an exhalation consisting of my recent thoughts...
A little idea occurred to me while I was attending my yoga class tonight. Due to a few conversations I've had recently as well as reflecting upon the art of yoga tonight I think I've had a small interesting notion pop into my mind. Also, not to become too dense within just the first paragraph, I have also been attempting to read “Being and Nothingness” by Jean-Paul Sartre.
To set the mood accordingly, imagine you are doing something strenuous such as: exercising or yoga. Of course yoga is inherently supposed to be relaxing, yet, the act of stretching causes ones brain to immediately send the signal: “You're pushing something to its limit!” Such a sensation is by default something that captures ones attention due to how such a sensation is biologically programmed to operate neurologically. Then, envisioning your consciousness being somewhat chained to whatever that activity is, is then not difficult to visualize.
What then exactly is the formula for happiness? This is my first main question to attempt to tackle within this blog-post. The following will be my theory upon what I believe are the fundamental elements that constitute how happiness is activated within our minds. I believe such a topic should be primary focus and intention of philosophy itself. I intend on concluding with my theory upon how one should properly exist as a conscious entity as well, so this may be quite a silly post as a warning.
First, my quick description of the formula. So you must be familiar with the blame of taking something 'for-granted'. Now apply this concept of doing so to all pleasurable activities you can think of. How many of those activities are you currently taking for-granted? For instance, lying comfortably in ones bed during an icy winter night. Now how often does one intentionally ignore such a pleasure? Hardly ever, but in the case that something tremendously undesirable occurred upon such day, their awareness would be fixed upon such negative event. Much of the pleasure of their ideal sleeping circumstance would then become quite oblivious to them. Now that I've provided a supple scenario, how then would said person be capable with redirecting their attention upon the ideal pleasurable content rather than the negative event that they are ruminating upon?
Remember when I was speaking about how such a sensation as stretching tends to chains ones attention to it because that is how it is designed to function? I firmly believe we are much more designed as living organisms, or even more specifically, animals, to interact with phenomena that is much more physical than the neurochemicals interacting with our neurons. Our consciousness is indeed produced by our brains. Since this is the case, it is imperative to then look even more broadly at that which produced our brains as an organ, and dictate our actions accordingly. In transitioning to the next paragraph, I want to conclude this with: just think at how a dog falls into depression. A dog that is not permitted a consistent amount of social interaction nor time to be free in nature. Now after stating this, I believe it quite intuitively demonstrates how such a lifestyle leads to negativity.
So to return to answering the question. So now that you may have a few useful images floating about in your mind, I feel my illustration is prepared to be drawn. Imagine a positive-chain. I think most people already have the notion of this positive chain in their minds. For instance: dieting, aerobic exercise, studious activities, chores, errands, ect. Such activities are often placed within the realm of work. Very often I find that the realm of work contains a very negative emotional reaction within it. I firmly believe that such reactions are the plight of the human condition. Because almost all things that are contained within the category of work are essentially activities that deal with external phenomena to ones consciousness.
To return to my previous statement, recall: “a sensation as stretching tends to chains ones attention.” Now with that freshly in mind, as well as the concept of a “positive-chain.” Now to attempt to state the first aspect of my formula for happiness, I firmly believe such positive-chains are the primary generators of the conditions that allow for the state of happiness to manifest for our consciousness. Since I mentioned the life of an unhappy dog, as well as the atmosphere pertaining to work, the word chain should immediately produce a negative feeling upon reading it. Considering the previous examples I mentioned, ones imagination resides within a bleak realm considering where it has recently had to venture regarding some of my previous examples. The majority of examples have been quite dark in their content, the positive-chain I am attempting to illustrate after these examples are only dark and negative in that they contain the necessary equipment to then lead to positive circumstances.
Now to return to an age old example. Can one imagine the color white in a universe in which the color black did not exist? The answer to this question is known to be: not at all. An interesting point I want to establish is that happiness and sadness are both located upon the same coin similar to black and white. So let us imagine you're given a coin that is highly valuable, yet you have an extraordinary allergy to the color black. The said coin of course possesses both opposite colors, white and black. So acquiring ownership of such a coin is both a tremendous blessing and curse. So then, being that we are capable of rational decision making abilities it would seem that avoiding contact with the dark side of such a coin would be quite a simple task. But there is a catch, in order to gain the unbelievable benefits of the white side of the coin, you first must interact with the color black in some way to cause the coin to flip sides.
To gain access to the positive material which the positive-chain can produce, one must first grapple something negative with it as fuel. All things we know of require some energy source to allow them to engage their inherent functions. So attempting to realistically envision a life without any form of negativity is essentially the same as attempting to understand the color white without its complement: black. Since this is the case, then I gaze upon the topic of work that we so vehemently strive our best as human beings to avoid.
Now that I feel as if I've sightly made my assertion of my first step of the formula, that being: to engage in work. I must quickly ask you to keep in mind why it appears our natural tendency as a species to gravitate towards the realm of nothingness as a preference. But putting that on hold, I'd much rather continue to assert the importance of how it is that the efforts under the category of work are very much not at all tremendously negative and pleasurable as the appear to be within modern life. Now I wish to return to the example I previously provided, that of a comforting bed during a very cold winter. In this scenario the choice of choosing to continue to exist under such conditions then acquires the title of work. Now then, to investigate what styles, forms, and durations of work are then ideal to existence becomes the primary question.
Just to quickly give a small example of how I've put this theory into action in my own life, I will tell you a small story. In my pursuit to reacquire my balance I decided to practice yoga more seriously in 2017. In doing this I have a fairly well established habit of ruminating upon negative issues that often cause me to delve into a darkened emotional mood. Yoga actively taught me a simplistic method to occupy my mind in such a way that was completely beneficial. It reminds me of the disorder in which people overeat to cope with emotional disturbances. Yet with yoga, I may have had a thought that was beginning to sprout into something completely negative and self-deprecating, but I noticed the effect stretching had on such a thought. This is how I came up with the term positive-chaining negative material to then produce positive byproducts. The stretching sensation was at first identified by my mind as annoying and stress inducing. But then I began to rationally analysis the potential consequences for such an activity, and I found that with the preservation of going through such work, the resulting benefits that are at first not at all obvious to anyone observing are mot certainly worth! But now I want to talk about the entire reason that provoked me to attempt to write this. Our natural tendency as a species to gravitate towards the realm of nothingness as a preference. Seems like the direct opposite of everything I have been saying beforehand. Because I do not feel confident attempting to be philosophical and highly technically logical yet, I am going to just ramble freely. I did create this for my own personal enjoyment right? Anyways, I recently rediscovered an old book of mine that I chose to reread. The emptiness sutra. It is a book about acquiring an perfectly empty and still mind as one of the most ideal modes of being. I found it highly interesting. It seems to contradict everything I just claimed upon ignorantly first envisioning a life dedicated to the art of meditation. Yet the ego or as Buddha would call it Mara, is quite the workaholic. The person you'll ever meet who has done the most work you could ever be witness to is your own ego. Thus the art of emptying ones mind would conversely be cancellation of the ego itself.
Oh, I have begun to delve too deep. I have such large topic in mind that I haven't had the chance to talk to hardly anyone with yet. Oh, I've been so close to death! I experienced a coma and brain damage. I have been exploring the ideas of emptiness, non-existence, and things that resemble non-being, yet I am also discovering wonderful tides of existence constantly. I am literally rupturing with things to say from the black and white coin that has seem to fall into my pocket! I just want to conclude with one last rambling. “Our natural tendency as a species to gravitate towards the realm of nothingness as a preference” I am starting to think the reason this is the case is because of the fact that nothingness is incomprehensible to us. When talking in a language that refers to some sort of rules or logic that dictate how it manifests itself sequentially with respect to time, the rules and logic that serve as the fundamental governing devices have an core principle that dictates them. They must dictate all phenomena at all times. That which is incomprehensible, violates the core axiom of that which is, thus it can not be allowed.
I just feel like I've been given a coin containing both opposites of black and white similar to that which I previously was describing. I have been shown the wonders and freedom of nothingness via my coma, and yet at the same time I've been experiencing the absolute magnificence of being alive, or of substance. Two directly contradictory modes of being reside within me harmoniously. I can see how valuable it is, but I just don't think I am clever enough to articulate it well enough to be understood. This is me merely striving to share some of my life experience.
Also, since I did mention that book I was reading, there was a small section that initiated my current aspiration to attempt to ramble like this again. I believe doing this is essential regarding my status of comprehending whatever it is I am currently investing my interests into. This is essentially the beginning of the section in that book that instigated my interests: "if we ask ourselves: what "was there" before a world existed, then replied "nothing" we would be forced to recognize that this "before" like this "nothing" is in effect retroactive." So this is investigating order in terms of how something comes into exisitence. Let us think of two items and their order in ragards to them coming into existence. The first item is 'being' while the second item is 'nothingness' so then instinctively knowing how things come into exisitence, it follows that item 'being' can not come from 'nothingness.' Since nothingness itself consists of pure negation, it has no possible elements to create anything. This logic directly contradicts the statement made previously: "what was the before the universe came into being? "Nothing." Thus we are forced to recognize that this "before" like this "nothing" is in effect retroactive." So in a way this very properly demonstrated to me why it is logically that even nothingness it free to exisit from the rules of logic. Emptiness or nothingness can only exisit upon the surface of existence. Semantically within the realm of thought substance must alwasy preceed nothingness otherwise the realm of though would not even exist.
Just because I feel obligated to attempt to mention this incredible book. Also the fact I truly understand very little of it means I ought to attempt to arrange what things I have felt I vaguely understand and interested in sharing my thoughts upon into this post. As I was writing this I realized how difficult it is to eriterate my thoughts based upon such a piece of work. So I think I will finish here.