Conference quark::human_relations-v1

    
    David -
    
    Great question - where did you find this?  First of all, I do not
    have children so I cannot say that I know what it is like to be
    a parent.  However, I will take the bait....Please remember:  this
    is *my* choice.
    
    I think it would be noble of me to choose that my child have a short,
    bitter, painful life so that all of mankind may benefit from the
    contribution my child has made.  However, to make such a choice
    for someone other than myself - I could not do it.  Ok!  I'm selfish.
    I would want my child to live and be happy.  To see my child go
    through pain, suffering, scourn, rejection and know that I chose
    it to be so - well, I honestly don't think I could do it.
                                   
    Kris
    

    Without question the first...and without explanation!

    
    
    Number 1. Number 2 would be selfish (ei This way I can make a great
    contribution.)
    

    
    
    Re:0
    Errrr, can I ask just a question .?
    
    Is the base note an abstraction/extraction of the Messiah/Shiloh
    concept ?
    
    It could make a difference in subsequent replies, I believe.
    

Re. .5

> Is the base note an abstraction/extraction of the Messiah/Shiloh
> concept.

No.

Not everyone chooses happiness for the life of their hypothetical
child, but most people do. 

This hypothetical game is revealing of very little. But I think that what it
does reveal by the majority of happiness choices made, is the extent to 
which we implicitly believe in the values of an illusion. What seems to 
motivate us is the pursuit of happiness.

As .1 indicated, even if people sense some moral disapprobation
of their choice of happiness, they very understandably defend it on
the grounds that whatever their hypothetical child's potential achievement,
they could not wish upon him or her the kind of unhappiness the archangel
promises.

I am not suggesting that there is anything fundamentally wrong with 
the idea of happiness, but to hold happiness as the ideal of life seems
to involve a number of difficulties and paradoxes, not the least of which
seems to be the the extreme infrequency with which it seems to be achieved.

Why is it so hard for us to be able to imagine any other point to life 
than the personal satisfaction of the individuals living it ?



David.

    re: .0
    
    If I choose Option 1 and my child eventually gets married and raises a
    family, he/she WILL have made a memorable contribution to the future of
    the species.  It's very difficult to wish pain and misery on your
    own flesh and blood.  It would be more appropriate to ask yourself the
    question of which would you choose for yourself.
    
       - Larry

    
    Re. .1
    
    This question and an examination of the "pursuit of happiness" is 
    discussed in length in David Smail's book, "Taking Care, An Alternative
    To Therapy" ( ISBN 0-460-02450-7 ).
    
    
    David.

    I admit I hate to 'have to' answer the question in .0 directly for 
    "the usual reasons", however ...and a deep sigh later...
    
    I do have some moral objections against choosing happiness without
    hesitation:
    
    Am I to be satisfied that my offspring is safe (chosen), while a
    large portion of the planet continues to suffer?
    It tends to scare me a lot when things appear to go easy.
    (Let's not get into who send the archangel!)
    
    Caring (love) is good, when sincere; surely it would seem: if many more
    people cared just a little more (especially those who seems the most
    the strive for power) the world could become a better place.
    But 'care' is that also a way to turn things outside of oneself:
    never mind my frustrations, I've got to help my brother he's in deep!
    
    What I believe to have observed is that 'happiness' is a very varying
    goal. What we decide in one 'moment' to be a meassure (necessity) may
    change to something complete different (possibly even contradicting) 
    in the 'next moment'. In setting our h-goals we are 'inspired' by our
    environment (in our society we are constantly imposed values), which is
    completely beyond our control in the way it affects us; so do we really
    "decide"? 
    
    One paradox against happiness that springs to mind: in the periodes
    of my life, that I remember experiencing as "happy", I did tend to 
    'grow' more careless with time - in fact less satisfied, borred?
    
    So, if any of you out there has some guts next time AH shows up, ask
    for a commitment that, that misserable life be spend finding the
    ultimate formula for computations of answers to questions like that.
    
    ;-) Nis 

    Yes, I think it is more appropriate to ask what people would want for
    themselves rather than their kids?  In either case, my answer is
    probably: "Thou will be done", and if the guy upstairs insists on me
    making a decision, I will pray: "Thou will be done", and toss a coin.
    
    Christ or Malcom Forbes?
    
    Eugene

    	Fascinating question.  I am reminded of the old "ends justifying
    the means" problem.  People do make similar choices all the time.
    Consider those who have sacrificed their own lives willingly for a
    variety of causes.  The main difference here is that we are being
    asked to sacrifice the happiness, etc. of someone ELSE for some
    unspecified end which benefits the species.
    
    	What if the benefit were the actual survival of the human race?
    Would that affect your answer?  I suspect so...  Fortunately the
    question as expressed is fairly theoretical (I hope!), but it does
    bring to mind the fact that life really is full of interesting choices.
    
    	And finally, without further information, I vote for door number 1,
    choosing for an offspring what I would probably choose for myself.
    
    Dave E
    

As often happens, when an answer is difficult to arrive at, it makes 
sense to examine the question.

Choice #1: .. your child will grow to a great age, loved and
	respected by all, having done no wrong or mean thing to
	anybody, successful, rich, healthy, and above all happy ...

	... but will have made no memorable contribution to the
	future of the species beyond the immediate good works of a
	lifetime. 

Choice #2: ... your child will have a short, bitter life, full of
	spiritual pain and bodily ill-health, will be universally
	misunderstood and rejected ...

	... but will prove to be of fundamental, beneficial
	significance to the culture for centuries to come. 

Do you see anything wrong? Can a short-lived, frustrated, bitter,
pained, unhealthy, misunderstood and rejected person make such a
major contribution? Can he make *any** meaningful contribution?

My perception is: no. Therefore, choice #2 is not an option.
Choice #1 isn't that realistic, either, but --in the not so
ultimate sense-- is at least possible. That makes it the only
choice. 

-- Ron

    I would also pick happiness for my own child.
    
    I wouldn't wish choice #2 for anybody.  They'd probably get no thanks
    for it anyway.  If the only way the human race can improve is for
    somebody to have a short, miserable, unhappy life, we may as well
    forget it.
    
    BTW, I do think the pursuit of happiness is the meaning of life,
    as long as we don't deliberately hurt others in the process.  What
    else are we here for if not to try to enjoy ourselves.
    
    Lorna
    

    
    
    If one could live a life that leads to love and respect from
    many, and go to ones death knowing one has harmed no other,
    that is a successful life.  And a life that has contributed
    to mankind.  
    
    Deborah
    
    

    I would decline to make that choice.  The child I carried would not be
    _mine_, but a person who should be free to choose its own path through
    life.
    
    I would _want_, above all, for my child to be happy. But it is not for
    me to choose the way of another's life.
    
    [and now I will go back and read what others have said...]
    
      Ann

>Do you see anything wrong? Can a short-lived, frustrated, bitter,
>pained, unhealthy, misunderstood and rejected person make such a
>major contribution? Can he make *any** meaningful contribution?

    Unfortunately, examples abound:  Beethoven (a bitter, lonely, deaf
    heavily in debt musician died in his fifties), Emily Dickinson 
    (Insane poet died in obscurity), and finally, Galois (Mathematician, 
    founder of group theory.  His ground breaking thesis was rejected by 
    the mathematicians of the time, and didn't receive the proper recognition 
    till years after his death.  Died at 21 in a duel for a girl who didn't 
    really care about him).
    
    Eugene

In fact, the archangel's offer forces a false choice. There is no necessary 
connection between ill-health, rejection, etc., and creativity; no necessary
connection between virtue and misery. It is probably this which causes some
sense of irritation to those who respond to the question.

However, I believe that what 'is' revealed by the responses is the extent to 
which happiness is seen to be an enormous motivator of human conduct. What
seems to keep us going from day to day is the pursuit of happiness. It is 
clearly preferable that people should be happy rather than unhappy, but to 
base the purpose of life on it does seem to pose a number of problems.

I repeat my earlier question: why is it so hard for us to be able to imagine
any other point to life than the personal satisfaction of the individuals
living it ?

    Neither option deals with what I would really want for my
    offspring -- that they grow up with enough honesty to know what
    they believe in and enough courage and integrity to stand up for
    those beliefs no matter what the consequences.   That if they were
    to find themselves in a future equivalent of Nazi Germany, for
    example, they would stand up against the oppression, or if they're
    government officials working for HUD, they'd blow the whistle
    rather than take large payoffs from huge development corporations.
    
    Standing by your beliefs can cause you to be unhappy and
    misunderstood and all the others.  I suspect it's a little less
    likely to make you happy and universally respected, but it's not
    impossible.  In either case you might or might not make a
    difference to future humanity.  The two don't seem to be directly
    connected.
    
    --bonnie

>    Unfortunately, examples [of miserable humans making enormous 
>    contributionas to mankind] abound:  Beethoven ... Emily
>    Dickinson ... Galois ...

Yes, there must be exceptions. But Beethoven is a poor example. He 
became embittered towards the end of his life, as he felt his work 
was not appreciated and his deafness isolated him more and more. But 
he did not die young. The fifties, I suspect, was the median life
span at the era. 

Dickinson also did not die young and certainly was sane when she 
wrote the bulk of her poetry. I know nothing of Galois - did he 
really fit the description in .0?

-- Ron

    All things are transient including human memory.  Whether or not
    a person makes a memorable contribution to the human race is not
    a factor in validating that person's existence since the person,
    the memory and the contribution will, in time, pass like rain.
    
    Since we have limitted time in this one and only life we get to live,
    and for all eternity we shall ever again experience this thing called
    life, to expend this spark, consciously and with forthought, in an
    existence marked by suffering and misery makes about as much sense as
    drowning yourself to build a sandcastle. 

    Heinrich Boltzman made significant contributions to the world of
    physics yet committed suicide because his work was never accepted as
    being valid.  How many people know of him or of his work?  How many
    people care? 

    Vincent Van Gogh spent his entire life in misery and poverty.  His
    contribution to the art world is significant.  Two of his paintings
    sold recently for a combined price of almost $100 million.  His
    contribution to modern art is beyond measure.  Yet I can't help but
    feel that Vincent himself would have preferred to have a decent meal, a
    nice home, freedom from his madness, and quiet contentment while he was
    alive. 

    It goes on. 

    "Glory, like all things, is fleeting."  is not a statement about glory.
    It is a statement about all things. 

    Kris

    re .21,           
    
    I don't think they are exceptions.  As a matter of fact, many great 
    artists, musicians, novelists are miserable human-beings.  Well, many of
    them live to an old age, but "die young" doesn't equate "miserable
    life".  Among the miserable immortals, we have T. S. Eliot, Emily
    Dickinson, Sylvia Plath, Beethoven, Mozart, Mahler, and as -1 pointed out, 
    van Gogh....   As a Chinese, I might as well add Confusious to the
    list.
    
    The strange thing is that many type 1 fellas aren't really happy
    either (How many time Liz Taylor got divorced?).  King Solomon wasn't
    particularly happy, and by the way, is Elvis still alive?
    
    Eugene

    RE: .22 - -< No footprints when we go >-
    
    Martyrs of art and science have been mentioned; we could easily come up
    with lists from politics and religion as well.  And what about the most
    common of martyrs - those who sacrifice material or emotional comfort
    for what they see as the good of their family?
    
    I believe that it _is_ possible to choose "drowning yourself to build a
    sandcastle" and that it _is_ possible for a human being to choose a
    path knowing full well that it isn't the most comfortable one
    available.  It is natural to hope that it will eventually become the
    most comfortable one, but hope is not the same as "going with the
    odds".  It is also natural to hope that the object of the sacrifice is
    somehow of permanent value, but again...
    
    Otherwise, I would have to take the view that those who have made
    sacrifices lack free will and are victims of their compulsions.  (Some
    Freudians do seem to think that art is something to be cured of, but I
    hope that there isn't universal agreement on that.)
    
    RE: .22 & .23 -
    
    It's worth mentioning that "ordinary people" and hedonists can also be
    miserable human beings.  You can't protect yourself against unhappiness
    with the magic formula "Nothing matters and what if it did?".  Perhaps
    that makes the martyrs seem slightly less irrational?
    
    RE: .0 -
    
    For me, the most unrealistic aspect of the question is not the choice,
    but having to make the choice for someone else.  This always muddies
    the waters:
    
    When I lived in NYC, it seemed that as soon as they had a child, NYers
    born-and-bred would get hot for the suburbs.
    
    - "But you grew up in the city, and you turned out great!"
    - "Yeah, but I don't want my kid to go through what I did."
    - "But you had fun!"
    - "Yeah, but it was tough sometimes."
    
    So when the kids grow up, they'll live in the city because they have
    such lousy memories of the sticks... (: >,)
    
    Ray
    

Re. .13

> I do think the pursuit of hapiness is the meaning of life....
> what else are we here for if not to enjoy ourselves.

I do not think that happiness of any kind can be the point of life.
The expectation that there must be a discernable point to life is the
first step to a life-denying individualism in which the future of the 
species becomes sacrificed to personal immortality. People suffer bitterly,
go crazy and even kill themselves because they are unhappy. It's easy to
see why. To be unhappy in our society means to have lost the point of
living.

David Smail (author of question) discusses our dilemma...

"One is reminded of battery chickens, whose only difference from us lies,
presumably in their lack of consciousness. Since it knows no other, the
battery chicken ( if only it could talk to itself ) would no doubt believe
that it existed in the best of all possible worlds, and would see the point
of its existence as being fed regularly and nourishingly, kept in comfortable
- if overcrowded - circumstces of even light and heat, and medicated to 
keep it free of disease and maintain its proper rate of growth. What the
chicken would not see, of course, is that there is indeed an altogether
darker and less bland purpose behind its pampered life of easy passivity,
and even on the day of its sudden and terrifying end it would not realise
what its life had been for.

Our case is not so different, for our lives also have a purpose beyond
that ( the pursuit of happiness ) which we can immediately see, and though
it is one to which, if we are lucky, our private life is not sacrificied,
it is certainly one which claims our public lives."

I believe that what is hinted at in .0 is that we have all bought the
idea that the point of life is to be happy and have become collapsed in
on a life of private contemplation of how we feel. 

There is no reason to believe that, for there to be a point to life, we
should know what it is. It may take thousands of centuries before we've
even learned how to live decently together without worrying about what the
point might be. I think that the most we can hope to do is make what 
contribution we can in the brief time we have available. 

Re. .20

> It is difficult for me to see how 'WE' can do anything at all.
    
I think we have bought the belief that if we cannot change the world, then
it is not worth trying. However, trying is something to be done, whether or
not we see any observable success. Not only is it impossible to tell whether
our efforts have any effect, but we must be prepared that they may have no
measurable effect at all.

David.

    re -1:
    
    Personally, I must say that I agree with Sigmund Freud who said that
    the moment a man questions the meaning of his life, he is insane (or
    something to that effect).
    
    I remember taking a humanity course (required for my degrees) that
    spent a third of the time discussing the meaning of life (frankly, I
    was quite bored by it) and were asked to write an essay about it. 
    Well, as a mathematician, I was quite use to abstract stuff, so after
    an abstract hocus-pocus "proof", I basically said: "Don't Worry, Be
    Happy!".  Guess what?  I got an A for it!  Since then my respect for the
    philosophers just went down hill :-) :-).   I read Freud's quote in
    that class, so it was not a total waste :-) :-).
    
    Seriously, I think my essay was quite good.   Hmmmm, should I present
    it here?
    
    Eugene
                                    

    .27 was refering to .25 not .26.
    
    Eugene
    

    Re .25, I do not think that there is any reason to believe that
    there is any point to life.  Just because we do not understand what
    the "grand scheme" is, does not mean that it exists.
    
    I think it's wonderful for people to help others during their
    lifetimes.  But, since none of us know what the true overall reason
    for life is - why does the universe exist, is there God, etc. -
    then I think it is up to each of us to find our own individual reason
    to exist.  Mine is to enjoy my time on earth as much as possible
    without deliberately hurting anybody else.  It is true that some
    people commit suicide because of unhappiness, but I think it is
    not the goal of happiness that is to blame but instead that the
    individual in question chose the wrong way to attain happiness.
     Happiness does not have to be attained only by money and material
    possessions.  Happiness can also be found in the beauties of nature,
    in art, music, literature, in friends, and in family, and in romantic
    love.  If a person in good health, who has all of the above still
    cannot find happiness, it is not the ideal of happiness that is
    to blame, but the shallowness of the person in question.
    
    Lorna
     

    Re .29 -
    
    As an explication of _your_ approach to life, this is great stuff.  I
    even agree with most of it.  But do we have to bash prophets,
    philosophers, revolutionaries, and anyone else with a nagging feeling
    of "something missing" by blaming "the shallowness of the person in
    question"?  Epicureanism gets a lot of bad press so a little backlash
    is understandable, but "shallowness" can be a hard charge to prove.
    
    There is also the question of how someone who lives for happiness gets
    by when they do not have "all of the above", or even many of the above.
    
    
    Re .27, "the meaning of life (frankly, I was quite bored by it)... 
    Since then my respect for the philosophers just went down hill :-)
    :-)." -
    
    No offense to you - just to your prof (: >,) - but it might not have
    been entirely the fault of the philosphers that it seemed like so much
    hot air.  I've had math classes that were worthless puffery and phil
    classes that weren't.
    
    It's hard to find good philosophy courses in most colleges anyway, and
    an everything + kitchen-sink humanities course is probably going to be
    the equivalent of a "Physics for Poets" overview - you won't get much
    sense of the discipline.
    
    Of course, you might not get a kick out of philosophy no matter how
    it's presented.  I never understood the fuss about chemistry, myself. 
    (: >,)
    
    Ray

re .29
    
>    Mine is to enjoy my time on earth as much as possible
>    without deliberately hurting anybody else.  
    
    I will drink to that.
    
>    If a person in good health, who has all of the above still
>    cannot find happiness, it is not the ideal of happiness that is
>    to blame, but the shallowness of the person in question.
 
    Uh, personally, I think it is a matter of "taste great" or "less filling".
    
re .30
    
    And that's all there is to philosophy.
    
    Eugene
    

    Re .31 -
    
    Yass, yass, I was just wishing that some of the H_R noters coulda made
    it to our discussion group in the Fenway bleachers Saturday afternoon,
    where we settled just this topic...  The answer was "None of the
    above".
    
    (Actually, I really like the idea of Jacques Derrida in a Miller Lite
    commercial.  "Mi and mon ami Beau Jacquesong av many differences.  But
    oui canne agris on ouonne dzing..."  Anyone got his agent's number?)
    
    Ray (and I'll drink to anything)  (: >,)

RE: .0

I'd tell the archangel to ask my child.  Else I'd decline for them the glory and
misery.  If asked for myself, I'd take the glory and regret it later. :-)
In practice I try to strike a balance to keep from being bored. :-)

In the case where their happiness depends on other people's misery...  I'd
seriously question whether that dependance is really there, and who is really
responsible for the misery.  True happiness cannot depend on another's misery,
and "do no ill" as promised in .0.

RE: .12

I certainly think that it's possible for a miserable person to make a great
contribution.  *many* if not most of the great people in history have had more
then their share of misery.

RE: .18

Actually I tend to believe that there *is* a cause and effect connection between
misery and greatness.  Those who are comfortable have little reason for change.

Now as to whether happiness can be a goal which can be work toward in life...
I doubt it.  As other's have said, there is more to life then happiness.

I do hope that there is some point to life...  optherwise it will make things...
well... pointless.  To not know (or to at least think you know) the point would
make me very unhappy, and pointless.  To say that it is impossible to know the
point would be very despairing.  As long as there is a goal in sight, and a path
from here to there I guess people should be happy.

Jim.

    
    Ann,
    
    Why is you always say what I am going to say before I get to say it?
    
    Me too...I have no right to make choices for anyone...much less
    a child...for whom my responsibility is to prepare him or
    her to make his ir her own.
    
    Silly question...[no offense intended...]...we, none of us, have any 
    right to go around making decisions for others...so th point *should*
    me moot.
    
    Melinda

    It is only natural to have wishes for our loved ones...that are often
    based on our experience.
    
    J