Hi again, all...

While this essay is a little like the last one I posted a week or so ago, called "Passion and Soulfulness," (I had actually titled that thread "A simple essay on loving your life," or something like that) it has a different perspective, as well as additional interesting insights -- so I thought it well worth putting up. Enjoy.

Reflections on Happiness by Nathaniel Branden, Ph.D (NathanielBranden@compuserve.com) Copyright ) 1993, 1996, Nathaniel Branden, All Rights Reserved

The following thoughts, originally posted to an electronic mailing list, are now part of the introduction to Dr. Branden's recent book, Taking Responsibility: Self-Reliance and the Accountable Life.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

During the past three years, I have found myself thinking a good deal about the subject of happiness, and about the idea of not merely desiring happiness but making it a conscious purpose. This was an idea that first hit me as I approached my sixty-first birthday, and I would like to share some of the important things I've learned. My most important teacher in this area has been my wife of fifteen years, Devers, who is the most consistently happy human being I have ever known. What I identified about how she achieves this is part of the story I wish to tell.

There is a tendency for most people to explain feelings of happiness or unhappiness in terms of the external events of their lives. They explain happiness by pointing to the positives; they explain unhappiness by pointing to the negatives. The implication is that events determine whether or not they are happy. I have always suspected that our own attitudes have far more to do with how happy we are than any external circumstances. Today, research supports this view.

Take a person who is basically disposed to be happy, meaning that he is happy a significantly greater amount of the time than he is unhappy, and let some misfortune befall him  the loss of a job, or a marriage, or being hit by some physical disability  and for some period of time he will suffer. But check with him a few weeks or months or a year later (depending on the severity of the problem) and he will be happy again.

In contrast, take a person who is basically disposed to be unhappy, who is unhappy a significantly greater amount of the time than he is happy, and let something wonderful happen to him  getting a promotion, inheriting a lot of money, falling in love  and for a while he will be happy. But check with him a little later down the line and very likely he will be unhappy again.

Research also tells us that the best predictors of a person's disposition to be happy are (1) self-esteem and (2) the belief that we ourselves, rather than external forces, are the most significant shapers of our destiny.

I have always thought of myself as essentially a happy person and have managed to be happy under some fairly difficult circumstances. However, I have known periods of struggle and suffering, as we all have, and at times I felt there was some error I was making and that not all of the pain was necessary.

I began to think more about Devers' psychology. When I met her I thought that I had never met anyone for whom joy was a more natural state. Yet her life had not been easy. Widowed at twenty-four, she was left to raise two small children with very little money and no one to help her. When we met, she had been single for almost sixteen years, had achieved success in a number of jobs, and never spoke of past struggles with any hint of self-pity. I saw her hit by disappointing experiences from time to time, saw her sad or muted for a few hours (rarely longer than a day), then saw her bounce back to her natural state of joy without any evidence of denial or repression. Her happiness was real  and larger than any adversity.

When I would ask her about her resilience, she would say, "I'm committed to being happy." And she added, "That takes self-discipline." She almost never went to sleep at night without taking time to review everything good in her life; those were typically her last thoughts of the day. I thought that this was important.

Then I thought of something I had noticed about myself. And that was, as I sometimes joked, that with every decade my childhood kept getting happier. If you asked me at twenty or at sixty to describe my early years, the report would not have been different about the key facts, but the emphasis would have been different. At twenty, the negatives in my childhood were foreground in my mind the the positives were background; at sixty, the reverse was true. As I grew older, my perspective and sense of what was important about those early years changed.

The more I studied and thought about other happy people I encountered, the more clear it became that happy people process their experiences so that, as quickly as possible, positives are held in the foreground of consciousness and negatives are consigned to the background. This is essential to understanding them.

But then I was stopped by this thought: None of these ideas are entirely new to me; at some level they are familiar; why have I not implemented them better throughout my life? Once asked, I knew the answer: Somehow long ago, I had decided that if I did not spend a significant amount of time focused on the negatives in my life, the disappointments and setbacks, I was being evasive, irresponsible toward reality, not serious enough about my life. Expressing this thought in words for the first time, I saw how absurd it was. It would be reasonable only if there were corrective actions I could be taking that I was avoiding taking. But if I was taking every action possible, then a further focus on negatives had no merit whatsoever.

If something is wrong, the question to ask is: Is there an action I can take to improve or correct the situation? If there is, take it. If there isn't, I do my best not to torment myself about what is beyond my control. Admittedly this last is not always easy.

The past two-and-half years of my life have been the most consistently happy I have ever known, even though it has been a time of considerable external stress. I find that I deal with problems more quickly than in the past and I recover more quickly from disappointments.

I can summarize the key idea here as follows: Begin each day with two questions: What's good in my life?  and What needs to be done? The first question keeps us focused on the positives. The second reminds us that our life and well-being are our own responsibility.

The world has rarely treated happiness as a state worthy of serious respect. And yet, if we see someone who, in spite of life's adversities, is happy a good deal of the time, we should recognize that we are looking at a spiritual achievement  and one worth aspiring to.

-- eve (eve_rebekah@yahoo.com), May 22, 2000

Answers

God grant me the serenity To accept the things I cannot change The courage to change the things I can And the Wisdom to know the difference.

Amen!

-- FutureShock (gray@matter.think), May 22, 2000.

Good one, Eve. As a pollyanna, I can SURELY relate.

-- Anita (Anita_S3@hotmail.com), May 22, 2000.

Amen, FS.

My contentment is inexorably tied to my constant use of introspection. How often do I turn inward to inspect my reactions, my motivations, my general state of mind? Every waking minute of the day. This practice makes for a very simple life because little is left hanging from moment to moment. I make decisions where practical & move on. And by all means I do not live in the past. Nor do I hang on to prior decisions, never allowing regret more than a brief reign of terror.

Does this regimen sound mechanical? In a way it is. The framework, the outline is quite mechanical. The inward process is not.

Emotional procrastination was a dear old friend, so often implemented that small incidents would fester & a sense of proportion could not be maintained. Id create a petri dish of emotion where negativity had the upper hand. Id look into the petri dish with my microscope every so often & what would I see? Negativity run amok.

Ingrained habits can be broken, new habits formed. Old dogs can learn new tricks. All thats required is DESIRE.

Last point & then Ill shut-up: Are we taught the how-to of happiness? The basics of looking within? Taught that the taking of our souls temperature every day is the cornerstone of building a sound individual?

Smile from the Heart!

-- Bingo1 (howe9@shentel.net), May 22, 2000.

As my friend Forrest says "happy is as happy does".

-- Lars (lars@indy.net), May 22, 2000.

As my friend Forrest says, "happy is as happy does". I work at it. I force myself to smile when I don't feel good; to laugh; to think the best thoughts. It doesn't guarantee happiness but it helps; it puts me in the right mindset. I believe a habit of happiness can be developed. Likewise, I avoid those who have habits of unhappiness.

-- Lars (lars@indy.net), May 22, 2000.

"I avoid those who have habits of unhappiness."

Excellent point Lars. Cut loose anyone who may serve to weigh you down. Habitual offenders only, of course.

-- Bingo1 (howe9@shentel.net), May 22, 2000.

A hypothetical question which I have often posed to people...

If you could experience continuous, absolute & ultimate happiness by doing nothing more than sitting in a chair and staring at a wall for the rest of your life, would you choose to do so? (note: in this hypothetical your physical health/lifespan would not be affected.)

I have received a wide variety of answers to this question. Anybody want to take a shot at answering?

-- CD (costavike@hotmail.com), May 22, 2000.

If I was guaranteed not to reincarnate - unequivically yes!

If the happiness only got me through to the end of this lifetime - keep it!

-- Bingo1 (howe9@shentel.net), May 22, 2000.

Now that's an interesting response, Bingo. I've never had the reincarnation slant brought into an answer before.

-- CD (costavike@hotmail.com), May 22, 2000.

I'll expound if you would like.

It is an interesting question.

-- Bingo1 (howe9@shentel.net), May 22, 2000.

Bingo:

If you haven't started a response yet, I'd like to see a new thread devoted to reincarnation philosophies. This might be a good way to start.

-- Anita (Anita_S3@hotmail.com), May 22, 2000.

Anita, if there was enough interest in the subject of reincarnation I would do so. I am hesitant because we have had a rash of non Judeo- Christian threads lately & I wouldnt want to put our Christians friends off any more than we have already.

Eastern philosophy can pose a real threat to those who take the Bible as the Word. As to why this is, I have no idea.

Ill take your request under consideration. Thanks for the nudge. Karma/Reincarnation is a fascinating theory and one dear to my heart.

-- Bingo1 (howe9@shentel.net), May 22, 2000.

CD,
I find your question a bit of a paradox. It seems to hypothesize a state where one could be totally isolated and yet not feel lonely, as though a part of one's humanity were surrendered upon entry. If that's the proposition, then I respectfully decline.

-- David L (bumpkin@dnet.net), May 22, 2000.

Bingo- I "think" I have an idea where you are going with that thought (re: reincarnation as it relates to your answer to my question), but yes, I (and apparently Anita) would find it quite interesting should you decide to elaborate on your comment. Might you be suggesting that IF reincarnation - THEN living out this life under the proposed hypothesis would adversely effect your next life?

-- CD (costavike@hotmail.com), May 22, 2000.

I see what you are saying, David. However, under this scenerio, in spite of potentially "surrendering a part of one's humanity", you would still be able to maintain a continuous state of total happiness. Considering that bottom line fact, would you then accept the proposition?

-- CD (costavike@hotmail.com), May 22, 2000.

CD, I would still decline, so as to remain with the current "reality."

-- David L (bumpkin@dnet.net), May 22, 2000.

CD: "Might you be suggesting that IF reincarnation - THEN living out this life under the proposed hypothesis would adversely effect your next life?"

My ONLY motivation for sticking around this earth is to evolve spiritually. Burn up bad karma, maybe accumulate a few merit badges (good karma) in order that one day I will die & not have to return to do it all over again.

Would I choose complete happiness for one lifetime if it had no effect on my karma balance sheet? NO. A resounding no. It would, in essence just be marking time, albeit happily. No thank you.

-- Bingo1 (howe9@shentel.net), May 23, 2000.

Hi all, and thanks, 'Nita.

CD, I'd go along with David on this one. Of course, I could say "yes," but it would be completely meaningless, because it has nothing to do with the human condition -- or at least mine, anyway. So, I see your question as invalid, and in essence no different from, "If you could achieve the ultimate happiness by becoming a bacterium, would you do so?"

See what I mean?

-- eve (eve_rebekah@yahoo.com), May 23, 2000.

No, because happiness is more than just feeling happy. It is doing and making and creating happiness that makes it a such a possitive thing.

Then there are different degree's of happiness and different forms and intensity of happiness. It it were always there without any living and doing it would be nothing but the same with nothing to compare it to, nothing to judge it next to. It would be impossible to appreciate the happiness with no external stimuli. It would not be a complete happiness if you just sat there, you would be missing out on physical happiness, social happiness, creative happiness, unnumbered different forms and degrees of happiness. Basically it would be hollow if all of the senses were not involved. Kinda like 2001's orgasmatron, you get the desired possitive result, but it would be hollow.

Nope, not me.

-- Cherri (sams@brigadoon.com), May 23, 2000.

Cherri, I couldn't disagree more. Jump over to the Reincarnation Thread for a thorough explanation as to why I take umbrage at your remarks.

[I've always wanted to use that word - umbrage. Excellent, another desire fulfilled!]

BTW, I don't really take umbrage at your post, Cherri.

-- Bingo1 (howe9@shentel.net), May 23, 2000.

Cherri, excellent points.

Bingo 1,

Hi -- may I be so bold as to take umbrage at your umbrage? Hey -- that did feel kinda good. And you know -- maybe that's the key -- whatever else we do, if we just find something to take umbrage at once in a while -- it'll complete our happiness! (grin halfway between Mona Lisa and Cheshire cat, but ever so slightly more towards the cat)

Seriously, though -- I'd look at the reincarnation thread as you suggested, but, to the extent it has to do with Cherri's post, is there a way you could post your answer or the main point of it on this thread? If you do, I'd be................(how else can I say this?)...............(oh well, here goes, anyway)....most happy.

-- eve (eve_rebekah@yahoo.com), May 23, 2000.

Only for you eve. :^)

Cherri wrote: "It would be impossible to appreciate the happiness with no external stimuli."

In my experience is there is no happiness, (may I substitute the word bliss for happiness?), there is no bliss to compare with that which can be glimpsed in deep meditation  the absence of external stimuli. Ive alos experienced bliss, the falling down drunken bliss, while walking around. I dont mean alcohol or other drug-induced, I mean full blown tears streaming, love overflowing, dont talk to me cause Ill just babble, bliss. Blissed out.

Im not saying Cherri is wrong. Please dont take umbrage Cherri! Bliss is a subjective experience, isnt it? Cherri & I are just two very different experiencers of life.

BTW eve, I didnt address this issue on the reincarnation thread. Dont know why I even linked it! Thanks for asking though.

-- Bingo1 (howe9@shentel.net), May 23, 2000.

I believe the Orgasmatron was in the Woody Allen movie, "Sleeper."

-- David L (bumpkin@dnet.net), May 23, 2000.

Would taking umbrage at umbrage, be "meta-umbrage?"

-- David L (bumpkin@dnet.net), May 23, 2000.

David, Eve, Cherri- I've always taken umbrage (G) to remarks made by those who would decline the offer to opt for "continuous, absolute & ultimate happiness". To decline this has never made sense to me (except perhaps Bingo's rationale). The arguments, although often elegantly written/spoken, have never been quite convincing enough to pursuade me the author has completely thought this though.

I often find that people tend to either "over-analyze" this simple scenerio, or they fail to consider that it is only a hypothetical in which this offer of happiness *IS* possible.

David wrote:I would still decline, so as to remain with the current "reality." If the "current reality" offered you the option of complete happiness through sitting in a chair staring at a wall, would you accept that option? (G)

Eve wrote- I could say "yes," but it would be completely meaningless, because it has nothing to do with the human condition. I'd disagree, Eve. It's meaningless only in the sense that this is an impossible hypothetical, but happiness has everything to do with the human condition. As to your comment that this question is invalid... I would also have to disagree. I suggest that your interpretation of the question is invalid. For purposes of this question, a state of "happiness" *would* exist in the same manner as it does for you now under your current understanding of the word.

Cherri wrote: No, because happiness is more than just feeling happy. It is doing and making and creating happiness that makes it a such a possitive thing. Never the less, "happiness" is the end result, correct? I suggest that "doing, making and creating" are simply positive steps towards gaining this happiness. This *end result* is what the hypothetical is offering. Then there are different degree's of happiness and different forms and intensity of happiness. If it were always there without any living and doing it would be nothing but the same with nothing to compare it to, nothing to judge it next to... My silly question is worded to cover all bases, Cherri. (I wrote: "continuous, absolute & ultimate happiness".) Remember, this is only a hypothetical in which continuous, absolute and ultimate happiness *IS* available.

Just having fun here folks. Not meaning to argue with you. Interestingly about 50% of the people decline the offer. Your reasoning has been of a higher calibur than most and I appreciate your responses. (You wouldn't believe some of the answers I get. [rolling eyes]) Much of the enjoyment I get by asking people this question is the insight I gain towards understanding how they "think". It can be very enlightening at times.

Anyway, thanks for playing. Wish I had a home version of the game I could give you as a parting gift. Drive careful...

-- CD (costavike@hotmail.com), May 23, 2000.

CD, I have a question for you, then. Do you see your question as any different from asking me to imagine my ultimate happiness as a bacterium, or, say, not just looking at a wall, but beating my head against it? If you do see it as different, please explain why.

-- eve (eve_rebekah@yahoo.com), May 23, 2000.

CD:

I kindof addressed this just now in the reincarnation thread. I would decline as well, because I'm not interested in the goal of bliss [in any of its forms], but in the process of getting to that goal. How does one even know it's bliss if there's nothing with which to compare? Is it truly bliss if one can't analyze the extent of blissfulness because one is under the influence of the bliss? One would have to "step out" of the bliss to SEE the bliss.

-- Anita (Anita_S3@hotmail.com), May 23, 2000.

Eve- I'm afraid I'm not clear on what you are asking. Let me take a shot at answering and if it's not what you were getting at, let me know.

Do you see your question as any different from asking me to imagine my ultimate happiness as a bacterium... I see it as different in the sense that I am asking you to imagine your ultimate happiness as you envision it *now* and which, if accepted, would be maintained with all the quality and depth you currently experience as a human being.

or, say, not just looking at a wall, but beating my head against it? The premise of the question basically boils down to this: Would you be willing to give up doing all other activities in exchange for having complete happiness?

-- CD (costavike@hotmail.com), May 23, 2000.

CD,
I will try to explain why I would decline, using my approach to competition as an analogy. When I'm playing tennis against an equally tough opponent, with both of us at our best and the outcome in doubt practically until the final point is played, I experience a kind of joy that would not be diminished in the least by my losing the match. Conversely, when I'm playing poorly, the relative lack of satisfaction I feel is not alleviated by winning, as that would only emphasize that I'd have been in trouble against someone who was any good.

When I've taken up a new form of competition (i.e., new for me), it has taken years before I've reached a level where I could experience the kind of joy I described above. If I were to be offered a magic potion to allow me to reach that level of performance in days rather than years, I'd turn it down because the sense of accomplishment from having persevered, would be missing.

Getting back to your proposition for happiness, I guess I look at happiness as involving a journey more than being a state. But the aspect of the proposition that I find parodoxical, is that by merely accepting it, I presumably would become unaware that the joy of perseverence was lacking.

-- David L (bumpkin@dnet.net), May 23, 2000.

Anita- Your comments are similar to Cherri's. I always find it interesting to whittle these comments down to the point where the person I'm debating has one of those "slap themselves in the forehead" moments. I don't always succeed but let me take a shot at it...

I'm not interested in the goal of bliss [in any of its forms], but in the process of getting to that goal. Fair enough. So let me ask you... Which makes you happiest, the process of getting to "bliss" or bliss itself? If it is the "process", then perhaps the emotion you feel during that time would be the ultimate happiness for you. If the emotion you feel when you experience bliss makes you happier, then that would be the ultimate happiness for you. Would you not agree that there is an emotional state in which you believe you are most happy? Well,*THIS* is what is being offered to those who would accept the hypothetical scenerio.

How does one even know it's bliss if there's nothing with which to compare? Is it truly bliss if one can't analyze the extent of blissfulness because one is under the influence of the bliss? One would have to "step out" of the bliss to SEE the bliss. Once again, this is a hypothetical in which total happiness (or bliss) *IS* a reality at all times. No strings attached, no analysis needed, no comparisons necessary. You *would* exist in a constant state of happiness regardless of how impossible we know this would be in real life. (Remember, this is a hypothetical scenerio.)

Understanding this, would you now reconsider declining the offer?

-- CD (costavike@hotmail.com), May 23, 2000.

Anita- Your comments are similar to Cherri's. I always find it interesting to whittle these comments down to the point where the person I'm debating has one of those "slap themselves in the forehead" moments. I don't always succeed but let me take a shot at it...

I'm not interested in the goal of bliss [in any of its forms], but in the process of getting to that goal. Fair enough. So let me ask you... Which makes you happiest, the process of getting to "bliss" or bliss itself? If it is the "process", then perhaps the emotion you feel during that time would be the ultimate happiness for you. If the emotion you feel when you experience bliss makes you happier, then that would be the ultimate happiness for you. Would you not agree that there is an emotional state in which you believe you are most happy? Well,*THIS* is what is being offered to those who would accept the hypothetical scenerio.

How does one even know it's bliss if there's nothing with which to compare? Is it truly bliss if one can't analyze the extent of blissfulness because one is under the influence of the bliss? One would have to "step out" of the bliss to SEE the bliss. Once again, this is a hypothetical in which total happiness (or bliss) *IS* a reality at all times. No strings attached, no analysis needed, no comparisons necessary. You *would* exist in a constant state of happiness regardless of how impossible we know this would be in real life. (Remember, this is a hypothetical scenerio.)

Understanding this, would you now reconsider declining the offer? If not, why not?

-- CD (costavike@hotmail.com), May 23, 2000.

(Sorry for that double post.)

Very well put David. (In fact, everyone who has posted to this question has raised very valid points. Points which, by the way, I TOTALLY agree with.) I think you really hit the nail on the head when you mentioned the paradox. You wrote: I presumably would become unaware that the joy of perseverence was lacking. Actually, being aware or unaware would be a moot point. It would not matter in the least because you would be experiencing "continuous, absolute & ultimate happiness".

-- CD (costavike@hotmail.com), May 23, 2000.

CD:

"Which makes you happiest, the process of getting to "bliss" or bliss itself?"

Your scenario is starting to make less sense to me. Perhaps this is because I enjoy the "game", or the "anticipation" of bliss arrival as much as I enjoy the bliss. At the risk of taking your example into the "blush" area, which TO YOU provides more enjoyment...foreplay or orgasm? One enjoys the foreplay because there's anticipation of the orgasm. Once enjoys the orgasm much more, but once in the orgasmic state, there's no opportunity for more anticipation. In the same way, if bliss is defined as the anticipatory state, bliss would necessarily NOT be defined as the orgasmic state, in which case the anticipatory state alone would have no reinforcement of upcoming bliss. In other words, "All bliss and no foreplay make Jill a dull girl."

-- Anita (Anita_S3@hotmail.com), May 23, 2000.

Ok Anita, I would like to have one more opportunity to make my point, but first I need something from you. Please give me your understanding of the word "Happiness".

(BTW, have you posed this question to your SO or kids yet? I'd be curious as to what their answers might have been.)

-- CD (costavike@hotmail.com), May 23, 2000.

Hi CD,

Bear with me now, ok?

My happiness currently consists of learning about, doing and achieving the things that I love and value, and being with and enjoying the people I love and value. These are the only ways that I can possibly imagine happiness. You are asking me to assume that Im happy without any of those things. Therefore, youre asking me to assume a contradiction, which Im unable to do.

I think the basis for the contradiction is that youre assuming a mind-body dichotomy, if you will. Happiness, to me, requires an integration of mind and body (e.g., see the prior paragraph), and youre trying to artificially separate the two, by automatically assigning "happiness" to a mind, while ignoring the role of the body and mind in achieving that happiness. This is why I think your question is invalid.

If this isn't clear to you, let me know and I'll try to elaborate.

-- eve (eve_rebekah@yahoo.com), May 23, 2000.

IMHO,

"Happiness" cannot be recognized or appreciated fully without the inclusion of pain,as there would be nothing to gauge against it.There are different levels of pain and happiness,as we hope for less pain and hope for more happiness.

Pain is a necassary evil,without it we would not have a barometer for our happiness,nor would we be able to distinguish the degrees of either without the degrees of the other.

The analogy that comes to mind is:"Is it better to have loved and lost than to have never loved at all?"

-- capnfun (capnfun1@excite.com), May 23, 2000.

CD:

Isn't it sort of a trick question then? (Not that I mind! But the question isn't quite what it appears to be.)

Now, I did find this thought-provoking. It made me ponder what "happiness" actually MEANS to me - as does Eve's topic. Good one. Happiness always has a context. Whatever your context is, is what defines happiness for you, or for that moment. Anita, Cherri, David, and others talk about some variation on the theme of happiness being part of a process, and capnfun adds pain into the context (which I agree with).

Basically I am saying "There is no happiness outside of a context," and you are replying, "Well, just suppose for a minute that there were..." ("Being aware or unaware would be a moot point. It would not matter in the least because you would be experiencing "continuous, absolute & ultimate happiness")

But, when you strip away context (as the question, as framed, does), then the question becomes sort of, ahhh... what's the word, redundant? It's sort of like asking, "Would you like to be in that state which you would most like to be in?" or the reverse, "Do you dislike things that you don't like?" I have to answer "Yes", and likewise to your question I would answer "Yes" but I haven't had to provide any information or meaning.....only demonstrated that I understand the definitions of words.

(Clear as mud?)

-- Debbie (dbspence@usa.net), May 23, 2000.

My happiness currently consists of learning about, doing and achieving the things that I love and value, and being with and enjoying the people I love and value. These are the only ways that I can possibly imagine happiness. You are asking me to assume that Im happy without any of those things. Therefore, youre asking me to assume a contradiction, which Im unable to do.

I think the basis for the contradiction is that youre assuming a mind-body dichotomy, if you will. Happiness, to me, requires an integration of mind and body (e.g., see the prior paragraph), and youre trying to artificially separate the two, by automatically assigning "happiness" to a mind, while ignoring the role of the body and mind in achieving that happiness. This is why I think your question is invalid.

Eve- Ahhhh! Now I see what you were saying.

Am I asking you to assume a contradiction? Yes, I am definitely guilty as charged. And yes, in that sense, my question is indeed "invalid". I'd have to say however, that by it's very nature, this question requires a certain "suspension of disbelief" in order to be answered.

As to your comment on your inability to imagine happiness if you were required to mentally seperate mind and body... Rather than imagining what *process* is involved in achieving happiness, focus instead on the actual emotion itself. You certainly know what happiness "feels" like. (Wouldn't you agree that is true?) It is that "feeling" which I am asking you to bring to the question. My question to you now is: Considering the fact that you would no longer require any outside stimuli to obtain that *feeling*, would you now reconsider how you would answer the question?

(I'm probably boring the crap outta a lot of people who may be reading this. Sorry if I am, but I've always found this question quite interesting. If nothing else, it's definitely a conversation piece ;)

-- CD (costavike@hotmail.com), May 23, 2000.

Debbie- Is this a trick question? Absolutely not, but it definitely comes across as one due to it's utter simplicity. The question is indeed extremely simple. And yes, there can be only one simple answer. You mention that when the context is stripped away it becomes "redundant". Yes, it does, but keep in mind that all of these layers of context are placed there by those who would decline the hypothetical offer. It is in the listening to their arguments that makes the question interesting. It is in this listening that you can gain insight into how that person "thinks". To justify an answer that declines this offer requires some very well thought out replies to the questions I throw at 'em. As I've said before, everyone who has responded to this has impressed me with the skill they've shown in thinking things through and supporting their arguments. It's really not a trick or pointless question as far as I'm concerned.

I invite everyone to ask this exact same question to a friend or family member. You might find it interesting to see how they respond.

-- CD (costavike@hotmail.com), May 23, 2000.

Mornin', CD,

You asked me to assume and accept what you recognize as a contradiction for the sake of argument. But I can no more accept this particular one than assume and accept that 2+2=5 for the sake of argument. For the exact same reason, my mind is utterly unable to envision the impossible scenario you propose.

You then ask me to focus on the emotion itself, rather than the process, indicating that all I need do is apply what happiness feels like to your scenario. In other words, you ask me to imagine that I will no longer need the only things that make me happy for my happiness. But that's precisely the contradiction in terms -- the "imagine that 2+2=5" analogy.

True happiness requires a whole human being as its source; that whole person's mind as well as body has created and allowed his/her happiness to come into existence. And that happiness would fade if it couldn't be continually nourished by further thought and action (i.e., mind/body integration) -- in practice.

The mind/body conflict goes all the way back to Plato's "Timaeus" and if you're interested I can describe a little history as to how this error in thinking made its way into artificial conflicts -- breaches between consciousness and reality -- in every branch of philosophy. Examples are: the moral versus the practical, reason versus emotion, fact versus value, theory versus practice, etc. Yes, these things are different concepts, yet far more related than many might presume. But this would be pretty time consuming and get us off topic. My point here is that by the very act of posing such a question seriously, you're committing this error.

This is why I stand by my position that your question is invalid.

-- eve (eve_rebekah@yahoo.com), May 24, 2000.

Hi Bingo 1,

I almost forgot -- thank you for agreeing to post your thoughts and experiences on this, as I'd requested of you.

-- eve (eve_rebekah@yahoo.com), May 24, 2000.

You are quite welcome, eve. It was my pleasure.

The subjectiveness of happiness/bliss is fascinating , isn't it?

CD, you're blowin' minds with that question! I think the ladies are spankin' you pretty good, though. Sharp individuals they be. I'm honored to be in their cyber-presence - pranams to each of you.

Namaste,

-- Bingo1 (howe9@shentel.net), May 24, 2000.

CD, Just a quick tie-in for you: Debbie's argument for the importance of not removing the context is simply another way of saying what I said -- which is that true happiness is an integrated mind and body experience; the context IS mind AND body.

-- eve (eve_rebekah@yahoo.com), May 24, 2000.

Mornin' Eve,

'Twould appear we've reached a stalemate here. In your view I'm asking you to accept something which cannot be accepted, and in my view you are failing to suspend your disbelief as requested/required for the sake of argument.

I truly enjoyed bantering back and forth with you though. As I've said before, regardless how you feel about the question, it definitely is a conversation piece. I'd like to commend you on your arguments. It's apparent that the topic is of great interest to you and your references to the mind/body conflict, Plato's "Timaeus", and the examples you gave prove you are well versed in the subject. (I do hope you realize however, that my little exercise was never intended to be taken too seriously.) By the way, your initial post on this thread was very interesting. I am copying it for a friend who I'm sure would find it very enlightening and, hopefully, useful to her. Thanks for posting it.

CD, you're blowin' minds with that question! I think the ladies are spankin' you pretty good, though. -Bingo1

LOL Bingo! I guess that should be my clue to bow outta this debate :)

Thanks to all who have responded. It was fun.

-- CD (costavike@hotmail.com), May 24, 2000.

And thank you too, CD. I thoroughly enjoyed it -- all the way through. My answers didn't come to me automatically; I really had to think.

Just to reemphasize and clarify one thing, though: I wasn't unwilling to suspend my disbelief; I was UNABLE to do so.

Thanks again, CD, for this very interesting little excursion. And you're very welcome, regarding the essay I posted above.

To y'all,

Thanks for your fascinating contributions to CD's question. But I don't want to end this thread and subject -- so feel free to carry on...

-- eve (eve_rebekah@yahoo.com), May 24, 2000.

Eve:

I was kindof hoping the CD thought WOULD end, since he asked me for my definition of happiness. I thought about that definition ever since he asked, and it's STILL not something I can put into a concise definition. Happiness, IMO, is a variable rather than a constant. It's the antonym of sadness, which is ANOTHER variable. Each is a moving target, as in "I thought I was happy UNTIL, or I thought I was sad UNTIL..." The concept of an ULTIMATE happiness is similar, IMO, to the concept of a maximum number. If one's highest experience on the scale of happiness is a 5, how could anyone even conceive of a 6? Yet a 6 is oftentimes reached despite one's highest previous experience. This is thought to be supreme happiness until one experiences a 7.

-- Anita (Anita_S3@hotmail.com), May 24, 2000.

Anita,

I see "happiness" as I do "joy," but as more fundamental and enduring. While "joy" is a type of pleasure that we get from some relatively specific kind of achievement or positive experience, "happiness" is more of an enduring state of consciousness that proceeds from the continual achievement and experience of the things that we value in general. The degrees of happiness that you seem to have difficulty with are very real. Happiness exists along a continuum. But this does not conflict with the definition, because the definition would exclude the degrees -- measurements, if you will -- of happiness, yet retain the essence -- just as the definition of "table" never considers the measurements of all possible specific, actual tables, yet retains the essence of what is a table.

This was written quickly, as I'm kind of in a hurry right now, but I hope it helps. Let me know if you'd like an elaboration.

-- eve (eve_rebekah@yahoo.com), May 24, 2000.

CD - not pointless at all. I think we ALL know that happiness isn't an end in itself , "it's not the destination, it's the journey" so your question presents an immediate challenge to the brain (a brain-twister). (How many people answered your question, "Hey sure, why not?" :-) ) - probably not too many but it would be interesting to know.

Anita, I agree. Happiness is dynamic because of growth. By contrasts and changes we become able to experience it more, or of different quality. I have often wondered if one were happy ALL the time whether one would get jaded and not notice they were happy? It's kind of a theoretical question because that rarely occurs in real life. David said something like this. What more likely happens is that "divine discontent" creeps in - that which propels us to always reach beyond where we are now. Then we take on new risks, encounter new problems, grow and become bigger and capable of more happiness. (and probably screw up big time along the way, not to be permanently knocked down, just more life lessons).

-- Debbie (dbspence@usa.net), May 24, 2000.