(no subject)

[lhexa]

Every so often a new line of my specific insatiability becomes visible. Greed, as you know, can be found in wanting more of what one has. But what of the greed in wanting what is true to be true? I want you to exist.

Comments

[celyddon.livejournal.com]

Unfortuately, wanting something to be true only makes you hopeful that one day, it may actually become so. It does not change the state of being of the thing.

[lhexa.livejournal.com]

You misread.

[baktre.livejournal.com]

Is this the difference between rationally knowing something and emotionally knowing it?

[lhexa.livejournal.com]

No, the desire doesn't seem to be a matter of knowledge.

[http://users.livejournal.com/_dw/]

Or for that matter, what of the greed in wanting some things to be true, of the world to be more similar to your imagination?

[lhexa.livejournal.com]

I think that's somewhat easier to understand. At least there's a (hypothetical) path to satisfying the desire. The greed, I think, comes in the unreasonableness of the desire, whatever it is.

Do you have a specific example in mind?

[http://users.livejournal.com/_dw/]

If you have the desire of wanting what is true to be true, then your desire is already fulfilled. Where is the unreasonable nature and its subsequent greed? Is it in that you wish for it to remain true?

Do you have a specific example in mind?
Anybody that wants to alter the world has such a desire, and for those that want to reshape it completely, that would cross into greed territory, I think. That's not very specific, though.

[lhexa.livejournal.com]

If you have the desire of wanting what is true to be true, then your desire is already fulfilled. Where is the unreasonable nature and its subsequent greed? Is it in that you wish for it to remain true?

The desire remains, but the one change in circumstances that could fulfill it has already happened. So the desire is insatiable, and there is no reasonable way to act on it. It's not a desire for something to remain true, nor is it a matter of knowledge... the closest thing I can think of is a lack of presence, as though the friend in question (sometimes multiple, but in this case one) were withholding some important demonstration of his existence, or were allowing himself to be taken for granted, since something taken for granted is less likely to satisfy.

Anybody that wants to alter the world has such a desire, and for those that want to reshape it completely, that would cross into greed territory, I think. That's not very specific, though.

I don't think the greed appears in the scope of the desire, but in how much reason and desire, particularly those of other people, a person is willing to subvert, disregard or deny in attempting to satisfy it. Though when you get to the level of wanting to reshape the world, there's little to no way of reasoning with that, or altering it to accommodate others.

[http://users.livejournal.com/_dw/]

Ah, now I see. I mixed up the greed relation there because I considered that the more you desire, the more acceptable it becomes, at least to yourself, to let the ends justify the means. But, if we mangle an analogy, if that's the linear term, there could still be a difference in the constant term; some people may be inherently more greedy than others.

It's not a desire for something to remain true, nor is it a matter of knowledge... the closest thing I can think of is a lack of presence, as though the friend in question (sometimes multiple, but in this case one) were withholding some important demonstration of his existence, or were allowing himself to be taken for granted, since something taken for granted is less likely to satisfy.

Doesn't existence prove itself? Absent simulation arguments, if you see that someone says things, or in more general have an effect on the world, then you know he exists. Or would this be related to the internet black hole effect, where people who stop replying (or appearing) create an ambiguity that you can't easily resolve?

[lhexa.livejournal.com]

But, if we mangle an analogy, if that's the linear term, there could still be a difference in the constant term; some people may be inherently more greedy than others.

Er, my point was that greed isn't so much a function of the object of a desire as the nature of that desire.

Doesn't existence prove itself? Absent simulation arguments, if you see that someone says things, or in more general have an effect on the world, then you know he exists.

Yeah, but this desire does not seem to be a matter of knowledge or the lack thereof.

Or would this be related to the internet black hole effect, where people who stop replying (or appearing) create an ambiguity that you can't easily resolve?

You might be on to something there. Not in the direction of not knowing whether or not a person still exists, but in the direction of some vital confirmation being held out of reach by that person.

[http://users.livejournal.com/_dw/]

Er, my point was that greed isn't so much a function of the object of a desire as the nature of that desire.

Then we'd have to know the nature of the desire. Even if we did, I'm not sure how that would work. Would it mean that the desire is prone to excess? The most obvious components - desire proportional to the importance of the object, or desire inherent in how greedy you are in general - were already given, and you say that those are not it..

Yeah, but this desire does not seem to be a matter of knowledge or the lack thereof.
Then what is it you want when you say "I want you to exist"? At the surface of it, it would appear that that want or desire would be fulfilled by you knowing that I exist (at the moment that you consider it, that is). Though I suppose it could be "I want you to remain existing", which would not be directly provable, or "I want you to be around [for my own reasons]", which is more of a feedback thing than a knowledge thing.

You might be on to something there. Not in the direction of not knowing whether or not a person still exists, but in the direction of some vital confirmation being held out of reach by that person.

Intentionally, or just that you cannot reach this confirmation? And would a single confirmation be sufficient, or is it - like for the black hole effect - something that would require repeated confirmation (in the case of the black hole effect, replies from the person in question)?

[lhexa.livejournal.com]

Then we'd have to know the nature of the desire. Even if we did, I'm not sure how that would work. Would it mean that the desire is prone to excess? The most obvious components - desire proportional to the importance of the object, or desire inherent in how greedy you are in general - were already given, and you say that those are not it..

I'd locate greed in how the desire relates to its object: what a person is willing to do in order to secure that object, and whether or not that object can satisfy the desire, would be parts of greed (I'm not willing to define it outright).

Then what is it you want when you say "I want you to exist"?

I want someone (whom I know to exist) to exist. Knowledge of existence is (one would think) the only way to satisfy that desire, but it didn't. The desire in question has gone away by this point, though, so I doubt I can analyze it. It wasn't "I want you to remain existing," but I'm unsure about "I want you to be around" -- there seemed to be a sense in which the person in question was not sufficiently present, or withholding a part of himself.

Intentionally, or just that you cannot reach this confirmation? And would a single confirmation be sufficient, or is it - like for the black hole effect - something that would require repeated confirmation (in the case of the black hole effect, replies from the person in question)?

If some kind of confirmation would have worked (and it wouldn't have just been a confirmation of existence), I don't know what (or what kind) it would have been.

[http://users.livejournal.com/_dw/]

If the desire is gone, I don't think I can comment more about it. If you want someone to exist and he already does, then what is there to want? You say it may be related to "I want you to be around", but that just leads us back to "if the desire is gone, analysis can't be done either".

[lhexa.livejournal.com]

Yeah, you're right. And even when they are present, emotions and desires can only be subjected to so much analysis before that analysis changes them, perhaps beyond recognition.

[baxil.livejournal.com]

> I don't think the greed appears in the scope of the desire, but in how much reason and desire, particularly those of other people, a person is willing to subvert, disregard or deny in attempting to satisfy it.

This.

I don't think it's useful (though the Zen Buddhists in the audience might disagree) to conflate desire and greed. Wanting things is part of what makes us sapient; we can visualize something that doesn't exist and take steps toward producing it. Calling a desire "greed" implies that its pursuit is causing pain in yourself or others.

[lhexa.livejournal.com]

Er, good that you agree, though I think you can call a desire greedy before it has hurt somebody. :)