What should be our GOAL of life ?

And that means that I must put up with contempt from theists, because they know God and I don't?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

No more than you have to put up with the contempt of car mechanics who know how to fix cars and you don't, or the contempt of conspiracy theorists who know the original members of the Bavarian Illuminati and you don't and so on and so.

IOW if you are going to take the attitude that any person with superior knowledge than yourself automatically views you with contempt then you have just painted a dismal picture for learning in the world

:shrug:

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

It's not clear how the analogy applies.

Knowledge of God is a unique category, with unique rules of engagement, is it not?

But I don't say that just any person with superior knowledge than myself views me with contempt.

I have known some very amiable experts and it was a joy to work with them and learn from them.

And I have known people who certainly know more in a field than I do - and who did view me and others with contempt.

I yet have to meet a theist of the first kind, though.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I believe there is a spectrum of enlightenment in the same way there is a spectrum of light.

Dr. David R. Hawkins has even quantified this spectrum as a log scale, where most of humanity hovers around the 200-300 range.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Really? He believes that viewing oneself as God is the highest stage of purity, enlightenment?

 

He believes that 1000 is highest calibration that humans are capable of attaining.
God is off the charts...in his view.

 

But what does that mean when under "God view" it says "self" in that chart?

 

What a load of woo!

 

I dont know...its a good question.

He's still alive and available for questions.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZmGwe5bZa8o&feature=relmfu

 

I haven't so far been able to glean what exactly his view of God is.

But if he ends up saying something like here on pg.201, then I think there is a bit of a problem with his doctrine.

 

No. I think the goal of life is love, the pursuit and attainment thereof.

(Note how there can be no real pleasure without there also being love.)

 

THE truth, or just your personal idea of the truth, or merely the "truth" according to what you have been told?

I'd rather conclude on my own goal, thanks, than have you tell me what it is.

And it is not the pursuit of pleasure.

There can't?? What type of love are you referring to?
And how do you define "real pleasure" - and what constitutes un-real pleasure?

 

feel free to explain how the pursuit of pleasure never comes up prominently on your radar

:shrug:

 

You can cognize and feel the difference yourself.

 

You are raising a strawman, LG, as is your tendency.
I never said that the pursuit of pleasure is not prominent, but feel free to indicate where you feel I have said so?
All I said that it is merely not my GOAL.

Can you give me an example of both "real" and "un-real" pleasure, just so I can better understand this distinction, as I'm not sure I do at the moment.

 

What is your goal of life?

Does the pursuit of said goal bring you pleasure?
Would you still pursue that goal even if it didn't bring you pleasure?

Perhaps it was a somewhat ambiguous phrase -

Surely you've noticed how some things are "really pleasurable" as opposed to those that "aren't really pleasurable."

Typically, "really pleasurable" things are those in relation to which you feel no regret, no dissatisfaction, no disappointment. Whereas things that "aren't really pleasurable" are accompanied by regret, dissatisfaction, disappointment.

 

I would say it is probably to be happy.

Quite often. But not always. Sometimes it is the rejection of pleasure that makes me happy: such as not eating that second slice of delicious cake.
Sometimes it is putting myself through displeasure that makes me happy: such as forcing myself to do exercise.

But I would say my goal is happiness... if pleasure accompanies it then all the better, but I would sacrifice pleasure to be happy rather than the other way round.

Yes.

And you see "love" as being synonymous with "no regret, no dissatisfaction, no disappointment"?

But I do see the difference between the types of pleasure you mention, yes.

 

There is such a thing as the pleasure of austerity; this is what you experience, but you don't call it that way.


I think LG and I are simply operating out of a somewhat broader understanding of "pleasure" than you.


As the Buddhists say:
If, by giving up a lesser happiness, you can obtain a greater happiness, then give up the lesser happiness, so that you may obtain a greater happiness.

The pleasure principle is universal.

How can you be happy without pleasure?

I'd say those are some of the factors that are correlated to love.

 

But what is this question asking?


Why should we do things?
What should we hope for from doing things?

What is it that makes life worth living?

 

Because that's not what I think it is: I get no pleasure in austerity, but I accept that it can lead to happiness.

Perhaps. I understand pleasure to be a reaction to external stimuli, and happiness to be a state of mind.
I do not think they are the same, nor would I bundle them under the same word.

Rather depends on what you refer to as the "pleasure principle".

Because I can choose to be (issues of free-will aside).