An answer to suffering
Hrm. I stopped posting in this when Buzz came out. I should link the two and post my essays here. For now, I'll just x-post.
The following is a bit of an essay regarding Hitherby Dragons. If you do not care to read it, don't. I'm well aware that I'm a bit too obsessed with this work of literature, but it _resonates_ with me so soundly, it feels, at times, the platonic ideal of my philosophy is speaking to me through the work. Note, the below contains spoilers for Hitherby Dragons up through October 19th, 2006 (Kevin, catch up already so we can talk about it again!).
If you don't know what the heck I'm talking about (I guess because you've never spoken with me ever?), start here: http://imago.hitherby.com/?m=200309 (and browse by month, the next/prev buttons, along with most of the site, is currently broken). It starts making sense around entry 148.
----
One of the really interesting things to me about "Hitherby Dragons: An Answer to Suffering" is that it isn't about finding a _solution_ to suffering. It's about finding an _answer_. Getting rid of suffering forever is trivial - just destroy the world. That isn't even that hard in the story's metaphysics, you just need to convince Cronos to put down his burden, or maybe break the bindings Zeus made so Cronos collapses under the weight he can no longer bear to shoulder alone. The gap between that burden and the ground is the space we call "Time," that which holds the afterlife at bay so that we have a chance to, through our interaction with suffering, _earn_ what we will be given anyway when our time is up. So, ending suffering would grant everyone who lives (and everyone who will ever live) bliss forever. That's presented as a horrible thing, the end of the world, the destruction of everything we hold dear, and I agree.
I think that's a marvelous way to look at it. Suffering presented not as something to embrace, nor something to avoid, but as something that is a part of life. Without it, what you have cannot be called 'life.' Suffering, the threat of suffering, and the knowledge that suffering exists are essential qualities to meaningful existence. How one interacts with suffering is incredibly important, and there is nothing wrong with alleviating the suffering of others or of oneself.
The way I read the story, there have been many _answers_ to suffering over the eras of the world. Round Man's answer was what created suffering in the first place ("Things should happen in the most appropriate fashion," which created the chains called Necessity). Uri's answer (remove everything that, by acting appropriately would cause suffering) did not hold. Cronos's answer (allow suffering into the world, but hold it all back with his own strength and regulate it as appropriate) did not hold. Zeus's answer (which we currently do not know, but likely involved breaking the chain Necessity) did not hold. The Buddha's answer ("Listen. This is enlightenment: Suffering is unnecessary. To make it unnecessary-- That is the nature of the Buddha. That is my dharma.") is also failing.
So, what *is* the answer? Suffering is not a question. The answer is a methodology, or a morality, or a philosophy. From the text, I conclude that Dr. Moran does not think the answer is "I suffer because I deserve it. By acting different, I can avoid my suffering." That is Round Man's answer, and it is wrong. Nor is the answer, "I suffer because, on some level, I sought it and brought it upon myself. I can avoid my suffering by keeping from things that will make me suffer." That is Uri's answer, and it is wrong. Nor the answer, "My misery is ordained so that I may prove to myself that I deserve everything that I have. My suffering is the payment for my bliss." That is Cronos's answer, and it is wrong. I can surmise that Zeus's answer was something to the effect of, "I suffer because others want me to suffer. It is their fault that I am suffering, and there is nothing I can do about it," but that assumes that Zeus broke the chain Necessity and delivered free will unto the world, which is possible but not yet written. Nor the final answer presented, the answer the Buddha gave, "Suffering is an illusion. By realizing this, I may choose not to suffer." This answer does not hold under the weight of this world. Suffering is there, the name we give to the absence of our happy endings, endings held away from us by Cronos in a concept we know as Time.
There is, however, one answer presented that is not an answer. It is a methodology by which suffering can be controlled, not because suffering is inappropriate. Not because suffering should be avoided. Not because the suffering is an external force that we have no control over. Not because the suffering is just an illusion. Not because of anything at all. Just because it's _a good idea_. It is the philosophy of Master Kong: *"We must try to be good,"* (_Analects_, paraphrased).
This simple morality is that which I have embraced. This will serve as my answer for now. It is not, we must be good. What is good? It is, we must act in a way that we perceive as correct and fair and meaningful and right. We must not do things that we do not consider good things to do. We must do our best to be true to ourselves. If we fall short, if we fail, it is okay, but we should at least try. I have lived under this philosophy for some time, and I will continue to do so until I find a new answer.
----
All of this, of course, is my interpretation of Dr. Moran's work. My current one. I have had others, and I will have others again later. For now, o my loves, remember that Dharma moves.
The following is a bit of an essay regarding Hitherby Dragons. If you do not care to read it, don't. I'm well aware that I'm a bit too obsessed with this work of literature, but it _resonates_ with me so soundly, it feels, at times, the platonic ideal of my philosophy is speaking to me through the work. Note, the below contains spoilers for Hitherby Dragons up through October 19th, 2006 (Kevin, catch up already so we can talk about it again!).
If you don't know what the heck I'm talking about (I guess because you've never spoken with me ever?), start here: http://imago.hitherby.com/?m=200309 (and browse by month, the next/prev buttons, along with most of the site, is currently broken). It starts making sense around entry 148.
----
One of the really interesting things to me about "Hitherby Dragons: An Answer to Suffering" is that it isn't about finding a _solution_ to suffering. It's about finding an _answer_. Getting rid of suffering forever is trivial - just destroy the world. That isn't even that hard in the story's metaphysics, you just need to convince Cronos to put down his burden, or maybe break the bindings Zeus made so Cronos collapses under the weight he can no longer bear to shoulder alone. The gap between that burden and the ground is the space we call "Time," that which holds the afterlife at bay so that we have a chance to, through our interaction with suffering, _earn_ what we will be given anyway when our time is up. So, ending suffering would grant everyone who lives (and everyone who will ever live) bliss forever. That's presented as a horrible thing, the end of the world, the destruction of everything we hold dear, and I agree.
I think that's a marvelous way to look at it. Suffering presented not as something to embrace, nor something to avoid, but as something that is a part of life. Without it, what you have cannot be called 'life.' Suffering, the threat of suffering, and the knowledge that suffering exists are essential qualities to meaningful existence. How one interacts with suffering is incredibly important, and there is nothing wrong with alleviating the suffering of others or of oneself.
The way I read the story, there have been many _answers_ to suffering over the eras of the world. Round Man's answer was what created suffering in the first place ("Things should happen in the most appropriate fashion," which created the chains called Necessity). Uri's answer (remove everything that, by acting appropriately would cause suffering) did not hold. Cronos's answer (allow suffering into the world, but hold it all back with his own strength and regulate it as appropriate) did not hold. Zeus's answer (which we currently do not know, but likely involved breaking the chain Necessity) did not hold. The Buddha's answer ("Listen. This is enlightenment: Suffering is unnecessary. To make it unnecessary-- That is the nature of the Buddha. That is my dharma.") is also failing.
So, what *is* the answer? Suffering is not a question. The answer is a methodology, or a morality, or a philosophy. From the text, I conclude that Dr. Moran does not think the answer is "I suffer because I deserve it. By acting different, I can avoid my suffering." That is Round Man's answer, and it is wrong. Nor is the answer, "I suffer because, on some level, I sought it and brought it upon myself. I can avoid my suffering by keeping from things that will make me suffer." That is Uri's answer, and it is wrong. Nor the answer, "My misery is ordained so that I may prove to myself that I deserve everything that I have. My suffering is the payment for my bliss." That is Cronos's answer, and it is wrong. I can surmise that Zeus's answer was something to the effect of, "I suffer because others want me to suffer. It is their fault that I am suffering, and there is nothing I can do about it," but that assumes that Zeus broke the chain Necessity and delivered free will unto the world, which is possible but not yet written. Nor the final answer presented, the answer the Buddha gave, "Suffering is an illusion. By realizing this, I may choose not to suffer." This answer does not hold under the weight of this world. Suffering is there, the name we give to the absence of our happy endings, endings held away from us by Cronos in a concept we know as Time.
There is, however, one answer presented that is not an answer. It is a methodology by which suffering can be controlled, not because suffering is inappropriate. Not because suffering should be avoided. Not because the suffering is an external force that we have no control over. Not because the suffering is just an illusion. Not because of anything at all. Just because it's _a good idea_. It is the philosophy of Master Kong: *"We must try to be good,"* (_Analects_, paraphrased).
This simple morality is that which I have embraced. This will serve as my answer for now. It is not, we must be good. What is good? It is, we must act in a way that we perceive as correct and fair and meaningful and right. We must not do things that we do not consider good things to do. We must do our best to be true to ourselves. If we fall short, if we fail, it is okay, but we should at least try. I have lived under this philosophy for some time, and I will continue to do so until I find a new answer.
----
All of this, of course, is my interpretation of Dr. Moran's work. My current one. I have had others, and I will have others again later. For now, o my loves, remember that Dharma moves.