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.
Why? There is no conflict.
Desire is a problem only when it results in attachment to the object. All objects are bound to change, decay, or die, vanish, lost. The desire is not the problem, the attachment is. When one is content, which is a very good thing, there is no desire, there is no want of anything. It is fullness, and only fullness comes out of fullness, not lack.
No we certainly don't that would not be very loving, would it? This is about knowledge of our self, of our own self-health. When we desire love it only means we are lacking in love, yearning for it. If we had love in our life we would not be desiring it, we would not be in want of it. And once we do get that love there is no certainty that we will always have it. On the other hand if we love our self, are gentle and kind to our self and keep self healthy, we will overflow with love, we cannot lose it. And only love grows out of love for all around.
The use of synonyms and semantic variants for our psychological states can be confusing. Desires or wants are always externalities. Our bodies operate on homeostasis (balance of function). We are motivated to act when we are out of balance (Need). Needs arise naturally from a LACK within us (as you suggest). We are complex creatures with both physical and psychological (spiritual) needs. We spend much of our lives learning how to try to satisfy the many imbalances we feel in all areas using a priority system. The most imbalanced generate the most urgency, as the need to urinate frequently can dominate our attention.
Satisfying our myriad physical and psychological needs as a priority is a constant and unending process. When we learn to associate something outside of our body with the satisfaction of one or more of our internal needs, we experience the phenomenon we call "want or desire." We "want" that need-satisfier. But it is the internal satisfaction of our need that we truly "want or desire." That is ultimately dependent upon the "learning" we have experienced or associated with the want or desire.
When we learn to associate something outside of our body with the satisfaction of one or more of our internal needs, we experience the phenomenon we call "want or desire." We "want" that need-satisfier. But it is the internal satisfaction of our need that we truly "want or desire."
I strongly disagree with this. (The fulfillment of) needs are essential to our well-being; as such, we don’t ’want’ needs. That said, dreams and desires are a normal, healthy part of life; we all have them. However, they can become destructive when one impulsively follows their desires and/or believes they need to fulfill them (at any cost) in order to be satisfied/happy.
In other words, while we can’t control the physiological aspect of desire, we do control our thoughts and behavior relative to such; else, it’s indicative of impulsivity or urges (which is another ballgame altogether).
Last edited by CorporateCowboy; 03-06-2024 at 09:17 AM..
Reason: Punctuation error
The use of synonyms and semantic variants for our psychological states can be confusing. Desires or wants are always externalities. Our bodies operate on homeostasis (balance of function). We are motivated to act when we are out of balance (Need). Needs arise naturally from a LACK within us (as you suggest). We are complex creatures with both physical and psychological (spiritual) needs. We spend much of our lives learning how to try to satisfy the many imbalances we feel in all areas using a priority system. The most imbalanced generate the most urgency, as the need to urinate frequently can dominate our attention.
Satisfying our myriad physical and psychological needs as a priority is a constant and unending process. When we learn to associate something outside of our body with the satisfaction of one or more of our internal needs, we experience the phenomenon we call "want or desire." We "want" that need-satisfier. But it is the internal satisfaction of our need that we truly "want or desire." That is ultimately dependent upon the "learning" we have experienced or associated with the want or desire.
Well stated.
Desires, and the objects that satisfy those desires, are both transient, they change, and in seeking happiness from these we are always left unsatisfied, because they are endless, there always a new thing to possess. The cure for this unstable state of imbalance, as you put it, is not in removing desire, but in the understanding that true satisfaction, the true source of joy, is within, it is our Self. Not in anything outside of us.
I take issue with a way in which Western thinkers may twist this rationale about needs, wants, desires, attachment and suffering.
It's very easy to treat it all as philosophical and a matter of enlightened navel gazing if you are not at any risk whatsoever of having any of your most essential survival needs catastrophically unmet. So a chilled out trust fund baby with a penchant for weed and bohemian notions might well sit there and think that a starving person simply is not enlightened enough to transcend the need for food. The suffering is all about the feelings of want, need, and lack! Feeding the poor will simply make them want more food, the lack will never be satisfied! Oh, how very enlightened we are, as we head to the kitchen to grab our vegan smoothies from our well stocked refrigerators.
By saying that suffering is just the natural state of the unenlightened (read: inferior) human being, a person who is looking for a way to dodge the discomfort of knowing that many if the world suffer, or any kind of "survivors guilt" that they have plenty...but...but...they must deserve it by virtue of some superiority, right???... They can simply say that those who suffer just need to "evolve" or something. That they have no duty to contribute or help their fellow beings because the problem is not the lack of necessary resources for survival, it is the need of them in the first place, and that feeding a starving person is in fact only making their problems worse somehow.
I do understand, yes, that there is a place where helping crosses into enabling. But I believe that it is some distance down the field from appropriate acts of charity and compassion.
And in fact, it's fooling oneself, perhaps, in a philosophical sense. If you would not give away everything that you have to feed a hungry stranger, then what does that say about YOUR attachments? One could suggest that fear of losing your smoothies is causing you suffering. You should really give them away. Don't like that? Consider why.
But I prefer basic sense over some endeavor to sound elevated, here... If I hunger, I am suffering, and my suffering is completely reasonable and not a flaw in my character or a sign of failure to let go of attachment to food. Same with aspects of my physical health, pain or a lack thereof, adequate clothing and shelter to be comfortable. Just because I have felt their lack and now have those things well under control, does not mean that I suffer constant fear or anxiety about losing them. But throwing them all away just to prove that point would be pretty stupid. I am content. As for all of the other stuff, the fun socks and fridge magnets and jigsaw puzzles...I enjoy my stuff, but I do not fear its loss. It's all just stuff. There is a very good chance that I will give most of it away before I die, and after I'm gone, whatever is left is going to be somebody's task to deal with. The acquisition of things with which to feather my nest brings me happiness, yet I am able to do so in balance so as not to end up broke or buried in stuff.
Any suffering that I experience from what I have (she says as she packs boxes for an interstate move, involving great effort and hassle and expense)...is a choice I have freely made. Or rather, pain may be unavoidable but suffering is a choice. I suffer no fear of losing anything. I have lost everything I had twice in my life, and I survived it then and would survive it now.
I do believe a lot in "wherever you go, there you are."
There are issues that can reside within an individual that they believe can be resolved by externalities, that often cannot. I have known many a miserable person who drives others away, then bemoans their loneliness, or feels that no matter where they live, life would be better if it were somewhere else, or that this job sucks but if they quit, the next one will be better. I have seen that kind of suffering that is rooted in denial of the intrinsic real causes.
So it's kind of a matter of "what exactly are we talking about here?" and I don't personally agree or think that the problem is ALWAYS within the person. Or that desiring, needing, or wanting something is always unreasonable or unenlightened or whatever. If your body needs food, then eating food is the solution to the problem for the time being. Yes, you will have to eat again later. The alternative is being dead. You are not more enlightened if you choose to be dead.
When it comes to unnecessary stuff, the things we like to accumulate...I've learned to find joy in little things. I will not experience more joy in buying an expensive piece of jewelry, than I will from finding a cool rock, buying a colorful pair of $5 socks, or reading a good new book. If what I am seeking is the pleasure of just...getting a new thing...I can hit that little happy button without great expense. When my actual survival needs were not secure, I felt greater suffering about every other thing that I did not have the ability to obtain. Once I secured the important stuff, in the many times I decided to delay or forego getting something I didn't need, my pain was less or absent. A lot of it was satisfied by simply knowing that I could. So the nature of the suffering was not so much a lack of the things...it was a feeling of a lack of security, choices, and freedoms. Today, if I go somewhere that sells many things I admire, I can think, "Well, I could always buy this later online if I really want it, but there's no need to right now." All inner tension about the decision is then gone. And then I often won't ever bother to get the thing, I'll forget about it, and it won't bother me.
I strongly disagree with this. (The fulfillment of) needs are essential to our well-being; as such, we don’t ’want’ needs. That said, dreams and desires are a normal, healthy part of life; we all have them. However, they can become destructive when one impulsively follows their desires and/or believes they need to fulfill them (at any cost) in order to be satisfied/happy.
In other words, while we can’t control the physiological aspect of desire, we do control our thoughts and behavior relative to such; else, it’s indicative of impulsivity or urges (which is another ballgame altogether).
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.
It is impossible to have the psychological state of "wanting or desiring" without the underlying need (homeostatic imbalance) that it addresses.
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).
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.
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.
The physiological “needs” can also become source of imbalance if the attachment to them becomes a craving.
It’s not a ‘(physiological) need’; we are aware of cravings and have the ability to control our behavior relative to such, at least those of us who are psychologically healthy. You (and Mystic) continue to confuse physiological needs/processes with maladaptive behavior.
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.
