The Buddha said life is suffering (dukkha). Suffering is the condition of unsatisfactoriness. Immediate pain and sadness is of course suffering. But in happiness, in avoidance of pain and sadness, we are still in the condition of suffering.
To understand this and to change one’s mindset one can end suffering or end the illusion of suffering. True “happiness” is not temporal happiness but a seemingly transcends time and space. By extension even this true happiness is illusionary. Nonetheless we must pursue it as if it is there even though it is not there.
The problem is not so much that we do not understand agency but rather agency is pluralistic, that at any given time there is more than one agent. The interaction of two agents is what we commonly call cooperation or by some similar terms and statements which entail two objects or things.
An example is when two people love each other or marriage. The agreement between them to act in a certain way is termed love. It is not a passive process but always entails active processes.
I have always appreciated Bono. The matter-of-factness of the lyrics of the songs he writes with U2 are astounding. And all the more I appreciate the song Iris which now makes a lot more sense.
He says he is at peace. And this is a just another fact to go along with all other facts he has discovered.
Yesterday, I happened to have a conversation about Hume’s is/ought problem with someone. It was the first time I had touched on this subject with anyone even though I had read about it.
What happened was that I had the construct of the problem backwards in my head — what ought to be could be derived from what is. Or did I?
I had suggested that what someone pays for a painting such as a Da Vinci is over-inflated because it’s worth is that of the cost of its material and labour. The discussion was derived from a discussion on what is truth and value.
Noticing my mistake, I thought more about it. I realized this problem is similar to the descriptive/prescriptive conundrum in linguistics.
Where as linguistics of the earlier generations were about prescription (telling what the rules of language are to be adhered to) later generations up to now is about description (telling you how language actually is used). That is, to describe is to say what it is and to prescribe is to say what it ought to be.
It also seems that this does indeed relate to truth and value. Truth is what something is thought to be. And value is what something is thought to be worth. But does it?
Is/ought is about experience and judgement of reality. Descriptive/prescriptive is about data and its interpretation. But truth and value do not seem to be a “natural” binary in the same way as the other two. Truth is usually discussed with false or falsity of facts or reality. And value is usually discussed with subjectivity and objectivity. Their domains are different. This is an uneasy relationship and perhaps should not be discussed together.
I ask Siri to add to the calendar “pick up son” only for her to tell me the surreal – “pick up sun”. The dead poets would be proud.
Every time I play Beck’s Morning Phase album I notice it always sounds crisper and more defined in through the Onkyo HF Player instead of Apple Music. It is the app and not the file quality because I bought the original download from Apple Music and not elsewhere. So the only variable is that of the app. In other words it is the algorithm of the app that makes the sound quality better.
While I enjoy the convenience of Apple Music it is ultimately the sound quality that is important. In general, the audio sounds flatter and with less definition in Apple Music. This is not noticeable except through contrastive comparison. But still I would probably enjoy it less subliminally as I do notice the difference. Apple Music sounds lacklustre.
I think therefore I think I am.