The Science Of Decency

The Rundown: Suffering is said to be caused by desire. Desire, however, leads to more than one consequence. When a desire is met, there is not suffering, but fulfillment. Suffering results from the lack of fulfillment. Without desire, there is neither suffering, nor fulfillment.

In Buddhist and Hindu philosophy, it is widely discussed that human suffering comes as a result of earthly desire.  In this article, TSOD will attempt to answer these questions (and others related to this popular philosophy):  What is desire?  Does desire really lead to suffering?  What would happen if we removed desire from our lives?

To start, let us examine desire.  What is desire, exactly?  Desire, by the simplest explanation is a want.  Anything we want is a desire to “have”.

Desire, on a more technical sense, is a projection that some state, or reality, is necessary to fulfill some purpose.  Desire can have two consequences:  satisfaction, or dissatisfaction.  Suffering occurs when there is a definitive deficiency within the conditions of any desire.  Fulfillment occurs when the conditions of the desire have been acceptably satisfied.

Desires can be active or passive.  We can want something that we already have, which is passive, or we can want something that we don't have, which is active.  The “active” descriptor is applied because we are actively seeking to attain something that is not directly within our grasp.  Fulfilling an active desire is dependent upon external, uncontrollable, environmental conditions, so the measure of success might be considerably more “unknown”.

Desire in a passive sense is much easier to fulfill, as the conditions are already present.  If we wanted to define this, we could say that the acknowledgment of a continuing fulfillment is known as “thankfulness”.  The disruption of the criteria defined by a passive desire (an interruption to stability) causes a schism between the value of what is, and what is wanted.  This defines “suffering” based on the conceptual distance between reality and desire.  This, TSOD will regard as “passive suffering”.

Active desire requires that a projection be made.  This projection is of some state of reality desired to be fulfilled--the conditions of said state not currently present.  This type of desire can be a positive input or a negative input.  A desire for positive input would be to desire that a state be enacted.  A desire for negative input would be to desire that a current state be deactivated.  The change from current state into the desired state is a fulfillment.  The change from this into a reality that does not match up with desired criteria, outlines a suffering.

Only cognizant recognition of the degree of change will outline the satisfaction or dissatisfaction of criteria.  It is important to note that no recognition of the difference will not outline suffering.  This is because without active relation to the desire, there is no information which can be used, by the interpreter, to outline the degree of success and/or failure.

From a biological perspective, desire might be some sort of programmed instinct.  One example is a desire which says that food sustains life by providing nutrients.  From an early unthinking age, physical cells had grown to understand, chemically, that nutrients increase the chance of cellular propagation.  This particular instinct is defined by systems specifically designed for food processing.  These object-processing organs and organelles embody a chemical “desire” for nutrients in the hosts they occupy.

Suffering, in this context, would be when the system desires propagation and sends a signal to the brain.  This message tells the brain that in order to sustain the system, nutrients must be obtained.  This system would feel suffering if it did not obtain nutrients, given the request sent.  The same system would obtain rewards if it received nutrients, based on the signals it sent.  The system might recognize the desire by continuing signals (for suffering) or deactivating signal transmission (for fulfillment, and by way of chemical interaction).

The same concept goes for any distinct mental desire.  Any request for criteria has the potential to result in fulfillment or suffering.

Desire, if it has no intrinsic path leading to only one option, is then, a question.  Questions are defined as a request for information.  A desire is a distinct request for criteria to be fulfilled.  The response is in the situational fulfillment of the criteria, which is set forth by the question of desire.

If we remove desire, then what happens?  Well, given that desire is a question, removal of desire simply means that we stop asking the question.  But asking no question gets no answer.

Buddhist and Hindu philosophy says that by removing the question, you remove the negative response.  The asking of the question results in the negative result of suffering.  This is true, as suffering can only be experienced by comparing the results to the condition of the question.  But this is only half of the equation.   Removing the question also removes the positive aspect of results.

The computer “Joshua” in the 1983 film “WarGames” might have learned such a philosophy in the futility of asking questions.  Joshua was quoted in response to the game “Global Thermonuclear War” that it was “...futile to play...”.  The sentient computer was unable to define a winner (desire in this case being to discern a clear winner), as the opposing players (self-controlled) were too evenly matched.  With no attainable data, the desire was not fulfilled, resulting in an understanding that asking the question yielded only negative results (no winner found).  In this case, desire indeed caused suffering to the process.  It is not surprising then, that the resulting response was that the game was “...a strange game...”  and that the only winning move (a fulfillment) “...is not to play”.  Joshua gave up the search for the answer, due to a distinction that the effort put forth was not yielding positive results given an acceptable time-frame of “patience” .

What can we do if we don't know our desires beforehand?  We can always look at our symptoms.  In the same manner that we could understand desire from fear (see Fear Tactics), we can extrapolate desire from our interpretation of any given event.  We can gauge desire by comparing what is currently happening to what we want, or don't want, to be happening.  If we're fulfilled, we would compare our situation to what we would not want to happen.  If we're suffering, we would compare our situation to what we would want to happen instead.  The distance between these comparative states gives us a relative measure as to what the nature of our current experience entails.  This is possible because by reversing the outcomes dictated by the projected results, we can understand that, inherently, the variables which are in place are actively promoting the opposite of what we projected.

How does TSOD view handling this philosophy?  Primarily, as like all other topics, moderation is key.  Moderation of active desiring will help keep the participant balanced, in that not too much effort is put into removing the question or asking it.  Removal of the question as a whole would remove the experience of result.  Result, being an opposite to ignorance, is critical in understanding knowledge, as we know that a ubiquitous understanding of anything requires two opposing principles.

Since there is no way to moderate the results, TSOD will look at how to handle the results themselves.

In cases of fulfillment, humility is optimum.  Treating the fulfillment in the way a key fits a lock will help ground you.  Blowing it out of proportion will only treat the situation as a lie.  It devalues the accuracy of the situation, and that probably won't fulfill the expectations of those who desire a decent individual.  Rejoice in the success, but don't take it too far!  If you boast too much, you may come off as arrogant.

In cases of suffering, practicing patience and humility is optimum.  Treating it as a hurdle in the path to success will likely help you retain your mental strength for another go at the question, if you so desire.  If you don't have another chance (sometimes you don't), remember that not all things can be controlled.  Sometimes a mistake is all you get, but if you desired otherwise, you can rejoice in the fact that you wanted what was “relatively right”.  You can also rejoice in the effort you took to attain such goals and reflect on the positives.

If you'd like to top it all off, compare your desires to your moral compass to make sure they were properly adjusted.  If you find that you were wrong, simply acknowledge the difference, make adjustments to your internal protocol, and get on damage control as soon as (appropriately) possible.

I hope your desires have been met regarding this topic!

C. Thomas (Author, Proprietor)

-Edited by S. Walsh

(Title photo by bobaumiche)