Theory on happieness

[donsnow]

No, you have stated the name of the source and way. You have not stated the source or the way.

What I mean by “key” is “the missing element to a locked door wished to be opened”.

Now how about you tell me what is meant by;

“Seek and ye shall find”

Sure, James,

The name is the same as the source, and the name is the same as the way. In those days name and action or being were the same.

Faith.
You need to believe it’s there, before you look for it.

Don
P.S. Good night, I don’t feel good.

 

[James_S_Saint]

Why look for it if you already know its there.

And only the original names contained meanings and you have to know how to read them. The labels used today are merely labels.

 

[StrawberryJam]

Why look for it if you already know its there.

And only the original names contained meanings and you have to know how to read them. The labels used today are merely labels.

This is rapidly becoming a theology of James S Saint forum. This is a philosophy forum with a catholic emphasis. Not a theology forum.

If you already know it’s there James. If. You said that much correctly.

 

[James_S_Saint]

Not hardly.

The discussion has been about the existence of a “theory of happiness”. I find it disturbing that a catholic insists that such a theory is impossible.

 

[StrawberryJam]

Not hardly.

The discussion has been about the existence of a “theory of happiness”. I find it disturbing that a catholic insists that such a theory is impossible.

Again, putting words into Don’s mouth!

He did not say that happiness is impossible, or that many people can’t find it. He did not insist on any such thing.

I suggest you read his posts again, all of them.

Now, speaking for myself I think YOUR personal theory has some flaws in it. And, it is not totally in line with catholic thought on non believers either. But, then again you don’t claim to be catholic. So it’s no wonder.

 

[James_S_Saint]

Again, putting words into Don’s mouth!

He did not say that happiness is impossible, or that many people can’t find it. He did not insist on any such thing.

I suggest you read his posts again, all of them.

Now, speaking for myself I think YOUR personal theory has some flaws in it. And, it is not totally in line with catholic thought on non believers either. But, then again you don’t claim to be catholic. So it’s no wonder.

You have a hard enough time just defending your own views. Why not leave Don’s discussion with me between he and I since you obviously don’t understand what has been said.

If you have some disagreement with my proposal for such a theory, how about share your dissagreement.

 

[StrawberryJam]

You have a hard enough time just defending your own views. Why not leave Don’s discussion with me between he and I since you obviously don’t understand what has been said.

If you have some disagreement with my proposal for such a theory, how about share your dissagreement.

Aside from questioning your assumption that a person who fails to achieve your version of happiness will end up thinking their deductions were “silly” ?

Let’s take a man who decided to set himself aside for God. It turns out, he really couldn’t cut it. Your version leaves him to believe his deductions were silly.
When in reality, not all people would say/feel/believe such a thing. Your theory and deductions are not one size fits all. Not everyone leaves a situation smacking their heads in regret. Some actually look at all these steps in life as experiences they would never trade, or change for anything. Look at people who are divorced. Not all are bitter and smacking their heads in regret feeling they made a “silly deduction”. Some realize they are on a journey. Some don’t.

Not everyone sees your truth. Many find God in other venues than you do.
Some don’t.

If you are talking about an ultimate happiness, you have nothing but an afterlife to find it in as a christian.

Oh, that’s right. I have no idea if you are one. How can you defend your belief when you chose not to disclose it? No one knows if you did or did not. How convienient. Yet, you can tell others if THEY did or did not. Nice.

 

[James_S_Saint]

Your version leaves him to believe his deductions were silly.
When in reality, not all people would say/feel/believe such a thing. Your theory and deductions are not one size fits all.
.
.
Not everyone sees your truth. Many find God in other venues than you do.
Some don’t.

What is my version that you are talking about?

 

[donsnow]

Happiness what is it first off, second how can it be gained,

1. Can it be gained through materials.- yes and no, people who are rich aren’t thrilled by more money, but a poor widow will jump for joy when when is handed a few dollars to by a good meal. obviously it depends on the person
2. Can it be gained through people- Yes and no, Your family brings you happiness, your enemy brings you pain. Again it depends on the person and their relationship with another.
3. Can it be through religion?- Yes and no, Christians rejoice in their religion, but Muslims would call them all infidels.
4. Can fun(thrill) bring you happiness- Yes and no, a first time party goer would have the time of their life, but a long timer would say “ehh whatever”.

So as we can see it depends on the person, so my question is what is the key to happiness for everyone?

Hi, 1 Seek 2 -

I’d say a clean conscience is a good step as a key to everyone’s happiness.

Don

 

[donsnow]

Why look for it if you already know its there.

And only the original names contained meanings and you have to know how to read them. The labels used today are merely labels.

Good morning, James,

Ok, look to find it, because you believe it’s there. Let’s say I’m in my room and have just rolled a cigarette. Now, I can’t find my lighter. I know it’s in my room. I just don’t see it where I usually put it, but it’s in there, somewhere. So, knowing it’s already there, I look for it. Same as happiness. It’s there, somewhere, but we need to look for it.

Don

 

[James_S_Saint]

Good morning, James,

Ok, look to find it, because you believe it’s there. Let’s say I’m in my room and have just rolled a cigarette. Now, I can’t find my lighter. I know it’s in my room. I just don’t see it where I usually put it, but it’s in there, somewhere. So, knowing it’s already there, I look for it. Same as happiness. It’s there, somewhere, but we need to look for it.

Don

Good morning and Happy New Year!

If you didn’t know that it was in your room might you look on the suspicion that it might be in your room?

The cigarette that we are actually talking about in this case is the “unified happiness theory”. Like that cigarette, if you didn’t believe that it could even possibly be in your room, you wouldn’t look for it in your room. But having looked everywhere else, you eventually look in that room - IF you want it badly enough. You find it in that very last place you look for it.

Thousands of years have gone by with people looking in all of the wrong places. But now how does that PROVE that it doesn’t exist? How does the fact that it is NOT in any of the rest of your house equate to a proof that it certainly not in your room?

With your certain denial that the theory can exist, you propose that Man has looked in ALL possible places, that if Man hasn’t found it, then it doesn’t exist. Why, because Man is supreme and certainly knows all things?

 

[donsnow]

Oh, Dear James,

You really should read more carefully. I rolled the cigarette and couldn’t find the lighter.
But, your below text has me looking for the cigarette (which is still in one of the hands that rolled it), instead of the lighter, which I had misplaced.
I used that example, because it’s not unusual for that very thing to occur.

Now, if you read a complex sentence in my writing to you, like that…

I really need for you to read what I have written accurately, OK?

Now, for the rest of your post, comments will follow your text, as usual.

Good morning and Happy New Year!

If you didn’t know that it was in your room might you look on the suspicion that it might be in your room?

The cigarette that we are actually talking about in this case is the “unified happiness theory”. Like that cigarette, if you didn’t believe that it could even possibly be in your room, you wouldn’t look for it in your room. But having looked everywhere else, you eventually look in that room - IF you want it badly enough. You find it in that very last place you look for it.

“Unified happiness theory” is a cute analogy. OK, a unified happiness theory exists. Are you happy, now?

Thousands of years have gone by with people looking in all of the wrong places. But now how does that PROVE that it doesn’t exist? How does the fact that it is NOT in any of the rest of your house equate to a proof that it certainly not in your room?

For thousands of years, different people have been finding happiness in different places. Some people found it where they looked. Other people found happiness just in searching for it, but not where they looked.
Why do we need unified happiness on earth? Please answer.

With your certain denial that the theory can exist, you propose that Man has looked in ALL possible places, that if Man hasn’t found it, then it doesn’t exist. Why, because Man is supreme and certainly knows all things?

Actually, right after your first paragraph, I wrote, “OK, a unified happiness theory exists. Are you happy, now?”
The reason that I know it exists, is because you are the one offering that very speculation. Nor, would it surprise me if the concept originated with you. Am I right?

Don

 

[James_S_Saint]

Well, I apologize for the misread. That word happened to fall write that the frame wrap-around point in my screen. Since you only used it once, my normal error correction mode didn’t catch it. So do I need to re-write the last post with the word “lighter” in place of “cigarette” for it to make sense?

I said nothing of “unified happiness”. I said “unified theory”. And as you put it;

You really should read more carefully…

Now, if you read a complex sentence in my writing to you, like that…

I really need for you to read what I have written accurately, OK?

And nothing originates from me other than my poor choice of words.

Have a happy new year.

 

[donsnow]

Well, I apologize for the misread. That word happened to fall write that the frame wrap-around point in my screen. Since you only used it once, my normal error correction mode didn’t catch it. So do I need to re-write the last post with the word “lighter” in place of “cigarette” for it to make sense?

I said nothing of “unified happiness”. I said “unified theory”. And as you put it;

And nothing originates from me other than my poor choice of words.

Have a happy new year.

Hi, James,

And, a happy new year to you, too, as well as a peaceful new year.

Na, you don’t have to rewrite anything, we just now discussed it.

James, would you reread your post #71, with particular attention to the third line, and compare that to your fifth line in the quote I have of yours, in this post?
Please do that, and tell me what you find.

Don

 

[James_S_Saint]

Are you saying that you don’t understand the difference between a theory about unified happiness and a unified theory about happiness?

I don’t think the “unified field theory” was talking about a theory about a unified field.

 

[donsnow]

Are you saying that you don’t understand the difference between a theory about unified happiness and a unified theory about happiness?

I don’t think the “unified field theory” was talking about a theory about a unified field.

Hi, James,

Ooookaaay…
Now, I need to read accurately.
Yeah, I see the difference. The thought of unified happiness is what I was objecting to. Sorry I got it wrong.

I’m sure you can postulate a unified theory of happiness, as you like. I just don’t see the need of an earthly unified theory on happiness. If it were so, I think it would cause more trouble than happiness, imho. Because, the government might try to impose the unified theory of happiness on the citizens, and that’s not right. Furthermore, one or more governments imposing “unified theory” of happiness on their respective citizens, might wind up going to war with each other, because of the differences in the different “unified theories” on happiness.

So, yes, you can certainly have an unified theory of happiness. But, when people are already finding happiness different ways, then…let 'em be happy as is.
You know, “If it works, don’t fix it.”
Don

Don

 

[James_S_Saint]

I just don’t see the need of an earthly unified theory on happiness. If it were so, I think it would cause more trouble than happiness, imho. Because, the government might try to impose the unified theory of happiness on the citizens, and that’s not right. Furthermore, one or more governments imposing “unified theory” of happiness on their respective citizens, might wind up going to war with each other, because of the differences in the different “unified theories” on happiness.

Well you’re a few thousand years late to embrace that fear.

The fear of what it takes to have harmony is what ensures eternal war.

So, yes, you can certainly have an unified theory of happiness. But, when people are already finding happiness different ways, then…let 'em be happy as is.
You know, “If it works, don’t fix it.”
Don

Don

Yeah, if I even suspected that “it works”, I might consider just going along. I’m sure I would be far more wealthy that way.

 

[donsnow]

Hi, James,

Well you’re a few thousand years late to embrace that fear.

The fear of what it takes to have harmony is what ensures eternal war.{/QUOTE]

I’ve been in different types of harmony, both by myself and with other people. There’s nothing to fear, there. My fear is not of harmony. And, it’s not fear. It’s distrust. I don’t trust government, since it’s changed in this country. And, in no way would I trust any ‘one world’ government, except for the Theocracy of Jesus Christ returned in his glorified flesh.
James S Saint;6120817:

Yeah, if I even suspected that “it works”, I might consider just going along. I’m sure I would be far more wealthy that way.

Well, if going along and getting wealthy made you happy, would you do that?

Don

 

[James_S_Saint]

I’ve been in different types of harmony, both by myself and with other people. There’s nothing to fear, there. My fear is not of harmony. And, it’s not fear. It’s distrust. I don’t trust government, since it’s changed in this country. And, in no way would I trust any ‘one world’ government, except for the Theocracy of Jesus Christ returned in his glorified flesh.

Well I’m certainly not one to argue with that except for the idea to simply try to avoid something that will not be ignored or avoided. The world government is a done deal. But if someone has worked out how to cause happiness, there is a chance that even that already formulated dominance will submit. If no one figures it out, it certainly won’t submit. An example would be the Church and Science (the real one of yesteryear). The Church, first strongly objecting to any deviation at all from socialistic “know only what we say” altered to a far more reasonable, “we will check out what they say and get back to you”. The option for that to happen is rapidly closing concerning the new world government because even having this discussion will be forbidden. So it is best to work it now, while there is a chance, minute as it is.

Well, if going along and getting wealthy made you happy, would you do that?
Don

IF it made me happy, sure. The problem is that only God can “make me happy” (whether I like it or not), thus I can’t abandon Truth just to try to be happy with Man. As long as they keep division, the very foundation of their tower, there can only be very limited happiness, limited to the few, not the many.

To be happy, all I would need to do is ignore God. I can’t figure out how to do that.

 

[donsnow]

Well I’m certainly not one to argue with that except for the idea to simply try to avoid something that will not be ignored or avoided. The world government is a done deal. But if someone has worked out how to cause happiness, there is a chance that even that already formulated dominance will submit. If no one figures it out, it certainly won’t submit. An example would be the Church and Science (the real one of yesteryear). The Church, first strongly objecting to any deviation at all from socialistic “know only what we say” altered to a far more reasonable, “we will check out what they say and get back to you”. The option for that to happen is rapidly closing concerning the new world government because even having this discussion will be forbidden. So it is best to work it now, while there is a chance, minute as it is.

What I liked about the military, and some jobs I’ve had, is the people in charge didn’t expect anybody to be happy, just wanted us to do our jobs.

However, were mandatory happiness put in place by some government, because of some unified theory of happiness, to me, that just ruins real happiness.

IF it made me happy, sure. The problem is that only God can “make me happy” (whether I like it or not), thus I can’t abandon Truth just to try to be happy with Man. As long as they keep division, the very foundation of their tower, there can only be very limited happiness, limited to the few, not the many.

To be happy, all I would need to do is ignore God. I can’t figure out how to do that.

Well, we’re both on the same page, about being happy with God (and His family, for me). Only, after ignoring God during my young manhood, I don’t want to do that since in '70. I wound up catastrophically unhappy by ignoring Him.

Don