Saturday, April 4, 2009

Something weird I learned

Did you know that Insulin, the hormone that helps us regulate our blood sugar, is known to cause cancer? I just found out today while reading a newsletter in my work inbox.

That just intrigues me because it pretty much proves that the human body is imperfect, despite many people believing that it is perfect and can fix anything if it knows how. I mean, in a sense, that may be true, but it goes to show that no amount of natural living will protect you from everything.

Anyway, that also means that sugar indirectly aids cancer growth, meaning that the fuel that makes your body move and think and jump and hit your wife is the very thing that will kill you someday. You cannot escape it. It's both fascinating and depressing to think about.

Being sick, suffering, dying, all part of the human experience, yet it makes us so miserable.

Curtis moved out yesterday, if he doesn't get filleted on the highway while he hitchhikes then it'll be a great experience for him. Before he left we had a long talk about spirituality and philosophy and the many reasons we think Mormonism is a joke after our years of being so devoted to it.

The concept of suffering came up in a roundabout way. If, in our universe, the popular Christian model is false, then what exactly is suffering? In the reverse, what exactly is pleasure? If the universe really is just a series of physical reactions that coincidentally created life and sentience, then how do you find meaning in anything?

I personally believe in a rather uncommon view of reincarnation. I don't follow any one religion, but I believe in a particular model of the universe that generally frees me from worry about many things. However, my instinct tells me that suffering is empirically "bad". When I think about it, I believe that suffering is good, because it gives us something relative to base "good" from.

So, if suffering is good and pleasure is bad, yet the opposite at the same time, then who do you end up admiring most in the following two scenarios:

1.) A tribal person is taken from his life of squatting in the dirt and eating tree bark to the clean lavish lifestyle of a Hollywood millionaire overnight. He learns languages and gets schooling and starts eating healthy and exercising and everything "good" you can think of. He is very happy now that he has everything, it would seem, and can't believe he lived for so long pooping in his front yard.

2.) The CEO of a huge corporation who has it all realizes that his blood pressure is reaching dangerous levels. If he doesn't change anything drastic, he could develop serious heart disease and not live much longer, and if he quits his job and gives everything up, he will most likely return to a normal healthy state. He decides not to risk the "if" and gives up everything, going so far as to take his millions and buy a plot of land in the woods and live off the land for the rest of his life. He finds he is very happy now that he has almost nothing, and can't believe he wasted so much time on trivial things like money, cars, and business.

So, which guy is more admirable? Who finds more worth in life? The guy who gained everything, or the guy who gave up everything?

Unfortunately, those scenarios aren't extensive enough. Maybe the CEO ends up with heart disease anyway and dies slowly on the mountain from a mild heart attack that leaves him too frail to stand and walk. Maybe the Tribesman finds he has no friends and gives up on life, throwing himself from a bridge, only to find that he's broken both legs and cannot crawl to anyone or thing that could help him. Who knows?

4 comments:

Unknown said...

Is the "success" in your scenario defined by material possession, or lack thereof, or is it defined by happiness?

Big Boss said...

Well, that's kinda the point. How do you define success with regards to the entire lifespan of a being when there are so many facets of good and bad and success and failure?

To limit the criteria to material possessions, even going so far as to say that happiness is possessing more dopamine than the next guy, then that leaves out spiritual possessions, which are infinitely difficult to ascertain value from.

Unknown said...

It seems to me that the question you're asking is about possessions, as you have laid it out in the original post. "So, which guy is more admirable? Who finds more worth in life? The guy who gained everything, or the guy who gave up everything?"

I would argue that they both gained something that made them happy and made them feel fulfilled and enriched in their life choices. I would argue that they were both successful. To define the degree to which they were successful is perhaps beyond the ability of human experience, because as you say, it's infinitely difficult to ascertain the value of spirituality.

So is the question an exercise in thought, or a genuine concern about the best way to live your life? Pursuit of happiness is a culturally defined ideal in life, but what bestows happiness? It is different for every person (in spite of what our aggressive advertising campaigns would like you to think).

Sarahbellum said...

Interesting thoughts. I've considered this idea often. What if we restate it without the concept of success:

1.) A man who lives his life without ever taking risks or trying many new things, is protected from harm, nothing bad ever happens to him, develops a meaningful relationship, et cetera, lives an average life.

2.) A man who lives his life in constant struggle, but experiencing everything he can, taking lots of risks, failing often, no meaningful relationships, hard work, hard life.

Which man appreciates a great opportunity or good thing or new chance more?

I studied Buddhism intensively for a couple of years, and one of the basic ideas in that philosophy is that suffering is because of our attachment to people, ideas, objects, etc. To eliminate suffering, we just have to be able to balance the sword. The loss of one relationship is the low that helps us appreciate the high of a new relationship.

Either way, I think you have to take opportunity and action into account. Some people call this luck. I do think you have to either have been or in some way experienced poverty to appreciate being rich, been hated to truly appreciate love... basically: Life is a sine wave, just not as organized.