The nature of happiness

[The Persnickety Platypus]

Come, sit with me under the Bodhi tree. Let us be enlightened.



There are a number of attributes of this topic that I wish to delve into, so I will start with the basic question:



What is the secret to happiness?

[QED]

Hmm, perhaps it would help to know how the thing called "happiness" has come to exist. The answer an "evolutionist" might give could be pretty straightforward: there are many different states of mind with their own triggers and values. People moderate their actions according to these values. The state of mind called "happiness" could corresponds to the situation where someone perceives "all their ducks to be in a row". Under these conditions they are probably doing OK in terms of survival. So this particular state might get its value from a wide range of feedback factors. Put another way, people who do not act in ways that lead towards this state we call "happiness" are probably at a disadvantage when it comes to passing on their genetic blueprint to future generations.

I'd add that for several billions of years there was no happiness on the planet. I would then expect it to evolve in humble ways in the first nervous systems as a state fulfilling the conditions I mentioned above.

So if happiness is what you're after then the right buttons to hit are most likely those that feed into your physical and mental well-being and set you up well to reproduce I now await the inevitable shock and horror at such an unholy account!

[The Persnickety Platypus]

I had not thought of that. The evolutionary premises you brought up bring into light a possible aspect of human discontent.

It seems the further technology/society evolves, the more assets of survival we adopt. Can't live without that new cellphone. Need a bigger sized TV in order to function. If I don't get a faster internet provider my human peers will evolve into a higher being and leave me to the fate of the Neanderthals.

Advertising and the media constantly work our consciousness into this false state of necissity. There is always some new technology or ammenity out there that is deemed essential to survival, making it so that however how much you gain, it will never be enough. Materialism is an obvious answer to this broad question, but opens up new windows when considered in a biological context.

So is technology the root of human strife? Possibly, but there are likely many more variables in effect.

Many people recognize the disaster awaiting those deticating themselves to a material existance, and consequently have attempted to strip their lives down to the bare essentials. Such tactics usually fall flat on their face. We all know what became of Henry David Thoreu's (sp?) attempt at Walden Pond. As a result, I am led to believe that one must seek to establish a middle passage between indulgence and abstinance in order to attain satisfaction.

Still, it seems that even those who manage to accomplish this are often subject to despondancy. On what more does the equation rely?

[QED]

Advertising and the media constantly work our consciousness into this false state of necissity. There is always some new technology or ammenity out there that is deemed essential to survival, making it so that however how much you gain, it will never be enough. Materialism is an obvious answer to this broad question, but opens up new windows when considered in a biological context.

Yes, I think this is what is behind the Philosophy of Buddha. The constant striving for material possessions may well be a throwback to the times when the animal destined to become man started the switch from "brute force and ignorance" to becoming smarter and competing in the wild with "twig" technology. We see this with obesity: fats and sugars were once scarce but valuable commodities so we were (and still are) programmed to lap them up whenever they became available - which is 24/7 now but, for the best part of our history this was far from being the case.

Just as we reached a natural nutritional balance in the past then, so might our appetite for technology and material possession be over satiated in today's civilized society and this could lead to a form of "material obesity". Could understanding this be the key to restoring the right balance then? I certainly think so and personally use my understanding of our evolutionary heritage to get what I think is a better perspective of all aspects of human behaviour. One example that springs to mind is the sensitive question of sexuality. From the perspective of evolution we should expect nearly everyone to be rather keen on sex and, I think everyone understands this - even if they won't admit it

[The Persnickety Platypus]

I level with Buddha on a number of things. Foremost is the idea that emotion and reality are seperate entities. Depression is not a state of being, but merely a state of mind, and can be overcome with mental training.

This concept is especially comforting, as it denies sadness and strife as having any material existance, granting an individual a feeling of direct control over his or her problems. A simple change of attitude and perception can alter an afflicted person's entire disposition. One must detatch himself from worldly desires. This is easier said than done, of course.



Another observation of mine, which seems pretty obvious, but for some reason is not often expanded upon; happiness is relative to ones standard or precedent state of being.

Every person has differing customary standards for their day to day life. Go to school, sit in class, eat lunch, sit in class some more, go home. Go to work, do some paperwork, get off at 5 pm, go hang out at the bar, come home and get fussed at by wife. Ect, ect.

It is the deviations from this standard routine or state of being that help define our state of mind. Get stuck behind farmer fred on the way to your daily commute, become stressed or agitated. Miraculously find a $20 bill in the parking lot, become ecstatic. These occurances, and how we react to them, define our emotions.

Attitude can play into this. One's perception of his day to day life (how he/she might describe his normal routine, for example) plays into how he/she reacts to the day's events. If you set the bar too high, you are likely to be dissapointed, and vice versa.

Delving into this further, I believe that it is not so much ones particular standards of living that dictate their mental state, but the conditions relative to those standards.

Case in point, a person living in upmost squalor is, in my observations, no more likely to revert to despondancy than a billionaire.

In one scenario, a group or civilization living on only the bare essentials, completely secluded from any contact with a differing social class, can be perfectly happy. They are not effected by their condition. They don't know any better, do they? Such a scenario is becomming scarce, but possibly describes groups such as the former Native Americans.

On the other end of the spectrum, a private gated community comprised of successful entrepreneurs, each with little knowledge of persons living under lesser conditions, is really no better off emotion wise. Their standards of living may be higher, but they still must SURPASS these standards in order to feel satisfied.

The person's in these scenarios are all blissfully (or grievingly, in the entrepreneur's case) ignorant. However, the undeniable misery in third world countries relies on the same concept; the extravagancies the corrupt leaders and business elite partake in give the poor something to compare their situation to. Anger at this injustice will inadvertantly fuel the citizen's anguish.

In an attempt to tie this all together, I will touch upon the previous theme. The material world has no relevance to one's state of mind. Can money buy happiness? Sure it can, for a little bit. Lasting happiness, however, must be attained through other means. A proper outlook on life, and acceptance of one's limited mortal confines can do wonders towards this goal's achievment.

[QED]

I agree completely. I think our ability "normalize" is essential to our survival. If we were sensitive to absolutes rather than relatives, the dynamic range of living in this World would be too much to bare. I often think of those who have sacrificed their family lives in times of war -- not so much the career soldiers but the volunteers of the great War for example. How could the transition be made if it were not for the ability of the mind to re-normalize to a degree. This is all part and parcel of coping and the key to happiness.

I would describe the brain as a "chemical factory" that's been set up to operate in a finite range. While this range is wide, it can be stretched too far. I think this is why the modern dependence on "happy pills" is so misguided. I'm sure it's a palliative measure that's pushed purely for profit by the pharmacological industry. What might be better is an understanding of the conditions that can drive the brain out of its "comfort zone".

One thing that I suspect is being overlooked these days is the reward system: seeing as how cost-efficiency is King in business, people are being constantly squeezed to get more out of them. One result I see of this is the training of minds to reject satisfaction. In other words, people are actively encouraged not to be satisfied with their work or achievements. While this might have the effect of marginally increasing the frequency and quality of achievement I'm sure it does so at the expense of the happiness of the individual -- who then loses the general ability to sit back and relax (the activation of an essential part of the chemical factory for re-normalization).

Surely it's no coincidence that various drugs influence neurotransmitters in the ways they do. There is an operational aspect of the brain that has evolved around these sorts of chemicals in the first place and I think the balances are essentially predefined and optimized by Darwinian style selection. Short of a few rare cases of physiological malformation, I'd say that the vast majority of people being treated with drugs today probably have their own built-in supply waiting in a dormant factory -- a factory that could be started-up if only they could be re-positioned in their lives.

[ST88]

In other words, people are actively encouraged not to be satisfied with their work or achievements. While this might have the effect of marginally increasing the frequency and quality of achievement I'm sure it does so at the expense of the happiness of the individual -- who then loses the general ability to sit back and relax (the activation of an essential part of the chemical factory for re-normalization).

While I agree with this in part, we have to remember that these biological triggers were developed over millions of years in environments that are radically different from the ones we live in now. I agree we live in a society that consistently tells people that they should not be satisfied. That's called Capitalism. Who's to say that building a better brain to deal with a "modern" world is essentially wrong? Should we change society? Good luck. People are conditioned to be unhappy with themselves from birth. You smell! You have bad teeth! Your hair is the wrong color! You're left-handed! Worse, people are conditioned also to point out the "flaws" in others. So, should we rebel against the system and not use deodorant? That is not a world I'd want to live in. The argument about drugs goes back to the argument about poverty. Can someone be poor and happy? Sure. Can someone be on Xanax and be happy? Of course. Happiness is only a state of mind, after all. What's the difference between being in a happy situation and taking a drug to be happy? Ours is a marketplace of ideas, and if someone can convince you that you're unhappy, they can make a bundle by providing the cure. What is wrong with taking advantage of the ill-informed?

Short of a few rare cases of physiological malformation, I'd say that the vast majority of people being treated with drugs today probably have their own built-in supply waiting in a dormant factory -- a factory that could be started-up if only they could be re-positioned in their lives.

And what is your solution to this? There is already a billion-dollar self-help industry. The real problem is the way our society is structured, as you say. People don't feel good about themselves. I would argue that there is no dormant chemical factory lurking within each of us, waiting to explode -- instead the chemical factories are constantly changing depending on the rewards and stresses of everyday life, with the maximum ends determined by learned experience. The nature of action potentials in neurons is largely determined by previous "learning" of those impulses. It's easier for the current to flow in a particular direction each successive time it does. So that by the time we're well into middle age, our factories' capacities have already been determined. Satisfaction, then, is based on behavioral capacity. Some are satisfied by a game of Scrabble -- some by making billions of dollars selling games of Scrabble. The "re-positioning" of which you speak would certainly help some poor souls, but I doubt it's the panacea you make it out to be.

[Bugmaster]

This is a bit off-topic, but I think that at least one interpretation of Buddhism states that all matter is inherently corrupt (which is a gnostic-esque point of view).

In other words, it's not the case that this new Ikea couch you bought is an excessive item that you don't really need, and therefore your mind gets burdened with extra baggage, etc. No, the real situation is much worse: your body, the air you breathe, the photons from the Sun that you absorb -- all of it is obscuring the spiritual essence in your soul, and is therefore a source of misery.

Thus, in order to free yourself from misery, you have to disassociate yourself from <i>any</i> attachments to the material world, "positive" or "negative". Love, hate, compassion, greed, they are all equally detrimental, because they are tying your soul closer to the corruption of the material.

Therefore, if Buddhism is true, then the secret of happiness is to abandon your pursuit of happiness.

(Sorry if I'm distorting someone's faith here, I'm not an expert on Buddhism by any means).

[Dilettante]

What is the secret to happiness?

Here's an idea: maybe the secret to (semi)happiness is realizing that happiness is a myth.

[ST88]

What is the secret to happiness?

Here's an idea: maybe the secret to (semi)happiness is realizing that happiness is a myth.

Please explain, dear sir. Is happiness just another version of a different condition of being, or is it poetically elusive?