I would call into question the definition of suffering. Does the "school" consider if there degrees of it? How is it quantified? How is it balanced? How objectivity factors into the equation, and what a lack of suffering would look like, mathematically?

Whether it's morally sound to conclude that any existence of some degree of suffering negates all value of all life, universally in particular, resulting in the duty of life to annihilate itself, I would give a resounding no. We are a mere dust, a fraction of the contents of the universe, and our annihilation may serve no more purpose than our preservation. In light of the choice, as you present it, we should choose life. We are not the drivers of life, nor of existence itself. This "doctrine" is vain and ignorant in that sense, putting more value on humans in the universe than what we deserve.

The only duty we may garnish from our existence is to abide by natural laws that we do not create. We do not have the capacity to destroy all life, because life is greater than us. It's not our place to decide whether suffering makes it "worth it" in a vast, violent, expanding universe that we cannot truly comprehend.

So, no, our 100% suffering would not mean that we should annihilate everything, to cure the universe. Life and suffering are not, unfortunately, mutually exclusive.

I would say, it depends, as love for me is not the same as love for everyone, and it depends on what you want and long for, but apples do show bananas things about life that they wouldn't see otherwise, and we say opposites attract, perhaps for a reason, but perhaps that's not for everyone, depending on what it is that you want most in life.

To live in extreme honesty, one must be painfully aware of the fact that your "honesty" is always, always and without failure, dependent on one single flawed perception; on one interpretation of the universe; that is, your own subjective experience.

Human beings bear the unique gift of a so-called higher moral intelligence. This is a huge responsibility, yet we seem to be failing it. And the fate of future life may hinge on owning up to a simple belief set: That I live in one small corner of the world; my viewpoint, perceptions and beliefs are flawed by the boundaries that accompany my surroundings, and therefore I should strive to find what misbeliefs I have, where I am limited, in order to determine the best possible truths.

As humans, our viewpoints are inherently flawed despite our best intentions. I have come to this conclusion, particularly as an immigration lawyer, as an observer into the private lives of many people from around the world, the societies and governments, and religions that bind them. I came to this conclusion through my own endless struggles in life and work and travel, however relative they may be. I acknowledge that my perspective will always be inherently flawed. I must seek honesty, there, before ego.

To have an appropriate level of honesty, one that evens out toward objectivity despite the "who" who is doing the perception, is to be one with an extreme awareness that, at any given moment you could be on the other side, depending on your placement in the lottery of birth. Like waking up on the other side of the world in a strange land. This recognition means that everything you take for granted as truth is likely another person's fiction - comedy or tragedy. All things rest / have rested / will rest in the same state of existence some day. And death is, in all honesty, the only ultimate truth we know exists, and that we don't really know what happens after it.

And we should be unashamed and humble to admit this part of our existence. Because the subjective perception that taints what divides us in this ultimate experience is simultaneously horrific yet beautiful; it's natural. Therefore your subjective view will always divine. It's biological. You can only be YOU, and simultaneously try to be whoever you are not. The views of others are thus the same as yours.

So you must ask yourself, are your beliefs on life, love, fairness and justice as ultimately honest as possible? Is your vision for a "basic standard of life" the only fair option? can you admit that everything you know and believe may be "wrong," no matter how small that probability may be? Or at least that there are several ways to achieve the same solutions; and just because some problems are of bigger or smaller magnitudes to you than to others doesn't make them any lesser in objective fact?

Maybe you are already grateful for your lucky strike at birthright, or maybe you are disgruntled with the default circumstances of your happening to be alive... maybe you are starving, or maybe you are born with a silver spoon in your mouth... or you lost that spoon, someone stole it, in the midst of war.

Maybe you are more like "most guys." and you're just stuck, like everyone else, in the distorted reflection of your baloney pizza place. You could be eating pizza with sour cream cheese and sweet baloney on one side of the world, thinking it's the most awesome pizza out there, because it's the only kind you've ever had. You have never tasted a Chicago deep dish or New York slice, and because all you really know is that sour cream cheese sweet baloney pizza tastes so darn awesome, you conclude that your opinion reflects an ultimate truth. But, of course this is dishonest. We confuse truth with opinion because we forget about our own subjectivity, and that we adopt a shared subjectivity of those who surround us. So we have two missions: 1) root out Individual subjectivity in our community, in our world, and 2) root out the shared subjectivity around us. We, as groups and communities, adopt the same subjective beliefs to be ultimate truths. It helps us to survive in packs. But it also can form malice; a mob mentality; a binding rigidity against the creation of common good. Fake news, the scape goat, so to speak of today's subjective vices. The denial of individual or group subjectivity does not create a platform for trust, love, or standard of care to "others."

Subjectivity itself is not tantamount to dishonesty. But it's the denial of our own subjectivities that perpetuates the repeating conflicts of time.

Could the ultimate intelligent life be one that inherently & concurrently sees the subjectivity of their own perceptions? Perhaps this means an enlightenment... Solid state. An inner peace that reflects among us, and guarantees us all the chance to sit with God. Nirvana.

In the meantime, as of now, most human beings recognize the world around us from the inevitable, single viewpoint. The devil whispers, it's the ONLY way. That's our nature... our instinct. But, really we EACH see things only one way, and each one differently. So which one is correct or true? Without each and every one of us, there is no "we." And without "we" there is nothing, but only nihilism.

Yes math is math, language is language, but don't we use a variety of symbols to express it? To think dishonestly is,- and quite blindly so- to doubt the validity of any other sort of existence in the world. And yet it's our instinct and nature to think so. This drives the 'just-i-fiction" of the aristocracy; class systems; casts; conquests; inherited entitlement. Therein these trends lies an automatic doubt cast on anyone or anything whose existence diverges from those common beliefs by those who hold wealth and power, on the optimal essence or state of things for "them," not "us."

To combat this phenomenon, the Best one can do in life, to be righteous unto one's god, to one's tribe, to be fair to one's neighbors, to live and to think in a way that truly compliments other human beings, the land, all life, and health; to execute what we mostly all claim as our common objective of public good; in other words, to create the maximum positive outcome of any kind for all people and living things, is to live your life honestly, to the extreme.

With "extreme honesty" maybe we will find balance; and begin to hear The Word.

So wake up now, it's 2020 (when I write this). Let's see clearly that we are all flawed and beautiful at once. We are all different but equal in one way; that our perceptions are ours alone, only by the grace or Mercy of God; the chance that we are born only with who we are, for better or worse, flawed. What all this means? that none of us should assume we are the only beholders of the truth. Do not surrender to the flaws of our single organism biology. Do not surrender to instinct.

If we do not change our perceptions we may as well live life eating sour cream cheese & baloney pizza; never caring to taste anything else... so let's change this trend, today.

What's the baloney in your life, preventing you to look outside of yourself? this is where the inquiry will begin. And until we can all ask ourself this question, and give an ultimately honest answer in the mirror, is to deny that all beings share more in essence than we differ. Until this happens, we will be stinking of baloney breath. Each, and EVERY one of us. After we smell our own baloney we wake up; recognize that we're in the same boat; seeking common goals; fighting common obstacles; and then pushing them aside.

My baloney breath may always exist, but at least if we can smell it on ourselves, and do our best to call it out, we may get along a little better in the world. So to to find your own baloney breath, breathe into a mirror, then grab some Listerine to (temporarily) stop offending others. It will persist, as morning breath does, but stop ignoring it. Take time to brush it away. Awareness is everything.

Jan 2, 2020 11:35:07 PM