But you see. The moment you think "remember don't evade and let it run over you", it's already making you submitting to the illusion, because you actually did believe there's a car coming for you. What dreamer101 meant was: "Nothing it's really what it seems to be".

The idea is to understand the philosophy, not to dare yourself to test it with situations. Because when you "attempt" to test it, that attempt already has a precognition that you actually believed that the illusion is real, hence it will be real, and hence the car heading towards you is about run you over.

You can't really see yourself until you look into a mirror, or let someone else sees you right? What you perceive may be an illusion, but how you perceive it, and what you do, whether in actions or inaction, that is actually real.

The cup of water is an illusion.

But what if you take the cup, drink it, savor it, appreciate it, washing the cup diligently, keep the water in a safe place for future enjoyment?

All those experiences that came from just an illusion are real. However, you must not forget that the cup of water is only a cup of water until you react towards it, otherwise it is as good as NOTHING, nothing, but a mere cup of water, as if it just there as an image which can be ignored and be forgotten at that particular moment. Don't believe me? Give it a few more days or perhaps weeks. Not only you will forget about that specific cup of water, but you will behave AS IF it NEVER existed. I believe this may be a stance of how all things are really an illusion. It is our "will" and "whole-self" (be it spiritual or physical) that gives meaning to things around us, and consciously the way we react and interact with these "illusions, i.e. tangibility" also tells a lot about ourselves, and might just give a glimpse of what life is supposed to be.

The absence of problems removes the value of happiness, and I will have to say it's (b).

Happiness is such a revolting experience that it was created in such a way that it MUST include the lack/absence of it, i.e. sadness, so that you can be happy about it.

This post has been edited by Deadlocks: May 9 2010, 04:36 PM

If that's the case, what is the meaning of unhappiness when it's obviously an experience most will shun?

I understand. But the issue here is about whether if "sadness" which I think it's usually described and stereotyped as "problems", are necessary for happines to take place. Teong peng insisted that we wouldn't need them, and I interjected by saying the exact opposite, as to give value and appreciation to a feeling that most people are irresponsible with like you said, and that feeling is of happiness itself.

But you see, the problem is that even unhealthy people are capable of being happy. But I'm trying to say is that that the description of the "good", intangible, "feeling" known as happiness cannot be gauged as a nice, acceptable, and embraced feeling until there's an exact opposite emotion that promotes the lack of that particular feeling.

Well in that case, pray explain. Because I don't think I can fully understand the analogy you've pointed out.

This is how we got started:

And so I pointed out, and so you asked me what the f**k. So explain, if I'm really missing something here.

Sorry if you felt that way, but I rather not pretend that I did understand.

Sadness is not necessarily needed for happiness, but it sure helps you to understand and appreciate happiness than its original value, i.e. like how some call it: "thy true happiness".

Think about it. A world where sadness simply does not exist. Everyone's joyful and jumping around, and laughing and stuff.

But the problem is, with such a society where sadness is not possible, why will one even bother with the question: "Are you happy?"

And since no one bothers about such a question, why should one bother with the word: "happy", a term to describe a specific, human emotion?

And since no one bothers about this "happy" word, isn't the word "happy" simply just vestigial word? An emotion that is so common (since there aren't any sadness available in the world) that people are simply living their lives without knowing what being "happy" really means? Will that then, means, that a world without sadness will simply be a world that is simply voided of all emotions, simply "happiness" is simply valued as something "common", and "mundane"?

This post has been edited by Deadlocks: May 30 2010, 11:50 AM

What's that?