Beautifully argued. I'd say there's a specific mechanism behind the mirage: hagioptasia - an evolved tendency to project specialness onto external things, making them shimmer with apparent promise. The function was never to deliver satisfaction, only to generate pursuit.
All this rings true to me. But arguably human psychology differs more than we tend to be aware of. There seem to be important innate temperamental differences in how different people experience life. Commenter Maria Trepp, for example, avers that she’s extremely satisfied and happy. We all know people who are usually cheerful and in a good and positive mood (not as a result of particularly happy circumstances, but simply because they have a natural proclivity to be that way) and whose “preternatural” sunny disposition appears nearly impervious to even “the slings and arrows of outrageous fortune."
On another note, I agree that our higher consciousness gives us the singular ability to realize that we will never be satisfied, but quite possibly it is that very high consciousness that makes us singularly prone to being perpetually unsatisfied. I very much doubt that a cat, say, is constantly in a dissatisfied mood because whatever it is it most desires will never be fully attained. It is the very realization, unique to humans, that our desires are by their very nature ultimately unfulfillable, that may engender in us (at least in those of us not endowed with that perennial sunny disposition mentioned above) that sense of perpetual striving and only fleeting satisfaction that you so aptly describe.
"The happiest countries and happiest U.S. states tend to have the highest suicide rates, according to research from the UK’s University of Warwick, Hamilton College in New York and the Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco."
True. Yet I would argue that doing Buddhistic things is a status game only if you flaunt it. Timothy Miller wrote a book How to Want What You Have that makes the same points as this post, that everyone wants more money (resources), status, and love because humans in our ancestral line who had an insatiable desire for these things were the most reproductively successful, and here we are. At the same time, Miller suggests that cultivating compassion, attention, and gratitude can at least temper those desires, if not eliminate them. If you need structure for cultivating those attitudes, Miller has an excellent workbook, Wanting What You Have, that I have found useful. Miller presented these ideas, by the way decades ago.
I would describe it differently: humans and human communities are always dynamic and developing. As an individual I always want to learn and develop. As long as I am dynamically developing in various ways, I am happy and satisfied.
So I only agree on the aspect of dynamic development, not on the cynical “never satisfied”.
That's a genuinely interesting counterpoint. Though I'd ask whether the sense that growth and development are deeply meaningful and rewarding itself worth examining?
There may be a perceptual mechanism that makes certain pursuits shimmer with apparent depth and significance, including self-development.
If so, the satisfaction you feel may be less about arriving and more about the enchantment that keeps the horizon feeling worthwhile. Which isn't a criticism - it may be a healthy target for the mechanism.
The mechanism behind the psychological need to learn and develop competence is described as a universal basic human need in the humanist Self Determination Theory (SDT) (Deci & Ryan). The fulfilment of this basic needs is seen as intrinsically motivating.
The “forever dissatisfied” feeling is on the other hand described as a typical symptom of being extrinsically motivated by money, status and power.
It has to be said, though, that “intrinsically versus extrinsically motivated” is not a black-and-white-model, SDT sees a whole grey spectrum between intrinsic and extrinsic motivation.
And indeed, motivation is a process, a movement. You never arrrive. I agree to the dynamic part of the article, but not to the implied negative emotion.
Intrinsic motivation is stronlgy connected to a "flow" feeling.
The mechanism I had in mind is called hagioptasia - the evolved tendency to project 'specialness' and significance onto goals, making them feel as though they radiate fulfilment from within. It operates at a different level to SDT - not the structure of motivation, but what makes certain goals feel 'enchanted' enough to pursue.
Intrinsic goals may simply be more sustainable targets for hagioptasia - compelling without the disappointment extrinsic ones tend to bring. Complementary rather than competing, I'd say.
This reminds me of the prudent handling of desires by the Epicureans who teach to always reflect your desires and their consequences and to differ in natural/ necessary and unnecessary desires. „"If thou wilt make a man happy, add not unto his riches but take away from his desires“
Interesting but there's a unresolved tension here, between saying "we're all obsessed with status" versus "some people are obsessed with status and you'd better watch out for them." There's an obvious evolutionary reason that we SHOULD be obsessed with status, if that's the way to find a mate and raise your kids so that they can reproduce, unless status itself is what poses the moral danger.
That was my reading of the warning about bullshitters, but that's incidental. The tension is between the suggestion that everyone is anxious about status and that high status people are anxious about status. [I just edited this realizing that I had the order of causation wrong, sorry.]
Ah I see. I’m saying we should watch out for being manipulated by people, regardless of whether those people are motivated by status. I think we all want to avoid being manipulated. And I think we all want status, though some want it more strongly than others.
Beautifully argued. I'd say there's a specific mechanism behind the mirage: hagioptasia - an evolved tendency to project specialness onto external things, making them shimmer with apparent promise. The function was never to deliver satisfaction, only to generate pursuit.
All this rings true to me. But arguably human psychology differs more than we tend to be aware of. There seem to be important innate temperamental differences in how different people experience life. Commenter Maria Trepp, for example, avers that she’s extremely satisfied and happy. We all know people who are usually cheerful and in a good and positive mood (not as a result of particularly happy circumstances, but simply because they have a natural proclivity to be that way) and whose “preternatural” sunny disposition appears nearly impervious to even “the slings and arrows of outrageous fortune."
On another note, I agree that our higher consciousness gives us the singular ability to realize that we will never be satisfied, but quite possibly it is that very high consciousness that makes us singularly prone to being perpetually unsatisfied. I very much doubt that a cat, say, is constantly in a dissatisfied mood because whatever it is it most desires will never be fully attained. It is the very realization, unique to humans, that our desires are by their very nature ultimately unfulfillable, that may engender in us (at least in those of us not endowed with that perennial sunny disposition mentioned above) that sense of perpetual striving and only fleeting satisfaction that you so aptly describe.
Reminds me of this lovely finding
"The happiest countries and happiest U.S. states tend to have the highest suicide rates, according to research from the UK’s University of Warwick, Hamilton College in New York and the Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco."
https://scienceblog.com/happiest-places-have-highest-suicide-rates-says-new-research/
All so true and, yes, weirdly comforting. Great piece.
Amen. Storr’s essay on the bs of Buddhism is outstanding. Must read.
True. Yet I would argue that doing Buddhistic things is a status game only if you flaunt it. Timothy Miller wrote a book How to Want What You Have that makes the same points as this post, that everyone wants more money (resources), status, and love because humans in our ancestral line who had an insatiable desire for these things were the most reproductively successful, and here we are. At the same time, Miller suggests that cultivating compassion, attention, and gratitude can at least temper those desires, if not eliminate them. If you need structure for cultivating those attitudes, Miller has an excellent workbook, Wanting What You Have, that I have found useful. Miller presented these ideas, by the way decades ago.
I have this book and it is great! Very helpful in ordering one's thoughts.
Actually, I am extremely satisfied and happy.
I do not agree with your words or your concepts.
I would describe it differently: humans and human communities are always dynamic and developing. As an individual I always want to learn and develop. As long as I am dynamically developing in various ways, I am happy and satisfied.
So I only agree on the aspect of dynamic development, not on the cynical “never satisfied”.
That's a genuinely interesting counterpoint. Though I'd ask whether the sense that growth and development are deeply meaningful and rewarding itself worth examining?
There may be a perceptual mechanism that makes certain pursuits shimmer with apparent depth and significance, including self-development.
If so, the satisfaction you feel may be less about arriving and more about the enchantment that keeps the horizon feeling worthwhile. Which isn't a criticism - it may be a healthy target for the mechanism.
The mechanism behind the psychological need to learn and develop competence is described as a universal basic human need in the humanist Self Determination Theory (SDT) (Deci & Ryan). The fulfilment of this basic needs is seen as intrinsically motivating.
The “forever dissatisfied” feeling is on the other hand described as a typical symptom of being extrinsically motivated by money, status and power.
It has to be said, though, that “intrinsically versus extrinsically motivated” is not a black-and-white-model, SDT sees a whole grey spectrum between intrinsic and extrinsic motivation.
And indeed, motivation is a process, a movement. You never arrrive. I agree to the dynamic part of the article, but not to the implied negative emotion.
Intrinsic motivation is stronlgy connected to a "flow" feeling.
The mechanism I had in mind is called hagioptasia - the evolved tendency to project 'specialness' and significance onto goals, making them feel as though they radiate fulfilment from within. It operates at a different level to SDT - not the structure of motivation, but what makes certain goals feel 'enchanted' enough to pursue.
Intrinsic goals may simply be more sustainable targets for hagioptasia - compelling without the disappointment extrinsic ones tend to bring. Complementary rather than competing, I'd say.
Satisfaction is temporary is not the same as, "You will never be satisfied". The distinction is useful, and true.
This reminds me of the prudent handling of desires by the Epicureans who teach to always reflect your desires and their consequences and to differ in natural/ necessary and unnecessary desires. „"If thou wilt make a man happy, add not unto his riches but take away from his desires“
https://m.economictimes.com/news/new-updates/quote-of-the-day-by-epicurus-if-you-wish-to-make-a-man-wealthy-do-not-give-him-/articleshow/126248796.cms
So you are antinatalist right ? Right ?
No, though I sympathize with it more than most people.
Interesting but there's a unresolved tension here, between saying "we're all obsessed with status" versus "some people are obsessed with status and you'd better watch out for them." There's an obvious evolutionary reason that we SHOULD be obsessed with status, if that's the way to find a mate and raise your kids so that they can reproduce, unless status itself is what poses the moral danger.
I didn’t say we should watch out for those people who are obsessed with status, so there’s no tension.
That was my reading of the warning about bullshitters, but that's incidental. The tension is between the suggestion that everyone is anxious about status and that high status people are anxious about status. [I just edited this realizing that I had the order of causation wrong, sorry.]
Ah I see. I’m saying we should watch out for being manipulated by people, regardless of whether those people are motivated by status. I think we all want to avoid being manipulated. And I think we all want status, though some want it more strongly than others.