there appears to be a fallacy in the usual discourse of suffering. how the idea that i am suffering less than a poor 3rd world person is a myth. that americans in general are suffering less than 3rd world person. that somehow the rich suffer less than the poor.
the idea of an overarching metric or spectrum by which we place and compare ourselves to others is false. my suffering is unique to me, not something easy quantifiable where one can assume i suffer less than an 3rd world person. my struggles are just as profound as what some else's may be.
it isn't obvious to me that my suffering is any less or more than someone else's.
As I sit here watching annihilation, an incredibly small part of me is protesting the fact that my weighted blanket is not on me, like wtf. So petty! Or is it…? consider the bed to be the universe, and my tiredness to be gravity. my tiredness is so big that the gravity that i need to overcome to even move across this universe if a bed is so much, and takes as much toll to overcome
Within the confines/domain/context ofthe situation, such a circumstance is felt as though I had left my water bottle across the desert field and that I have to go back to it.
The question is-why do I feel the same level of annoyance in both scenarios? Surely the latter is more significant than the former?
- talk about how somebody like jocko willink would have a higher threshold pain/discipkine, so doing 100 pushups form is as much a strtruggle as newbie doing 10 pushups-that is to say, they are both virtuous and valid, and jocko isn’t actually “better” or more disciplined..
that everyone's gravity is different. the intertia is different.
“you live in a nice house, how hard can your life be?” - as if there’s some sort of universal spectrum or continuum in which we all fall upon…at least one that is measured simply by materialism. such a lack of nuance and simplistic lens to measure well-being.
the struggle to wake up in the middle of the night to go to the bathroom may be as much of a struggle as a prisoner getting tortured (extreme example, depending on if that prisoner has becoming accustomed to it). if you have a system that compares the two together, then it may appear that the prison torture is worse than going to the bathroom, but if the person going to the bathrooms never cultivated any “ struggle muscle” from previous struggles, this TO HIM may seem like torture (like someone who has never experienced torture), even though to most of use it seems intuitive that the tortureewould be worse.
in the same way, a homeless person who is used to starvatoion, hunger, cold, and a hard floor would endure less pain/struggle than a rich man who ho underwent thgast for a. week.
makes you think about prior conditions " your grit wa
can talk about jock willink too. eventually discipline is superseded by conditioning
this might be a separate essay-
consciousness is decentralized.
morality is decentralized.
the idea of an overarching system in which things are compared to one another based on this over arching system (i.e a family is more dysfunctional than another based on a metric) is false.
the idea that i must give myself up to be part of some system..no.
i want decentralization.
my consciousness has become decentralized.
as i eat this chipotle burrito, i had the perfect bite, and wanted to see it before biting..but i just bit it. so that experience i could have had of gazing at the jute is gone. i could spend the rest of my life agonizing over that fact, and it would be perfectly valid!
the movie extras are as important as the main characters, everything seemingly significant depends on every small piece too. i could spend the entire movie watching the edges of the screen instead of the center--but this links to bandwidth of attention.
my initial reaction to this was that it's funny and true, but it's actually not. you can't judge suffering based on something so superficial like if someone has a big house or not. suffering is multidimensional
the problem of negation // nullification