The stone tablet instead reads that 'neither happiness, nor sadness shall be abundant, for abundance in one means a violation of the maximum contrast requirement'.

Its a grand-theory of maximum contrast preservation that I've considered working on. It has Socratic implications on our ideas of societal progress, justice and morality.

Asymptomatic vulnerability.

At what point during an experience am I doing the defining and contrasting. It's tricky language you're using and involves thinking about time.
What's the difference between sunbathing and surfboarding in terms of contrast.
In my view, experiences are different from one another and that's all we know. Interesting and emerging patterns then may be enough. Scientists speculate we may spend a great deal of time in immersive virtual worlds in the future. Is your hypothesis of contrasting experiences relevant in the dream experience, considering we spend a great deal of time there. Alleviating pain and suffering wherever it exists is a logical goal.

I don't agree.

Power structures do exist. But, the age of power structures is ending, giving way to more enlightened thinking. Just looking at the way companies are structuring themselves now is evidence of this.

The egotistical way of looking at the world: I am better than you (or you are better than me)

The enlightened way: We are all equal

Right now there are probably more people in the world who operate with the egotistical model, but it's changing.

esspoker,

Ego is a necessity of evolution. It is the thinking "I'm better than you", not the actualization of that.

The former can be false, the latter can be tautologically dynamic.

Does the beagle fart on Darwin's face while he sleeps?

It probably is a necessity of an earlier stage of evolution; does that mean it won't die out?

'As an individual, I'm better than you' can adapt to 'I am mutually superior with you as individuals'.

One can relate this with adapting from human life being a competitive struggle to survive towards becoming a life of relationships, satisfaction, experiences and enrichment.

Under this paradigm, competitive focus involves being excellent and putting forth a satisfying effort. That is the meat of the ego cake, losing is the icing on the cake, and winning is like getting even more cake!

An interesting question for someone who knows economics is, do there have to be poor people for there to be rich people? Put in simple terms

Not sure about toy worlds, but in the real world I would say yes.

Communism has shown why enforced global equality does not work. So some will always be better off than others, so there will always be the poor.

If there were enough resources for everyone, then the population would rise until that were no longer true. In other words there will always be some who struggle for basic living requirements.

Just MHO, not claiming to be an economics expert.

Entirely depends on your definition of rich. Id consier myself rich, but in money terms im pretty poor. So my answer is a clear yes. Most will answer no Im afraid though.

There never was a true (or even close to) Communism.

"If machines produce everything we need, the outcome will depend on how things are distributed. Everyone can enjoy a life of luxurious leisure if the machine-produced wealth is shared, or most people can end up miserably poor if the machine-owners successfully lobby against wealth redistribution. So far, the trend seems to be toward the second option, with technology driving ever-increasing inequality. " - Stephen Hawking

“It's not easy to accept, but it's true. Education and hard work will no longer guarantee success for huge numbers of people as technology advances. The time for denial is over. Now it's time to consider solutions and there are very few proposals on the table. " - Jaron Lanier

It is not the experience itself that is the defining factor, but rather, the perception of how good the experience is. Someone who has had it rough most of their life, will likely enjoy the experience of both of those, more than someone whose lived a very comfortable life.
Experiences differ, not so much in their nature, but more so, in the way that they are perceived. And the way that they are perceived, is in large part, the result of previous experiences (and how good/bad they were).

Indeed, by getting older this is how we learn about concepts such as grief, love, gratitude and honesty. You're not going to understand 'grief' for example, if you've never shared particularly good experiences with anyone. It is this experience of 'good' that determines the experience (and understanding) of 'grief' upon the death of that someone. Definition, and understanding, by contrast.

As the life-experience contrast between the good and the bad expands, so too does our understanding of all the concepts that exist in-between.
It is a goal, sure. Getting to work on time is a goal too. It doesn't automatically mean one's work is important, nor does it mean that getting there on time is important.

I agree there is truth in that. But if a person has suffered too much, they likely won't enjoy those experiences as much as someone who hasn't suffered as much also. PTSD etc.

My point is, it goes too far negative on the scale (the bad) unnecessarily, for the good to be good even if I accept what you're saying.

I'm open to the notion that if we attempt to 'solve' the problems of suffering, which I believe we will, we may just open ourselves up to new joys we don't know yet. If you take the fact that at some point during the evolutionary process we began to appreciate art and music, while animals with lesser brains don't. I don't think we must possibly suffer even more again to experience unknown joys we can't experience due to our limitations.

Sure. But that's the exception, not the rule. Those who have been severely traumatised are not representative of the wider population.
I believe that if it goes too far on the positive, its not good either. For example, suicide is very common for popstars or actors who make it big, live the lifestyle, and then lose it all somehow. Experiencing highs that one cannot sustain is just as impactful as lows of equivalent magnitude. In fact, true human sadness stems not from failing to obtain something you wanted, but rather: losing something meaningful that you once had.

With all of this said however. We must remember that these are the exceptions, and that even within these exceptions, there are those who can effectively cope with extremely high highs or low lows.
I don't believe it is possible to 'solve' the problem of suffering. If it were possible, almost everyone living in a first-world country (which just 300-years ago would've been considered heaven) would be happy. The trend appears to be the opposite in fact.

You solve one problem of suffering, another will arise. Just as when you remove one source of happiness.

So I'm not sure I'd even label it a "problem" of suffering. It is more of a logical necessity.

However, this also doesn't mean we shouldn't strive for progress: at least it gives us something to do, together.
Not so long ago, pumping co2 into the atmosphere was a non-moral issue. Now its a moral issue. Remove one injustice, another will arise. Remove one source of suffering, another will arise. What you have is: the illusion of progress. Things are simply different.

PTSD is one example of suffering. Having no legs to go surfing may be another.
These examples are part of reality.
If you state that suffering people are not representative of the wider population, we may not as well be having this conversation.
That's the thing. You can't be suffering and hold your view simultaneously.

"I'm suffering but the world is perfect," said no one ever.



I don't know but we try. We cure disease. It's rational to do so.
Aging is now classed as a disease by some in the field. The rest of us may think it's normal to get old and die. It's actually normal to die of an infectious disease at around 30 until relatively recently.

So what?

I can't have views on homosexuality just because I'm not a homosexual?

Perhaps I'm not suffering because I hold this view?

I'm suffering, but that's part of life, said many people.

Thinking the world is the best possible one while not suffering suggests one doesn't need to suffer to hold that view. That is my view.

Or... holding my view results in thinking that one is not suffering (even if they are in reality).

What's implicit here, is that the perception is more important than the reality. In fact, the reality is non-existent, but that's a whole other can of worms I'd prefer to avoid for the moment.

I think there are monks who would claim that they solved the problem of suffering at least in themselves. It probably took a lifetime of work and dedication to control their urges and their thoughts. Is it possible for everyone? Probably not, even with the dedication. Some forms of physical suffering are beyond mental control, but most suffering is purely mental, so can be fixed.