|
| quote: | Originally posted by astroboy
I would say quite the opposite. If the dichotomy is between the paradigm of "real happiness" and synthesized happines" then the latter model is more in line with fre will. The idea of "real happiness" as something that, rather than choosing to feel on some level, just happens to you and is outside of your control is the enemy of free will. |
I was only quoting Ted from the lecture. Those were more or less his exact words.
Here's my take.
The dichotomy between the two paradigms exists only if you consider one to be inferior/superior to the other. In the end, if both will result in the same feeling of happiness, then they differ only in the ability to choose things that make you happy.
"Real happiness" is in line with free will when given 10 things to do, I choose to pursue 3 and discard the rest. Then the pleasurable sense of achievement is "real happiness". But in the larger sense, I am "free" to choose amongst these 10 things only, and really there are 1000s of things I am not free to choose. Hence, I am more or less working in a restricted space. But I am better off than someone like Victor Frankl, whose options are even more severely restricted than me.
Synthesized happiness is when I try to seek the same feeling of happiness by choosing to do things when my options are severely limited. In that case, I will simulate the same feeling of happiness by adjusting my priorities in such a way that I now seek things which are within the restricted space.
Either way, I choose to adapt to external circumstances, and in the end, seek what I want. The feeling of Happiness.
| quote: | The idea that all hapiness is synthesized means that once you are aware of that fact you can choose to feel it whenever you want.
People like Victor Frankl (sp?) and Mandella realised this when incarcerated. The one freedom that can't be taken away from you without your complicity is your freedom to choose how to react emotionally to any situation. |
Victor Frankl's example is best illustrated by Stephan Covey in his book on seven habits, where he says, between the stimulus and the response, man has the freedom to choose. People's response however, is governed more by conditioning than by free choice. The extremely harsh conditions of nazi concentration camp made Victor Frankl aware of this fundamental human right. Ordinarily I doubt if people can realize this simple fact as obvious. Even if they are aware of it, I doubt if many people actually choose to behave in this manner. In all the examples given by Ted in his talk, I am sure these people became aware of this right only after going through a phase of desperation as they tried to react in a way governed by their life long conditioning.
| quote: | What you say may be true for some, but I wouldn't count myself among them. I freely choose to synthesise happiness on this day  . In a world where every decision you make is affected by social conditioning, my decision to be happy is just as free as any other decision I can make. To my mind there is no sin in conformity so long as you don't deny the fact that you have made a choice. So long as you do not act in bad faith it's all good. |
If you freely choose your response to synthesize happiness, then I must say you are in the minority. Not many people do that. It is what people should do, and thus end their misery. But they don't.
___________________
Download and review ! Omega_M - In the Mix (Beta Version)
Originally posted by twilightki : It feels like something you'd listen to at 4 in the morning, or listen to in your car while you're going in a tunnel.
|
