Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Change has to have a cause especially if the claim is being made that "all living beings have the capacity to condition their mind."
Why? Change is the nature of the world. Bud turns to blossom, there is no cause as such. The blossom was already in the bud, and the seed was already in the flower.. Capacity to condition the mind is already inherent in the mind and it is not mere change. It is a different perspective that was absent before and now manifests.
It is impossible to have the psychological state of "wanting or desiring" without the underlying need (homeostatic imbalance) that it addresses. What you are confusing is the source of the imbalance. The physiological imbalances most directly affect our survival and we tend not to have much leeway regarding their satisfaction. However, the social-psychological needs can accumulate and also attain priority. It just takes a lot longer for their imbalance to threaten our survival. Whether the source is physiological or social-psychological, it is the imbalance that prompts the want or desire.
Quote:
Originally Posted by CorporateCowboy
I’m simply making the clear distinction between a need vs. a want or desire. We can psychologically control our (behavior relative to) desire; needs, on the other hand, are essential for our well-being/survival. Homeostatic balance is relative to the latter (and various physiological processes that, for the most part, we do not experience consciously).
You are not reading carefully enough. Wants and desires are "learned" solutions to needs (homeostatic imbalances), not some separate category. Food and drink are typically solutions to physiological needs for nutrition and hydration. But when mixed with social psychological needs we can eat when we do not physiologically need nutrition. Eating addresses other needs that have become dominant.
Quote:
Originally Posted by cb2008
The physiological “needs” can also become source of imbalance if the attachment to them becomes a craving. Food, whisky, sugar can all cause imbalance if there is no understanding of the source of craving, which is a feeling of lack. Satisfying the lack cannot come from outside. One needs to understand and realize that the Self, the internal consciousness, is the only source of joy, of health, balance.
You are correct that the "wants or desires" usually associated with physiological needs can be overridden by social psychological needs that are attached to eating or drinking. But food, whisky, and sugar are all "learned" solutions to imbalance (need). They are not causes of imbalance. They are believed to satisfy imbalance but they can be misused if there is no understanding of the real source of the craving, which is always a feeling of lack (physiological or psychological need) that has gained priority.
You are not reading carefully enough. Wants and desires are "learned" solutions to needs (homeostatic imbalances), not some separate category.
Since you’re repeating yourself, I’ll reiterate/expand on my reply. :-) My point is that we control our behavioral response to desire or want; we do not control homeostatic balance regarding needs and physiological processes. In that sense, it is a separate category. However, maladaptive behavior can be learned by way of one’s environment and/or occur relative to a malfunctioning of the limbic system. Else, desire is a normal part of a healthy life (and is key to motivation). We need shelter; however, we may desire to live in a home on the beach (sans a roommate). As such, there’s no question achievement contributes to our contentment.
That said, Buddhists speak to ‘attachment’ and believe desire causes pain and suffering; perhaps other religions do as well. In actuality, it is maladaptive behavior relative to greed, selfishness, impulsivity and insatiability that is the problem.
Why? Change is the nature of the world. Bud turns to blossom, there is no cause as such. The blossom was already in the bud, and the seed was already in the flower.. Capacity to condition the mind is already inherent in the mind and it is not mere change. It is a different perspective that was absent before and now manifests.
What you are referring to in the first part is description. That is one way to perceive the world. A rose can be red without me knowing what causes it to be red. A blossom can be in the bud without me knowing what came before the blossom. That is inherent. I can also perceive the world in cause and effect which is what you call nature. It just happens; it is inherent. In addition, I can perceive the world by identifying a problem and coming up with solutions. All of these abilities come from being human.
I don't understand the bolded so maybe that is why it feels like we are missing each other's points. Maybe when you want to discuss the description of an object or a concept, I want to discuss what causes it. That might be the disconnect.
Since you’re repeating yourself, I’ll reiterate/expand on my reply. :-) My point is that we control our behavioral response to desire or want; we do not control homeostatic balance regarding needs and physiological processes. In that sense, it is a separate category. However, maladaptive behavior can be learned by way of one’s environment and/or occur relative to a malfunctioning of the limbic system. Else, desire is a normal part of a healthy life (and is key to motivation). We need shelter; however, we may desire to live in a home on the beach (sans a roommate). As such, there’s no question achievement contributes to our contentment.
That said, Buddhists speak to ‘attachment’ and believe desire causes pain and suffering; perhaps other religions do as well. In actuality, it is maladaptive behavior relative to greed, selfishness, impulsivity and insatiability that is the problem.
Thanks for the clarification. It appears we were inadvertently talking past each other. But it is important to recognize that the desire or wanting of ANY EXTERNALITY to the body itself (object, circumstance, or whatever condition) RESULTS FROM learning and believing that it will satisfy some INTERNAL physiological OR PSYCHOLOGICAL imbalance.
The difference between the two sources results from the immediacy of the physiological imbalances concerning threatening our survival. The psychological needs can languish sans satisfaction for long periods before they attain urgency sufficient to gain priority in our motivations. It is the psychological imbalances that usually create the maladaptive behavior you reference.
It is impossible to have the psychological state of "wanting or desiring" without the underlying need (homeostatic imbalance) that it addresses.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MysticPhD
It is the psychological imbalances that usually create the maladaptive behavior you reference.
My point is the difference between need vs. desire whereas you are speaking to them interchangeably relative to (homeostatic) balance. Needs always lead us to some sort of action; such is not the case with desire, in and of itself.
My point is the difference between need vs. desire whereas you are speaking to them interchangeably relative to (homeostatic) balance. Needs always lead us to some sort of action; such is not the case with desire, in and of itself.
Needs always compel actions, but there are so many of them that we prioritize them. The physiological ones have such an immediate impact that they always have a high priority. Our social psychological needs (and they ARE needs) take much longer to attain sufficient urgency to gain priority. We can live a long time without social approval but eventually, if we NEVER have any, we will endanger our survival (substance abuse, suicide, criminality, sociopathy, psychopathy, etc.).
Needs always compel actions, but there are so many of them that we prioritize them. The physiological ones have such an immediate impact that they always have a high priority. Our social psychological needs (and they ARE needs) take much longer to attain sufficient urgency to gain priority. We can live a long time without social approval but eventually, if we NEVER have any, we will endanger our survival (substance abuse, suicide, criminality, sociopathy, psychopathy, etc.).
Need leads to want, both indicate a sense of lack.What we think we need is subjective and individual. Teenagers have no end to need. As we mature our needs change and even diminish. The discrimination required to distinguish what is a need and what is not is the key to contentment.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
