ENJOY MISERY ALSO THE SAME WAY LIKE HAPPINESS

[Iwannaplato]

The experiencer is the one who determines what to make of it

The word misery indicates how it is experienced by the experiencer.
Yes, the experiencer can go from there and think of it in a variety of ways, but the experience is misery or it wouldn't be misery.

As much horror and misery as there can be, there can also be as much love and joy.

Perhaps some people are disagreeing with the OP in a way that implies there isn't also good experience, but I doubt this fits most people objecting to the OP.

[Lacewing]

The experiencer is the one who determines what to make of it

The word misery indicates how it is experienced by the experiencer.
Yes, the experiencer can go from there and think of it in a variety of ways, but the experience is misery or it wouldn't be misery.

How can an experience be anything without an experiencer's judgement of it?

Misery isn't a 'thing' that everyone can try to experience differently. Misery is a way of experiencing and much of that is based on the experiencer, themselves.

I'm not saying this to blame the experiencer, but to suggest recognition of our own involvement in it, which might also lead us to recognize greater potential and empowerment for ourselves.

We're not existing in a world of absolutes of which our primary role is simply to judge and know. We are co-creators.

[vegetariantaxidermy]

The experiencer is the one who determines what to make of it

The word misery indicates how it is experienced by the experiencer.
Yes, the experiencer can go from there and think of it in a variety of ways, but the experience is misery or it wouldn't be misery.

How can an experience be anything without an experiencer's judgement of it?

Misery isn't a 'thing' that everyone can try to experience differently. Misery is a way of experiencing and much of that is based on the experiencer, themselves.

I'm not saying this to blame the experiencer, but to suggest recognition of our own involvement in it, which might also lead us to recognize greater potential and empowerment for ourselves.

We're not existing in a world of absolutes of which our primary role is simply to judge and know. We are co-creators.

While it's true that some people manage to 'find misery' in everything and don't appear to have any capacity for happiness or joy, there are things that are objectively 'misery inducing', like losing a child, being skinned alive etc. etc. unless the person is a psychopath or completely insane. No amount of airy-fairy new-age waffling is going to change that.
Apart from being eaten and enslaved by the Maori, many Moriori died of kongenge, which means despair and sadness. I suppose the feeling of extreme despair when you are on the receiving end of genocide is a 'choice'...

[Lacewing]

While it's true that some people manage to 'find misery' in everything and don't appear to have any capacity for happeness or joy, there are things that are objectively 'misery inducing', like losing a child, being skinned alive etc. etc.

Agreed!

I'm focusing on pointing out that misery is not some kind of absolute, unavoidable condition/circumstance. That is NOT to say that there aren't circumstances that are sure to result in misery for most people. But simply, the more that we think misery is unavoidable or justified... the more we use it to create our experience.

[vegetariantaxidermy]

While it's true that some people manage to 'find misery' in everything and don't appear to have any capacity for happeness or joy, there are things that are objectively 'misery inducing', like losing a child, being skinned alive etc. etc.

Agreed!

I'm focusing on pointing out that misery is not some kind of absolute, unavoidable condition/circumstance. That is NOT to say that there aren't circumstances that are sure to result in misery for most people. But simply, the more that we think misery is unavoidable or justified... the more we use it to create our experience.

So are you 'agreeing' or 'disagreeing' with me? I can't work out which

[Iwannaplato]

How can an experience be anything without an experiencer's judgement of it?

Misery isn't a 'thing' that everyone can try to experience differently. Misery is a way of experiencing and much of that is based on the experiencer, themselves.

I'm not saying this to blame the experiencer, but to suggest recognition of our own involvement in it, which might also lead us to recognize greater potential and empowerment for ourselves.

We're not existing in a world of absolutes of which our primary role is simply to judge and know. We are co-creators.

If the person manages by whatever means to experience it as something other than misery, then they didn't experience misery. It would be the wrong word. And then if their proclivities lead them to enjoy getting nipple clamps put on them, it won't be misery for them, as it is for others.

But if it is misery, then it is misery. They may place this philosophically or attitudinally, after the fact, in some outlook that means they look back on it differently from others. But if it was misery, simply because of what it was, or because despite or because of their co-creation it was misery, it was misery.

If someone loves or thinks it's cool while it is happening, then it isn't misery. Misery is, precisely and exactly, talking about what the person experiences. If you are completely and utterly correct that that experience is cocreated, well, they cocreated misery
or
another word (other than 'misery' that is)
would have been appropriate.

[Lacewing]

While it's true that some people manage to 'find misery' in everything and don't appear to have any capacity for happeness or joy, there are things that are objectively 'misery inducing', like losing a child, being skinned alive etc. etc.

Agreed!

I'm focusing on pointing out that misery is not some kind of absolute, unavoidable condition/circumstance. That is NOT to say that there aren't circumstances that are sure to result in misery for most people. But simply, the more that we think misery is unavoidable or justified... the more we use it to create our experience.

So are you 'agreeing' or 'disagreeing' with me? I can't work out which

I'm agreeing with what you said (above) and adding my additional thoughts on the topic. I don't know if my additional thoughts are something you agree with or not -- but I'm guessing it doesn't matter. Any agreement we have is good enough.

[Lacewing]

How can an experience be anything without an experiencer's judgement of it?

Misery isn't a 'thing' that everyone can try to experience differently. Misery is a way of experiencing and much of that is based on the experiencer, themselves.

I'm not saying this to blame the experiencer, but to suggest recognition of our own involvement in it, which might also lead us to recognize greater potential and empowerment for ourselves.

We're not existing in a world of absolutes of which our primary role is simply to judge and know. We are co-creators.

If the person manages by whatever means to experience it as something other than misery, then they didn't experience misery. It would be the wrong word. And then if their proclivities lead them to enjoy getting nipple clamps put on them, it won't be misery for them, as it is for others.

But if it is misery, they it is misery. They may place this philosophically or attitudinally, after the fact, is some outlook that means they look back on it differently from others. But if it was misery, simply because of what it was, or because despite or becuase of their co-creation it was misery, it was misery.

If someone loves or thinks it's cool while it is happening, then it isn't misery. Misery is, precisely and exactly, talking about what the person experiences. If you are completely and utterly correct that that experience is cocreated, well, they cocreated misery
or
another word
would have been appropriate.

So, what's your point? Seriously, what are the implications you're trying to point out? Are you pro-misery or anti-misery? Do you like the movie 'Misery'? I've lost track of why we're talking about this.

[Iwannaplato]

So, what's your point?

Do you disagree with what I wrote? If so, that might explain what I'm on about. If not, well, then we're on the same page. Or I wrote poorly. But I don't think I did. Which could point to more problems on my part. But then, that's me then. The same guy who'd try a fifth rephrase.

Are you pro-misery or anti-misery?

I don't like misery. But one can deduce that from the word itself. If I liked X, I wouldn't call it misery. (shit, that might be number five or six)

Do you like the movie 'Misery'?

It was ok. My best friend loved it. So, I wanted to love it. But I didn't. I fell short or it fell short or both.

I've lost track of why we're talking about this.

I can live with that.

[Lacewing]

So, what's your point?

Do you disagree with what I wrote?

I can't tell.

[Iwannaplato]

So, what's your point?

Do you disagree with what I wrote?

I can't tell.

Are you pro-misery or anti-misery?

I don't like misery. But one can deduce that from the word itself. If I liked X, I wouldn't call it misery. (shit, that might be number five or six)

If one's judgement leads to experiencing X as not miserable/misery, then that word won't come up.

You wouldn't say when my wife died it was misery, but I judged it as not misery so I didn't experience misery. If so, then you wouldn't say the first part of the sentence.

Misery is a subjective (what one experiences term). It can make sense to say the death of a loved one can be experienced not as misery because our judgments co-create the experience.

It does not make sense to say, If you experience misery it can be experienced not as misery because our judgments co-create the experience. That makes no sense.

[Lacewing]

If one's judgement leads to experiencing X as not miserable/misery, then that word won't come up.

Yes, I did get that you were saying this. But your additional clarification below (perhaps) helps me to respond. Thanks.

You wouldn't say when my wife died it was misery, but I judged it as not misery so I didn't experience misery. If so, then you wouldn't say the first part of the sentence.

Misery is a subjective (what one experiences term). It can make sense to say the death of a loved one can be experienced not as misery because our judgments co-create the experience.

It does not make sense to say, If you experience misery it can be experienced not as misery because our judgments co-create the experience. That makes no sense.

I cannot comment directly on what you say because it seems to me that your statements strive to create an absolute condition/situation of some sort, which does not make sense to me. Maybe the best way I can respond is to show how I think of it differently. A person can experience misery, recognize that it's happening, and then shift to non-misery. Of course this is not always seemingly possible. But experiences can and do shift based on a person's involvement and awareness.

Further, we can change the way we evaluate things. A miserable trauma can be understood differently afterward as a benefit/gift of some sort. That doesn't change the misery we felt in the moment, but it can change our ongoing experience of it.

I think this is how our judgments and awareness can be used to create/co-create our experience -- perpetuating, amplifying, or reframing, shifting, etc.

Does that explanation make sense to you?

[Iwannaplato]

If one's judgement leads to experiencing X as not miserable/misery, then that word won't come up.

Yes, I did get that you were saying this. But your additional clarification below (perhaps) helps me to respond. Thanks.

You wouldn't say when my wife died it was misery, but I judged it as not misery so I didn't experience misery. If so, then you wouldn't say the first part of the sentence.

Misery is a subjective (what one experiences term). It can make sense to say the death of a loved one can be experienced not as misery because our judgments co-create the experience.

It does not make sense to say, If you experience misery it can be experienced not as misery because our judgments co-create the experience. That makes no sense.

I cannot comment directly on what you say because it seems to me that your statements strive to create an absolute condition/situation of some sort, which does not make sense to me. Maybe the best way I can respond is to show how I think of it differently. A person can experience misery, recognize that it's happening, and then shift to non-misery.

Sure, yes, no problem with that.

Further, we can change the way we evaluate things. A miserable trauma can be understood differently afterward as a benefit/gift of some sort.

Yes, that's also fine.

That doesn't change the misery we felt in the moment, but it can change our ongoing experience of it.

Yes, fine.

I think this is how our judgments and awareness can be used to create/co-create our experience -- perpetuating, amplifying, or reframing, shifting, etc.

And I will even go further and say that one's attitude/philosophy whatever in the moment can lead to us experiencing something in the moment that otherwise might have been miserable if we had a different take/attitude in the moment. And then it wasn't misery.

Does that explanation make sense to you?

Yes.

The reason my position was absolute, and it was and is, is because he word misery entails that it is a terrible experience when experienced. We can deduce this from the word. Much as other subjective evaluations of what an experience is like are well how they were experienced.

I was terrified when our car shot off the bridge into the air but what I felt was only joy, just doesn't make sense. I suppose one might also feel joy, though unless you are a stunt person or something or suicidal, I'd probably worry about you even then.

It seemed like some people in the thread seemed to think that misery can be ok if you have the right attitude. Now they may simply think what often triggers misery need not make us feel miserable. Or like you mean that how we look back on that moment once it has passed may change.

And I appreciated that you said something about your not blaming people or something on that order. Because apart from the issue I am raising about what we can deduce from the use of the word misery, I also think people take these things too far and it does have an implicit or explicit blaming to it.

And then systems like stoicism (which I have some agreement with) and Buddhism, can become total systems that I think are actually anti-life while the latter may not at all seem that way. Also some portions of HInduism. And whatever religion or mix the OP writer is selling here, starting right with the title of the thread.