of your definition of 'suffering' but I certainly do NOT suffer moment by moment and I certainly do NOT suffer in a very real way.

You haven't lived!!

If you've not suffered then you can't be trying hard enough to enjoy yourself.
You shall suffer - and soon enough. It shall be without meaning, and you will feel the pain regardless of any meaning you try to impose on it. So you need to get on with life - it's passing you by.

[Bill Wiltrack]

.




.....................................................Word.





.

[Terrapin Station]

I was just shooting from the hip...

"Shooting from the hip," in conventional usage, means the opposite of "reposting verbatim something I posted a day or two ago."

BTW you are allowed to actually focus-in on the specific philosophical scope of this thread...& what the hell, you could actually submit a post in relation to that.

You could directly respond to things that people type to you, but you never will.

[Terrapin Station]

Suffering comes in all kinds of shapes, styles and scales.

Which is just what I said re why the term makes little sense to me. It's used far too broadly. I have no idea how you'd actually define it, for example, and now you are avoiding doing so.

Do you really not remember ever feeling gut-wrenching suffering?

I never said that "I've never suffered." The only way that suffering makes much sense to me as a clear concept is if a necessary characteristic of it is significant pain or psychological distress. I've experienced significant pain and psychological distress. That's just not at all a regular experience for me--in other words, I don't experience that very often, and most of the people I know well--friends, family, etc.--do not seem to experience significant pain or psychological distress very often. (And when they do/if they did, I'd suggest they see a physician and/or psychiatrist. In other words, if someone is regularly suffering, there's something wrong with them, or they're perhaps living under some extreme, completely fncked-up political regime, or they're being falsely imprisoned by a psychopath or some such.)

I'm of course not saying that friends, family and I never itch or feel hungry or anything like that. But it makes zero sense to me to say that things like itching and feeling hungry amount to suffering. If suffering is to be applied so broadly, it's not at all clear how we'd even define the term, and it's certainly not the case that it necessarily has a negative connotation.

[Bill Wiltrack]

.




Most people understand suffering to be significant pain or psychological distress.


So you are actually able, to a degree, to be able to understand what we are talking about.


I realized, when I originally posted this important philosophical thread, that the essence of this topic can be quite deep.


...as they say in swimming class, some are meant to dog-paddle in the shallow end of the pool...others are born to dive deep.


...Don't push yourself too hard. Be content with your present understanding of this topic.





.

[Lacewing]

So you are actually able, to a degree, to be able to understand what we are talking about.
I realized, when I originally posted this important philosophical thread, that the essence of this topic can be quite deep.
Don't push yourself too hard. Be content with your present understanding of this topic.

You must be talking to/about yourself again... because you certainly don't know how to talk to other people.

Saying "you" and "we" does not disguise (for anyone else) that you are talking about yourself. Perhaps you're fooled and comforted by it. The way you try to present yourself as an authority is LAUGHABLE.

Your topics aren't deep and philosophically important -- they're often distorted and empty and baseless (and presented poorly), which draws people in to ask WTF? It seems to show that you are committed to pretending/believing in what strokes YOU despite the rest of reality or anyone else.

[Terrapin Station]

Most people understand suffering to be significant pain or psychological distress.

But then we get people saying that things like hunger and itching are suffering, or saying that most people suffer most of the time. The two tracks don't gel.

[Bill Wiltrack]

.




...................................................Suffering




As I stated before, don't push yourself too hard.


Don't beat yourself up.


You are a nice young lady & you are cordial. That goes a looooooong way here.


Keep-up the good work...Things will come to you in time.





.